Grange makes the case for BC, and mocks OTPP

[Ted Lasso]

The Raps were trying so hard to make the playoffs that PJ Carleisimo was talking about tanking for a pick last summer.

This

I posted that interview in another thread when trying to enlighten JRoc (Lost cause, I know). In it, PJ clearly outlines a rebuild prior to training camp. I believe it was his 1st interview and therefore highly unlikely he makes such statements on his own accord.

Now I am sure BC presented options 1, 2 and 3 at the beginning of the season. You always have to present options. But at the end of the day, the proof is in the final result. A 21 win season and a top draft pick. Posters that hate BC have an ignorance that is beyond comical. No matter what the final results are, they will hammer on what they believe his true intentions are in hopes of supporting their hate campaign. BC did follow a rebuild this past season and to most that is quite obvious. Yet some will try to state he lucked into this process, or it just happened despite what BC was attempting to do. Moronic to think that BC tried to not rebuild this season but ended up lucking out and doing so.

I am not too concerned with this debate regarding Bryan's original intentions but he did say during the press conference that they decided to change gears and tank/rebuild in late November. Also, rebuilding teams don't try to sign Matt Barnes.

[Fairview4Life]

Also, rebuilding teams don't try to sign Matt Barnes.

They do if it's for a small amount of money and they can showcase him and then flip him later. Unless you think Matt Barnes would have drastically affected our win total. I would enjoy reading that argument.

[MrBojangelz71]

Also, rebuilding teams don't try to sign Matt Barnes.

They do if it's for a small amount of money and they can showcase him and then flip him later. Unless you think Matt Barnes would have drastically affected our win total. I would enjoy reading that argument.

Also, with defense being our biggest weakness, would it not be logical to bring in a vet defensive guard that can mentor DD? Seems quite logical.

And as Fair eluded to, Barnes is not a high impact player on a team such as ours. Yes he would make us better on the D end, but we don't rise 10 plus, hell even 5 plus wins more with him in the fold.

[Ted Lasso]

Also, rebuilding teams don't try to sign Matt Barnes.

They do if it's for a small amount of money and they can showcase him and then flip him later. Unless you think Matt Barnes would have drastically affected our win total. I would enjoy reading that argument.

Organizations that are fully determined to tank, as you guys claim, do not (pathetically attempt to) spend 9 million dollars over 2 years on (then) 30 year old small forwards.

If the entire intention was to flip him anyway, they would have offered him one year to make him all the more desirable. What makes you think a contender would have traded for a Matt Barnes on a 2 year 9 million dollar contract?

We could have gotten stuck with the contract. He is not a long term piece. He would taken playing time away from younger guys. It's money spent for no reason that would have eaten into potential fit-the-trade-exception-under-the-tax-level space... There is nothing tank-like about that move.

Speaking of enjoyable reading, let's have your thoughts on Bryan admitting that they decided to tank/rebuild in late November.

[Ted Lasso]

Also, rebuilding teams don't try to sign Matt Barnes.

They do if it's for a small amount of money and they can showcase him and then flip him later. Unless you think Matt Barnes would have drastically affected our win total. I would enjoy reading that argument.

Also, with defense being our biggest weakness, would it not be logical to bring in a vet defensive guard that can mentor DD? Seems quite logical.

And as Fair eluded to, Barnes is not a high impact player on a team such as ours. Yes he would make us better on the D end, but we don't rise 10 plus, hell even 5 plus wins more with him in the fold.

I am not going to speculate on how many wins Matt Barnes would have added. 5-10, to me, is ridiculous. Having said that, 2 extra wins alone would have knocked us 1-3 spots down in the draft pre-lottery.

And if the concern was having a defensive mentor around for DeMar, then there are a number of Trenton Hassell types around, who not only would have been available for the minimum alone, but play defence in a manner that is a lot more similar to what we're eventually hoping for with DeMar.

[Basketball_Jones]

Sorry guys, but I'm not convinced Barnes fits a rebuild. And I have to laugh at the idea of him being a mentor to DD. That's just as absurd as him getting the team 5-10 more wins.

[Fairview4Life]

Organizations that are fully determined to tank, as you guys claim, do not (pathetically attempt to) spend 9 million dollars over 2 years on (then) 30 year old small forwards.

If the entire intention was to flip him anyway, they would have offered him one year to make him all the more desirable. What makes you think a contender would have traded for a Matt Barnes on a 2 year 9 million dollar contract?

We could have gotten stuck with the contract. He is not a long term piece. He would taken playing time away from younger guys. It's money spent for no reason that would have eaten into potential fit-the-trade-exception-under-the-tax-level space... There is nothing tank-like about that move.

Speaking of enjoyable reading, let's have your thoughts on Bryan admitting that they decided to tank/rebuild in late November.

