The Goat Pen

He went #2 so it reinforces what I was eluding too. Unless we are really bad, it probably isn't a huge loss unless the comparison is every player we might have drafted.... Which doesn't mean we necessarily would have.

I think everyone is just scared that it might be a #3 or #4. I guess I just see this team as being no worse than low lottery so losing a pick around 10 doesn't really stress me. Looking at this most recent draft, which was considered strong, I can honestly say I would take Lowry over any of them (late lottery picks). So why would that necessarily change in an average or below average draft? It is a deal that has risk but I think the risk is exaggerated.

If Raptors can barely miss the playoffs as they are capable of doing next year, then it won't be so bad. Next year's draft is supposed to be relatively weak. I can leave with losing a pick in teens for Lowry. The sooner we get that draft pick out of the way the better. The longer it lingers, the worse it's gonna get. It gives whoever's in charge an ultimate excuse to make short-sighted moves since hey, we are going to lose the pick if we are in lottery unless we get lucky and get top pick. And if Colangelo had his way, that someone in charge will be him. Free ammunition to go crazy overpaying mediocre FA's like Landry Fields, Kapono, etc. and make trades, although admittedly, he's come out better on that end than he did elsewhere...except when he traded for Jermaine O'Neal. One way or another, it locks us into desperation mode to either make the playoffs or narrowly miss it for 5 years until we eventually give the pick away. No more tanking whatsoever. Colangelo's basically forced the team into a corner.

If the team suffers major injuries or Colangelo's moves fail, and we know that's a distinct possibility, the worst thing that can happen is giving up top lotto pick (2-5 range) at some point in the future starting next year. And maybe this time, we don't win those couple of late season games against playoff teams to bring us further away from high lottery like this year. Or those couple of games mean less since we are playing 82 games now instead of 66. Judging by this team's sad history, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this happened. Well at least, we know the team will try desperately to win every game playoffs or not until the pick's gone.

One way or another, the pick will be missed. These picks are rising in value as a means to get a role player for cheap in this day and age when older mediocre players can get overpaid in bunches and teams are trying desperately to stay out of luxury tax range.

Alot of ifs, maybes, etc. Does bargnani sit that many games if the team is fearful of losing a very high pick? Does Bayless get set down for so long? what does v and a healthy kleiza mean?

Yes, a really bad season could happen and we could lose a high pick. We could also not trade for Lowry, have all the same things happen, win the lottery and get to pick between a bargnani, Roy, or Aldridge. Those were arguably the 3 best from that draft class and all are slightly above average players. None of them would turn a franchise around which cannot sign free agents. The pick is still protected for the slots which are typically franchise changer slots.

I actually would have liked the pick protected for the top 5 but I am not worried about slots beneath that for a player like Lowry. Yeah it could work out bad but he could easily help this team to the playoffs in the east... Especially with Orlando about to take another step back. The east is only going to have a few good teams and then a bunch that arent separated by much. The pick could easily be in the teens.

I think too much stock has been put into first rounders considering history has shown that lower drafted players rarely excel. It's probable but not highly likely. it's a trade with risk but is that any different than signing hibbert to a max contract?

Bayless goes to Memphis... I guess it might just be one more season of Calderon in Toronto.

How Nash was courted...

Tanenbaum...provided his ritzy Central Park apartment to serve as the venue for what Duffy described as a "big presentation." The food was lavish and the contract offer rich, but the video compilation Colangelo ordered up for the occasion made an impression on Nash that moved him more than a three-year, $36 million pitch ever could -- largely because Wayne Gretzky was the narrator.

Rumbles that Gretzky, one of Nash's boyhood heroes, would be involved in the Raptors' Nash pitch leaked out through the Toronto media before the two parties got together, but "involved" was understating it. The Great One's unmistakable voice was the backdrop for a compilation of clips and interviews that traced Nash's lifelong journey from young basketball dreamer on faraway Victoria in British Columbia to two-time MVP with the Suns, hitting all the stops (Santa Clara, Canada's fairy-tale run at the 2000 Olympics and more) in between and promising a Gretzky-esque legacy if he'd join the Raptors now.

More than one person in the room would later say that Nash was fighting back tears watching it all.

"We all were," Duffy said. "It was like watching a Hall of Fame video.

"They wanted us to close the deal right then."

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/81432 ... s-happened

Landry Fields signing official. Now I cling to slim chance that NY will match.

Sad thing is...there is a decent chance they may.

i don't really like the Landry deal but I am more concerned with not having him relative to the Lowry deal. Is he better than what's available right now? absolutely. anybody that can help make that pick in the 10-20 range needs to be on board. that contract can always be traded when he's in his 3rd season and isn't totally immovable in his 2nd.

If we don't have him, we get the Ben Uzoh's of the world and the guys that don't distinguish themselves at the summer leagues. Fields is at least better than the majority of those dudes.

Ross, DeMar DeRozan, James Johnson, and even Kleiza when healthy are all comparable to Fields in terms of impact. That's 4 on the roster already for wing positions all being paid a lot cheaper than Fields. We don't need a Landry Fields.

You don't get an upgrade or the kind of upgrades you'd need at the position when you sign him. That has to be the biggest concern if he does come, we don't lose a bit if he doesn't come. I'd rather they try to sort out James Johnson situation, would be cheaper option with more upside.

And that poison pill is hard to swallow no matter what year of contract, I know Colangelo has moved harder contracts before but doesn't mean you have to make it harder than it has to be.

What Raptors need to focus on isn't adding another mediocre MLE level talent, they need to focus on consolidating the existing talent for upgrades then see where they may need to fill bodies instead of painting themselves into a corner piling on MLE-type contracts.

This is all assuming the Raptors' sole purpose for getting Fields is purely because they thought he might help the team and we all know that's not true, which is why this contract is so wrong to begin with.

re - And that poison pill is hard to swallow no matter what year of contract

absolutely false... an expiring contract is very attractive to teams and many teams in 2014 will be looking to shred a contract or two to avoid the luxury tax which goes into place (ie. the new enhanced luxury tax). If anything, your "poison pill" is even more valuable for teams that are desparate to get out of luxury tax range.

re - Ross, DeMar DeRozan, James Johnson, and even Kleiza when healthy are all comparable to Fields in terms of impact

dont necessarily disagree but don't agree. Kleiza has not been healthy and hasn't been able to play consistent minutes since the injury and Ross is a rookie that will eventually hit a wall IF he actually shows he should be in the line up. So you really only have 2 sure things and 2 big question marks. Fields, at the very least, is a decent insurance policy.

re - What Raptors need to focus on isn't adding another mediocre MLE level talent, they need to focus on consolidating the existing talent for upgrades then see where they may need to fill bodies instead of painting themselves into a corner piling on MLE-type contracts

you make it sound so easy... this is pretty much every team in the NBA not located in Miami, NY, Chicago, LA and now Brooklyn. OKC gutted their roster to get high picks and made the most of them. The difference between Toronto and the top teams is their willingness to spend and their ability to attract FA's. Every other team is trying to fill their roster with the leftovers and very few have been successful... only Indy, and to a lesser extent Memphis, have made deals from existing talent which made their teams alot better... and Memphis only needed a 2nd rounder to play above his head to make that happen and they gave up an all star to do it.

That was a fair and solid deal.

runs

Ah, the great expiring contract argument. That's been used before and I just don't see enough of live examples around the league for it to be viable. Certainly never for this team with our GM usually being trigger-happy on trades. Besides, how sure are you we would want any piece of contracts that other teams want to "shed"? That's just another overpaid garbage that's got longer years anyway.

As for Terrence Ross, he's a friggin' 8th pick overall and he wasn't drafted for great potential future. He better be ready to play now. It's not like we'd be asking him to start anyway, there's no wall to be hit playing backup at least in comparison to a starting job. Kleiza, we know can play if healthy. You say that's a big if but he's playing for his country right now, no? One way or another, if you chalk DeRozan and Johnson in as the starters, between Ross and Kleiza, the wing positions are more than covered. Fields is just a more expensive replacement or "insurance" as you say, not an upgrade. Ideally, you have 3-man rotation at the wing with 4th as insurance, we already have our 4, we don't need a 5th.

As for upgrading, I know it's not as easy as it sounds. Ultimately, we may have to settle for deals where we ultimately lose in overall talent but we end up with the best player among the players involved. Whatever the case, it doesn't change the fact that that's what this team needs to focus on. Just because it's hard, doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. Otherwise, the team's got enough mediocre bodies, might as well sit on the existing contracts and see how it plays out instead of piling on more mediocre talents that overlap in positions. That's just making moves for the sake of making moves and doesn't help the team improve in any way.

We do have pieces we can use though. Calderon, DeRozan, Ed Davis, Amir Johnson, etc. And yes, even Bargnani.

re - Ah, the great expiring contract argument. That's been used before and I just don't see enough of live examples around the league for it to be viable

hmmm, Lamar Odom gets traded to Dallas (who is trying to create cap space to sign Deron Williams in the next off season) creating a trade exception. Trade exception gets used to facilitate trade for 2 time MVP.

Is that recent enough? I am sure I could probably find all kinds of cases but it's not worth it. Anyone that has read any articles about the punitive changes to the tax system in the new CBA should be able to understand how it can create a situation where opportunities should exist. If you expect to get an NBA all star out of an expiring contract, then no... that is not possible. But you should at least be able to get back a talent that is equivalent or slightly better (remember your point about using current talent to upgrade). Can you get guarantee it will be valuable? No. Can you guarantee that a number one pick will be an all star? No.

I find it ironic that you believe his 3rd year is a "poison pill" when the poison is actually for the Knicks. If they sign him, the actual contract becomes much larger for them with the tax factored in. The Raps have no fear of approaching the luxury tax in his 3rd year. They have no downside to this deal unless you personally are writing the cheques. He's overpaid but neither you nor I have to pay him. Having additional cap space for TO is largely a useless asset.... the Fields signing, and loss of Nash, further proves it (if the last few off seasons wasn't enough). I would gladly take the risk that a young player might blossom and be included in a future deal than standing pat.

re = As for Terrence Ross, he's a friggin' 8th pick overall and he wasn't drafted for great potential future. He better be ready to play now.

so 8th picks are supposed to be NBA ready in their first year? if that's the minimum standard for your acquisitions then I can understand why you aren't happy.... it's just not realistic.

What part of that Lamar Odom trade involved an expiring contract? Arguments are being made about the great expiring contract trades myth all the time where you magically end up with superior talent for expiring contract, but again, the actual examples of one is too few and far between to mean anything. Opportunities exist but really, if teams are willing to shed a contract for whatever reason, it might not be a contract you want to get into no matter the upgrade.

What's ironic to me is that you are resorting now to 'but you are not the one writing the cheques.' Bad contract is bad contract. And what's true right now might not be true 2-3 years from now. These kinds of bad decisions can easily come back to bite you in the ass no matter what team you are. Just like Lamond Murray trade or Yogi Stewart signings.

Look, when the sole reason for signing Fields ended in giant failure, this whole signing became pointless. No matter how Colangelo wants to spin it. You say you'd rather take the risk and hope a young player might blossom. Great. My point is, why not take that risk with the players we already got whose ceiling is just as high or higher than Fields and hope to deal them and their much more cap friendly contracts that teams will be more willing to take back? We have more than enough of those players for the minutes available. We don't need another one who's not much better if at all that's just gonna eat away the minutes and development of other perfectly fine young players.

On Ross, notice I'm not saying he should start or save the franchise. Just be a decent backup, if need be. Also, might as well give him the minutes to develop. That's not asking for much. Look, this guy is a lottery pick who wasn't picked for great potential and his ceiling isn't all that high to begin with and he was picked over players with arguably much greater ceiling. That tells me two things. The team thinks he's more ready to contribute now and he better damn be ready to contribute now. That's the expectation when you spend a high pick on someone for specific positional need and for specific skills. If that's being unrealistic then might as well have gone for a Drummond or Lamb. And we aren't talking about PG's or C's whose position is harder to learn.

re - What part of that Lamar Odom trade involved an expiring contract?

