PDA

View Full Version : We're NOT missing the point.



D.Pumps
07-05-2008, 01:05 PM
I hope that Bryan Colangelo's intentions are not to use Jermaine O'Neals contract as trade bait in the upcoming season. OR to use the money coming off the cap to attract a big ticket player to come back to Toronto. These would all be failed objectives. Almost every team in the league has this exact object and already has planned for it. These are the Cap Figures in Million for every team in the league from lowest to highest. Keep in mind there are Rookie Contracts that need qualifying offers.

Cleveland- 0
Atlanta- 0
Golden State - 0
Portland - 7 (possible 21)
Seattle- 7 (possible 21)
Chicago- 9 (possibly 20+)
Mia- 12
LAC- 13
Toronto- 15
Phoenix-16
NJ- 17.3 (guaranteed)
SAC-17
Min- 20
Phi- 21
Det-24
Hou- 25
Mem - 25
UTH- 30
CHA- 31
S.A. - 34
IND- 39


It's reasonable to believe all these teams will be under the cap come 2010
NYK- 45.3 (randolph, curry and crawford) Are trying hard to get under as well.

That leaves. Bos 44 Mil 53 Orl- 43 N.O 43 Den 45 LAL 57

Considering Toronto will have to first resign Bosh. i think it's pretty flawed logic to think that Toronto will make a huge splash in 2010 amongst all those teams. Not only do alot of teams have more cap space. The locations are much more attractive. Chicago L.A. Brooklyn, Golden State, Atlanta, Possible the Knicks.

We'll be lucky to come away with our own star. So no we're not missing the point. O'Neal was a trade for the now. A 22 Million dollar contract is awful hard to trade away. Look at Marbury currently.

Dragan
07-05-2008, 02:02 PM
dude if we can make it to the finals or close to in teh next 2 seasons there is not reason to think that players will want to coem here to win. we could never bring in players before cous we sucked, and nobody knew athing about the city. times have changed and i think its easier to bring in players.

but the oneal thing is not bad for teh raptors, thats because if he playes like crap we can allways trade him because of his 20 mill expiring contract. If he playes well then we keep im. its win win

Master P
07-05-2008, 02:46 PM
the point is.

2 years...if bargs develops into a high-level player, bosh continues his great play without injury, jose proves to be a consistant all-star level pg (not mvp level like dwill or cpaul, but still all-star), that will give the raptors three all-star level players with only 1 on a major-max level contract (bosh). bargs will be on a bigger max, and jose is a discount is he proves an all-star. that will leave enough to bring in really high quality roll-players, or even another star should someone be looking to play at a discount to have a shot at a title (oneal maybe...)

i realize a lot of people believe bargs is not going to be special in the nba. this is the risk in this plan, but frankly we will know in 2 years time so if he doesn't develop enough by that point the raptors might actually look to rebuild...sucks i know, but it's better to be clear that to dick around for multiple seasons as a low-level playoff team (see what washington is doing right now).

also, note that very few teams win championships, but watching your team in the conference / nba files is exciting enough to watch and attractive enough to make players want to join your team. the fact is nobody, not even the players know for sure who is going to win the title...they are happy enough to be on a roster that has a chance on paper at the start of each season.

Tom Stone
07-05-2008, 03:19 PM
I am soo tired of hearing about Barg...and will he become that player....He played SF his whole life, went #1 in the draft playing as a SF...had a rookie campagin of over 13 points playing SF....the only reason he struggled and became unconfortable, was because he played Center for the first time last year......He was never a center and won't be a Center any time soon.....So get off his back.....If you want to point fingers, point them at Sam mitchell, the guy who's crazy plan..ruined barg's second year.....And slowed development of Kris Humpries who is much tougher than people think and is an overall a solid player. This is Toma Livingstone basketball guru signing off

D.Pumps
07-05-2008, 03:37 PM
How did this become a discussion about Bargnani?

The message is. No one will want O'Neals contract more next year than this year. This is a move for the now, not for the future.

Bob_at_york
07-05-2008, 04:17 PM
I hope that Bryan Colangelo's intentions are not to use Jermaine O'Neals contract as trade bait in the upcoming season. OR to use the money coming off the cap to attract a big ticket player to come back to Toronto. These would all be failed objectives. Almost every team in the league has this exact object and already has planned for it.

