I have a wild idea but why not, for a 1 year contract, try Iverson out. Yes, he has had a troubled past but I think we should give him a try. Yes, call me crazy but we need to try something.
Printable View
I have a wild idea but why not, for a 1 year contract, try Iverson out. Yes, he has had a troubled past but I think we should give him a try. Yes, call me crazy but we need to try something.
Iverson would just take time away from Bayless. The Raptors need to see what they have in Bayless and whether or not he's worth keeping around for the long-run.
No to Iverson for me.
I'd watch.
It doesn't really matter, does it?
He probably won't play for a non-contending team anyways.
The way Bayless played this past season, I was very unimpressed....
I said this last summer when he was desperately seeking work and it was met with the same kind of cynicism from this thread, so I knew what to expect before I opened it. I also suggested JR Smith but people on here said they don't like his attitude and that he'd take away Derozan's minutes. But for me it's like the ONLY people's minutes who are of any concern are Derozan, Ed Davis, and to a far lesser extent Johnson/Bayless. And as for "attitude problems" I don't really care for that unless it actually happens in our facility. There are guys that people have claimed to have attitude problems on one team and they come to another team and don't have any problems at all, in addition to adding an edge to the team. Like JO when he came to us, Ron Artest on the Lakers, and I could go on and on. I personally want guys that bring an edge and get under people's skin to be on this team. I guess it's a somewhat unrelated rant but i'm sure someone see's where i'm going with this.
[QUOTE=bokes15]I said this last summer when he was desperately seeking work and it was met with the same kind of cynicism from this thread, so I knew what to expect before I opened it. I also suggested JR Smith but people on here said they don't like his attitude and that he'd take away Derozan's minutes. But for me it's like the ONLY people's minutes who are of any concern are Derozan, Ed Davis, and to a far lesser extent Johnson/Bayless. And as for "attitude problems" I don't really care for that unless it actually happens in our facility. There are guys that people have claimed to have attitude problems on one team and they come to another team and don't have any problems at all, in addition to adding an edge to the team. Like JO when he came to us, Ron Artest on the Lakers, and I could go on and on. I personally want guys that bring an edge and get under people's skin to be on this team. I guess it's a somewhat unrelated rant but i'm sure someone see's where i'm going with this.[/QUOTE]
I kind of like where you are going here. We need some fire to spark this team.
[QUOTE=bokes15]I personally want guys that bring an edge and get under people's skin to be on this team. I guess it's a somewhat unrelated rant but i'm sure someone see's where i'm going with this.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely want that too. But I still say no to Iverson. JR Smith? Sure! I'd love that.
[QUOTE=Chamberlain]I absolutely want that too. But I still say no to Iverson. JR Smith? Sure! I'd love that.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, i kind of shifted focus mid-rant to something i've been saying for awhile now. Not Iverson specifically but someone who plays with an edge. Someone who works hard and pushes everyone even harder rather than trying to be everyone's friend. And someone who opposing teams hate to play against.
[QUOTE=Qwyjibo]Iverson would just take time away from Bayless. The Raptors need to see what they have in Bayless and whether or not he's worth keeping around for the long-run.
No to Iverson for me.[/QUOTE]
If that's the reason not to play him, just bring Iverson in already. I'm shocked someone still thinks highly of Bayless, he's an ok backup, but I think we already know what we have in him, and that's not worth a starting spot now or in the future.
[QUOTE]but I think we already know what we have in him, and that's not worth a starting spot now or in the future.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how you can say that. How many games did he start? 15? He played alright in those games too but it's not a big enough sample to make a judgement on a player. If this season happens, it's basically another write-off for the Raptors so why not let Bayless start the full year? There's no one better on the roster to be investing time in at PG. If he sucks, you dump him. Easy as that. Same goes for James Johnson at SF.
Bayless is not a playmaker and will never be. He is an undersized and below-average SG that could have some success in Europe, but not in the NBA. We should know that by now. In 5 years from now Calderon will still be a better PG than Bayless, so we have to play Calderon either we think in the present or the future.
Iverson has to know that he is completely done as a basketball player. If he is talking about coming back to the NBA it is probably more about marketing than anything.
See post about bringing back [B]Anthony Parker.[/B]
No to Iverson.
Keep Bayliss - see what he really will be.
[QUOTE=FCardelle]Bayless is not a playmaker and will never be. He is an undersized and below-average SG that could have some success in Europe, but not in the NBA. We should know that by now. In 5 years from now Calderon will still be a better PG than Bayless, so we have to play Calderon either we think in the present or the future.
Iverson has to know that he is completely done as a basketball player. If he is talking about coming back to the NBA it is probably more about marketing than anything.[/QUOTE]
This.
I don't know in wich alternate reality Bayless could be a better playmaker than Calderon.
