Are we the next superteam? - Page 3
Old 05-17-2013, 02:15 PM   #41 (permalink)
.

Senior Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,492
Representing:
Default

Once we get Carl Landry there is no way we won't be a 50 win team. The rest is just garnish!
carp is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:16 PM   #42 (permalink)
.

Senior Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,492
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KoolAid View Post
How long are rookie deals usually?
Lottery picks usually get three with a team option for a fourth.
carp is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:16 PM   #43 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,792
Representing:
Default

by 'peanuts', I think he meant that the Grizzlies got ZBO without giving anything of value in the trade. It was like some team trading for Bargnani and he becomes Dirk.
woodchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:18 PM   #44 (permalink)
.

Senior Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,492
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodchuck View Post
by 'peanuts', I think he meant that the Grizzlies got ZBO without giving anything of value in the trade. It was like some team trading for Bargnani and he becomes Dirk.
sounds like a genius play! Who wouldn't want to grab a Dirk?
carp is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:19 PM   #45 (permalink)
La Decima!!!!!

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 7,223
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KoolAid View Post
How long are rookie deals usually?
2 years guaranteed. then the 3rd and 4th years are team options. then there is the asterisk of the Qualifying Offer for the 5th year.
LET'S GO RAPTORS!!!!! is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:20 PM   #46 (permalink)
La Decima!!!!!

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 7,223
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
sounds like a genius play! Who wouldn't want to grab a Dirk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFcqGGMPc3k
LET'S GO RAPTORS!!!!! is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:10 PM   #47 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,871
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moremilk View Post
except the discussion was about emulating the way Memphis built the team.
Not exactly, because in LX's post to which you responded, he pointed out that we almost played as well as the last superteam. And the current roster we have was actually competitive against the better teams in the league.

So, when I say follow the post 2009 process of the Grizz, I'm saying we have some good pieces, like that team did, and now we just have to bulid around the ones most important to winning. We don't have to blow shit up.

Quote:
The fact that they are a great defensive team is not a result of a planned approach, you don't trade for Zach Randolph, draft oj mayo or ship kyle lowry when defense is top of mind. They just got lucky with Gasol turning so great and having an impact on the rest of the team.
Sure, they did have some luck with Gasol. Of course. But that's similar to our situation with JV. That's why I'm not comparing to pre-2009, but rather post 2009. We both have our young center. We don't need to emulate anybody in terms of finding a center.

As for Randolph, that was my point about Boozer. We might not be able to steal an all-star PF from a team, but if you can make a low risk upgrade to the roster, those are moves you do. Bargnani is massive deadweight. The Win-loss record last year during the pre and post Rudy trade with Bargnani in the lineup is frustrating as hell. We are much better without him, so obtaining any talent, like Boozer, could be a huge upgrade for the team.

Quote:
I would love to snatch allen, even though he's getting old, he probably has a couple more elite defensive years in him. But again, if the solution to our problem is to emulate the Memphis model by using the MLE on a defensive player, I think you are wrong ...
I said get "smart role players, who have immense value". Memphis got a defensive stopper, for us it might be necessary to use the MLE on a solid, smart back-up PG. Either way, you want smart players with high value, not the bullshit we've signed in past years.


Quote:
the team as it is now was built almost entirely pre-2009. The only major piece added after that was tony allen. The reason they are good is first and foremost the emergence of Gasol and Conley and Randolph turning from a no-defense nutcase into an all-star player who is keeping out of the headlines.
Okay, again, we don't need to blow things up. I think we're seeing this differently because you're assuming LX meant build from scratch, whereas I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he would not think we have to ditch everyone when we clearly have a at least a few players with promise. So, I chose post-2009 because they evaluated on a case-by-case basis, kept some guys, like Gasol and Conley, let others go, like Mayo, and made tweaks. We're closer to that area than the pre-2009 area.

Quote:
actually, he had 2 years at 16+/yr on his contract, so that's hardly peanuts. That was perceived as a bad contract at the time and people didn't think NY would be able to shed it.
Actually, he was traded from the Clippers to Memphis. NY had little trouble shedding it. I brought up Zeke because that's where Randoph's rep started to take a major nose dive.

