# Brandon Roy Named ROY



## Who-C (Nov 21, 2005)

It was announced on NBA.com that Brandon Roy was named Rookie of the Year. Thanks to Chuck Swirsky, Roy was unable to complete the sweep of receiving only first place votes. The votes went as followed.

Rookie, Team 1st 2nd 3rd Total 
Brandon Roy, Portland 127 1 - 638 
Andrea Bargnani, Toronto 1 77 28 264 
Rudy Gay, Memphis - 21 30 93 
Adam Morrison, Charlotte - 11 11 44 
Randy Foye, Minnesota - 7 16 37 
LaMarcus Aldridge, Portland - 5 3 18 
Jorge Garbajosa, Toronto - 2 11 17 
Paul Millsap, Utah - 1 16 19 
Tyrus Thomas, Chicago - 2 4 10 
Walter Hermann, Charlotte - 1 2 5 
Craig Smith, Minnesota - - 4 4 
Rajon Rondo, Boston - - 3 3


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

LMAO. Chuck Swirsky was the only person that voted for Andrea Bargnani. Chuch is such a homer.

What is Chuck's e-mail again.


----------



## JS03 (Jan 5, 2005)

Hahaha, Chuck.....


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

Good for Roy, he had a great season.


----------



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

I'd be more worried about the 11 writers that had Adam Morrison as their second place vote, or the 7 that put Randy Foye in second, or the one moron that had Walter Hermann as 2nd best rook. 2 guys had that headcase Ty Thomas in second.

Lots of ignorant voters, or just homers. I'm a little surprised Bargnani didn't get any other votes for 1st, but its a stats driven league.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

Bargs finished just about where he should of, might have got some more love if he started or ended the season stronger......he only really had a two month stretch where he was hands down the best rook.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

lucky777s said:


> I'd be more worried about the 11 writers that had Adam Morrison as their second place vote, or the 7 that put Randy Foye in second, or the one moron that had Walter Hermann as 2nd best rook. 2 guys had that headcase Ty Thomas in second.



I agree. Neither Morrison nor Foye had any business getting as many second place votes as they did. Both were living on pre-draft hype still. Bargnani, Garbajosa, Gay, Milsap, and Aldridge were all better then either of them in my opinion.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer fan here.

What's the deal with this Chuck guy?

Is he someone who knows little about the NBA outside of Toronto?

Is he a hack that sells out and says whatever he is told?

Is he an ***-kisser extrodinaire?

What's the story? Thanks.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Blazer fan here.
> 
> What's the deal with this Chuck guy?
> 
> ...


Part of me likes Chuck. The enthusiasm and passion he has for the Raptors is admirable in some ways. And as a Raptors fan, you enjoy watching a game with someone who has so much passion, and is sharing your feeling when you watch the game.

But that is what also makes him annoying. I would not say that it's *** kissing nor that he is a sell out... I would say the passion he has for this team has created a huge set of blinders and caused him to become a homer extraordinaire... and sometimes terribly unprofesssional.


----------



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

Your boy only played in 57 games. Most of the voters know nothing about basketball and are just stat-whores who watch highlight shows. Its easy to put up stats on horrible teams when you are just given big minutes with no expectations for wins.

Raps get no publicity in the states which is why you think Bargnani isn't worthy of ROY. He has been a huge part of our 20 game improvement and our season turned around only after he started getting legit minutes off the bench.

BR is a very nice player but I guarantee you that no GM in the league would trade Bargnani straight up for Roy. Not today, and not in 5 years. Well, maybe McHale or Ainge but you get my point.

Statistically Roy had a better year but he played way more minutes and it was meaningless in the standings so what does it prove. If Bargs doesn't have the appendicitis he probably goes for his third straight Rookie of the Month award and gets much closer in the final voting for ROY.

Bargs also put up his numbers while dealing with a new language, new culture, and the pressure of a playoff race.


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

> LMAO. Chuck Swirsky was the only person that voted for Andrea Bargnani. Chuch is such a homer.


If Chucks a homer, what do you call the 11 people who picked Morrison over Bargs for 2nd place?

LOL


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

LOL forget that last post. I just realized Lucky777's said the same thing as me before me.

I hadnt read your post when I made mine, I guess we're on the same wavelength Lucky777's!


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

If Bargnani and Roy were on opposite teams, my money would be on Bargs scoring close to 18 PPG as a go to guy on that Blazer team this year, while Foye would have been around 8 ppg with the Raps I'd say.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

firstrounder said:


> If Chucks a homer, what do you call the 11 people who picked Morrison over Bargs for 2nd place?
> 
> LOL


Dumb


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

lucky777s said:


> Your boy only played in 57 games. Most of the voters know nothing about basketball and are just stat-whores who watch highlight shows. Its easy to put up stats on horrible teams when you are just given big minutes with no expectations for wins.
> 
> Raps get no publicity in the states which is why you think Bargnani isn't worthy of ROY. He has been a huge part of our 20 game improvement and our season turned around only after he started getting legit minutes off the bench.
> 
> ...


:lol: You're as clueless as Chuck... ay!

Not saying that Bargnani isnt good... but the Raptors would still be a playoff team without him. The Trail Blazers would have been the Grizzlies without Roy. For half of the season, Garbajosa was playing better than Bargnani.


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

We'll see who's more clueless in a few years.

Brandon Roy is a good young player. But Andrea Bargnani is a great young player.

I think in a few years everyone will agree that they would rather have Bargs than Roy. And I think RIGHT NOW every GM in the league would draft Bargs over Roy.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

firstrounder said:


> We'll see who's more clueless in a few years.
> 
> Brandon Roy is a good young player. But Andrea Bargnani is a great young player.
> 
> I think in a few years everyone will agree that they would rather have Bargs than Roy. And I think RIGHT NOW every GM in the league would draft Bargs over Roy.


We will?

In a few years, they will redo the vote for 2007 Rookie of the Year, and Bargnani will be declared the new old winner?


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Ah, a good ole cross board pissing match looks to be looming. Let me add my wizz to the fire.

I still remember the argument I had on the Blazers board where I was ridiculed by many for not acknowledging that drafting Roy instead of AB would have made us significantly better - I don't deny that Roy was better this year, but his presence on this team would have not made us significantly better (defined as 5+ games). I argued that Roy would hardly be any more effective then AP this year, and I was ridiculed (by some)

So who's clueless.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Masbee said:


> We will?
> 
> In a few years, they will redo the vote for 2007 Rookie of the Year, and Bargnani will be declared the new old winner?


B&B quoted the entire post. Hence he is saying the entire post is clueless.

A large portion of the post focused on what GM's will think in the future. Firstrounder commented on this topic.

I have no clue why your bringing up the 2007 rookie of the year back into the topic. Firstrounder's comment's were never implied to be related to the ROY award.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

firstrounder said:


> We'll see who's more clueless in a few years.
> 
> Brandon Roy is a good young player. But Andrea Bargnani is a great young player.
> 
> I think in a few years everyone will agree that they would rather have Bargs than Roy. And I think RIGHT NOW every GM in the league would draft Bargs over Roy.




Really wouldn't surprise me to see most GM's take LaMarcus Aldridge actually. 

I think Swirsky is a homer for not picking Roy, but I'm also not going to say that Bargnani isn't going to be a very good player because he looks to be just that. 

Some also have said that Roy wouldn't have made as big of an impact in Toronto, but I wonder why? Most people in the league think Zach Randolph is a black hole, yet Brandon Roy managed to put up better ppg average than any other rookie...by far. He also led rookies in assists.

Like I said though, It's not like Swirsky voted for a guy like A_am Morrison or something. Bargnani is a very good player. I just think Roy had the better rookie season.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

lucky777s said:


> Your boy only played in 57 games. Most of the voters know nothing about basketball and are just stat-whores who watch highlight shows. Its easy to put up stats on horrible teams when you are just given big minutes with no expectations for wins.


And the ironman Bargnani played what... 65 games? Did you even watch a Blazers game this year? Brandon Roy from day 1 was clearly the second best player on the team (and by the end of the year, arguably the best) and ready to start against the best players in the league - and he kept getting better all year. The Blazers won 11 more games this year than last - a > 50% improvement. Without Brandon Roy, they would have been fighting Memphis for most ping pong balls in the Oden/Durant lottery. Bargnani was your sixth man. He couldn't wrestle the starting spot from Rasho Nesterovic (he of mighty 6.2 PPg and 4.5 RPG).



lucky777s said:


> Raps get no publicity in the states which is why you think Bargnani isn't worthy of ROY.


Oh please. The Blazers had exactly ZERO games on national TV this year. By the time most of their games started the majority of employed people on the east coast had turned in for the night. The Raps play in the Atlantic Division against the Knicks, Celtics, Wizards, Nets and 76ers. Those are all major population centers and major media markets. Just by playing against those teams, Bargnani got a LOT more exposure than Brandon Roy.



lucky777s said:


> He has been a huge part of our 20 game improvement and our season turned around only after he started getting legit minutes off the bench.


And it REALLY turned around when he went down with his appendectomy. The Raps were in a battle for home court advantage and went 11-3 without Bargnani during that critical part of their schedule. They were 0-3 over the last three regular season games he played. 11-3 without him, 0-3 with him. Perhaps it was the four new starters and the improved play of Chris Bosh that had more to do with Toronto's success than their rookie sixth man.



lucky777s said:


> BR is a very nice player but I guarantee you that no GM in the league would trade Bargnani straight up for Roy. Not today, and not in 5 years. Well, maybe McHale or Ainge but you get my point.


This is ROY voting, not the draft, not hypothetical trade scenarios. It's supposed to be about their performance on the court this year, not about what they might do five years from now or what they might have done if they'd played more minutes or for a different teams. On the court, this season, Brandon Roy was far, far superior to all other rookies. It wasn't even close -as the ROY voting clearly shows. One person, a clueless unabashed homer, out of 128, was the only one who thought differently.



lucky777s said:


> Statistically Roy had a better year but he played way more minutes and it was meaningless in the standings so what does it prove. If Bargs doesn't have the appendicitis he probably goes for his third straight Rookie of the Month award and gets much closer in the final voting for ROY.


You really don't want to play the "more minutes" card. Yes, Roy played more minutes - because he deserved them (against the other teams' starters). Not only were his raw numbers far, far better than Bargnani's, but his per minute production was also surperior.

EFF/48:
Roy - 22.42
Bargnani - 19.18

PER:
Roy - 18.21
Bargnani - 12.91

Both of those stats measure overall production and take into account differences in playing time.

Roy's numbers were not meaningless. The Blazers were WAY better this year than last - and he didn't have four new starters and an all-star playing in front of him. Not only did the Blazers win 50% more games than last year, they also got blown out a LOT less. Even in the games they lost, they were at least competitive this year. Why, because they had Brandon Roy running the offense in the 4th quarter of close games. He showed remarkable composure and great decision making - and not just for a rookie. It's been a long time since the Blazers had the kind of player who could take over a game in the 4th quarter and lead them to a win.



lucky777s said:


> Bargs also put up his numbers while dealing with a new language, new culture, and the pressure of a playoff race.


And none of those things matter. It's about on court production - there are no bonus points for degree of difficulty becuase you speak a different language or come from a different country. And, as I already mentioned, during the most critical part of the Raptors play-off run, they went 11-3 without Bargnani. His absence put more pressure on his teammates - and they responded extremely well in his absence. Not sure how he gets bonus points for that.

Your arguments and "logic" ring just as hollow as Swirsky's - and in case you hadn't noticed yopu are both in a laughable minority on this issue. It's great that the Raptors won their division and made the play-offs. It's great that you are happy with Bargnani. While Roy was rightly the Rookie of the Year, Bargnani's play was good enough to validate his selection as the No. 1 overall pick in the draft. He is after all, 7-foot tall and very young. He has a lot of upside. Colangelo made a good choice drafting him (and an even better job building a play-off team through trades and free agent signinings - and should easily win Executive of the Year for the way he rebuilt the Raptors in one off-season). However, this award isn't about potential, it's about performance. And that's why Swirsky looks like a fool and a clueless homer for voting for Bargnani. Just like Ron Boone did last year when he voted for Deron Williams over Chris Paul.

BNM


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

Congrats to Roy, he had a great season.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

firstrounder said:


> Brandon Roy is a good young player. But Andrea Bargnani is a great young player.


Based on actual performance so far, you've got that backwards. Bargnani is a good young player who has the potential to be great. However, to reach that potential, he needs to improve several areas of his game. First, he needs to learn how to box out and rebound. For a 7-footer, he's currently a very pathetic rebounder. He also needs to learn how to play much better interior defense - and I'm not just talking about blocking shots. He needs to learn how to play physical and hold his position on defense without picking up fouls. He also needs to learn to attack the defense and draw more fouls on the offensive end. If you look at the top players in the league, they all know how to put pressure on the defense and draw fouls. Not only does it generate a lot of easy points (and Bargnani is a good free throw shooter), but it gets the other team's big men in foul trouble.

If he can do all, or most of, those things, he will be a superstar. He's still very young. So, I see know reason he can't accomplish those things. If he fails to improve in those areas however, he will be a novelty act - a 7-foot perimeter player who shoots a decent, but not great percentage from 3-point range.



firstrounder said:


> I think in a few years everyone will agree that they would rather have Bargs than Roy. And I think RIGHT NOW every GM in the league would draft Bargs over Roy.


I guess we'll see in a few years. Brandon Roy is already an above average NBA starter with no glaring holes in his game. Bargnani is both bigger and younger. He, therefore, has more "upside". However, it is incredibly naive to think Brandon Roy has peaked and won't continue to improve. He started out strong and just kept getting better. His play in March, when he won his third straight Western Conference Rookie of the Month award, and April was easily the strongest of any rookie this year. He averaged 19.1 PPG, 5.2 RPG and 4.6 APG over March and April. There's no reason to think he won't continue to improve on those number as he gains experience and is surrounded by better/improving teammates. Bargnani may be better eventually, but he's got a ways to go before he's even as good as Brandon Roy.

BNM


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Still don't understand how people can rag on the Raptors draft history. I'd put it up against any team in the last decade-plus.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

As I said before, Chuck is a homer, but many teams have their own homer votes. If today Bargnani is the one with the better all-around stats, I'm sure there will still be homer votes for Roy. This year's gap between Roy and Bargnani is not as wide as last year's between Chris Paul and Villaneuva, I'm actually surprised that it was almost an unanimous selection. Can someone check if any rookie who played less than 60 games got unanimously selected as the rookie of the year? I don't think it has happened before and it shouldn't.

Brandon Roy is clearly the most polished player this season, there is no doubt about that. But I don't think any Raptors fan would rather have Roy than Bargnani. The reason is simple, a player like Brandon Roy comes along every year or every other year, whereas 7 footers with the skills of Bargnani is extremely rare. If anything, you might make a better argument for Lamarcus Aldrige as the Raptors could use a player like him, but Roy is really nothing special in my opinion.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> Can someone check if any rookie who played less than 60 games got unanimously selected as the rookie of the year? I don't think it has happened before and it shouldn't.


No, there has only been two unanimous winners in ROY history: Ralph Sampson and David Robinson. Still, are you saying that Swirsky's vote for Bargnani is justifiable because Bargnani played in 65 games (and had inferior numbers across the board) to Roy's 57? Because that's what we're comparing here. 

Roy's 57 games at:
16.8 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 4.0 APG, EFF = 16.51, PER = 18.21 

vs. Bargnani's 65 games at:
11.6 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 0.8 APG, EFF = 10.02, PER = 12.91.

Roy also shot better from the field, from 3-point range and from the line than Bargnani and lead all rookies in PTS/48 minutes. Roy's numbers were far surperior, but Bargnani played in 8 more games. If you're going to play that game, Paul Millsap should have gotten Swirsky's vote. He played in all 82 games and had higher EFF (10.17) and PER (17.77) numbers than Bargnani. If their performance had been closer, AND Bargnani had played in 80+ games, I could understand Swirsky voting for him. However, their performance was not close, and Bargnani only played 8 more games than Roy. So, other than the clueless homer factor, there is no possible explanation for Swirsky's vote.



seifer0406 said:


> Brandon Roy is clearly the most polished player this season, there is no doubt about that. But I don't think any Raptors fan would rather have Roy than Bargnani. The reason is simple, a player like Brandon Roy comes along every year or every other year, whereas 7 footers with the skills of Bargnani is extremely rare. If anything, you might make a better argument for Lamarcus Aldrige as the Raptors could use a player like him, but Roy is really nothing special in my opinion.


Is Dwayne Wade "nothing special? Compare Wade's rookie numbers to Roy's and you will see that they are remarkably similar (Roy's are slightly better). Yeah, you can't teach height, and taller players with talent and potential, like Aldridge and Bargnani will almost always get drafted before 6'6" guys like Roy who have more developed games. It's a gamble. If you gamble on a 7-footer and it pays off, you've hit one out of the park. However, in the end fewer 7-footers reach their supposed potential. I guess that's why there are more 6'5" - 6'8" superstars in the league than there are 7' supertars. That doesn't make those 6'5" - 6'8" guys any less valuable, just not as rare.

BNM


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> As I said before, Chuck is a homer, but many teams have their own homer votes. If today Bargnani is the one with the better all-around stats, I'm sure there will still be homer votes for Roy. This year's gap between Roy and Bargnani is not as wide as last year's between Chris Paul and Villaneuva, I'm actually surprised that it was almost an unanimous selection. Can someone check if any rookie who played less than 60 games got unanimously selected as the rookie of the year? I don't think it has happened before and it shouldn't.
> 
> Brandon Roy is clearly the most polished player this season, there is no doubt about that. But I don't think any Raptors fan would rather have Roy than Bargnani. The reason is simple, a player like Brandon Roy comes along every year or every other year, whereas 7 footers with the skills of Bargnani is extremely rare. If anything, you might make a better argument for Lamarcus Aldrige as the Raptors could use a player like him, but Roy is really nothing special in my opinion.


Bargnani PER - 12.8
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bargnan01.html

LaMarcus Aldridge PER - 17.1
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01.html


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> No, there has only been two unanimous winners in ROY history: Ralph Sampson and David Robinson. Still, are you saying that Swirsky's vote for Bargnani is justifiable because Bargnani played in 65 games (and had inferior numbers across the board) to Roy's 57? Because that's what we're comparing here.
> 
> Roy's 57 games at:
> 16.8 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 4.0 APG, EFF = 16.51, PER = 18.21
> ...


First of all, Chuck made a clear explanation in his blog long before he voted for Bargnani. He voted for Bargnani because Bargnani was an integral part of Raptors' success whereas Brandon Roy was the core of a team that wasn't winning. Nowitzski's stats are not even considered top 10 in the league, yet he's the MVP. Why? Because his team wins, well, not counting the playoffs anyway. I am not saying that Bargnani is anywhere as important as Dirk, but the competition between Bargnani and Roy is not a landslide, at least it shouldn't be an unanimous decision.

I am not even going to say much about your Dwyane Wade comparison. Wade pretty much single-handedly pushed the Heat into the playoffs his rookie season. It was obvious that he was something special. Unless you are banking on Roy becoming a superstar, I wouldn't compare him with Wade. I would put Roy in the category of someone like a Caron Butler, but not Wade.

Lamarcus Aldrige is a good looking rookie, but he and Bargnani are completely different type of players. Aldrige is an inside player whereas Bargnani is more Dirk-like. Both could be major hits if they reach their potential. The Raptors just decided to go this direction rather than that one.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Let's take a look at some of the 6-4 to 6-7 players that entered the league since 2003. In 3 years, which is 2010, chances are some of these players will be providing their team as good of a service from the SG/SF/PG(Big ones as Roy can play PG) spot as Brandon Roy. I'm not going to count the superstars because that's just stupid. You got, Josh Howard, Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng, Igudala, JR Smith, Kevin Martin, Gerald Green, Rudy Gay, and your own Martell Webster if he somehow finds the talent in him. Meanwhile, how many 7 footers do you have since 2003 has Bargnani's outside shot and ball-handling? The closest thing would be Durant next year, and even with Durant, that's 2 players.

I'm not saying having a good swingman on your team is a bad thing, it's just much easier to get than a 7 footer who can do the things that Bargnani can do. It is a gamble because most of them don't pan out, but after a year of watching Bargnani, most of us here likes what we see out of him and if he even becomes 75% of the player Dirk is, most of us would be satisfied.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> Nowitzski's stats are not even considered top 10 in the league


Says who? He was second in the league in PER this year behind only Dwayne Wade and led the entire NBA in PER last year. He was 4th in EFF this year behind Garnett, Wade and Kobe and was 6th in EFF in 2005-2006. So, statistically, he's easily been top 4 or 5 over the last two years and top 2 or 3 this year. His MVP candidacy is bsed on the fact that he's one of the most productive players in the league AND played for a team that won 67 games. Basing your argument on inacccurate statements like this undermines your credibility and makes it hard to take anything you say seriously - just like Chuck Swirsky and his nonsensical arguments for why he voted for Bargnani for ROY.

When asked to justify his vote for Bargnani, Swirsky responded:

"Put brgnani on a non playoff team he gets at least 17 a game Without him raps don't win the division"

Never mind that the Raps went 11-3 and clinched the division after Bargnani went down, this is pure speculation and not based on actual performance. His vote was based on hypothetcials, not facts. ROY is supposed to be about which rookie performed the best this year - actual oncourt performance. It's not supposed to be about potential, would-haves, could-haves or should-haves. By using speculation, rather than facts, to justfiy his vote, Swirsky exposed himself as a laughingstock and clueless homer. At least Ron Boone tried to justify his vote for Williams over Paul last year by claiming Williams outplayed Paul in head-to-head match-ups. You know, events that actually happened.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> Let's take a look at some of the 6-4 to 6-7 players that entered the league since 2003. In 3 years, which is 2010, chances are some of these players will be providing their team as good of a service from the SG/SF/PG(Big ones as Roy can play PG) spot as Brandon Roy. I'm not going to count the superstars because that's just stupid. You got, Josh Howard, Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng, Igudala, JR Smith, Kevin Martin, Gerald Green, Rudy Gay, and your own Martell Webster if he somehow finds the talent in him.


Oh please, Roy is already better than several of those guys and there is no way Gerald Green or Martell Webster will EVER be half as good as Brandon Roy. Did you actually see Roy play a single game this year?



seifer0406 said:


> Meanwhile, how many 7 footers do you have since 2003 has Bargnani's outside shot and ball-handling? The closest thing would be Durant next year, and even with Durant, that's 2 players.


So, he shoots 37% from 3-point range and averages 3.9 RPG. Big deal. And as for his ball handling abilities, he had the highest turnover rate (TO-r = 12.7) AND the lowest assist rate (AST-r = 5.9) of any Raptor who played signifiant minutes. I'd much rather have a 7-footer like Greg Oden, or even LaMarcus Aldridge (OK, 6'11") who plays some defense and rebounds than a 7' perimeter player who can't guard smaller, faster 3s and is afraid to bang inside with the 4s and 5s.

Yes, Bargnani has size and talent, but he still has serious holes in his game (as noted above) he needs to fill before he can be anything but a 7' perimeter player who shoots 37% from downtown and rebounds poorly. I'm not saying he won't reach his potential, but that's not what this award is about. It's about their performance THIS year - and that's where Swirsky looks like an idiot for his vote and and even bigger idiot for is attempted justification.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Says who? He was second in the league in PER this year behind only Dwayne Wade and led the entire NBA in PER last year. He was 4th in EFF this year behind Garnett, Wade and Kobe and was 6th in EFF in 2005-2006. So, statistically, he's easily been top 4 or 5 over the last two years and top 2 or 3 this year. His MVP candidacy is bsed on the fact that he's one of the most productive players in the league AND played for a team that won 67 games. Basing your argument on inacccurate statements like this undermines your credibility and makes it hard to take anything you say seriously - just like Chuck Swirsky and his nonsensical arguments for why he voted for Bargnani for ROY.
> 
> When asked to justify his vote for Bargnani, Swirsky responded:
> 
> ...


I wasn't talking about the PER stats. But if you really want to argue with me about that, then tell me, what did Steve Nash average the past 2 seasons? If these awards are based heavily on stats, Nash must at least be amongst the top 10 in EFF these past 3 years. Go look it up.

The Raptors started the year 2-8 and one of the major reasons for the turnaround was Bargnani's play. It is common knowledge for fans that followed the Raptors season. One of the major strength that the Raptors have this year is their bench, and Bargnani along with Calderon are the centerpieces of that bench. The Raptors did finish the year at 11-3. Using your logic, you can say that both Bargnani and Garbajosa are expendable players as the Raptors had a higher winning percentage without the 2 of them, which is just absurd. If you actually watched those games, you would see that the Raptors were missing Garbajosa's defense and passing and Bargnani's scoring. Luckily towards the end of the year many of the games that the Raptors won were throwaway games but teams either tanking or resting their players. But it was clear that the Raps were not playing nearly as well as they did before those injuries. A good example would be in the playoffs right now. Bargnani not at 100% and not having Garbajosa clearly hurt us in the playoffs. In game 5 where Bargnani had his first quality game you can see that the Raptors were a different team with him playing the way he did.

If you want to see Chuck as a laughing stock that is up to you. To me he did present his reasons and they are reasonable. If I were him I would've voted for Brandon Roy because the guy did have a better season. But as I said already, he did not win it by as much as you are indicating, to the point where a person would be a "laughing stock" of the league for not voting for him. Awarding a player for winning is a common reason in the league, and Chuck just happened to go down that path instead of looking solely on stats, where it clearly doesn't tell the entire story.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Oh please, Roy is already better than several of those guys and there is no way Gerald Green or Martell Webster will EVER be half as good as Brandon Roy. Did you actually see Roy play a single game this year?
> BNM


I never said Roy isn't better than those players now, but how can you be so sure that Roy will be that much better than those players I mentioned 3 years from now. If you want to base everything on stats, what stats are you basing this on? Your crystal ball? I did say *some* of these players will be at least as good as Roy, you have to be a bigger homer than Chuck to believe that none of these players will be as good as Roy. I did watch 7-8 Blazers games with Roy in it this year, it wasn't easy as I had to download some of them and watch the rest from WebTV. Try to win some games next year so we can actually see your awesome player.



Boob-No-More said:


> So, he shoots 37% from 3-point range and averages 3.9 RPG. Big deal. And as for his ball handling abilities, he had the highest turnover rate (TO-r = 12.7) AND the lowest assist rate (AST-r = 5.9) of any Raptor who played signifiant minutes. I'd much rather have a 7-footer like Greg Oden, or even LaMarcus Aldridge (OK, 6'11") who plays some defense and rebounds than a 7' perimeter player who can't guard smaller, faster 3s and is afraid to bang inside with the 4s and 5s.
> 
> Yes, Bargnani has size and talent, but he still has serious holes in his game (as noted above) he needs to fill before he can be anything but a 7' perimeter player who shoots 37% from downtown and rebounds poorly. I'm not saying he won't reach his potential, but that's not what this award is about. It's about their performance THIS year - and that's where Swirsky looks like an idiot for his vote and and even bigger idiot for is attempted justification.


As I've said numerous times by now, Chuck took the road of "Awarding a player for winning". Roy is a more polished player than Bargnani, everyone agrees with that. If you're not going to come up with any new arguments, spare us the trouble for circling around the same thing over and over again.


----------



## Captain Chaos (Dec 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> I never said Roy isn't better than those players now, but how can you be so sure that Roy will be that much better than those players I mentioned 3 years from now. If you want to base everything on stats, what stats are you basing this on? Your crystal ball? I did say *some* of these players will be at least as good as Roy, you have to be a bigger homer than Chuck to believe that none of these players will be as good as Roy. I did watch 7-8 Blazers games with Roy in it this year, it wasn't easy as I had to download some of them and watch the rest from WebTV. Try to win some games next year so we can actually see your awesome player.
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said numerous times by now, Chuck took the road of "Awarding a player for winning". Roy is a more polished player than Bargnani, everyone agrees with that. If you're not going to come up with any new arguments, spare us the trouble for circling around the same thing over and over again.


Try to win some games next year...huh. You do realize the Raptors play in the Eastern Conference right? Enough said.

Roy is definitely the more polished player. And awarding a player for winning was his philosophy? What did the Raptors win? They made it to the playoffs in the Eastern conference. Do you really think they would have made it in the West? Oh well, to each their own I guess.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain Chaos said:


> Try to win some games next year...huh. You do realize the Raptors play in the Eastern Conference right? Enough said.


The Blazers need to win games in order to get on national TV. What does that have anything to do with which conference the Raptors play in? Your point is that you can't read? Is that it?

The Raptors won 20 more games and had the 4th best record in the East, 3 games behind Cleveland, 2 games behind Chicago, and 6 games behind Detroit. If you want to say that the Raptors wouldn't make the playoffs if they played in the West that is up to you. There really is no way for you to prove that or for me to defend that.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> The Raptors won 20 more games and had the 4th best record in the East


And Bargnani gets credit for all that? What about the FOUR new starters that played in front of him and the improved play of Chris Bosh? Don't those five get just a little bit of that credit, or does it all go to Bargnani (well other than the 11-3 mark they posted when he was out)? Seriously, he was hardly the only reason for their improvement. Garbajosa, who was a starter and actually plays defense, was just as significant. Ford and Parker were also major improvements at their positions over the previous year's starters and Bosh continued to elevate his game.

The Blazers won 11 more games - with Brandon Roy and a D-League reject starting at small forward as their major additions (I love Ime Udoka, but he probably wouldn't have started for any other team in the league this year). Brandon Roy was, by far, the most significant reason for the Blazers 1 game improvement. Bargnani benefited from having much better temmates around him. Other than Zach Randolph (who is a great scorer and rebounder, but he's a black hole who doesn't play defense), Roy's teammates were either incredibly young and inexperienced, or older and not very good. Look for the Blazers to fill their need at small forward, either through the draft or a trade, this off season and watch the young Blazers, led by Brandon Roy make the play-offs in the West next season.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> And Bargnani gets credit for all that? What about the FOUR new starters that played in front of him and the improved play of Chris Bosh? Don't those five get just a little bit of that credit, or does it all go to Bargnani (well other than the 11-3 mark they posted when he was out)? Seriously, he was hardly the only reason for their improvement. Garbajosa, who was a starter and actually plays defense, was just as significant. Ford and Parker were also major improvements at their positions over the previous year's starters and Bosh continued to elevate his game.
> 
> The Blazers won 11 more games - with Brandon Roy and a D-League reject starting at small forward as their major additions (I love Ime Udoka, but he probably wouldn't have started for any other team in the league this year). Brandon Roy was, by far, the most significant reason for the Blazers 1 game improvement. Bargnani benefited from having much better temmates around him. Other than Zach Randolph (who is a great scorer and rebounder, but he's a black hole who doesn't play defense), Roy's teammates were either incredibly young and inexperienced, or older and not very good. Look for the Blazers to fill their need at small forward, either through the draft or a trade, this off season and watch the young Blazers, led by Brandon Roy make the play-offs in the West next season.
> 
> BNM


Did I say that Bargnani was the only reason the Raptors won 20 more games? I said he was an integral part of Raptors success this year, and he was. I already commented on the 11-3 at the end of the season. As I said, if you followed the Raptors season, you would know that Bargnani was one of the main reasons the Raptors turned it around after the 2-8 start. Garbajosa was out for the last portion of the season as well, but it doesn't seem to factor in to your "11-3" argument. According to your logic, shouldn't Garbajosa be expendable as well? Considering the Raptors had a higher winning percentage with him out? You are contradicting your own points.

The Blazers with one of the highest payrolls in the NBA have underachieved for several years now. Is their improvement this season due to Brandon Roy's play or is it because that their team isn't so bad to begin with is anybody's guess. We will see whether the Blazers continue to improve next year.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> According to your logic, shouldn't Garbajosa be expendable as well?


Where did I say ever Bargnani was expendable? I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth. My point wasn't that he was expendable, but that he doesn't deserve all, or even the majoity, of the credit for the Raptor improvement this year. He wasn't even a starter. Those five guys playing in front of him deserve more credit for that 20 game improvement than the rookie 6th man.

In Portland, Brandon Roy was the biggest difference maker on their team, by far, fro last year to this. They added Ime Udoka in place of Darius Miles at small forward, a big downgrade in talent, but an upgrade in attitude and consistency. Other than that, all their other starters were returning players. Roy, and later in the season fellow rookie LaMarcus Aldridge, were the major reasons they won 11 more games than the previous year. Roy was the biggest addition to the Blazers starting line-up, by far. He wasn't a 6th man with four new starters and an all-star playing in front of him.

Again, I'm not claiming Bargnani is expendable (I NEVER said that), just that there were other very significant reasons for the Raptors season-to-season improvement.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> The Blazers with one of the highest payrolls in the NBA have underachieved for several years now. Is their improvement this season due to Brandon Roy's play or is it because that their team isn't so bad to begin with is anybody's guess. We will see whether the Blazers continue to improve next year.


What does their payroll have to do with anything. You keep going off on tangents that have NOTHING to do with ROY voting. They were still paying off bad contracts from from the Bob Whitsitt era - including almost $10 million to Derick Anderson to NOT play for us this year. Next year, the Blazers payroll will be much more in line with the rest of the league - not that it matters, our owner an afford it.

And yes, they WERE that bad last year - real, real bad. Not only did they have the worst record in the league (and got totally hosed in the lottery, but still managed to get two of the best players in the draft), they were constantly blown out with no chance at all to win the vast majority of their games. It was an ugly, ugly season. By far the worst I've seen in all my years following the Blazers. But, with the drafting of Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge, things are looking MUCH better already - and this is a very young team that will continue to improve and grow together.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> What does their payroll have to do with anything. You keep going off on tangents that have NOTHING to do with ROY voting. They were still paying off bad contracts from from the Bob Whitsitt era - including almost $10 million to Derick Anderson to NOT play for us this year. Next year, the Blazers payroll will be much more in line with the rest of the league - not that it matters, our owner an afford it.


I'm only saying that the team isn't as bad as some of you trying to indicate. They were not a 21 win team last year, they just underachieved. You are making it seems like the 32 wins they have this year is some sort of major improvement caused by Roy when in fact 1)The Blazers weren't that bad of a team to begin with, and 2)Some of their other players have stepped up their game.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

If not for the appendicitis, Bargnani would have had a strong finish to the season and gotten a lot more love in the voting. Andrea was one of the best sixth men in the league and certainly one of the top backup centers out there (anyone better?). He was the most exciting rookie to watch, despite Gay's dunks, and he also has the greatest upside. His defense was a pleasant surprise and his rebounding improved a LOT as the season went along.


----------



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

What is the ROY award about? If its a stats contest then Roy wins easily. And it favours guys on bad teams where they are thrown major minutes and allowed to just play through all their mistakes. Does that make them 'better' or more deserving of the award than a guy that has to work to break into a decent rotation on a winning team? Also, Sam Mitchell handles rooks a certain way. He doesn't just force them minutes and live with their mistakes. He eases them in slowly and disciplines them hard. He did that with Villy and Graham, and he did it with Bargnani. Villy had a slow start last year and made a late push to finish 2nd in ROY.

That is the only reason Bargs stats aren't higher. Early season minutes. And the fact he is a natural PF right now playing behind an all-star.

Brandon Roy would have had a very good year in Toronto but he would not have anywhere near the stats he got in POR. He wouldn't play point with TJ and Calderon here. He wouldn't just start on the wing with Parker, Peterson, FJones, and Graham ahead of him. And Sam would make him 'earn' every minute.

In POR he handles the ball and controls his own touches and shot attempts. Big men don't have that luxury either.

So you have to make allowances for the team a guy is on unless it is purely a statistical award. Why not just call it the rookie scoring title if that's all it is. And its not like the difference in stats is so great that you shouldn't look at other factors.

For the record I'm not even saying Bargs should have won. Just that a vote for Bargs is not just a 'homer' vote. You can make a legit argument for giving him the vote, and if he happened to win a close vote that wouldnt' be any different than Nash beating out Shaq for MVP a couple of years ago.

Cavs have a tremendous record when Lebron is out, yet everyone says he has no supporting cast and was an MVP candidate. TOR was really rolling late in the season and somehow overcame injuries with great bench play. Not good bench play, but GREAT bench play by guys who hadn't played much all year like Humphries and Graham. The playoffs are a better indicator of how much we missed a healthy and in rhythm Bargnani.

Its a bigger joke that Bargnani got anything lower than a #2 vote than Roy not being unanimous #1.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

lucky777s said:


> What is the ROY award about? If its a stats contest then Roy wins easily. And it favours guys on bad teams where they are thrown major minutes and allowed to just play through all their mistakes. Does that make them 'better' or more deserving of the award than a guy that has to work to break into a decent rotation on a winning team? Also, Sam Mitchell handles rooks a certain way. He doesn't just force them minutes and live with their mistakes. He eases them in slowly and disciplines them hard. He did that with Villy and Graham, and he did it with Bargnani. Villy had a slow start last year and made a late push to finish 2nd in ROY.
> 
> That is the only reason Bargs stats aren't higher. Early season minutes. And the fact he is a natural PF right now playing behind an all-star.
> 
> ...




FYI

Nate is the same way. Brandon Roy truly earned his starting possition. LaMarcus Aldridge probably would have won the award if he too weren't playing behind an all-star PF....well Zach should have been an all-star and would have been in the leastern conference. Aldridge didn't play very much early on, then again midway through thte year. Only after people were injured is when he got his chance. 

As for the bad teams comment, remember that the Raptors weren't very good either last season. They were a bad team as well that benefitted from playing in a weaker conference. I don't want you to get the impression that I don't think the Raptors aren't a good team because I do think they are. I just think given the same circumstances, Bargnani wouldn't have put up as good of numbers as Roy with the opposing team always putting their best perimeter defender on him and designing defenses to stop him from penetrating.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

lucky777s said:


> BR is a very nice player but I guarantee you that no GM in the league would trade Bargnani straight up for Roy.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Your fans have mostly been class acts and extremely knowledgeable and excellent representatives of the Raptors fan base, but this is a ridiculous statement.

Are you Swirsky ... are you Swirsky ... are you Swirsky ... in DISGUISE?

-Pop


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

SodaPopinski said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Your fans have mostly been class acts and extremely knowledgeable and excellent representatives of the Raptors fan base, but this is a ridiculous statement.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't think it would be a lie to say Bargnani probably has more potential. Someone his size with his skillset doesn't come along often. I think next year will give us a better view of how good Andrea really is going to be.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

What Boob said! 

He spells it out for you Raptor fans as easy as possible.

As many said, your Raptors would not make the playoffs in the West. Clippers could have won your division if they were in it.

And for all of you who think that GM's wouldnt take Roy over Bargnani... your basketball IQ cards should be revoked! Bargnani is pretty much only a scorer... Roy does everything.


----------



## Darman (Jun 29, 2006)

I like those Blazer's fans who are stirring for BRoy like he was GOD instead of watching their team's record.

And somebody just wanted a co-award R.O.Y for BRoy and Aldridge together... pathetic.

In these boards there is so many homerisms and so few unbiased opinions that I really think to stop reading this forum. Some thread with NJ's trolls were disgusting.

My 2 cents?

Looking at the stats I think BR deserved the award, he really had a great season. Aldridge, Andrea and Rudy Gay had a good rookie season too.

Nothing to say more than this except that you have to be cautious about overrating young players, above all young GUARDs that are more ready for games and are more involved in plays. This is well known.

So you can't compare BRoy and Bargnani... if you have to compare somebody take Andrea and Lamarcus and Rudy Gay... but thinking to what they can be in the next years, not now.

So, again, congratulation to BRoy for the award and to Portland for the pick.

But there are people like me who don't care about useless awards like R.O.Y., MVP and 6th MAN and instead watch his team's performance.

PS: Excuse me for my english


----------



## Darman (Jun 29, 2006)

B_&_B said:


> W
> And for all of you who think that GM's wouldnt take Roy over Bargnani... your basketball IQ cards should be revoked! Bargnani is pretty much only a scorer... Roy does everything.


"ROY DOES EVERYTHING" :lol: 

Send him to Iraq, so you can win de war...

"Bargnani is pretty much only a scorer..." 

You are the one talking about basketball IQ, don't you? :biggrin:


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

lucky777s said:


> What is the ROY award about?


Easy, it's about on-court performance during your rookie year- PERIOD. It's not about potential, it's not about hypotheticals (in spite of what Chuch Swirsky may think). To base it on anything other than on-court performance is a joke and unprecedented.



lucky777s said:


> And it favours guys on bad teams where they are thrown major minutes and allowed to just play through all their mistakes. Does that make them 'better' or more deserving of the award than a guy that has to work to break into a decent rotation on a winning team? Also, Sam Mitchell handles rooks a certain way. He doesn't just force them minutes and live with their mistakes. He eases them in slowly and disciplines them hard. He did that with Villy and Graham, and he did it with Bargnani. Villy had a slow start last year and made a late push to finish 2nd in ROY.


I know it wasn't your intent, but you just made an excellent case for Brandon Roy. Nate McMillan, like Sam Mitchell, keeps rookies on a VERY short leash. He likes to bring them along slowly and make them earn their minutes. If they aren't deserving of the minutes, they won't get the PT. He will make them set on the bench behind less talented, but more experienced and less error prone veterans. He did it with LaMarcus Aldridge and Sergio Rodriguez this year. He did it with Jarrett Jack and Martell Webster last year and he did it with Rashard Lewis and Luke Ridenour in Seattle. Brandon Roy is the first rookie he's ever awarded a staring spot on opening day and trusted with the ball in his hands in the 4th quarter from day 1. Why? Because Roy proved in summer league, training camp and pre-season that he truly was what all the pre-draft reports said he was - the most NBA-ready player in the 2006 draft. If he would have made countless mistakes, Nate would have pulled him and made him earn his way back into the line-up. It never happened. Roy showed remarkable composure and poise for a rookie. In spite of all his ball handling duties, he had a very low TO-r (lower that Jarrett Jack, TJ Ford and Jose Calderon). He may have been a rookie, but he played like a seasoned vet from the start. We didn't have to wait through months of mistakes and inconsistent play to see what Brandon Roy was capable of. He proved it on the court, on opening night.



lucky777s said:


> That is the only reason Bargs stats aren't higher. Early season minutes. And the fact he is a natural PF right now playing behind an all-star.


The ONLY reason? Couldn't have _anything_ to do with his .427 FG% or the fact that he's a weak rebounder with a very low AST-r and a high TO-r? Besides, that's a hypothetical argument and completely irrelevant to ROY voting.



lucky777s said:


> Brandon Roy would have had a very good year in Toronto but he would not have anywhere near the stats he got in POR. He wouldn't play point with TJ and Calderon here. He wouldn't just start on the wing with Parker, Peterson, FJones, and Graham ahead of him. And Sam would make him 'earn' every minute.


More hypotheticals. How about we stick to the facts and not make-up scenarios that we have absolutely no way to ever prove or disprove?



lucky777s said:


> In POR he handles the ball and controls his own touches and shot attempts.


And why did Nate MicMillan trust a rookie with the ball in his hands running the team and making decisions in the 4th quarter of close games? Because he proved he was up to the task. And this is your argument AGAINST Brandon Roy for ROY? 



lucky777s said:


> So you have to make allowances for the team a guy is on unless it is purely a statistical award. Why not just call it the rookie scoring title if that's all it is. And its not like the difference in stats is so great that you shouldn't look at other factors.


It's not just about scoring. If it was, Adam Morrison would have come in second. It's about total production - and Brandon Roy flat-out out produced Andrea Bargnani and all other rookie by a very significant margin. If their production would have been close to comparable, other factors may have tipped some votes in Bargnani's favor, but the fact is their production wasn't comparable - not even close. Roy averaged nearly 50% more PPG, averaged more RPG, averaged 5x as many assists, shot a higher FG%, a higher 3FG% and a higher FT%. The ONLY place Bargnani outproduced Roy was BLKs. It's not like they were neck-and-neck in the the stats department. It wasn't even close, and the ROY voting reflects that reality.



lucky777s said:


> For the record I'm not even saying Bargs should have won. Just that a vote for Bargs is not just a 'homer' vote.


Then why did the *ONLY* vote for Bargnani come from an unabashed homer? If a Bargnani vote was truly justified, why didn't he get a single vote from some of the 120+ unbiased voters who have no reason to favor either Portland or Toronto? Surely, if Bargnani was deserving, _somebody_ else would have seen it, not just the local play-by-play guy and team shill.

BNM


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Ras said:


> Well, I don't think it would be a lie to say Bargnani probably has more potential. Someone his size with his skillset doesn't come along often. I think next year will give us a better view of how good Andrea really is going to be.


Brandon has the ability to dominate games. To literally take them over. He deferred quite a bit in his first year to Zach Randolph. But Brandon single-handedly won about a dozen games for the Blazers this year. Arguing about who has more potential is really going to hinge on speculation and isn't fair to either player or fanbase. I'm just going off of what we've seen from both players thus far. And to say "there isn't a GM in the league who wouldn't trade Roy to get Bargnani" is laughable. In fact, I'd be surprised if outside Toronto there was a GM who would rather have Bargnani than Roy.

-Pop


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Darman said:


> I like those Blazer's fans who are stirring for BRoy like he was GOD instead of watching their team's record.


We watched our team's win total increase by over 50% - thanks in a VERY large part to the play of Brandon Roy.



Darman said:


> Looking at the stats I think BR deserved the award, he really had a great season. Aldridge, Andrea and Rudy Gay had a good rookie season too.


Agreed 100%. Paul Millap also had a good rookie year and Rajon Rondo and Walter Herrmann came on strong late. This rookie class, collectively, isn't nearly as weak as many originally projected. Several teams got significant contributions from their rookies this year - not just Portland and Toronto.



Darman said:


> So you can't compare BRoy and Bargnani... if you have to compare somebody take Andrea and Lamarcus and Rudy Gay... but thinking to what they can be in the next years, not now.


But that's an entirely different discussion. The topic of this thread is ROY voting, not which rookie has the most potential. And, at this point we have no way of knowing who will, or won't, live up to that potential.

BNM


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

> In fact, I'd be surprised if outside Toronto there was a GM who would rather have Bargnani than Roy.


HAHAHAHA Oh man!

That was a good laugh!


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

SkywalkerAC said:


> His defense was a pleasant surprise


Yeah, to the other team (sorry, couldn't resist).



SkywalkerAC said:


> and his rebounding improved a LOT as the season went along.


Actually, his rebound rate peaked in December and declined dramatically in January and remained low in February. It bounced back up in March, but we only have an 8 game sample size to go by.

Arguing rebounding as a strength for Bargnani really doesn't help your case. In fact, he's a VERY poor rebounder for a 7-footer and it's one of the areas he REALLY needs to improve to be an effective big man in the NBA and not just a 7-foot perimeter player.

He finished 10th in rebounding among rookies, and if you look at REB/48, it gets even worse where he was 20th among rookies behind point guard Rajon Rondo and tied with guard Hassan Adams.

BNM


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

lucky777s said:


> What is the ROY award about? If its a stats contest then Roy wins easily. And it favours guys on bad teams where they are thrown major minutes and allowed to just play through all their mistakes. Does that make them 'better' or more deserving of the award than a guy that has to work to break into a decent rotation on a winning team? Also, Sam Mitchell handles rooks a certain way. He doesn't just force them minutes and live with their mistakes. He eases them in slowly and disciplines them hard. He did that with Villy and Graham, and he did it with Bargnani. Villy had a slow start last year and made a late push to finish 2nd in ROY.


As someone else already said, McMillian is the same way. Aldridge and Sergio Rodriquez both had a heck of a time getting consistent minutes from the coach, despite showing flashes of being really good. Coach didn't care if they were the "future" or not. They had to earn their spot and play the "right" way.

Brandon Roy, on the other hand, started day 1.

I hope that clears that up for you, because you seem to think that Mitchell somehow "held back" Bargnani with his coaching style, and Roy had free reign to do whatever. Fact of the matter is, Bargnani just wasn't good enough for much of the year.

I know you guys are big fans, but come on, his stats for many games were blah. And you think the coach "held him back". You think, maybe the coach didn't play him a ton because he didn't deserve to play a ton. In fact, I would argue the coach actually gave him more minutes than he really deserved on a winning team, all for the purpose of developing a number 1 pick. The same thing that goes on with the Blazers and playing Martell Webster.



> That is the only reason Bargs stats aren't higher. Early season minutes. And the fact he is a natural PF right now playing behind an all-star.


Huh. Maybe. Of course that has NOTHING to do with the ROY vote. The rookie of the year award is a performance award. It is not conditional. If Shaq played 3 games, then went out for the season, should he win the award anyway? Of course not. Tough noogies for the player that is injured, has to play out of position, excuse, excuse, excuse.



> Brandon Roy would have had a very good year in Toronto but he would not have anywhere near the stats he got in POR. He wouldn't play point with TJ and Calderon here. He wouldn't just start on the wing with Parker, Peterson, FJones, and Graham ahead of him. And Sam would make him 'earn' every minute.


I gotta tell you, you really lost me here. Are you claiming that Roy would have trouble winning minutes over FJones? The same FJones who fights to get minutes of the (according to some posters here) crappy Blazers. Same with Parker, Peterson and Graham. None of those guys are as good as Roy was for the season. And after the all-star break, other teams starting keying on Roy, and he saw regular double-teams, shifting defenses, etc. The result? Roy's numbers went UP to 19,5,5 on 46%.

I will say it again because it seems lost on many. Roy is GOOD. He had a fine season. He played injured for part of his games that dragged his numbers down. After he came back from resting the injury he was better than before. After the opposition started focusing the defense on stopping him he got even better still.

You are kidding yourself if you think Roy doesn't start on the Raptors. He is easily the best SG on the roster. Roy is not a PG. The Raptors would have a deep 4 guard rotation of Ford, Calderon, Roy and Carter, IMO. Jones would be out. Peterson and Graham would have to find minutes at the 3 spot.



> So you have to make allowances for the team a guy is on unless it is purely a statistical award. Why not just call it the rookie scoring title if that's all it is. And its not like the difference in stats is so great that you shouldn't look at other factors.


Wrong. The differences in stats are significant, any way you choose to look at them: totals for season, per game, per minute, adjusted for pace. Aditionally, Roy's stats are from playing against the other team's starters. Bargnani's stats are primarily against the other team's bench.

I am not sure how you can look at a significant difference, yet don't see it?



> For the record I'm not even saying Bargs should have won. Just that a vote for Bargs is not just a 'homer' vote. You can make a legit argument for giving him the vote, and if he happened to win a close vote that wouldnt' be any different than Nash beating out Shaq for MVP a couple of years ago.


Stats are stats. They are solid and not easily overcome in arguments, except for those that walk around in a fog. However stats in basketball have 3 key holes when comparing top players: defense, quarterbacking and leadership.

When Nash won, Shaq had a year where his defense had fallen off considerably from his 2000 MVP season, and voters took notice that he wasn't a big-time stopper anymore and very weak on pick-and-rolls. Thus, they discounted the defense equation. Many of the voters for Nash aruged that Nash brought so much leadership, and was such a sensational quarterback of the offense, that those made up the gap in the stats.

So, to relate that to Bargnani and Roy. Roy is a team leader. Bargnani is not. Roy is a quarterback of the offense. Bargnani is not.

Oops. Guess Bargnani gets deductions off the stats equations when deciding who should get a vote for ROY. Funny that. Were are going in the wrong direction. Stats are overwhelming. Intangibles favor Brandon. 

The "winning" team argument is very weak: First, that is not a historically valid criteria for rookie of the year voting. Second, BOTH the Blazers and the Raptors improved over the prior year. Raptors more, but it is hard to argue that Bargnani was responsible when so many other new players were involved, started, and/or put up better stats. Roy was the 2nd or 1st best player starting for his improved team. Bargnani was the 6th to 10th best player on his improved team.

Additionally, if that was Chuck's criteria, why didn't he vote for Milsap of Utah?

Makes Chuck's vote look all the more ridiculous.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Boy do these blazer boys enjoy smashing the keyboards when it comes to homerising there Roy.

Congrats to Roy he definately deserved the award, Garbo should have been much higher and probably would have been if it wasnt for his hustle that caught up with him in the end. Bargs deserved 2nd place and his vote from Chuck IMO..


----------



## Who-C (Nov 21, 2005)

Theres actually an article on how Chuck was the only one to vote for Andrea in the Seattle Times lol. Heres the link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2003690965_brewer03.html


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Porn_Player said:


> Boy do these blazer boys enjoy smashing the keyboards when it comes to homerising there Roy.
> 
> Congrats to Roy he definately deserved the award, Garbo should have been much higher and probably would have been if it wasnt for his hustle that caught up with him in the end. Bargs deserved 2nd place and his vote from Chuck IMO..


4,000 posts for you. Mashing your keyboard too I see. Isn't that the point of a message board? Guess I was wrong. As George Carlin would say (paraphrase), My stuff, Your ****.

Chuck was right?

Oh god, I give up. Some here are hopeless.

Well, Toronto Fans, enjoy the playoffs, you deserve it after all the down year, and good luck to your team.


----------



## lucky777s (Nov 13, 2003)

Bryan Colangelo came out publicly and stated that he TOLD Sam to start playing Bargnani because we were losing games and it was not wise to 'lose twice' as he put it by not developing our players. So yes, Sam did hold Bargs back. And the timing of our turnaround with his PT, and the fact our record continued to improve each month as he got more PT and a bigger role is meaningful. 

It is almost impossible for a C to get the same kind of stats as a guard who gets to handle the rock all game and shoot whenever he wants. Especially playing behind an all-star in Bosh. BRoy's assists are fairly weak for his minutes and role so to praise him as a 'quarterback' is a bit of a stretch. Damon Stoudamire's rookie numbers were way more impressive. As were Chris Paul's. They both had 9apg. Now that's quarterbacking.

Roy's TO's are pretty low for his minutes and role, but lets see him create more for others before we judge that or compare him to a Ford or Calderon. 4 assists in 35mpg ain't that great.

BRoy had a slightly better FG%, about 3% better. And that was due to Bargnani shooting a higher percentage of 3pt shots. Bargs took 140 fewer shots but took almost twice as many 3pt shots. That was the role he was given.

BRoy getting 400 more minutes in fewer games led to a quicker learning curve and improvement. Bargnani won 2 Rook of the Month awards in a row and was about to win his third when he had the surgery. So he proved that he just needed PT to get his numbers up. That's not speculation, he proved it on the court.

And in our last 2 PLAYOFF games he has put up an average of 17 points, 4 reb, and 2 ast playing 40mpg. Shooting 11/17 in total and 4/7 from 3. On a stage that BRoy hasn't gotten to yet, and while he is still getting back to mid-season form.

Bargs is more than deserving of a first place vote. Can't argue with Roy winning the award, but Bargs getting a first place vote is not out of whack. Morrison getting so many second place votes is much worse.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Your fans have mostly been class acts and extremely knowledgeable and excellent representatives of the Raptors fan base, but this is a ridiculous statement.
> 
> ...


This is a joke right? Of course every GM would take Andrea over Roy.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

lucky777s said:


> It is almost impossible for a C to get the same kind of stats as a guard who gets to handle the rock all game and shoot whenever he wants.


Actually, stats like EFF tend to favor big men as rebounds, which are much more common (especially for big men), count as much as assists. Plenty of big men, centers (Yao) and power forwards (KG and Dirk), put up big stats. In fact, this season 7 of the top 10 players in EFF were centers or power forwards. The fact that Brandon Roy's EFF (16.51) was so much higher than Bargnani's (10.02) is not a function of the positions they play, it's a direct result of their on-court production.



lucky777s said:


> BRoy's assists are fairly weak for his minutes and role so to praise him as a 'quarterback' is a bit of a stretch. Damon Stoudamire's rookie numbers were way more impressive. As were Chris Paul's. They both had 9apg. Now that's quarterbacking.
> 
> Roy's TO's are pretty low for his minutes and role, but lets see him create more for others before we judge that or compare him to a Ford or Calderon. 4 assists in 35mpg ain't that great.


You do realize Brandon Roy is a shooting guard, not a point guard, don't you? Sure he has fewer assists than all those guys you mentioned, they are all point guards. Jarret Jack is the Blazers staring PG. He runs the offense for most of the game. It's only in the 4th quarter of close games that Nate puts the ball in Roy's hands and lets him create for himself and his teammates.



lucky777s said:


> BRoy had a slightly better FG%, about 3% better. And that was due to Bargnani shooting a higher percentage of 3pt shots. Bargs took 140 fewer shots but took almost twice as many 3pt shots. That was the role he was given.


Wait, I thought 3-point shooting was supposed to be one of Bargnani's strengths. Now you're using it as an excuse for his poor stats. Which is it, a strength or a weakness?



lucky777s said:


> BRoy getting 400 more minutes in fewer games led to a quicker learning curve and improvement. Bargnani won 2 Rook of the Month awards in a row and was about to win his third when he had the surgery. So he proved that he just needed PT to get his numbers up. That's not speculation, he proved it on the court.


Irrelevant. ROY is about performance, not excuses or what what might have been - if only... Roy came into the season ready to contribute and earned his starting spot right away. He didn't need two months to get up to speed and he DID win ROM three times. Gee, if he wouldn't have been injured, he would have won it on November and December, too. So, if you want to play "if only", make that 5 ROMs for Roy and 3 for Bargnani. Personally, I prefer to deal in reality, not hypotheticals.



lucky777s said:


> And in our last 2 PLAYOFF games he has put up an average of 17 points, 4 reb, and 2 ast playing 40mpg. Shooting 11/17 in total and 4/7 from 3. On a stage that BRoy hasn't gotten to yet, and while he is still getting back to mid-season form.


Again, irrelevant. ROY is a regular season award and is voted on before the start of the play-offs.



lucky777s said:


> Bargs is more than deserving of a first place vote. Can't argue with Roy winning the award, but Bargs getting a first place vote is not out of whack.


Actually, with only one first place vote out of 128, it is, by definition "out of whack". If he was "more than deserving of a first place vote" why didn't he receive more than one first place vote. Why didn't any of the other 127 voters see it that way?

OK, I'm done. I feel like I'm arguing directly with Chuck Swirsky. Like Chuck, your arguments supporting Bargnani based on hypotheticals and irrelevant. The award is about what happened, not what might have happened if the situations were different, or what might happen five years from now. Unfortunately, Mr. Swirsky chose to factor in these types of hypotheticals when casting his vote rather than stick to the facts of what actually *DID* happen. That was his choice and now he's being justly ridiculed for it.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

P.S. Congrats on your 47 wins and best season ever. Good luck tomorrow night against the Nets. Both the Raptors and Blazers are young teams on the rise. Maybe we'll see you in the finals a few years from now. That would be fun to watch. Some great match-ups between Aldridge and Bargnani, Calderon and Sergio, etc.

BNM


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

firstrounder said:


> We'll see who's more clueless in a few years.
> 
> Brandon Roy is a good young player. But Andrea Bargnani is a great young player.
> 
> I think in a few years everyone will agree that they would rather have Bargs than Roy. And I think RIGHT NOW every GM in the league would draft Bargs over Roy.


I love this line of thinking. My guess is the year Damon Stoudamire won the ROY over Kevin Garnett, Raptors fans were singing a different tune.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

SkywalkerAC said:


> This is a joke right? Of course every GM would take Andrea over Roy.


Yep, they sure did ->here.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Just for the record, we're really splitting hairs in here. I think between our two teams, the Blazers and Raps did by far the best job of drafting this past season and both have a lot to be proud of. We Blazer fans expect big things from Aldridge, Roy and Sergio Rodriguez (who would be perfect in your uptempo offense). On the flip side, Bargnani and Garbajosa will be helping your team to a lot more postseason appearances.

If there's an impartial arbitor here, it just may be Freddie Jones. This is what he had to say:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2007/05/a_firsthand_perspective.html



> A first-hand perspective
> Posted by Jason Quick May 03, 2007 09:55AM
> Perhaps the person with the best perspective on the Rookie of the Year race was Freddie Jones, who played the first half of the season with Andrea Bargnani in Toronto, and the last half with Brandon Roy in Portland.
> 
> ...


On the flip side, I'd love to hear what Juan Dixon thinks. I'll remain a big Dixon fan and was sorry to see him traded.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

I was actually surprised there werent more 1st place votes for other guys; Gay, Morrison and even Aldridge there in Portland. Brandon Roy scoring 16 pts in 35 mpg to me wasnt that remarkable, If you're going to do a senate investigation how did Morrison get 11 second place votes, dont hear Raptors fans *****ing over that, i guess they have more important things to focus on like the playoffs.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

ABM said:


> Yep, they sure did ->here.


Good try but no. The ROY award has nothing to do with actual preference. Bargnani, like Roy, can compete in the NBA right now; he's got killer instinct right now. the difference is that Bargnani's potential is off the charts while Roy's is fairly modest.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

SkywalkerAC said:


> Good try but no. The ROY award has nothing to do with actual preference. Bargnani, like Roy, can compete in the NBA right now; he's got killer instinct right now. the difference is that Bargnani's potential is off the charts while Roy's is fairly modest.


Ya wanna know the truth? IMO, Aldridge has a MUCH greater potential to be a star than Roy.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

ABM said:


> Ya wanna know the truth? IMO, Aldridge has a MUCH greater potential to be a star than Roy.


I agree.


----------



## scottptb (May 3, 2007)

if the raptors were in the west they would not make the playoffs...i bet it would be the difference between AT LEAST 10 wins/losses if the blazers and raptors swapped conferences...the east is substantially weaker...ANY western conference playoff team and maybe even the clippers would convincingly beat any eastern conference playoff team besides the pistons and MAYBE the bulls in a playoff series...cleveland, toronto and new jersey and obviously miami wouldnt be competitive in the west..

if brandon did play for the raptors he would be a lock as a starter, hes better than any guard you have...i have league pass and i watch a ton of bball, ive seen bargnani play at least 20 times this year...i know basketball like the back of my hand, ive played it, coached it, and watch it extensively...roy is a top flight guard in the nba...a skill level that is comparable to ray allen and paul pierce...although he handles the ball far better than both of them...and dont bring up media coverage, because the raptors definitely get more press in the states than the blazers do (outside of portland of course), its not even close! we didnt have a single nationally televised game this year and we were right in the playoff hunt for most of the season (being only 2 or 3 games out of the 8th spot until the last 2 months of the season)...we also had a 20/10 guy and the rookie of the year...we were just young and inconsistent and did i mention we played in the west? we had a better winning perecentage vs above .500 teams than against below .500 teams...showing our improvement, but unfortunately our youth as well...

im not going to say bargnani isnt going to be a good player, im sure given similar minutes in your inferior conference he would put up similar numbers, but i guarantee that brandon will contribute more to our team than your bargnani will ever contribute to yours...b-roy is already a LOCK DOWN defender and one of the best ball handlers and finishers at the rim in the entire NBA...i know he wouldnt let richard jefferson, vince carter and jason kidd run a lay up drill like they are doing on your team right now...

this is of course all good natured ribbing,
-an obviously biased portland based fan


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Only 1 guy (a Raptor employee) voted for Bargnani... I think that says it all. 

I also agree that Aldridge will probably turn out to be the better pro than Roy... even better than Bargnani.

Good luck against the Nets tonight.

I'm done.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Well alot of material here for me to work with.

But Blazers fans I'll pass for the time being... we have more important things to excite us right now... the playoffs.

Good luck next November fellas.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

maxiep said:


> Just for the record, we're really splitting hairs in here. I think between our two teams, the Blazers and Raps did by far the best job of drafting this past season and both have a lot to be proud of. We Blazer fans expect big things from Aldridge, Roy and Sergio Rodriguez (who would be perfect in your uptempo offense). On the flip side, Bargnani and Garbajosa will be helping your team to a lot more postseason appearances.
> 
> If there's an impartial arbitor here, it just may be Freddie Jones. This is what he had to say:
> 
> ...


Who cares what Freddie Johnson thinks. Hey Frankie, I noticed you played alot early in the season when the Raptors played small ball? Who was the benefactor from your lost minutes. Could it be Andrea Bargnani... about the same time we started winning. Your not worth our time Fred ... don't you have a jumpshot you should be working on.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Again, Bargnani was forgotten about because of the appendicitis. Had he not had this bad luck it would have been ridiculous for him to receive only one first place vote.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Who cares what Freddie Johnson thinks. Hey Frankie, I noticed you played alot early in the season when the Raptors played small ball? Who was the benefactor from your lost minutes. Could it be Andrea Bargnani... about the same time we started winning. Your not worth our time Fred ... don't you have a jumpshot you should be working on.


Who cares what Chuck Swirsky thinks. Hey Chuck, I noticed you talk and talk and talk while on the air, but much of what comes out of your mouth doesn't make sense. When I listen to other announcers they sometimes have useful and accurate information. What they say rings true and others agree they know what they are talking about. You're not worth our time Chuck... Don't you have some basketball knowledge you should be working on?


----------



## Captain Chaos (Dec 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> The Blazers need to win games in order to get on national TV. What does that have anything to do with which conference the Raptors play in? Your point is that you can't read? Is that it?
> 
> The Raptors won 20 more games and had the 4th best record in the East, 3 games behind Cleveland, 2 games behind Chicago, and 6 games behind Detroit. If you want to say that the Raptors wouldn't make the playoffs if they played in the West that is up to you. There really is no way for you to prove that or for me to defend that.


I can read just fine...thanks for asking though. My comment about the Raptors playing in the eastern conference had nothing to do with the Blazers winning more games. Since you don't understand, I will make it clear for you. I made that comment with regards to your comment on the Raptors winning more games. The Blazers would have won more games if they played in the weaker conference. The Raptors would have lost more games if they played in the tougher conference...is that clear? You obviously have the the same amount of brain cells as that Swirsky guy.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain Chaos said:


> I can read just fine...thanks for asking though. My comment about the Raptors playing in the eastern conference had nothing to do with the Blazers winning more games. Since you don't understand, I will make it clear for you. I made that comment with regards to your comment on the Raptors winning more games. The Blazers would have won more games if they played in the weaker conference. The Raptors would have lost more games if they played in the tougher conference...is that clear? You obviously have the the same amount of brain cells as that Swirsky guy.


well you see, since you quoted me, I thought you were replying to what I was saying, that's usually how quoting works. What I said originally (please go read it, because you are able to do that according to you) was that I had trouble catching Blazer games as I had to watch it on sopcast or download the games afterwards via bit torrent. I wish the Blazers would win more games so I can catch their games on national TV in order to see more of Brandon Roy. Meanwhile, you quoted that and said that the Raptors are only winning games because they are in the Eastern conference, which clearly made no sense as far as what my original post was about.

I like how Blazers fans think that it's some sort of insult to compare a raptors fan to Chuck Swirsky. Chuck is quite popular amongst our ranks and personally he's one of my favorite local broadcasters. I could careless what a Blazers fan think of him because honestly I doubt any of you actually follow Chuck over the years like how some of us have followed him.

I do hope that the Blazers turn it around next season. I am beginning to feel sorry for their fans. Just one second place vote for Roy can cause this much drama within their fanbase. How far have you guys fallen since that Kobe to Shaq alley-oop, it's amazing. Just let it go and learn to accept different points of views, it'll make your life as a fan much easier.


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

ROY or not Roy wasn't on the floor during the final moments of big playoff games like Bargnani was.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I do hope that the Blazers turn it around next season. I am beginning to feel sorry for their fans. Just one second place vote for Roy can cause this much drama within their fanbase. How far have you guys fallen since that Kobe to Shaq alley-oop, it's amazing. Just let it go and learn to accept different points of views, it'll make your life as a fan much easier.


Kinda like Raps fans have taken that advice to heart and have let go their hate of Vince Carter? I mean that was years ago.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Fan IS short for fanatic right? There is nothing sensible about being a fan.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

By the way, caught the 2nd half of the game last night, and your "rookie of the year" Bargnani looked sweet.

Everybody knew he had the shooting stroke and range coming into the U.S. And he displayed that last night. What he showed in the game that was most impressive to me was moving with the ball; agressiion; and fearlessness. That dude wanted to take those shots. "Give me the damn ball!"

Hell yeah!

Those are atributes that not every player has, and must be very exciting for Raps fans to see.

If he can keep that up, be consistent, and not lose his confidence, he could be set for a big year next season.

Sophmore of the Year?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Kinda like Raps fans have taken that advice to heart and have let go their hate of Vince Carter? I mean that was years ago.
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist.
> 
> Fan IS short for fanatic right? There is nothing sensible about being a fan.


If you want to compare VC to Chuck's 2nd place vote of Brandon Roy, go ahead. You just further proved my point about Blazer fans. We get up for a player tanking games on us, you guys get up for a reporter's vote. We sure are in the same echelon here.

Don't get me wrong, I never said you guys don't care about your team. Because you care, that's why I feel sorry.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

For the record, I think more GM's would take Bargnani given the choice between him and another member of his draft class because he is a rarer talent and he has the "it" factor stars require.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

speedythief said:


> For the record, I think more GM's would take Bargnani given the choice between him and another member of his draft class because he is a rarer talent and he has the "it" factor stars require.


No doubt, question i have is where Bargs would go in this draft, i wouldnt have a problem with him going 2nd.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

rainman said:


> No doubt, question i have is where Bargs would go in this draft, i wouldnt have a problem with him going 2nd.


Can't put him over Durant. Durant can still do more (rebounding in particular), and score effectively in more ways.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Bargnani will probably go 3rd in this draft. They would probably label Bargnani a poor man's Durant instead of the next Dirk if they came out in the same year.


----------

