Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tim Leiweke: "we may ultimately have to, excuse my English, suck to be good"

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

  • #76
    Marz wrote: View Post
    While what you say is true, I think you're missing the point. 2 seasons ago, Philly and Indiana were basically at the same level. Both looked like promising, up and coming teams, challenging higher seeds and making them work to progress to the next round. Philly has since begun a rebuilding project, while Indiana is in the thick of things. Rewinding to two years ago, could you have predicted this?

    The point is you never really know whether or not you will progress. The best you can do is build a playoff team, and then add the parts necessary to get you into contention. The Sixers tried to do this with the Bynum trade and failed, But Indiana managed to get it right.
    CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    I think the point you’re missing is that for a team like the Raptors, who haven’t made the playoffs in several seasons, making the playoffs would be significant progression. Nobody is suggesting simply making the playoffs is the end goal, but rather an initial goal, to be used as a stepping stone for greater, sustainable success.
    I've said this before but......

    is the playoff appearance a stepping stone or a ceiling?


    Stepping stone good.

    Ceiling bad.


    How do you figure this out? My 'formula':

    What talent do your key pieces possess?
    How old are your key pieces?
    How much future cap space/flexibility does your team have?
    Are you getting contributors from mid-first round draft picks (or even better all stars!)?
    Are your main guys the real deal or are you hoping they become more after 3-4+ years in the league?
    Do you have depth at all positions i.e. a strong bench?
    Do you have value contracts or cap killing contracts?
    Is your ownership willing to pay luxury to keep a team together or will non-basketball decisions remove key players?


    Looking at all of that, I tend to think the Raptors fall in the dreaded "ceiling" category for a first round appearance as the team is currently constructed.

    Comment


    • #77
      CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
      I think the point you’re missing is that for a team like the Raptors, who haven’t made the playoffs in several seasons, making the playoffs would be significant progression. Nobody is suggesting simply making the playoffs is the end goal, but rather an initial goal, to be used as a stepping stone for greater, sustainable success.

      Making the playoffs as the 8th seed doesn’t automatically mean that the team is unable to become anything better. Only poorly managed teams become the dreaded “treadmill” team that is too bad to improve and too good to rebuild. I hate when people equate a non-playoff team finally making the playoffs to perennial “treadmill” teams like Atlanta and Milwaukee, simply because they’ve fought and improved to make the playoffs in the first place. I don’t think TL or MU are the type of guys to rest of their laurels of simply making the playoffs... they’d only use that as motivation to continue to improve.
      I agree with this entirely
      If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

      Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

      Comment


      • #78
        Matt52 wrote: View Post
        My 'formula':

        1)What talent do your key pieces possess?
        2)How old are your key pieces?
        3)How much future cap space/flexibility does your team have?
        4)Are you getting contributors from mid-first round draft picks (or even better all stars!)?
        5)Are your main guys the real deal or are you hoping they become more after 3-4+ years in the league?
        6)Do you have depth at all positions i.e. a strong bench?
        7)Do you have value contracts or cap killing contracts?
        8)Is your ownership willing to pay luxury to keep a team together or will non-basketball decisions remove key players?
        76ers in 2011:

        1) Pretty high (Holiday, Iggy, Thaddeus Young)
        2) Some are quite young, others are veterans but not old yet (Iggy)
        3) Decent
        4) We will have the 16th pick in the 2011 draft
        5) We are hoping Jrue Holiday and Evan Turner improve
        6) Yes, we have a strong bench
        7) Elton Brand, Francisco Elson, and Andres Nocioni will be gone soon, and Iggy is really the only big contract
        8) Depends on how close we are to a championship.

        Pacers in 2011:

        1) Pretty high (George, Granger, Hibbert, Hansbrough)
        2) Mostly young, with the exception of Granger
        3) A decent amount, but we're about to throw a shit ton of money at Roy Hibbert next year
        4) We're about to trade Kawhi Leanord for George Hill
        5) We're hoping George and Hibbert develop
        6) We'd like to think so
        7) Only Granger's
        8) Depends on how close we are to a championship

        I know I'm writing with a bias, but it's hard with 20/20 hindsight. Still, the two situations look eerily similar given your formula. Are the Pacers succeeding because George/Hibbert's development out-paced Holiday/Turner? Or was it because Granger was injured and didn't shoot them out of games? Or was it that George Hill brought the Spurs mentality with him?

        Honestly I have no idea. But I don't think there is a way to assess if we're at a ceiling or progressing towards the future. The Raptors have young pieces in Val and Jonas, Lowry has room to improve, as does Fields and to some extent DeRozan. I'd say we have some potential.

        Comment


        • #79
          Matt52 wrote: View Post
          I've said this before but......

          is the playoff appearance a stepping stone or a ceiling?


          Stepping stone good.

          Ceiling bad.


          How do you figure this out? My 'formula':

          What talent do your key pieces possess?
          How old are your key pieces?
          How much future cap space/flexibility does your team have?
          Are you getting contributors from mid-first round draft picks (or even better all stars!)?
          Are your main guys the real deal or are you hoping they become more after 3-4+ years in the league?
          Do you have depth at all positions i.e. a strong bench?
          Do you have value contracts or cap killing contracts?
          Is your ownership willing to pay luxury to keep a team together or will non-basketball decisions remove key players?


          Looking at all of that, I tend to think the Raptors fall in the dreaded "ceiling" category for a first round appearance as the team is currently constructed.
          I agree with the bolded, but I think that just highlights the importance of the team's GM in avoiding the “treadmill” pitfall.

          Assuming the Raptors only other roster moves this offseason is to amnesty Kleiza and add an inconsequential 2nd/3rd string PG, and the team winds up sneaking into the playoffs as the #8 seed (16th best team in the league), I see plenty of opportunity for MU to further improve the team heading into the 2014-15 season.

          CAP SPACE
          - Camby ($4.4M)
          - Richardson ($1.4M)
          - Gray ($2.7M)
          - possibly more (Hansborough, Acy, Buycks, etc..)
          - likely at least 3 roster spots and a total of at least $8.5M expiring contract after this season

          2014 DRAFT
          - #15 draft pick in a loaded draft
          - better 2nd round pick of their own and SAC’s
          - NYK’s 2nd round draft pick

          TRADE ASSETS
          - Gay’s $19.5M expiring contract (or he could be re-signed to a cheaper long-term extension)
          - Fields’ $6.25M expiring contract
          - Johnson’s $7.1M expiring contract
          - Hansborough’s $2.6M expiring contract (if team option is picked up)
          - all future 1st round picks
          - NYK’s 2016 1st round pick
          - all future 2nd round picks (plus an extra 2nd round pick in 2017)

          MU has many options for improving the roster after making the playoffs next season, even if the current team as is has 1st round ceiling. I still think making the playoffs would be a step in the right direction and certainly shouldn’t be viewed as a strategy that somehow limits the long-term potential success of the franchise.

          Comment


          • #80
            CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
            I agree with the bolded, but I think that just highlights the importance of the team's GM in avoiding the “treadmill” pitfall.

            Assuming the Raptors only other roster moves this offseason is to amnesty Kleiza and add an inconsequential 2nd/3rd string PG, and the team winds up sneaking into the playoffs as the #8 seed (16th best team in the league), I see plenty of opportunity for MU to further improve the team heading into the 2014-15 season.

            CAP SPACE
            - Camby ($4.4M)
            - Richardson ($1.4M)
            - Gray ($2.7M)
            - possibly more (Hansborough, Acy, Buycks, etc..)
            - likely at least 3 roster spots and a total of at least $8.5M expiring contract after this season


            2014 DRAFT
            - #15 draft pick in a loaded draft
            - better 2nd round pick of their own and SAC’s
            - NYK’s 2nd round draft pick

            TRADE ASSETS
            - Gay’s $19.5M expiring contract (or he could be re-signed to a cheaper long-term extension)
            - Fields’ $6.25M expiring contract
            - Johnson’s $7.1M expiring contract
            - Hansborough’s $2.6M expiring contract (if team option is picked up)
            - all future 1st round picks
            - NYK’s 2016 1st round pick
            - all future 2nd round picks (plus an extra 2nd round pick in 2017)

            MU has many options for improving the roster after making the playoffs next season, even if the current team as is has 1st round ceiling. I still think making the playoffs would be a step in the right direction and certainly shouldn’t be viewed as a strategy that somehow limits the long-term potential success of the franchise.
            That is not cap space.

            Raptors are at salary cap (maybe $3M in cap space i.e. less than non-tax/FULL MLE) assuming Gay picks up his option - and they don't have a starting PG.

            Comment


            • #81
              Marz wrote: View Post
              76ers in 2011:

              1) Pretty high (Holiday, Iggy, Thaddeus Young)
              2) Some are quite young, others are veterans but not old yet (Iggy)
              3) Decent
              4) We will have the 16th pick in the 2011 draft
              5) We are hoping Jrue Holiday and Evan Turner improve
              6) Yes, we have a strong bench
              7) Elton Brand, Francisco Elson, and Andres Nocioni will be gone soon, and Iggy is really the only big contract
              8) Depends on how close we are to a championship.

              Pacers in 2011:

              1) Pretty high (George, Granger, Hibbert, Hansbrough)
              2) Mostly young, with the exception of Granger
              3) A decent amount, but we're about to throw a shit ton of money at Roy Hibbert next year
              4) We're about to trade Kawhi Leanord for George Hill
              5) We're hoping George and Hibbert develop
              6) We'd like to think so
              7) Only Granger's
              8) Depends on how close we are to a championship

              I know I'm writing with a bias, but it's hard with 20/20 hindsight. Still, the two situations look eerily similar given your formula. Are the Pacers succeeding because George/Hibbert's development out-paced Holiday/Turner? Or was it because Granger was injured and didn't shoot them out of games? Or was it that George Hill brought the Spurs mentality with him?

              Honestly I have no idea. But I don't think there is a way to assess if we're at a ceiling or progressing towards the future. The Raptors have young pieces in Val and Jonas, Lowry has room to improve, as does Fields and to some extent DeRozan. I'd say we have some potential.

              Cap killing contracts don't have to be big or even numerous.

              When projecting the talent of your key pieces, what is their skill set? Are they complete players? Do they lack a specific area? I look at Paul George as a complete player and that was evident after year 2.

              The Pacers were going to throw a shit load of money at Hibbert but they managed to lock up a borderline All-Star at PF beforehand.

              George and Hibbert were much more sure bets than Holiday and Turner. Turner has been a bad #2 pick since almost day 1. Holiday was solid.

              The Pacers also had success with Granger. In fact, they had a higher winning percentage with him in '11-12. They lost in 6 games to Miami in '11-12 in the 2nd round vs. 7 games in the Conference Finals this year.


              I think the difference in Indy and Philly was Indy had more proven talent and younger talent with more upside.


              Without considering trades, when looking at the current roster (any current roster) I think one can project. You list the Raptors players but outside of JV, all those players are in the league for 3+ seasons and are 24+ by the start of next season. Looking for players like DeRozan, Lowry, and Gay to somehow become more than what they already are is one of the key ingredients for determining this group has a ceiling. Lowry and Gay are going in to their 8th seasons while DD will be 5th.

              Comment


              • #82
                Matt52 wrote: View Post
                Cap killing contracts don't have to be big or even numerous.

                When projecting the talent of your key pieces, what is their skill set? Are they complete players? Do they lack a specific area? I look at Paul George as a complete player and that was evident after year 2.

                The Pacers were going to throw a shit load of money at Hibbert but they managed to lock up a borderline All-Star at PF beforehand.

                George and Hibbert were much more sure bets than Holiday and Turner. Turner has been a bad #2 pick since almost day 1. Holiday was solid.

                The Pacers also had success with Granger. In fact, they had a higher winning percentage with him in '11-12. They lost in 6 games to Miami in '11-12 in the 2nd round vs. 7 games in the Conference Finals this year.


                I think the difference in Indy and Philly was Indy had more proven talent and younger talent with more upside.


                Without considering trades, when looking at the current roster (any current roster) I think one can project. You list the Raptors players but outside of JV, all those players are in the league for 3+ seasons and are 24+ by the start of next season. Looking for players like DeRozan, Lowry, and Gay to somehow become more than what they already are is one of the key ingredients for determining this group has a ceiling. Lowry and Gay are going in to their 8th seasons while DD will be 5th.
                West was on a miniscule 2 year deal (I believe it was $15M over 2 years), hardly what I'd call locked up.

                But again, hindsight is 20/20. Turner had only been in the league a year, and Hibbert hadn't shown that he'd "figured it out" yet on offense or defense (though the potential was there). I personally feel that Indiana did have better young talent, but I'm suspicious that that's because of what I know now. I remember being envious of both teams in 2011 because they were progressing while our Raptors were (are?) still on a treadmill.

                Comment


                • #83
                  CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                  I think the point you’re missing is that for a team like the Raptors, who haven’t made the playoffs in several seasons, making the playoffs would be significant progression. Nobody is suggesting simply making the playoffs is the end goal, but rather an initial goal, to be used as a stepping stone for greater, sustainable success.

