Raps should make a play at the draft

[roy_jones_calderon]

There's a lot of fallout from the loss to the Cavs, some of it typical overreaction, and some of it warranted.

One theme that has emerged has been the Raps lack of movable assets. We have our core four, but outside of that, we don't have a lot of flexibility.

We're missing something...perhaps a few things, and I'm starting to think that even if we get to the playoffs, we're not going to be in a position to make noise. Perhaps that's premature, but this season has lacked a consistency or continuity due to the injuries.

Some of the players that were critical for us last year, Parker and Garbo, have regressed or are otherwise unavailable. There hasn't been enough attention paid to what we've lost with the turnover within our own roster.

I am beginning to see the draft as the best way for the Raps to try to add to their talent base without sacrificing core talent. We could benefit a great deal by trying to make a move at the draft. The potential to get a high value player for less than what the market perceives their worth to be is only realistic at the draft.

We need to get something for nothing. This is the stage in your franchise's development that is most unnerving. There's little cause on the horizon to think that we're going to get over the hump, and have the requisite talent to compete at the highest level.

As a result, I think we're at the point where we need to do what good teams do, and find a way to use our scouting to find us value.

If you look at San Antonio, much of their success has been in their ability to add high quality players using assets that shouldn't theoretically be able to yield the type of talent that the Spurs have picked up late in the draft...

Sometimes it pays to be lucky. I think we're getting to the point where we have to create some of our own luck, and try to find a value in the draft that can take us to the next level.

[Komodo]

I completely agree. I have been pondering over this very subject for the past little while. It's obvious we need an infusion of talent to our core without sacrificing what we've got.

Even if we package our expirings we still won't be able to grab a star without giving up one of our core players, and I don't see that happening. I reach the same conclusion every time I analyze this thought. The draft.

The problem is how are we going to move up in the draft without giving up something significant (Bosh, Bargs, Jose, TJ)? Anything else is obviously up for grabs, but in reality how much will Hump, Kapono, resigned Delfino get us? I'm thinking we trade our pick, along with future firsts, to move up in the draft and add another quality player to our core. I don't see any other way to make a significant play in the draft other than to trade multiple firsts to move up that much higher, assuming we don't get more injuries and get a high pick anyways.

[Komodo]

RJC, the college scene is still in the early going, but who intrigues you, besides the obvious?

[Jer15Jer]

I completely disagree. It's a step backwards. We are not as bad as our record indicates.

Be patient.

[Komodo]

I completely disagree. It's a step backwards. We are not as bad as our record indicates.

Be patient.

What? How is adding a top-tier type talent though the draft a step backwards? If anything, it will help propel us into elite-status going foward, and is arguably needed in order for us to achieve our championship aspirations.

The reason for our success last year can be directly attributed to our veteran trio of Parker, Rasho, and Garbo. We may have gotten too good too fast. We have some nice talent, but our core is still one major piece away from being a true contender in the future. We are not going to get by with more stop-gap, bandaid solutions. We are going to need a star or close to it, and the draft may very well be our answer.

[roy_jones_calderon]

I like the coming draft quite a bit. Unfortunately, I'm only familiar with the obvious candidates, but hopefully as the college season moves on we can all get a better feel for what's available.

The reason the draft intrigues me is because I believe that we're at a stage where our asset base is relatively established- and unless we can essentially add to that asset base without taking something away, we're going to be moving in a lateral direction.

The type of player I think we need is not typically available outside of the lottery, so you're correct to suggest that we'd have to give up a core piece...but that's not what I'm suggesting we do. I believe that sometimes you have to get a little lucky, and I think that we're at the point where we need a little luck, if we're going to become a legitimate contender in the East.

All things considered, our team is still pretty immature.

[ruckus]

RJC, you're being a little contradictory. If we don't have the assets to acquire another piece, how do we have the assets to move up in the draft?

It could be a perfect storm type of scenario where a team isn't looking to add any youth and the Raps have something on their bench that they like but, that scenario is almost as unlikely as another team trading their star for our scrap parts.

Unless its a trade of the blockbuster sorts, I doubt that we'll be moving up significantly in the draft. The key is to draft for value in the places where they are drafting a la SAS, PHO & DET.

[deknow]

I completely disagree. It's a step backwards. We are not as bad as our record indicates.

Be patient.

We need an established player. I hope we can get it through FA.

[Komodo]

The reason the draft intrigues me is because I believe that we're at a stage where our asset base is relatively established- and unless we can essentially add to that asset base without taking something away, we're going to be moving in a lateral direction.

Precisely how I feel.

I don't think it's any secret that we need a star at the 2/3. Whatever we must do to acquire said piece must be done, so long as our base remains intact. Only then will we truly have the pieces to become a legitimate contender.

[dagger]

We have our first rounders, but we also have trade possibilities with expiring contracts. Because of the number of ending contracts we will have, there is the possibility of trading a short-term contract for longer. We can spice it up with draft picks. You might get a more significant player that way than relying only on the draft. In fact, we might use our 08 pick, then package the 09 pick with expiring contracts. Or we could not do anything more than use our 08 pick, let our contracts expire in 09, and go the free agent route. The key may be the price teams holding players like Ben Gordon, Josh Smith, Andre Iguodala and Elton Brand are willing to pay to keep them long term. Take Atlanta. If they have to shell out the max for Smith, why shell out big bucks for Childress? I wasn't going to trade Jose for Childress, but if Atlanta doesn't want to lose him for nothing, I'd package Rasho and a future first for him and one other contract, perhaps Claxton. Helps both teams. And I think Childress would be a nice addition for us - he's not Smith or Iguodala, but might be the defending/rebounding presence we need. Then we need a scorer at SG - here's where we look at other trades, or we narrow the focus in the 08 draft to a scoring wing player.

RJC, you get too morose too quickly. There is more than one scenario.

[roy_jones_calderon]

dagger, I'm not saying we don't have flexibility, but I see us as being at the stage where we need some 'mana from heaven' in order to get us over the hump. I don't see how we can continue to improve materially without getting something for nothing- and the draft is the only place I see that highly disproportionate value effect taking place.

In other scenarios, where we're required to make a play on a free agent, we're competing in the free market for players that are established- I feel that we'd be fighting on even grounds with most of the other teams in the league.

Whereas if we were to get Maurizio on a plane to Italy, and get him talking in the ear of Gallinari's agent about how Danilo shouldn't work out for anyone else.

Look at teams that have been successful once they got a playoff-calibre team. Teams like the Lakers are only in the draft if they can control the pick and the player they're getting...ala Bynum or Kobe.

I don't think endless draft picks are the answer. But I do think that in our specific scenario, a good pick on the back end of the lottery, if properly scouted, could yeild a Richard Jefferson/Joe Johnson type of guy.

That wouldn't preclude us from making a free agent play in '09. but anything we come away with from free agency during that period is going to be paid for in full. We might get a really good player, but I don't think we'll get a very good player for very little.

[Griff83]

If we are to make a play at the draft and move up to grab someone it should be Eric Gordon (though we most likely dont have the pieces to make that happen).

[dagger]

dagger, I'm not saying we don't have flexibility, but I see us as being at the stage where we need some 'mana from heaven' in order to get us over the hump. I don't see how we can continue to improve materially without getting something for nothing- and the draft is the only place I see that highly disproportionate value effect taking place.

In other scenarios, where we're required to make a play on a free agent, we're competing in the free market for players that are established- I feel that we'd be fighting on even grounds with most of the other teams in the league.

Whereas if we were to get Maurizio on a plane to Italy, and get him talking in the ear of Gallinari's agent about how Danilo shouldn't work out for anyone else.

