Raptors close to acquiring Kawhi Leonard

[cabber24]

Raptors got a two time Selke award winner and heavy shot from the point.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Some have compared Leonard to the Celtics Jayson Tatum.  Leonard edges Tatum as the better stopper:

- Leonard is the better scorer, averaging 2.3 points per game more than Tatum.

-The margin is close, but Leonard is a slightly better passer, averaging 0.7 assists per game more than Tatum.

-Their averages are close, but Tatum grabs a few more rebounds, eclipsing Leonard's total by 0.3 boards per game.


https://m.herosports.com/nba/player-comparison/jayson-tatum-vs-kawhi-leonard

 

[hockeyfan1]

Raptors got a two time Selke award winner and heavy shot from the point.

Pretty apt description in the hockey vernacular.

Leonard will no doubt strengthen the Raptors lineup in a way that DeMar couldn't.  He (Leonard) is both offensively-driven and defensively sound.  If we can say there was a flaw with DeMar, it was his defensive game.  It was virtually non-existent.

Ujiiri wanted to shake it up and in a way, as much as it leaves a bitter taste with the fans, the man deserves credit for taking a leap of faith for initiating this blockbuster trade.

I admire Ujiiri's willingness to 'shake up the culture' even more, and certainly it doesn't stop here.

 

[Kin]

Raptors got a two time Selke award winner and heavy shot from the point.

I think that's understating things defensively a bit. He's twice been voted the best defensive player in the league irrespective of position.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Leonard is considered the 2nd best "player" meaning all around to Lebron. That's how good he is. He does everything extremely well and defending is his claim to fame, something Derozan was pretty much terrible at. They also got Green who is also a good defensive player that can shoot the 3 ball so this is a huge upgrade. They have a year to convince him to stay.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't know to what extent you're a Basketball fan but I feel like that's the sort of thing that would never fly in a million years if we were talking about the Leafs. Imagine, for instance, not trading Phil Kessel because he was a good guy who liked it here and who'd signed two extensions with the Leafs.

But just like trading Kessel was ultimately necessary for the Leafs to take the right steps, this probably was too. I get that it sucks because DeRozan was a good guy who liked it here and it's a shame that he's not going to be someone who we get to see any more but Raptors fans are just as invested in the Raps winning as most of us are with the Leafs so to ask them to put that on hold so that DeMar can stick around would be a tough sell.

It's unfortunate, and it really sucks that it looks like they weren't forthright with DeRozan about it, but that is the nature of the beast when it comes to following professional sports.

I think the situations were different though.  The Leafs weren't winning, so most fans were willing to do something in order to build a winning team.  If the Leafs were consistently making the playoffs and were getting to the second round or the third round, and Kessel was a big part of that, then maybe there would have been some angst if they dealt him for someone, say Karlsson, who was only going to be here for a year and then was going to bolt to Tampa Bay (yep, I went there).

I get that basketball is a different beast though.  In order to win, you need to have the best player on the court.  It's incredibly hard for a good "team" to beat a team that has a super star on it.  Which is sad, but that's the way it is.  So I understand that the Raptors are taking a chance at making a run by getting a true superstar.  Chances are that they are going to lose to the Warriors though.  That's a team that has good role players and a couple of true superstars.  And that's if they get past the 76ers or the Celtics.  Indiana and Milwaukee look to be on the rise too.

So for me, how much more does it mean for the Raptors to get to a finals and then lose, and then lose the player that got you there, versus having a player that was invested in your team as much as any player ever in the NBA, and was looking to grow your brand for you?  Like I said, it's a rock and a hard place, and I'm not entirely sold on the idea that it is better to try and make it to the finals at all cost versus having a competitive team year in and year out that has a good story around it.  I get that the Raptors before the trade were basically the Atlanta Hawks of a few years ago.  Good team, would finish in the top three of the conference, pretty consistent, but was never a threat to make it very far.  I will admit though that I am not a die hard Raptors fan.  I watch games on T.V., and look at the stats here and there, but I don't live and die with every win and loss. 