Considering Toronto will have to first resign Bosh. i think it's pretty flawed logic to think that Toronto will make a huge splash in 2010 amongst all those teams. Not only do alot of teams have more cap space. The locations are much more attractive. Chicago L.A. Brooklyn, Golden State, Atlanta, Possible the Knicks.
Relax man, a lot of things are going to happen between now and then. For example teams like Chicago, Golden State and Atlanta have big time players they need to re-sign like Deng, Gordon, Ellis, Biedrins, J. Smith, just to name a few. Things will change. You are right a lot of teams will try to get under the cap but many will not and try to go for broke. We will get a better picture of everyone's plans next summer.

Jwizel_hitshrs
07-05-2008, 04:54 PM
Relax man, a lot of things are going to happen between now and then. For example teams like Chicago, Golden State and Atlanta have big time players they need to re-sign like Deng, Gordon, Ellis, Biedrins, J. Smith, just to name a few. Things will change. You are right a lot of teams will try to get under the cap but many will not and try to go for broke. We will get a better picture of everyone's plans next summer.

Agreed! Tons can/will happen between now and then. Sure Sonic, and other dreck teams will have money, but who wants to go to a loser? We are talking about free agency like 2 years away ppl lol

lets talk about current issues that are interesting/relative to this upcoming season first.

Master P
07-05-2008, 08:49 PM
sorry for turning into everything talking about bargs...i just see him as critical to the success of this team...bosh can get them the mile, but bargs is the extra inch.

and i wouldn't point the finger at sam mitchell for making a mistake trying to play him at centre. and i wont even talk about hindering the development of hump (no offense, the ceiling isn't that high). sure bargs played sf elsewhere, but in the nba players are bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, and better looking than he had ever seen. while he does cause amazing mis-matches on offense, he could not guard sf. it'd be like asking dirk too, a former mvp who can't even guard his own position at pf. so that left mitchell the option of putting bargs at c, of pf...he tried c...it failed...hense the trade for oneal so bargs can get a year of back and fourth (offense/defense) as a 4 and 5...im the optimist who thinks this will be critical for his development as a player.

sorry for leaving the topic again...of course the oneal trade is to win now...but it's not like he and the rest of the team will fall off the earth after next season. good short term trade (win now), good long term trade (develop talent, cap flexibility, win later).

_Sn1P3r_
07-05-2008, 10:10 PM
How did this become a discussion about Bargnani?

The message is. No one will want O'Neals contract more next year than this year. This is a move for the now, not for the future.

I agree. We needed JO right now because size, rebounding and aggresiveness is what we were lacking in the paint.

raptors wiseguy
07-05-2008, 11:38 PM
How did this become a discussion about Bargnani?

The message is. No one will want O'Neals contract more next year than this year. This is a move for the now, not for the future.

this is a good trade all-around...its for the now and for the future..if things dont work out teams will want his 22mill expiring much more than this year..and if things do work out we will have an all-star level centre that will help us advance deeper into the playoffs

Fion
07-05-2008, 11:50 PM
what i dont get is how dirk rebounds soo much better than bargnani. dirk basically avgs double digit rebounding, and he averaged like 13 a game during the playoffs. bargs career high isnt 13. Hes not stronger than bargs.

ON topic: its both man its a win win deal.

star
07-06-2008, 12:34 AM
D.PUMPS - is this ment to be a rebutle to my thread "maybe we are missing the point"

Becuase i think you TOTALLY missed the point.

star
07-06-2008, 12:56 AM
I hope that Bryan Colangelo's intentions are not to use Jermaine O'Neals contract as trade bait in the upcoming season. OR to use the money coming off the cap to attract a big ticket player to come back to Toronto. These would all be failed objectives.


Almost every team in the league has this exact object and already has planned for it.

yes my friend ... that is my point. And the way to achieve this is with big expiring contracts. IE - 22M for 1 player

These are the Cap Figures in Million for every team in the league from lowest to highest. Keep in mind there are Rookie Contracts that need qualifying offers.

