Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

David Aldridge's off-season grades. Toronto Raptors: 18

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Primer wrote: View Post
    Gotta disagree that we overpaid Landry in a gamble for Nash. We overpaid Landry so that NY wouldn't match, because we wanted him regardless of Nash. If we had simply wanted to take Landry out of S&T deals, we could have offered him the deal without a poison pill, and a smaller deal. If we had offered him 3 years $15 million ($5 mill per year), he most certainly would have signed it, taking him out of any possible S&T's, but then NY would have matched it. The reason we didn't offer a 3 year $15 million deal is because we did not want NY to match, which means it had nothing to do with Nash.
    I think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.

    Comment


    • #32
      Apollo wrote: View Post
      I think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.
      Why would he make the inflated offer unless he didn't want NY to match? He could have made a lower offer ($15M-ish) and Fields still would have signed it, accomplishing the block Nash S&T goal while also not overpaying.

      Comment


      • #33
        Apollo wrote: View Post
        I think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.
        What potential 3's where still on the market?
        @Chr1st1anL

        Comment


        • #34
          Apollo wrote: View Post
          I think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.
          i am with apollo here. the contract had to be signed as fast as possible to make the block. people say he could have also made the block at 3 for 15 with 5 per year, there is no guarentee his agent wouldn't have kept shopping for a better deal. 5 a year seems kinda fair for fields but he wouldn't have gotten a deal finacially comparable to what he got. stated in another thread that fields might have been an off season target but his contract his entirely nash blocking fodder.

          Comment


          • #35
            And that's all everyone was talking about when it first leaked and right up until Nash bailed on the Toronto idea. Then the spin doctors went to work repairing the damage... They deserve a raise.

            Chr1s1anL wrote: View Post
            What potential 3's where still on the market?
            I don't know off hand but why does that matter? Since when did the terms "responsible" and "at all costs" start fitting together?

            Comment


            • #36
              Apollo wrote: View Post
              And that's all everyone was talking about when it first leaked and right up until Nash bailed on the Toronto idea. Then the spin doctors went to work repairing the damage... They deserve a raise.



              I don't know off hand but why does that matter? Since when did the terms "responsible" and "at all costs" start fitting together?
              I feel like he was the best option to upgrade the 3 left. When players like iggy and gay were not available.
              @Chr1st1anL

              Comment


              • #37
                Apollo wrote: View Post
                I don't know off hand but why does that matter? Since when did the terms "responsible" and "at all costs" start fitting together?
                Chr1s1anL wrote: View Post
                I feel like he was the best option to upgrade the 3 left. When players like iggy and gay were not available.
                i just googled 2012 nba sf free agents and this is the first list that came up

                http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2012/6...small-forwards

                landry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Miekenstien wrote: View Post
                  i just googled 2012 nba sf free agents and this is the first list that came up

                  http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2012/6...small-forwards

                  landry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.
                  I agree, but Batum would've had to been overpaid dearly beyond Fields, Beasley has never lived up to his potential plus the off-court troubles, and Grant Hill wouldn't sign here, he's looking for a contender where he will fit in now, not for the future.

                  We can all say woulda, coulda, shoulda, but we all know how hard it is to attract a big free agent. We offered everything we could to Nash, yet he went to a team he despises and has had past battles with.
                  Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    RaptorReuben wrote: View Post
                    We can all say woulda, coulda, shoulda, but we all know how hard it is to attract a big free agent.
                    agreed, but i threw that out there to answer someone else of other options that were available at the 3. we didn't even make a move on any of those 3 players.

                    to me woulda, coulda, shoulda is about the same as pretending fields was his own entity after the actual target went somewhere else.

                    he will be a great piece for us. i was very happy with the move, i don't think the contract is as bad as lot of people think it is and i understand how the team has to support him publicly. bc or casey can't say we threw money at him to help us grab nash now that we didn't get nash. i can guarentee that if nash had of come to the team this move would have been spun as the move that allowed us to sign nash and we got both of our "main" targets in what bc would have called "his most succesful" offseason since our atlantic division winning team.

                    in short
                    -fields=good
                    -wasn't the only/best(imo) option available at the 3
                    -slightly overpaid
                    -is, of course, being supported by his team

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Miekenstien wrote: View Post
                      agreed, but i threw that out there to answer someone else of other options that were available at the 3. we didn't even make a move on any of those 3 players.

                      to me woulda, coulda, shoulda is about the same as pretending fields was his own entity after the actual target went somewhere else.

                      he will be a great piece for us. i was very happy with the move, i don't think the contract is as bad as lot of people think it is and i understand how the team has to support him publicly. bc or casey can't say we threw money at him to help us grab nash now that we didn't get nash. i can guarentee that if nash had of come to the team this move would have been spun as the move that allowed us to sign nash and we got both of our "main" targets in what bc would have called "his most succesful" offseason since our atlantic division winning team.

                      in short
                      -fields=good
                      -wasn't the only/best(imo) option available at the 3
                      -slightly overpaid
                      -is, of course, being supported by his team
                      I agree with everything you said, but I think if these free agents were in the plans of the Raptors, the team would've went after them.

