# Babcock was Genius (after Drafting Hoffa)



## charlz (Jun 9, 2003)

To all you whiners who wanted to see <b>D. Marshall</b> Stay look at his numbers this year on a decent team.
(1-9) last night vs. Raps and shooting < 38% from 3.

- He drafted <b>Carlie V</b> who is widely regarded as a top 3 rookie
- He hired <B>Sam</b> who Bosh has gone on record as saying he wants to keep him around 
- NO PG -> <b>Rafer via FA</b> -> James out of thin air.
- No cap space but still got <b>Bonner and Calderone</b> under contract with MLE.
- Hired <b>Wayne Embry</b> (who Colangelo said was the only reason he even considered the job)
- Roko with a 2nd round DP.
----
in fact since the <b>Carter</b> Deal (Which I think was not his fault people forget that there were no offers for Vince) - Babs had a stellar year.
Wayne was not able to unload <b>Eric Williams</b> either?!??!

MY THEORY?
(a) Hoffa trading/waiving/sending him to D-LEAGUE <- was not willing to do any of those 
(b) Would not agree to Rose to NY -> for denver pick.

Honestly though if this team were the exact same and all you did was Swap <b>Igudala</b> for <b>Hoffa</b> does babs get fired?


----------



## kirk_2003 (Jun 23, 2003)

i'll be wearing a Iggy jersey, praising babcock...


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

There are only one of two possible reasons that Babcock got fired:

1. The Raps knew that Colangelo might be interested in a new job, but Colangelo being a man of honour, would not negotiate while another man was employed.

2. He would not pull off the Rose trade.. instead wanted to keep the draft pick.


----------



## dtron (Jun 11, 2004)

if the raps had ig instead of hoffa, we wouldnt be having this thread, the raptors would be a pretty good team and we would be talking about trying to get homecourt for the playoffs


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Turkish Delight (Mar 17, 2004)

The Raptors were in a tough position when Babcock took over. This team wasn't going anywhere fast, and that's one of the reasons why there wasn't a lot of interest in the job. Babcock did a lot of the dirty work, and now with this team clearly having a good future ahead of them, MLSE axes him in favour of a high profile GM, ala BC.


----------



## MonsterBosh (Feb 9, 2005)

What will Colangelo do to take the Raptors to the next level?

- Make a draft pick winner?

- Trade Araujo, Bonner, Sow, Woods for real basketball players?

- Trade MoPete for a more athletic body?

- Trade away Ukic and Slokar for US players?

- Replace Mitchell and his coaching staff?

- Trade James for a real point guard?

- Trade Bosh if he wants to go back Stateside?

- Help arrange for the Raptor franchise to go to Las Vegas?


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

dtron said:


> if the raps had ig instead of hoffa, we wouldnt be having this thread, the raptors would be a pretty good team and we would be talking about trying to get homecourt for the playoffs


I didn't realize Andre Iguodala was Jesus Christ reincarnated.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Babcock was not a genius at any time. Ever. He never will be. He has no cojones, no willingness to do anything to help the team. He didn't have the stones to tell Carter where to go and instead made a terrible trade. He could have backed out of the trade but now the Raptors are stuck paying Mourning to not play for them. Just a horrible handling of the situation all around. He drafted Araujo, one of the all-time worst picks. He made good with Villanueva but appears to have missed (for now) with Graham. Slokar and Ukic are unknown quantities and, until they show something in the NBA, they can be categorized as bad picks, too.

Signing Bonner was stupid. He was useful for one year but, as can be seen now, is nothing more than white Donyell Marshall. Oh, and he's the same as Villanueva except Villanueva has about 1000 times more talent.

