Siakam trade for basically nothing is now showing its effect

[Thaddy]

Why would Brown take less money?

He could see multiple years of guaranteed money being worth more than 1.

He could see that the option isn't being picked up and doesn't want to risk what FA could bring vs what the Raps are offering in a new deal.

Maybe he starts liking Toronto, Darko, etc... and wants to be part of an up and coming team.

Could be multiple other reasons.

If the Raps decline Brown's option, it's about as clear a signal as you need that they don't want him on the team. There will be a number of competitive teams with NTMLE level offers, and he will move on. He's not choosing to stay with a rebuilding team.

With that said, Toronto is not declining his option. While it seems quite possible that he will not return a 1st, there is still a market for him out there, and it seems very likely that he will bring back useful assets. We are not going to be a cap space team - there is more flexibility and opportunity for acquiring draft capital and young talent by operating over the cap.

He'll come back for the money. I don't see another team offering him anything substantial. It's fairly obvious he made a living off of Jokic. 1 year at 22 million or 3 years at 50 million.

[islandboy53]

He could see multiple years of guaranteed money being worth more than 1.

He could see that the option isn't being picked up and doesn't want to risk what FA could bring vs what the Raps are offering in a new deal.

Maybe he starts liking Toronto, Darko, etc... and wants to be part of an up and coming team.

Could be multiple other reasons.

If the Raps decline Brown's option, it's about as clear a signal as you need that they don't want him on the team. There will be a number of competitive teams with NTMLE level offers, and he will move on. He's not choosing to stay with a rebuilding team.

With that said, Toronto is not declining his option. While it seems quite possible that he will not return a 1st, there is still a market for him out there, and it seems very likely that he will bring back useful assets. We are not going to be a cap space team - there is more flexibility and opportunity for acquiring draft capital and young talent by operating over the cap.

He'll come back for the money. I don't see another team offering him anything substantial. It's fairly obvious he made a living off of Jokic. 1 year at 22 million or 3 years at 50 million.

So you think Toronto will decline his option, then sign him to a 3 year, over market deal? When was the last time you saw that happen in real life? If the Raptors decline his option, they will let him go. In any case, this discussion is moot. The return for Brown is more valuable than any salary space created by letting him go for nothing.

[Thaddy]

If the Raps decline Brown's option, it's about as clear a signal as you need that they don't want him on the team. There will be a number of competitive teams with NTMLE level offers, and he will move on. He's not choosing to stay with a rebuilding team.

With that said, Toronto is not declining his option. While it seems quite possible that he will not return a 1st, there is still a market for him out there, and it seems very likely that he will bring back useful assets. We are not going to be a cap space team - there is more flexibility and opportunity for acquiring draft capital and young talent by operating over the cap.

He'll come back for the money. I don't see another team offering him anything substantial. It's fairly obvious he made a living off of Jokic. 1 year at 22 million or 3 years at 50 million.

So you think Toronto will decline his option, then sign him to a 3 year, over market deal? When was the last time you saw that happen in real life? If the Raptors decline his option, they will let him go. In any case, this discussion is moot. The return for Brown is more valuable than any salary space created by letting him go for nothing.

He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal. There is no way he even gets a Ochai level prospect (pretty bad). The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations. Brown isn't going away for anything, they will likely renegotiate his contract and give him a bench role to replace Trent. Brown at 16-17M a year is what his market value would likely be.

[islandboy53]

He'll come back for the money. I don't see another team offering him anything substantial. It's fairly obvious he made a living off of Jokic. 1 year at 22 million or 3 years at 50 million.

So you think Toronto will decline his option, then sign him to a 3 year, over market deal? When was the last time you saw that happen in real life? If the Raptors decline his option, they will let him go. In any case, this discussion is moot. The return for Brown is more valuable than any salary space created by letting him go for nothing.

He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal. There is no way he even gets a Ochai level prospect (pretty bad). The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations. Brown isn't going away for anything, they will likely renegotiate his contract and give him a bench role to replace Trent. Brown at 16-17M a year is what his market value would likely be.

What an interesting take on things. Here are the Raptor trades this year. Please explain to me how these are "50 cents on the dollar" transactions.

Schroder & Thad for Dinwiddie
Porter Jr and Lewis and OKC 24 1st for Agbaji and Olynyk
Siakam for Brown, Nwora, Lewis and 3 1sts
OG for RJ, IQ and Det 24 2nd

Also, please explain how Brown is so worthless that he won't bring back anything in a trade, but he's so valuable to us that we'll re-sign him (somehow) for $16-$17 million per over 3 years.

Thanks. Looking forward to the enlightenment.

