Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Integrity Conundrum

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

  • #16
    I don't think MU likes to be obvious with his motives. His catch phrase of 'I don't want to be stuck in no man's land' has struck a cord for a lot of the tank/anti-tank debate because what does that phrase really mean?

    To a tanker it means blowing it up.. but to an anti-tanker it probably means getting flexibility and assets to help strengthen the core to get to the next level (aka Indiana type build).

    The crux is that Lowry apparently was a go to NY but Dolan nixed it. So why would MU want to trade their best PG for a really late first round pick if he didn't want to tank? At this point they have rattled off a few wins but I don't think MU looks at the last 4-5 games and has suddenly changed course.

    The fact is that Lowry may not come back. If they extend him he'd have to go for a 3 year contract instead of 4 with his salary arguably being higher. So would it be wise to see an asset walk away? If he waits until the deadline then they may rattle enough wins that those losses that start piling up could get them in no man's land (ie, just out of the playoffs with a weak lottery pick).

    So if he trades Lowry sooner than later I don't think it creates a conundrum. Because he's into asset management. And getting an asset for a player that might not come back is a wise move tank or no-tank.

    If the team some how plays well without Lowry well what can you do? MU at that point I'm sure will keep the core in tact (better to keep then to trade for pennies on the dollar) and if they make the playoffs will work with whatever he has in the draft. But personally I would be surprised if Lowry is still with Toronto by the deadline.

    Comment


    • #17
      planetmars wrote: View Post
      I don't think MU likes to be obvious with his motives. His catch phrase of 'I don't want to be stuck in no man's land' has struck a cord for a lot of the tank/anti-tank debate because what does that phrase really mean?

      To a tanker it means blowing it up.. but to an anti-tanker it probably means getting flexibility and assets to help strengthen the core to get to the next level (aka Indiana type build).

      The crux is that Lowry apparently was a go to NY but Dolan nixed it. So why would MU want to trade their best PG for a really late first round pick if he didn't want to tank? At this point they have rattled off a few wins but I don't think MU looks at the last 4-5 games and has suddenly changed course.

      The fact is that Lowry may not come back. If they extend him he'd have to go for a 3 year contract instead of 4 with his salary arguably being higher. So would it be wise to see an asset walk away? If he waits until the deadline then they may rattle enough wins that those losses that start piling up could get them in no man's land (ie, just out of the playoffs with a weak lottery pick).

      So if he trades Lowry sooner than later I don't think it creates a conundrum. Because he's into asset management. And getting an asset for a player that might not come back is a wise move tank or no-tank.

      If the team some how plays well without Lowry well what can you do? MU at that point I'm sure will keep the core in tact (better to keep then to trade for pennies on the dollar) and if they make the playoffs will work with whatever he has in the draft. But personally I would be surprised if Lowry is still with Toronto by the deadline.
      BOLD: I don't think moving Lowry to NYK was about tanking. Again, it was about collecting assets, and in that trade scenario I really think the key was Tim H Jr., not the pick. Due to Lowry's contract situation, moving him is definitely a possibility and probably a priority for MU. But he isn't gonna trade guys away just to rack up losses. He's got to get some value in return. It should be easy to trade some of these guys for pennies on the dollar, but MU doesn't want to hamstring the rebuild by simply trading assets to improve draft position. He wants assets back as well, because as the Rudy trade has shown, and like you mentioned, the team may somehow continue to play well after a trade that seemingly reduces the talent level. He isn't gonna put all his eggs in one basket.

      Comment


      • #18
        Matt52 wrote: View Post
        Was at a wedding last night.

        Not a lot of hardcore Raptor/basketball fans - I think the label 'casual fan' is appropriate.

        General consensus (and believe it or not, I bit my tongue and left my own opinions out) was Raptors are a joke; can't win when they are suppose to, can't lose when it is for the best long term interests of franchise. A lot of Wiggins talk, again casual fans. Only thing I said was there are a lot of good players at the top besides Wiggins.

        Anyways..........
        This has been the same talk for past 4 years under the BC era but he did enjoy the support of RR all those years and people actually bought into his BS. This is the same thing. People falling in love with a team that just beat struggling NY with one of the worst records in the league , without Felton and Carmelo What a achievement, it is a sign of greatness.

        Comment


        • #19
          JawsGT wrote: View Post
          BOLD: I don't think moving Lowry to NYK was about tanking. Again, it was about collecting assets, and in that trade scenario I really think the key was Tim H Jr., not the pick. Due to Lowry's contract situation, moving him is definitely a possibility and probably a priority for MU. But he isn't gonna trade guys away just to rack up losses. He's got to get some value in return. It should be easy to trade some of these guys for pennies on the dollar, but MU doesn't want to hamstring the rebuild by simply trading assets to improve draft position. He wants assets back as well, because as the Rudy trade has shown, and like you mentioned, the team may somehow continue to play well after a trade that seemingly reduces the talent level. He isn't gonna put all his eggs in one basket.
          Im not sure why people are so allergic to admitting that certain moves are to tank. You use a bunch of flowery words, but to suggest that trading Lowry for THJr and a 2018 pick isnt to try to tank (which btw is basically defined as losing more now in order to improve your long term position) - is flat out wrong. This team would be undeniably worse without KL. Not even debateable.

          Im not sure why people feel more comfortable calling it "collecting assets" or whatever else ... but call it what you want, its tanking. Tanking doesnt mean being stupid and taking crap back for your assets - of course you should get as much value back as possible. It means making a conscious effort to sacrifice short term wins for long term hope.

          The Rudy trade was also meant to tank ... maybe not as obvious as KL as there may be a slight argument for addition by subtraction (it appears to be the case so far) - but how you can argue that KL to NYK for THJr doesnt make us worse is beyond me

          Comment


          • #20
            mountio wrote: View Post
            Im not sure why people are so allergic to admitting that certain moves are to tank. You use a bunch of flowery words, but to suggest that trading Lowry for THJr and a 2018 pick isnt to try to tank (which btw is basically defined as losing more now in order to improve your long term position) - is flat out wrong. This team would be undeniably worse without KL. Not even debateable.

            Im not sure why people feel more comfortable calling it "collecting assets" or whatever else ... but call it what you want, its tanking. Tanking doesnt mean being stupid and taking crap back for your assets - of course you should get as much value back as possible. It means making a conscious effort to sacrifice short term wins for long term hope.

            The Rudy trade was also meant to tank ... maybe not as obvious as KL as there may be a slight argument for addition by subtraction (it appears to be the case so far) - but how you can argue that KL to NYK for THJr doesnt make us worse is beyond me
            An even better explanation, in my opinion:

            There is a lot of confusion about tanking. It does not mean that a coach tries to lose and that the players try to lose. It means that all personnel decisions are made with an eye to the future, and nothing is done to enhance the immediate prospects of the team. Good veterans who will not be around in two or three or four years have no role to play so they get traded or benched. A team plays young and inexperienced guys who will likely lose, even trying as hard as they can to win. But if the team does ever contend, these are the players who will be on that team. The coach will work hard to install his system and teach the players to play properly; he is not trying to allow bad habits to form. This was how the Celtics tanked in 2007, after Pierce went down with his injury. As one who watched nearly every Celtics game that year, I can state that it was an entertaining team.

            http://www1.realgm.com/article/23109...ssible-Mission

            Comment


            • #21
              lol the title of this thread sounds like an episode of big bang theory.

              Comment


              • #22
                akashsingh wrote: View Post
                lol the title of this thread sounds like an episode of big bang theory.
                I like wording

                Comment


                • #23
                  mountio wrote: View Post
                  The Rudy trade was also meant to tank ... maybe not as obvious as KL as there may be a slight argument for addition by subtraction (it appears to be the case so far) - but how you can argue that KL to NYK for THJr doesnt make us worse is beyond me
                  Disagree on the Rudy trade being tank
                  - $19MM contract gone - that is a flexibility move - either to accept crappy contracts for future assets(tanking) or go onto the FA market for that great piece(rebuilding)
                  - More importantly, Rudy was damaging the other team members' values - JV and TRoss not being developed; Lowry not being show-cased; Dead offence

                  Agree on KL trade being tanking; the Raptor winning landscape with a possible Vasquez/Fenton PG set is pretty bleak.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    mountio wrote: View Post
                    Im not sure why people are so allergic to admitting that certain moves are to tank. You use a bunch of flowery words, but to suggest that trading Lowry for THJr and a 2018 pick isnt to try to tank (which btw is basically defined as losing more now in order to improve your long term position) - is flat out wrong. This team would be undeniably worse without KL. Not even debateable.

                    Im not sure why people feel more comfortable calling it "collecting assets" or whatever else ... but call it what you want, its tanking. Tanking doesnt mean being stupid and taking crap back for your assets - of course you should get as much value back as possible. It means making a conscious effort to sacrifice short term wins for long term hope.

                    The Rudy trade was also meant to tank ... maybe not as obvious as KL as there may be a slight argument for addition by subtraction (it appears to be the case so far) - but how you can argue that KL to NYK for THJr doesnt make us worse is beyond me
                    The Rudy Gay trade if intended to tank backfired as far as wins and losses go.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      GoingBig wrote: View Post
                      Disagree on the Rudy trade being tank
                      - $19MM contract gone - that is a flexibility move - either to accept crappy contracts for future assets(tanking) or go onto the FA market for that great piece(rebuilding)
                      - More importantly, Rudy was damaging the other team members' values - JV and TRoss not being developed; Lowry not being show-cased; Dead offence

                      Agree on KL trade being tanking; the Raptor winning landscape with a possible Vasquez/Fenton PG set is pretty bleak.
                      agree - as I noted, its a little more debatable. However, without the benefit of hindsight, I would guess that almost every person would have said that the Kings got the better players out of that deal. Ie on the court, Gay+Acy>GV+2Pat+Salmons

                      As result, the point of the trade was to improve long term (as you say, through losses, FAs, whatever, while sacrificing short term results. In my mind - thats a step towards tanking. It obviously has great flexibility benefits too.

                      Now, as it turns out, its let better players (Ross, JV) get shots ahead of RG, so a net positive to the team. But, I would say thats a collateral benefit, as opposed to the intention of the trade.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Integrity. Something one has to throw out the window to tank, given what assets the raps had before the season, and even a bigger issue now. How does MU maintain credibility to the season ticket holders, not a few hundred diehard tankers on here, if he breaks up what is going on now, to chase draft lottery fantasies? He'd need one hell of a haul. Is one available? Unlikely, but he does seem to have some magic up his sleeves.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          mountio wrote: View Post
                          Im not sure why people are so allergic to admitting that certain moves are to tank. You use a bunch of flowery words, but to suggest that trading Lowry for THJr and a 2018 pick isnt to try to tank (which btw is basically defined as losing more now in order to improve your long term position) - is flat out wrong. This team would be undeniably worse without KL. Not even debateable.

                          Im not sure why people feel more comfortable calling it "collecting assets" or whatever else ... but call it what you want, its tanking. Tanking doesnt mean being stupid and taking crap back for your assets - of course you should get as much value back as possible. It means making a conscious effort to sacrifice short term wins for long term hope.

                          The Rudy trade was also meant to tank ... maybe not as obvious as KL as there may be a slight argument for addition by subtraction (it appears to be the case so far) - but how you can argue that KL to NYK for THJr doesnt make us worse is beyond me
                          Here's the way I see it. Lowry is an expiring asset. So, MU has three options here. 1. Ride out the season and let him walk. 2. Trade him this season. 3. Offer him a contract extension this offseason. Let's assume MU is not a total dumbass and as such #1 is not an option. So lets consider #3. Maybe MU does not want Lowry to be the PG of the future, or maybe he thinks Lowry has no intentions of being the Raps PG of the future. So, we are left with option #2. MU is almost in a situation where he HAS to trade Lowry, but MU being a smart GM, isn't going to do that for nothing. He looks around the league and he knows that a decent deal for Lowry will present itself because there are teams that need a decent PG. So he is more concerned with trading Lowry and getting a return on that trade than he is with descending in the standings. If MU wanted to trade Lowry to tank, I think it would have been done already, as every game that goes by with this guy in the lineup decreases our chance of a lottery pick.

                          And thats why trading Lowry isn't necessarily to support a tank job. If the team does get worse, and we do end up in the lottery well thats just a bonus really. What MU wants is value for the moves he makes...this guy isn't getting fleeced on any trade.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            JawsGT wrote: View Post
                            Here's the way I see it. Lowry is an expiring asset. So, MU has three options here. 1. Ride out the season and let him walk. 2. Trade him this season. 3. Offer him a contract extension this offseason. Let's assume MU is not a total dumbass and as such #1 is not an option. So lets consider #3. Maybe MU does not want Lowry to be the PG of the future, or maybe he thinks Lowry has no intentions of being the Raps PG of the future. So, we are left with option #2. MU is almost in a situation where he HAS to trade Lowry, but MU being a smart GM, isn't going to do that for nothing. He looks around the league and he knows that a decent deal for Lowry will present itself because there are teams that need a decent PG. So he is more concerned with trading Lowry and getting a return on that trade than he is with descending in the standings. If MU wanted to trade Lowry to tank, I think it would have been done already, as every game that goes by with this guy in the lineup decreases our chance of a lottery pick.

                            And thats why trading Lowry isn't necessarily to support a tank job. If the team does get worse, and we do end up in the lottery well thats just a bonus really. What MU wants is value for the moves he makes...this guy isn't getting fleeced on any trade.
                            Agree - except that if you truely werent tanking (ie were trying to win THIS YEAR), you would either keep him, or trade him for someone who is locked up for a few years and can contribute to this team now. THJr and a 2018 pick dont qualify.

                            Again, I totally agree that MU knows what hes doing and isnt going to get fleeced, but its ok to admit that he likely has an eye on the future more than on this year (which frankly, he should!)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              mountio wrote: View Post
                              Agree - except that if you truely werent tanking (ie were trying to win THIS YEAR), you would either keep him, or trade him for someone who is locked up for a few years and can contribute to this team now. THJr and a 2018 pick dont qualify.

                              Again, I totally agree that MU knows what hes doing and isnt going to get fleeced, but its ok to admit that he likely has an eye on the future more than on this year (which frankly, he should!)
                              At this point, we have to trust he has his eye on the future, but you seem to be locked onto a leap that if he isn't tanking, the only other possibility is that he must be shooting for the moon. If he doesn't unload Lowry any time soon, that doesn't mean he's looking only at short term and wants a vet to "contend" in the playoffs. All we really know about MU, besides history, is:
                              - he's signed for 5 years
                              - he's committed to not being a treadmill team. rather he's targeting championship contention
                              - he moved AB and his contract for a deal none of us would have imagined. A deal that made the team better both long and short term.
                              - he said he was in the process of evaluating before making any big decisions
                              - he moved decisively, and negotiated a sweet deal , under the circumstances, to rid the team of Gay and his contract, ultimately making the team better, long and short term
                              - Lowry rumours,,,,,,, need I really have to suggest to be taken with a grain of salt?

                              How about considering that he didn't have a carved in stone plan when the season started, which is what he said, and he still doesn't. That would include playoff aspirations or blow it up options. If he's a smart man, something I think most here would concede to so far, he's been doing his job and knows very well what GMs are interested in getting which of his players, and what players they want to move. We don't. These guys talk all the time, and much more that what leaks to, or is guessed by, the media.

                              We don't know any of that shit, but we do know that he may be facing quite the conundrum, as the thread title suggests. If he truly had sights set on moving Lowry, he may feel he faces quite the conundrum right now, with how the team has been playing, and with how Lowry has been playing. On the other hand, maybe he's been talking with Kyle and/or his agent, and maybe both sides think they may be able to work out an equitable deal after the playing is done this season, and his brain now is inputting Kyle's, and the team's, recent play into account.

                              We know shit about the realities that MU faces in his job right now. Certainly not enough to judge what he's not doing.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                JawsGT wrote: View Post
                                Here's the way I see it. Lowry is an expiring asset. So, MU has three options here. 1. Ride out the season and let him walk. 2. Trade him this season. 3. Offer him a contract extension this offseason. Let's assume MU is not a total dumbass and as such #1 is not an option. So lets consider #3. Maybe MU does not want Lowry to be the PG of the future, or maybe he thinks Lowry has no intentions of being the Raps PG of the future. So, we are left with option #2. MU is almost in a situation where he HAS to trade Lowry, but MU being a smart GM, isn't going to do that for nothing. He looks around the league and he knows that a decent deal for Lowry will present itself because there are teams that need a decent PG. So he is more concerned with trading Lowry and getting a return on that trade than he is with descending in the standings. If MU wanted to trade Lowry to tank, I think it would have been done already, as every game that goes by with this guy in the lineup decreases our chance of a lottery pick.

                                And thats why trading Lowry isn't necessarily to support a tank job. If the team does get worse, and we do end up in the lottery well thats just a bonus really. What MU wants is value for the moves he makes...this guy isn't getting fleeced on any trade.
                                There is a 4th option, which is to keep Lowry throughout the season, followed by a S&T in the offseason. There's obviously risked and unknowns involved with this option as well, so I don't think it's a top option.

                                Given MU's track record, I really don't see him letting Lowry walk for nothing.

                                A S&T deal in the offseason for something less than the Knicks offer (who knows what other offers have been proposed), would seem like a failure, so I really don't see this as a great option for MU.

                                I agree that the re-signing option seems unlikely, for various possible reasons. If MU wanted Lowry back and Lowry wanted to be back, there's no way MU would be shopping Lowry as aggressively as he apparently is. Even if they were waiting for the offseason to finalize the deal, you'd think the two sides would at least be talking throughout the season and would be on the same page come the trade deadline at least. I have to think that at least one side doesn't want Lowry on the Raptors next season.

                                Therefore, I agree that a trade seems almost inevitable, given the other potential options. Of course, MU will not let on how desperate the situation is (especially if Lowry's agent has made it clear that Lowry doesn't want to re-sign with Toronto), in order to maintain his leverage in negotiations. I would be shocked if Lowry is still a Raptor come the trade deadline, unless MU believes he can use him as a S&T chip in the offseason.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X