Calderón was a good pick-up and James was outright thievery (Carroll Dawson should be ashamed of himself). But that doesn't change the fact that Babcock knew nothing of free agency (when Alston and Bonner are your 2 signings, you have major, major problems) and his draft record was hit (something decent) and miss (by 2 parked zambonis). He was a terrible trader (the James deal notwithstanding) and he was unwilling to acknowledge that the Raptors can't field a team of 10th graders and expect to compete in the NBA. You need veterans! And Babcock wasn't going to bring veterans in, just in case they disrupted his marvellous plan. Babcock didn't have the stones to play politics nor did he have the stones to fight back. He was unable to pull the trigger on the Rose deal and who knows what else.

Colangelo is the type of GM they should have gone after from the beginning. But MLSE is more interested in making money and letting Peddie think he is a sports mogul. They should spend $40 and get him NBA Live 06 to let him act out his fantasies and leave the real team to someone who knows what they're doing: Colangelo.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

i don't know if 'genius' is the right word here but i agree- this team is looking better by the day primarily due to babcock's plan. it's just now starting to work itself out in front of all of us, the irony being that it's the "all of us" not including him.

it upsets me to see what's happened here, to be honest, because the critics and perimeter fans will not have learned their lesson. i mean, considering the headlines being published now, the public support of wayne embry and _his_ 'genius moves' to get us where we are, no one'll learn. no one'll learn at all. 

the early criticisms of the babcock reign will appear justified now, no matter what happens in the future. we could start winning tomorrow and babcock would just become the forgotten piece. if anything, it'll be painted as success in spite of babcock's decisions, not because of them. there's virtually no way to redeem rob now. that's a shame. i was never his biggest fan but he certainly got a tough break here. the people (be it the fans, media, players, whoever) starved for patience just couldn't deal with their flaw- and in effect, they won out. he'll be forever remembered as the 'idiot' who: couldn't deal vince for anything ("we gave him away! we gave him away!" cries from the fans who have short memories and presumably huge accounts with the national tabloids); bought out alonzo at a ridiculous price (i could never really support this one myself- but i think it was more of a crime on the part of mourning than babcock); drafted araujo ahead of iguodala (this draft night hindsight garbage is so unfortunate. i just wish people would finally concede that humans can't tell the future, but what can you do); wouldn't deal jalen rose for antonio davis (just pretending that the first-round draft pick wasn't included in the deal... the "worthless" first round pick... just like the two firsts acquired for vince... they don't really exist because they don't have names on them... but wasn't iguodala a first rounder? oh, i see, _that_ pick mattered...). 

i mean, the moves after it became apparent that the raps would no longer click with vince carter were consistent (imo). it became a chris bosh universe to rob. i think the "mistakes" made while vince was here were made because of vince- you could almost blame him for their failure (like hoffa, like rafer). once he was out of the picture, though, we understandably began dealing now for later- not now for now- but a lot of us didn't pick up on that: "what the hell you doing! you're crazy! letting donyell walk for nothing!", "picking guys and keeping them in europe! fire babcock!", "1-15! fire babcock!", "you think we're going to be worse this year than last year!"

like we were planning to make a run for the title this season.

the latest trade with new york has caused particular pain for me. wayne embry is actually getting _credit_ for making it. yeah, let's see how that pans out when the raptors find the free agent market relatively barren this summer, or when the denver first rounder results in a quality pro for the knicks. i obviously don't know whether it'll happen like that, but let's just see what people say if it does. contradiction in a bottle. embry'll become the foe: "you couldn't tell the future! moron!"

and what's more, some of us are acting like embry orchestrated the trade itself.  man, like babcock didn't have that offer sitting on his desk for months. like, why is wayne getting the credit? because he pulled the trigger? who's to say rob wouldn't have done the same thing once the deadline neared? and i mean, it becomes especially absurd when you consider what we're complaining about: just pulling the trigger. like we're more qualified than rob babcock to assess the trade's value. we "knew" that it was a great deal for the team- and rob didn't. it's 'obviously a great trade'. yeah, if only it were that simple.

if i had to put an honest spin on it, i'd say we're giving embry credit solely for not being babcock. in other words, we criticized rob so mercifully while he was here that, now that we're finally seeing some fruits, we can't swallow our pride and admit that the man led a strong rebuilding plan. instead, we have to offer the credit to someone else because we can't handle the fact that we've been proven impatient, unfair, and wrong. we're almost pretending. we _are_ pretending.

put differently, it's become denial. and that denial will probably allow us to do it yet again in the future. we just can't handle having been wrong. we want to be 'successful critics'. we need to justify our criticism- for now and the future. babcock's clearly been hung out to dry- and that story hasn't been printed. hasn't even been _hinted_.

it's really kind of alarming when you think about it.

peace


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

JuniorNoboa said:


> There are only one of two possible reasons that Babcock got fired:
> 
> 1. The Raps knew that Colangelo might be interested in a new job, but Colangelo being a man of honour, would not negotiate while another man was employed.
> 
> 2. He would not pull off the Rose trade.. instead wanted to keep the draft pick.


I think there is a combo of both. Bobcat knew something as going on well before the firing happened. Dinners and phone calls were happening. The axe almost fell, bbut then the raps went on a streak. They waited for another bad stretch, then whack. Considering the previous MLSE stance of not firing anyone in season, they did this because they knew they had to act fast to get BC done.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

narrator said:


> Babcock was not a genius at any time. Ever. He never will be. He has no cojones


Charlie picked at 7. I call that cojones. I stopped reading after the above.


----------



## Ballyhoo (May 30, 2003)

charlz said:


> To all you whiners who wanted to see <b>D. Marshall</b> Stay look at his numbers this year on a decent team.
> (1-9) last night vs. Raps and shooting < 38% from 3.


I didn't want Marshall to stay, I wanted him traded for some sort of asset, even a late 1st or 2nd rounder.



> - He drafted <b>Carlie V</b> who is widely regarded as a top 3 rookie


Not a bad move, but remember the Raps had a chance to trade 7+16 for 3, which would have gotten Chris Paul. Paul has turned a terrible team into a playoff team as a rookie. I really believe we'd be in the playoff hunt if we had Paul. Not making that trade was a huge, huge mistake.



> - He hired <B>Sam</b> who Bosh has gone on record as saying he wants to keep him around


Sam was just voted worst coach in the NBA by the players.



> - NO PG -> <b>Rafer via FA</b> -> James out of thin air.


The Rafer signing was a mistake. He rectified it by trading Rafer for James, so I give him props for that.



> - No cap space but still got <b>Bonner and Calderone</b> under contract with MLE.


Calderon is a nice pickup. Bonner is a non-factor really. Pretty much every GM signs bench players like Bonner every year. 



> - Hired <b>Wayne Embry</b> (who Colangelo said was the only reason he even considered the job)
> - Roko with a 2nd round DP.


Roko hasn't played a game in the NBA, so you can't credit him with a good pick. He could be a total bust.

Babcock had a better year this year, but then again almost anything would be better than his 1st year. He was by no means a genius. Pretty sad that expectations have been lowered so much than Raptor fans praise things like signing Bonner and trading for a guy who might leave as a FA after one year. 

I'm *very* glad he's gone and Colangelo is in his place.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by* Charlz!*
> 
> Babcock was Genius


never thought I'd hear that in my lifetime

But overall, nice synopsis of Babcocks tenure here. He clearly redeemed himself after a disasterous first year on the job, but those moves proved to be to much to overcome.

they say first impressions are everything, and Babcock did himself in from day 1. It's really too bad his bad moves will always be rememebered over the good ones he made, but that's life.



> Honestly though if this team were the exact same and all you did was Swap Igudala for Hoffa does babs get fired?


yes, all things being equal....

as long as the Vince Carter trade still went down as is, and Bryan Collangelo was available, Babcock would be gone.

we'd probably ditch a lot of GM's to get a guy like Collangelo


----------



## SickGame (Jan 23, 2006)

This is a good thread, good points.
But this...this is f-en good.


JuniorNoboa said:


> I didn't realize Andre Iguodala was Jesus Christ reincarnated.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

I don't mind the Carter trade or the Hoffa pick as much as most. If you want to put those two decisions aside anyways, yes, Babcock was doing a good job. That's why his firing was a shock, and nobody should pretend like it wasn't.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

blowuptheraptors said:


> Charlie picked at 7. I call that cojones. I stopped reading after the above.


Cojones would have been trading 7 and 16 for 3. Or trading 7 and 16 for Magloire. Both of which would have addressed needs far more pressing than adding another PF. Cojones is the ability to adjust your plan when new opportunities arise rather than obstinately sticking with your guns.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

narrator said:


> Cojones would have been trading 7 and 16 for 3. Or trading 7 and 16 for Magloire. Both of which would have addressed needs far more pressing than adding another PF. Cojones is the ability to adjust your plan when new opportunities arise rather than obstinately sticking with your guns.


Cojones is picking a guy no one had on the board at 7, and it worked out. 7 and 16 for Mags is suicide not cojones.

7 and 16 assuming they take Paul is amazing but your rebounding and frontcourt is that much ****tier without CV this year. It is not cojones to make 7 and 16 for 3, it is cojones to take 7 and 16 for 3.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

narrator said:


> Cojones would have been trading 7 and 16 for 3. Or trading 7 and 16 for Magloire. Both of which would have addressed needs far more pressing than adding another PF. Cojones is the ability to adjust your plan when new opportunities arise rather than obstinately sticking with your guns.


Cojones is you posting that on draft day. 

Therefore, no cojones for you.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

He made a great sacrificial GM anyway, guiding us through some very difficult rebuilding years to be let go when the time was right and someone better available to take the job for the long haul.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Cojones is you posting that on draft day.
> 
> Therefore, no cojones for you.


Didn't know this site existed at the time, before I registered.

So no cojones for you, either.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

blowuptheraptors said:


> Cojones is picking a guy no one had on the board at 7, and it worked out. 7 and 16 for Mags is suicide not cojones.
> 
> 7 and 16 assuming they take Paul is amazing but your rebounding and frontcourt is that much ****tier without CV this year. It is not cojones to make 7 and 16 for 3, it is cojones to take 7 and 16 for 3.


Rebounding and frontcourt play (not including Bosh) is terrible anyway. While Villanueva has worked out a thousand times better than I thought he would (cojones is also being able to admit when you were wrong, and I was wrong about Villanueva), I'd still rather have Paul, who has made what is clearly one of the not good teams in the league a legit playoff contender. You think he wouldn't have been able to do that in Toronto, with Bosh, Peterson, and Rose (at the time) as running mates? Paul changes the entire direction of the team; Villanueva is (for now) another nice piece.


----------



## GuelphRaptorsFan (Apr 9, 2003)

- He drafted Carlie V who is widely regarded as a top 3 rookie

No arguments there, a good move.

- He hired Sam who Bosh has gone on record as saying he wants to keep him around

Fair enough, but its not as if Sam has turned the team around through his miraculous coaching. The players like him, and he has his good points, but his league-wide reputation is abysmal and I'm not convinced any other player-friendly coach wouldn't have done just as well with this roster.

- NO PG -> Rafer via FA -> James out of thin air.

Three possible scenarios:
NO PG -> Rafer via FA -> James (signed to a deal)
NO PG -> Rafer via FA -> James -> NO PG (James becomes unrestricted) -> NO PG
NO PG -> Rafer via FA -> James -> NO PG (James becomes unrestricted) -> James
but the last scenario is the same as
NO PG -> NO PG (James becomes unrestricted) -> James
and the second last scenario is the same as
NO PG
both of which don't involve all the money blown on Rafer and all the drama and intrigue he brought to town.

- No cap space but still got Bonner and Calderone under contract with MLE.

Pfft. You and I could have done that.

- Hired Wayne Embry (who Colangelo said was the only reason he even considered the job)

No arguments there.

- Roko with a 2nd round DP.

An unproven commodity at this point, I'll give him props for this if and when Roko turns into something at the NBA level in a Raptor uniform.

- Mishandling the Vince Carter situation, throwing him away and getting basically nothing in return

Oh, wait, this one wasn't on your list, sorry.


----------



## charlz (Jun 9, 2003)

wow there are so many things here I would like to respond to - but let me sum it up by saying this.

Babs was hired as a <b>"rebound" GM</b> like after you are in relationship for a long time and it tanks before you get serious about someone else you just have a fling to change your perspective and unless lightning strike it won't last.

Well MLSE must have decided that <b>no good GM would come in</b> (they got majorly snubbed) with all that Cap Crap and take the heat of loosing - so they got <b>babs</b> as a goat to weather the storm while contracts expires and loosing piled up. Now that there is youth and cap space it is a more attractive job - but in hindsite <b>Babcocks</b> last year on the job was very formitable... event though they used his career as a means of entertainment.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Babcock was certainly improving as a GM but he wasn't a genius.

When you have team losing the way the Raps were changes have to be made.

Babcock became a scapegoat for the Raptor's failures. 

The Hoffa pick probably had more to do with McCloskey (wasn't he championing Hoffa?) than Babcock. Although, in the end Babcock pulled the trigger so that pick was also his fault. But one has to wonder if an experienced GM would have done that even if he had inherited the same scouting staff and McCloskey. Don't forget McCloskey also championed Babcock and it's not like McCloskey is an idiot. Afterall, didn't he build the late 80s Pistons?

The Vince Carter trade in hindsight is just horrible. But when the trade was made Vince was performing like crap. We got an Eric Williams who was getting 14.3 ppg a night (Vince was getting 16 ppg), a backup center, and two picks. Even though everybody knew Vince was tanking it nobody would have thought he would explode like he did when he went to the Nets. Mitchell also never played Williams (either of them) and still doesn't with Eric. Zo was never going to play here his contract was just a filler. At the time, the trade wasn't as bad as what hindsight tells us now. Hindsight is a *****. You are hardly ever going to get equal value when you trade a guy like Vince especially a Vince who was tanking it. The question then is were there better trades on the table at that time? Babcock should have traded Vince in the offseason. I thought it was clear then that Vince didn't want to play here anymore but the Raps didn't want to give up on their "celebrity".

Plus, the media criticism made it even easier to accept Babcock as the scapegoat.

Anyways, Babcock shouldn't have been hired as Grunwald's successor. He was set up for failure and his lack of experience (I believe) was one of the reasons why he was hired because if the Raps did bad MLE had an excuse. Of course when Babcock drafted Hoffa and did the VC trade it gave MLE even more excuses to scapegoat Babcock. But the real question is who hired Babcock? Shouldn't that person be responsible as well? If this Colangelo experiment doesn't work out some of the brass sitting high and mighty in the MLE offices better be packing their things because there are no excuses now.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Gilgamesh said:


> *But the real question is who hired Babcock? Shouldn't that person be responsible as well?* If this Colangelo experiment doesn't work out some of the brass sitting high and mighty in the MLE offices better be packing their things because there are no excuses now.


That's an excellent, excellent point. Richard Peddie needs to be fired ASAP.


----------



## The Truth IV (Nov 3, 2005)

Let's get a few things straight - before you guys drive me insane.

There was never any offer of the 7 and 16 for the #3. No chance at Chris Paul whatsoever.

Babcock didn't have to trade VC - the deal was terrible and was the only reason why he
was fired.

Drafting Hoffa was not a factor - no one on this board ever heard of Iguodola on 
draft night and with Vince, Jalen, MoPete already in the fold, everyone who have had
kittens if Babcock drafted AI. He rolled the dice on a big man, came up empty (as is 
often the case with big guys) and let's leave it at that.

I just got back from the Dominican Republic after 2 weeks and I miss all the nonsense you guys
post on this board. By the way, I wore a Raptors shirt around the resort and all the locals would shout out "Charlie VILLLLLAAAANOOOOAAAAYYYYVAAAA!". They love CV down there.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

The Truth IV said:


> Let's get a few things straight - before you guys drive me insane.
> 
> There was never any offer of the 7 and 16 for the #3. No chance at Chris Paul whatsoever.
> 
> ...



Of course we knew who Iguodala was. Unfortunately our team was so barren of big men that we were more concentrated on guys like Biedrins, or at least I was. Ideally Vince should have been traded on draft night and Iggy should have been selected with our pick but that would have required a significantly earlier GM switch. Whatever.


----------



## 4BiddenKnight (Jun 23, 2005)

So the bottom line is, Babcock was hired for scapegoating and he was set up for failure all along. This is from what I've read for the last 2 pages. Am I right?


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

4BiddenKnight said:


> So the bottom line is, Babcock was hired for scapegoating and he was set up for failure all along. This is from what I've read for the last 2 pages. Am I right?


It would seem so, however unrealistic.

-- He never had full control of the team;
-- he never had support from ownership;
-- he never had support in the media;
-- his plan was never fully realized.

I mean, for MLSE to come out and say after his firing that they were sticking to Babcock's plan--what more evidence can there be that he was a lame duck all along?


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

speedythief said:


> It would seem so, however unrealistic.
> 
> -- He never had full control of the team;
> -- he never had support from ownership;
> ...


I don't think someone should need the support of a completely autonomous industry to do their job.

C'mon Speedy, support of the media?


----------



## adhir1 (Dec 28, 2004)

speedythief said:


> I don't mind the Carter trade or the Hoffa pick as much as most. If you want to put those two decisions aside anyways, yes, Babcock was doing a good job. That's why his firing was a shock, and nobody should pretend like it wasn't.


do u think it was babcock making those moves? I have my conspiracy theories with that one. i think all the "good" moves we saw babcock make with the draft, signing jose, getting mike, i think they were all Embry...but thats just me and my conspiracy theories....


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

shookem said:


> I don't think someone should need the support of a completely autonomous industry to do their job.
> 
> C'mon Speedy, support of the media?


If the Carter trade had've been praised, do you think he'd still have his job? No doubt.

He was never given a chance to succeed by just about anyone other than informed fans, who are a minority.


----------



## drlove_playa (Feb 11, 2005)

Why would the carter trade be prasied?? It was one of the worst trades in NBA history. Giving up a superstar for 2 late 1st round picks in 2 weak drafts that had no star potential.

Sure you can say Carter had to "value".. but come on.. it is vince carter. Every GM in the league would have give him 2 first round picks and a couple garbage players for him. If you argue that they wouldn't, then you are a moron, plain and simple.


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

speedythief said:


> If the Carter trade had've been praised, do you think he'd still have his job? No doubt.
> 
> He was never given a chance to succeed by just about anyone other than informed fans, who are a minority.


I agree, I think you put too much emphasis on not being accepted by people who are paid to be critics.


----------



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

speedythief said:


> If the Carter trade had've been praised, do you think he'd still have his job? No doubt.
> 
> He was never given a chance to succeed by just about anyone other than informed fans, who are a minority.


IMO, no matter how good of a job Babcock did in his 1.5 years here, he would still have been fired if it meant acquiring Colangelo, who is the reigning Excecutive Of The Year. Why settle for a sophomore GM who was still on the learning curve if you can get an established, well-known name in the office?

Granted at the time of the firing I was as shocked as anyone when it came out of the blue. I too thought Babcock was making strides after having a inadequate rookie year, and felt his firing was premature. However, in hindsight, the firing was done for greater acquisitions. 

Would we have as good of a chance of acquiring Colangelo if we waited for his contract to run out in Phoenix? I doubt it.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

adhir1 said:


> do u think it was babcock making those moves? I have my conspiracy theories with that one. i think all the "good" moves we saw babcock make with the draft, signing jose, getting mike, i think they were all Embry...but thats just me and my conspiracy theories....


We'll never know. Towards the end of his tenure (year 2) I think Rob was just another voice. I think Embry might've had the final say on everything. I think it was Rob, Pete, and Scott vs. the World. All the bad moves will be attributed to Rob and all the good ones to other people, but we don't know who was really calling the shots.

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



drlove_playa said:


> Why would the carter trade be prasied?? It was one of the worst trades in NBA history. Giving up a superstar for 2 late 1st round picks in 2 weak drafts that had no star potential.
> 
> Sure you can say Carter had to "value".. but come on.. it is vince carter. Every GM in the league would have give him 2 first round picks and a couple garbage players for him. If you argue that they wouldn't, then you are a moron, plain and simple.


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

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

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

Answer me this: would you have traded Carter for expirings and late firsts? It's not such a bad deal, really. Orlando is happy to have anything left over from the McGrady deal. They got practically nothing (in the accurate sense, not the exaggerated sense) for Francis, just malcontent Ariza. The Lakers let Grant and Butler go and now they want to run Odom out of town. Joey Graham could become a nice player and clearing Rose's salary should help us this summer.

Bottom line: no better deals were out there, so we took what we could get. And we're not much worse off for it anyways. We were a 33 win with him, a 33 win team without him, and this year we're probably going to be about the same again.



shookem said:


> I agree, I think you put too much emphasis on not being accepted by people who are paid to be critics.


I don't, we're talking about MLSE, who from all accounts don't know their *** from a basketball. The media has long played a major role in GMing the Leafs. No different with the Raps. Anything that affects their bottom line, especially the perception that our franchise is "lost", will be something they take notice of and, at worst, believe.



trick said:


> IMO, no matter how good of a job Babcock did in his 1.5 years here, he would still have been fired if it meant acquiring Colangelo, who is the reigning Excecutive Of The Year. Why settle for a sophomore GM who was still on the learning curve if you can get an established, well-known name in the office?
> 
> Granted at the time of the firing I was as shocked as anyone when it came out of the blue. I too thought Babcock was making strides after having a inadequate rookie year, and felt his firing was premature. However, in hindsight, the firing was done for greater acquisitions.
> 
> Would we have as good of a chance of acquiring Colangelo if we waited for his contract to run out in Phoenix? I doubt it.


I would fire Rob to hire Bryan. "The grass is always greener..." but I would trade you a $10 for your $20, it's common sense.


----------



## drlove_playa (Feb 11, 2005)

And really how did the Carter trade clear his salary? We got ZO, EW and AAW.. None of which were expiring.. So that doesn't make any sense. We only really got two late 1st rd picks for a star. I would let Carter rot on the bench before I let him go for that. or I would tell Carter to play like the star he is, or it is going to be harder to trade him..

Rob sucked.. He would be a good scout.. but he made a garbage GM. Sure he did get Mike James.. but who is the person that signed Alston to that big deal? Yes it was Rob. So he just corrected his own mistake.. He was afraid to make a move, which is why he was fired.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

drlove_playa said:


> And really how did the Carter trade clear his salary? We got ZO, EW and AAW.. None of which were expiring.. So that doesn't make any sense. We only really got two late 1st rd picks for a star. I would let Carter rot on the bench before I let him go for that. or I would tell Carter to play like the star he is, or it is going to be harder to trade him..
> 
> Rob sucked.. He would be a good scout.. but he made a garbage GM. Sure he did get Mike James.. but who is the person that signed Alston to that big deal? Yes it was Rob. So he just corrected his own mistake.. He was afraid to make a move, which is why he was fired.


They were expiring when we wanted them to expire. Carter's contract went one year past next summer. which was Rob's free agent time. Everything revolved around that upcoming summer. Jalen, Eric, Mo, Bonner, Sow--all the contracts lined up to expire at that time.


----------



## drlove_playa (Feb 11, 2005)

That maybe so.. but I would rather wait another year than get nothing for a superstar. And I don't think anyone would argue with that.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

drlove_playa said:


> That maybe so.. but I would rather wait another year than get nothing for a superstar. And I don't think anyone would argue with that.


Are we in bad shape?


----------



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

drlove_playa said:


> That maybe so.. but I would rather wait another year than get nothing for a superstar. And I don't think anyone would argue with that.


Carter needed to go in the worst way that year. Whether it'd be best to have traded him as early as draft day or as late as the deadline is another argument, but no way would both sides (the team and Carter) could tolerate having him around for another year. It'd be a waste of time for both sides.


----------



## Benis007 (May 23, 2005)

trick said:


> Carter needed to go in the worst way that year. Whether it'd be best to have traded him as early as draft day or as late as the deadline is another argument, but no way would both sides (the team and Carter) could tolerate having him around for another year. It'd be a waste of time for both sides.


What Carter did to this team is one of the best examples of poor sportsmanship ever.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

You know sometimes I wonder to myself just how Dr.J would have fared if had been hired as our GM instead of Babcock? Would have been interesting that's for sure.


----------



## Benis007 (May 23, 2005)

I think Dr.J was a pipe dream.

where is he now?


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

No clue but it certainly would have been interesting. 



Benis007 said:


> I think Dr.J was a pipe dream.
> 
> where is he now?


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

shookem said:


> If Walsh hadn't have gotten Peja for a non-playing Ronnie, than it would have made things a little better, but I think the firing of Babcock has less to do with the on-court product he put out there and more to do with the backroom politics he couldn't handle.
> 
> -also Sam is a horrible coach, Bosh likes him because Bosh knows him. How many years has Bosh been in the league and how many of those was Sam his coach for? Yeah, that's why.
> 
> ...


Sam Mitchell Improves His players considerably


----------



## clutchmoney (Feb 14, 2006)

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


----------



## MjM2xtreMe (Sep 1, 2005)

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


----------



## clutchmoney (Feb 14, 2006)

MjM2xtreMe said:


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



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

Mr. BabCOCK

:mrt:


----------



## SickGame (Jan 23, 2006)

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


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

speedythief said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

narrator said:


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


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

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



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


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

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


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

speedythief said:


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


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

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


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

This entire thread is ridiculous.



























HOFFA RULES!!! :banana:


----------



## SickGame (Jan 23, 2006)

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


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

shookem said:


> Considering what we got, I don't think you could say anything with Magloire would be a lowball offer.
> 
> Of course, we don't know if that deal existed.


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


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

speedythief said:


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


That sounds ok.

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


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

speedythief said:


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


That's an excellent point. Good one.



speedythief said:


> The correct action would've been to trade Carter in the summer before his trade demands became public and his value deteriorated, and before his unhappiness would translate to on-court play. I blame MLSE for refusing to admit that the Carter-centric design for our team had failed and failing to hire a GM who was at least aware of that weakness.
> 
> The only deals we're aware of are the Jersey deal and the Portland deal. There was supposedly something on the table for Magloire with New Orleans but if it didn't get a second thought from Babcock our our brass it was probably a lowball offer. We don't know that there were _any_ other offers for him, so trading him to Western Team X might've been impossible.
> 
> I don't think waiting until the deadline or the summer would've helped our cause, not with the way he was playing. We would've been lucky to get what Orlando got for Francis if that were the case--which is a whole lot of nothing.


MLSE was looking for the cheap option. In the end, they got someone who was easily manipulated and easily blamed. So they got what they wanted and now they're paying for it.

I still believe the Raptors should have dealt Carter on their own terms. They got no expiring contracts, they got Mourning (who never intended to play in Toronto), and they got two draft picks that weren't the two best the Nets could have offered. It had, in short, none of the criteria that make a successful trade.


----------

