Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chisholm: What to do about the C position? Forget Tyson Chandler (212)

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

  • #91
    In Marc Stein's and Chad Ford's amnesty discussion for all teams in the league, this was written, uh oh:


    One disclaimer: Sources say Toronto is trying to be as aggressive as it can be in the big-man market in free agency and has informed the players involved that it intends to lodge serious bids for Nene, Chandler and restricted free agent Marc Gasol. In the unlikely event that releasing a player through amnesty could clinch the signing of one of those players, rest assured that the Raptors will go for it.

    Source: Chad Ford, Marc Stein, ESPN.com

    If the Raptors can package Ed Davis and a 2013 first round pick to a team for an unprotected 2012 first round pick, sign me up.

    Ideas:

    ED, 2013 pick to Detroit for Jason Maxiell, 2012 pick unprotected

    ED, 2013 pick to Philadelphia for Nocioni, 2012 pick unprotected

    ED, 2013 pick to Cleveland for Boobie Gibson, 2012 pick unprotected

    ED, 2013 pick to Charlotte for Diaw, 2012 pick unprotected
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Thu Dec 1, 2011, 04:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      DoNDaDDa wrote: View Post
      they tanked last season... BC even said he had numerous offers to improve the team now... but he did minor tinkering & kept the status quo... knowing full well the team sucked & wed get a high pick... i call that tanking... everyone was calling for it... he followed through on it.. i wont even go any futher back then that but it has happened b4 aswell
      But you were talking as if ALL the Toronto sports teams have been tanking for years. And that's simply not true, as I pointed out. And out of last season, we got development from DeRozan, Davis and Amir, as well as possibly the best player from last year's draft, in Valanciunas. The only problem with last year's draft was that it was not considered a very strong draft. Still, I think they were very fortunate and that will help them in the future FAR more than picking up a couple of more veterans to help them win a few more games would have.
      Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
      Follow me on Twitter.

      Comment


      • #93
        Matt52 wrote: View Post
        In Marc Stein's and Chad Ford's amnesty discussion for all teams in the league, this was written, uh oh:

        Source: Chad Ford, Marc Stein, ESPN.com
        Oh, Bryan. Give you head a shake!!!!!
        Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
        Follow me on Twitter.

        Comment


        • #94
          Tim W. wrote: View Post
          But you were talking as if ALL the Toronto sports teams have been tanking for years. And that's simply not true, as I pointed out. And out of last season, we got development from DeRozan, Davis and Amir, as well as possibly the best player from last year's draft, in Valanciunas. The only problem with last year's draft was that it was not considered a very strong draft. Still, I think they were very fortunate and that will help them in the future FAR more than picking up a couple of more veterans to help them win a few more games would have.
          i had alot typed but just erased it... we have different opinions & thats ok..more iteresting constuctive conversation, but i could go on about this topic all night long & get no were soo ill leave it at that.

          Comment


          • #95
            A few things:

            Last season, Colangelo may not have been thinking 'tank' before the season started (as we see with the attempt to land Tyson Chandler), but he definitely changed his mind as the season wore on. The team tanked absolutely SHAMELESSLY in April: look at some of the lineups they put out there -- their starters in the last game of the season were Jerryd, DeMar, James, Ed, and Joey Dorsey. Their first guy off the bench was Alexis Ajinca, who played 15 minutes.

            Also: the problem with tanking from the beginning of the season is that it interferes with the development of your young guys. Getting blown out night after night and not feeling like there's a point to playing well leads to bad habits.

            I don't think the Raptors are plausibly going to be in the hunt for a top 5 pick this year. After the top 5, picks level out a lot. I am fine with Bryan signing a short-term deal for a defensive centre, or picking up a solid free agent. There are guys out there in free agency who will help this team more than drafting 5 or 6 spots higher will.

            Comment


            • #96
              Matt52 wrote: View Post
              If the Raptors can package Ed Davis and a 2013 first round pick to a team for an unprotected 2012 first round pick, sign me up.

              Ideas:

              ED, 2013 pick to Detroit for Jason Maxiell, 2012 pick unprotected

              ED, 2013 pick to Philadelphia for Nocioni, 2012 pick unprotected

              ED, 2013 pick to Cleveland for Boobie Gibson, 2012 pick unprotected

              ED, 2013 pick to Charlotte for Diaw, 2012 pick unprotected
              Put me in the "no friggin way" category on all those. Unless the Raptors end up drafting the other Davis (Anthony) then he's my long term starter for the Raptors. Davis might very well end up being better than either the 2012 pick they get as well as the 2013 pick they give up. And the Raptors would still be stuck with you-know-who.
              Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
              Follow me on Twitter.

              Comment


              • #97
                malefax wrote: View Post
                A few things:

                Last season, Colangelo may not have been thinking 'tank' before the season started (as we see with the attempt to land Tyson Chandler), but he definitely changed his mind as the season wore on. The team tanked absolutely SHAMELESSLY in April: look at some of the lineups they put out there -- their starters in the last game of the season were Jerryd, DeMar, James, Ed, and Joey Dorsey. Their first guy off the bench was Alexis Ajinca, who played 15 minutes.

                Also: the problem with tanking from the beginning of the season is that it interferes with the development of your young guys. Getting blown out night after night and not feeling like there's a point to playing well leads to bad habits.

                I don't think the Raptors are plausibly going to be in the hunt for a top 5 pick this year. After the top 5, picks level out a lot. I am fine with Bryan signing a short-term deal for a defensive centre, or picking up a solid free agent. There are guys out there in free agency who will help this team more than drafting 5 or 6 spots higher will.
                So you think that Colangelo intentionally hurt Bargnani, Amir, Calderon and Reggie in order to lose more games?

                And let me ask you a question. Would the Heat have done better than they have if they hadn't lost the 25 games they did the season before they drafted Dwyane Wade and instead drafted, say, TJ Ford, who was drafted just 3 spots later?
                Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                Follow me on Twitter.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Nilanka wrote: View Post
                  Just to clarify, tanking does not involve asking your players to "mail it in". Instead, the tanking strategy avoids signing non-impact players, but the players on the court are still expected to compete with full effort. It's much better to be a 22-win team with youth, and cap space, than a 42-win team with vets and expensive, long-term contracts. With the latter, your hands are tied from improving the team.

                  Tanking involves playing the kids heavy minutes. Give the bulk of the minutes to Davis, Amir, Alabi, DeRozan, Bayless, J.Johnson, and see how well they perform without worrying about whether you win the game. Treat this season as a 5 month practice session to fully evaluate what we have.

                  What differentiates great players from superstars is that superstars hate losing even more than they like winning. During a painful season, if for example, DeRozan utterly hates losing, and does everything in his power to earn wins, then he's the type of player I want on this team. In a tanking season, young players are given the forum to develop, and if they sulk and whine, and don't provide effort, then they're not worth holding onto. A player's attitude is just as important (if not, more important) than their physical attributes (see Bargnani).
                  What ive been saying all along....

                  The only thing i dont like about tanking is if there's a player that the Raps can acquire now that they feel could be a part of the long term plan then they should do it. What im not in favor of is tanking just to get a good draft pick, even if it means passing up on potentially good players that could help in the long run.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    tbihis wrote: View Post
                    What ive been saying all along....

                    The only thing i dont like about tanking is if there's a player that the Raps can acquire now that they feel could be a part of the long term plan then they should do it. What im not in favor of is tanking just to get a good draft pick, even if it means passing up on potentially good players that could help in the long run.
                    Even if it inevitably hurts the team in the long run (see example of Dwyane Wade or TJ Ford)? And how much can a 31 year old with a history of injuries and who's been playing in the league since he was a teenager really be considered part of the long term plan?
                    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                    Follow me on Twitter.

                    Comment


                    • Most of the discussion on this thread has been great and quite refreshing! However, the debate about tanking is all about semantics and really has no direct relation to the topic of the thread - maybe a "Tanking" forum topic should be created.

                      I doubt there will ever be universal agreement about tanking, because:
                      - one man's "tanking" is another man's "we're out of the playoffs, so let the kids play and get experience"
                      - one man's "not spending to put the 'best' team on the court immediately" is another man's "strategic planning for next year and beyond"
                      - one man's "make the playoffs at all costs" is another man's "mortgage the future"
                      - one man's "finish as low as possible to have best lottery odds" is another man's "tanking"

                      With the lottery in place, how has tanking (regardless of definition) ever automatically resulted in getting the first/best pick in the next draft, anyway? How many years has the #1 seed actually kept that position? How many years has at least 1 team moved way up from where they finished? So who really cares about tanking anyway, since the lottery balls have all the power at the end of the day, regardless how much $ is spent, who it's spent on, what lineups are on the court, how much effort is assumed/truly given???

                      As a fan, as long as I am presented with a strategic plan from BC & Co, that makes sense for being competitive and getting the young core experience this year, while also planning (cap space, roster spots, draft picks, tradeable assets) ahead, then I could care less about "to tank, or not to tank"!

                      Comment


                      • CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                        Most of the discussion on this thread has been great and quite refreshing! However, the debate about tanking is all about semantics and really has no direct relation to the topic of the thread - maybe a "Tanking" forum topic should be created.

                        I doubt there will ever be universal agreement about tanking, because:
                        - one man's "tanking" is another man's "we're out of the playoffs, so let the kids play and get experience"
                        - one man's "not spending to put the 'best' team on the court immediately" is another man's "strategic planning for next year and beyond"
                        - one man's "make the playoffs at all costs" is another man's "mortgage the future"
                        - one man's "finish as low as possible to have best lottery odds" is another man's "tanking"

                        With the lottery in place, how has tanking (regardless of definition) ever automatically resulted in getting the first/best pick in the next draft, anyway? How many years has the #1 seed actually kept that position? How many years has at least 1 team moved way up from where they finished? So who really cares about tanking anyway, since the lottery balls have all the power at the end of the day, regardless how much $ is spent, who it's spent on, what lineups are on the court, how much effort is assumed/truly given???

                        As a fan, as long as I am presented with a strategic plan from BC & Co, that makes sense for being competitive and getting the young core experience this year, while also planning (cap space, roster spots, draft picks, tradeable assets) ahead, then I could care less about "to tank, or not to tank"!
                        This. The discussion is mostly about your definition of tanking. Tanking is intentional losing. It's cheating, similar to point-shaving. It's impossible to do without the complicity of your players. There's a covenant among competitive players that they won't easily break: they all want to win, and none of them want to look like they're dogging it on purpose.

                        If a team loses a ton of games while still playing the best talent they have, and don't make significant trades to get better because those trades would risk long-term success for some sense of short-term "respectability", then that's not tanking.
                        Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                        Comment


                        • CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                          Most of the discussion on this thread has been great and quite refreshing! However, the debate about tanking is all about semantics and really has no direct relation to the topic of the thread - maybe a "Tanking" forum topic should be created.

                          I doubt there will ever be universal agreement about tanking, because:
                          - one man's "tanking" is another man's "we're out of the playoffs, so let the kids play and get experience"
                          - one man's "not spending to put the 'best' team on the court immediately" is another man's "strategic planning for next year and beyond"
                          - one man's "make the playoffs at all costs" is another man's "mortgage the future"
                          - one man's "finish as low as possible to have best lottery odds" is another man's "tanking"

                          With the lottery in place, how has tanking (regardless of definition) ever automatically resulted in getting the first/best pick in the next draft, anyway? How many years has the #1 seed actually kept that position? How many years has at least 1 team moved way up from where they finished? So who really cares about tanking anyway, since the lottery balls have all the power at the end of the day, regardless how much $ is spent, who it's spent on, what lineups are on the court, how much effort is assumed/truly given???

                          As a fan, as long as I am presented with a strategic plan from BC & Co, that makes sense for being competitive and getting the young core experience this year, while also planning (cap space, roster spots, draft picks, tradeable assets) ahead, then I could care less about "to tank, or not to tank"!
                          First of all, I like how you argue against talking about tanking, and then give your opinion on that exact argument right after that. Confuse your opponent. Excellent!!

                          Anyway, no one is saying that the Raptors should aim for last place. But the fact of the matter is that the lower your finish the better chance you have of getting a top three position in the draft. And in this draft, the difference between a top 3 potion and, say, drafting 7th could be the difference between, for example, Kevin Durant and Corey Brewer. That's why I simply don't understand the opposing view on this argument. No matter how you look at it, no players you could get possibly get this offseason will make anywhere near as much of an impact on the franchise as a Kevin Durant or Derrick Rose could. And while it's no guarantee you'll end up with one, this draft looks like it might have 3 or 4 of them and the more games you lose the more chances you end up drafting one of them.
                          Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                          Follow me on Twitter.

                          Comment


                          • jimmie wrote: View Post
                            This. The discussion is mostly about your definition of tanking. Tanking is intentional losing. It's cheating, similar to point-shaving. It's impossible to do without the complicity of your players. There's a covenant among competitive players that they won't easily break: they all want to win, and none of them want to look like they're dogging it on purpose.

                            If a team loses a ton of games while still playing the best talent they have, and don't make significant trades to get better because those trades would risk long-term success for some sense of short-term "respectability", then that's not tanking.

                            This is the last thing I'll say about tanking, since I'm stepping on my own point about straying off topic (at least it's not to become a Bargnani thread, right??? lol)

                            IMO, a GM's job is to balance the short and long term improvement of the team, with the goal of ultimately winning a championship and maintaining that level of competitiveness.

                            Having said that, I don't understand the argument that says "if you don't make moves to make your team the best it can be this year, it's tanking". For example, I would argue that man-to-man this season, Rashard Lewis is a better SF than James Johnson and Gilbert Arenas is a better PG thatn Jeryd Bayless. By the definition of tanking that some people are using, BC is "tanking" this season if he doesn't acquire those players to upgrade the roster. If the Raptors used any combo of TPE/amnesty/cap space to get Arenas & Lewis, would any Raptor fan think they were wise roster moves? I think that would be stupid and shortsighted, so I can't possibly understand the argument that BC would be causing his team to "tank" by not making those moves. If the Heat offered LeBron James for Linas Kleiza, and BC said no, then I could view that as "tanking".

                            I guess the real issue I have is black & white statements supporting a particular definition of what constitutes "tanking". It is such a gray area.

                            Comment


                            • Tim W. wrote: View Post
                              First of all, I like how you argue against talking about tanking, and then give your opinion on that exact argument right after that. Confuse your opponent. Excellent!!
                              Damn, you beat me to it! I realized that after I posted it! haha


                              To get back on topic, I agree with Matt's post awhile ago, which supported signing Chandler. I would take it one step further and say that the ideal signing would be for 2 seasons with a team/mutual option for a third.

                              - not only does it improve the Raps this year (on paper), but it would give the opportunity for a final evaluation of Bargnani @ PF playing aside a legit defensive/rebounding C
                              - it would also give Valanciunas an ideal mentor for his first and possibly second season in the league
                              - it would also seem to instantly make Amir trade bait (assuming Bargnani stays for the whole purpose of this experiement and hoping Davis is not the bait), which should net another asset (young player, draft pick or cap space)
                              - keeping with the youth movement and trying the Chandler/Bargnani with Alabi/Davis as backups experiment, is not likely going to improve the Raps enough in the upcoming shortened season to significantly negatively impact their seemingly favourable 2012 draft standing

                              Best case:
                              - Chandler becomes the Raps' defensive anchor, allows Bargnani to blossom as PF, Davis makes great strides in his development from significant minutes as 3rd big, an asset is returned for Amir, Raps still get at least top-7 pick in the 2012 draft, Chandler is traded at trade deadline of his second season for another asset or walks after his second season to free up cap space, Valanciunas comes over for 2013 season and assumes Chandler's position/role on the team and exceeds all expectations while moving into the starting lineup by the second half of the season

                              Worst case:
                              - Chandler rests on his laurels and becomes Turkoglu 2.0, Bargnani experiment fails and he shows zero improvement or regresses, Davis gets traded and becomes a two-way star for another team, Amir's body breaks down and becomes overpaid overvalued backup, trade value of Chandler, Bargnani and Amir all nosedive, combination of just enough improvement to miss the playoffs and getting screwed by lottery balls leaves the Raps with 12-15 pick in 2012 draft, Valancuinuas comes over and is expected to become team's savior immediately without a mentor and with an even worse supporting cast
                              Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Thu Dec 1, 2011, 06:39 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Tim W. wrote: View Post
                                Put me in the "no friggin way" category on all those. Unless the Raptors end up drafting the other Davis (Anthony) then he's my long term starter for the Raptors. Davis might very well end up being better than either the 2012 pick they get as well as the 2013 pick they give up. And the Raptors would still be stuck with you-know-who.
                                Ed Davis had a good rookie year but the reality is he averaged 7/7 on a sh!t team. Down the stretch he averaged 10/8. He is going to be a good player but I do not think All-Star.

                                The whole topic of discussion has been how deep the 2012 draft is. If adding Chandler is only going to add 10 wins (82 game season talk) then the Raptors are still picking 7-10 range. Then the Detroit/Charlotte/Cleveland pick is sure to be lottery as well... to be honest I am honest on the Philly trade because I think they could make the playoffs again. Having 2 lottery picks in a stacked draft would be a good thing, no?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X