Look at teams that have been successful once they got a playoff-calibre team. Teams like the Lakers are only in the draft if they can control the pick and the player they're getting...ala Bynum or Kobe.

I don't think endless draft picks are the answer. But I do think that in our specific scenario, a good pick on the back end of the lottery, if properly scouted, could yeild a Richard Jefferson/Joe Johnson type of guy.

That wouldn't preclude us from making a free agent play in '09. but anything we come away with from free agency during that period is going to be paid for in full. We might get a really good player, but I don't think we'll get a very good player for very little.

Again, I believe you're being too narrow and overly pessimistic. First off, team building is about assets, and you acquire the assets of an elite team directly - draft or free agency - or you can make sideways moves that add value in stages. For example, the Araujo for Humphries trade created value. Is Hump a starter? No. Could he become a valuable rotation player on a good team in a couple of years? Yes. Now, you can trade Hump tomorrow for a high scoring wing player, but what if you trade him this summer as part of a package with a draft pick and expiring contracts. Maybe Cory Maggette wants a sign and trade here. LA might find the pick and Hump (plus $3 million cash to defray an expiring contract) an attractive addition as an alternative to losing Maggette for zippity do dah! Maybe a year later, a re-signed Maggette might be packaged with somebody else for an even better player.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to max the value of a draft pick, but you make it sound like we need some kind of draft miracle to ever contend. I'm different. I think we need upgrades at both wing positions, but we don't necessarily need stars. We need young two-way players who can give us 30 points per game between them, because with that kind of reliability, they will hit some big shots.

It's not like we have to add 20 points per game of offence. We're perhaps 10 points per game from being a contender. Ford's return alone might restore much of that, and two very good starters might do better for us than a star and a stiff on the wing because at the end of the day, the star alone would suck up as much money as two $6-7 million players and is harder to replace in the event of injury.

[1982]

how did we go from last year and 'look how bc took our garbage and brought in players that have value' to not having any movable assets.

i think this is a misperception. what may appear to us as immovable assets is due to the fact that they all seem to fill their roles. so we figure that the only players we can move to better our team is one of our core pieces. who wants role players right? especially ones who are always underachieving.

i don't see how anybody thinks that bc put this team together to win a championship. the team was put together to win, and contrary to some beliefs, that doesn't mean running on a treadmill. while we win our core is supposed to mature in that environment. tj's situation is a bump in the road and bargnani is going through growing pains. our role players can stink it up all they want and still they will be good enough to ship off, whether to move up the draft, or to get an upgrade (which usually costs a pick). right now we're close to where that is the case. but its not so much because of how the season has gone. also, the plan wasn't to find some role players that would then be traded for a second star. we are supposed to have that second and third star. putting the chances of tj retiring aside, this team is supposed to have those players play as stars in 2009.

it's still too early to give up on that timeframe. also the trades that should happen should be about improving our role players. i'm sure bc knew this when he signed players that would start declining after their contracts. the idea that this is the team that has to get over the hump is inapplicable. our core is solid. and its our core that has to take us to the championship. we are not in such a bad shape that states that we need to get the next ginobly caliber player in this draft. we are a lot better off.

[hoophoophooray]

It is possible to get good in more ways than just through the draft.

How would the Raptors look if Salmons hadn't backed out of his deal with us last year? (We signed F Jones-traded for Dixon-instead). Salmons is 17pts and 5reb while shooting 51%(44% from 3). He also plays D.

If you look how non lottery 1st round draft choices have turned out over the past 10 years you would probably come to the conclusion that during the pre draft period the choice is overated.

[AfricanSensation]

We need a wing than can give us 18+ with decent D and rebounding. The majority of guys like that in the league today were picked after the top 10 or even outside of the lotto. Think RJ, Josh howard, Manu, Lewis, Turkoglu, Butler, Gerald Wallace and more recently Barbosa, Kevin Martin or Josh Smith.

At this point we will draft in the 15-20 range and need BC to work his magic and strike gold. We need a Butler or RJ that can come in and contribute double digit right away and explode for 20ppg by year 3!

I was hoping on trading Jose for a young with that kind of potential but with TJ's injury that possibility may be over...

[itbobby007]

Either this year or in the offseason we need to:

use expiring contracts (Dixon, Rasho etc)+ plus whatever assets we have (Humps, Bargs) + picks (2008, 2009) to acquire a player that we are hoping the draft can yield in the mold of a RJ/Butler/GWallace/JHoward etc. We need a known commodity, and I think we can't wait for 2-4 yrs for a draft pick to contribute.

Currently, Maggette is the only viable solution that seems available, he could be the right fit, perhaps Childress as mentioned before.

[Yorkz]

I was watching the Pistons game and thinking that a core of Bosh, Bargnani, TJ and Calderon would never be good enough to match up against the elite NBA teams - even assuming improvement. And a team with Bosh as our best player means we're a treadmill team (see Kobe, Pierce, McGrady et. al.)

So, a significant upgrade in talent will be required over the next few years if we're to see a Conference Final or Finals and I just can't see improving significantly via trades - unless we break up the core.

Using a buy low, sell high strategy with players might be another way to trade for talent but a .500 team just doesn't create a lot of trading chips.

I really wouldn't be surprised if the team's core as well as supporting cast look dramatically different within 4 years and that would be mostly via drafting, a little free agency and perhaps one or two trades. As Kevin O'Neill said, you're either selling Wins or you're selling Hope. Right now, that Raps are short on both.

[dagger]

It is possible to get good in more ways than just through the draft.

How would the Raptors look if Salmons hadn't backed out of his deal with us last year? (We signed F Jones-traded for Dixon-instead). Salmons is 17pts and 5reb while shooting 51%(44% from 3). He also plays D.

If you look how non lottery 1st round draft choices have turned out over the past 10 years you would probably come to the conclusion that during the pre draft period the choice is overated.

Salmons is precisely the type of acquisition I think we are capable of making. Not many teams went after Salmons. It was basically us, Phoenix and SAC, and SAC only got involved after Bonzi Wells stupidly refused a $40 million offer. It's not like SAC was going to dump Wells at any price to go after Salmons. So our management team had scoped out the right guy. I certainly thought we offered an overly rich deal for Salmons, but it would have worked out for us very well. That gives me lots of hope that we can turn over our assets in a productive way and continue to improve as a team.

[dagger]

As Kevin O'Neill said, you're either selling Wins or you're selling Hope. Right now, that Raps are short on both.

I really disagree with this level of pessimism. We will need to make moves, but that was always going to be the case. We knew that with how BC set up the team in 2006, with a lot of three year contracts, some for older vets like Parker and Garbo who aren't likely to get additional three year deals for comparable money. Most teams have latent asset which isn't well recognized. Even Boston last year, by virtue of being bad for a few seasons, had both young players and high picks to trade to get the last good years out of Ray Allen and KG. Future cap space has a latent value. The reason we were so restricted under Babcock was all the deadweight we were carrying - buyouts and permanently injured guys who couldn't be traded. But any reasonably performing asset, as well as draft picks and downstream cap space, has tangible value and right now, save for the lack of two second rounders sent to get Carlos Delfino, we have all our picks, and we have a good cap situation, meaning we can trade expiring contracts with impunity this summer.

Obviously, TJ's situation is a concern, but even if he were to retire next week, the cap rules have now changed and permanently injured players come off cap after a year - instead of two years as was the case with Montross and Olajuwan. So in that worst case scenario, we'd have an extra $8 million in cap space in 09 without Ford.

If a GM is hesitant to make moves, or if the team has a low budget ceiling because of poor attendance, you have a right to be concerned. Conversely, flexibility in the hands of a good GM is a huge plus. That alone would give me hope even if the current state of affairs is less than desired.