Feeling down on the Raptors? Please tell me why.

[ebrian]

I suppose what I was asking you came out wrong... you obviously aren't happy with the Raptors current state of affairs and from what I read (and some reading between the lines), it seemed like you were in the minority, being opposed to the moves made by BC this offseason.

Minority/majority means nothing to me. Majority of people still think it's the right thing to have Bargnani on the team when in reality he should have been traded a long time ago. Somehow those 13 games justifies it now? But that is beside the point..

I think Terrence Ross was a good choice. I'd forgotten about him after March but I had him on my short list months before as a potential guy we should look at. Lowry -- we still have to wait and see. He can play defense but can he run an offense? We were one of the worst offensive teams last year and near top 10 defensively. Now we add a defensive point guard which improves an already good defense, but can Lowry shoot? Can he pass? Or will he be more in the shoot-my-way-out, a 42% career shooter? I guess we'll find out. Even if Landry Fields is decent, he's a product of a huge error in judgment by Colangelo.. something I've gotten used to over the years. I don't understand why Acy is still on the team. Casey is the lone move that I would say was absolutely a good thing, but that was done last year.

All I was really trying to figure out is what exactly would make you happy? I don't mean the results, as we'd obviously all like a championship caliber team, or at least a team that continuously improves (ie: fighting for playoffs, making playoffs, fighting to make 2nd round, etc...) and does so is a sustainable fashion.

The majority of people on here admit/know/realize/accept that there have been some positives and negatives when it comes to BC's decision-making over the years, but most people have been happy with the change of direction in the post-Bosh era - ie: personnel moves, removing bad salaries, hiring Casey, etc... and see all these moves as a positive step in the right direction.

Interesting question. I need to see results. A winning record would be nice, but probably too much to ask for this season. Some people have said it'd be nice if we can stay with teams during games and keep it close. We did that a lot last year so I'd want more than that. I've seen some reasons for fans to be optimistic throughout Colangelo's 6 years only to end in disappointment, so excuse me for not having the same optimism as "most people". There are definitely some positive steps to be seen here, but we've seen positives throughout the past 6 years that turned out to be mirages.

So, aside from just having years worth of bad taste in your mouth for BC and management/ownership, I'm just struggling to understand what has you feeling so down on the future of the franchise over the next few seasons. I'm asking you out of curiosity only, not asking you to 'prove' or 'justify' your opinion, or anything like that. Without understanding your complaints/rationale, it just sounds like "BC Bashing/Hate", since it's pretty obvious that the post-Bosh BC is taking a completely different strategy than the Bosh-era BC (at least it is to me and seemingly the majority of folks on here). Maybe it's just that I'm looking only at the post-Bosh era and the future, whereas you can't get past the entirety of BC's reign... in which case we're talking about two different things and will likely never see eye-to-eye.

Aside from it?! Why would you take away the premise of my reasoning to argue your point? How about this -- aside from a few positive changes after FIVE AND A HALF years of terrible decision making, what's YOUR reason to be optimistic?

Seriously man, you need to learn how to argue a point without dismissing the basis of the other person's argument.

It's not bashing or hate -- it's doubt based on a proven track record. Bashing or hate would be unjustified negativity. Until you can show me results of something BC has done that has been a positive influence towards the team (ie a winning record), there is very little you can do to prove to me that he is doing anything right.

[ebrian]

Thanks for the offer dude. But I live in the west end, and making it downtown by 7pm is kind of hectic on weeknights.

But if you're looking to sell any "less desirable" weekend games during the season, feel free to PM me.

I will keep you in mind but unfortunately most of my less desirable games are on weekdays. I targeted the weekends to try to bring my son who is still young enough to go to games for free.

We live up in Markham which means weeknights harder for us as well, but fortunately I work downtown so I'll still be able to see a few games this way. Does the GO bus not reach your area?

[Nilanka]

I will keep you in mind but unfortunately most of my less desirable games are on weekdays. I targeted the weekends to try to bring my son who is still young enough to go to games for free.

We live up in Markham which means weeknights harder for us as well, but fortunately I work downtown so I'll still be able to see a few games this way. Does the GO bus not reach your area?

