Reasons to Keep Bargnani

[Harry Palmer]

*He's loyal.
*He's marketable.
*He emphasizes easily digestible statistical accomplishments.
*He's atypical.

[ItsDanger]

Trade some other guys for a legit 5 and keep Bargs at the 4. Better option IMO.

[Too Late Crew]

Trade some other guys for a legit 5 and keep Bargs at the 4. Better option IMO.

Because legit 5s are easy to find right?

Or is it becuase high usaeage, low efficeicny, poor rebounding/defending PFs are so hard to find that the only way to get one is keep Bargs?

I'm being partly sarcastic here but hinestly ..why do people have this notion that moving Bargs to the 4 will change things. I'm not in the lose him for nothing camp but if I want 20 ppg and 5 rpg I can get it from any number of SFs who are a lot better at playing defense from their position.

[Double Helix]

Trade some other guys for a legit 5 and keep Bargs at the 4. Better option IMO.

Because legit 5s are easy to find right?

Or is it becuase high usaeage, low efficeicny, poor rebounding/defending PFs are so hard to find that the only way to get one is keep Bargs?

I'm being partly sarcastic here but hinestly ..why do people have this notion that moving Bargs to the 4 will change things. I'm not in the lose him for nothing camp but if I want 20 ppg and 5 rpg I can get it from any number of SFs who are a lot better at playing defense from their position.

First of all, I don't think it's as easy to find these good scoring/quality defending/solid rebounding SFs as you think. With the exception of perhaps Wilson Chandler, Luol Deng or an aging Gerald Wallace -- all of whom I don't think aren't going anywhere anytime soon and some of which who were already recently traded -- I don't really see too many other realistic options at the SF spot outside of perhaps this upcoming draft.

And it's precisely this lack of availability and lack of talent on this team that's the reason for why Bargnani has the scoring role that he has. As these debates have raged on over the past months about Bargnani's worth and the facts have been presented I've finally come to terms with the fact that it really doesn't matter to me any longer whether he starts or does take on more of an Antawn Jamison/Jason Terry/Jamal Crawford/KVH/Lamar Odom role off the bench because the more I think about it... the more I think that role truly will maximize his strengths as a scorer and minimize his weaknesses as a defender. Many of those guys still found ways to play 30 minutes per game but they played a lot of those minutes against slightly lesser competition and Bargnani will eat up and not be eaten alive by opposing backups Cs or PFs in the NBA. And him taking on that role wouldn't be some big insult to this team or where he was drafted. 6th men types have huge impacts in both the regular season and especially in the playoffs.

The thing is... Just like the Hawks were starting Terry for years in Atlanta and just as Lamar Odom was starting for the Clippers... We need to acquire enough talent first to move these types to the bench. Once we've got some stars on this team and proper starting C option and Ed Davis/Amir are starting to maximize their potential I have no problem with AB being sort of 6th man. But first let's get those guys and just ride these losses and not make such a big deal about some of these defensive stats during a rebuilding season as though it's always going to be this way. There is a perfect storm of problems on the Raptors all working together to make everybody look a lot worse than they probably are individually. It won't always be this way but rebuilding is painful and as much as fans claim they want it... this season is evidence that most really can't deal with the harsh realities of it and will constantly look to point the finger at somebody even when nobody thought we'd make the playoffs anyway.

[Cake Walk]

This is why adjusted +/- exists. Bosh was 15th last year among players with 2000+ minutes; Bargs was 20th from the bottom.

The sad bit? That was a banner year for him...his adjusted +/- this year and in '08-'09 grade out worse.

Adjusted +/- is just another flawed and Biased stat designed to make Bargs look bad. It adjusts for many things but its missing the multplier for uniqueness!

Take adjusted +/- and then multiply by 10 if a player is Italian, by 10 more if he''s a 7 footer who shoots 3s and that gives you Bargs true adjusted +/-

I bet you are popular in your social circle. A++ personality. Great sense of humour. Infective personality. What a catch!

lol @ using plus minus...using a team statistic to try to paint a picture about an individual player. Those are just a bunch if numbers with no relationship to each other. Each game is different, we play different player in different teams in different cities with different matchups with different variables (b2b, injuries, ect)

LOL PLUS MINUS

[Too Late Crew]

This is why adjusted +/- exists. Bosh was 15th last year among players with 2000+ minutes; Bargs was 20th from the bottom.

The sad bit? That was a banner year for him...his adjusted +/- this year and in '08-'09 grade out worse.

Adjusted +/- is just another flawed and Biased stat designed to make Bargs look bad. It adjusts for many things but its missing the multplier for uniqueness!

