Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   Toronto Raptors (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f5/)
-   -   Will the Raptors suffer the same fate as the Grizzlies? (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f5/will-raptors-suffer-same-fate-grizzlies-24641.html)

Dark Knight 02-03-2013 12:16 AM

Will the Raptors suffer the same fate as the Grizzlies?
 
No, not the Vancouver Grizzlies. :p

It's no secret why Memphis traded Rudy. They wanted some cap relief and needed out from Rudy's icky contract. It wasn't that they didn't like him, but they needed to free up some money with the future in mind.

With the our recent acquisitions, the Raps are now basically in cap hell. And with the way Colangelo has been talking, there's a very reasonable possibility that another move could be coming that would further steepen the overall salary of the team. Kyle Lowry is going to need a nice extension soon, and without any outstanding expiring contracts coming off the books this summer, it looks like financial flexibility is going to be pretty tight.

My question is whether or not MLSE will be willing to dip into the Luxury Tax in order to keep the core of the team together or not. Will they decide to support the team with further funds by entering the Luxury Tax threshold, or will they decide to sell the farm in order to keep the money situation at a controllable level? Will it be worth it for them to keep a roster of players that doesn't have championship potential? Or even Conference Final potential?

Thoughts?

moremilk 02-03-2013 12:25 AM

we are not in cap hell for one, and second, MLSE appears to be willing to spend, while memphis was not. Plus, if this team would be as good as memphis, the areana would be packed for every game and they would still make money, especially if we go deep in the playoffs, which is easier to do in the east.

our bigger issue is that we don't have quite the same level of talent as they did, so we may be stuck with a middling team and no room to improve. What we do with bargnani is huge, and the development of ross and JV.

Best case scenario, where we convert bargnani into a solid rotation player and ross and JV turn into solid starters, and adding a good backup PG with our MLE and we'd be in a great situation.

Lowry/Demar/Gay/Amir/JV with good PG/Ross and some veteran big to backup our bigs + our 2014 draft pick could be a very good team, the best we ever had. Not a true contender, but a 50+ win team and that could be qualified as a success considering our past.

Tommy C 02-03-2013 12:26 AM

I think it all depends how they perform. If they are going to stay mediocre, no playoff, and no results, I really can't see them dipping into the luxury tax.
Around the league teams are into the luxury tax are successful team in most cases, if the Raps are going to be mediocre, it ain't gonna work.
BC signed some toxic contracts and it will be interesting to see how he will salvage this situation.

Chiggmo 02-03-2013 12:37 AM

Who the hell cares what our cap situation is.. We've never done anything, ever by having any cap space. Why the hell do you people keep worrying about it. Enjoy the fact we have a semi-competitive team again for once jesus.

Don Vito 02-03-2013 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiggmo (Post 747641)
Who the hell cares what our cap situation is.. We've never done anything, ever by having any cap space. Why the hell do you people keep worrying about it. Enjoy the fact we have a semi-competitive team again for once jesus.

Exactly. I don't think anyone misses signing D-league players all these years.

JoeyJoJo Shabbadu 02-03-2013 01:48 AM

They have already said they are willing to spend into the tax.

http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f5/ste...sol-24636.html

Bill Haverchuck 02-03-2013 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiggmo (Post 747641)
Who the hell cares what our cap situation is.. We've never done anything, ever by having any cap space. Why the hell do you people keep worrying about it. Enjoy the fact we have a semi-competitive team again for once jesus.

See, the thing is, we've never done anything with our cap space because of our particular GMs style of managing (which might have been influenced by past ownership, so he might not be entirely to blame). But that does not mean that cap space is not valuable. It's just depressing that we never used it properly in the past. But cap space could easily have netted us 3 or 4 first round picks over the past few years, if we used it to absorb the contracts of penny pinching teams. That's what Cleveland did. And that's what you'd expect a "rebuilding" team to do, but we didn't.

Anyway, I agree with Moremilk that we are not necessarily in "cap hell". We've just got compromised flexibility, and need Lowry and Gay to stay healthy. It's a real shame that we signed Landry Fields and Kleiza, because without that dead weight, we'd have a very respectable cap situation.

Before the trade happened, one of the things that concerned me about a potential deal for Rudy was the summer of 2014. When the rumours started, we still needed to worry about re-signing Ed and Lowry. I would have guessed we'd have to give up Ross and AA with Calderon. Getting to keep Ross surprised me somewhat. Ed's gone, so now it's just Lowry we have to worry about re-signing in 2014. If the cap goes up quite a bit, and subsequently pushes the tax up too, then re-signing Lowry should be manageable.