Bayless is a backup combo-guard, I'm ok with him taking Barbosa's spot, I'm not ok with him starting for the Raptors now or in the future.
[QUOTE]I'm not ok with him starting for the Raptors now or in the future.[/QUOTE]
Again, based on less than a 1/4 of a season starting? If the same patience was applied to Bargnani then he would have been taken out back and shot Old Yeller-style after his 2nd season. At least that would have saved the Raptors $50 million down the road. The Raptors have already given Bargnani 5 years to try to develop and will probably sink another 5 years into him because he was a 1st overall pick. You're clearly in favour of that. It shouldn't hurt to give players like Bayless and James Johnson just [B]1[/B] year. Especially when there are no other young options and the team is pegged to be one of the worst in the league. This is a low risk and potential high reward scenario.
No one is saying Bayless is great but what's the harm in starting him and seeing if he can become a starter? Who else do the Raptors have to develop at PG this season? And who cares if he's not a great playmaker? The role of a PG is to make the offense more efficient by whatever means. Whether that's by creating your own offense, running pick and rolls or being a Chris Paul godlike creator for your teammates. Tony Parker was never much of a playmaker and I'm sure most people would have killed to have him on the Raptors a couple years ago.
[QUOTE=Qwyjibo]Again, based on less than a 1/4 of a season starting? If the same patience was applied to Bargnani then he would have been taken out back and shot Old Yeller-style after his 2nd season. At least that would have saved the Raptors $50 million down the road. The Raptors have already given Bargnani 5 years to try to develop and will probably sink another 5 years into him because he was a 1st overall pick. You're clearly in favour of that. It shouldn't hurt to give players like Bayless and James Johnson just [B]1[/B] year. Especially when there are no other young options and the team is pegged to be one of the worst in the league. This is a low risk and potential high reward scenario.
No one is saying Bayless is great but what's the harm in starting him and seeing if he can become a starter? Who else do the Raptors have to develop at PG this season? And who cares if he's not a great playmaker? The role of a PG is to make the offense more efficient by whatever means. Whether that's by creating your own offense, running pick and rolls or being a Chris Paul godlike creator for your teammates. Tony Parker was never much of a playmaker and I'm sure most people would have killed to have him on the Raptors a couple years ago.[/QUOTE]
1- we already have a better PG in Calderon who most likely will be better than him at any possible stage of development in his career
2- the role of playmaker is not about making the offense more efficient by whatever means, it's about, you know... making plays
3- Bayless' ceiling just isn't worth wasting any starting time developing him, he'll be just fine with Barbosa's role, there's no point in throwing starting minutes at someone who'll never be a starter
4- there's a reason why no one wanted Bayless in the first place and he was traded to us, and that's because he makes too many dumb decision and doesn't have the bbal IQ to be a PG, while being too small to guard SGs
and the Bargnani comparisons are just for the lulz I hope
[QUOTE=Doko]
3- Bayless' ceiling just isn't worth wasting any starting time developing him, he'll be just fine with Barbosa's role, there's no point in throwing starting minutes at someone who'll never be a starter[/QUOTE]
I am not casting comparisons about Calderon Bayliss etc - [U]I dont even want to begin that debate.[/U]
I also agree that Bayliss in/as Barbosa role seems to be a strong fit at this time [U]based on what we have seen to date[/U].
However the one minor disgreement I have with the above is point 3.
I dont think we know Bayliss ceiling at all. I dont think we have seen enough of him in one season at < 28 minutes per game that we understand if he has maxed out his potential. I have not seen what our new coach will do with him in terms of postional play.
I might even use a Chauncey Billups analogy ; CB floated through Toronto Minny till he finally hit is stride year 5 in Detroit.
I have no idea if Bayliss has Billups burried in there somewhere ; but the key point frankly is I dont know.
He is young and inexpensive and worth "challenging" through rigorous development and expectations.
[QUOTE]I have no idea if Bayliss has Billups burried in there somewhere ; but the key point frankly is I dont know.
He is young and inexpensive and worth "challenging" through rigorous development and expectations.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
I don't know if Bayless is going to be anything good either. He may very well stink and the Raptors will just let him walk. But there is almost no risk to find this out. Calderon and Barbosa have topped out and likely will only get worse from here on. It's not like either of them are "good starters" in the NBA anyways.
With the state the Raptors are in right now, you'd think they would want to find young players that could possibly play minutes for them down the road. This is a team that, IMO, doesn't even have a "core" yet. There is no John Wall or Blake Grffin/Gordon or even a Kevin Love to build around right now. The Raptors should be using this next year to see who is going to be part of this team down the road when they are ready to compete and who isn't. I think it's obvious guys like Calderon and Barbosa won't be. Davis, Derozan and Valanciunas might be. Bayless and Johnson are question marks that need to be answered.
This whole debate basically boils down to some people having the misguided notion that we should do our best to get swepped in the first round next year, which to be honest would be overachieving at this point. Is Calderon better than Bayless now? Sure. But who gives a damn about now. Given his drastic falloff in the last two years I have no confidence that he'll be ANY good in 2 years let alone 5 when we might realistically compete. Bayless as has been said is a question mark that we might as well answer next year since we're going to suck whether we try to tank or not and we might as well get SOMETHING out of it.
[QUOTE=Jballer]I am not casting comparisons about Calderon Bayliss etc - [U]I dont even want to begin that debate.[/U]
I also agree that Bayliss in/as Barbosa role seems to be a strong fit at this time [U]based on what we have seen to date[/U].
However the one minor disgreement I have with the above is point 3.
I dont think we know Bayliss ceiling at all. I dont think we have seen enough of him in one season at < 28 minutes per game that we understand if he has maxed out his potential. I have not seen what our new coach will do with him in terms of postional play.
I might even use a Chauncey Billups analogy ; CB floated through Toronto Minny till he finally hit is stride year 5 in Detroit.
I have no idea if Bayliss has Billups burried in there somewhere ; but the key point frankly is I dont know.
He is young and inexpensive and worth "challenging" through rigorous development and expectations.[/QUOTE]
I see your point, but I just can't see Bayless being a starting point guard in the NBA. He's been around for some time and he never showed significant signs of improvement. To me, saying let's give him the minutes and maybe he'll turn into Billups is the same thing as saying let's give James Johnson the minutes and maybe he'll turn into Larry Bird. To me, Bayless is a player that doesn't have the potential to be a good PG, so I'd rather have Calderon to be part of my core and to develop my young players with.
[QUOTE=Doko]I see your point, but I just can't see Bayless being a starting point guard in the NBA. He's been around for some time and he never showed significant signs of improvement. To me, saying let's give him the minutes and maybe he'll turn into Billups is the same thing as saying let's give James Johnson the minutes and maybe he'll turn into Larry Bird. To me, Bayless is a player that doesn't have the potential to be a good PG, so I'd rather have Calderon to be part of my core and to develop my young players with.[/QUOTE]
Did you see that Chauncey Billups would be the player he became when he played for us? The point is we don't have enough information to know what player he is, and believe it or not you not being able to see potential in him doesn't mean it isn't there. Next year however is a total wash so we may as well give him a total chance to succeed or fail and determine whether or not the 1 is as important a spot to fill in next year's draft as we all think it is at the moment.
[QUOTE=DJMason]Did you see that Chauncey Billups would be the player he became when he played for us? The point is we don't have enough information to know what player he is, and believe it or not you not being able to see potential in him doesn't mean it isn't there. Next year however is a total wash so we may as well give him a total chance to succeed or fail and determine whether or not the 1 is as important a spot to fill in next year's draft as we all think it is at the moment.[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not the fact that you see the potential doesn't mean it is there either. That's why they call them opinions :)
[QUOTE=Doko]Believe it or not the fact that you see the potential doesn't mean it is there either. That's why they call them opinions :)[/QUOTE]
a) I don't necessarily see him as an NBA starter either. b) My point was that his potential is what it is and only by playing him can we see whether it's as a solid backup which it appears to be now, or as something more. Not even bothering to find out what it is in a year that will be pointless anyway is silly.
I suppose there could be worse ways of adding a tiny bit of excitement to what promises to be an extremely uninteresting season.
I'm not going to read through a debate about Jerry'd Bayless.... seriously? But anyways, my own stance on Bayless is that he is what he is. I said this before and i'll say it again (and I know it's a bit of an overlapse of what FC said). He's an undersized 2 guard not fit to run the point. I personally don't want any part of him on this team unless it's to use him as trade bait. You have to be damn good to be his size and to make it as a 2 guard in this league... or you have to have such a big offensive threat that you can overcompensate. At most, i'd take his as a backup 1 or 2 but i'm not as high as Bayless as others on this forum.
First, Iverson is a no for me. With a young team you need somebody who will show up at practise, and practice hard. Casey's mandate is to play better defense, and the only way to do that is to practice hard everyday. Defense is about commitment, and we all know what Iverson is commited to, and it's not practise, and it's not defense. I like watching him play, but as far as having a veteran to show the younger players what it takes to compete in this league, Iverson is probably the worst player we could get for that.
Bayless to me is nothing but fodder. To small for a two and a bad decession maker as a point guard. He's not anything I would spend time trying to find something he has yet to show us. His biggest asset is as trade ballast. But he does appear to be a good guy. As a counter point Casey will be looking for anybody who will step up defensively, and Bayless might be motivated enough to provide that as a point guard. In which case with his salary I might be persuaded to provide him that opportunity.
i dont think anyone here is saying anything positive about bayless. The argument is that we are going to suck and will be tanking this coming season so why not just let the guy play. We haven't seen bayless play full time for us. Why not allow him to play as a starter and see what he does? Atleast let the guy play half a season and use him in a trade. simple.
and its amazing seeing the arguments being made by bargnani nut huggers. just amazing. FC and doko would be jumping of roofs with a dildo up their asses if the the name was switched with bargnani. how much investment have we made in bargnani by now? how long have we waited for that trash to show up? yet they are not willing to give a guy one crappy season?
[QUOTE=bada bing]i dont think anyone here is saying anything positive about bayless. The argument is that we are going to suck and will be tanking this coming season so why not just let the guy play. We haven't seen bayless play full time for us. Why not allow him to play as a starter and see what he does? Atleast let the guy play half a season and use him in a trade. simple.
and its amazing seeing the arguments being made by bargnani nut huggers. just amazing. FC and doko would be jumping of roofs with a dildo up their asses if the the name was switched with bargnani. how much investment have we made in bargnani by now? how long have we waited for that trash to show up? yet they are not willing to give a guy one crappy season?[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://troll.me/images/dawson-crying/you-mad.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Doko]I see your point, but I just can't see Bayless being a starting point guard in the NBA. He's been around for some time and he never showed significant signs of improvement. To me, saying let's give him the minutes and maybe he'll turn into Billups is the same thing as saying let's give James Johnson the minutes and maybe he'll turn into Larry Bird. To me, Bayless is a player that doesn't have the potential to be a good PG, so I'd rather have Calderon to be part of my core and to develop my young players with.[/QUOTE]
You very well may be right, and Bayless may never become a starting PG in the NBA. The point I think we're trying to make is that Calderon has maxed out as a player and really isn't stater quality either. He's going to be 30 this year and by the time the Raptors are ready to contend, if ever, he won't be around anymore. Bayless is still relatively young. It's not like the Raptors are going to be competing for anything anytime soon so you might as well play the young guys and see what you've got. Bayless is under contract until 2013, in which he has a qualifying offer. Say the lockout doesn't end and the season is canceled, or is shortened. It's kinda like he only has one year left on his contract rather than two. He doesn't impress, you don't give him the QO, and cut ties with him. Same kind of scenario with James Johnson, although his deal is longer.
As for Iverson, no thanks. Nothing against him as a player, but with the direction the Raptors are going in, or should be going in, he just doesn't make sense.
Jerry'd Bayless is like the Sebastian Telfair of 2008. Super hyped up in highschool for putting up huge numbers there and drafted on potential after a decent year in College. Then comes to the NBA and becomes an average rotational player but teases you every once in awhile to give you false hopes that he still has another gear to reach and to earn himself another NBA contract. On another team that is already solid at the PG spot where he can play backup 1 and 2? I'm sure he could carve his niche out somewhere. On a team like ours where we should still be looking for a starting 1/2 [I]AND[/I] a backup 1/2, not so much. If you guys were saying we should play him for trade bait or tanking purposes, sure i'd agree to that. But to play him to "see what we have in him" I just can't really see. I can see him being another easy move for BC where the guy plays decent and in turn he gives him a TJ Ford type contract only to realize he made a huge mistake and trade him for nothing 2 years down the line.
[QUOTE=raptorfan_dr07]You very well may be right, and Bayless may never become a starting PG in the NBA. The point I think we're trying to make is that Calderon has maxed out as a player and really isn't stater quality either. He's going to be 30 this year and by the time the Raptors are ready to contend, if ever, he won't be around anymore. Bayless is still relatively young. It's not like the Raptors are going to be competing for anything anytime soon so you might as well play the young guys and see what you've got. Bayless is under contract until 2013, in which he has a qualifying offer. Say the lockout doesn't end and the season is canceled, or is shortened. It's kinda like he only has one year left on his contract rather than two. He doesn't impress, you don't give him the QO, and cut ties with him. Same kind of scenario with James Johnson, although his deal is longer.
As for Iverson, no thanks. Nothing against him as a player, but with the direction the Raptors are going in, or should be going in, he just doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
So Calderon isn't a legit starter... neither is Bargnani...
Good thing we have Bayless, Weems and Amir to surround the Derozan/Davis core :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=T-Low]I have a wild idea but why not, for a 1 year contract, try Iverson out. Yes, he has had a troubled past but I think we should give him a try. Yes, call me crazy but we need to try something.[/QUOTE]
No.
Iverson refused to come of the bench in Memphis. He isn't going to start helping teams now. He would be a good star attraction though to sell tickets.
But we don't need to sell tickets. We need to build a foundation. Iverson is not the answer anymore for any team.