Spartan13 wrote:Tserkin, who was it that started with the personal attacks first exactly? You call the Raptors board full of wankers and idiots and claim it is not worth your time so therefore your post is not worthing posting on there.
... You understand that me making a comment about a board's worth of posters isn't a personal attack, right? It's a generalization. You calling ME a wanker is very much a personal attack.
I am a frequent poster on the Raptors board, and I take offense to that. For you to now accuse me of personal attacks against you is very hypocritical, and for you to accuse the raptors board of being to stupid to logically debate your post is completely baseless because your points have already been debated endlessly on there.
Were I too have actually insulted you, then it would be hypocritical. However, since I made a generalization that you happened to dislike, it is not.
The only reason I am even bringing this up, is because you are apparently a global mod, and posters have been warned for saying far less inflammatory things then what you just said. I don't see why you feel you are above the rules. Feel free to breakup my post and respond with further mockery instead of actually apologizing for your inflammatory comments, that will definitely separate you form the "wankers and "idiots" on the Raptors board.
If you expect an apology, you're deluded. You insulted me directly after I'd said nothing to you. I have nothing for which to apologize.
Spartan13 wrote:His first point that alleges BC has a visions "of a jump-shooting team that scores a lot of points without a dominant defense as being capable of winning basketball games at an elite level" is utter nonsense.
BC put together a completely different team under his vision in Phoenix, that did win at an elite level, and in Toronto BC has tried or did make moves for JO, Marion, Ariza, TJ Ford, Jack, Rasho, Garbo, Evans, Johnson, Moon, Derozan, etc etc, that do not fit that mold at all, so clearly BC does have some precedent athleticism and defense. Its just that this current crop of raptors is very offensive minded, but that is more due to the circumstances BC is in, then his crazy in your face vision Tserkin is leading you to believe.
I didn't say that Colangelo intended to build a team that was incompetent on defense.
I said that he has been building the Raptors, as he did with Phoenix, as a team that minded offense first, and that he's been trying to build a team that succeeds on the basis of dominant offense rather than the conventional style of basketball that involves a really great team defense, heavy rebounding and a lot of interior play. That's been the traditional recipe for success in the NBA, and Colangelo is very much ignoring that.
Now, again, in Phoenix, it worked. He hasn't really applied the principles of what made Phoenix work HERE, though (that is to say, in Toronto).
In Toronto, we've got three weak individual defenders in the lineup, and two decent ones... one of whom is a rookie.
In Phoenix, there were three elite individual defenders, one of whom was a good help defender and a 3-position guy (4, really, as long as you limit it to a possession here and there on a switch).
None of that is refutable, it's all true.
Colangelo isn't stupid, and I haven't said he is; he's tried to add patchwork centers before. The JO trade was a good idea in principle, if a terrible trade in reality. He missed the point, though; he was better off with Rasho than with JO, because Rasho's a guy who doesn't need touches, and JO believed that not only was he ONCE a good scorer, but remains so, which is not the case.
I happen to disagree with a lot of the basketball moves he's made, but there's a point where one has to realize he almost certainly has a win-now mandate from the ownership and that it drives a lot of his short-term activity. Nevertheless, it remains true that the moves he's made have hurt this team, not helped it, and that's reflected as much in our record as it is in our inability to grow as a team.
BC's "hard-on" against conventional basketball in Toronto is rooted in far more then tserkins simplistic explanation. It is rooted in business decisions, and trying to see the way of the future in basketball and capitalizing on it.
"The future of basketball?"
The principles of basketball remain the same; it's still a game where defense and rebounding are a lot more important than epic offense. It's very true that some different strategies have come about recently, but in all, you need to control the basketball, not get scored on every possession and take efficient shots.
The Suns were and are really good because not only do they get high-payoff 3s, they get buckets in the paint. They get them from Amare rolling, they get them in transition, from Richardson posting, and from Nash being a dick and getting behind the defense for mid-range shots and layups. They get a lot of guys into or around the key and get great looks at the bucket. They're a beautiful offensive team to watch, because even when the jumpers aren't falling, their offense looks good.
The Raptors are a pretty fine offensive team as well; now that the J isn't falling as much, they look a little more stale, but they remain a top offensive team. And that's the best thing BC's done, he's created a team that can score.
Unfortunately, we do almost nothing else.
Yesterday passed, and we needed 27/16 from Bosh to beat a terrible Washington team that shot 36% and did its level-best to lose the game. We had a 17-point lead at one point, and they not only tied it but took the lead in the fourth before we put it away.
The Raptors have had a lot of European "jump shooting" players for several reasons. First off, Euros are more likely to play in Toronto because they don't have hangups about Canada like many Americans do. Second, there was good talent in Europe that other GM's were failing to capitalize on.
Actually, for some time now, many NBA teams have been capitalizing on it. It's a growing trend, and yes, some teams are slower than others to recognize it, but it's not really true that BC was any kind of innovator here. You want an innovator, you look at Pops and RC Buford over in San Antonio, who were doing it long before Colangelo was taking Zark Cabarkapa in the draft.
BC did capitalize on it, particularly his first year signing Garbo and Parker, and his ability to see the rise of Euro league talent is what mainly led to one of the greatest single season turnarounds in NBA history.
Yep, we went from 27 wins to 47. Want to know why? Because we went from a team that was 5th in offense and 29th in defense (sound familiar?) to a team that was 10th and 12th.
The Parker signing was awesome; short-term, but very clever. Anthony Parker was the Michael Jordan of the Euroleague, and it was a great move. He happens to be an American, but he was very good for us, and even now remains pretty solid in a good defensive scheme. Jorge Garbajosa was a tricky player to call, but a savvy vet.
It also makes business sense to have an exciting team offensively, because that is what entertains fans.
No doubt. Of course, having a historically bad defense and a team that's record drops year after year is a good recipe for losing fans, especially in a recession. Here, we're arguing 6 of one, a half dozen of the other.
It's good business to put a winning team on the floor, and better business to put a team that looks kind of pretty in so doing.
Instead of choosing to build through the draft (which he also has one of the best draft records in NBA history, not bad for an "average" GM), BC likes to re-tool on the fly, because again you guessed it, it makes business sense. Just ask MLSE, they have been running the Maple Leafs that way for decades.
Yep, it makes sense to some extent. It also offends the Hell out of a lot of fans because the team never goes anywhere. MLSE can get away with it for the Leafs because Toronto bleeds blue-and-white, and fans will go no matter HOW bad they are... though even they are feeling the pinch.
With Raptors fans, we've had 15 years of mediocrity or worse, in a city that did not have a long basketball history before the league arrived in 95-96. The loyalty isn't the same, it's more results-oriented.
BC does like to re-tool on the fly, and a lot of the time it works. A lot of the time with Toronto, it's blown up in his face, which is why we're as bad as we are.
BC also in his third year traded for JO, a risk/reward trade that did not pan out for a variety of reasons, but at the least it showed that BC was more then willing to get a defensive minded C and build around him over Bargnani.
I disagree that he was building around JO over Bargnani; I think he was cognizant of JO's injury situation and looking for a guy who was going to teach Andrea how to play some defense, and truth be told, Bargs improved playing with JO every day. O'neal was really good for this team defensively.
The problem was, he didn't make sense financially and 100% wasn't going to be here long-term because of his contract. Colangelo may have signed us some unfavorable deals, but he's not really stuck us with a long-term contract that's truly awful. Hedo's comes the closest, and even that should be moveable with a lot of effort and lesser expectations for the return.
The problem with that, and the reason why BC lobbied for Bargnani to play more, has nothing to do with his "man-love" for him, it has to do with developing a very good asset.
I've heard this argument. It's an OK argument, and is very pro-BC.
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to side against it. This is a guy who brought over Bargs' GM from Bennetton. This is a guy who drafted Bargs in the face of criticism that it made no damned sense to do so. This is a guy who sat through Bargs opening up his career with a long stretch of uselessness, and then the entire 07-08 season, where he was spectacularly bad all year long (you're thinking of 08-09 where he broke out, because it sure as Hell wasn't 07-08).
Colangelo's the one who started the imperative that even though he wasn't handling his defensive responsibilities, the team needed to find SOME way to get him minutes.
it also became evident that Bargs next to Bosh was not definitevly better/worse then a good defensive C in JO next to Bosh
This isn't true; the Raptors were definitively better on defense with JO and Bosh than with Bargnani. The problem was, O'neal MISSED like 15 games and the rest of the team wasn't exactly a peach on defense; Jose Calderon is awful and pre-Marion, we were running Jason Kapono and Joey Graham at the 3, which didn't help. Kapono is decent in a strong team defense with good coaching and a shot-blocker behind him, but he didn't help a lot, he just doesn't screw up badly that often. In any, O'neal impacted the game much more as a defensive rebounder, post defender and shot-blocker than Bargnani.
It's hard to see huge differences because the Raptors' perimeter players last year allowed a parade of players to attack JO... when he was even in the game and semi-healthy.
Bargs is one of the worst help defenders in the league, though, and he was definitely not a defensive plus, certainly not over JO.
Unless you meant on the whole? Bargs fit into our offensive scheme a lot better than did JO... but again, so would Matt Bonner, and he'd cost less and be more helpful on D.
. However, having Bargs start at C enabled him to develop as a player, of which even the ESPN goons have admitted he has. It also conveniently made Bargnani a huge asset, where as before he was considered a borderline bust and had little to no trade value. For some reason, tserkin thinks BC wanting to develop a player from no-asset to all-star calibur 23 year old on a very reasonable contract "ruined" our team.
No, I don't think that the Bargnani situation is solely responsible for ruining the team, I think filling the starting lineup with bad defenders and emphasizing the need to play Bosh and Bargs alongside of one another instead of playing Bosh OR Bargs with a legitimate center is a problem. And since I believe that Bargs isn't that good a creator except as a second or third option (where he happens to do a wonderful job most nights), I think we'd be better off choosing Bosh.
Since Bosh hasn't left, of course, this isn't yet an issue, so we'll see.
As for the Argument for Bargs making Bosh leave? Again, BC brought in JO and it didnt help all that much. So this off season, BC brought in Turk and Jack on long term contracts because he wanted to keep Bosh. Did it result in a very soft core? Yes it did. But remember, BC's "vision" included trying to get Ariza, and im fairly confident it included trying to keep Marion here as well, before he ever tried to get Turk.
Yep, BC's been in the wheelhouse trying to make things work. Frankly, I don't think he wanted to keep Marion, because we're paying Hedo more than Marion's making in Dallas and could have re-signed him if we wanted to. It is possible, however, that Marion told him to screw off and that he wanted to play for a good team, so BC might have made the most out of a bad situation. Impossible to tell, there.
Jack was a good signing. Cheap, good player, fits in well.
Like I've always said, I think BC's an above-average GM if you don't account for the huge emphasis he's put on Bargnani, even if I disagree with the way he builds the team. I don't like that we have this soft, disgusting team that doesn't rebound and can't defend worth a damn, even if we can score a lot.
Turk also enabled us to sign Jack, Bosh's friend.
I think $4M and the chance to play 30 mpg enabled us to sign Jack, personally.
All that has nothing to do for or against Bargnani. If anything, Bargnani is insurance if Bosh leaves, trading him now or even in the offseason would be asinine. You could even argue that going forward Bargnani @10 mill > Bosh @ 20 Mill. Tserkin seems to think that developing an asset and keeping him around in case Bosh leaves = the reason Bosh will leave, and that makes no sense.
I think that Bargnani as "insurance" against Bosh leaving is bad, because it implies that we think Bargs can be built around effectively. He's an immensely one-dimensional player, whereas Bosh, for all his faults, is very much not.
Bosh is a good rebounder; even in his previous seasons, he's been a solid rebounder and a decent offensive rebounder. Bargs is a TERRIBLE rebounder for a center and a mediocre one for the 4, as well.
Bosh is a decent defender; he's not great at it, he struggles against power guys, but he's much, much better as a help defender than Bargs.
Bosh is a shot-creator. Bargs can create his shot because he's not the focus of the defense and because the vast majority of his offense is created by action away from him. Nearly 3/4s of his buckets are assisted because he's basically a set shooter. Once in a while, he gets a post up (where he's developed a little), but beyond that, it's set jumpers, it's action in transition, and it's that little pump fake that he gets because he's a VERY good set shooter. And once in a while, he'll take a slow guy off the dribble. He's coming along.
Going forward, I'd rather be paying Bosh $20M/year than losing Bosh and having Bargs as our focal point, though, because Chris is a much, much better player. Especially Chris this year, but that's a tough call because it's a contract season.
Now, the developing an asset angle is an interesting one. We won't be able to tell until the end of this season, I'd think, or at least the trade deadline.
I'd put it to you that it'd be asinine to trade Chris at this point, and that it would behoove the team much more to move Bargnani and Calderon in order to shore up this team, which would probably give Toronto a much better chance of success.
Bargs is the one other players are complaining about for weak effort and defensive cluelessness. He's at the center (excuse the pun) of our defensive issues. Not the whole of them, of course, but certainly a big component thereof. And we can produce high-efficiency offense without him in a prominent role, we've done it before. We've also been terrible with him. Last year, we were 22nd in offense WITH him breaking out. The two years before, when he was an insignificant piece, we were 9th and 10th on offense, and the year before that, we were 5th.
Bargs isn't important to us, offensively speaking. We build offensively-minded teams, or have the last little while, and they do well in that respect.
What we need is a player of value, not an over-the-hill injured guy.
I'll believe the idea that Colangelo isn't married to Bargnani if, after next season, he isn't on the team. BC said he feels 5 years is an appropriate length of time for evaluating his player (he said this just around Bargs' second season, when many wanted to hang him from drafting Bargnani), which is excessive and ridiculous, but it's what he said.
Nevertheless, Spartan, your arguments are pretty and interesting, but at the end of the day, we're quite nearly as bad as we were the year before BC even got here, we're there specifically because of what he's done and hasn't done, and we're embarrassingly bad on defense.
How do you defend that?
Tell me why YOU think we're this bad. You want to say because we're trying to keep Bosh?
I call shenanigans, this stuff started with earlier moves.
So tell me, how is it that we're a little better on O than we were in 05-06 and we're the worst defense in the history of the league AND we have a coach who's only notable attribute is his willingness to involve Andrea in the offense... and is otherwise clueless?