I know the issue has been beaten to death in this forum but I thought i would post some negative reactions on the CV31 trade. Bill Simmons, Chris Ford and John Hollinger all make excellent points regarding the fact it was pretty much a one sided trade. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Toronto Raptors Between the draft and free agency, a little deal between Toronto and Milwaukee got lost in the shuffle. It shouldn't have, because it's potentially one of the most one-sided trades of the decade. Just before free agency opened, the Raptors dealt forward Charlie Villanueva to the Bucks in return for guard T.J. Ford. There were no draft picks or deadweight contracts thrown in -- it was just Ford for Villanueva, straight up. As such, it was one of the more baffling deals I've ever seen. As with most one-sided deals, it came about because a team had a need at a position and decided to overpay to meet it. With Mike James's impending free agency, Toronto found itself needing a point guard, and in Villanueva had a surplus forward to use as the bait. The problem is that now the Raptors don't have Villanueva . . . and they still need a point guard. Ford is a fine energizer as a 20-minute guy off the bench, but as the Bucks learned last season, he leaves much to be desired as a starter. Ford's inability to shoot makes it easy to defend him in pick-and-roll situations and encourages opponents to play zones -- especially since the Raptors don't have a Michael Redd to keep opponents honest. And on defense, his 5-foot-10 frame (or 6-0, if you believe the official listing) makes him ripe for abuse by all but the smallest opposing point guards. Ford is also a major injury risk, missing the entire 2004-05 season after bruising his spinal cord -- the result of a condition called spinal stenosis that makes him vulnerable to this sort of injury. Plus, at 165 pounds, it's not like his neck is the only body part that's at risk. Then there's the salary angle. Ford is eligible for an extension this summer, while Villanueva will be playing for peanuts for three more seasons. Since the Raptors just traded for Ford, from a face-saving perspective it will be very difficult for them not to extend his deal -- otherwise, why trade a popular rookie for a guy who leaves after one season as a free agent? And since Ford's agent undoubtedly knows this, the price is likely to be much higher than it ought to be. Even if they made the same money, or had the same injury risk, or were the same age (Villanueva is more than a year younger), this deal is a tough one to fathom. Villanueva finished second in the Rookie of the Year voting after a stellar 2005-06 season which include a 48-point explosion against the Bucks in March. He is 6-11, rebounds well, can handle the ball and has 3-point range. Basically, he's the prototypical modern power forward. Yes, he sometimes loses concentration and his defense needs a lot of work, but the talent disparity in this trade is simply enormous. The thing that really puzzles me about this deal is that Bryan Colangelo was the one pulling the trigger for Toronto. Nearly everything he touched turned to gold in Phoenix, and his first move with the Raptors seemed just as astute -- swinging the little-discussed Rafael Araujo-Kris Humphries deal that bought him some extra cap space this summer and, if he gets lucky, a real basketball player instead of Araujo. But trading Villanueva for Ford? Sorry folks, I have to call 'em like I see 'em, and I see this one as being just astoundingly stupid. Even if they'd decided to get rid of Villanueva -- a defensible position, considering the Raptors' surplus of big forwards -- they had to be able to get much more than this in return. And if this was really all the market would bear, they should have waited 'til the trade deadline. But most of all, they shouldn't have done this deal. Villanueva is a rising star. Ford is a backup-quality point guard who will cost more and has much greater odds of getting hurt. By swapping the two, Toronto took a major step backward, and Milwaukee an equally big step ahead.</div> - http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/col...john&id=2510273 <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">sal (thunder bay): Who won in the TJ Ford - Villeneuva trade? Do you see the Raps as playoff contenders? Thanks. SportsNation Chad Ford: Milwaukee -- and I'm not a big fan of Villanueva. I understand why Toronto traded him. They were stacked at his position, wanted to give more minutes to their No. 1 pick Andrea Barganani and, just as we predicted on draft night, stories are beginning to surface that Villanueva wasn't the easiest guy in the world to coach or get along with. So the Raptors traded him when his value was high. What I don't understand was trading him, straight up, for Ford. Ford did not have a great year last season. I think he's lost some of his speed -- the one thing that gave him a chance of being a good starting point guard. He can't shoot and his spinal injury makes him a medical risk. I know the Raptors were desperate for a point guard who pushed the ball -- but I think they overpaid for Ford. Then again, that seems to be the theme of free agency.</div> http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=12214 <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Charlie Villaneuva: Actually, this wasn't a tough omission -- I just wanted to comment on the Villanueva-T.J. Ford trade. Disregard Ford's scary spinal cord problems, that he can't shoot to save his life, that he's a free agent two years earlier than Villanueva, even that he lost crunch-time minutes to Charlie Bell last season. Again, I want you to disregard everything in that sentence. From a pure basketball standpoint, since when is a young point guard worth as much as a young power forward who can rebound and shoot 3s? When has that EVER been the case? How fast did the Bucks' front office say yes to this trade? 0.79 seconds? 1.2 seconds? Did they say, "Hold on, we'll discuss this and call you back in a few hours," then hang up and start pouring champagne on one another? If somebody made this deal in my fantasy league, I would have protested it. - Bill Simmons</div> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...=simmons/060707 If rob babcock had made this trade people would be asking for his head. It also bothers me that all throughout the draft process Colangelo preached the raptors being not a good enough team to be able to draft around talent. Then we go out and give up way to much because Pg is a position of need for us.
You're preaching to the wrong crowd about the Babcock. He got a whole more patience and understanding from Raps fans than he probably deserved. Also, Colangelo was talking about the NBA draft. A trade doesn't fall under the draft.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post"> Babcock. He got a whole more patience and understanding from Raps fans than he probably deserved.</div> are you being serious or sarcastic?!?!?!? hope you're being sarcastic or else that was one of the most cracked out comments in a while!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jones:</div><div class="quote_post"> are you being serious or sarcastic?!?!?!? hope you're being sarcastic or else that was one of the most cracked out comments in a while!</div> No, I'm perfectly serious. And, it is true. Babcock got way more patience from Raps fans than anybody else. So, I don't see how someone can go around and throw that back at Raps fans. Coming off an absolutely horrendous first year, we were probably the only people in North America who waited to see if he could redeem himself.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Swish15:</div><div class="quote_post">I think Colangelo knows what he is doing. Give him time.</div> Let's hope so, but I still can't say I loved the trade. Now if it was Chris Paul , I would've been happy.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AirJordan:</div><div class="quote_post">i think we should just stop talking about this damn trade and watch what happens.</div> Yeh I just opened this forum cause i thought raptors fans would like to see what some of the so called "experts" were saying about this trade. Its worrisome to me to hear it described as "potentially one of the most one sided trades of the decade" - Hollinger. Nevertheless I like t.j ford i just think we chould have gotten more based on waht he had to give up.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">No, I'm perfectly serious. And, it is true. Babcock got way more patience from Raps fans than anybody else. So, I don't see how someone can go around and throw that back at Raps fans. Coming off an absolutely horrendous first year, we were probably the only people in North America who waited to see if he could redeem himself.</div> I wouldn't say that Babcock got much patience at all really....I can remember up until he got fired that most of the posts on here anyways were all extremely negative towards him except for a couple of ppl that said to be patient. I was one of the people saying to wait and let Babcocks plan work and I say this because I can recall all the Babcock bashers on here that I would debate with. I would say that it was because he received no patience from the fans (and ownership) that he grew gunshy on making any other trades. There was the constant booing and heckling at games that caused him to put earplugs in even.
it wasn't a lopsided trade however it does favour milwakee and make them instant contenders to be top 4 elite group in east next year meanwhile toronto stays outside of playoff land (at the moment i type this message out) i don't think it's the worst trade in a decade as ESPN said...and i don't think it's lopsided but again i have to state that it doesn't favour toronto TJ ford give toronto a PG...not elite but capable PG charlie is that final piece of puzzle milwakee needs to build for a strong championship contender in the next few years when the young players mature and reach their prime meanwhile toronto still has to think over of who to get/draft therefore for the time being, milwakee won the trade
The reason why no one is asking for Brian Colangelo's head is becaues he has a track record of building a winner. So, keeping that in mind it allows us to put a little bit of blind faith in him. The deal does have some positive points regardless of what was said by ESPN. We're getting a PG who fits well with our system who can push the ball up court at will. If it works out properly the rest of the players on our teams should be more effective. I would agree that the values of the players weren't relatively even at the time of the trade. Down the road however, i don't see how Charlie can be a raptor at the end of his rookie contract. Great player, but he's a duplicate part on our team. That doesn't mean we're log-jammed at the pf spot, but we're better off having a player of similar value at their natural position than playing Charlie out of position.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting hohoyoyoyo:</div><div class="quote_post"> TJ ford give toronto a PG...not elite but capable PG charlie is that final piece of puzzle milwakee needs to build for a strong championship contender in the next few years when the young players mature and reach their prime </div> I wouldn't say Charlie is the final piece. Milwaukee still needs someone in the middle because it's pretty soft right now with Bogut and Villanueva (in terms of toughness, rebounding). Mo Williams is also a question mark at point guard. He played well last season, but it remains to be seen if he can continue that this season. Maybe one or two pieces away. Bogut Villanueva Simmons Redd Williams It is a very good looking team though. Better than the Raptors right now.
