ForeverTFC wrote:Scase wrote:WaltFrazier wrote:To be fair, I understood that, Demar had re-signed here, showed loyalty to Toronto, was the home grown hero. Of course Kawhi was worth it but still a tough call, with backlash that made Masai gun shy for a while. But now he's traded some of his African proteges so you're probably right, he'll trade anyone.
Him only trading those players when they are the last few months of their contract doesn't show much change IMO. He traded DD when he realized it was better for the team, he traded OG/Siakam when he realized re-signing them would be worse for the team. The fact that he didn't just let them walk is the only thing he could've done that would've been worse. And I would say his self preservation is more likely the reason that didn't happen with Siakam, as he likely would've been fired had that happened.
Putting aside self preservation which I completely disagree with you on,
I agree on OG. Masai clearly didn't want to give up OG and he likely wouldn't have if 1) OG wasn't actively pushing to end up in NY and 2) leading NY to offer a really attractive package for an expiring player knowing they can re-sign him at a discount. To be fair, I wanted them to keep OG and as much as I've warmed up to IQ, I still think OG is clearly the best player in that deal. With that said, many people disagree with me on that and believe the Raptors won the deal, and I see their arguments.
In regards to Siakam, I disagree though just like you, I'm only making a guess. I think the Siakam return proved the league doesn't value him to the degree his production suggests it should. Lowe came out and said if Siakam was traded last year, return would not have been much different according to his sourcers - I tend to believe him on this stuff. So in the case of Siakam, I think the FO had probably come to the conclusion that if they could make it work with him, the rewards are higher than what they could get if they traded him. Once it became clear that they couldn't (from a play style and contract standpoint), they took the offer they had. And we all agree the offer was underwhelming. Issue here is most think it's a function of his contract term, but all the data points we've heard about what was available for him over the last 2 years says that is not the case and it's in fact the upcoming contract for Siakam that kept others away.
It's weird, I think that OG was definitely the most impactful player in the trade, but I don't know if I would say he's the best player. Unless you mean at the time of the trade, then yeah I would completely agree.
As for Siakam, it is difficult to say for sure. I can see the argument being made either way. Held onto him longer due to a lukewarm valuation, or held on too long because they thought that they could make it work with him. My issue through this whole debacle honestly isn't even about the return, although as you said, we can all pretty much agree it was certainly less than ideal.
My gripe is holding onto him an additional 6-12 months basically setting back the rebuild for essentially nothing. And then you have to take into account the cascading impact of a trade like the one for Jak, which while yes, we needed a centre, there is not a shred of evidence that will ever make me believe they weren't trying to make that core work, despite all the red flags.
If Siakam gets moved the year prior, or we just don't try and double down on that core, we're in a way better place. For all the bitching and moaning about Masai doing nothing in the trade market, the one time he should've stood pat, is when he decided not to. And I think if Siakam was already gone, or he had a better handle of the FVV situation, we'd be in a much better place than we currently are.
