Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 219 of 281 FirstFirst ... 119169209217218219220221229269 ... LastLast
Results 3,271 to 3,285 of 4204
  1. #3271
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    15,192
    Iím moving forward under the belief that boucher is a core piece and will be retained. Just where my head is at based on recent events.

    Gordon would fit so well. We would need to add an asset though, which I am probably unwilling to do unless itís 2nds or guys nurse has given up on.

    Not worth spending future assets for a 2nd round exit + taking shots and ball handling minutes from our developing youth imo.

  2. #3272
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    32,651
    Quote Originally Posted by pebloemer View Post
    We do have his bird rights. Bird rights have no correlation to age. We can resign him and exceed the tax sure, but what is the cost down the road is what I'm saying. Luxury tax isn't only more money the owners have to pay. There are soft cap implications to what types of moves you are allowed to make when over the tax, just like there is when you are over the cap. There is also the luxury tax apron which can restrict what moves a team is allowed to make even further.

    Just for an example, consider this:

    If our team is going to be:

    FVV
    GTJ- Gordon
    Barnes
    OG - Boucher
    Siakam - Birch

    Then those exceptions do more than suffice to round out the roster. Especially as Banton, Champagnie, Precious continue to develop.

    If youíre asking me what the owners want, your guess is as good as mine.

    All I can tell you is my opinion. I believe we are 6 players deep in FVV, GTJ, Barnes, Siakam, OG , Boucher. If we add Gordon that is 7. If we use one of those exceptions to get a vet thatís 8. And then again you have Banton, Precious, Champagnie as development pieces, along with our draft picks moving forward.


    And to Chongís point, weíre saying we would do this as a straight up Dragic for Gordon. If we have to part with meaningful assets then I wouldnít either.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 01-19-2022 at 05:17 PM.

  3. #3273
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    32,651
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Iím moving forward under the belief that boucher is a core piece and will be retained. Just where my head is at based on recent events.

    Gordon would fit so well. We would need to add an asset though, which I am probably unwilling to do unless itís 2nds or guys nurse has given up on.

    Not worth spending future assets for a 2nd round exit + taking shots and ball handling minutes from our developing youth imo.
    Thatís realistic. Houston would likely want more. Ofcourse they would. And other teams would offer more.

    Boucher could get traded by the dead line. Thereís so many teams that need a pf. Heís cheap and comes with bird rights. I can see there being a lot of interest. If we make a big trade I think he will be involved.

    Other wise I agree we will retain him.

  4. #3274
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    14,125
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    If our team is going to be:

    FVV
    GTJ- Gordon
    Barnes
    OG - Boucher
    Siakam - Birch

    Then those exceptions do more than suffice to round out the roster. Especially as Banton, Champagnie, Precious continue to develop.

    If youíre asking me what the owners want, your guess is as good as mine.

    All I can tell you is my opinion. I believe we are 6 players deep in FVV, GTJ, Barnes, Siakam, OG , Boucher. If we add Gordon that is 7. If we use one of those exceptions to get a vet thatís 8. And then again you have Banton, Precious, Champagnie as development pieces, along with our draft picks moving forward.


    And to Chongís point, weíre saying we would do this as a straight up Dragic for Gordon. If we have to part with meaningful assets then I wouldnít either.
    My thought is just that the exceptions are better if we arenít a tax team. I like the idea of using MLE on a guy like Jalen Smith (lottery pick two years ago) for example over spending 30-35 million annually on a couple 30+ year olds for the next couple years who are both bench players. It seems like poor cap management to me.

    If we are a tax team we could miss out on finding late bloomers (ie. Christian Wood a couple years back). The meaningful asset we lose is potential flexibility to get a more long-term asset. It is hard to quantify what that is. Could be worse than what Gordon and Boucher give you over the next few years, but I don't think we are ready to compete for a championship for a couple season still, so I'd prefer to target younger assets while letting these pieces continue to grow out.

    For me, this team has a core 4 of OG/Pascal/FVV/Barnes. I have no issue if they conglomerate a group of young assets/picks and salaries to try to add a 5th core piece to that. Otherwise, I would prefer the try to sell Boucher for a late first, take what they can get from Dragic and then evaluate options in the off-season.
    Last edited by pebloemer; 01-19-2022 at 06:46 PM.

  5. #3275
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    32,651
    Quote Originally Posted by pebloemer View Post
    My thought is just that the exceptions are better if we arenít a tax team. I like the idea of using MLE on a guy like Jalen Smith (lottery pick two years ago) for example over spending 30-35 million annually on a couple 30+ year olds for the next couple years who are both bench players. It seems like poor cap management to me.

    If we are a tax team we could miss out on finding late bloomers (ie. Christian Wood a couple years back). The meaningful asset we lose is potential flexibility to get a more long-term asset. It is hard to quantify what that is. Could be worse than what Gordon and Boucher give you over the next few years, but I don't think we are ready to compete for a championship for a couple season still, so I'd prefer to target younger assets while letting these pieces continue to grow out.

    For me, this team has a core 4 of OG/Pascal/FVV/Barnes. I have no issue if they conglomerate a group of young assets/picks and salaries to try to add a 5th core piece to that. Otherwise, I would prefer the try to sell Boucher for a late first, take what they can get from Dragic and then evaluate options in the off-season.
    But thatís what we need are bench players, and again youíre giving up a guy picking his nose at home to get him. (In the hypothetical that was proposed.)

    Barnes, OG, Siakam, Boucher, Precious. Yeah man Jalen Smith would totally round out our roster of power forwards lol.

    The Gordon trade is not realistic. Houston would never agree to it. But can we please get some guard depth behind FVV/GTJ? I donít understand this craze for forwards.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 01-19-2022 at 07:07 PM.

  6. #3276
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    14,125
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    But thatís what we need are bench players, and again youíre giving up a guy picking his nose at home to get him. (In the hypothetical that was proposed.)

    Barnes, OG, Siakam, Boucher, Precious. Yeah man Jalen Smith would totally round out our roster of power forwards lol.

    The Gordon trade is not realistic. Houston would never agree to it. But can we please get some guard depth behind FVV/GTJ? I donít understand this craze for forwards.
    I love how we always circle back to this. They've pretty much been playing Siakam and Barnes as the backup guards. I agree we need bench depth, but I'd argue the experiment has worked well of late. I wish Nurse took advantage more of size mismatches on offense, but that should come in time I think.

    We are in a weird spot. We need depth and we need to develop a bunch of guys. Coach coaches to win and isn't trusting a lot of the youth that need to develop. Something definitely needs to give at some point. Can't roll out 6-7 guys all season long.

  7. #3277
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60,575
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    Heís shouting the ball incredibly well. Check the numbers. He would be a welcomed addition to our bench.

    All we have to give up is an expiring contract? Where do I sign. Thatís s no brainer
    I know hes shooting well but I dont think he fits our model. If i can sign a different player this offseason to the same contract I would probably prefer that. Or even if we cant sign another guy to that contract I may prefer the flexibility instead.

  8. #3278
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    32,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    I know hes shooting well but I dont think he fits our model. If i can sign a different player this offseason to the same contract I would probably prefer that. Or even if we cant sign another guy to that contract I may prefer the flexibility instead.
    Iím not sure we he flexibility anyways. Can you elaborate on that flexibility? If we let Dragic walk how much cap space do we have to work with before we go over the cap?

    Iím also a Rockets fan and I know for a fact the Rockets wouldnít do that trade. We can do much better than a salary dump for Gordon. I lolíd when I read that idea. So itís a moot point.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 01-19-2022 at 08:05 PM.

  9. #3279
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    32,651
    Quote Originally Posted by pebloemer View Post
    I love how we always circle back to this. They've pretty much been playing Siakam and Barnes as the backup guards. I agree we need bench depth, but I'd argue the experiment has worked well of late. I wish Nurse took advantage more of size mismatches on offense, but that should come in time I think.

    We are in a weird spot. We need depth and we need to develop a bunch of guys. Coach coaches to win and isn't trusting a lot of the youth that need to develop. Something definitely needs to give at some point. Can't roll out 6-7 guys all season long.
    Yeah because we have no other options there? We also play Siakam at C.

    We need depth at the 1&2 and we can use a 5. Doesnít matter how you look at it those are holes in the line up. When youíre 6 players deep and you look at whatís missing and what needs to be added itís those positions. Not another PF cmon bro. Jalen Smith? Maybe he can replace Bonga. I dunno.


    I agree that we canít role with 6-7 guys. But I also donít think the 8-9-10th guys guys should be more forwards. And I also donít trust Flynn, Yuta etc. I donít blame Nurse honestly. Even Precious needs more time as does Banton.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 01-19-2022 at 08:12 PM.

  10. #3280
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    32,651
    I look around the league I donít see anyone else playing power forward ball.

    Iím ok with the forwards we have (5) but to add more would asinine

  11. #3281
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60,575
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    Iím not sure we he flexibility anyways. Can you elaborate on that flexibility? If we let Dragic walk how much cap space do we have to work with before we go over the cap?

    Iím also a Rockets fan and I know for a fact the Rockets wouldnít do that trade. We can do much better than a salary dump for Gordon. I lolíd when I read that idea. So itís a moot point.
    Given his contract lenght, youre forced to play him to justify paying him over multiple years so you lose flexibility in playing time.

    And since we'd be closer to the luxury tax (than if we didnt have him), other trades opuld be harder to execute without thretening of going over the luxury. And you may have to flip him in a deal and given his contract size, that would be hard to do.

  12. #3282
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    32,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    Given his contract lenght, youre forced to play him to justify paying him over multiple years so you lose flexibility in playing time.

    And since we'd be closer to the luxury tax (than if we didnt have him), other trades opuld be harder to execute without thretening of going over the luxury. And you may have to flip him in a deal and given his contract size, that would be hard to do.
    I think thereís plenty of playing time to go around. playing with 7 guys is not sustainable

  13. #3283
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    14,125
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    Yeah because we have no other options there? We also play Siakam at C.

    We need depth at the 1&2 and we can use a 5. Doesnít matter how you look at it those are holes in the line up. When youíre 6 players deep and you look at whatís missing and what needs to be added itís those positions. Not another PF cmon bro. Jalen Smith? Maybe he can replace Bonga. I dunno.


    I agree that we canít role with 6-7 guys. But I also donít think the 8-9-10th guys guys should be more forwards. And I also donít trust Flynn, Yuta etc. I donít blame Nurse honestly. Even Precious needs more time as does Banton.
    So I guess we will dive into the circular argument again. Why can't Barnes play 12 minutes at PG and Siakam 12 minutes at SG? Explain the disadvantage that gives us.

  14. #3284
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    32,651
    Quote Originally Posted by pebloemer View Post
    So I guess we will dive into the circular argument again. Why can't Barnes play 12 minutes at PG and Siakam 12 minutes at SG? Explain the disadvantage that gives us.
    I never said they canít. But I donít wanna run these guys in to the ground either. Donít we need more guys playing? If youíre gonna add what would you add?

    You said your self running 6-7 guys is not sustainable

  15. #3285
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    14,125
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    I never said they canít. But I donít wanna run these guys in to the ground either. Donít we need more guys playing? If youíre gonna add what would you add?

    You said your self running 6-7 guys is not sustainable
    Play Flynn, Champagnie, Watanabe more would be my short term solution. If the team can create an enticing package for a 5th core player, I'm all for it, but Nurse needs to give some of these options a chance to play few some mistakes. The team needs to try to win for the overall culture, but this is a development year. You can't sit all your young guys (minus Barnes and Achiuwa) for winning. Gotta find some contributions and develop them.

    Raptors can't approach the deadline with the mindset of being better this year, but being better in 2 years IMO.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •