Official Raptors 2011 NBA Draft Thread, Part 4

dTox · Post #961 » by **dTox** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:16 am

fredericklove wrote:I want Derrick Rose, but wtf u gonna do?

Bulls-Fan33 · Post #962 » by **Bulls-Fan33** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:26 am

I'm guessing I should just go back to the real world now... :cry:

Mr. Perfect · Post #963 » by **Mr. Perfect** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:43 am

No just go back to the Bulls board.

SuminderJi · Post #964 » by **SuminderJi** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:47 am

Bulls-Fan33 wrote:I'm guessing I should just go back to the real world now...

Honestly it will be a tossup between Irving and Barnes for us... unless someone kills it.

We really need either position and the only one we have semi-shored up is SG and PF though if an upgrade were to come along then we'll take either.

BTW Rose is a beast.

TheRealDeal · Post #965 » by **TheRealDeal** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:02 am

I wouldn't be shocked if we ended up tanking for the Under Kanter. I think he's a good prospect but I can't help but thinking of Hoffa & Bargs when it's the Raptors picking a supposed 5 early in the lottery.

ATLTimekeeper · Post #966 » by **ATLTimekeeper** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:11 am

^I wonder if Kanter has a promise. I'm not saying with us, but... he declined the Nike Hoop Summit when it would have surely helped boost his stock (especially when you look at the US Team's lack of bigs.) Also, I think BC has been known to take a shot at relatively untested players. Amare out of HS, Barbosa was basically working out with teams based on a tape that was circulating, DeMar barely did anything at USC and refused group workouts.

OAKLEY_2 · Post #967 » by **OAKLEY_2** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:40 am

I'm suprised Terrence Jones hasn't been mentioned in here. He is a better pro prospect then Barnes.

He is? I know TJ is really good but it is also about projected long term potential not necessarily where things stand now. Raptors will take Barnes over TJ every time.

A tip for the "then" as opposed to "than" crowd. "Than" is used to compare as in "better pro prospect than Barnes" "then" is a measure of time as in "and then I went to a movie". I know it sounds like attitude but the mistake of writing more then and greater then is basic stuff in English... If English is one's second language my humble apologies either way never too late to learn.

Landomar · Post #968 » by **Landomar** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:28 pm

I'd like to draft Valanciunas and let him play 10 minutes a game as the backup C for the first season or two. If he develops as hoped, he has the tools to become an amazing NBA player, and at worst I think he would be comparable to Biedrins. If things go well for him, then he could be a longer Noah with a better shooting touch (big V doesn't really shoot jumpers yet in games, but he's great from the FT line, and I think he has the work ethic to become an excellent Aldridge-esque shooter in addition to his great scoring abilities at the rim).

While Valanciunas develops, we could tank some more, and try to draft a great creator with a high pick in 2012. Going forward, we'd have Valanciunas/Davis as a potentially great combo up front, with our 2012 pick and some other yet to be acquired players on the perimeter. Perhaps DeRozan could stick as our starting SG, if he continues to improve, but he's not really "my guy" at this point. I'm hoping he'll win me over eventually, and we'll see.

That's my general vision for the future, in any case. It's highly likely that the team is going to try something else.

Shevy · Post #969 » by **Shevy** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:44 pm

Warned

dacrusha · Post #970 » by **dacrusha** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:48 pm

Bargs is awful at both the C and PF positions, so starting him at SF again wouldn't be the worse idea in the world.

That, and it's easier to cover for a poor defensive SF than it is to cover for a poor defensive Center/PF.

God Squad · Post #971 » by **God Squad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:00 pm

dacrusha wrote:Bargs is awful at both the C and PF positions, so starting him at SF again wouldn't be the worse idea in the world.

That, and it's easier to cover for a poor defensive SF than it is to cover for a poor defensive Center/PF.

I agree. I'd rather not cover up anymore cracks that are the raptors. Just start moving people.

God Squad · Post #972 » by **God Squad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:03 pm

Dose anyone else think Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert and GM Chris Grant are going a good job? I really like how they we're able to get the clippers pick although the had to take on Barons contract. Also I read on wiretap that there willing to take on Rip's contract in order to grab Detroit's pick.

from wiretap - http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... ns_Rebuild

God Squad · Post #973 » by **God Squad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:05 pm

Basically I ask because I'd love to get another Lotto pick. Because A draft of lets say

Barnes - Knight = Perfect draft <3

Kanter - Knight

Barnes - Kanter

Dwill - Knight

Basically a lot of combinations that would make our team look better.

SDM · Post #974 » by **SDM** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:10 pm

spade57 wrote:Dose anyone else think Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert and GM Chris Grant are going a good job? I really like how they we're able to get the clippers pick although the had to take on Barons contract. Also I read on wiretap that there willing to take on Rip's contract in order to grab Detroit's pick.

from wiretap - http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... ns_Rebuild

That's what happens when you have a private owner. When they're struggling, they'll still spend money, knowing that cap space can be turned into a player and a pick easily. Think Mark Cuban would let us treadmill for a decade?

Post #975 » by **5DOM** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:11 pm

It really depends on what we give up and who's available.
People suggest trading for another lotto pick every year because the prospects tend to get overrated. I personally would tank another year and just go for a playmaking swingman next year. Next year's draft is supposed to have some good ones available.

Consequence · Post #976 » by **Consequence** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:20 pm

Cleveland is at a different rebuilding stage, though. Yes, our team stinks, but we have more young pieces playing key roles than they do, since we sucked enough the last couple of years to have lottery picks already added. Gilbert took those contracts on to accelerate their rebuild by getting more young players in the system, which is great, but with out situation, it wasn't as much of a no-brainer to take on big, useless money like Cleveland did. Will the 9th pick in this draft be worth the tradeoff of having to pay Baron for the rest of his contract and having to give him significant minutes if you want him to be tradeable again? I think yes, but there is a tradeoff there that can be dependent on an individual team's situation. I would have liked to have seen something like that trade done for us as well, but I also understand why BC felt that the benefit of having a clearer salary cap picture was worth it.

God Squad · Post #977 » by **God Squad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:41 pm

SDM wrote:
spade57 wrote:Dose anyone else think Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert and GM Chris Grant are going a good job? I really like how they we're able to get the clippers pick although the had to take on Barons contract. Also I read on wiretap that there willing to take on Rip's contract in order to grab Detroit's pick.

from wiretap - http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... ns_Rebuild

That's what happens when you have a private owner. When they're struggling, they'll still spend money, knowing that cap space can be turned into a player and a pick easily. Think Mark Cuban would let us treadmill for a decade?

haha

your right. But yeah. A new owener /majority owner is needed asap

God Squad · Post #978 » by **God Squad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:44 pm

5DOM wrote:It really depends on what we give up and who's available.
People suggest trading for another lotto pick every year because the prospects tend to get overrated. I personally would tank another year and just go for a playmaking swingman next year. Next year's draft is supposed to have some good ones available.

I'd love to tank next year too. I honestly believe its who you draft. I think a draft with either

Barnes/Knight

Knight/Kanter

Barnes/Kanter

I actually believe that is a solid foundation. Anyways I'm so down for tanking another year. But if done right we could potentially start winning most games by 2013?

Yeezus_ · Post #979 » by **Yeezus_** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:44 pm

spade57 wrote:
SDM wrote:
spade57 wrote:Dose anyone else think Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert and GM Chris Grant are going a good job? I really like how they we're able to get the clippers pick although the had to take on Barons contract. Also I read on wiretap that there willing to take on Rip's contract in order to grab Detroit's pick.

from wiretap - http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... ns_Rebuild

That's what happens when you have a private owner. When they're struggling, they'll still spend money, knowing that cap space can be turned into a player and a pick easily. Think Mark Cuban would let us treadmill for a decade?

haha your right. But yeah. A new owener /majority owner is needed asap

I read on Toronto Star I think, some local Toronto Man wants to own the majority MLSE as a community. We all buy 1% of the shares for $1000. He says some team in the NHL does it and hes trying to get MLSE's approval. I dont know how likely it is but I would definitely be a part of this if it happened.

God Squad · Post #980 » by **God Squad** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:46 pm

Consequence wrote:Cleveland is at a different rebuilding stage, though. Yes, our team stinks, but we have more young pieces playing key roles than they do, since we sucked enough the last couple of years to have lottery picks already added. Gilbert took those contracts on to accelerate their rebuild by getting more young players in the system, which is great, but with out situation, it wasn't as much of a no-brainer to take on big, useless money like Cleveland did. Will the 9th pick in this draft be worth the tradeoff of having to pay Baron for the rest of his contract and having to give him significant minutes if you want him to be tradeable again? I think yes, but there is a tradeoff there that can be dependent on an individual team's situation. I would have liked to have seen something like that trade done for us as well, but I also understand why BC felt that the benefit of having a clearer salary cap picture was worth it.

Yeah I understand. But like you said, it would of really helped us out if B.C was able to get a deal like that done. Hell I'd even take on Rip for their pick.