The Gradey Dick Thread Part 3

[Asif16]

Gradey's 2nd half-explosion was one of the few bright spots to a depressing season.

He went from Bust to someone who can turn out to be a core role piece in a title-winning team. Im excited to see his progression

[Tor_Raps]

RJ said in his exit interview that he needs to work on his 3 point shot and defense in the offseason. These are the skills that will allow him to play off the ball with other ball dominant players. The reason why he didn't do as great with the Knicks is because he lacks those skills.

He definitely will have to have those skills on lock unless he becomes a star in his role or becomes a 6th man. He's only 23 friggin years old so I'm actually excited to see how he develops. If he remains somewhat the same then I agree with you, he just wouldn't be good enough to be as ball dominant as he is.

Aside from continuing to develop his 3pt shooting, and defense, it is his ability to get to the rim and score that is really so valuable to the team. They don't have the slashers from the wing position, and they are also critical in applying pressure on the rim to open up shooters, and vice versa (shooters opening up lanes for RJ to drive).

Totally get that. But if he gives it away with his defense and lack of shooting, then it's just neutral value. I'm hopeful the shooting jump is real as the increase in % seems to have come somewhat from the types of shots we are getting him to take. But I just don't see how he can fit in defensively even if he puts an entire off-season into it; you can't work on length, foot speed, or lateral quickness. Similar to how Scottie needs shooter to thrive around, IQ needs defenders that can hide him and keep him off ball.

I disagree, you actually can work on those things but a lot of offensive minded players disregard it because they're not the sexy things to do.

And yes, for this team RJ provides rim pressure from the perimeter that almost no one else does but this team currently is also one of the worst teams in the nba. A lot of comments against RJ are people who are thinking longterm and don't think you will win with his type of skillset from the wing.

I just need to remind them that he's only 23 so let's see how he develops. If he stagnates then I agree with this for sure but from all reports, RJ is seen as a hardworker. Not a bad risk from someone who was a throw in and seen as a "toxic" asset. The OG trade and the drafting of Barnes are the only 2 major moves I have loved from this front office since the championship.

[tecumseh18]

Well, he's a combo guard. Scottie and Pascal (at the beginning of the season) do a lot of "point guard" stuff.

I was always impressed by how the Raptors played without a proper point guard after Fred went down in the 2022 Sixers series. I've sorta wanted them to go in an all-big-all-the-time direction since then. If RJ can stay at the 2 and we get a proper OG-esque 3, we can stop being pushed around by bigger teams.

Jaime Jaquez? I don't see combo guard at all. He's more of small forward than anything. Basically all of his minutes this year with the Heat were there. And at UCLA he played either SF or PF most of the time.

Yeah, JJJ is a forward. Also, as someone who loved watching him at UCLA, I was shocked at how well he was shooting the 3 to start the season. There was no reason to think that this wasn't an outlier (very similar to Scottie's hot start). Well, he hit 29% from 3 after January 1st, after starting the season at 37%.

Weird that ESPN lists JJJ as a "guard". I haven't watched him a lot, but for reason thought of him as a combo guard.

One thing for sure, they've completely wedded themselves to a team built around Scottie Barnes, for better or worse.

What are the options? Trade Scottie, the only all-star from his class so far? The guy who was on his way to a triple double in his first playoff game before 300 lb of Cameroonian landed on his foot? The guy who in his 3rd season had stats matching 4th year Ant?

Scottie is our superstar. Let's just go with the flow and find him some shooters.

[dkb964]

Gradey's 2nd half-explosion was one of the few bright spots to a depressing season.

He went from Bust to someone who can turn out to be a core role piece in a title-winning team. Im excited to see his progression

Dick was 19 years old when he was drafted. I feel like posters are forgetting how young he is. You can't call a player who was a teeneager when drafted a bust in their first year. You just can't. You also can't proclaim he is a core role player on a title winning team either. There was a second half explosion? What? This post is bonkers!

[will]

Gradey's 2nd half-explosion was one of the few bright spots to a depressing season.

He went from Bust to someone who can turn out to be a core role piece in a title-winning team. Im excited to see his progression

Dick was 19 years old when he was drafted. I feel like posters are forgetting how young he is. You can't call a player who was a teeneager when drafted a bust in their first year. You just can't. You also can't proclaim he is a core role player on a title winning team either. This post is bonkers!

This board is bonkers!

[Asif16]

Gradey's 2nd half-explosion was one of the few bright spots to a depressing season.

He went from Bust to someone who can turn out to be a core role piece in a title-winning team. Im excited to see his progression

Dick was 19 years old when he was drafted. I feel like posters are forgetting how young he is. You can't call a player who was a teeneager when drafted a bust in their first year. You just can't. You also can't proclaim he is a core role player on a title winning team either. There was a second half explosion? What? This post is bonkers!

Not implying that he definitely WILL become a role piece on a Title-contending team, but his 2nd half of thew season was truly amazing to see. Like others have said, he was one of the best rookies post all-star break

Also the 2nd half explosion was me comparing it to the 1st half of the season. It was literally night and day

As fans we will always look at Celings and floors for players

[will]

Gradey's 2nd half-explosion was one of the few bright spots to a depressing season.

He went from Bust to someone who can turn out to be a core role piece in a title-winning team. Im excited to see his progression

Dick was 19 years old when he was drafted. I feel like posters are forgetting how young he is. You can't call a player who was a teeneager when drafted a bust in their first year. You just can't. You also can't proclaim he is a core role player on a title winning team either. There was a second half explosion? What? This post is bonkers!

Not implying that he definitely WILL become a role piece on a Title-contending team, but his 2nd half of thew season was truly amazing to see. Like others have said, he was one of the best rookies post all-star break

Also the 2nd half explosion was me comparing it to the 1st half of the season. It was literally night and day

As fans we will always look at Celings and floors for players

How about Toni Kroos retiring after the UCL final?

