a day ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Raptors mailbag: Trade RJ Barrett or Immanuel Quickley? What are expectations for Toronto next season?
A bit miffed that the Knicks haven't called Mother Star for permission to talk to me about the coaching opening, but then again I don't know what the answer would be.
I do know it's a big part of
Ye Olde Mailbag
this weekend, so enjoy.
Oh, and be nice to be your dad today (you listening, Super Son?) and let him enjoy Father's Day in whichever manner he wants.
I saw where Rogers had been approved by the five leagues that it is involved in as a part owner of MLSE to up its stake to 75 per cent, basically just a rubber-stamping process as no league is going to refuse them in upping their stake.
My question, or rather confusion, lies in Larry Tanenbaum's 25 per cent stake. I have heard for a while now that his stake can be acquired by MLSE in 2026. This would make Rogers the sole owner of MLSE.
Is this a done deal? Is it a given that Larry will sell his stake? Does he have a choice? Although I don't see why he wouldn't, as MLSE has morphed away from him being really the face of the corporation and he has his new venture in the WNBA.
My question is: Is his stake definitely going to be sold in 2026, or what are the factors behind it in terms of MLSE acquiring it?
Thanks and have a great day.
—Doug B.
In deep trouble at times Friday night, the Thunder reduced the Finals to a best-of-three heading back to Oklahoma City on Monday night.
In deep trouble at times Friday night, the Thunder reduced the Finals to a best-of-three heading back to Oklahoma City on Monday night.
Rogers has the rights to obtain Tanenbaum's 20 per cent — he had sold five per cent earlier — this year under the original terms of partnership. It's expected that it will be, but nothing in business at that level is done until it's done and it's not done, so this will be an interesting boardroom story to follow.
Good afternoon, Doug.
I have really enjoyed the playoffs this year. The basketball has been good, and the series have been reasonably competitive.
Has there been a year that you felt the playoffs as a whole were below par? Which NBA Finals series did you enjoy the least? And to end on a positive note, which year's NBA Finals did you enjoy the most?
—A.J. Falconer in Burlington
In recent vintages, I seem to recall the overall tone of the 2013 playoffs were only saved by an epic Spurs-Heat final; the rest of the playoffs were pretty bad.
So maybe that covers off both aspects?
I don't listen to his podcast, but I seem to read an awful lot of what he said. Do you have an opinion of Bill Simmons?
—Paul M.
I really don't. He's not someone I pay any attention to. He's certainly a good success story, having become this giant from a humble start as a one-trick pony Boston Sports Guy, and he has created journalism jobs as a boss, but I don't put any weight on his opinions or his weight in the sports and entertainment culture world.
Hi, Mr. Smith.
Been a while since I asked a question here, but I am getting excited about the upcoming season and step forward that I hope the
Raptors
are healthy enough to take this year.
That being said, it has been often discussed that they have many duplicate pieces.
How many players do you feel could make up a team that can challenge in the playoffs? Is Immanuel Quickley a starting-calibre point guard or better suited as a two? With the glut of two-threes that they have, which or how many can be in a quality playoff team?
—Niagara Nick
The roster as constructed right now should be a playoff team. Once you get there, it's health, matchups, hot hands and good luck that determine mainly who advances.
Yeah, I'd say he's a starting quality point guard, not an all-star but certainly good enough to start in a post-season series. As for how many two-threes? I think you need probably four guards, three wings — or let's say five smalls and three or four bigs — to comprise a good roster.
And give my best to Niagara. I gotta get back there soon and see if any of the old haunts are still haunting the place. Or discover some new ones.
Hi, Doug.
Can't complain about the playoffs being boring!
Both
NBA
and
NHL
finals are competitive to say the least. Oh, the late nights and early-morning work hours mean pre-game naps for me!
Some questions:
1) Many articles suggest that if the Raptors are involved in any trades, RJ Barrett is a target. No offence, but why not Immanuel Quickley? Similar age and contract, or is there less of a market for guards (mentioned
Jakob Poeltl
a lot, too). I automatically disregard any multiple-team trade rumour where the Raptors are the only team that benefits and someone demands a third of our roster and/or every draft pick for the next four to six years!
2)
Tyrese Haliburton and SGA
were both acquired by their respective teams in the first couple of years in the league by trading an all-star player. Should this be the model for team building? Or was this just two examples of savvy GMs pulling off a heist?
3) How likely is Dr. Alex McKechnie to manage another Kawhi Leonard-like recovery in the case of
Brandon Ingram
? Getting back to potential trades, wouldn't it be wiser to see how well the healthy roster works together before making any moves (assuming no crazy offers too good to pass up are made!)?
In this week's mailbag, Doug Smith takes questions on potential Raptors trades, the NBA Finals, Bobby Webster, the G League and much more.
In this week's mailbag, Doug Smith takes questions on potential Raptors trades, the NBA Finals, Bobby Webster, the G League and much more.
4) Another
draft question. Yes, the draft is largely a crapshoot, but as interest in
Khaman Malauch
grows, the odds of him being around for the Raptors may fall. Would it be so terrible to pick a player maybe an inch shorter with a similar wingspan? Also, based on last year, it looks like management prefers fourth- or fifth-year players rather than freshmen. Thoughts?
It's sad that the team losing the championship will wonder what they need to fix when the truth is, with luck, they are essentially good enough!
Thanks for keeping us going until next season!
—Bernie M.
The general theory I'm hearing about RJ being bandied about is that his contract, while a bit more expensive per year, has two fewer seasons left than Quickley's and that makes him a more interesting asset to discuss. And the larger value might make it easier for money to fit in a big deal. Doesn't mean it's why they want to deal him, it's that the fit is better.
Big trades, like the ones that got Haliburton to Indy and SGA to OKC, are always just parts of the team-building process. And as much as we think now the Pacers and Thunder fleeced the Kings and Clippers, both Sacramento and Los Angeles firmly believed they were making deals to improve at the time. It just didn't work out.
I don't know if Alex and the team's medical staff will make magic with Ingram, but their history suggests they will and it's part of the reason the Raptors pulled the trigger. They have faith in their staff. And yes, all things considered you'd want to see if things work before pulling off a big deal, but you have to strike when the opportunity arrives, if it does, and what's possible today is unlikely to be available in, say, next February.
Yes, the draft is a crapshoot, no question. But it's not inches as much as it is overall skill set that will determine who gets taken. The four-year college 'vets' have generally come later in the draft and it's a conscious decision by management at that point. I don't think it should come into play with a top-10 selection.
Hey, Doug.
Hope you are enjoying the longer days and transition into the summer months. The warmth and sunshine just seem to change about everything for me.
The firing of the head coaches for the New York Knicks (NBA) and Dallas Stars (NHL) after reaching conference finals has me scratching my head. Highly successful seasons, or in the Stars example multiple seasons. But clearly my definition of success and those organizations' definition are different. It seems the standard is now: win it all or you will be gone. Tom Thibodeau took the Knicks to a place they haven't been in a long while. One might think that's a good thing. Apparently not. What are your thoughts on this?
Was the assumption that the Knicks advanced despite the coach, rather than because of him?
Is there a lack of accountability by the GMs of these organizations for the roster? In other words, I gave you a championship roster, so you should have won a championship! It's not me, it's you.
The Knicks and the Stars were right there. So close to getting to the finals. A play here, a bounce there and they're through. Now, a new coach, new system, etc., one could argue there is a higher likelihood you are worse next year rather than better, given how difficult it is to get to the conference finals.
I don't get it. I know winning a lot of games for years on end, without getting to the ultimate goal, will cause reflection and perhaps change and rightly so (hello,
Leafs
). I've just always felt that coaches get too much credit and too much blame, and the players on the court/ice ultimately will decide who's better. Maybe my thinking is flawed.
—Chris
I've always felt that coaches get too much blame and too much credit, but it's a hard argument to win given the focus on them and their position often as the only constant face of a franchise.
But I don't think it's personal accountability as much as it is a stark lack of patience, and not to ever be forgotten is the impatience is often shown by ownership, far more often than by general managers. The owners are often the true culprit, and I think that's what was in play in New York.
Kuhn has seen it all in his role as the Toronto Raptors' public address announcer since the inaugural season.
Kuhn has seen it all in his role as the Toronto Raptors' public address announcer since the inaugural season.
And while I can't speak to the Dallas hockey situation, I will make this point: At some juncture, some coaches have taken teams as far as they can go and there needs to be a change to take that final step, and maybe after three straight failures to take the final step a new approach is necessary. That was certainly not the case in the New York basketball scenario. The Knicks had showed constant growth and had not stagnated.
Hi, Doug.
Long time no submission (but doing so now to help keep you employed)!
Having watched many of the playoff teams this post-season and their varying levels of skill, I'm impressed with many of those teams' future prospects — and concerned about how far Raps still have to go (in my opinion) to catch up to the better teams never mind climb over them in standings.
How do you see the competitive landscape?
—BBall Barry in North Bay/Sarasota
I think the East is a bit of a mess and wide open right now, and I expect this Raptors roster to be quite competitive in it next season. Probably not to the level of winning the conference, but they can certainly take the next big step toward that.
The distance to go isn't as great as you seem to think, I would say.
Hey, Doug.
Happy Super Dad Day!
Wondering what you make of the latest soap opera from the New York Knicks? They fired Thibodeau and now appear to be asking the other 29 teams for permission to interview their head coach. (Maybe they should reach out to Red Auerbach. I understand he hasn't been under contract by the Celtics for a few years now.)
Who should they hire? Is Dwane Casey no longer interested in coaching? If offered the position, should he accept it?
I can't help to see certain similarities between the Knicks and Maple Leafs. What is it about these franchises that they appear close to returning to the finals of their respective leagues, and then everything collapses around them? Maybe Harold Ballard could be compared to James Dolan, but the Leafs have had solid — rational? — ownership for many years now. What should they do, or not do?
Appreciated as always.
—Phil
I would never in a second recommend to a friend like Dwane that he consider working for Dolan and the Knicks. It's been a cesspool of ownership for about two decades and while Leon Rose may have cleaned it up a bit, it's still a mess.
Who should they hire? Well, I'm sure there's an assistant out there who is eager for one of only 30 jobs like it on Earth who thinks he or she can somewhat survive, but I can't think of anyone in particular. Trouble is, it seems the Knicks are more interested in winning the press conference than anything, and that seldom works out.
Leafs-Knicks? Maybe the common thread over the last 20 years is hubristic because neither team — until New York this spring — has been truly relevant in their sport, despite the fans' belief that they're good.