[pingpongrac]

Siakam a 2-time All-NBA and 2-time All-Star player, was traded by Raptors in his prime for basically nothing.
Pacers has this whole bunch of good young players (4-7) and they did not give us even a single player from that bunch. Even if any player of that bunch cannot play much for Pacers just because of the damn competition, Pacers still refused to give him to us.
They continue the same treatment in case of draft picks. They give us picks in a draft which is consider to have inferior talent and even there, they give us low picks instead of high picks.

The effect of this trade was not felt much initially, because Barnes continued his stellar play of this season. But now Barnes is injured and cannot play and most likely out for the season. And now we are seeing the full effects of the Siakam trade. That trade made us bad in present and also does not improve our future. Other teams would have traded a player of Siakam caliber to either improve their present or future. We on the other hand strike out in both cases.

This trade may even put seeds of doubt in Barnes mind. He may be thinking is this organization willing to build to compete for a championship? OR they want to build a team whose ceiling is to make playoffs? Are they counting again to get lucky and find gems in later parts of draft? Do they want to draft another superstar? Or are they counting again that a disgruntled superstar will be traded to them?

Since I created this thread, Raptors have lost 6 straight, 2 of those loses were to teams which are even lower than them.

Mediocre team missing their young franchise player and arguably their 2nd most impactful player for the last 6 games while also missing at least 1 of Barrett/Quickley/GTJ/Brown in all of those games as well goes 0-6 over the past 2 weeks. That's not surprising at all. The majority of those games have been entertaining and/or competitive through the first 3 quarters at least , which is pretty much all you can hope for at this point.

[Scase]

The better move would be to decline Brown's option, re-sign him to a team friendly deal, and then trade him later.

Why would Brown take less money?

He could see multiple years of guaranteed money being worth more than 1.

He could see that the option isn't being picked up and doesn't want to risk what FA could bring vs what the Raps are offering in a new deal.

Maybe he starts liking Toronto, Darko, etc... and wants to be part of an up and coming team.

Could be multiple other reasons.

My friend, he is 27, not 33. He's getting a multi year contract no matter what.

[Thaddy]

So you think Toronto will decline his option, then sign him to a 3 year, over market deal? When was the last time you saw that happen in real life? If the Raptors decline his option, they will let him go. In any case, this discussion is moot. The return for Brown is more valuable than any salary space created by letting him go for nothing.

He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal. There is no way he even gets a Ochai level prospect (pretty bad). The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations. Brown isn't going away for anything, they will likely renegotiate his contract and give him a bench role to replace Trent. Brown at 16-17M a year is what his market value would likely be.

What an interesting take on things. Here are the Raptor trades this year. Please explain to me how these are "50 cents on the dollar" transactions.

Schroder & Thad for Dinwiddie
Porter Jr and Lewis and OKC 24 1st for Agbaji and Olynyk
Siakam for Brown, Nwora, Lewis and 3 1sts
OG for RJ, IQ and Det 24 2nd

Also, please explain how Brown is so worthless that he won't bring back anything in a trade, but he's so valuable to us that we'll re-sign him (somehow) for $16-$17 million per over 3 years.

Thanks. Looking forward to the enlightenment.

Expiring contracts have lower value. Re-signing Brown to a longer term deal and trading him later would yield a better return. Siakam was sold for less than his value due to his contract situation. The player might leave for nothing which leads to "50 cent on the dollar" trades that return half as much value compared to if that player was signed to a longer term deal. Is that clear enough for you?

[LoveMyRaps]

Siakam a 2-time All-NBA and 2-time All-Star player, was traded by Raptors in his prime for basically nothing.
Pacers has this whole bunch of good young players (4-7) and they did not give us even a single player from that bunch. Even if any player of that bunch cannot play much for Pacers just because of the damn competition, Pacers still refused to give him to us.
They continue the same treatment in case of draft picks. They give us picks in a draft which is consider to have inferior talent and even there, they give us low picks instead of high picks.

The effect of this trade was not felt much initially, because Barnes continued his stellar play of this season. But now Barnes is injured and cannot play and most likely out for the season. And now we are seeing the full effects of the Siakam trade. That trade made us bad in present and also does not improve our future. Other teams would have traded a player of Siakam caliber to either improve their present or future. We on the other hand strike out in both cases.

This trade may even put seeds of doubt in Barnes mind. He may be thinking is this organization willing to build to compete for a championship? OR they want to build a team whose ceiling is to make playoffs? Are they counting again to get lucky and find gems in later parts of draft? Do they want to draft another superstar? Or are they counting again that a disgruntled superstar will be traded to them?

Since I created this thread, Raptors have lost 6 straight, 2 of those loses were to teams which are even lower than them.

Mediocre team missing their young franchise player and arguably their 2nd most impactful player for the last 6 games while also missing at least 1 of Barrett/Quickley/GTJ/Brown in all of those games as well goes 0-6 over the past 2 weeks. That's not surprising at all. The majority of those games have been entertaining and/or competitive through the first 3 quarters at least , which is pretty much all you can hope for at this point.