We do have access to GO, but it's a matter of not wanting to pay $35 (for two people) for a return trip to Union Station. $20 for parking is a much better deal, and ensures you get home at a decent hour

[big red]

We do have access to GO, but it's a matter of not wanting to pay $35 (for two people) for a return trip to Union Station. $20 for parking is a much better deal, and ensures you get home at a decent hour

$20 for parking!?!?!? You need to do a bit more hunting.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=25+The...o+M5W+3S3&z=16

[CalgaryRapsFan]

And there in lies the problem. You can't 'understand' what some people believe because you won't see 'eye to eye' with them. But when thats the case how will someone explaining their thoughts (anymore than has been) going to possible impact the debate?

An example from this thread of what I mean. You referred to how OKC built their team as 'luck' and stated that taking that route is therefore 'not constructive'. Immediately discrediting anyone from arguing organic growth of the team around a drafted superstar as an option to follow. So how could someone who thinks that is the model to follow now explain themselves to your satisfaction? You've already blocked their preference as not feasible (lucky), therefore it shouldn't be considered (not constructive). They are left with either being content with the changes or not argue against the changes, as that would be 'whining' or 'bashing' or 'hating'.

What you did was frame the discussion to eliminate one opinion (and probably a rather common opinion). Anyone believing something outside that mold is either not expressing their opinion fairly or expressing it without merit. So if I believed trying to do what OKC did is the preferred method for this team to follow, and trying to build another way makes me pessimistic about the Raptors future - how do I possibly argue my opinion without being considered a basher/whiner/hater?

Sure sounds like a 'lose-lose' debate for someone to have.

I never said the OKC model was luck. I said that OKC lucked into drafting Durant (since Portland went with Oden @ #1 instead), then continued to build through the draft. The reason I don't understand the OKC comparison argument, is that I think the Raptors have actually been following that model for the past few years since Bosh left, which is building through the draft and avoiding any bad contracts. For me, the only difference between the OKC model and the post-Bosh TOR model is that Toronto hasn't been lucky enough to have a superstar caliber player like Durant fall into their laps. I think Toronto has done a good job of drafting the past 4 years (DeRozan, Davis, Valanciunas and Ross), which seems to be totally in-line with a build-through-the-draft model, be it the OKC model or any other.

That's why I don't completely understand your argument, because I happen to think that the Raptors are doing exactly what you want them to do, just not with the luck (ie: no superstar) or success (yet).

[Nilanka]

$20 for parking!?!?!? You need to do a bit more hunting.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=25+The...o+M5W+3S3&z=16

I meant in a worst-case scenario. I usually go with the RBC Towers and their $10 flat rate, with underground access to Union/ACC. Great for avoiding the cold in the middle of winter.

Also, with a pregnant wife, I don't have the luxury of walking too much.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Aside from it?! Why would you take away the premise of my reasoning to argue your point? How about this -- aside from a few positive changes after FIVE AND A HALF years of terrible decision making, what's YOUR reason to be optimistic?

Seriously man, you need to learn how to argue a point without dismissing the basis of the other person's argument.

It's not bashing or hate -- it's doubt based on a proven track record. Bashing or hate would be unjustified negativity. Until you can show me results of something BC has done that has been a positive influence towards the team (ie a winning record), there is very little you can do to prove to me that he is doing anything right.

My reasoning is that my posts in this thread have all been as part of a discussion of the post-Bosh era rebuild, culminating in this offseason, as we head into the 2012-13 season. I was never having a discussion debating the pros/cons of BC's tenure in Toronto. I framed my opionions quite clearing, saying that I view BC's tenure as two distinct periods (Bosh-era and post-Bosh), since his entire management/team-building strategy has been completely different in each of those two periods.

If the thread was all about BC's time as GM or about the Bosh-era, then I'd be singing a totally different tune, probably one out of your song book, so to speak. I hated his band-aid approach to surround his star player (and I have always used the term 'star' loosely when talking about Bosh) with sub-par players. Heck, I joined RR back in the summer of 2009, prior to Bosh's final season in Toronto, because I was strongly in the 'trade Bosh' camp back then. Part of my rationale (aside from expecting him to ultimately walk) was the fact that I was upset at BC's approach and much preferred a true rebuild. It finally happened, just a season or so later.