                  Making the playoffs as the 8th seed doesn’t automatically mean that the team is unable to become anything better. Only poorly managed teams become the dreaded “treadmill” team that is too bad to improve and too good to rebuild. I hate when people equate a non-playoff team finally making the playoffs to perennial “treadmill” teams like Atlanta and Milwaukee, simply because they’ve fought and improved to make the playoffs in the first place. I don’t think TL or MU are the type of guys to rest of their laurels of simply making the playoffs... they’d only use that as motivation to continue to improve.
                  you just basically just flip flopped on your own point which is fine, except you did it nearly instantaneously. you said making the playoffs (even as an 8th seed this season) is a GOOD thing and counts as 'significant progression', but then you say with this current team the max ceiling is ONLY the 1st round unless we trade/blow things up by having everyone on the team as a potential trade asset minus JV and DD apparently. so wheres the 'good part' of making it as 8th seed fodder then?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    iblastoff wrote: View Post
                    you just basically just flip flopped on your own point which is fine, except you did it nearly instantaneously. you said making the playoffs (even as an 8th seed this season) is a GOOD thing and counts as 'significant progression', but then you say with this current team the max ceiling is ONLY the 1st round unless we trade/blow things up by having everyone on the team as a potential trade asset minus JV and DD apparently. so wheres the 'good part' of making it as 8th seed fodder then?
                    He didn't flip flop on his point at all. He said making the playoffs even as an 8th seed is progression.

                    But, as a stepping stone, not your top(ceiling) goal to be the 8th seed.
                    If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

                    Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Marz wrote: View Post
                      West was on a miniscule 2 year deal (I believe it was $15M over 2 years), hardly what I'd call locked up.

                      But again, hindsight is 20/20. Turner had only been in the league a year, and Hibbert hadn't shown that he'd "figured it out" yet on offense or defense (though the potential was there). I personally feel that Indiana did have better young talent, but I'm suspicious that that's because of what I know now. I remember being envious of both teams in 2011 because they were progressing while our Raptors were (are?) still on a treadmill.
                      2 years and $20M for West. It was locked up because if it failed, they still had options. If it was a success they had early Bird Rights.

                      Hindsight is 20/20. I agree. Turner had holes in his game... still does.

                      Looking back even Philly must have realized as they went all-in on Bynum in a dare-to-be-great move that failed epically.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        LBF wrote: View Post
                        He didn't flip flop on his point at all. He said making the playoffs even as an 8th seed is progression.

                        But, as a stepping stone, not your top(ceiling) goal to be the 8th seed.
                        i feel like you didn't even read this thread at all.

                        making the 8th seed is not 'significant progression' ESPECIALLY if the current raptors team is recognized as having that 8th seed spot as the ceiling (which if you actually read the previous posts, he agreed that yes, a 1st round exit is the ceiling for this current team)

                        unless you consider 'progression' as the owners finally realizing "oh yah we basically suck horribly, lets trade away the majority of the team, keep a few potentials like JV and move on!" then sure, lets progress away!
                        Last edited by iblastoff; Tue Jul 16, 2013, 07:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          iblastoff wrote: View Post
                          i feel like you didn't even read this thread at all.

                          making the 8th seed is not 'significant progression' ESPECIALLY if the current raptors team is recognized as having that 8th seed spot as the ceiling (which if you actually read the previous posts, he agreed that yes, a 1st round exit is the ceiling for this current team)

                          unless you consider 'progression' as the owners finally realizing "oh yah we basically suck horribly, lets trade away the majority of the team, keep a few potentials like JV and move on!" then sure, lets progress away!
                          I feel like..you need to shutup with that. It's an internet forum. I don't know you. Nobody cares what you feel like. But, I'll play along. I feel like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and you have your conceptions about the team and refuse to open up to anybody else's point of view.

                          I was just explaining what he was saying. I don't understand why you're lashing out at me..
                          If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

                          Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            LBF wrote: View Post
                            I feel like..you need to shutup with that. It's an internet forum. I don't know you. Nobody cares what you feel like. But, I'll play along. I feel like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and you have your conceptions about the team and refuse to open up to anybody else's point of view.

                            I was just explaining what he was saying. I don't understand why you're lashing out at me..
                            I thought his name was rocket ship related, but I could be swayed to thinking he just likes to vent
                            For still frame photograph of me reading the DeRozan thread please refer to my avatar

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              thead wrote: View Post
                              I thought his name was rocket ship related, but I could be swayed to thinking he just likes to vent
                              Sorry to the others but the snarky, witty and succinct thead is the best moderater

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Right, Brandon and when do we start the book burnings then? Why don't we start with everything written prior to 1900 and then work our way forward to 2010? Let's get rid of all this history getting in the way.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X