Thread Tools

Display Modes

Gilgamesh · 03-15-2006, 09:55 PM

No clue but it certainly would have been interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benis007

I think Dr.J was a pipe dream.

where is he now?

pmac34 · 03-18-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shookem

If Walsh hadn't have gotten Peja for a non-playing Ronnie, than it would have made things a little better, but I think the firing of Babcock has less to do with the on-court product he put out there and more to do with the backroom politics he couldn't handle.

-also Sam is a horrible coach, Bosh likes him because Bosh knows him. How many years has Bosh been in the league and how many of those was Sam his coach for? Yeah, that's why.

-The James trade was great, but Babs gave waaay too much money to Rafer in the first place. A five-year deal to a streel baller back-up PG? Dumb move that showed everyone how capable Babs was at using the FA market.

-I don't think Bonner had many offers last summer, and I'm almost sure no one was willing to pay him as much as Babs was (otherwise he'd be playing there).

Sam Mitchell Improves His players considerably

clutchmoney · 03-19-2006, 06:44 PM

other than drafting Charlie V......... BAbcock has done nothing.....he's the one who signed Alston......to that big contract......he took Graham above Granger...he traded an allstar Vince Carter for a bag of balls......so to think that getting Mike James and having one good draft pick makes him a 'genius' then you must have damn low standards.... i think i would be a genius in your book as well.

MjM2xtreMe · 03-19-2006, 07:42 PM

^ yes he did sign Alston to a big contract but he realized his own mistake and made it right. If he hadn't signed Alston do you think Mike James would be in a Raptors uniform?

clutchmoney · 03-19-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MjM2xtreMe

^ yes he did sign Alston to a big contract but he realized his own mistake and made it right. If he hadn't signed Alston do you think Mike James would be in a Raptors uniform?

well............. i don't think highly of Mike James....it's not like he's gonna save the Raps....he's not even a "true" point guard.....plus he's 30 and not going to be around when Charlie V. and Bosh develop fully.... Babcock basically fixed a mistake....but didn't really improve the team for the future....also when you trade one of the top talents in the NBA for ballz, i don't care who you are...you the worst GM ever....i know Vince was being an a $ $ and wasn't going to play well unless he got traded....but still you don't trade the guy & 10 Million for A.Mourning/Williams/Williams/draft picks....that's just silly....i would have fired him right after that trade......or actually before, since i'm guessing he would need approval first......anyway the conclusion that he was a genius at any time is just silly....

Mr. BabCOCK

SickGame · 03-20-2006, 06:22 AM

Graham is going to develop into a solid starter. I don't think Granger's game is leaps and bounds over Graham's, and Granger's body is going to breakdown soon much like in College while Graham is a freak of an athlete with slightly more potential in my opinion. I don't regard that as a busted pick like someone stated above.
But yeah Babcock was simply awful. He drafted Hoffa, traded VC for what seems to have been two useless players in the Williams's, Graham and cap space...I don't care whatever logical deduction or rationalization one can make in his favour, trading a top 10 scorer for that is simply awful and unacceptable. He got lucky with the Alston for James swap. All Babcock has to his name is one solid draftpick in CV3 and a decent one in Graham. Some of it might not be completely his fault but he was still the GM and therefore the main man in charge and the final choice is his responsibility in all cases. He didn't do well, failed and ultimately skipped to his demise.

narrator · 03-20-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedythief

We do know that the Araujo pick was a consensus, but can you blame Rob for it? Because it is increasingly evident that when Rob was hired, MLSE decided the plan was NOT to trade Vince Carter, but to continue to build around him. Drafting Araujo instead of Iguodala (who was the consensus pick at that spot) was in a design to help fortify our weakest position rather than start to build something for the future. So in a way it is MLSE's fault for failing to recognize that the Carter era was over. Everyone saw draft night with all our brass happy with the pick--if there were people in that war room who didn't want him they have kept their mouths shut about it to this day.

****

I think the important part was getting Carter out of town and clearing his salary to spur the rebuilding project. The only other offer on the table we knew of, and know of to this day, was Portland's offer of SAR, Derek Anderson, and filler for Rose and Carter. No picks involved, Anderson's contract being a longer one. What other offers are any of us aware of? As far as we know Rob got lowballed by everyone in town. We wanted two things: to make our salary situation better and to get younger. We accomplished both goals with the trade.

Could Rob have gotten more? Maybe if he had waited until the deadline, but how much damage would Carter have done to his reputation by then? He was playing the worst basketball of his career. I think the idea was that he would probably play better somewhere else, but that he would continue to be soft and would shy away from a leadership role. You never get dollar-for-dollar value for a superstar (re: McGrady, Francis, Shaq O'Neal, etc.). We might've been lucky to be getting $0.50.