I was looking just at this offseason, in the context of the current rebuild/build, accepting that the past could not be undone. Therefore, I didn't really see much reason to rehash the arguments/debates of the past. I focused just on the roster moves this offseason, to frame my opinion of the Raptors as we head into the new season.

For example, BC drafting Bargnani 1st overall in 2006 really has no bearing on this particular discussion for me, even though that was a BC decision that has directly/indirectly impacted every subsequent roster move over the past 6 years. I thought this thread was supposed to be a discussion about how this offeason has changed (positively or negatively) our outlook for the Raptors. In that case, everything prior to this offseason is over and done with, accepted and moved on from. Again, if the thread was an analysis of BC's entire tenure as Raptors GM, my opinion would be much different and all his past moves would be fair game.

[Letter N]

I never said the OKC model was luck. I said that OKC lucked into drafting Durant (since Portland went with Oden @ #1 instead), then continued to build through the draft. The reason I don't understand the OKC comparison argument, is that I think the Raptors have actually been following that model for the past few years since Bosh left, which is building through the draft and avoiding any bad contracts. For me, the only difference between the OKC model and the post-Bosh TOR model is that Toronto hasn't been lucky enough to have a superstar caliber player like Durant fall into their laps. I think Toronto has done a good job of drafting the past 4 years (DeRozan, Davis, Valanciunas and Ross), which seems to be totally in-line with a build-through-the-draft model, be it the OKC model or any other.

That's why I don't completely understand your argument, because I happen to think that the Raptors are doing exactly what you want them to do, just not with the luck (ie: no superstar) or success (yet).

You're comparing Derozan, Davis, Val, and Ross to Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden?

3 all-star caliber players vs 1 starter on a bad team, 1 guy who's primary role is to sit on the bench, and 2 guys with 0 NBA games played.

OKC model isn't getting lucky, it's doing something with that luck. Whether it's drafting or smart FA signings (Sefalosha) or trades (Kendrick for their one bad draft pick Green). Raptors have been as lucky as any team, we just have never done anything with that luck.

[Nilanka]

You're comparing Derozan, Davis, Val, and Ross to Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden?

3 all-star caliber players vs 1 starter on a bad team, 1 guy who's primary role is to sit on the bench, and 2 guys with 0 NBA games played.

OKC model isn't getting lucky, it's doing something with that luck. Whether it's drafting or smart FA signings (Sefalosha) or trades (Kendrick for their one bad draft pick Green). Raptors have been as lucky as any team, we just have never done anything with that luck.

OKC's biggest stroke of luck was Portland drafting Oden...

[Letter N]

OKC's biggest stroke of luck was Portland drafting Oden...

Fair enough and ours was teams drafting Olawakandi, Bibby, and LaFrentz.
Then years later it was Detroit drafting Milicic.

What did we do with these strokes of luck? We played it out like a poor man's version of the Cavs, randomly plugging in semi-high priced options that didn't fit hoping for a miracle.

If OKC surrounded Durant with the team that surrounded Bosh, Durant would probably be on a different team after his first contract.

edit: grammar mistakes

[CalgaryRapsFan]

You're comparing Derozan, Davis, Val, and Ross to Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden?

3 all-star caliber players vs 1 starter on a bad team, 1 guy who's primary role is to sit on the bench, and 2 guys with 0 NBA games played.

OKC model isn't getting lucky, it's doing something with that luck. Whether it's drafting or smart FA signings (Sefalosha) or trades (Kendrick for their one bad draft pick Green). Raptors have been as lucky as any team, we just have never done anything with that luck.

No I'm not comparing them at all. I was simply pointing out the similar strategies being used by both teams. Most fans/experts/etc... all praised those 4 Raptors draft picks at the time of the draft. Obviously DeRozan and Davis haven't fully lived up to expectations, while Valanciunas and Ross haven't even played a game yet, but the strategy is sound and the picks were widely regarded as BPA.

OKC, formerly Seattle, was a team that traded away all their good players to stockpile draft picks, going through several absolutely horrendous seasons. Even after moving to OKC, they still had several bad years, before the pieces all came together.

2007
- OKC: Durant #2, Landy #31, Big Baby Davis #35
- TOR: none

2008
- OKC: Westbrook #4, Ibaka #24
- TOR: Hibbert #17 (traded for O'Neal/Marion/Turkoglu/Barbosa)

2009
- OKC: Harden #3, Beaubois #25
- TOR: DeRozan #9

2010
- OKC: Bledsoe #18
- TOR: Davis #13

2011
- OKC: Reggie Jackson #24
- TOR: Valanciunas #5

2012
- OKC: Jones III #28
- TOR: Ross #8


OKC suffered through horrible seasons and were helped by lots of draft lottery luck (and Portland's bad choice in 2007), to be fortunate enough to have 3 straight top-4 picks, which are now forming the nucleous of their successful team. I would argue that it's much easier to build a complimentary team of role players around 3 good high draft picks, which only makes their management team look that much better, but it all starts with the 3 straight top-4 picks (really it starts with getting Durant @ #2 in 2007, which was 100% due to Portland making a bad choice). Seriously, do you think OKC would be a title contender or that anybody would be praising the 'OKC model', had they drafted Oden @ #2 in 2007? Would Ibaka or Sefolosha be household names on an OKC team without Durant? Not a chance.

TOR tried band-aid solutions to appease and keep Bosh, then were just good enough in a pathetic Eastern Conference, to wind up with just 1 top-7 pick in the past 6 years. Had the draft lottery been luckier for Toronto over the past six years, the Raptors would be a much different team today (and BC could very well be seen as a genius, which would really just be the result of higher picks).

That's why I argue that Toronto IS now following the 'OKC model' of building through the draft and relying primarily on organic growth. They makie minor moves that are advantageous to the team, while still being true to the rebuild/building process (ie: going young, adding assets, no bad contracts). The players may not be on par and the results certainly haven't been there for the Raptors (at least not yet), but that doesn't mean the approach or the builder (BC) are at fault.

To play devil's advocate, this just supports the pro-tank argument from the past few seasons, in an attempt to secure higher draft picks for the Raptors. What this comparison shows is that even following the same model, there's a significant difference in the NBA when you're picking #2 / #4 / #3 in three consecutive drafts, than when you pick #9 / #13 / #5 / #8 in four consecutive drafts. The NBA is a star driven league and it's nearly impossible to find that franchise cornerstone superstar outside the top-3/5 picks, depending on the draft year.

[ebrian]

I don't remember if it's still available because I never drive downtown for games, but we used to get free parking as season ticket holders. Not sure if it's still there though after the economy went down the tubes. I could ask some of the other guys who are part of the ticket pool.

GO buses for my area go every hour in the range that games usually end. Fortunately for the past 2-3 years the product on the court has been so terrible that a lot of times I just leave before the game is over to ensure I catch the bus and not have to wait 40 minutes. GO bus terminal is pretty good though.. well lit, very rarely do I see any unsavory characters lurking around.

As for the subject of this thread "Feeling down on the Raptors? Please tell me why.", I think I answered it already.

Here's a summary:

Some improvements have been made to the team, but I still see the same GM running the show that ran it for the past 6 awful years. This is not the first time we've seen "improvements" being made over those years, so only actual results will allow me to stop feeling down on this team. I can't sit here and erase those 6 years on the basis that some good moves have been made recently.. it's just not enough for me. To make the picture slightly muddier, you say this guy has turned over a new leaf but I see a guy who stumbled backwards into what we have today. If he truly changed his approach, he wouldn't have tried to pursue a 38-year old Steve Nash and get stuck with Landry Fields in the process. And it wasn't until this chase fell through that he went after Lowry. That does not seem like a guy with a new approach to me; looks more like someone who reached a bit higher than he could, fell backwards and grabbed whatever he could on his way down. He's just lucky he grabbed (I'm hoping) the right thing. This is not the work of a guy who has a plan.

[Craiger]

No I'm not comparing them at all. I was simply pointing out the similar strategies being used by both teams. Most fans/experts/etc... all praised those 4 Raptors draft picks at the time of the draft. Obviously DeRozan and Davis haven't fully lived up to expectations, while Valanciunas and Ross haven't even played a game yet, but the strategy is sound and the picks were widely regarded as BPA.

