Raptors @ Hawks | Friday Nov 7th 730 EST | TSN

[Basketball_Jones]

Orlando’s vision 6’9” running into the same issue we had with lack of ball handling/playmaking/shooting/center. I like their team though but damn shame it might just be a matter of time before the experiment fails like ours did.

[MoneyBall]

I think Orlando will be fine over the course of the season. Coach might be gone but I don’t have any doubts at them finishing above 45 wins.

Yeah... they have too much talent and high expectations to just fizzle away. Plus, the players do seem to compliment eachother well, at least on paper.

The player absolutely DO NOT compliment each other well at all which is the big problem for them. WE are worried about shooting ability on the Raptors, and we look like snipers compared to them. Look at their team:

Suggs - career 33% shooter
Bane - career 41% shooter
Franz - career 32% shooter
Paolo - career 32% shooter
WCJ - career 32% shooter

Black - career 34% shooter (low volume)
Silva - career 35% shooter
Goga - career 23% shooter
Jones - career 38% shooter

They have two main guys in Franz/Paolo who want to play the same way. They have pretty pathetic center play. They are a team of solid talents and zero fit whatsoever.

How to defend the Magic? Pack the paint, and tell Paolo he is worse than Franz so he tries to prove otherwise.

Those are just box score stats./s

[TheAlchemist23]

Hope we stop seeing Ochai in the regular rotation, sans inury, all together. Gradey is clearly ahead but Battle and Walter also have more to give.

[MoneyBall]

To think some were claiming it was better to give up 5 FRPs for Bane than it is to give up 1 FRP for BI.

I still like the Magic in this weak conference. They are a great team on paper. I think they’ll finish in the top 3.

The biggest risk with BI was always his injury history. The last thing the Magic need is another guy on the team missing a bunch of time due to injury.

[LoveMyRaps]

Read on Twitter

LMAOOOOO

What a horrendous take

[tsherkin]

To think some were claiming it was better to give up 5 FRPs for Bane than it is to give up 1 FRP for BI.

I still like the Magic in this weak conference. They are a great team on paper. I think they’ll finish in the top 3.

The biggest risk with BI was always his injury history. The last thing the Magic need is another guy on the team missing a bunch of time due to injury.

I mean, Bane's played 58, 42, and 69 games the past 3 seasons. He's not actually any healthier than BI.

[C_Money]

Orlando’s vision 6’9” running into the same issue we had with lack of ball handling/playmaking/shooting/center. I like their team though but damn shame it might just be a matter of time before the experiment fails like ours did.

Agreed. It would have been a great strategy in the early 2000’s but why the hell would anyone try it today?

[YogurtProducer]

Hope we stop seeing Ochai in the regular rotation, sans inury, all together. Gradey is clearly ahead but Battle and Walter also have more to give.

I don't agree with this.

Out of Gradey, Walter, Battle, and Ochai, he is the only one who can both defend and hit a 3. Walter IMO should be the one who is completely out (although I understand trying to give him some time development wise). Agbaji is a perfect fit alongside IQ/BI/Barnes in that starting lineup where all he does is defend and hit 3's. He should be one of the first subs into the game, if anything, and utilize his role player abilities as a... role player.

Can still start the same 5, but a quick yank of RJ for Agbaji, and maybe even Jak for Mamu, gives Barnes a nice spacey lineup to play with to for a few minutes in the 1st and 3rd quarters.

Reality is we probably should trade one of RJ/Dick/Ochai/Walter/Battle. We do not have minutes or cap for all 5 guys.

[YogurtProducer]

Orlando’s vision 6’9” running into the same issue we had with lack of ball handling/playmaking/shooting/center. I like their team though but damn shame it might just be a matter of time before the experiment fails like ours did.

Agreed. It would have been a great strategy in the early 2000’s but why the hell would anyone try it today?

It is a great strategy if you can shoot. That team looks completely different if they had 3 shooters instead of 1.

For what its worth, ours didn't really fail. We had zero offensive output and still managed 48 and 41 wins with those lineups. a "6'9" team has a crazy high floor. You just need some 6'9 guys who can actually play some offence and shoot. I still think my favorite team composition is one that has:

A "traditional PG", 3 big wings, and a center. Then off the bench have another guard, 2 more wings, and another big. Almost identical to what our 2019 team had in Lowry/Green/Kawhi/Siakam/Gasol and FVV/Norm/OG/Ibaka You have the ability to go big, or small, or traditional. Green was not "a big wing", but he defended the hell out of the 2/3 positions.

[MoneyBall]

To think some were claiming it was better to give up 5 FRPs for Bane than it is to give up 1 FRP for BI.

I still like the Magic in this weak conference. They are a great team on paper. I think they’ll finish in the top 3.

The biggest risk with BI was always his injury history. The last thing the Magic need is another guy on the team missing a bunch of time due to injury.

I mean, Bane's played 58, 42, and 69 games the past 3 seasons. He's not actually any healthier than BI.

Over the course of their respective careers? Yes, Bane's missed less games. The most games BI has played in a season since 2017-18 is only 64.

[HumbleRen]

Orlando’s vision 6’9” running into the same issue we had with lack of ball handling/playmaking/shooting/center. I like their team though but damn shame it might just be a matter of time before the experiment fails like ours did.

Agreed. It would have been a great strategy in the early 2000’s but why the hell would anyone try it today?

It is a great strategy if you can shoot. That team looks completely different if they had 3 shooters instead of 1.

For what its worth, ours didn't really fail. We had zero offensive output and still managed 48 and 41 wins with those lineups. a "6'9" team has a crazy high floor. You just need some 6'9 guys who can actually play some offence and shoot.

It failed.

[tsherkin]

Over the course of their respective careers? Yes, Bane's missed less games. The most games BI has played in a season since 2016-17 is only 64.

If you want to bandy over the slight difference in availability, sure, great. But basically, Bane is also a chronically injured player for whom they traded instead of the more dynamic guy who isn't far less healthy than the guy they acquired. That's the bullet point.

[YogurtProducer]

The biggest risk with BI was always his injury history. The last thing the Magic need is another guy on the team missing a bunch of time due to injury.

I mean, Bane's played 58, 42, and 69 games the past 3 seasons. He's not actually any healthier than BI.

Over the course of their respective careers? Yes, Bane's missed less games. The most games BI has played in a season since 2016-17 is only 64.

Ingram played 79 games in 2016-17.

Last 3 years Bane averages 56 games. Ingram is at ~55 games a year for his career and that is with an 18 game season last year where we held him out for months for no reason lol

[YogurtProducer]

Agreed. It would have been a great strategy in the early 2000’s but why the hell would anyone try it today?

It is a great strategy if you can shoot. That team looks completely different if they had 3 shooters instead of 1.

For what its worth, ours didn't really fail. We had zero offensive output and still managed 48 and 41 wins with those lineups. a "6'9" team has a crazy high floor. You just need some 6'9 guys who can actually play some offence and shoot.

It failed.

Okay, then by that logic so did over half the league. Should we also just say that using traditional sized players fails as well? That era of the Raptors lacked any upper echelon players, and simply on the style of play scraped to an average of 45 wins a year. That is not a failure of the "style" of play. The style of play was vindicated.

If you really wanna dig deep, it failed due to having no bench, and capping ourselves out. It didn't fail because the players were similarly sized. And if you wanna dig even deeper - we didn't even go "vision 6'9". We started a 6'0" PG and a skinny 6'5" SG for the entire time.

I fully believe a "6'9" type team can win. It would be very hard because "6'9" type players are the most valuable in the league and the costs get crazy. But the Celtics had two very good years with a very "6'9" team. Jrue was a big PG, White was a great defensive 2 (and was bigger, or played bigger, than FVV or GTJ), Brown/Tatum speak for themselves, and with Kristaps injured both playoff runs they ran with a 6'9" Horford.

[MoneyBall]

Over the course of their respective careers? Yes, Bane's missed less games. The most games BI has played in a season since 2016-17 is only 64.

If you want to bandy over the slight difference in availability, sure, great. But basically, Bane is also a chronically injured player for whom they traded instead of the more dynamic guy who isn't far less healthy than the guy they acquired. That's the bullet point.

There's a good reason why the rest of the league viewed BI as a bigger risk than Bane in the open trade market. BI's mileage and injury history is more extensive than Bane. That's not to say Bane is some sort of iron man, but there's a clear and significant difference between the two.

[tsherkin]

[
There's a good reason why the rest of the league viewed BI as a bigger risk than Bane in the open trade market. BI's mileage and injury history is more extensive than Bane. That's not to say Bane is some sort of iron man, but there's a clear and significant difference between the two.

NOt a huge one. Bane misses a lot of games every year himself. And he provides less. So, it remains an interesting situation.

[MoneyBall]

I mean, Bane's played 58, 42, and 69 games the past 3 seasons. He's not actually any healthier than BI.

Over the course of their respective careers? Yes, Bane's missed less games. The most games BI has played in a season since 2016-17 is only 64.

Ingram played 79 games in 2016-17.

Last 3 years Bane averages 56 games. Ingram is at ~55 games a year for his career and that is with an 18 game season last year where we held him out for months for no reason lol

I meant to say the last time he played more than 64 games was 2016-2017. Fixed.

Compare apples to apples next time.

[MoneyBall]

[
There's a good reason why the rest of the league viewed BI as a bigger risk than Bane in the open trade market. BI's mileage and injury history is more extensive than Bane. That's not to say Bane is some sort of iron man, but there's a clear and significant difference between the two.

NOt a huge one. Bane misses a lot of games every year himself. And he provides less. So, it remains an interesting situation.

The difference was a couple first round picks.

[YogurtProducer]

Over the course of their respective careers? Yes, Bane's missed less games. The most games BI has played in a season since 2016-17 is only 64.

Ingram played 79 games in 2016-17.

Last 3 years Bane averages 56 games. Ingram is at ~55 games a year for his career and that is with an 18 game season last year where we held him out for months for no reason lol

I meant to say the last time he played more than 64 games was 2016-2017. Fixed.

Compare apples to apples next time.

Applying context doesn't mean it is not a fair comparison - sheesh.

Most guys are not injury prone, until they are. Bane is looking like an injury prone guy in recent years.

[MoneyBall]

Ingram played 79 games in 2016-17.

Last 3 years Bane averages 56 games. Ingram is at ~55 games a year for his career and that is with an 18 game season last year where we held him out for months for no reason lol

I meant to say the last time he played more than 64 games was 2016-2017. Fixed.

Compare apples to apples next time.

Applying context doesn't mean it is not a fair comparison - sheesh.

Most guys are not injury prone, until they are. Bane is looking like an injury prone guy in recent years.

Your "context" is deliberately distorted. Last 3 years Ingram averaged 42 games per season. While Bane's worse season ever is 42 games lol. Bane's worst season is literally equal to Ingram's average. The difference between the two gets even worse for Ingram if you add or remove years for averages. You specifically chose 3 years to make Ingram look better than he has been.

I'm rooting for Ingram. I wish him the best.