Now, the interesting piece of this trade was the Mourning contract. It was evident that he wanted to continue his career. Rob recognized that and wanted to push Mourning to veto his contract. MLSE, in their infinite wisdom, thought Mourning would retire with a full paycheque. So MLSE went over Rob's head and made a $11M buy-out, making the deal seem even worse. Rob might've cleared Zo's contract and then done something with Eric afterwards.

If I'm reading this correctly, it seems that you think MLSE thought building around Carter was still feasible while Babcock was convinced it wasn't. I continue to believe that Babcock erred in his assesment of the Carter situation. If he had taken a harder line with Carter, it may have turned out better. If he wanted to tank the season, Babcock could have put him on IR (at the time) with one of his many injuries until he decided to play hard, like the Bulls did with Tim Thomas this year. Carter made a committment to the Raptors and then decided to bail on them, which makes me angry.

You're right that there is no way the Raptors were getting full value for him. But Babcock should have done a couple of things to make lemonade out of those lemons: (a) wait until the deadline. There was no need to deal him in December; (b) TRADE HIM OUT OF THE EASTERN CONFERENCE! Then fans would only have to see him in person once a year; (c) insist, like Donnie Walsh did, on what it would take to get Carter: there was no rush. It's not like Carter was going to be a free agent or anything so if Babcock had waited, he may have done better. Of course, if he had been a better GM, he also may have done better.

NB: all this conspiracy stuff seems a bit far-fetched to me, even for MLSE.

**speedythief** · 03-20-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narrator

If I'm reading this correctly, it seems that you think MLSE thought building around Carter was still feasible while Babcock was convinced it wasn't. I continue to believe that Babcock erred in his assesment of the Carter situation. If he had taken a harder line with Carter, it may have turned out better. If he wanted to tank the season, Babcock could have put him on IR (at the time) with one of his many injuries until he decided to play hard, like the Bulls did with Tim Thomas this year. Carter made a committment to the Raptors and then decided to bail on them, which makes me angry.

I think Babcock was hired because he would design or manipulate his own plan to fit the plans MLSE had for the Raptors, which included keeping and building around Carter.

The correct action would've been to trade Carter in the summer before his trade demands became public and his value deteriorated, and before his unhappiness would translate to on-court play. I blame MLSE for refusing to admit that the Carter-centric design for our team had failed and failing to hire a GM who was at least aware of that weakness.

Quote:

You're right that there is no way the Raptors were getting full value for him. But Babcock should have done a couple of things to make lemonade out of those lemons: (a) wait until the deadline. There was no need to deal him in December; (b) TRADE HIM OUT OF THE EASTERN CONFERENCE! Then fans would only have to see him in person once a year; (c) insist, like Donnie Walsh did, on what it would take to get Carter: there was no rush. It's not like Carter was going to be a free agent or anything so if Babcock had waited, he may have done better. Of course, if he had been a better GM, he also may have done better.

NB: all this conspiracy stuff seems a bit far-fetched to me, even for MLSE.

The only deals we're aware of are the Jersey deal and the Portland deal. There was supposedly something on the table for Magloire with New Orleans but if it didn't get a second thought from Babcock our our brass it was probably a lowball offer. We don't know that there were any other offers for him, so trading him to Western Team X might've been impossible.

I don't think waiting until the deadline or the summer would've helped our cause, not with the way he was playing. We would've been lucky to get what Orlando got for Francis if that were the case--which is a whole lot of nothing.

shookem · 03-20-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedythief

There was supposedly something on the table for Magloire with New Orleans but if it didn't get a second thought from Babcock our our brass it was probably a lowball offer.

Considering what we got, I don't think you could say anything with Magloire would be a lowball offer.

Of course, we don't know if that deal existed.

SkywalkerAC · 03-20-2006, 06:42 PM

This entire thread is ridiculous.

HOFFA RULES!!!

SickGame · 03-20-2006, 06:58 PM

I think for the last 10 games, Hoffa should get 25-30 minutes a game, see how he fares.

**speedythief** · 03-20-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shookem

Considering what we got, I don't think you could say anything with Magloire would be a lowball offer.

Of course, we don't know if that deal existed.

If it existed it was probably Magloire + junk for Carter, no picks, no expirings.

shookem · 03-20-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedythief

If it existed it was probably Magloire + junk for Carter, no picks, no expirings.

That sounds ok.

That would've meant MoP, Jalen, Mags, EWill, Hoffa, Bonner all expire in the same year. I'm not that attached to Joey Graham.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes