You seem to be my most loyal reader, so I felt it was best to get off that mountain and answer your question as soon as I could!

I think Banks’ contract could be more valuable, but if it’s a choice between keeping Banks and his POSSIBLY slightly valuable contract, or getting Carroll, who actually might be somewhat valuable ON THE COURT, where it counts, I’d take Carroll.

As for Doug, I give him some leeway because he does put himself on the line so much and he does know what he’s talking about, as opposed to most out there. I just wish he would get off his high horse once in a while in regards to people who disagree with him or have a different opinion. A few examples come to mind, like the guy who asked about the jersey number someone would wear. I personally don’t care, but some do and he was a little rude in his response. He was also a little rude whenever anyone brought up an early mock draft, as if he were above such things. Personally, I like looking at the mock drafts months before just to gauge who to keep my eye on. Sure, they’re usually wildly inaccurate, but they’re fun to read.

Oh, well. Im just about to post my last part of my epic. Stay tuned…

Anywho, I agree with you wholeheartedly on every point. And there is way too much hand-wringing over the Banks for Carroll rumor, especially when — aside from it being simply a rumor at this point — one of the key benefits is probably the money saved next year. I love all the people who speak on BC’s behalf regarding the so-called crippling effect of the last two years of Carroll’s deal, while BC clearly has one eye on next year’s potentially even lower luxury tax level.

You’re right regarding O’Neal’s and Banks’ situations being different. I didn’t mean to compare the two as far as expiring contracts go, but just the way Doug handled each situation. Though when you ask, “how many teams are really going to look to be dumping payroll in 2011 when they’ve already cleared cap room the year before?”, I’d like to add a disclaimer. In regards to teams clearing cap room by simply inking fewer long-term contracts, I agree. One look at each team’s salary obligations shows a common trend: most teams drop below $25 mil for 2011-2012, so there’s definitely fewer trade possibilities. But there are still many existing deals that go beyond 2010-2011 and even 2011-2012.

It’s obviously a futile exercise pondering trade possibilities while not knowing what we need and how team salaries will look after teams resign their players as well as new players, but I was thinking if the Carroll deal falls through for whatever reason, Banks would be relatively more useful than Carroll when packaged with either another expiring contract (i.e. Evans) or an actual asset (err, okay, I guess we don’t have that many unless we trade from our core), the way Rasho’s previous expiring contract made the O’Neal trade possible. Of course, you are right on the nail when you point out that everyone has expiring contracts, which is why I’d be okay with trading him now if the Raptors benefit one way or another. Either way, it’s the end of the bench, where inactive players tend to sit, so it’s no biggie.

Regarding Doug, I actually don’t feel that great a need to have him own up to his so-called mistakes. I’ve noticed a common trend with posters asking him to apologize, even to the point of twisting his words. When you have how many readers and how many different opinions covering the entire gamut of possibilities, it’s like they say, “even a broken clock gets it right twice a day.” Considering how much he posts and on such a frequent basis, I find it in myself to forgive him even when he adds irrelevant little tidbits in his “blogger’s notes”, like “… and I don’t care”. But something that’s less of an opinion and more fact, like ramifications of a trade or cba-related stuff, I do expect him to get that stuff correct. Then again, I’ve noticed that journalists are far from experts on the more technical stuff.

Ya, Doug’s not one for debate, is he. As for his opinion, I don’t completely disagree with him. I think there is far too much handwringing over what is basically a scrub for scrub trade. That said, I think the trade is pretty good. Banks might not have played a minute all season. He’s not a very good distributor, he’s not a great shooter, so really the only thing that he bring is defense. He’s never really done ANYTHING in the league to warrant his contract.

Carroll actually had a half decent showing in Charlotte where he showed his best, and possibly only attribute, shooting. Carroll doesn’t deserve his contract, either, but at least he has a valuable skill. I’d much rather have a SG who can shoot than a PG who doesn’t distribute.

One thing that bugs me a little about Doug is he’s incredibly quick to shoot down ideas, but has been proven wrong on countless occasions. Yes, it’s true that we don’t know whether this is the only deal that might be offered for Banks, but that’s not really a good reason to take it. The reason to take it is that Carroll is a better player, a more valuable player for the Raptors and since his contract declines ever year, it really isn’t as bad as it initially looks.

As I’ve stated a couple of times on my blog, I liked the O’Neal trade. I thought it was low risk because of when his contract expired. If you read my review of the O’Neal- Marion trade, you can see I wasn’t a big supporter of it. I felt it put far too many eggs in one basket. And the basket wasn’t a great one. As you stated, the free agent crop wasn’t spectacular and the cap room was dependent on gutting the team. The Raptors currently have a deep and talented team, but if Colangelo hadn’t pulled off a miracle, the Raptors bench might consist of Ukic, Banks, Evans, Nesterovic, O’Bryant and a bunch of scrubs. That’s a little scary, and not in a good way.

It’s one reason I wanted the Raptors to try and sign Ariza (which they did apparently try and do). His cheaper contract would have allowed the Raptors to keep most of the free agents.