 

[Kin]

I think the situations were different though.

I don't. Because I think the fundamental question is ultimately the same. If a team isn't in a realistic position to win a championship with the current roster, do you want your management to be making the big and frequently difficult decisions in order to change that? Sure, the Leafs in Kessel were at a different point in the process but right now do you think any of us would blink at trading someone like Gardiner or Kadri if it returned a defender who would help the team win?

Maybe you did, but prior to July 1st I didn't see anyone make the case that the Leafs should hang onto JVR and not aggressively pursue Tavares because JVR's been a loyal Leaf for a long time. Super into-it fans want their teams to be making those moves to bring a championship home. Full stop.

I get that basketball is a different beast though.  In order to win, you need to have the best player on the court.  It's incredibly hard for a good "team" to beat a team that has a super star on it.  Which is sad, but that's the way it is.  So I understand that the Raptors are taking a chance at making a run by getting a true superstar.  Chances are that they are going to lose to the Warriors though.  That's a team that has good role players and a couple of true superstars.  And that's if they get past the 76ers or the Celtics.  Indiana and Milwaukee look to be on the rise too.

So for me, how much more does it mean for the Raptors to get to a finals and then lose, and then lose the player that got you there, versus having a player that was invested in your team as much as any player ever in the NBA, and was looking to grow your brand for you?  Like I said, it's a rock and a hard place, and I'm not entirely sold on the idea that it is better to try and make it to the finals at all cost versus having a competitive team year in and year out that has a good story around it.  I get that the Raptors before the trade were basically the Atlanta Hawks of a few years ago.  Good team, would finish in the top three of the conference, pretty consistent, but was never a threat to make it very far.  I will admit though that I am not a die hard Raptors fan.  I watch games on T.V., and look at the stats here and there, but I don't live and die with every win and loss.

I think you're focusing a little too much on the one year of Kawhi vs. the larger issue though. The Raptors didn't just have some bad playoff losses in the last few years, they had some bad playoff wins. Teams that, by virtue of their respective records, the Raptors should have stomped took the Raptors to tense 7th games. Then getting swept by a very vulnerable Cavs team(who Boston and Indiana could push and who Golden State obliterated).

Something needed to change. Fundamentally. Sure, Kawhi gives the team one year of maybe making that push but, if he leaves, he also gives the team the excuse to tear it down and try to build something new. Because what they had just simply wasn't working.

I mean, you talk about DeRozan "building their brand" but quite frankly the brand they were building was one of a team of frauds and chokers. That might sound harsh but, trust me, that's the outside impression of a team that keeps getting pushed around in the playoffs after good regular seasons not just because their best players aren't as good as the other team's best players but because their best players were just bad in the playoffs. That's not something MLSE is going to want to build and for the fans who really care about a championship...that's not a way to inspire devotion or excitement. Quite honestly, a team that wins a lot of regular season games and then gets embarrassed in the playoffs? I don't think that is a good story and it's certainly not one you want to hear more than once.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't. Because I think the fundamental question is ultimately the same. If a team isn't in a realistic position to win a championship with the current roster, do you want your management to be making the big and frequently difficult decisions in order to change that? Sure, the Leafs in Kessel were at a different point in the process but right now do you think any of us would blink at trading someone like Gardiner or Kadri if it returned a defender who would help the team win?

I would like the team that I cheer for to make smart difficult decisions.  So take the decision to trade Shea Weber for P.K. Subban.  I'm sure it was a difficult decision for Poile to make that move even with the term Subban had.  Does he make the move if Subban only has one year left, and there are rumors he hates country music?  Does he roll the dice on one year of P.K. Subban because they haven't gotten over the hump yet?

So if Subban walks after that year, and now they don't have Subban, and they don't have Weber, are they in a better situation?  Was that one year of Subban really worth giving up Weber?  Is the one loss in the finals worth where you are afterwards? What about Edmonton's trade with the Blues to get Pronger?  Edmonton bought low on that one, and it worked great for a year, but then he wanted out, and Edmonton has been a shambles since then ( although to be fair they were a shambles before Pronger got there too ). 

And that's really how this discussion started.  You posted about how this will be considered a brilliant move or an insane one.  I think with all the red flags around Kawhi, and what is likely to happen after he leaves, I think a person will be able to argue that this will end up a swing and a miss.

I think you're focusing a little too much on the one year of Kawhi vs. the larger issue though. The Raptors didn't just have some bad playoff losses in the last few years, they had some bad playoff wins. Teams that, by virtue of their respective records, the Raptors should have stomped took the Raptors to tense 7th games. Then getting swept by a very vulnerable Cavs team(who Boston and Indiana could push and who Golden State obliterated).

I'm focusing on that aspect because to me that is the thing that makes the trade make less sense for me.  It negates the whole "we are going to win a championship" argument because even if the Raptors get to the final, they are probably going to lose because of the strength of the west.  So in that respect, you aren't really building to anything.  I don't necessarily buy that they are going to be able to flip Kawhi for more than they gave up because if the rumors are true, they would be dealing with only one team.  The sign and trade aspect does give them a little bit of leverage, but there really isn't anything on the Lakers that is overly exciting in return.

So you've gone back on your word on a player that spoke highly of the area that he played in, which can have negative effects when dealing with other players and you are already a market that has trouble retaining players, to buy a one year shot at a final that is likely to be unsuccessful.  I don't disagree that things were fundamentally broken, but you could also play it out by saying "Well Lebron's not here anymore, so let's take another swing at this with the team we've got" and if that fails, you can still break up the team and do a rebuild because you can then say "Well it wasn't just Lebron", because that has been the argument for their failure for some time.  That they keep running into Lebron.  I agree that it's not the reason and that the team with DeRozan isn't constructed to win much in the playoffs, but in two years time, you are probably in the same spot where you need to rebuild. 

 

[Bender]

I don't. Because I think the fundamental question is ultimately the same. If a team isn't in a realistic position to win a championship with the current roster, do you want your management to be making the big and frequently difficult decisions in order to change that? Sure, the Leafs in Kessel were at a different point in the process but right now do you think any of us would blink at trading someone like Gardiner or Kadri if it returned a defender who would help the team win?

I would like the team that I cheer for to make smart difficult decisions.  So take the decision to trade Shea Weber for P.K. Subban.  I'm sure it was a difficult decision for Poile to make that move even with the term Subban had.  Does he make the move if Subban only has one year left, and there are rumors he hates country music?  Does he roll the dice on one year of P.K. Subban because they haven't gotten over the hump yet?

So if Subban walks after that year, and now they don't have Subban, and they don't have Weber, are they in a better situation?  Was that one year of Subban really worth giving up Weber?  Is the one loss in the finals worth where you are afterwards? What about Edmonton's trade with the Blues to get Pronger?  Edmonton bought low on that one, and it worked great for a year, but then he wanted out, and Edmonton has been a shambles since then ( although to be fair they were a shambles before Pronger got there too ). 

And that's really how this discussion started.  You posted about how this will be considered a brilliant move or an insane one.  I think with all the red flags around Kawhi, and what is likely to happen after he leaves, I think a person will be able to argue that this will end up a swing and a miss.

I think you're focusing a little too much on the one year of Kawhi vs. the larger issue though. The Raptors didn't just have some bad playoff losses in the last few years, they had some bad playoff wins. Teams that, by virtue of their respective records, the Raptors should have stomped took the Raptors to tense 7th games. Then getting swept by a very vulnerable Cavs team(who Boston and Indiana could push and who Golden State obliterated).

I'm focusing on that aspect because to me that is the thing that makes the trade make less sense for me.  It negates the whole "we are going to win a championship" argument because even if the Raptors get to the final, they are probably going to lose because of the strength of the west.  So in that respect, you aren't really building to anything.  I don't necessarily buy that they are going to be able to flip Kawhi for more than they gave up because if the rumors are true, they would be dealing with only one team.  The sign and trade aspect does give them a little bit of leverage, but there really isn't anything on the Lakers that is overly exciting in return.

So you've gone back on your word on a player that spoke highly of the area that he played in, which can have negative effects when dealing with other players and you are already a market that has trouble retaining players, to buy a one year shot at a final that is likely to be unsuccessful.  I don't disagree that things were fundamentally broken, but you could also play it out by saying "Well Lebron's not here anymore, so let's take another swing at this with the team we've got" and if that fails, you can still break up the team and do a rebuild because you can then say "Well it wasn't just Lebron", because that has been the argument for their failure for some time.  That they keep running into Lebron.  I agree that it's not the reason and that the team with DeRozan isn't constructed to win much in the playoffs, but in two years time, you are probably in the same spot where you need to rebuild.

Isn't that a bit fatalistic though? By your logic why would any team not named Golden State try to win at all then? Why bother having a league?

 

[Kin]

So if Subban walks after that year, and now they don't have Subban, and they don't have Weber, are they in a better situation?

Well, again, it all depends on how you look at what constitutes for what makes a "better" situation. Were the Leafs in a better situation when they had Kessel and Phaneuf and they were a team where, if everything broke right, they might scrape into the playoffs? Or where they in a better situation when they'd made those deals and were at the bottom of the league, drafting guys like Marner and Matthews?

If the Predators in your situation had determined, after years and years of pretty solid evidence, that they just couldn't win with Weber then what would really be the point in continuing to go in that direction regardless of what happened with Subban? If your goal is to win a championship and you don't think you can as currently constituted, why would you just run out the same team?

I don't think Leonard makes the Raptors a real championship contender but it's at least a year of trying something new.

I don't necessarily buy that they are going to be able to flip Kawhi for more than they gave up because if the rumors are true, they would be dealing with only one team.

Not necessarily. If things don't work out with the Raps in the first half of the season, if they don't think they can legitimately challenge Boston or Philly, then they can trade Kawhi to anyone who might think that Kawhi makes them a legitimate contender for just that one year and let them worry about whether or not his signing with the Lakers is a done deal.

I don't disagree that things were fundamentally broken, but you could also play it out by saying "Well Lebron's not here anymore, so let's take another swing at this with the team we've got" and if that fails, you can still break up the team and do a rebuild because you can then say "Well it wasn't just Lebron", because that has been the argument for their failure for some time.  That they keep running into Lebron.  I agree that it's not the reason and that the team with DeRozan isn't constructed to win much in the playoffs, but in two years time, you are probably in the same spot where you need to rebuild.

At which point you're at the same situation they're effectively in this summer if Kawhi leaves. I think if you're a Raptor fan and that's coming down the pipe regardless, you want it to get here as soon as you can.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't. Because I think the fundamental question is ultimately the same. If a team isn't in a realistic position to win a championship with the current roster, do you want your management to be making the big and frequently difficult decisions in order to change that? Sure, the Leafs in Kessel were at a different point in the process but right now do you think any of us would blink at trading someone like Gardiner or Kadri if it returned a defender who would help the team win?

I would like the team that I cheer for to make smart difficult decisions.  So take the decision to trade Shea Weber for P.K. Subban.  I'm sure it was a difficult decision for Poile to make that move even with the term Subban had.  Does he make the move if Subban only has one year left, and there are rumors he hates country music?  Does he roll the dice on one year of P.K. Subban because they haven't gotten over the hump yet?

So if Subban walks after that year, and now they don't have Subban, and they don't have Weber, are they in a better situation?  Was that one year of Subban really worth giving up Weber?  Is the one loss in the finals worth where you are afterwards? What about Edmonton's trade with the Blues to get Pronger?  Edmonton bought low on that one, and it worked great for a year, but then he wanted out, and Edmonton has been a shambles since then ( although to be fair they were a shambles before Pronger got there too ). 

And that's really how this discussion started.  You posted about how this will be considered a brilliant move or an insane one.  I think with all the red flags around Kawhi, and what is likely to happen after he leaves, I think a person will be able to argue that this will end up a swing and a miss.

I think you're focusing a little too much on the one year of Kawhi vs. the larger issue though. The Raptors didn't just have some bad playoff losses in the last few years, they had some bad playoff wins. Teams that, by virtue of their respective records, the Raptors should have stomped took the Raptors to tense 7th games. Then getting swept by a very vulnerable Cavs team(who Boston and Indiana could push and who Golden State obliterated).

I'm focusing on that aspect because to me that is the thing that makes the trade make less sense for me.  It negates the whole "we are going to win a championship" argument because even if the Raptors get to the final, they are probably going to lose because of the strength of the west.  So in that respect, you aren't really building to anything.  I don't necessarily buy that they are going to be able to flip Kawhi for more than they gave up because if the rumors are true, they would be dealing with only one team.  The sign and trade aspect does give them a little bit of leverage, but there really isn't anything on the Lakers that is overly exciting in return.

So you've gone back on your word on a player that spoke highly of the area that he played in, which can have negative effects when dealing with other players and you are already a market that has trouble retaining players, to buy a one year shot at a final that is likely to be unsuccessful.  I don't disagree that things were fundamentally broken, but you could also play it out by saying "Well Lebron's not here anymore, so let's take another swing at this with the team we've got" and if that fails, you can still break up the team and do a rebuild because you can then say "Well it wasn't just Lebron", because that has been the argument for their failure for some time.  That they keep running into Lebron.  I agree that it's not the reason and that the team with DeRozan isn't constructed to win much in the playoffs, but in two years time, you are probably in the same spot where you need to rebuild.

Isn't that a bit fatalistic though? By your logic why would any team not named Golden State try to win at all then? Why bother having a league?

That's kind of why I'm not a bigger basketball fan.  I really don't give anybody a chance against the Warriors.  Parity is not something that exists in the basketball world.  They already had Curry, Durant, Thompson, and Green.  And then in the off season they add Cousins.  It's going to be really hard for other teams in the league to compete with that.  I don't think that Lebron is going to have the support in LA.  Same with Houston or Oklahoma. 

You still have to play the games, because they could get full of themselves, or injuries could happen, but it's the opposite case of "if everything goes right, they will win the championship" scenario in Golden State, because if they don't win, something probably went pretty wrong. 

 

[rdowdall]

Well, again, it all depends on how you look at what constitutes for what makes a "better" situation. Were the Leafs in a better situation when they had Kessel and Phaneuf and they were a team where, if everything broke right, they might scrape into the playoffs? Or where they in a better situation when they'd made those deals and were at the bottom of the league, drafting guys like Marner and Matthews?

If the Predators in your situation had determined, after years and years of pretty solid evidence, that they just couldn't win with Weber then what would really be the point in continuing to go in that direction regardless of what happened with Subban? If your goal is to win a championship and you don't think you can as currently constituted, why would you just run out the same team?

I don't think Leonard makes the Raptors a real championship contender but it's at least a year of trying something new.

So part of my hangup on this is the optics and the timing, which I agree is a hard thing to make a decision on.  You can't hold back on something that is going to make your team better just because feelings get hurt.  I get where you are coming from in a rational logical sense that the deal makes the Raptors a better team. 

I really don't know how to articulate what bothers me about this deal.  I really hated the way the Leafs treated Sundin near the end of his career with Toronto.  I really thought that he deserved better treatment from the organization.  I thought that he should have received the treatment that Yzerman or Sakic got near the end of there careers.  I realize that situations were different because Yzerman and Sakic were both captains on Cup winning teams.  I also look at how the Senators are treating the players on their team right now, and I don't think that is necessarily right.  The situations are different in the sense that the Senators are treating players badly because they are trying to save a buck and not trying to win a championship, but there are elements to dealing DeRozan that align more with how the Leafs treated Sundin, and how the Senators are treating their players, and that is what I have a hard time reconciling.  Part of that is the history the Raptors have with players of their own.     

Not necessarily. If things don't work out with the Raps in the first half of the season, if they don't think they can legitimately challenge Boston or Philly, then they can trade Kawhi to anyone who might think that Kawhi makes them a legitimate contender for just that one year and let them worry about whether or not his signing with the Lakers is a done deal.

Yeah, I've come around on this aspect of the deal.  As an article I read on it pointed out, even if they get nothing for Kawhi, they will have the cap space to do things, because his contract will be off the books and DeRozan is gone.  They'll probably have to get creative in how to use that space, because attracting high end free agents to Toronto will be hard, but cap space in the NBA is definitely an asset.  They'll be able to rebuild without some hindrances in that case.

 

[Kin]

  The situations are different in the sense that the Senators are treating players badly because they are trying to save a buck and not trying to win a championship, but there are elements to dealing DeRozan that align more with how the Leafs treated Sundin, and how the Senators are treating their players, and that is what I have a hard time reconciling.  Part of that is the history the Raptors have with players of their own.

I'm not sure I agree that there's anything underhanded or disrespectful about the Raptors just trading DeRozan. I think most players know, or should know, that as good as they might be that their teams would trade them if the opportunity presented itself for the team to improve.

The issue to me is whether or not the Raptors management lied to DeRozan as they supposedly did when he came to them with concerns about the rumours that he might be traded. If they flat out said "No, you're the greatest player on the planet, we'd never even think about trading you" then that was not just dumb on their part but wrong and potentially harmful. If they said "We're not interested in including you in a Kawhi Leonard deal" then, yeah, that makes them jerks and, worse still, could really affect their ability to win the trust of players in the future.

But I don't think that "Truth telling" in that situation is as simple as it could be. If the Raptors told DeRozan the likely truth, which was that while they appreciated DeRozan and everything he did for the team but they were unhappy with some aspects of his play and looking to improve then that could also sour their relationship if the Leonard trade didn't manifest. So what they likely told DeRozan is something that tried to straddle the line between honesty while also massaging their star player's ego. Clearly, though, they didn't do a good enough job of communicating the truth if DeRozan feels hard done by.

With that said though, there is a part of me that feels as though pro athletes have a responsibility to keep aware of the realities of their situation. If Auston Matthews came to the Leafs tomorrow and asked if they were thinking of trading him then the smart thing for the Leafs to do would be to say that they wouldn't even consider trading him and he was the #1 C they wanted to build their eventual cup winner around.

However, if Edmonton calls the next day and offers McDavid...do you hang up on them out of obligation for what you said to Matthews? Is entertaining the notion lying or a reflection that situations evolve?

I'm not sure there is a simple answer to these questions but I do think that some of what you're saying is a little over the top. If you want to make the case that Sundin deserved to be treated the same way here that Yzerman and Sakic were by their respective teams, sure, I can get on board. If you want to say DeRozan deserves that same level of reverence...eh, I don't think so.     

 

[hockeyfan1]

What I didn't like particularly of DeMar here is when he kept mentioning that he wanted to be freed of LeBron.  I found that statement alone not worthy of a professional athlete, bemoaning almost childishly about a situation or problem that supposedly got in his way of advancement.

Since when should an athlete complain, especially one such as DeMar who did not deliver the goods when it counted (this season's playoff result), when management had built a team reasonably expected to challenge in the post-season?

As bad as the Raptors played against a Cleveland team that was beatable and LeBron who was not invincible, did DeRozan even at least try to improve the deficiencies in his game?  Figure out a way around James?  Be the leader to galvanize his teammates?

Perhaps I'm going too far in laying get the blame at the foot of the Raptors now ex superstar, but it's no secret that after that post-season debacle that Ujiiri was more than upset at not just the transpiring result, but at how it transpired in the first place.

I remember having read something about Wayne Gretzky.  When he was playing hockey  as a youth in Brantford, he used to come home crying because of his lack of size in being unable to get around the bigger players who threatened to squash him on the ice.  He was obviously intimidated and didn't want to play anymore. His father Walter Gretzky used some psychology by telling him that he (Wayne) would have to just find a way around that, or forget about a hockey career altogether.  Wayne could opt to wake up at 5:00 in the morning and work the powerlines like his father was doing by becoming a hydro pole worker.  It's doubtful this sounded enticing to the young Gretzky who had the good sense to listen to his father's advice.  The rest as we know is history.

And that is my point here about DeMar.  Instead of bemoaning the fact that he had to play against LeBron again in the post-season, he should have just admitted his shortcomings as we all know what they were on that court.

Any wonder why Usiiri fired Casey and now traded DeMar?  Resetting the culture is one thing, but sending a message is another, and message here is that no Raptor is untouchable.  Doesn't matter who you are.  Time for a clean up.

 

[rdowdall]

I'm not sure there is a simple answer to these questions but I do think that some of what you're saying is a little over the top. If you want to make the case that Sundin deserved to be treated the same way here that Yzerman and Sakic were by their respective teams, sure, I can get on board. If you want to say DeRozan deserves that same level of reverence...eh, I don't think so.   

It might be a little over the top, but we are talking about the player who owns the record for most games played as a Rapter, highest career point total, second highest single season scoring average (only off by 0.3 from Vince Carters record), third highest defensive rebounds in a Raptors career, and arguably their best player, depending on how you feel about Lowry,  over the Raptors most successful run in their history.  He's been a Raptor for the last 9 years, drafted and developed by the team.  He may not have been in the exact same category as Sundin, but I think he was getting close. 

As for the dishonesty side, I will agree it depends on how and when things were said.  Plans can change.  When he was told he wasn't going to be traded it's possible the Leonard deal wasn't on the table.  So for that I only have to go on DeRozan's reaction, and that might just be a competitive guy not liking the fact that the team he played for moved him for someone they consider to be better.  So I would really need to know what was said and when to really use this as something to hold against the Raptors.     

 

[Kin]

What I didn't like particularly of DeMar here is when he kept mentioning that he wanted to be freed of LeBron.  I found that statement alone not worthy of a professional athlete, bemoaning almost childishly about a situation or problem that supposedly got in his way of advancement.

What statement? When did he ever say anything like that? He once said the Raptors would have beaten the Cavs if they had LeBron but that's nothing like what you're suggesting. What he actually said about playing LeBron was:

?You want to face every single challenge it is out there and you look forward to that as a competitor. You don?t want anything to be easy. That?s what makes the game fun and exciting. To be in the moments and be able to compete with whoever the best is.?

As bad as the Raptors played against a Cleveland team that was beatable and LeBron who was not invincible, did DeRozan even at least try to improve the deficiencies in his game?  Figure out a way around James?  Be the leader to galvanize his teammates?

Yes, he did. DeRozan has worked very hard on his game and evolved it consistently, even adding a 3 point shot after being a guy who almost never shot it.

The idea that DeMar wasn't working hard at improving or trying to figure out a way for the team to get further is transparently and laughably false. It really is the sort of thing that only a person who didn't really watch him play would say.

 

[Kin]

It might be a little over the top, but we are talking about the player who owns the record for most games played as a Rapter, highest career point total, second highest single season scoring average (only off by 0.3 from Vince Carters record), third highest defensive rebounds in a Raptors career, and arguably their best player, depending on how you feel about Lowry,  over the Raptors most successful run in their history.

To be honest, I think most of that says more about the Raptors and their franchise history than it does about DeRozan. DeRozan is a legitimate all-star and everything but like you say, it's debatable as to whether or not he's ever really been the best player on his team. I don't think you can say that about  Sundin who was clearly not just the best player on his team but one of the very best players in the entire world who was consistently let down by his team.

 

[hockeyfan1]

A heartfelt thank you:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BlgG8-CndHw/

 

[rdowdall]

Apparently Leonard bought a house, as opposed to renting, in Toronto and that has people thinking that he may be considering staying long term. 

 

[Kin]

Apparently Leonard bought a house, as opposed to renting, in Toronto and that has people thinking that he may be considering staying long term.

That may be true but the way these guys get paid nowadays I can't help but think that buying a house is less of a commitment than it used to be. Especially in a market like Toronto where at worst you're left with a pretty good investment.