OKC, formerly Seattle, was a team that traded away all their good players to stockpile draft picks, going through several absolutely horrendous seasons. Even after moving to OKC, they still had several bad years, before the pieces all came together.

2007
- OKC: Durant #2, Landy #31, Big Baby Davis #35
- TOR: none

2008
- OKC: Westbrook #4, Ibaka #24
- TOR: Hibbert #17 (traded for O'Neal/Marion/Turkoglu/Barbosa)

2009
- OKC: Harden #3, Beaubois #25
- TOR: DeRozan #9

2010
- OKC: Bledsoe #18
- TOR: Davis #13

2011
- OKC: Reggie Jackson #24
- TOR: Valanciunas #5

2012
- OKC: Jones III #28
- TOR: Ross #8


OKC suffered through horrible seasons and were helped by lots of draft lottery luck (and Portland's bad choice in 2007), to be fortunate enough to have 3 straight top-4 picks, which are now forming the nucleous of their successful team. I would argue that it's much easier to build a complimentary team of role players around 3 good high draft picks, which only makes their management team look that much better, but it all starts with the 3 straight top-4 picks (really it starts with getting Durant @ #2 in 2007, which was 100% due to Portland making a bad choice). Seriously, do you think OKC would be a title contender or that anybody would be praising the 'OKC model', had they drafted Oden @ #2 in 2007? Would Ibaka or Sefolosha be household names on an OKC team without Durant? Not a chance.

TOR tried band-aid solutions to appease and keep Bosh, then were just good enough in a pathetic Eastern Conference, to wind up with just 1 top-7 pick in the past 6 years. Had the draft lottery been luckier for Toronto over the past six years, the Raptors would be a much different team today (and BC could very well be seen as a genius, which would really just be the result of higher picks).

That's why I argue that Toronto IS now following the 'OKC model' of building through the draft and relying primarily on organic growth. They makie minor moves that are advantageous to the team, while still being true to the rebuild/building process (ie: going young, adding assets, no bad contracts). The players may not be on par and the results certainly haven't been there for the Raptors (at least not yet), but that doesn't mean the approach or the builder (BC) are at fault.

To play devil's advocate, this just supports the pro-tank argument from the past few seasons, in an attempt to secure higher draft picks for the Raptors. What this comparison shows is that even following the same model, there's a significant difference in the NBA when you're picking #2 / #4 / #3 in three consecutive drafts, than when you pick #9 / #13 / #5 / #8 in four consecutive drafts. The NBA is a star driven league and it's nearly impossible to find that franchise cornerstone superstar outside the top-3/5 picks, depending on the draft year.

Colangelo's 'rebuild' started in 2009/10. I don't think its fair comparing parts of 2 processes collectively (ie. 2 rebuilds in Toronto) with 1 (ie. OKC's one)

When Presti took over he cleaned the board and started over (only remaining player was Nick Collison). Colangelo (since 09/10) has kept the core of the team intact (Bargnani, Demar, Amir, Jose).

Presti added draft picks. Colangelo most recently traded them away.

From 07/08 to the trade for Perkins (season of 10/11 where OKC's rebuild more or less ended) OKC selected 6 times in the first round. Colangelo from 09/10 to today has selected twice (and none of them have yet to play).

Presti didn't make any significant moves to 'upgrade' the team until they (the players) showed their capacity ie. actually made the playoffs, and even then still kept his picks. Colangelo saw one season that was slightly better than the previous year (yet still one of the teams at the bottom) and decided organic growth was over.

I don't think the two processes are that comparable. What you are saying is "OKC was a bad team a drafted a bunch, and Toronto was a bad team and drafted a bunch so they are similar". But thats not the case. The actual process, and the timeline, and the effectiveness is on two different levels.

Where Colangelo is right now (well prior to the start of this years offseason), is where Presti was in about 2008/09 - but he's acting similar to Presti 2 seasons later, with a superstar and 2 budding stars in tow.

[Matt52]

Colangelo's 'rebuild' started in 2009/10. I don't think its fair comparing parts of 2 processes collectively (ie. 2 rebuilds in Toronto) with 1 (ie. OKC's one)

When Presti took over he cleaned the board and started over (only remaining player was Nick Collison). Colangelo (since 09/10) has kept the core of the team intact (Bargnani, Demar, Amir, Jose).

Presti added draft picks. Colangelo most recently traded them away.

From 07/08 to the trade for Perkins (season of 10/11 where OKC's rebuild more or less ended) OKC selected 6 times in the first round. Colangelo from 09/10 to today has selected twice (and none of them have yet to play).

Presti didn't make any significant moves to 'upgrade' the team until they (the players) showed their capacity ie. actually made the playoffs, and even then still kept his picks. Colangelo saw one season that was slightly better than the previous year (yet still one of the teams at the bottom) and decided organic growth was over.

I don't think the two processes are that comparable. What you are saying is "OKC was a bad team a drafted a bunch, and Toronto was a bad team and drafted a bunch so they are similar". But thats not the case. The actual process, and the timeline, and the effectiveness is on two different levels.

Where Colangelo is right now (well prior to the start of this years offseason), is where Presti was in about 2008/09 - but he's acting similar to Presti 2 seasons later, with a superstar and 2 budding stars in tow.

That is a pretty good synopsis.

Presti has traded picks (Landry, Davis, Beaubois, Bledsoe) as well - granted a lot of future picks came back. This is one area I'd like to see BC do better with: getting draft picks versus giving them away. Green was not a great pick and I think the trade for Perkins was a poor move as well - especially the contract. But in 6 years if that is the only thing I can find fault in I guess he is doing extremely well as we all know he is

I like the last paragraph and I don't think OKC/TOR are on the same 'model' whatsoever. OKC has a superstar, all-star, and 2 likely-to-be-all-stars with a couple of solid complementary players in Perkins, Collison, Sefolosha, and Cook. I don't think the Thunder have what you would call depth - that is just my opinion - because those players listed do very little without the stars on OKC. TOR has solid depth. I think their bench is top three in the East. By no means do they have the starters or star power OKC has but they do have 4 legit NBA starters (sadly it has been a while since that could be said) and a lottery rookie (assumption JV starts sooner than later) who hopefully shows he too is a legit starter. The Raptors have also maintained financial flexibility. Personally I see (or maybe hope is a better term) BC adding that last wing player in the next 10 months either in a trade, sign and trade, or free agency.

The biggest difference in the approaches - and excuse me for harping on this in numerous posts - is Presti nailed home runs when the breaking balls didn't break. In other words, a lot of good things happened before the Thunder and Presti had any opportunity to impact the future roster. A perfect example (because it impacts both Toronto and OKC) is the high school draft rule. Had that rule not been removed, the Raptors would have had a few other prospects to look at in 2006 and Durant most likely would have never made it to 2007 draft. Portland taking Oden and SEA/OKC moving from 5th to 2nd in lottery order are other good examples of the types of events that had to happen before Presti/OKC had any opportunity to make an impact. In saying these types of things I cannot emphasize enough how well OKC has availed of their opportunities yet I also can't emphasize enough the types of events that needed to occur which were 100% beyond their control to get the opportunities they did.

Colangelo and the Raptors appear to be in a situation where they are improving as best they can while maintaining flexibility moving forward. In other words the Raps are taking control of their own destiny versus hoping things eventually fall in to place. Before anyone questions that consider where OKC would be if Portland had taken Durant or they drafted #1 and went with Oden.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Colangelo's 'rebuild' started in 2009/10. I don't think its fair comparing parts of 2 processes collectively (ie. 2 rebuilds in Toronto) with 1 (ie. OKC's one)

When Presti took over he cleaned the board and started over (only remaining player was Nick Collison). Colangelo (since 09/10) has kept the core of the team intact (Bargnani, Demar, Amir, Jose).

Presti added draft picks. Colangelo most recently traded them away.

From 07/08 to the trade for Perkins (season of 10/11 where OKC's rebuild more or less ended) OKC selected 6 times in the first round. Colangelo from 09/10 to today has selected twice (and none of them have yet to play).

Presti didn't make any significant moves to 'upgrade' the team until they (the players) showed their capacity ie. actually made the playoffs, and even then still kept his picks. Colangelo saw one season that was slightly better than the previous year (yet still one of the teams at the bottom) and decided organic growth was over.

I don't think the two processes are that comparable. What you are saying is "OKC was a bad team a drafted a bunch, and Toronto was a bad team and drafted a bunch so they are similar". But thats not the case. The actual process, and the timeline, and the effectiveness is on two different levels.

Where Colangelo is right now (well prior to the start of this years offseason), is where Presti was in about 2008/09 - but he's acting similar to Presti 2 seasons later, with a superstar and 2 budding stars in tow.

Fair enough.

I think the process is more similar than you do, but I agree that the timelines (Toronto needs 2-3 more seasons of building to reach where OKC is now) and effectiveness are quite different.

I view the process as being more similar, mainly because I think the additions of Lowry & Fields fit quite nicely into the organic growth process. Lowry is on a high-value contract and is likely better than any mid-late lottery pick they'd likely get in the next few years (if they wind up giving away a really high pick, then the trade will need to be re-evaluated at a later date). Fields is entering only his third season, so while he is probably slightly overpaid, he's still young with upside, contributes at both ends of the court and seems to be a good character/team guy. Although they weren't added through the draft, I still look at both acquisitions as being solid additions to the young core, hence all part of an organic growth model (get them young and let them build with the rest of the young, talented team that has lots of upside).

I suppose for that reason, I don't see their acquisitions as flying in the face of the organic growth timeline, as much as you do. I certainly don't see their additions as a complete departure from the organic growth approach. I do agree that this team needs at least one more season to build on-court chemistry, while perhaps adding another significant piece via free agency or trade (since lottery pick would go to Houston to complete Lowry deal). We can then look at the following few seasons to really compare to other organizations' full rebuild results.

Perhaps the biggest discrepency in our views is the effectiveness. I also think that's the hardest to judge, both with regards to the cause and effect. I tend to be among the group that is more foregiving of BC and separate the past two years from his entire tenure, whereas you seem to be of the group that looks at the trends from his full tenure as reason to be less optimistic about the future, which is fair. I think the question though is much bigger than BC, because I think he's done well with what he's had to work with, especially the mid-late lottery picks over the past four years (especially last two, during the official rebuild). For me, it really does highlight the "to tank, or not to tank" debate, as an integral part of a team's strategic rebuilding process, since top-5 draft picks typically prove to be much more valuable than mid-late lottery picks, while becoming the greatest influencer of a team's overall success (and the GM's overall effectiveness).


I guess the easiest way to say it, is that TOR is doing a poor man's OKC rebuild. Instead of having 3 straight top-4 picks, Toronto has had 4 straight mid-late lottery picks (with the exception of Valanciunas @ #5 in 2011). OKC also lucked into an absolute superstar, thanks to a combination of draft lottery luck and a terrible decision by Portland with the #1 pick, whereas Toronto has had no such luck. Same strategy. Same goal. Obviously significantly different net results!

[CalgaryRapsFan]

The biggest difference in the approaches - and excuse me for harping on this in numerous posts - is Presti nailed home runs when the breaking balls didn't break. In other words, a lot of good things happened before the Thunder and Presti had any opportunity to impact the future roster. A perfect example (because it impacts both Toronto and OKC) is the high school draft rule. Had that rule not been removed, the Raptors would have had a few other prospects to look at in 2006 and Durant most likely would have never made it to 2007 draft. Portland taking Oden and SEA/OKC moving from 5th to 2nd in lottery order are other good examples of the types of events that had to happen before Presti/OKC had any opportunity to make an impact. In saying these types of things I cannot emphasize enough how well OKC has availed of their opportunities yet I also can't emphasize enough the types of events that needed to occur which were 100% beyond their control to get the opportunities they did.

Colangelo and the Raptors appear to be in a situation where they are improving as best they can while maintaining flexibility moving forward. In other words the Raps are taking control of their own destiny versus hoping things eventually fall in to place. Before anyone questions that consider where OKC would be if Portland had taken Durant or they drafted #1 and went with Oden.

Once you really start thinking about it and comparing the OKC rebuild to Toronto's current rebuild, there are other variables beyong the GM's control that greatly favored OKC much more than Toronto. The conference they play in is one that immediately comes to mind. If OKC played in the weak Eastern Conference, as Toronto does, would they have finished as low in the standings during Durant's rookie season as they did, which resulted in them drafting Westbrook @ #4? Or would the team finish with a bad enough record the following season to draft Harden @ #3? Conversely, how much worse would Toronto's record have been last season, had they played in the Western Conference? Might that very same Toronto team have wound up with a top-3 pick?

Again, there are lots of variables that come into play that are beyond the team's control, that is all I'm pointing out. I just think that the current building/growth approach being applied (finally) by BC, is actually quite similar to OKC's approach. The draft position (hence caliber of players drafted) and the results obviously aren't on par, but I am still hopeful for the coming season and far more hopeful for the short/long term future of the Raptors than I have been in a very long time.

[Puffer]

Some good, thoughtful posts appearing in this thread. This is the kind of stuff that makes Raps Republic stand out.

[Matt52]

Once you really start thinking about it and comparing the OKC rebuild to Toronto's current rebuild, there are other variables beyong the GM's control that greatly favored OKC much more than Toronto. The conference they play in is one that immediately comes to mind. If OKC played in the weak Eastern Conference, as Toronto does, would they have finished as low in the standings during Durant's rookie season as they did, which resulted in them drafting Westbrook @ #4? Or would the team finish with a bad enough record the following season to draft Harden @ #3? Conversely, how much worse would Toronto's record have been last season, had they played in the Western Conference? Might that very same Toronto team have wound up with a top-3 pick?

Again, there are lots of variables that come into play that are beyond the team's control, that is all I'm pointing out. I just think that the current building/growth approach being applied (finally) by BC, is actually quite similar to OKC's approach. The draft position (hence caliber of players drafted) and the results obviously aren't on par, but I am still hopeful for the coming season and far more hopeful for the short/long term future of the Raptors than I have been in a very long time.

Yup. That is the danger of tanking and waiting for a franchise talent to fall to you.... they might never come even with the best decisions possible made.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Yup. That is the danger of tanking and waiting for a franchise talent to fall to you.... they might never come even with the best decisions possible made.

Agreed. Part of me was pushing for tanking (off-court, not actually on-court by the players), just to ensure greater chance at a higher pick. Regardless, I am just happy that in the post-Bosh era, BC seems to have a legitimate rebuilding/building/organic growth plan in place and seems to be following it (although I know some people view any free agent signing and/or trade as going away from it).

Obviously the results may not be ideal (at least not yet), or on par with the results achieved by other teams that followed a similar strategy (ie: OKC). However, I am less upset by poor results when a sound strategy for building a young, talented team with plenty of roster (ie: tradeable assets) and cap space flexibility is established and actually followed. We saw in the wake of the overachieving 2007 Raptors that played in a tremendously weak division, what can happen when management jumps the gun with the rebuilding process, in favor of a shoot-for-the-moon / band-aid solution approach.

[Matt52]

Agreed. Part of me was pushing for tanking (off-court, not actually on-court by the players), just to ensure greater chance at a higher pick. Regardless, I am just happy that in the post-Bosh era, BC seems to have a legitimate rebuilding/building/organic growth plan in place and seems to be following it (although I know some people view any free agent signing and/or trade as going away from it).

Obviously the results may not be ideal (at least not yet), or on par with the results achieved by other teams that followed a similar strategy (ie: OKC). However, I am less upset by poor results when a sound strategy for building a young, talented team with plenty of roster (ie: tradeable assets) and cap space flexibility is established and actually followed. We saw in the wake of the overachieving 2007 Raptors that played in a tremendously weak division, what can happen when management jumps the gun with the rebuilding process, in favor of a shoot-for-the-moon / band-aid solution approach.

I wonder what the general consensus would be if the Raps had won the coin flip and drafted Barnes at 7?

Oh yeah, the coin flip was another sort of those things that were beyond the GM's control.