[ForeverTFC]

One thing for sure, they've completely wedded themselves to a team built around Scottie Barnes, for better or worse.

What are the options? Trade Scottie, the only all-star from his class so far? The guy who was on his way to a triple double in his first playoff game before 300 lb of Cameroonian landed on his foot? The guy who in his 3rd season had stats matching 4th year Ant?

Scottie is our superstar. Let's just go with the flow and find him some shooters.

The other option is to continue to accumulate the best assets that you can get and allow your focal point to emerge more naturally. The Gradey pick was as much BPA as it was fit alongside Scottie; Bobby ceded as much. Similarly, IQ is exactly the type of guard Scottie needs (as long as he develops into what we think he can).

I'm by no means saying they are making a mistake or that I disagree with their direction btw. But It's clear the FO thinks Scottie should be built around and that's the path they've chosen. If he doesn't hit the level they think he can hit, the rebuild will go down with him as the team is becoming so tuned to the way that he likes/needs to play and it doesn't really work without him.

[Scase]

Aside from continuing to develop his 3pt shooting, and defense, it is his ability to get to the rim and score that is really so valuable to the team. They don't have the slashers from the wing position, and they are also critical in applying pressure on the rim to open up shooters, and vice versa (shooters opening up lanes for RJ to drive).

Totally get that. But if he gives it away with his defense and lack of shooting, then it's just neutral value. I'm hopeful the shooting jump is real as the increase in % seems to have come somewhat from the types of shots we are getting him to take. But I just don't see how he can fit in defensively even if he puts an entire off-season into it; you can't work on length, foot speed, or lateral quickness. Similar to how Scottie needs shooter to thrive around, IQ needs defenders that can hide him and keep him off ball.

I disagree, you actually can work on those things but a lot of offensive minded players disregard it because they're not the sexy things to do.

And yes, for this team RJ provides rim pressure from the perimeter that almost no one else does but this team currently is also one of the worst teams in the nba. A lot of comments against RJ are people who are thinking longterm and don't think you will win with his type of skillset from the wing.

I just need to remind them that he's only 23 so let's see how he develops. If he stagnates then I agree with this for sure but from all reports, RJ is seen as a hardworker. Not a bad risk from someone who was a throw in and seen as a "toxic" asset. The OG trade and the drafting of Barnes are the only 2 major moves I have loved from this front office since the championship.

I want to give RJ the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that he's going into his 6th season is more important than his real life age.

He's played for Thibs ffs, if he couldn't manage being a better defender being coached by Thibs for 3.5 of his 5 years in the league, I'm not getting my hopes up that he magically figures it out cause he's 23.

Some players just can't wrap their heads around certain things. Rodman wasn't the greatest rebounder ever just because he worked hard. He also had an incredible understanding of positioning, and how the balls come off the rim. Part of that was studying tape, and part of that is innate ability/aptitude.

Lebron isn't lebron without being an athletic freak. OG 2 inches shorter and a smaller wingspan is still just as smart, but now he has physical limitations keeping him from being a lockdown defender. For RJ to truly be a long term solution for the team, he needs to be a better 3pt shooter (definitely possible), he needs to understand the game at a better defensive level (debatable), and he needs to develop much faster lateral quicks (impossible). I just don't see it happening, I'd be happy to be wrong, but I wouldn't bet money on it based on his age.

[ForeverTFC]

Totally get that. But if he gives it away with his defense and lack of shooting, then it's just neutral value. I'm hopeful the shooting jump is real as the increase in % seems to have come somewhat from the types of shots we are getting him to take. But I just don't see how he can fit in defensively even if he puts an entire off-season into it; you can't work on length, foot speed, or lateral quickness. Similar to how Scottie needs shooter to thrive around, IQ needs defenders that can hide him and keep him off ball.

I disagree, you actually can work on those things but a lot of offensive minded players disregard it because they're not the sexy things to do.

And yes, for this team RJ provides rim pressure from the perimeter that almost no one else does but this team currently is also one of the worst teams in the nba. A lot of comments against RJ are people who are thinking longterm and don't think you will win with his type of skillset from the wing.

I just need to remind them that he's only 23 so let's see how he develops. If he stagnates then I agree with this for sure but from all reports, RJ is seen as a hardworker. Not a bad risk from someone who was a throw in and seen as a "toxic" asset. The OG trade and the drafting of Barnes are the only 2 major moves I have loved from this front office since the championship.

I want to give RJ the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that he's going into his 6th season is more important than his real life age.

He's played for Thibs ffs, if he couldn't manage being a better defender being coached by Thibs for 3.5 of his 5 years in the league, I'm not getting my hopes up that he magically figures it out cause he's 23.

Some players just can't wrap their heads around certain things. Rodman wasn't the greatest rebounder ever just because he worked hard. He also had an incredible understanding of positioning, and how the balls come off the rim. Part of that was studying tape, and part of that is innate ability/aptitude.

Lebron isn't lebron without being an athletic freak. OG 2 inches shorter and a smaller wingspan is still just as smart, but now he has physical limitations keeping him from being a lockdown defender. For RJ to truly be a long term solution for the team, he needs to be a better 3pt shooter (definitely possible), he needs to understand the game at a better defensive level (debatable), and he needs to develop much faster lateral quicks (impossible). I just don't see it happening, I'd be happy to be wrong, but I wouldn't bet money on it based on his age.

I will say, to Tor_Raps' credit, he is right that RJ is nowhere near the toxic asset we were led to believe he was. He's definitely overpaid but to insinuate that he was the price we had to pay to make an OG for IQ swap was pretty ridiculous in retrospect. So perhaps his role in NY and what they asked of him was completely mis-aligned to who he was as a player which held him back from working on other aspects of his game.