And the sign and trade possibility is a little bogus. I can only remember of two sign and trades where the team doing the signing and trading away got anything good in return. Detroit getting Ben Wallace in return for Grant Hill (and no one would have guessed Wallace would become the player he did with Detroit), and Phoenix getting Boris Diaw and draft picks for Joe Johnson, and one of the Hawks owners attempted to block the deal because he felt they were giving up too much. Most of the time the team gets very little in return.

One reason why I think Colangelo deserves another Executive of the Year Award is because he made so much of so little. And the reason was because trading for Marion put him in a bad position. I would have either kept O’Neal and had the cap room in 2010, or trade him away for a longer contract from a team desperate for more cap space (like the Spurs getting Richard Jefferson). Obviously there’s a reason Colangelo is the GM. While my option would have been a much safer route, his way turned into a boon for the Raptors.

The O’Neal and Banks situations are very different, though. O’Neal’s contract was valuable because it expired at the right time, but also because O’Neal, while overpaid, can also be a valuable contributor. Banks’ contract expires a year after most teams will be under the cap. How many teams are really going to look to be dumping payroll in 2011 when they’ve already cleared cap room the year before? And the idea that expiring contracts are sought after is a misnomer. Every year, dozens of contracts expire. It’s silly to think that ALL of those contracts would be sought after.

As for Doug, you’re not the only one who’s noticed him backtracking. I agree it’s a little frustrating, at times. I don’t think I’ve actually read him say that he was wrong. He usually ends up trying to justify or defend himself (like trying to say that O’Bryant was much more athletic than Johnson- just say you were wrong, Doug). Still, he’s right a good amount of the time and does know what he’s talking about, for the most part. Plus, he does put up with so complete morons, so I give him credit for that.

Oh, and I’ll be posting the last part Monday night. Then I’ll be posting on a more regular basis.

But as soon as Marion was rumored to head to Toronto for O’Neal, he completely abandoned the previous view and argued that it was equally valuable for teams to clear cap space for the 2009-2010 offseason, where FAs like Kobe, Boozer and Odom would be available, or some such.

Again, I agreed with him that if keeping O’Neal for 2009-2010 would result in the same lackluster team, then moves needed to be made immediately and not after Bosh has decided to leave. But I was hugely turned off by the way he supported his view. It was clear (especially now, in hindsight) that this offseason’s crop would not hold a candle to next offseason’s allure, not when its quality relied on Kobe to exercise his ETO, on teams and players to not exercise their options, and on teams not matching on their RFAs. Few teams would be interested in investing in a situation with so many ifs.

The other argument Doug made was that even if we didn’t trade Marion away by the trade deadline, we could either do a S&T or simply let him expire and use the cap space on a free agent. I didn’t see it that way. I felt it would be difficult to do a S&T that would get us good value (and without hindsight, who could predict the Turkoglu-Marion four-team trade?), and the free agents wouldn’t be that great, especially not when one of the names being bandied about (Boozer) was that of a power forward, and where exactly would he fit in unless we were deciding to trade Bosh.

And then there was the issue of cap space. You could imagine the surprise of many when after being convinced by Doug that we would have money to spend, we actually would not unless we renounced almost half the team, and then we’d lose our MLE. At that point, the options looked like Turkoglu at 10m+/year vs Marion + Parker + Delfino + MLE. Not exactly the rosy situation painted by Doug, made only worse by him frowning on the possibility of Odom joining the team. No Kobe, no Boozer, and no Odom. What was he so excited about then?

I’m not at the point of calling him out, but at least these two times he’s sold an aspect of something, only to completely neglect it later. Really frustrating.

I need to set some ground rules first:

A) If Banks does get moved for Carroll, I won’t lose any sleep.

B) If Banks doesn’t get moved, I won’t lose any sleep.

C) I would prefer to hold onto Banks until next season.

It seems to me that Doug is being somewhat obtuse in his opinion. I agree with him when he asks (and I paraphrase), “how do you know there’s another deal out there?” What ifs are a dime a dozen and if a deal makes sense then it should be made. However, I disagree with the basis for his conclusion.

He keeps stating that teams will not want to add salary due to the free agent sweepstakes of 2010. This assumes two things: 1) that Banks can only be moved between now and the offseason, and 2) that Banks can only be moved for a player on a smaller salary.

My biggest contention is with #1 since #2 kind of goes in hand with the whole “how do you know there’s another deal out there?” bit. The FA sweepstakes is what it is, but how does it now also affect what teams will do after that offseason, or at least for the 27+ teams that do not land one of the big 3?

Since teams are free to modify their luxury tax obligations via moves up until a certain time (I’m not sure when the deadline is, but I’m pretty sure it’s not before the trade deadline), teams will still find moving a bigger salary for a smaller salary attractive, and if it was our intention to receive better talent for financial reasons, then it’s more likely to happen if the salary is larger anyway.

And then there are the seasons 2011-2012 and onward. There will still be teams needing relief, and the 2010 offseason has no (direct) impact on teams that would want to dump a longer contract for an expiring one. Or am I missing something here?

If Doug had simply said, “hey, you never know what’s available, and this deal makes sense so why wait,” I’d be totally on board It’s what he added after that confuses me, and it seems like a repeat of O’Neal for Marion again.

(continued in comment 2)