Chiggmo 02-03-2013 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck (Post 747658)
See, the thing is, we've never done anything with our cap space because of our particular GMs style of managing (which might have been influenced by past ownership, so he might not be entirely to blame). But that does not mean that cap space is not valuable. It's just depressing that we never used it properly in the past. But cap space could easily have netted us 3 or 4 first round picks over the past few years, if we used it to absorb the contracts of penny pinching teams. That's what Cleveland did. And that's what you'd expect a "rebuilding" team to do, but we didn't.

Anyway, I agree with Moremilk that we are not necessarily in "cap hell". We've just got compromised flexibility, and need Lowry and Gay to stay healthy. It's a real shame that we signed Landry Fields and Kleiza, because without that dead weight, we'd have a very respectable cap situation.

Before the trade happened, one of the things that concerned me about a potential deal for Rudy was the summer of 2014. When the rumours started, we still needed to worry about re-signing Ed and Lowry. I would have guessed we'd have to give up Ross and AA with Calderon. Getting to keep Ross surprised me somewhat. Ed's gone, so now it's just Lowry we have to worry about re-signing in 2014. If the cap goes up quite a bit, and subsequently pushes the tax up too, then re-signing Lowry should be manageable.

Oh I'm not at all saying cap space can't be valuable, but as you said yourself, BC has never ever used it in that way, and pretty clearly never wanted to try (again you're probably right on the pressure from ownership). Given all that refer to what you just quoted. Capspace for us with BC as a GM is entirely useless as he, nor MLSE, will allow a rebuild.

Bill Haverchuck 02-03-2013 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiggmo (Post 747662)
Oh I'm not at all saying cap space can't be valuable, but as you said yourself, BC has never ever used it in that way, and pretty clearly never wanted to try (again you're probably right on the pressure from ownership). Given all that refer to what you just quoted. Capspace for us with BC as a GM is entirely useless as he, nor MLSE, will allow a rebuild.

Yeah, fair enough. But it's not a certainty that Bryan is always going to be the GM, so some of us were/are thinking about the future with the possibility of a GM who really values flexibility, rather than just claiming to and doing the exact opposite.

I actually think this deserves a thread to clear the air about what people mean when they talk about wanting financial flexibility and cap space, because so many fans (not necessarily you) automatically assume we mean that we need it to sign FAs, and then they respond with a strawman like "what FA is going to sign here?! Who else will we get!>"

It's typical Jeffb stuff. Even with Landry. "He's not that overpaid and it's not a big deal!"

Actually, that $6 mill probably could have netted us Rudy weeks earlier, and got us a future 1st round pick thrown in. We could have offered the cap relief that Cleveland gave them, all in one big trade.

Imagine how valuable that 1st round pick would be now, as we consider moving Bargnani for something other than pure trash.

It's okay to have 1 or 2 big contracts. You have to in order to win. It's just the constant pattern of overpaying that is dangerous. Every good move is nullified or diminished by something else that is very stupid.

Superjudge 02-03-2013 03:27 AM

blah lah blah...not your money.

New owners are billionaires. Enjoy it

Chiggmo 02-03-2013 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck (Post 747666)
Yeah, fair enough. But it's not a certainty that Bryan is always going to be the GM, so some of us were/are thinking about the future with the possibility of a GM who really values flexibility, rather than just claiming to and doing the exact opposite.

I actually think this deserves a thread to clear the air about what people mean when they talk about wanting financial flexibility and cap space, because so many fans (not necessarily you) automatically assume we mean that we need it to sign FAs, and then they respond with a strawman like "what FA is going to sign here?! Who else will we get!>"

It's typical Jeffb stuff. Even with Landry. "He's not that overpaid and it's not a big deal!"

Actually, that $6 mill probably could have netted us Rudy weeks earlier, and got us a future 1st round pick thrown in. We could have offered the cap relief that Cleveland gave them, all in one big trade.

Imagine how valuable that 1st round pick would be now, as we consider moving Bargnani for something other than pure trash.

It's okay to have 1 or 2 big contracts. You have to in order to win. It's just the constant pattern of overpaying that is dangerous. Every good move is nullified or diminished by something else that is very stupid.

Regardless of who the GM is, I doubt the owners will allow things go any different honestly. I doubt they'll ever allow a GM to come in that they think will try to make this team do a full rebuild. They don't have the patience to sit back and wait a few years. If they did, we'd be going at Wiggins next year, have an extremely talented and marketable CANADIAN.

Oh well, lets see where things go from here.

MBailey85 02-03-2013 06:13 AM

winning cures all,if the Raptors start to win,not only will Gay stay but other big names will come. NBA players like TO(mostly),they just hate the lack of exposure from American and Canadian media. If they start having success though,that'll solve that problem.

Bankiz 02-03-2013 07:24 AM

just for sake, you all said BC didn't use capspace for crap contract. Please to remind you of a certain Peja !?

LKeet6 02-03-2013 07:25 AM

Getting gasol could be good for capspace. Dunno if lakers are considering taking fields or how the trade will work. But we'd have a playoff worthy team and then 19mill coming off the books after next season!

DanH 02-03-2013 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck (Post 747666)
Yeah, fair enough. But it's not a certainty that Bryan is always going to be the GM, so some of us were/are thinking about the future with the possibility of a GM who really values flexibility, rather than just claiming to and doing the exact opposite.

I actually think this deserves a thread to clear the air about what people mean when they talk about wanting financial flexibility and cap space, because so many fans (not necessarily you) automatically assume we mean that we need it to sign FAs, and then they respond with a strawman like "what FA is going to sign here?! Who else will we get!>"

It's typical Jeffb stuff. Even with Landry. "He's not that overpaid and it's not a big deal!"

Actually, that $6 mill probably could have netted us Rudy weeks earlier, and got us a future 1st round pick thrown in. We could have offered the cap relief that Cleveland gave them, all in one big trade.

Imagine how valuable that 1st round pick would be now, as we consider moving Bargnani for something other than pure trash.

It's okay to have 1 or 2 big contracts. You have to in order to win. It's just the constant pattern of overpaying that is dangerous. Every good move is nullified or diminished by something else that is very stupid.

I'm confused as to how the Raps could have offered the Grizzlies more cap relief had they had 6 million more in cap relief themselves. We were already well over the cap, and maxed out our 150% as it was.

Also, BC being the GM for the next few years is a pretty safe bet, considering ownership approved this deal. So the future, when we might have a GM who likes financial flexibility, will not be impacted by this deal. He'll likely be impacted by the DD extension and Lowry's upcoming re-signing, but not the Gay deal or any of the Fields, Kleiza, Bargnani contracts.

'trane 02-03-2013 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superjudge (Post 747669)
blah lah blah...not your money.

New owners are billionaires. Enjoy it

this isn't baseball. it matters.

Carlito 02-03-2013 09:31 AM

Guys ... New ownership thru Rogers is willing to spend the money .. that's clear. Leafs, Blue Jays, and Raptors have an ownership that wants to WIN and is willing to spend the bucks. The only requirement for the GM's is to WIN. If this doesn't happen (eg. Burke), your in the street. Gotta love it.

BC has been given the opportunity to spend ... it's now up to him to figure out how to convert the $'s and assets to a Winning franchise. If he doesn't demonstrate the ability to transition and make some smart moves .. he will be in the street. He's not a asshole like Burke, so he will certainly have more room.

dfunkie1 02-03-2013 09:32 AM

we're not the grizz, we're not a small market team. i think that the ownership will be willing to dip into the luxury tax if we're going to be generating more revenue with the overall attendance, in-game purchases and play-off games. if we're winning games, i think we'll be okay.

Carlito 02-03-2013 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 747723)
this isn't baseball. it matters.

It matters, but this ownership is willing to go into Luxury Tax ... Winning is what they want.

LX 02-03-2013 10:13 AM

BC said the team is willing to pay the tax if need be. Of course he's said that before, but it feels different this time. In the past it was in reference to acquiring new players alone. Now it feels like it includes that as well as keeping players. I think the talent level here is comparable to that of the Grizzlies. Defensively the Griz are a step ahead right now, but it might not be the case for long if Ross and Valančiūnas develop strongly in that area.

We have a chance to add to that talent level, and keep the key pieces, or make smart moves with some of those pieces, without being squeezed by the cap, if ownership is not going to be as restrictive as the pension fund that preceded it. This is why I was ecstatic when there was even a whiff of a change of ownership here, and have never understood why people continue to think it's just the sme old same old.

We now have cable companies that have a license to print money in a sense. I got a nice letter from Rogers the other day saying they were going to take more of mine. And there's not a lot I can do about it. But at least I can feel good about their ability to blow some of that to keep from making bad basketball decisions related to the cap.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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