                      Fields was not originally a big target at the time, being it was used to block out the S&T to Phoenix, but when we offered the contract, I was extremely happy anyways.

                      In my opinion:
                      Fields = Good with solid ceiling
                      = One of the only options available that would actually sign with the team
                      = Slightly overpaid, but restricted free agent signings usually call for it
                      = Any case, fits the team system of defense, toughness, shooting, and IQ.
                      Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Apollo wrote: View Post
                        And that's all everyone was talking about when it first leaked and right up until Nash bailed on the Toronto idea. Then the spin doctors went to work repairing the damage... They deserve a raise.

                        I don't know off hand but why does that matter? Since when did the terms "responsible" and "at all costs" start fitting together?
                        Are you saying you don't like revisionists?

                        Yes, we overpaid by ~$2M a year in my opinion. And having an overpaid SG/SF can prevent us from pursuing a better one at a fairer market price should one become available.

                        The other thing that makes me shrug is how many RR posters overvalue 1st round draft picks when we are to acquire them but are quick to dismiss them when we trade them. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Lowry trade was a good one but that's because I am not in love with the potential of having the possibility of drafting prospect with perceived high ceiling that they will likely never touch with a ten-foot pole.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Chr1s1anL wrote: View Post
                          I feel like he was the best option to upgrade the 3 left. When players like iggy and gay were not available.
                          Just out of curiosity...how is Fields an upgrade at the 3? James Johnson had better numbers across the board and was a better defender. Fields shot something like 26% from beyond the 3pt line and 60% from the free throw line. I know a lot of people (including myself) are hoping he regains his form from his rookie season, but what if he doesn't? Then his signing really is at best a lateral move from James Johnson and an incredibly bad contract.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Matt52 wrote: View Post
                            I think the Raps deserve to be at least 15. The reason why is they got better.

                            Forget contracts, just look at talent. They are younger, deeper, with more (of the very overused word) potential, and, therefore,better.

                            The reason behind 15 is very primitive and easily debunked but I'll go for it anyways. Not every team will be better. If one team is better, presumably another team is going to get worse because of it. Since better/worse is based on wins/losses, everyone can't get better, can they? Someone still has to lose the game and there are only 1230 games played in an 82 game, 30 team season (someone can double check my math!). A win won by a team comes at the expense of a win from another team somewhere.

                            So if half the teams are better (and I think the Raps are one of them) then half the teams must have become worse..... so 15 for Toronto!


                            **The other thing to keep in mind is few other teams in the league have a rabid fan base like Toronto. Putting them in a few notches lower is a great way to generate attention to an article.**
                            The way i understood DA's rankings, it was purely based on offseason moves, how it COULD affect the team, and solely the team, not how they would fare against other teams. I think with the acquisition of Lowry, Fields, Lucas, Ross, Acy and JV the team drastically changes, for the better, because of how these players fit the Raps system.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Chr1s1anL wrote: View Post
                              I feel like he was the best option to upgrade the 3 left. When players like iggy and gay were not available.
                              And why did they need to rush to upgrade right away?

                              RaptorReuben wrote: View Post
                              I agree, but Batum would've had to been overpaid dearly beyond Fields
                              Batum got paid based on potential. If he lives up to it he's actually coming at a discount. It's a gamble on Batum himself. The results won't be known right away.

                              Landry got paid because Colangelo really wanted Steve Nash at all costs. Does anyone feel Landry can live up to his contract? I don't. I just hope people don't start riding the poor guy because his game doesn't match his income (you know it's going to happen at some point). Landry was a gamble on Nash. We know the outcome.

                              One is up in the air. One is a fail.

                              Miekenstien wrote: View Post
                              landry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.
                              Standing pat is better than summoning "Colangelo pre-extension". I like Batum, he fits everything they said they were about.


                              Here's a question for all. If Colangelo was not on a contract year do you feel he would be operating the off-season like he has so far?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                IMO, yes. Im not sure about the terms of his contract, but either way, if the owners end up not liking the deals he's made, then they can fire him any time. I think he's well established enough in the league that he knows he'll be able to find a job in some capacity so he probably wont play it safe, contract year or not.

                                IMO, Fields was a pawn, no more no less. I think BC knew it would be a win-semi win gamble on their part if they took a risk on Fields as a pawn in the Nash signing. It wouldve been a tremendous win if they got steve nash and partial win even if they end up with Fields. I think JJ was gone regardless of the Fields signing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X