Take adjusted +/- and then multiply by 10 if a player is Italian, by 10 more if he''s a 7 footer who shoots 3s and that gives you Bargs true adjusted +/-

I bet you are popular in your social circle. A++ personality. Great sense of humour. Infective personality. What a catch!

lol @ using plus minus...using a team statistic to try to paint a picture about an individual player. Those are just a bunch if numbers with no relationship to each other. Each game is different, we play different player in different teams in different cities with different matchups with different variables (b2b, injuries, ect)

LOL PLUS MINUS

Yeah lets focus on individual stats instead

So we have 22 ppg and ............

I'm waiting....................

[Reignman]

Trade some other guys for a legit 5 and keep Bargs at the 4. Better option IMO.

Bargnani isn't a starting big man in this league, some of you need to wake up. And we aren't getting D12 so leave that strawman for someone else.

Bargnani has played hundreds of mins at the 4, which you conveniently left out and guess what? He sucked even more at that spot.

The arguments are starting to border on (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

[Reignman]

Here's the thing: I think some of you think that some of the people who've been debating Bargnani's value with you are these huge Bargnani homers who can find no wrong in the guy. You probably think he's our favorite player or something. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the guy's weaknesses and he's not my favorite Raptor. I know he's not anywhere near being anything close to a franchise player and as mentioned about a million times by now nobody else involved with the Raptors thinks he is either. The fact that there's been this much hatred and "I want him gone. I'll trade him for anybody" talk is the only reason I've been participating in these "debates."

He's a 25-year-old player with a PER of 16.5. He has the 51st highest VA/EWA ranking in the league this year. He's nothing special but he's not the awful piece of crap that so many have tried to make him out to be. He's become this whipping boy for no other reason than the fact that he was taken 1st overall and because he required some nurturing in order to become nothing more than a 3rd banana type of player. This resentment consumes many Raptors fans but I have a question for you guys and I want you to try and ask yourself this honestly... Would you really be this upset if we had drafted this guy 15th overall and the expectations were lower? Wouldn't we just be thinking of him as a player and nothing more?

Were people this pissed off about a guy like Tom Chambers? Stood 6'10 played PF and C and was drafted 8th overall. The guy liked to dunk and score (it was his main strength) but it wasn't like he was super elite at either. He was a poor defender, a below average rebounder and shot blocker and posted PERs in the 15s and 16s and low 17s all the way up until he was 28. Despite these things and lack of dominance and due in large part to popularity Chambers was a 4-time all star, and one time all-star MVP. Were the fans on the teams he played for complaining over what he lacked?


Were people this pissed off about Troy Murphy's inconsistency rebounding the basketball and lackluster defence? Murphy posted PERs of 16.8, 15.9, 14.5 and 16.0 through the ages of 24-27.

Were people in Indiana this resentful about the fact that Rik Smits was taken 2nd overall over Mitch Richmond and barely cracked 30 minutes per game his first 6 years in the NBA and that he didn't dominate the glass despite standing 7'3? Were they concerned that a man that big had a career TS% average of .548? He was a good shot blocker but by no means was he a defensive anchor for the Pacers. Through the ages of 23-26 Smits posted PERs of 14.9, 16.8 and 14.8. Did Indy fans want him long gone too?

Were people in Portland this furious over Rasheed Wallace's lack of hustle on the glass despite standing 6'11 and having above average athleticism? His PER at age 23 and 24 was 14.9 and 16.7 respectively and he averaged 5.9 and 6.1 rebounds per game.

CUE THE "But those guys had ______ and Bargnani doesn't" responses. The point I'm trying to make is that these guys didn't dominate to their full potential and weren't franchise players in a lot of ways during these years but they were still key pieces on teams despite major weaknesses. I'm not comparing them directly to Bargnani but more just trying to show you how ridiculously polarizing he's become for no particular reason.

Advanced statistics have allowed us to view these guys under extreme microscopes and separate the truly elite players from the secondary stars and third banana types. Bargnani has a PER of 16.5 which isn't great but it's basically the very definition of what most people who value these advanced stats look for in a third banana type. This PER ranking takes into consideration virtually everything that he does and doesn't do on the court save for positional defence/help defence. It accounts for his poor rebounding and poor shot blocking ability this year. It accounts for the fact that he's not a good passer and that he doesn't turn the ball over much. It takes his efficiency into consideration. It looks at everything he does and doesn't do statistically and sees him as a guy that has historically been not only in a team's rotation but a key piece. Again, it's nothing to be excited about or terribly upset about. He's just a guy that could be in the rotation and play a key role and unless you get 11 players better than that... why are you guys so stressed out and adamant about his exit?

Now, I'm not pretending he's anything more than that but let's just pretend once and for all that this guy was drafted 15th or something. Would we really be making this big a deal about him either way or would we just see him as a solid scorer with a lot of other holes in his game like a lot of NBA players and keep looking for better players. We need better players. I don't care if Bargnani comes off the bench or what but I think he can be a key contributor to a good team as a result of the one thing he does better than all but 57 other high volume/high usage players in the NBA: put the ball in the net with the defence set and score in the half court. It sounds simple 'cause it is but he's good enough at doing that one thing by proving this year that he can do it in different situations and against different defenders and with more defensive attention than he's faced and taking more shots and shooting the same FG% he shot 2 years ago on less shots to be a third banana type. Maybe that's off the bench Antawn Jamison/Jason Terry style... maybe it's not but he'll be a key piece here or elsewhere as a result of his abilities even with his weaknesses in mind.

If you take one thing from this I hope it's this. He's just a PER 16.5 guy. Why are we talking about him as though he's the entire franchise? He's not even close. Why are we comparing him to Bosh? He's not anywhere close to that and isn't being paid like it either. He's just an above average NBA player on a very bad team. Nothing more, nothing less and the sooner we quit talking about him like he's some big deal one way or the other and instead start focusing on adding star players to the team the better.

I think the point you're missing DH is that he's not a starting big man because of the holes in his game. It's that simple.

If you can figure out a way to work him at say SF, then maybe we can have a discussion or more ideally, we should just start talking about him as a bench player.

Talking about him as a starter just doens't make any more sense at this point, he's not a starting big man.

[ItsDanger]

Trade some other guys for a legit 5 and keep Bargs at the 4. Better option IMO.

Bargnani isn't a starting big man in this league, some of you need to wake up. And we aren't getting D12 so leave that strawman for someone else.

Bargnani has played hundreds of mins at the 4, which you conveniently left out and guess what? He sucked even more at that spot.

The arguments are starting to border on (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

You always bring up Howard, yet there are other 5's who would be sufficient. Chandler is definitely one. And Bargs has played almost entirely at the 5 last 2 seasons. Not sure what you're talking about. At the 4, his defensive responsibilties would be a lot less. You telling me that Boozer is better defensively than Bargs with Noah behind him? Even Chicago fans know he's awful and thats a 1st place team. So your argument is bogus.

And in the short time I saw Amir, Ed on the floor against starters, it was just as ugly with Bargs at the 5, why? because all the other guys are just as flawed as he is. We need a gy on the perimeter that can break down the defence or else not having Bargs is just as bad an option. Hopefully, the draft will assist here. That sound so (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to you? You'd make a great GM for the clippers where you could just keep the treadmill going.

[strangespot]

Here's the thing: I think some of you think that some of the people who've been debating Bargnani's value with you are these huge Bargnani homers who can find no wrong in the guy. You probably think he's our favorite player or something. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the guy's weaknesses and he's not my favorite Raptor. I know he's not anywhere near being anything close to a franchise player and as mentioned about a million times by now nobody else involved with the Raptors thinks he is either. The fact that there's been this much hatred and "I want him gone. I'll trade him for anybody" talk is the only reason I've been participating in these "debates."

I think the point you're missing DH is that he's not a starting big man because of the holes in his game. It's that simple.

If you can figure out a way to work him at say SF, then maybe we can have a discussion or more ideally, we should just start talking about him as a bench player.

Talking about him as a starter just doens't make any more sense at this point, he's not a starting big man.

that comment from DH is spot on and exactly how I think of him (except that he is my fav Raptors player for obvious reasons which I won't deny, but he is far from being my favourite player overall).

And I think he can be a starter in this league. I mean, If a guy like Frye can be in a play-off team then why can't BArgs ?

The thing is that Frye is in a team that's exactly suited for him and where all other players suit in perfectly as well. Full offense, no defense. That's at least a team "identity" they have. Toronto lacks this identity. they are a bad defensive team and not particularly good offensively.

[sonn]

Here's the thing: I think some of you think that some of the people who've been debating Bargnani's value with you are these huge Bargnani homers who can find no wrong in the guy. You probably think he's our favorite player or something. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the guy's weaknesses and he's not my favorite Raptor. I know he's not anywhere near being anything close to a franchise player and as mentioned about a million times by now nobody else involved with the Raptors thinks he is either. The fact that there's been this much hatred and "I want him gone. I'll trade him for anybody" talk is the only reason I've been participating in these "debates."

I think the point you're missing DH is that he's not a starting big man because of the holes in his game. It's that simple.

If you can figure out a way to work him at say SF, then maybe we can have a discussion or more ideally, we should just start talking about him as a bench player.

Talking about him as a starter just doens't make any more sense at this point, he's not a starting big man.

that comment from DH is spot on and exactly how I think of him (except that he is my fav Raptors player for obvious reasons which I won't deny, but he is far from being my favourite player overall).

And I think he can be a starter in this league. I mean, If a guy like Frye can be in a play-off team then why can't BArgs ?

The thing is that Frye is in a team that's exactly suited for him and where all other players suit in perfectly as well. Full offense, no defense. That's at least a team "identity" they have. Toronto lacks this identity. they are a bad defensive team and not particularly good offensively.

If Bargnani is ok with playing 27 minutes a game, taking 9 shots a game and taking a paycut of about 4 million then he certainly can have Frye's role on a playoff team.

[Schad]

And I think he can be a starter in this league. I mean, If a guy like Frye can be in a play-off team then why can't BArgs ?

Heh, Frye came off the bench for Phoenix in the playoffs. Collins and Lopez Brothers the Lesser got the starts.

[Double Helix]

I don't see why Bargnani still couldn't be a top notch scorer despite coming in off the bench and going up against backups and guaring backup PFs or Cs.

His minutes didn't really go up too much the past two years and yet here he is with more FGAs and similar FG% to two years ago where he was taking 6 less shots per game. Jason Terry, last time I checked, was the 2nd leading scorer on the Mavericks despite coming off the bench.

Bargnani's biggest developments offensively this year are that he's dramatically increased his ability to get to the free throw line and take advantage of his shooting ability there and the fact that he is reacting smarter and faster to various defensive schemes and approaches designed to limit him. The growing pains he's experienced this year will make him a dynamite 6th many of the year type of candidate someday on a good team. Unless I'm mistaken.. you can still be a third banana type off of the bench. I believe Manu has been just that for the Spurs for many years now.

[TDotRep]

Reason #81) Hand out snacks to hungry folks at the Air Canada Center.

[Reignman]

Trade some other guys for a legit 5 and keep Bargs at the 4. Better option IMO.

Bargnani isn't a starting big man in this league, some of you need to wake up. And we aren't getting D12 so leave that strawman for someone else.

Bargnani has played hundreds of mins at the 4, which you conveniently left out and guess what? He sucked even more at that spot.

The arguments are starting to border on (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

You always bring up Howard, yet there are other 5's who would be sufficient. Chandler is definitely one. And Bargs has played almost entirely at the 5 last 2 seasons. Not sure what you're talking about. At the 4, his defensive responsibilties would be a lot less. You telling me that Boozer is better defensively than Bargs with Noah behind him? Even Chicago fans know he's awful and thats a 1st place team. So your argument is bogus.

And in the short time I saw Amir, Ed on the floor against starters, it was just as ugly with Bargs at the 5, why? because all the other guys are just as flawed as he is. We need a gy on the perimeter that can break down the defence or else not having Bargs is just as bad an option. Hopefully, the draft will assist here. That sound so (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to you? You'd make a great GM for the clippers where you could just keep the treadmill going.

First of all, I was being generous by even suggesting D12 is good enough to cover for Bargs. D12 already fouls at a very high rate and playing with Bargs would mean he fouls out of practically every game. Chandler has the same problem except he's not close to the defender that D12 is so it's just conjecture when talking about him covering for Bargs.

Secondly, what do you mean by "At the 4, his defensive responsibilties would be a lot less"? That's patently false. The 4/5 pretty much have the exact same responsibilities and depending on match ups there are certain variances. That's not static from game to game, both players need to be strong defenders if you want a strong interior D.

Third, Chicago has strong defenders at every position except the 4. There team was ready to fit in a poor defender like Boozer. The reason they did it is cuz Boozer is an excellent offensive player and an excellent rebounder so it was worth it for them to make some allowances because A) Boozer does enough on offense/rebounding to offset his defensive woes and B) Their team was defensively strong enough at other positions to make it worth the risk. Bargs isn't an above average offensive player and he's historically bad at rebounding, I don't see why anyone would make the same allowances for Bargs as they would for Boozer, especially on a team that's light years away from being anywhere near the defensive team that the Bulls have.

Lastly, Ed/Amir at the 4 is a much better proposition considering they do exactly what you want out of a big man, they rebound, defend and score on high % looks. They aren't 5s either (unless the other team is playing small ball) but they are far more equipped to play the 4 than Bargs.

Anyway, the one thing you said that does make sense is we need better perimeter options to break down the D from the perimeter. Unfortunately you somehow correlated that with Bargs being needed. He's not needed, we just need better perimeter scoring options which we should get over the next two drafts.

[Reignman]

Here's the thing: I think some of you think that some of the people who've been debating Bargnani's value with you are these huge Bargnani homers who can find no wrong in the guy. You probably think he's our favorite player or something. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the guy's weaknesses and he's not my favorite Raptor. I know he's not anywhere near being anything close to a franchise player and as mentioned about a million times by now nobody else involved with the Raptors thinks he is either. The fact that there's been this much hatred and "I want him gone. I'll trade him for anybody" talk is the only reason I've been participating in these "debates."

I think the point you're missing DH is that he's not a starting big man because of the holes in his game. It's that simple.

If you can figure out a way to work him at say SF, then maybe we can have a discussion or more ideally, we should just start talking about him as a bench player.

Talking about him as a starter just doens't make any more sense at this point, he's not a starting big man.

that comment from DH is spot on and exactly how I think of him (except that he is my fav Raptors player for obvious reasons which I won't deny, but he is far from being my favourite player overall).

And I think he can be a starter in this league. I mean, If a guy like Frye can be in a play-off team then why can't BArgs ?

The thing is that Frye is in a team that's exactly suited for him and where all other players suit in perfectly as well. Full offense, no defense. That's at least a team "identity" they have. Toronto lacks this identity. they are a bad defensive team and not particularly good offensively.

So all because of an average player like Bargs you want us to emulate the SSOL Suns who haven't won a damn thing? For Bargs? Really? If you want to emulate a system that didn't work, at least do it for a player that deserves that kind of recognition.

Think about this for a second. Phoenix didn't go all SSOL because of a guy like Frye, they went SSOL because they found a once-in-a-generation PG in Nash (2 time MVP) who could facilitate that type of offense. Frye just fit in to the scheme and even then until this year Frye was playing less than 30 mins a game. In the playoffs they didn't even start him.

If we had a player like Nash on our hands I'd consider going the all-offense route (even though I'm fundamentally against that philosophy) because it would be worth it. I'd never go that route however because we have a guy like Frye. LOL, that''s just ridiculous.

[endo]

I wish I never made this thread. I should have known people would take over it with their own agendas.

[Reignman]

I don't see why Bargnani still couldn't be a top notch scorer despite coming in off the bench and going up against backups and guaring backup PFs or Cs.

His minutes didn't really go up too much the past two years and yet here he is with more FGAs and similar FG% to two years ago where he was taking 6 less shots per game. Jason Terry, last time I checked, was the 2nd leading scorer on the Mavericks despite coming off the bench.

Bargnani's biggest developments offensively this year are that he's dramatically increased his ability to get to the free throw line and take advantage of his shooting ability there and the fact that he is reacting smarter and faster to various defensive schemes and approaches designed to limit him. The growing pains he's experienced this year will make him a dynamite 6th many of the year type of candidate someday on a good team. Unless I'm mistaken.. you can still be a third banana type off of the bench. I believe Manu has been just that for the Spurs for many years now.

Outside of getting rid of him this is what I want. 6th man. This way we don't have to worry about building our team ass-backwards and trying fit square pegs into round holes.

[DG88]

I don't see why Bargnani still couldn't be a top notch scorer despite coming in off the bench and going up against backups and guaring backup PFs or Cs.

His minutes didn't really go up too much the past two years and yet here he is with more FGAs and similar FG% to two years ago where he was taking 6 less shots per game. Jason Terry, last time I checked, was the 2nd leading scorer on the Mavericks despite coming off the bench.

Bargnani's biggest developments offensively this year are that he's dramatically increased his ability to get to the free throw line and take advantage of his shooting ability there and the fact that he is reacting smarter and faster to various defensive schemes and approaches designed to limit him. The growing pains he's experienced this year will make him a dynamite 6th many of the year type of candidate someday on a good team. Unless I'm mistaken.. you can still be a third banana type off of the bench. I believe Manu has been just that for the Spurs for many years now.

Outside of getting rid of him this is what I want. 6th man. This way we don't have to worry about building our team ass-backwards and trying fit square pegs into round holes.

Exactly, either he's traded or he becomes the sixth man. Which is a role he thrived in in his first year.

[ItsDanger]

Chicago has Rose & Noah, and thats what we need (both drafted). Unfortunately nobody on this team comes close. Defensively all the others are avg to below avg. Bottom line, we need to get lucky. All our other players are just as flawed as Bargs in similar or different ways despite what everyone says here. Im not interested in building a 35-45 win team like some here. Its either a high end potential team or rebuild through the draft. Again, we need to be lucky as do so many other teams. You think its that easy? Moreso than other sports, a VERY small # of players control your destiny. thats why you have to be lucky.