"Stuck" with a 2 year, less than MLE contract, for a guy who has been a decently valuable member of contending teams? The reason why the Raps didn't sign him to a one year deal is because Matt Barnes wasn't going to sign a one year deal. That's why he signed a 2 year deal with LA. The Raps would have played him and moved him this season, or even next year as an expiring deal. He would have been a decent player on a decent deal that has proven he could be a contributing member of a high level team. Trying to argue the team was clearly gunning for the playoffs by adding Matt Barnes to basically the current roster, is crazy. It was a low level risk on another asset.

Speaking of enjoyable reading, let's have your thoughts on Bryan saying he went to the board over the summer with two options, one a rebuild, one moving pieces to make the playoffs, and they let him go for the rebuild?

[Ted Lasso]

Organizations that are fully determined to tank, as you guys claim, do not (pathetically attempt to) spend 9 million dollars over 2 years on (then) 30 year old small forwards.

If the entire intention was to flip him anyway, they would have offered him one year to make him all the more desirable. What makes you think a contender would have traded for a Matt Barnes on a 2 year 9 million dollar contract?

We could have gotten stuck with the contract. He is not a long term piece. He would taken playing time away from younger guys. It's money spent for no reason that would have eaten into potential fit-the-trade-exception-under-the-tax-level space... There is nothing tank-like about that move.

Speaking of enjoyable reading, let's have your thoughts on Bryan admitting that they decided to tank/rebuild in late November.

"Stuck" with a 2 year, less than MLE contract, for a guy who has been a decently valuable member of contending teams? The reason why the Raps didn't sign him to a one year deal is because Matt Barnes wasn't going to sign a one year deal. That's why he signed a 2 year deal with LA. The Raps would have played him and moved him this season, or even next year as an expiring deal. He would have been a decent player on a decent deal that has proven he could be a contributing member of a high level team. Trying to argue the team was clearly gunning for the playoffs by adding Matt Barnes to basically the current roster, is crazy. It was a low level risk on another asset.

Speaking of enjoyable reading, let's have your thoughts on Bryan saying he went to the board over the summer with two options, one a rebuild, one moving pieces to make the playoffs, and they let him go for the rebuild?

If he won't take a relatively rich one year deal, screw him. That would have been my position. But let's say they wanted him enough to offer him the 2 years; What's the point of taking playing time away from Kleiza, Wright, and Weems for a rebuilding team? What's the point of risking not being able to pounce on an opportunity with the trade exception due to now having less room under the luxury tax level?

As i said earlier, i am not too invested in this debate. In my opinion, this particular move is not a tank move. But i am not looking to "argue the team was clearly gunning for the playoffs". More importantly, i am not looking to come to any conclusions regarding Bryan based on the outcome of this debate in either direction. I don't consider the possibility that he originally aimed to make the playoffs this season ammunition for criticism. I already have plenty of that.

In regards to the last bit, we have two perfectly accurate, direct claims from Bryan Colangelo on the same topic. And they say completely different things. Buon appetito.

[Fairview4Life]

Wright wasn't on the team at the time. Weems, Barbosa, DD, Kleiza were the only wings on the team. Add Barnes, and you have a 5 man wing rotation, with Barbosa and Barnes expiring next year and being worth something to good teams. Pretty easy to move. Just assets, in the big scheme of things. They aren't getting us Lebron, but they could for example, get us a Bayless, or a James Johnson, or a late pick, potentially.

[Ted Lasso]

Wright wasn't on the team at the time. Weems, Barbosa, DD, Kleiza were the only wings on the team. Add Barnes, and you have a 5 man wing rotation, with Barbosa and Barnes expiring next year and being worth something to good teams. Pretty easy to move. Just assets, in the big scheme of things. They aren't getting us Lebron, but they could for example, get us a Bayless, or a James Johnson, or a late pick, potentially.

Yup. I didn't realize that was the case. Doesn't change the point though. You sign Barnes and --since DeMar, Barbosa, and Barnes are definitely in-- two of Belinelli, Weems, and Kleiza are sitting. And the other point about the trade exception and the luxury level is there.

I like Matt Barnes. I do agree that he is an asset under the right circumstances. But all things considered, this is still an unnecessary move for a consciously rebuilding team in my opinion.

[Gold Chain]

LOL, we have a ward full of former realgmers here. Dagger should know, he comes by and brings us happy meals.

Hey, pal, one post would suffice.

We get it, you don't like him.

Leave some e-room for the porn industry.

[power works]

Regardless of what results the Colangelo regime has produced thus far, I'd rather he be re-signed and continue on as GM, for better or worse. Maybe it's because I still have nightmares of the "in-over-my-head" vibes that Babcock exuded.

I've always been under the impression that BC's return was a lock, but yesterday's presser was a stark revelation as to how shaky his position is in the MLSE kingdom. It wasn't so much an end-of-year address on the on-court product, but to the critical eye, more like a job interview. Wow! I'd never thought it would come to that....like he was almost begging to be hired back.

Odd that in a way he's gaining favors from some of his sharpest critics after finally showing after all these years some....uhhhmmm...humility.

[darth_federer]

The Raps were trying so hard to make the playoffs that PJ Carleisimo was talking about tanking for a pick last summer.

Straight from the horses mouth

Colangelo said that incident, along with an avalanche of injuries led to a change in direction and a year of rebuilding.

"We had thoughts of being a competitive team. That was derailed. At some point you conclude it's best to go in a different direction," he said.

"We embarked upon a plan in late November, developing our youth, acquiring additional assets, preserving cap flexibility."

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/18/ba ... in-toronto

Triano said this too. They had every intention of making the playoffs until injuries derailed the team. You guys can try to spin it any other way though.

[Laowai]

If we lose BC who are we going to get?
Pritchard?
Remember he wanted Turk as much as BC and his record in the draft isn't the best with many high picks only Alderidge is a A class player.

[Basketball_Jones]

If we lose BC who are we going to get?

Okay this is getting old. BC isn't the only competent GM out there. It isn't a choice between BC or Rob Babcock. That's hilarious.

[trick]

Triano said this too. They had every intention of making the playoffs until injuries derailed the team. You guys can try to spin it any other way though.

No team starts the season off with "okay we're tanking". BC even said Riley's approach to each season was that [paraphrase]you want to see where your team is roughly around the first quarter mark before making any major decisions about direction[/paraphrase].

I mean, if this team was 11-10 after 21 games, wouldn't you be intrigued if they can make the playoffs?

[rapsrealm]

If we lose BC who are we going to get?

Okay this is getting old. BC isn't the only competent GM out there. It isn't a choice between BC or Rob Babcock. That's hilarious.

Unfortunately it pretty much is. The whole hold up is about money. We aren't getting a top tier GM here if BC doesn't come back. They're going to go cheap someone who can get by and the new owners can upgrade the position if they want.

[Basketball_Jones]

If we lose BC who are we going to get?

Okay this is getting old. BC isn't the only competent GM out there. It isn't a choice between BC or Rob Babcock. That's hilarious.

Unfortunately it pretty much is. The whole hold up is about money. We aren't getting a top tier GM here if BC doesn't come back. They're going to go cheap someone who can get by and the new owners can upgrade the position if they want.

Nah, I'm optimistic

[dagger]

Not only is money the issue, so is ownership. Until the Teachers sell, no one will take the job and probably no one will be offered it either. The problem is, the sale could take the rest of the year to complete, if it happens at all. The Teachers have been in sell mode for a year now, and nothing has happened, and they could still be in sell mode a year from now. Since there is more optimism about a short lockout as opposed to being inactive for an entire season, it begs the obvious question: What happens if come July 1 there is no lockout. Free agency begins. Trades begin in earnest. And we have no general manager, no assistant general managers, no scouting staff, no head coach.

The Teachers have been associated with some ridiculousness since they bought into MLSE, be it on the hockey side or the basketball side, but going into the summer without a basketball staff - and no process to get one, and no clarity on the future of ownership and hence no appeal to potential general managers - would be the absolutely height of folly.

It's simply too late to hire anyone else with decent credentials.

[Reignman]

Not only is money the issue, so is ownership. Until the Teachers sell, no one will take the job and probably no one will be offered it either. The problem is, the sale could take the rest of the year to complete, if it happens at all. The Teachers have been in sell mode for a year now, and nothing has happened, and they could still be in sell mode a year from now. Since there is more optimism about a short lockout as opposed to being inactive for an entire season, it begs the obvious question: What happens if come July 1 there is no lockout. Free agency begins. Trades begin in earnest. And we have no general manager, no assistant general managers, no scouting staff, no head coach.

The Teachers have been associated with some ridiculousness since they bought into MLSE, be it on the hockey side or the basketball side, but going into the summer without a basketball staff - and no process to get one, and no clarity on the future of ownership and hence no appeal to potential general managers - would be the absolutely height of folly.

It's simply too late to hire anyone else with decent credentials.

Agreed, they are nickle/diming at this point. I said this earlier but would it feasible to back-load BC's contract so that MLSE takes a smaller hit in year 1 and the new majority stake holder takes a bigger hit in subsequent years?

Let's say 2, 3 and 4 mil over 3 years? Average salary stays at 3 but MLSE takes a lesser hit.

This is assuming it takes them a year to sell.