Cleveland- 0
Atlanta- 0
Golden State - 0
Portland - 7 (possible 21)
Seattle- 7 (possible 21)
Chicago- 9 (possibly 20+)
Mia- 12
LAC- 13
Toronto- 15
Phoenix-16
NJ- 17.3 (guaranteed)
SAC-17
Min- 20
Phi- 21
Det-24
Hou- 25
Mem - 25
UTH- 30
CHA- 31
S.A. - 34
IND- 39



It's reasonable to believe all these teams will be under the cap come 2010

Are you SERIOUS? you think there will be 22 teams that will be UNDER the CAP???? This would be an NBA record! 22 teams able to offer MAX contracts?? I have no logical explanation for this comment. - If this is the quality of your post then ... well ... im done with it.

Any person that understands a cap and the NBA or has ever even played a decend video game knows that there are MAYBE 4 - 6 teams that will be able to offer a max contract in any given FA year. you have 22?

Now ... try to comprehend.

There will be lets assume 6 teams making a run at james ... SOME of the 6 (not all) will need help making cap space ... we can offer 22Milion in space. That is a HUGE asset.

NYK- 45.3 (randolph, curry and crawford) Are trying hard to get under as well.

That leaves. Bos 44 Mil 53 Orl- 43 N.O 43 Den 45 LAL 57


Considering Toronto will have to first resign Bosh. i think it's pretty
flawed logic to think that Toronto will make a huge splash in 2010 amongst all those teams.

You need to re-read my post (maybe a few times) ... the "flaw" is your comprehension ability (or mayby lack there of) but i will try again ... we will not be making a splash by way of free agency, We will be getting Players we choose and maybe picks for JOs Contract. Under the cap rules we will be allowed to trade his sallary for salaries that match, This will not affect our ability to re-sign bosh or andrea (we will likey be in a tax situation) but who cares if we are close to building a contender.


Not only do alot of teams have more cap space. The locations are much more attractive. Chicago L.A. Brooklyn, Golden State, Atlanta, Possible the Knicks.
In order for these teams to make the space they need to trade for JOs contract (or a similar contrract) ...

Do you not understand this?? ANY TEAM IN THE NBA - virtually regardless of their cap situation would be able to make a run at james if they traded for JO next year.

(obviously by reading your post you are having trouble so i will illustrate it for you)

ANY TEAM trades for JO next summer. To make the deal they have to put together a package with players that equals approx ... 22Million.

Package (22million) to us ....... JO to them

Summer 2010 ... they gain 44 Milion in cap space. (the 22 million in cotracts we took) + the 22 million of JOs that expires.

This means ANY TEAM can offer LEBRON max IF they traded us for JO.


We'll be lucky to come away with our own star. So no we're not missing the point. O'Neal was a trade for the now.
A 22 Million dollar contract is awful hard to trade away. Look at Marbury currently.

MARBURY? his isnt expiring. The value is in the CONTRACT not the player. + marbury is a team cancer. and a distraction, JO is not that. Plus he can currently play - and that was the second part of my point. that he will also help now.




not to "attack" you ... i know your sensative .... but i think this thread was made to rebutt mine, and in that aspect i think it was very weak and failed in every way.

Please try harder next time and with more logic

Joshmantis
07-06-2008, 01:24 AM
Well said. (I will overlook the spelling mistakes--we all make them)

cdnsportsfan
07-06-2008, 02:31 PM
D.Pumps my only question is why Toronto will have trouble just resigning their star player yet all the other teams won't....many teams will have to resign some bigger contracts out of the teams you have listed near the top, so how and why are they in a better situation? Do you really believe Boston will just part ways with Garnett, Pierce and Allen in a couple seasons because they're just done with them to free up that much cap space? Even if those players resign for less, they're still going to be taking a considerable chunk out of that cap space. And the same can apply to some key players on other teams as well.

The same logic has to be applied to all teams, can't be too hard on Toronto alone just because they're Toronto. What players on Toronto are actually signed on past 2010 right now - Bosh, Calderon and Kapono? Am I missing anyone else?(I very well could be, so correct me if I'm wrong). The Raps have solved one of their problems today and left themselves in a good situation a few years down the road as well.

B2B
07-06-2008, 02:57 PM
When BC made this trade he considered all aspects. Both present and future. A healthy O'neal and a unhealthy O'neal.

I think O'Neal will work out well in Toronto. Like I said, he answers a need and he's still a good player when healthy. And he's reportedly spending his summer in Las Vegas, working out with noted trainer Joe Abunassar.

But suppose I'm wrong and O'Neal doesn't work out. In fact, let's say O'Neal is an absolute disaster in 2008-09.

Is the trade a disaster then for the Raptors? No, it is not. Because the Raptors, at that point, would be sitting on a $23 million expiring contract for 2009-10. And depending on what Colangelo does with his other contracts between now and then, he can go down one of two paths: (1) eat the cap savings and get in position for the summer of 2010, when some big names will likely be on the market or (2) trade his mammoth expiring contract for somebody else's big contract, as the Lakers did in the Pau Gasol trade this winter. Either way he comes out of it OK.

So the upshot is, this deal absolutely works for both teams.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Onealtrade-080625

D.Pumps
07-06-2008, 03:06 PM
See what you don't understand is, this isn't like any other year. Chuck Swirsky said it best the other day on his radio show, it's the day the NBA stops. Nothing will be the same. You don't think the majority of those teams are under the cap by 2010? Why wouldn't they be, who's out there in the next two years thats making those teams go over the cap. Boozer? He can only inflate one team. And most likely that will be mia who is only on the hook for 12 Mil that season. This is not like any year ever.

Lets look at the idea of who will trade for J O'Neil's contract. First off yes Marburys contract is expiring. And still they have found no suiters, yet Bobby Simmons contract was moved though it was only about 10 Million expiring. Why is this? because it was manageable. 22 Million Dollars is not manageable. Someone show me a package of players next year that Toronto would take for O'Neil. Keep in mind it will have to come from a team that has cap space. And if teams want cap space so bad you have to assume they won't add much past 2010 too their current payroll, so eliminate those 22 teams groslly under the cap currently. That leaves u with the remaining 8 teams, so if i'm so crazy someone show me a deal from those 8 teams that Toronto will take back for O'Neil. Especially considering We have Bosh to resign ourselves.

I'm not saying Colangelo didn't have this in mind. I just HOPE he didn't have this in mind. If there is anything that can be agreed on, it's that overly conventional thinking never gets you ahead. And this is Horrifically conventionall thinking.

Pretty well everyone disagrees with me, and thats fine. Conventional thinking.

D.Pumps
07-06-2008, 03:14 PM
BTW i don't know were the Boston comment came from. It doesn't seem to make sense with anything i posted so i'll leave it be.

I think O'Neil will workout for the NOW but make it a move for the now. The biggest winners this offseason so far ar the milwaukee bucks for saying screw what everyone else is doing. Now they have RJ for what was little value. They can probably move CV and grab another contract and be a pretty dangerous team, infact they already are. Wen EVERYONE is doing something, you do the opposite, and you'll come out better for it.

Oh and by the way If you have 22 Mil and you trade for 22 Mil and Then you subtract 22 Mil. you don't lose 44 mil. I hope you don't think thats how it really works. the cavaliers should makes a trade and be -22 million under the cap. they'd be set.

Bob_at_york
07-06-2008, 03:18 PM
Lets look at the idea of who will trade for J O'Neil's contract. First off yes Marburys contract is expiring. And still they have found no suiters,
I didn't think the Knicks were trying to trade Marbury's contract. I thought they were cutting payroll.

yet Bobby Simmons contract was moved though it was only about 10 Million expiring. Why is this? because it was manageable. 22 Million Dollars is not manageable.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "manageable". Can you explain it to me?


Someone show me a package of players next year that Toronto would take for O'Neil. Keep in mind it will have to come from a team that has cap space.
Wait.... what? I thought we were talking about allowing JO to expire. Now we are talking about trading him? If that is true then I have to ask, why are we only looking at the teams with cap space? :confused:


And if teams want cap space so bad you have to assume they won't add much past 2010 too their current payroll, so eliminate those 22 teams groslly under the cap currently.
Why do you believe that everyone is actually thinking they can make a splash in 2010? I am sure a lot of teams are NOT planning on doing so.

Bob_at_york
07-06-2008, 03:19 PM
Oh and by the way If you have 22 Mil and you trade for 22 Mil and Then you subtract 22 Mil. you don't lose 44 mil. I hope you don't think thats how it really works. the cavaliers should makes a trade and be -22 million under the cap. they'd be set.

Of course deals like that rarely happen because you rarely find teams that are 20 mil under the cap and it is tough when you only have ONE team to trade with.

