BC has 2 years - what would you do if you were him?

[Tim W.]

I assumed Tim was referring to the opportunity to draft Kobe (Indiana had the 10th pick that year)... and that while their pick was a safe pick (Dampier) they could have selected someone with more upside. Since then Indiana has been up and down, while Kobe has been a top player in the history of the NBA.

No, I was referring to the Lakers giving up a top ten center for a highschool rookie SG. That was a major risk.

[Tim W.]

Sorry a ton longer than I planned... I won't be offended if you skip to the end.

You think I have a right to complain about the length of ANY post? I think I lost that right a LONG time ago.

So this now becomes a matter of your own personal evaluation of player rather than the concept of HAVING to take a risk itself. The point here was you didn't think Bargnani was worth the risk (Which you were always right on) vs the need to take risks. Some risks aren't worth it when there are other choices available.

With Jonas you see him as worth the risk (which is fine), but then proceed to call my idea short sighted because I forsee a number of possible variables that could easly come to fruition and want to hedge against them. Hoping for the best, but planning for this worst, is to me, as far from short sighted as it comes.

Obviously you don't take a risk simply for the sake of taking a risk. There has to be a worthy payoff. I could take a risk by running across the 401, but what exactly is the payoff?

I didn't even see drafting Bargnani as taking a risk. It was simply not the best option.

I don't think you necessarily have to take a risk for something to be the best move. If LeBron is available, you don't pass him up. But I thought Orlando took a very good risk when they bypassed Emeka Okafor, because Howard's upside was huge (no pun intended) and because of questions about Okafor's knees. Of course, I thought Chicago was stupid for trading Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler, because I figured the best you could hope for Chandler is that he become a similar player to what Brand was already.

Obviously your personal opinions HAVE to come into play. I like Valanciunas and feel he has all the tools (desire, skills, athletic ability) to become an All-Star center eventually.

And it's not that I think your idea is short sighted, if I said that, I meant that you were looking more short term than long term, because I thought you wanted to make the team more competitive immediately, which is pointless. From what you say that is not true.

The problem with signing someone like DeAndre Jordan as a hedge, is it is a risk in itself. Is he worth the contract? Is having two young, developing centers fighting for playing time going to cause more trouble than it's worth? Is signing Jordan going to cause Valanciunas to second guess signing with the Raptors in a year? Couldn't the money be better spent elsewhere?

Speaking of which, why not try and sign Jeff Green or Jonas Jerebko, two SF free agents? Isn't there a greater risk of proceeding with James Johnson and expecting Kleiza to return fully healed?

[QUOTE=GarbageTime;97317]Sorry just getting a bit confused now... Kobe wasn't drafted while Larry Bird was in charge. And since the time Kobe was drafted the Pacers made the EC finals a couple times and the NBA finals. We'll have to agree to disagree about the team being a contender since Bird started running the team 2003 (?). I remember the Pacers being one of the favorites (with Detroit and Miami) going into the season of the brawl.

But I think Kobe's draft year and Pacers are both great examples of some of my points, unpredictability of (relatively) random events. First, one doesn't know how picks will always turn out let alone where the best player will be drafted. Kobe was drafted 13th that year, Peja 14th, Steve Nash 15th, Jermaine O'neal 17th... 7-12 were Lorenzen Wright, Kerry Kittle, Samaki Walker, Eric Dampier, Todd Fuller and Potapenko. The Raps could be in any one of those situations with their picks next year (or the year after)... a top pick thats good (Iverson, Camby, Shareef, Ray Allen), a mid pick thats bad, a late pick thats great (or the opposite of all those).... how do you 'plan' for that? You can't. Even if the Raps try and be terrible, theirs no guarantees they'll end up in a spot that gets them that guy they want/need, let alone that guy turns out as hoped.

Or even to take that further... what if the best player available (with the most upside) turns out to be a C or PF at the Raps pick? Do they avoid them then to, even though said player has the most upside, because that would further log jam the big man spots? Do you then go for best fit or 2nd most upside instead?

To get to Indiana, here was a team that was regularily considered a contender (with Reggie), made the playoffs for almost a decade straight, made some good moves became a contender again (in my eyes) and then got hit with a completely unforseeable event (the brawl) and an injury to their franchise player (O'neal)... which left them in their 'cycle of mediocrity' which they had to take time to get out of. And even last year... I don't think Bird was going for it (so to speak), but was rather the best of the worst, which could happen to any team.

You misunderstood my point bringing up Kobe. I was simply suggesting that Jerry West has taken risks, whereas Larry Bird has not. I was never saying that Indiana should have picked Kobe. And Larry Bird didn't start running the Pacers until 2008, when Donnie Walsh left. Walsh was President and CEO and Bird was GM. On a side note, this is exactly the type of structure that Colangelo is looking for by hiring a GM.

Obviously you can never guarantee to pick the best player in the draft no matter where you pick. Even the Spurs don't always pick the best player available, but just take a look at what they did in the last draft. They traded a young and effective NBA guard for a rookie, in Kawhi Leonard. And their trading partner was none other than Indiana. Indiana did the safe thing, by trading a draft pick for an established NBA player. Personally, I think Leonard's going to be a better player than George Hill, who's not really even a PG. And then the Spurs went and reached for Cory Joseph, who most projected to be a second round pick.

Now sometimes a risk is going to backfire, but that's the price you pay.

that may very well be true... . but you need to seperate yourself from this idea that said player will be overpayed. Again, I said it is completely relative to the cost and duration of the contract. What that is exactly I don't know. But never once did I say "overpay to get that C". Nor did I recommend a long contract. Nor did I claim they would be the long term starting C.

Its a matter of, if possible, getting a quality starting C at a fair price who will hold down the position until Jonas proves he is capable of taking it. If he can then great, if he can't then you still have a (hopefully) good C to work with. Yes there would be competition at that spot (and all big man positions) but if Jonas (or anyone else) can't handle that, gets disgruntled, cries about it, whatever, I don't want him here anyways then. And its better to find that out earlier rather than later.

And if that young C is not available at a good price... then you keep going with things as they are.

With the new CBA, I'm guessing you'll need to be more careful paying players. Overpaying a bunch of players can kill a team. Especially one that isn't a contender. It inhibits the ability to improve the team and threatens the ability to retain the players it has. And unfortunately, free agency breeds overpaying players.

As for the matter of competing among positions, it's great to say that if a player gets disgruntled, then you don't want him on your team, but what happens is that it drives down trade value, threatens to infect the rest of the team and makes the franchise look bad. It's fine that it highlights who you want, but the damage is done.

Now that I've said alot more than I ever planned to and since you purified my perfectly dirty ananlogy... what this gets back to is not giving up good opportunities along the way to your goal and being flexible with your plans. It also doesn't mean that it won't let you reach your goal. (hence the free pussy on the way to the whore house analogy).

I just simply don't see how getting a quality and hopefully productive player (at any position for that matter) at a good price is short sighted or will put the team in a cycle of mediocrity. I don't see how the team is better off taking a (theoretically) riskier path is more worthwhile than having alternatives should things not go as planned. I don't want to see the team do anything they can just to make the playoffs, but I also don't want to see the team plan to tank until a perfect storm arises. I want to see some balance between the two.... to me having good young players, with good contracts gives the team tons of room to grow, with a lot of good assets along the way. It may be harder to end up with that #1 pick in a good draft, but atleast you've hedged that with a quality player.

A team of:
Derozan, JJ, Amir, Ed, Jonas, Gasol or Jordan, Bayless (and Jose), Alabi, Kleiza will have cap space (from bargnani trade if possible, barbossa trade (or contract ending this season), with Jose's ending the year after), draft pick(s) where ever that may be, and any other possible assets (from bargnani/barbossa trades). That team may not be complete... but that looks very promising to me with alot of youth, alot of potential, alot of productive players, and a lot of versatility going forward.

My problem with signing a productive player before the team is ready, is that it possibly improves the team at a time when that's the last thing they should worry about. Right now their focus needs to be on the 2012 draft. Especially since it's likely next season will be a short one, if it happens at all. As much as the average fan hates to hear this, next season is a lost one, in terms of wins/losses.

And hedging with a quality player is pointless, unfortunately, if it means not getting a franchise player. The Atlanta Hawks are the perfect example of a team of quality players without a franchise player. And their ceiling is 50 wins and the second round of the playoffs. I know some Raptor fans would be happy with that, but I wouldn't.

[GarbageTime]

[QUOTE=Tim W.;97324] You misunderstood my point bringing up Kobe [QUOTE]

yep chalk one up to marijuana on that one.

[GarbageTime]

And hedging with a quality player is pointless, unfortunately, if it means not getting a franchise player. The Atlanta Hawks are the perfect example of a team of quality players without a franchise player. And their ceiling is 50 wins and the second round of the playoffs. I know some Raptor fans would be happy with that, but I wouldn't.

no doubt we discussed the rest alot, but I did want to touch on this.

The Hawks may not have a "franchise player" (depending on how much someone like Johnson or Horford I guess), but I think their bigger issue was paying Joe Johnson (15 mil then 18 mil), Jamal Crawford (10 mil), Mike Bibby (6 mil), and Marvin Williams (8 mil)..all well above what they were worth (productivity)... that was around 37+ mil dollars for those players (in 2009/10... 40+ mil in 2010/11). You cut those contracts each down a couple mil each to a reasonable level... all of a sudden they can afford a Gortat (for arguments sake... although in fairness he is a great deal) or a Kendrick Perkins, a Tyson Chandler (or close to it anyways) etc. You put a legit C in there with Horford, Smith, Johnson, Bibby (Hinrich or Teague later), and Crawford off the bench, and that team is making alot more noise even in a very competitive east.


Now all that is alot easier said then done ofcourse.... but I still think having fair contracts with productive players changes the landscape incredibly.

[NoPropsneeded]

I've noticed you don't expect much from the upcoming season. You all are discussing players, coaches and other conditions. I'm going to be Mr Obvious and maybe little off topic now but state my thoughts anyway.
It's not only up to the players but it's also up to the fans, I saw a tendency that during NBA games fans react heavily mainly to dunks and blocks , they seem to try maintaining their dignity. Of course, NBA system has significant number of games and its hard to cheer like crazy in all of those games( unless it's playoffs), but this cheering make players ten times more motivated. If they are well supported at home they will be even more competitive playing in States when they will know that they have amazing fans waiting for a win back at home. Especially young players, that's a big burst of motivation and self confidence for them.
JV is not an exception, I still think he was so solid during EuroBasket and EuroLeague because of his willingness to win the games for the fans, not for his own needs. Of course, Canada is not an basketball nation it's nearly a mission impossible(correct me if I'm wrong) to bring all people in home arena chanting together, but with the arena like that the effect would be massive.
Even the Bargnani was trying to defend when he played for his national team at EuroBasket, he seemed to play the defensive part of the game, not to be lazy and the most importantly play for someone else, not himself (Italy fans?). Don't criticize too much and sorry for mistakes, English is not my native language.

but you gotta admit we are the best fans in the nba. And we fill the ACC even when we're losing cause we are loyal fans. I cheer for the raptors whether they are winning or losing

[Tim W.]

no doubt we discussed the rest alot, but I did want to touch on this.

The Hawks may not have a "franchise player" (depending on how much someone like Johnson or Horford I guess), but I think their bigger issue was paying Joe Johnson (15 mil then 18 mil), Jamal Crawford (10 mil), Mike Bibby (6 mil), and Marvin Williams (8 mil)..all well above what they were worth (productivity)... that was around 37+ mil dollars for those players (in 2009/10... 40+ mil in 2010/11). You cut those contracts each down a couple mil each to a reasonable level... all of a sudden they can afford a Gortat (for arguments sake... although in fairness he is a great deal) or a Kendrick Perkins, a Tyson Chandler (or close to it anyways) etc. You put a legit C in there with Horford, Smith, Johnson, Bibby (Hinrich or Teague later), and Crawford off the bench, and that team is making alot more noise even in a very competitive east.

Now all that is alot easier said then done ofcourse.... but I still think having fair contracts with productive players changes the landscape incredibly.

They're never going to be a true contender, though, unless they get a franchise player. And that's not going to happen the way the team is currently constructed. I agree overpaying Joe Johnson was a huge mistake, but the alternative is to risk letting him walk and losing talent. Risk. To me, I would have let him walk. But the safe thing, from a team perspective, is to pay him the money and continue along the same path.


On a side note, I just thought of this trade. It seems to make a lot of sense for all parties.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=3bfmqgu

Keep in mind that the Raptors would also receive Minnesota's pick, which the Clippers own.

Atlanta gets a legit center and an expiring contract. They can move Horford to PF and Smith to SF.

The Clippers get something for Kaman, who might walk next summer, and Bargnani can play behind both Jordan and Griffin. And they get a good, defensive SF who is a playoff tested veteran, but still young.

The Raptors get a young SF prospect, a veteran C who will fill the gap until Valanciunas can take over, and a probable lottery pick.

[mcHAPPY]

They're never going to be a true contender, though, unless they get a franchise player. And that's not going to happen the way the team is currently constructed. I agree overpaying Joe Johnson was a huge mistake, but the alternative is to risk letting him walk and losing talent. Risk. To me, I would have let him walk. But the safe thing, from a team perspective, is to pay him the money and continue along the same path.


On a side note, I just thought of this trade. It seems to make a lot of sense for all parties.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=3bfmqgu

Keep in mind that the Raptors would also receive Minnesota's pick, which the Clippers own.

Atlanta gets a legit center and an expiring contract. They can move Horford to PF and Smith to SF.

The Clippers get something for Kaman, who might walk next summer, and Bargnani can play behind both Jordan and Griffin. And they get a good, defensive SF who is a playoff tested veteran, but still young.

The Raptors get a young SF prospect, a veteran C who will fill the gap until Valanciunas can take over, and a probable lottery pick.

I don't think LAC would do this even without including MIN's pick - definitely not with it.

This takes their payroll in 2012-13 to $40M - not including Jordan or Eric Gordon's extension. Then in 2013-14 they have to extend Griffin although Williams would be off the books but they will be in the same situation they are now - no SF.

Aminu, in my opinion, has more upside than Williams and he is on a rookie deal.

[Apollo]

No, I was referring to the Lakers giving up a top ten center for a highschool rookie SG. That was a major risk.

They march to the beat of their own drum in the draft. A lot of people criticized them on draft day for taking Andrew Bynum, suggesting he was very young and very raw and that there were much safer picks on the board. All that doesn't matter if you have faith in your scouting department. You pay them the big bucks and as such, what's the point if you're going to turn around and listen to the likes of Chad Ford or Charlie "Hating the Raptors is my hobby" Rosen? "Safe" doesn't usually lead to great success in an field. It's too bad that the Raptors haven't been playing safe and have been faltering. If Colangelo can get his batting average up to .500 (in the trades department) then the team will take a huge upswing.

[Tim W.]

I don't think LAC would do this even without including MIN's pick - definitely not with it.

This takes their payroll in 2012-13 to $40M - not including Jordan or Eric Gordon's extension. Then in 2013-14 they have to extend Griffin although Williams would be off the books but they will be in the same situation they are now - no SF.

Aminu, in my opinion, has more upside than Williams and he is on a rookie deal.

Ya, after I looked at it again, I realized asking for a draft pick from the Clippers is probably too much. Still, I think without the draft pick it's a good deal for all the teams. Aminu does have upside, but the Clippers need to make the playoffs this year, I think. They've got enough talent to do so, but while Aminu has upside, he didn't exactly have a good rookie season and bringing in a young veteran, like Williams, would be a huge boost. Williams isn't spectacular, but he's a good, solid player who doesn't need the ball to be effective (a plus on this team), and plays solid defense.

And a frontcourt of Bargnani, Griffin and Jordan makes a lot of sense. Obviously Jordan and Griffin start, but Bargnani can come in and replace either player (unlike Kaman, who is strictly a center), and gives them a versatile scoring threat who can hit from outside, something they don't have a lot of. On paper it works, I think.

I'd certainly be happy getting Aminu and Pachulia for Bargnani. It would solve the two biggest problems the Raptors have, and give them an excellent SF prospect.

[Tim W.]

They march to the beat of their own drum in the draft. A lot of people criticized them on draft day for taking Andrew Bynum, suggesting he was very young and very raw and that there were much safer picks on the board. All that doesn't matter if you have faith in your scouting department. You pay them the big bucks and as such, what's the point if you're going to turn around and listen to the likes of Chad Ford or Charlie "Hating the Raptors is my hobby" Rosen? "Safe" doesn't usually lead to great success in an field. It's too bad that the Raptors haven't been playing safe and have been faltering. If Colangelo can get his batting average up to .500 (in the trades department) then the team will take a huge upswing.

He's done well in the draft, for the most part. It looks like 3 out of 4 of his picks with the Raptors have yielded players who should have been drafted higher. You can't ask for more than that.

I think he's also made some decent trades. Not great, but decent. His biggest problem seems to be signing players. Hopefully his new GM will help him with that.

[mcHAPPY]

I'd certainly be happy getting Aminu and Pachulia for Bargnani. It would solve the two biggest problems the Raptors have, and give them an excellent SF prospect.

I would also be very happy with this. There was a great write up somewhere about VDN's placing of Aminu in the dog house - and never getting an opportunity to get out. Picking up Aminu could be a Joe Johnson type move - a good player stuck on the bench and needing the right situation to flourish.

[Joey]

I'd certainly be happy getting Aminu and Pachulia for Bargnani. It would solve the two biggest problems the Raptors have, and give them an excellent SF prospect.

Where does Pachulia come into the Equation? He plays for Atlanta ... Aminu is in LA.

Unless I missed something there.

And with Ed Davis and Amir Johnson, do we really need Aminu? Yet another 6'-9", 215lb guy. (I don't see him as a SF at all. More of a Josh Smith type. SFs body, but needs to play PF to be truly effective.)

I'd be all over getting Pachulia, as he would bring a toughness rarely seen around these parts.
But I would expect ALOT more for Bargnani than Pachulia.
(Again, didn't see Lottery pick included. Slightly better now. )

ADD Matt set me straight about the trade proposal. My bad.

[mcHAPPY]

Where does Pachulia come into the Equation? He plays for Atlanta ... Aminu is in LA.

Unless I missed something there.

And with Ed Davis and Amir Johnson, do we really need Aminu? Yet another 6'-9", 215lb guy.

post #51.

[Joey]

post #51.

Thanks. Sorry about that.

[Tim W.]

And with Ed Davis and Amir Johnson, do we really need Aminu? Yet another 6'-9", 215lb guy. (I don't see him as a SF at all. More of a Josh Smith type. SFs body, but needs to play PF to be truly effective.)

I think Aminu is fine as a SF. He still needs to improve his skills, but he's young and apparently has a similar work ethic as DeRozan, so that's definitely encouraging. If nothing else, it gives the Raptors a young asset with a lot of upside who should only go up in value (as opposed to Bargnani, who will probably only go down from now on). And if he fulfills his potential, then the Raptors have their SF for the future.