I do think players can get better defensively simply through putting in more effort. But I'm with you that I don't see how he can improve his physical limitations. With that said, let's hope we are wrong and Tor_Raps is right. Turning a "toxic asset" into a valuable one is exactly what this team needs.

BTW - while Thibs is a good defensive coach, I don't think he's very good at developing it in players. The guy rarely trusts anyone that's not his guy and I can't really think of any players that have changed their trajectory under Thibs on the defensive end. He can mask bad defense to some degree with his system and relies on that more so than personal development.

[Scase]

I disagree, you actually can work on those things but a lot of offensive minded players disregard it because they're not the sexy things to do.

And yes, for this team RJ provides rim pressure from the perimeter that almost no one else does but this team currently is also one of the worst teams in the nba. A lot of comments against RJ are people who are thinking longterm and don't think you will win with his type of skillset from the wing.

I just need to remind them that he's only 23 so let's see how he develops. If he stagnates then I agree with this for sure but from all reports, RJ is seen as a hardworker. Not a bad risk from someone who was a throw in and seen as a "toxic" asset. The OG trade and the drafting of Barnes are the only 2 major moves I have loved from this front office since the championship.

I want to give RJ the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that he's going into his 6th season is more important than his real life age.

He's played for Thibs ffs, if he couldn't manage being a better defender being coached by Thibs for 3.5 of his 5 years in the league, I'm not getting my hopes up that he magically figures it out cause he's 23.

Some players just can't wrap their heads around certain things. Rodman wasn't the greatest rebounder ever just because he worked hard. He also had an incredible understanding of positioning, and how the balls come off the rim. Part of that was studying tape, and part of that is innate ability/aptitude.

Lebron isn't lebron without being an athletic freak. OG 2 inches shorter and a smaller wingspan is still just as smart, but now he has physical limitations keeping him from being a lockdown defender. For RJ to truly be a long term solution for the team, he needs to be a better 3pt shooter (definitely possible), he needs to understand the game at a better defensive level (debatable), and he needs to develop much faster lateral quicks (impossible). I just don't see it happening, I'd be happy to be wrong, but I wouldn't bet money on it based on his age.

I will say, to Tor_Raps' credit, he is right that RJ is nowhere near the toxic asset we were led to believe he was. He's definitely overpaid but to insinuate that he was the price we had to pay to make an OG for IQ swap was pretty ridiculous in retrospect. So perhaps his role in NY and what they asked of him was completely mis-aligned to who he was as a player which held him back from working on other aspects of his game.

I do think players can get better defensively simply through putting in more effort. But I'm with you that I don't see how he can improve his physical limitations. With that said, let's hope we are wrong and Tor_Raps is right. Turning a "toxic asset" into a valuable one is exactly what this team needs.

BTW - while Thibs is a good defensive coach, I don't think he's very good at developing it in players. The guy rarely trusts anyone that's not his guy and I can't really think of any players that have changed their trajectory under Thibs on the defensive end. He can mask bad defense to some degree with his system and relies on that more so than personal development.

I'm of the mindset that the Knicks probably saw him as a bit of a "throw in" whereas our FO didn't. Maybe they are right and he can blossom into something better, but their track record for the better part of the decade has not been good enough to give me confidence in that.

The "toxic" contract bit definitely seems like it was overblown. As you said, he's definitely overpaid, but not like he was a bad asset we needed to absorb. I think where a lot of the discourse comes from, is that a lot of "anti" RJ people don't actually have anything against him. We just don't see him as a long term fit/solution for the team, the parallels between him and DD are beyond their play style to me. I see him literally the same, a limited player who will help you get to a reasonable level of success, that you then package for a better player, to get over the hump. I don't by any stretch expect another Kawhi level trade, but I see him as a 4 quarters = a dollar type asset. And for some reason people get REALLY defensive about him and start making outlandish statements about how impactful he is/can be.

I think everyone who is reasonable can look at Scottie and say, realistically, he's never going to reach superstar status, but the potential is there and we have an outside shot of it happening.

But for some reason people can't look at RJ objectively and say the same thing, but replace it with all star. I think if RJ can expand his scoring game to be more dynamic and marginally become a better positional defender, he could be an AS level player, I'm just not convinced it's a realistic hope.

Fair point about Thibs and his lack of developmental skills, I still feel like you'd have to absorb something you know lol

[DreamTeam09]

I want to give RJ the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that he's going into his 6th season is more important than his real life age.

He's played for Thibs ffs, if he couldn't manage being a better defender being coached by Thibs for 3.5 of his 5 years in the league, I'm not getting my hopes up that he magically figures it out cause he's 23.

Some players just can't wrap their heads around certain things. Rodman wasn't the greatest rebounder ever just because he worked hard. He also had an incredible understanding of positioning, and how the balls come off the rim. Part of that was studying tape, and part of that is innate ability/aptitude.

Lebron isn't lebron without being an athletic freak. OG 2 inches shorter and a smaller wingspan is still just as smart, but now he has physical limitations keeping him from being a lockdown defender. For RJ to truly be a long term solution for the team, he needs to be a better 3pt shooter (definitely possible), he needs to understand the game at a better defensive level (debatable), and he needs to develop much faster lateral quicks (impossible). I just don't see it happening, I'd be happy to be wrong, but I wouldn't bet money on it based on his age.

I will say, to Tor_Raps' credit, he is right that RJ is nowhere near the toxic asset we were led to believe he was. He's definitely overpaid but to insinuate that he was the price we had to pay to make an OG for IQ swap was pretty ridiculous in retrospect. So perhaps his role in NY and what they asked of him was completely mis-aligned to who he was as a player which held him back from working on other aspects of his game.

I do think players can get better defensively simply through putting in more effort. But I'm with you that I don't see how he can improve his physical limitations. With that said, let's hope we are wrong and Tor_Raps is right. Turning a "toxic asset" into a valuable one is exactly what this team needs.

BTW - while Thibs is a good defensive coach, I don't think he's very good at developing it in players. The guy rarely trusts anyone that's not his guy and I can't really think of any players that have changed their trajectory under Thibs on the defensive end. He can mask bad defense to some degree with his system and relies on that more so than personal development.

I'm of the mindset that the Knicks probably saw him as a bit of a "throw in" whereas our FO didn't. Maybe they are right and he can blossom into something better, but their track record for the better part of the decade has not been good enough to give me confidence in that.

The "toxic" contract bit definitely seems like it was overblown. As you said, he's definitely overpaid, but not like he was a bad asset we needed to absorb. I think where a lot of the discourse comes from, is that a lot of "anti" RJ people don't actually have anything against him. We just don't see him as a long term fit/solution for the team, the parallels between him and DD are beyond their play style to me. I see him literally the same, a limited player who will help you get to a reasonable level of success, that you then package for a better player, to get over the hump. I don't by any stretch expect another Kawhi level trade, but I see him as a 4 quarters = a dollar type asset. And for some reason people get REALLY defensive about him and start making outlandish statements about how impactful he is/can be.

I think everyone who is reasonable can look at Scottie and say, realistically, he's never going to reach superstar status, but the potential is there and we have an outside shot of it happening.

But for some reason people can't look at RJ objectively and say the same thing, but replace it with all star. I think if RJ can expand his scoring game to be more dynamic and marginally become a better positional defender, he could be an AS level player, I'm just not convinced it's a realistic hope.

Fair point about Thibs and his lack of developmental skills, I still feel like you'd have to absorb something you know lol

I mean it's a bit early to make your first proclamation, if you do get push back on that notion, maybe it's because why do you even need to make that proclamation so early in his Raptor tenure to begin with. If I'm not mistaken he's on his like 4th or 5th coach in 6yrs, that's definitely going to impact someone negatively early on...

Again, writing off Scottie as a non-superstar this early is a bit of a stretch as well, again, why do you even wanna make that proclamation?

Were you really not impressed with RJ the moment he became a Raptor? He scored efficiently for us, showed that he's not totally 100% tunnel vision & his defense wasn't nearly as bad as he's been made out to be.

Bill Simmons & the bald guy that's usually with him mentioned this same notion that many ppl have. Theres 32 teams, its physically impossible to have a top 10 player on every team, and everyone gets caught up with "well not that guy, not this guy, he's not that good" In a 32 team league, 2 "Stars" brings you to the top 65. He made the point that the Pacers made a trade for a guy, who everyone would call "not that guy" but who is indiana supposed to get? They should disregard a top 65 player because ppl may think hes not a top 20 player? Well they are now in the Eastern Conference. I think everyone gets caught up in "he's good, but not a star so what's the point? That mentality is not a winning one, this isn't a 2k simulation but a lot us seem to think that there's a specific formula to get it done.

[Scase]

I will say, to Tor_Raps' credit, he is right that RJ is nowhere near the toxic asset we were led to believe he was. He's definitely overpaid but to insinuate that he was the price we had to pay to make an OG for IQ swap was pretty ridiculous in retrospect. So perhaps his role in NY and what they asked of him was completely mis-aligned to who he was as a player which held him back from working on other aspects of his game.

I do think players can get better defensively simply through putting in more effort. But I'm with you that I don't see how he can improve his physical limitations. With that said, let's hope we are wrong and Tor_Raps is right. Turning a "toxic asset" into a valuable one is exactly what this team needs.

BTW - while Thibs is a good defensive coach, I don't think he's very good at developing it in players. The guy rarely trusts anyone that's not his guy and I can't really think of any players that have changed their trajectory under Thibs on the defensive end. He can mask bad defense to some degree with his system and relies on that more so than personal development.

I'm of the mindset that the Knicks probably saw him as a bit of a "throw in" whereas our FO didn't. Maybe they are right and he can blossom into something better, but their track record for the better part of the decade has not been good enough to give me confidence in that.

The "toxic" contract bit definitely seems like it was overblown. As you said, he's definitely overpaid, but not like he was a bad asset we needed to absorb. I think where a lot of the discourse comes from, is that a lot of "anti" RJ people don't actually have anything against him. We just don't see him as a long term fit/solution for the team, the parallels between him and DD are beyond their play style to me. I see him literally the same, a limited player who will help you get to a reasonable level of success, that you then package for a better player, to get over the hump. I don't by any stretch expect another Kawhi level trade, but I see him as a 4 quarters = a dollar type asset. And for some reason people get REALLY defensive about him and start making outlandish statements about how impactful he is/can be.

I think everyone who is reasonable can look at Scottie and say, realistically, he's never going to reach superstar status, but the potential is there and we have an outside shot of it happening.

But for some reason people can't look at RJ objectively and say the same thing, but replace it with all star. I think if RJ can expand his scoring game to be more dynamic and marginally become a better positional defender, he could be an AS level player, I'm just not convinced it's a realistic hope.

Fair point about Thibs and his lack of developmental skills, I still feel like you'd have to absorb something you know lol

I mean it's a bit early to make your first proclamation, if you do get push back on that notion, maybe it's because why do you even need to make that proclamation so early in his Raptor tenure to begin with. If I'm not mistaken he's on his like 4th or 5th coach in 6yrs, that's definitely going to impact someone negatively early on...

Again, writing off Scottie as a non-superstar this early is a bit of a stretch as well, again, why do you even wanna make that proclamation?

Were you really not impressed with RJ the moment he became a Raptor? He scored efficiently for us, showed that he's not totally 100% tunnel vision & his defense wasn't nearly as bad as he's been made out to be.

Bill Simmons & the bald guy that's usually with him mentioned this same notion that many ppl have. Theres 32 teams, its physically impossible to have a top 10 player on every team, and everyone gets caught up with "well not that guy, not this guy, he's not that good" In a 32 team league, 2 "Stars" brings you to the top 65. He made the point that the Pacers made a trade for a guy, who everyone would call "not that guy" but who is indiana supposed to get? They should disregard a top 65 player because ppl may think hes not a top 20 player? Well they are now in the Eastern Conference. I think everyone gets caught up in "he's good, but not a star so what's the point? That mentality is not a winning one, this isn't a 2k simulation but a lot us seem to think that there's a specific formula to get it done.

Listen man, if you want to think that Scottie has anything besides an outside shot being a top 5 player in the NBA, be my guest.But you're literally the people I'm talking about.

You're taking issue with an incredibly realistic comment that Scottie is not likely to become a superstar in the league, there are VERY few of them, and all of them are scoring at a clip that is probably impossible for him to ever match. Hope all you want, I hope that he can be too, but I don't think it's even remotely logical to assume it's anything besides a hope.

And no, I'm not really impressed by a 32 game sample size of RJs vs a 297 game sample size. I'm super happy he played better here than in NYC, but it was 30 games, being impressed by that is as nonsensical as the people writing off Gradey as a bust 30 games into the season.

This isn't about a "we need two top 10 guys" it's a "these players are not good enough to propel the team to contender status". I'm saying the exact same thing as simmons. I'm not lambasting RJ for not being a top 10 player, I'm saying (again) being realistic about what and who he is, is directly tied to what kind of success to reasonably expect from the team.

No team in the NBA is going to be successful with a player like RJ as their leading scorer. That's like trying to build a team around Terry Rozier as your leading scorer, sure they will go out and get you 20-23ppg, but you're going to lose constantly.

[ForeverTFC]

I mean it's a bit early to make your first proclamation, if you do get push back on that notion, maybe it's because why do you even need to make that proclamation so early in his Raptor tenure to begin with. If I'm not mistaken he's on his like 4th or 5th coach in 6yrs, that's definitely going to impact someone negatively early on...

Again, writing off Scottie as a non-superstar this early is a bit of a stretch as well, again, why do you even wanna make that proclamation?

Were you really not impressed with RJ the moment he became a Raptor? He scored efficiently for us, showed that he's not totally 100% tunnel vision & his defense wasn't nearly as bad as he's been made out to be.

Bill Simmons & the bald guy that's usually with him mentioned this same notion that many ppl have. Theres 32 teams, its physically impossible to have a top 10 player on every team, and everyone gets caught up with "well not that guy, not this guy, he's not that good" In a 32 team league, 2 "Stars" brings you to the top 65. He made the point that the Pacers made a trade for a guy, who everyone would call "not that guy" but who is indiana supposed to get? They should disregard a top 65 player because ppl may think hes not a top 20 player? Well they are now in the Eastern Conference. I think everyone gets caught up in "he's good, but not a star so what's the point? That mentality is not a winning one, this isn't a 2k simulation but a lot us seem to think that there's a specific formula to get it done.

Listen man, if you want to think that Scottie has anything besides an outside shot being a top 5 player in the NBA, be my guest.But you're literally the people I'm talking about.

You're taking issue with an incredibly realistic comment that Scottie is not likely to become a superstar in the league, there are VERY few of them, and all of them are scoring at a clip that is probably impossible for him to ever match. Hope all you want, I hope that he can be too, but I don't think it's even remotely logical to assume it's anything besides a hope.

And no, I'm not really impressed by a 32 game sample size of RJs vs a 297 game sample size. I'm super happy he played better here than in NYC, but it was 30 games, being impressed by that is as nonsensical as the people writing off Gradey as a bust 30 games into the season.

This isn't about a "we need two top 10 guys" it's a "these players are not good enough to propel the team to contender status". I'm saying the exact same thing as simmons. I'm not lambasting RJ for not being a top 10 player, I'm saying (again) being realistic about what and who he is, is directly tied to what kind of success to reasonably expect from the team.

No team in the NBA is going to be successful with a player like RJ as their leading scorer. That's like trying to build a team around Terry Rozier as your leading scorer, sure they will go out and get you 20-23ppg, but you're going to lose constantly.

Just because you don't have a top 10 player doesn't mean you don't build towards a winner though. That's actually what I take exception to with the premise of perpetual tanking and tear downs; that you keep losing until you have a top 10 guy on the roster. Based on this premise, 20 teams should be losing every year. We'd have no league if this was the case.

I'm not sure why the tone of this discussion has become so adversarial. Based on what I can tell, a few of us are saying we don't see RJ as a long term fit while others are saying while that may be true, at this point in time it is premature to say so. I think that's reasonable given we are so early in our rebuild that it really doesn't hurt us to wait and see growth in some guys.

Again, my view is that RJ won't fit and as a result I wouldn't build the roster with him in mind <-- this is the main point that I would debate and would sour on the FO if they did prioritize "fit" with RJ as how they build the team. They have not done that with their moves since the trade though so all good. However, I really hope he keeps growing and becomes positive value for us as a trade chip. And if during that, he does prove me wrong, that's the best case scenario, isn't it?

[DreamTeam09]

I'm of the mindset that the Knicks probably saw him as a bit of a "throw in" whereas our FO didn't. Maybe they are right and he can blossom into something better, but their track record for the better part of the decade has not been good enough to give me confidence in that.

The "toxic" contract bit definitely seems like it was overblown. As you said, he's definitely overpaid, but not like he was a bad asset we needed to absorb. I think where a lot of the discourse comes from, is that a lot of "anti" RJ people don't actually have anything against him. We just don't see him as a long term fit/solution for the team, the parallels between him and DD are beyond their play style to me. I see him literally the same, a limited player who will help you get to a reasonable level of success, that you then package for a better player, to get over the hump. I don't by any stretch expect another Kawhi level trade, but I see him as a 4 quarters = a dollar type asset. And for some reason people get REALLY defensive about him and start making outlandish statements about how impactful he is/can be.

I think everyone who is reasonable can look at Scottie and say, realistically, he's never going to reach superstar status, but the potential is there and we have an outside shot of it happening.

But for some reason people can't look at RJ objectively and say the same thing, but replace it with all star. I think if RJ can expand his scoring game to be more dynamic and marginally become a better positional defender, he could be an AS level player, I'm just not convinced it's a realistic hope.

Fair point about Thibs and his lack of developmental skills, I still feel like you'd have to absorb something you know lol

I mean it's a bit early to make your first proclamation, if you do get push back on that notion, maybe it's because why do you even need to make that proclamation so early in his Raptor tenure to begin with. If I'm not mistaken he's on his like 4th or 5th coach in 6yrs, that's definitely going to impact someone negatively early on...

Again, writing off Scottie as a non-superstar this early is a bit of a stretch as well, again, why do you even wanna make that proclamation?

Were you really not impressed with RJ the moment he became a Raptor? He scored efficiently for us, showed that he's not totally 100% tunnel vision & his defense wasn't nearly as bad as he's been made out to be.

Bill Simmons & the bald guy that's usually with him mentioned this same notion that many ppl have. Theres 32 teams, its physically impossible to have a top 10 player on every team, and everyone gets caught up with "well not that guy, not this guy, he's not that good" In a 32 team league, 2 "Stars" brings you to the top 65. He made the point that the Pacers made a trade for a guy, who everyone would call "not that guy" but who is indiana supposed to get? They should disregard a top 65 player because ppl may think hes not a top 20 player? Well they are now in the Eastern Conference. I think everyone gets caught up in "he's good, but not a star so what's the point? That mentality is not a winning one, this isn't a 2k simulation but a lot us seem to think that there's a specific formula to get it done.

Listen man, if you want to think that Scottie has anything besides an outside shot being a top 5 player in the NBA, be my guest.But you're literally the people I'm talking about.

You're taking issue with an incredibly realistic comment that Scottie is not likely to become a superstar in the league, there are VERY few of them, and all of them are scoring at a clip that is probably impossible for him to ever match. Hope all you want, I hope that he can be too, but I don't think it's even remotely logical to assume it's anything besides a hope.

And no, I'm not really impressed by a 32 game sample size of RJs vs a 297 game sample size. I'm super happy he played better here than in NYC, but it was 30 games, being impressed by that is as nonsensical as the people writing off Gradey as a bust 30 games into the season.

This isn't about a "we need two top 10 guys" it's a "these players are not good enough to propel the team to contender status". I'm saying the exact same thing as simmons. I'm not lambasting RJ for not being a top 10 player, I'm saying (again) being realistic about what and who he is, is directly tied to what kind of success to reasonably expect from the team.

No team in the NBA is going to be successful with a player like RJ as their leading scorer. That's like trying to build a team around Terry Rozier as your leading scorer, sure they will go out and get you 20-23ppg, but you're going to lose constantly.

Do I think Scottie can be a top 5 player in the NBA, maybe, maybe not. My question to you would be so now what? If only 5 players can be top 5 players, what do you do with the other 400+ nba players?
We aren't building around RJ, don't you feel like Quickly & even Barnes can/will be better scorers & eclipse 20ppg. There's not many teams out there are sporting 3 20pt scorers...
If Scottie ever does reach superstar status, it won't be because he's some uber scorer. He's going to be a 2way do it all force.

[Scase]

I mean it's a bit early to make your first proclamation, if you do get push back on that notion, maybe it's because why do you even need to make that proclamation so early in his Raptor tenure to begin with. If I'm not mistaken he's on his like 4th or 5th coach in 6yrs, that's definitely going to impact someone negatively early on...

Again, writing off Scottie as a non-superstar this early is a bit of a stretch as well, again, why do you even wanna make that proclamation?

Were you really not impressed with RJ the moment he became a Raptor? He scored efficiently for us, showed that he's not totally 100% tunnel vision & his defense wasn't nearly as bad as he's been made out to be.

Bill Simmons & the bald guy that's usually with him mentioned this same notion that many ppl have. Theres 32 teams, its physically impossible to have a top 10 player on every team, and everyone gets caught up with "well not that guy, not this guy, he's not that good" In a 32 team league, 2 "Stars" brings you to the top 65. He made the point that the Pacers made a trade for a guy, who everyone would call "not that guy" but who is indiana supposed to get? They should disregard a top 65 player because ppl may think hes not a top 20 player? Well they are now in the Eastern Conference. I think everyone gets caught up in "he's good, but not a star so what's the point? That mentality is not a winning one, this isn't a 2k simulation but a lot us seem to think that there's a specific formula to get it done.

Listen man, if you want to think that Scottie has anything besides an outside shot being a top 5 player in the NBA, be my guest.But you're literally the people I'm talking about.

You're taking issue with an incredibly realistic comment that Scottie is not likely to become a superstar in the league, there are VERY few of them, and all of them are scoring at a clip that is probably impossible for him to ever match. Hope all you want, I hope that he can be too, but I don't think it's even remotely logical to assume it's anything besides a hope.