you need to remember i am referring most on the current toronto's starting 5 vs milwakee's starting 5 and if you compare milwakee's starting 5 before the trade and after the trade charlie is indeed their final piece anyways maurice is more clutch than TJ ford it's already known ford might be the better pure PG but maurice is better in scoring and not bad himself in passing not as fast but he is not a ball hog either bogut is solid villanueva should be solid too keep in mind also that this trade means magloire is expandable and milwakee is shopping him around right now for more frontcourt toughness therefore the soft front court part remains to be seen
What idiots that was a great trade for us. We get a great pg that can create that can defiently run the floor and get everyone lay ups and dunks and open threes for a guy who shoots threes and is athletic.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jones:</div><div class="quote_post">I wouldn't say that Babcock got much patience at all really....I can remember up until he got fired that most of the posts on here anyways were all extremely negative towards him except for a couple of ppl that said to be patient. I was one of the people saying to wait and let Babcocks plan work and I say this because I can recall all the Babcock bashers on here that I would debate with. I would say that it was because he received no patience from the fans (and ownership) that he grew gunshy on making any other trades. There was the constant booing and heckling at games that caused him to put earplugs in even.</div> But that's nothing compared to the media, both in Toronto and outside. He was given one hell of a second chance by the fans after his first season. I even remember disagreeing with his firing, before I found out we could get Colangelo. The point is, however, is that when it came to evaluating moves, Babcock was given as much an oppurtunity to prove himself as Colangelo has been given (except by Stephen A. Smith). When he made questionable moves (Hoffa pick, VC trade), he was hounded for it. When he made good moves (Rafer Alston trade, eventually the CV pick), he was given credit. Similarily, Colangelo is not completely escaping criticism as the original poster would have you believe. He's been applauded for good moves (Hoffa trade, CB4 extension), and questioned about his riskier decisions (Bargnani pick, CV trade). The difference is his risky moves are nowhere near as bad as Babcock's first few were.
I think its too early to make a real opinion on this. On paper it doesn't look great a 6-11 pf for a barely 6-0 pg. On paper alot of stuff is not how it works in practice. On paper Kobe bryant looks like a better player than steve nash, but in practice when it comes to leading teams to wins nash is better.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post"> The point is, however, is that when it came to evaluating moves, Babcock was given as much an oppurtunity to prove himself as Colangelo has been given (except by Stephen A. Smith). When he made questionable moves (Hoffa pick, VC trade), he was hounded for it. When he made good moves (Rafer Alston trade, eventually the CV pick), he was given credit. Similarily, Colangelo is not completely escaping criticism as the original poster would have you believe. He's been applauded for good moves (Hoffa trade, CB4 extension), and questioned about his riskier decisions (Bargnani pick, CV trade). The difference is his risky moves are nowhere near as bad as Babcock's first few were.</div> I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Babcock got hired into a bad scene, disgruntled players, over the salary cap, guys asking for trades (VC) and only being on the job for like what??? two weeks before he drafted Hoffa. He had it a lot worse than BC and was forced to make his "risky moves" as you call them. He made the best of what had to be done it wasn't really a choice. BC has had it cush comparatively....team on the rise, #1 pick, assests that people want (CV) and salary cap space. He hasn't had to do the 'dirty' work that Babcock did. But I digress, Babcock was tagged as a bum GM from the VC deal and people never really got over that, or Hoffa really...that was what he became known for, even when we traded for James everyone bitched and complained until he started lighting it up. Same with CV being drafted, until he started doing good it was bitch bitch bitch fire Babcock. Even now, people go off that BC is a genius and practically a god and then come back on and complain and want him fired b/c ...i dunno...he traded their favourite player or whatever. I can't even believe there was a thread saying to fire him. There's some real die hard fans. (no insult to you Chuts) In the end I guess a lot of it comes down to the posters on here, media sheep that pretend they have bball knowledge b/c they read the paper, or stat lines. Probably all leaf fans! HA
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jones:</div><div class="quote_post">I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Babcock got hired into a bad scene, disgruntled players, over the salary cap, guys asking for trades (VC) and only being on the job for like what??? two weeks before he drafted Hoffa. He had it a lot worse than BC and was forced to make his "risky moves" as you call them. He made the best of what had to be done it wasn't really a choice. BC has had it cush comparatively....team on the rise, #1 pick, assests that people want (CV) and salary cap space. He hasn't had to do the 'dirty' work that Babcock did. But I digress, Babcock was tagged as a bum GM from the VC deal and people never really got over that, or Hoffa really...that was what he became known for, even when we traded for James everyone bitched and complained until he started lighting it up. Same with CV being drafted, until he started doing good it was bitch bitch bitch fire Babcock. Even now, people go off that BC is a genius and practically a god and then come back on and complain and want him fired b/c ...i dunno...he traded their favourite player or whatever. I can't even believe there was a thread saying to fire him. There's some real die hard fans. (no insult to you Chuts) In the end I guess a lot of it comes down to the posters on here, media sheep that pretend they have bball knowledge b/c they read the paper, or stat lines. Probably all leaf fans! HA</div> There was definitely a difference in their situations. Colangelo has definitely had it easier in terms of the state of the team and the amount of time/preparation that he was given. But, in the end, Colangelo is still getting the same ridiculous bipolar treatment from the media/fans that Babcock had. That's why I don't think that original point holds true. Perhaps I worded it wrongly, by focusing on Babcock. I meant to point out that the fact that this move hasn't been criticized as much as Babcock's ones, is not because of Colangelo's credentials, etc. And, off-topic, I still believe Babcock was given more of a chance here. Outside of Toronto, he was just labelled a dumbass after his first move. At least here, we debated about how big a dumbass he was.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">You're preaching to the wrong crowd about the Babcock. He got a whole more patience and understanding from Raps fans than he probably deserved. Also, Colangelo was talking about the NBA draft. A trade doesn't fall under the draft.</div> i disagree but we're not going to get into that