the part where he was dealt to Dallas with an expiring contract

re - Ross and drafting him so high because he could play now

and what if a rookie doesn't live up to his billing? thats why I called Fields an insurance policy. He might be expensive but if Ross cant cut it, you need bodies that can. Fields has already demonstrated he is capable of providing decent minutes. Go back over the last few years and see how many guys drafted 8 or below played quality minutes. I don't suspect that there are too many. and let's not get into the "he plays on a better team" justification because obviously anyone drafted after the 8th slot played on a better team by their nature. It has nothing to do with them drafting him because he can play meaningful minutes now. It's about the probability of any rookie playing significant minutes that wasn't a guy like Beal/Kidd Gilchrist or Davis.

re - but again, the actual examples of one is too few and far between to mean anything

why? because the future has to be the same as the past? I am sure if I cared enough, I could research a bunch of deals but it's not really important because of a simple question..... did the past have a luxury tax threshold like the current CBA for future years? Part of running any organization is taking calculated risks.

It's easy to sit in your lounger and say how easy it is too run a franchise but I dont honestly understand what you expect the guy to do. The Raps have no ability to attract top notch FAs and we keep getting picks that are too low to get franchise changers.

Why don't you tell us who was the obvious choice for the Raps at 8th and we can compare Ross in 2 years time? and what was the best way to spend our money during this FA and who would have taken it? If our goal is to save it, who should be our target next off season?

bc looking to trade Calderon at his request.

can't see too many suitors that would have anything to give back. Phoenix might give up one of those low first round picks from LA. Dallas is apparently interested but nothing outside of a draft pick is useful on that roster. Sad when one of your best assets isn't really worth much.

I thought expiring contracts were worth a ton, no?

And Odom was traded this year by Mavericks, judging by the way last year's gone for him and Mavs last year I don't quite think he was signed to an extension during his time there, which means he's still on same contract he had with Lakers and was not an expiring deal when he was traded by Lakers. Where do you even get this stuff? Again, this trade proves nothing on the value of expiring contracts. But hey, maybe when Mavs traded him, he might have been an expiring and what did he net them?

So now, Fields is a $20M insurance to a rookie? That's a joke, right? I've already expressed who I thought we should've picked, I don't have to reiterate the point for your benefit if you don't remember it. You can easily go back to check. Again, when you reach for a pick on a guy without high ceiling, you are reaching for an immediate need. The assumption is, you got something to contribute now. Might as well invest at least some quality bench time on him without him having to look over his shoulder everytime he makes a mistake at a guy the team just invested $20M on and would look stupid not playing him instead of a rookie they can have a good excuse not to play. That's a sure-fire way to have a failed rookie season. Like I said, Fields just gets in the way without much benefit. If you want insurance, we already got 4 guys on contract at positions where you normally want 3-man rotation, make Kleiza an insurance.

I don't care how hard it is to run the franchise, which I've acknowledged multiple times, a wrong move is still a wrong move. I don't care if you are in tax range or if you have no commited contracts and got all kinds of cap room. Signing Fields to that kind of contract with that atrocious third year is a wrong move and before you go on and on again trying to defend the move, I ask you why was he signed in the first place? To block S&T of Nash to Knicks. Why do you try to pretend otherwise? It wasn't because Raptors were trying to use available cap room around at FA's and he was the best option with what they've got and his signing has already failed to fulfill its grand purpose and now looks like more of a joke than it was before. Admit it and move on.

The cap room can be used for better purposes by itself or as part of a larger move to absorb salary. If you think an expiring holds so much value to a team trying to shed salary, wouldn't you think a straight-up cap room would hold even more? Wasn't that part of what got us Lowry? Hold that cap room, try to make moves to consolidate your assets (with cap room being part of it), see how the offseason transpires, who gets amnestied and such and see where your opportunities lie. If all else fails, you sit on it and go with what you've got because they already have enough bodies. Like you said, hope a young player or two out of the group blossom and be of some value either to us or to someone else in a trade to go along with extra breathing room of cap space. We already have guys that has a chance, no point in going out of your way to overpay someone who'll just get in the way. You don't have to be all desperate to do something with it immediately.

And after all's said and done, here's hoping Knicks still match.

Yoss, get your tail over to the Goat Pen and post something on the hoops thread...

re - I thought expiring contracts were worth a ton, no?

what part of 2014 and the enhanced luxury tax did you miss? And I NEVER said they were worth a ton, I said they will have value for teams looking to avoid paying a huge sum of money for no value. The problem is that not many players, that aren't all stars, have contracts of 3 or more years so the impact won't be felt until at least next season. and you won't turn an expiring contract into an all star in any scenario.

re - make Kleiza an insurance

Kleiza may be COVERED by insurance next year.... did you miss his surgery this past season and his inability to play over 30 minutes a night in back to back games?

re - The cap room can be used for better purposes by itself or as part of a larger move to absorb salary

How? It's easy to say there are all kinds of good trading partners out there, just as easy as it is to say the expiring contracts will be valuable, but you have no more proof than I do. What can be proven is that 19M, while overpaying, is peanuts in the NBA and you act like we are going to fall off the face of the planet. And as dot already pointed out, it's not back end loaded for Toronto. "better purposes by itself" is just garbage hyperbole that failed to address the questions of what FAs would take our money that can help us either this off season or next. You know FULL well that the only FAs we get are the leftovers or those that get overpaid.... enter Fields.

Please demonstrate all the teams that have, as you put it, "taken the existing talent and upgraded by trades". The fact is that rarely happens in the NBA. Most teams draft or sign their top talent and you can't turn average assets into above average assets (unless you are a team that has players demand to be traded to). It's not a level playing field in the NBA. The new luxury tax will help but won't eliminate the flaws.

re - I've already expressed who I thought we should've picked, I don't have to reiterate the point for your benefit if you don't remember it

I typically try to forget what you write so I had to go back and read so that it's on record.... Lamb or Drummond... guys with higher upside as you put it. We can revisit next year.

First it's 'you are not the one writing the cheuqes.'

Then 'it's easy to sit in your lounger and say how easy it is'

Now 'I typically try to forget what you write.'

Come on Sotola, you are starting to bring back memories of good old WorldCrossing days.

How nice of you to omit my point of Odom not being an expiring contract. Value of expiring have been exaggerated since long time ago before the new CBA and there haven't been too many actual trades that happened to show otherwise. Most teams are scrambling to get out of the tax right now and not 2 years from now, 2014 hits, chances are there will be enough teams under tax with expiring contracts to spare that outnumber the teams trying to shed salary to get out of tax range. Enough so that the competition once those trades opportunities open up, will negate a lot of those values of expiring contracts.

So... that was just a mutated clone of Kleiza that just played for Lithuania the other day?

You are asking for specific alternative to Fields in terms of FA and I'm asking why limit yourself to free agency when you and I know we'are at a huge disadvantage and this team has repeatedly failed there? Hasn't the history of Colangelo been to overpay in free agency, find out what a big fuckup he made, correct it through trades? If the man has consistently been able to get better value through trades, then what's changed now for that to be not true? How better could he do if he's not trying to clean up the mess he made half the time? And in trades, free cap room (trade exception) holds a lot more value than overpaid mediocre talent. Was it not you who pointed out how Lakers got Steve Nash with the very exception? Usual or even some odd opportunities will be there throughout the season and we'd be in better position to take advantage before Fields, not after.

Again to me, all this arguing where you copy and paste my posts out of context and try to change the argument is pointless. It's quite simple. Why did we sign Landry Fields to the outrageous offersheet that we did that was the jokes of NBA at one point? To block S&T of Nash to Knicks so he'll come to us. Did that happen? No, we failed. And now we end up with a bad contract. $19M is peants in NBA, fine, but a bad contract is a bad contract is a bad contract. Do you deny any of this? I mean your whole argument falls flat on its face because it only holds water if he was signed for any other reason than to get us Steven Nash but you and I both know the truth. Try to sugarcoat, justify all you want, take my comments out of context and try to change arguments and insert insults when it doesn't work all you want but that's the bottomline.