And no, I'm not really impressed by a 32 game sample size of RJs vs a 297 game sample size. I'm super happy he played better here than in NYC, but it was 30 games, being impressed by that is as nonsensical as the people writing off Gradey as a bust 30 games into the season.

This isn't about a "we need two top 10 guys" it's a "these players are not good enough to propel the team to contender status". I'm saying the exact same thing as simmons. I'm not lambasting RJ for not being a top 10 player, I'm saying (again) being realistic about what and who he is, is directly tied to what kind of success to reasonably expect from the team.

No team in the NBA is going to be successful with a player like RJ as their leading scorer. That's like trying to build a team around Terry Rozier as your leading scorer, sure they will go out and get you 20-23ppg, but you're going to lose constantly.

Just because you don't have a top 10 player doesn't mean you don't build towards a winner though. That's actually what I take exception to with the premise of perpetual tanking and tear downs; that you keep losing until you have a top 10 guy on the roster. Based on this premise, 20 teams should be losing every year. We'd have no league if this was the case.

I'm not sure why the tone of this discussion has become so adversarial. Based on what I can tell, a few of us are saying we don't see RJ as a long term fit while others are saying while that may be true, at this point in time it is premature to say so. I think that's reasonable given we are so early in our rebuild that it really doesn't hurt us to wait and see growth in some guys.

Again, my view is that RJ won't fit and as a result I wouldn't build the roster with him in mind <-- this is the main point that I would debate and would sour on the FO if they did prioritize "fit" with RJ as how they build the team. They have not done that with their moves since the trade though so all good. However, I really hope he keeps growing and becomes positive value for us as a trade chip. And if during that, he does prove me wrong, that's the best case scenario, isn't it?

I agree for the most part, but I think there is a rather large gap between being sucky for a couple years to restock talent, and perpetual tanking. I'm not advocating for that and never have been.

As for the adversarial bit, it's infuriating that when you say something as insanely realistic like Scottie has a very outside shot of being a top 5 player in the league, specifically mention people who can't rationalize with that. And then the next immediate response is a "I don't understand how you can say that". Like for real? It's outlandish to state that a player who lacks one of the most important aspects of a superstar, is not likely to become a superstar? That it's unlikely to become a top 5 player?

It's one of the tamest possible statements you can make about this team.

I rarely if ever make absolute statements about players like this, because they definitely have the ability to be great, they didn't make it to the NBA for nothing. I speak in probabilities, people are more than welcome to disagree and that's fine. If someone wants to say they can see RJ in the long term plans for the team, I disagree, but I can see the rationale as it's usually followed up by "if he can do X/Y/Z".

But if someone wants to act like I'm making some absolute statement and I'm "writing" a player off because I'm being realistic, then that's when it gets combative. I'm not here to placate someone who wants to be disjointed from reality, I'm here to discuss the likely future of the team and its players.

I mean it's a bit early to make your first proclamation, if you do get push back on that notion, maybe it's because why do you even need to make that proclamation so early in his Raptor tenure to begin with. If I'm not mistaken he's on his like 4th or 5th coach in 6yrs, that's definitely going to impact someone negatively early on...

Again, writing off Scottie as a non-superstar this early is a bit of a stretch as well, again, why do you even wanna make that proclamation?

Were you really not impressed with RJ the moment he became a Raptor? He scored efficiently for us, showed that he's not totally 100% tunnel vision & his defense wasn't nearly as bad as he's been made out to be.

Bill Simmons & the bald guy that's usually with him mentioned this same notion that many ppl have. Theres 32 teams, its physically impossible to have a top 10 player on every team, and everyone gets caught up with "well not that guy, not this guy, he's not that good" In a 32 team league, 2 "Stars" brings you to the top 65. He made the point that the Pacers made a trade for a guy, who everyone would call "not that guy" but who is indiana supposed to get? They should disregard a top 65 player because ppl may think hes not a top 20 player? Well they are now in the Eastern Conference. I think everyone gets caught up in "he's good, but not a star so what's the point? That mentality is not a winning one, this isn't a 2k simulation but a lot us seem to think that there's a specific formula to get it done.

Listen man, if you want to think that Scottie has anything besides an outside shot being a top 5 player in the NBA, be my guest.But you're literally the people I'm talking about.

You're taking issue with an incredibly realistic comment that Scottie is not likely to become a superstar in the league, there are VERY few of them, and all of them are scoring at a clip that is probably impossible for him to ever match. Hope all you want, I hope that he can be too, but I don't think it's even remotely logical to assume it's anything besides a hope.

And no, I'm not really impressed by a 32 game sample size of RJs vs a 297 game sample size. I'm super happy he played better here than in NYC, but it was 30 games, being impressed by that is as nonsensical as the people writing off Gradey as a bust 30 games into the season.

This isn't about a "we need two top 10 guys" it's a "these players are not good enough to propel the team to contender status". I'm saying the exact same thing as simmons. I'm not lambasting RJ for not being a top 10 player, I'm saying (again) being realistic about what and who he is, is directly tied to what kind of success to reasonably expect from the team.

No team in the NBA is going to be successful with a player like RJ as their leading scorer. That's like trying to build a team around Terry Rozier as your leading scorer, sure they will go out and get you 20-23ppg, but you're going to lose constantly.

Do I think Scottie can be a top 5 player in the NBA, maybe, maybe not. My question to you would be so now what? If only 5 players can be top 5 players, what do you do with the other 400+ nba players?
We aren't building around RJ, don't you feel like Quickly & even Barnes can/will be better scorers & eclipse 20ppg. There's not many teams out there with 3 potent
If Scottie ever does reach superstar status, it won't be because he's some uber scorer. He's going to be a 2way do it all force.

I already explained that, all you have to do is read. RJ to me is DD 2.0, he is around the team for a few years, gets marginally better, the team sees moderate success, and then we hopfully package him with other assets for a much better player.

The other 400+ players in the NBA are supporting players, and they get utilized in any way a team deems viable for their success. Trade them, keep them, waive them, etc. My opinion is the above on RJ.

If you think Scotties path to superstardom is being a 2 way player, then so be it, that is going to be a large part of it for sure. But his ability to score at an elite rate is what's truly needed. Go take a gander at the MVP voting this year, and tell me which one of those players Scottie is likely to go punch for punch against in scoring?

Top 5 players aren't jack of all trades type players. They are elite scorers. The last 2 way "do it all" player was Kawhi and he was putting up 25-27ppg on insane efficiency while also being top ten in DPOY. And the one year he was putting up 21ppg, he won DPOY and was again, insanely efficient.

You're expecting Scottie to do something like 1 other player has done in the last 10-20 years. You're not being even vaguely realistic. you saying "maybe he will, maybe he won't" is the same thing I'm saying. I'm just willing to say it's very unlikely, it's not writing off a player to predict their outcome based on current production. I feel pretty confident saying that no one outside Scottie on this team has anything close to top 10 capabilities, is that writing them off too? Must I wait until Gradeys entire career is over before saying he won't likely be the greatest shooter of all time?

[will]

I mean it's a bit early to make your first proclamation, if you do get push back on that notion, maybe it's because why do you even need to make that proclamation so early in his Raptor tenure to begin with. If I'm not mistaken he's on his like 4th or 5th coach in 6yrs, that's definitely going to impact someone negatively early on...

Again, writing off Scottie as a non-superstar this early is a bit of a stretch as well, again, why do you even wanna make that proclamation?

Were you really not impressed with RJ the moment he became a Raptor? He scored efficiently for us, showed that he's not totally 100% tunnel vision & his defense wasn't nearly as bad as he's been made out to be.

Bill Simmons & the bald guy that's usually with him mentioned this same notion that many ppl have. Theres 32 teams, its physically impossible to have a top 10 player on every team, and everyone gets caught up with "well not that guy, not this guy, he's not that good" In a 32 team league, 2 "Stars" brings you to the top 65. He made the point that the Pacers made a trade for a guy, who everyone would call "not that guy" but who is indiana supposed to get? They should disregard a top 65 player because ppl may think hes not a top 20 player? Well they are now in the Eastern Conference. I think everyone gets caught up in "he's good, but not a star so what's the point? That mentality is not a winning one, this isn't a 2k simulation but a lot us seem to think that there's a specific formula to get it done.

Listen man, if you want to think that Scottie has anything besides an outside shot being a top 5 player in the NBA, be my guest.But you're literally the people I'm talking about.

You're taking issue with an incredibly realistic comment that Scottie is not likely to become a superstar in the league, there are VERY few of them, and all of them are scoring at a clip that is probably impossible for him to ever match. Hope all you want, I hope that he can be too, but I don't think it's even remotely logical to assume it's anything besides a hope.

And no, I'm not really impressed by a 32 game sample size of RJs vs a 297 game sample size. I'm super happy he played better here than in NYC, but it was 30 games, being impressed by that is as nonsensical as the people writing off Gradey as a bust 30 games into the season.

This isn't about a "we need two top 10 guys" it's a "these players are not good enough to propel the team to contender status". I'm saying the exact same thing as simmons. I'm not lambasting RJ for not being a top 10 player, I'm saying (again) being realistic about what and who he is, is directly tied to what kind of success to reasonably expect from the team.

No team in the NBA is going to be successful with a player like RJ as their leading scorer. That's like trying to build a team around Terry Rozier as your leading scorer, sure they will go out and get you 20-23ppg, but you're going to lose constantly.

Do I think Scottie can be a top 5 player in the NBA, maybe, maybe not. My question to you would be so now what? If only 5 players can be top 5 players, what do you do with the other 400+ nba players?
We aren't building around RJ, don't you feel like Quickly & even Barnes can/will be better scorers & eclipse 20ppg. There's not many teams out there are sporting 3 20pt scorers...
If Scottie ever does reach superstar status, it won't be because he's some uber scorer. He's going to be a 2way do it all force.

Scottish ain't going to be a top 5 player. That's going to involve scoring close to 30 PPG.

He'll top out at being a top 10 player.

[dagger]

There certainly have been trades where a player gains from being put in a new role and no longer has to live up to the expectations of the team that originally drafted him. It's basically up to the player. RJ was in an odd situation, a third overall pick in a good but not great draft, in an unforgiving market, sandwiched role wise between Randle and then Brunson. If they had been content to develop him as a third banana, or a defensive stopper, he might have succeeded there, but he was drafted to be a scorer. Now, here in Toronto, he doesn't have to be that guy who was a third overall pick, he can just be RJ, work on his shooting and D, and given that he is not being paid a max salary, but about 60% of one, he can nicely up his value and either become a long-term piece, or after a season or two go by, an attractive part of a package to get back a star.

As for Gradey, since this thread has been de-railed, I believe if he works hard the next TWO summers, he will exceed his draft position and become a really nice part of our next playoff (not play-in) team.

[djsunyc]

did we ever get the story of the tattoo's meaning?

[djsunyc]

as for rj, imho, what he did with the knicks is no longer relevant.

all that matters is what he does for us. so far i was pleasantly surprised with how he performed. now we need to see where it goes from here.

39% from 3 on 3.8 attempts - most of them catch and shoot as 97.9% of these attempts were assisted.

55.3% from the field (61.5 TS%) - most of them on the move with very little iso ball.

we used him the way he should be used - and masai said this when the trade was made. he gives us a dimension we don't have, an attacker that's willing to get fouled and get to the line.

if he shot his normal ~73% from the ft line, his scoring #'s would be even better.