D.Pumps
07-06-2008, 03:35 PM
I'd go last two first here Bob. Everyone pay attention here. 22 trade for 22 minus 22 is -22, NOT negative 44. You don't lose 44 in payroll, like what was stated above. You just don't keep 22. GOD.

I believe everyone is looking to make a splash in 2010 because i can read. Look at those cap figures. thats unprecedented.

I"M not talking about trading him or letting him expire. It was a rebuttle to a post that suggested we trade his 22 Mil next year. And i'm not looking to trade it to a team with space, i mistyped, however i thought that would be obvious based on the entire history of this post, and everything else i said there, but i guess not. I mean i did say eliminate the 22 teams with cap space.

Manageable means a realistic amount of players heading in one direction. Lets explore this for a moment i think i didnt enough before. This year we traded Ford Rasho and Baston plus a pick for O'Neil. Toronto was considered a team with alot of large contracts to move this year. Even with this being said, we are having trouble filling our roster. So who else is going to be able to do this. And keep in mind, it has to be a deal Toronto will want. Simmons was able to be moved because the deal was smaller and easier to match.

The Wise 1
07-06-2008, 04:00 PM
22 million expiring contract isnt that hard to move. Say a star wants out and the team is looking to rebuild. We can get that star and his 12-14 million dollar contract and we can take on 1 or 2 bad contracts. That would = 22 million.

Bob_at_york
07-06-2008, 04:10 PM
I'd go last two first here Bob. Everyone pay attention here. 22 trade for 22 minus 22 is -22, NOT negative 44. You don't lose 44 in payroll, like what was stated above. You just don't keep 22. GOD..
okay I see it now. I skipped over that post because he doesn't know how to quote properly. It would help if you used the quote function too.

I believe everyone is looking to make a splash in 2010 because i can read. Look at those cap figures. thats unprecedented.

I responded to your list earlier by telling you a)It is too early to judge this stuff; b) There are a lot of contracts that need to be signed between now and then. Let's look at your list:

Atlanta- 0
Golden State - 0

Both of the above teams have tons of young players they want to lock up like Monta Ellis, Josh Smith, Biedrins, Marvin Williams, etc. It is quite early to try and guess their cap numbers.

Portland - 7 (possible 21)

You don't think that the Trailblazers are going to lock up Roy next summer? You don't think Outlaw or Webster fit into their plans?

Seattle- 7 (possible 21)

Not sure where you got your number but yes, they are cutting payroll. Not sure if they plan on signing Kobe or Bosh or anything but they are cutting payroll no doubt about it.

Chicago- 9 (possibly 20+)

Once again... not sure where you got your numbers but I see 24 mil in payroll and that is without Deng or Gordon. I am pretty sure you can assume they will re-sign at least one of them to a big contract and continue to build around Rose next offseason.

Mia- 12

Yes, they set themselves up so that they compete with other teams for Wade and others for that offseason. Of course they have a big decision about Marion next offseason.

LAC- 13

Baron, Brand... that is all I have to say.

Phoenix-16

They will be a crossroads in that offseason, no doubt about it.

NJ- 17.3 (guaranteed)

Once again... not sure where you got that number. I see a much higher number at this moment but of course I believe they want Lebron and they will find somebody to take Vince for them so that they can get it done.

SAC-17
Min- 20

Rebuilding teams... they will most likely have space no doubt about it.

Phi- 21

Iggy, Lou Williams or maybe Josh Smith!

Det-24

Maxiell needs to be re-signed next offseason and what to do about Rasheed. If pistons don't sign him one of the other teams you listed most likely will.

I am tired but I think I have made my point. Meanwhile a lot of the teams that you listed have their OWN free agents they probably want to re-sign.



Manageable means a realistic amount of players heading in one direction. Lets explore this for a moment i think i didnt enough before. This year we traded Ford Rasho and Baston plus a pick for O'Neil. Toronto was considered a team with alot of large contracts to move this year. Even with this being said, we are having trouble filling our roster. So who else is going to be able to do this. And keep in mind, it has to be a deal Toronto will want. Simmons was able to be moved because the deal was smaller and easier to match.
We are having trouble filling our roster, that is news to me. With your assessment that everyone wants expirings I can think of many different scenarios that would work especially with tons of big expirings out there.