Quote:
Randolph not only has defensive sieve, but he also had attitude and all sorts of other issues - no serious NBA team would have touched him at the time. It was a massive gamble.
Based on how you're describing things, it sounds like Boozer is an even better deal for us than Randolph was for the Grizz at the time of the trade!

It's peanuts because of what they were giving up at the time (Quentin Richardson and his $9 mill contract) and due to the youth and rookie contracts of the Grizz team, the cap space didn't matter that much at the time, because it wasn't going to prevent them from resigning anybody, and none of the big name free agents were going to go there in the near future.

Similarly, trading Bargnani's deadweight for Boozer would have little impact on our finances during the course of Boozer's contract, because we're pretty much capped out with other contracts. The only way it becomes a problem that worries me is if the ownership is unwilling to use the MLE.

Quote:
Anyway, the whole reason I opened the discussion was to re-emphasize the fact that the reason Memphis/SA/Indiana are successful is they got some really good players through the draft (Gasol wasn't really drafted, but was brought it as a prospect in Pau's trade). It's not "culture", it's having great players that make you a good team. And good players don't go anywhere because of "culture", they just go where there already are good players or where they can make the most money (and I don't really want this type of player on my team). And, while possible to get some hidden gems in mid-lottery or later, the best chance to get quality is in the top 5 and that's where you need to be for 2-3 years in order to build a team. It's not foolproof obviously, but it's the SUREST method and the only one that can be considered proven.

Okay. Fair enough. And prior to watching the Bulls have success while missing so many players, or Indiana emerge without top picks..etc..I might have made the same argument. Heck, a couple of years ago, I probably did. But today's NBA clearly rewards teams that play hard as fuck and D up. Even GS had a culture change. Increasingly, it looks like you need a sufficient level of talent or athleticism or physical positives (height or lenght and shit like that) and then, after that, what makes you improve 10+ wins is playing hard as fuck and D'ing up.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:10 PM   #48 (permalink)
whatever

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 9,301
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodchuck View Post
by 'peanuts', I think he meant that the Grizzlies got ZBO without giving anything of value in the trade. It was like some team trading for Bargnani and he becomes Dirk.
and that's exactly my point - I actually meant to make that comparison, but didn't want to mention the B word, that would surely derail the conversation

To me, the Z-Bo trade is like gambling on Bargnani and deciding to keep him if we had an opportunity to trade him for some useful asset. Z-Bo was always super talented, but he was lazy and nobody thought he'll ever become a reliable player - and look at him now. Could happen to Bargnani too, maybe we should follow Memphis and gamble on that
moremilk is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:15 PM   #49 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,871
Representing:
Default

Except that Z-BO had three 20/10 seasons before coming to Memphis. Hardly lazy. Dumb? Yes. At times. But on court production was not the main issue.

Bargnani only looked like an all-star for 13 games. So, no, it's not similar in my opinion..
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:33 PM   #50 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,792
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck View Post
Except that Z-BO had three 20/10 seasons before coming to Memphis. Hardly lazy. Dumb? Yes. At times. But on court production was not the main issue.

Bargnani only looked like an all-star for 13 games. So, no, it's not similar in my opinion..
well, he was lazier. his ambition was to be a 20-10 player and i think he even said something like it a few times. he didn't try too hard to get offensive boards, didn't try at all on defense, took a bunch of lazy jumpers where now gets his team a bunch of extra hustle points and in general works hard to get higher % points.
woodchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:35 PM   #51 (permalink)
La Decima!!!!!

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 7,223
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck View Post
Except that Z-BO had three 20/10 seasons before coming to Memphis. Hardly lazy. Dumb? Yes. At times. But on court production was not the main issue.

Bargnani only looked like an all-star for 13 games. So, no, it's not similar in my opinion..
Well said. There's a difference between attitude + lack of on court production and attitude and actual on court production.
LET'S GO RAPTORS!!!!! is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:04 PM   #52 (permalink)
whatever

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 9,301
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodchuck View Post
well, he was lazier. his ambition was to be a 20-10 player and i think he even said something like it a few times. he didn't try too hard to get offensive boards, didn't try at all on defense, took a bunch of lazy jumpers where now gets his team a bunch of extra hustle points and in general works hard to get higher % points.
and Bargnani had a few 20/6 seasons, which, considering he made only 60% of randolph's salary, is fairly equivalent imo.
moremilk is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:11 PM   #53 (permalink)
whatever

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 9,301
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck View Post
Not exactly, because in LX's post to which you responded, he pointed out that we almost played as well as the last superteam. And the current roster we have was actually competitive against the better teams in the league.

So, when I say follow the post 2009 process of the Grizz, I'm saying we have some good pieces, like that team did, and now we just have to bulid around the ones most important to winning. We don't have to blow shit up.



Sure, they did have some luck with Gasol. Of course. But that's similar to our situation with JV. That's why I'm not comparing to pre-2009, but rather post 2009. We both have our young center. We don't need to emulate anybody in terms of finding a center.

As for Randolph, that was my point about Boozer. We might not be able to steal an all-star PF from a team, but if you can make a low risk upgrade to the roster, those are moves you do. Bargnani is massive deadweight. The Win-loss record last year during the pre and post Rudy trade with Bargnani in the lineup is frustrating as hell. We are much better without him, so obtaining any talent, like Boozer, could be a huge upgrade for the team.



I said get "smart role players, who have immense value". Memphis got a defensive stopper, for us it might be necessary to use the MLE on a solid, smart back-up PG. Either way, you want smart players with high value, not the bullshit we've signed in past years.




Okay, again, we don't need to blow things up. I think we're seeing this differently because you're assuming LX meant build from scratch, whereas I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he would not think we have to ditch everyone when we clearly have a at least a few players with promise. So, I chose post-2009 because they evaluated on a case-by-case basis, kept some guys, like Gasol and Conley, let others go, like Mayo, and made tweaks. We're closer to that area than the pre-2009 area.



Actually, he was traded from the Clippers to Memphis. NY had little trouble shedding it. I brought up Zeke because that's where Randoph's rep started to take a major nose dive.



Based on how you're describing things, it sounds like Boozer is an even better deal for us than Randolph was for the Grizz at the time of the trade!

It's peanuts because of what they were giving up at the time (Quentin Richardson and his $9 mill contract) and due to the youth and rookie contracts of the Grizz team, the cap space didn't matter that much at the time, because it wasn't going to prevent them from resigning anybody, and none of the big name free agents were going to go there in the near future.

Similarly, trading Bargnani's deadweight for Boozer would have little impact on our finances during the course of Boozer's contract, because we're pretty much capped out with other contracts. The only way it becomes a problem that worries me is if the ownership is unwilling to use the MLE.




Okay. Fair enough. And prior to watching the Bulls have success while missing so many players, or Indiana emerge without top picks..etc..I might have made the same argument. Heck, a couple of years ago, I probably did. But today's NBA clearly rewards teams that play hard as fuck and D up. Even GS had a culture change. Increasingly, it looks like you need a sufficient level of talent or athleticism or physical positives (height or lenght and shit like that) and then, after that, what makes you improve 10+ wins is playing hard as fuck and D'ing up.
to keep things short, I just don't see the logic in emulating a team who messed up 4 draft picks and made mostly trades that defy common sense. People here go crazy on colangelo for messing up ONE draft pick and making maybe 3 or 4 questionable trades/signings. Imagine if Colangelo drafted thabeet, mayo and henry in 3 consecutive years . Yes, they got a few things right, but compared to the rest of the league, they mostly screwed up. It just goes to show that luck is still a huge part in building a team, you only need to look at Portland and Memphis. One team did everything right and ended up in lottery, the other did almost everything wrong and ended up in the conference finals.

And (as a side note), imo GSW was so good this year because they had a full season of curry playing like an all-star, a good rookie season from barnes and strong bench production from landry and jack + a fairly healty bogut - basically 5 new players - compared to last year's team.
moremilk is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:12 PM   #54 (permalink)
is all bout dat life

Can't knock the Hustle
 
Nites's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,229
Representing:
Default

We should sign T-Mac as a locker room guy.
Nites is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:14 PM   #55 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,871
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moremilk View Post
and Bargnani had a few 20/6 seasons.
No, he didn't.

He scored 21 one year, but only had 5 boards. That's horriawful. 5 fucking boards.

His next highest season was 19, and again he didn't even manage 6 boards. He also only played 30 games, and shot a pathetic 43% from the field.

The guy is just deadweight. He has no significant sample of playing at a level comparable to 20/10, or even close to it. Boozer does. Neither of our examples is exactly similar or ideal, but mine is much closer to the point about giving up a player who is not going to help your roster much (Quentin Richarson or Bargnani) and getting back a player that can impact the game - Boozer.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:17 PM   #56 (permalink)
La Decima!!!!!

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 7,223
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck View Post
No, he didn't.

He scored 21 one year, but only had 5 boards. That's horriawful. 5 fucking boards.

His next highest season was 19, and again he didn't even manage 6 boards. He also only played 30 games, and shot a pathetic 43% from the field.

The guy is just deadweight. He has no significant sample of playing at a level comparable to 20/10, or even close to it. Boozer does. Neither of our examples is exactly similar or ideal, but mine is much closer to the point about giving up a player who is not going to help your roster much (Quentin Richarson or Bargnani) and getting back a player that can impact the game - Boozer.
Well said.
LET'S GO RAPTORS!!!!! is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:21 PM   #57 (permalink)
whatever

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 9,301
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck View Post
No, he didn't.

He scored 21 one year, but only had 5 boards. That's horriawful. 5 fucking boards.

His next highest season was 19, and again he didn't even manage 6 boards. He also only played 30 games, and shot a pathetic 43% from the field.

The guy is just deadweight. He has no significant sample of playing at a level comparable to 20/10, or even close to it. Boozer does. Neither of our examples is exactly similar or ideal, but mine is much closer to the point about giving up a player who is not going to help your roster much (Quentin Richarson or Bargnani) and getting back a player that can impact the game - Boozer.
ok, so from 2009 to 2011 he averaged (over the 3 seasons) 19.7 / 5.7, I'd say that's close enough to 20/6. And he makes 11 million, which is about 65% of randolph salary at the time (both with 2 years left). And Randolph played on 4 teams in the 3 years before getting to Memphis - not quite a ringing endorsement
moremilk is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:23 PM   #58 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,871
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moremilk View Post
to keep things short, I just don't see the logic in emulating a team who messed up 4 draft picks and made mostly trades that defy common sense.
To be fair, if we were talking about a total rebuild from scratch, I'd have no objection to that, because it would be a totally different timeline.

Quote:
And (as a side note), imo GSW was so good this year because they had a full season of curry playing like an all-star, a good rookie season from barnes and strong bench production from landry and jack + a fairly healty bogut - basically 5 new players - compared to last year's team.
True. But the style of play was different than what GS employed in recent years. That's my point. They played harder and were more responsible on defense. They finished in the top half othe league in defensive rating, which was a huge improvement, given that the previous 4 years they were in the bottom 5 in the league each season.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:23 PM   #59 (permalink)
whatever

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 9,301
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck View Post
No, he didn't.

He scored 21 one year, but only had 5 boards. That's horriawful. 5 fucking boards.

His next highest season was 19, and again he didn't even manage 6 boards. He also only played 30 games, and shot a pathetic 43% from the field.

The guy is just deadweight. He has no significant sample of playing at a level comparable to 20/10, or even close to it. Boozer does. Neither of our examples is exactly similar or ideal, but mine is much closer to the point about giving up a player who is not going to help your roster much (Quentin Richarson or Bargnani) and getting back a player that can impact the game - Boozer.
also, how did boozer get into this conversation anyway? This is about randolph and whether it was a smart move to trade for him.
moremilk is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:28 PM   #60 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,871
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moremilk View Post
And Randolph played on 4 teams in the 3 years before getting to Memphis - not quite a ringing endorsement
Bargnani plays for the GM who drafted him. I think we both know where I'm going with this.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24