Don't bother feeding the troll.

[Spates]

Based on impact metrics it was a fair value trade. Based on recent resume, not so much.

We got a deal based on the former.

[wegotthabeet]

He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal. There is no way he even gets a Ochai level prospect (pretty bad). The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations. Brown isn't going away for anything, they will likely renegotiate his contract and give him a bench role to replace Trent. Brown at 16-17M a year is what his market value would likely be.

What an interesting take on things. Here are the Raptor trades this year. Please explain to me how these are "50 cents on the dollar" transactions.

Schroder & Thad for Dinwiddie
Porter Jr and Lewis and OKC 24 1st for Agbaji and Olynyk
Siakam for Brown, Nwora, Lewis and 3 1sts
OG for RJ, IQ and Det 24 2nd

Also, please explain how Brown is so worthless that he won't bring back anything in a trade, but he's so valuable to us that we'll re-sign him (somehow) for $16-$17 million per over 3 years.

Thanks. Looking forward to the enlightenment.

Expiring contracts have lower value. Re-signing Brown to a longer term deal and trading him later would yield a better return. Siakam was sold for less than his value due to his contract situation. The player might leave for nothing which leads to "50 cent on the dollar" trades that return half as much value compared to if that player was signed to a longer term deal. Is that clear enough for you?

I don’t disagree necessarily but that’s only half the story. Siakam wasn’t just expiring but also looking for a max as a 30 year old on his third deal. It’s different than the Brown situation. Where a team might want the rotation player and the expiring contract for a multitude of reasons.

[islandboy53]

He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal. There is no way he even gets a Ochai level prospect (pretty bad). The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations. Brown isn't going away for anything, they will likely renegotiate his contract and give him a bench role to replace Trent. Brown at 16-17M a year is what his market value would likely be.

What an interesting take on things. Here are the Raptor trades this year. Please explain to me how these are "50 cents on the dollar" transactions.

Schroder & Thad for Dinwiddie
Porter Jr and Lewis and OKC 24 1st for Agbaji and Olynyk
Siakam for Brown, Nwora, Lewis and 3 1sts
OG for RJ, IQ and Det 24 2nd

Also, please explain how Brown is so worthless that he won't bring back anything in a trade, but he's so valuable to us that we'll re-sign him (somehow) for $16-$17 million per over 3 years.

Thanks. Looking forward to the enlightenment.

Expiring contracts have lower value. Re-signing Brown to a longer term deal and trading him later would yield a better return. Siakam was sold for less than his value due to his contract situation. The player might leave for nothing which leads to "50 cent on the dollar" trades that return half as much value compared to if that player was signed to a longer term deal. Is that clear enough for you?

No. You said, "The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations." Looking at the last 4 trades, conveniently posted above, even you should be able to admit that your statement was massively hyperbolic.

You also said, regarding Brown, "He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal." That's based on absolutely nothing. All 4 trades noted here involved expirings - Dinwiddie brought value to Brooklyn, Olynyk helped bring value to Utah, and Siakam and OG brought value to the Raptors. Brown is overpaid, but not massively. Teams value what he brings, and some will value the future flexibility provided by his expiring salary in addition to what he brings as a player. At the same time, if things work out, a team acquiring him will have his early bird rights if they want to retain him.

Also, Siakam was traded for exactly his market value. Some like to argue that that value decreased because he wasn't traded earlier, and that seems reasonable. I mean, 1 and 1/2 years of Siakam plus a chance to resign him should be worth a little more than 1/2 year plus a chance to resign him. Still, that 1/2 year was worth 2 useful players and 3 1st round picks. Brown isn't worth nearly as much as Siakam, but 1 year of Brown is absolutely worth more than nothing.

[Thaddy]

What an interesting take on things. Here are the Raptor trades this year. Please explain to me how these are "50 cents on the dollar" transactions.

Schroder & Thad for Dinwiddie
Porter Jr and Lewis and OKC 24 1st for Agbaji and Olynyk
Siakam for Brown, Nwora, Lewis and 3 1sts
OG for RJ, IQ and Det 24 2nd

Also, please explain how Brown is so worthless that he won't bring back anything in a trade, but he's so valuable to us that we'll re-sign him (somehow) for $16-$17 million per over 3 years.

Thanks. Looking forward to the enlightenment.

Expiring contracts have lower value. Re-signing Brown to a longer term deal and trading him later would yield a better return. Siakam was sold for less than his value due to his contract situation. The player might leave for nothing which leads to "50 cent on the dollar" trades that return half as much value compared to if that player was signed to a longer term deal. Is that clear enough for you?

No. You said, "The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations." Looking at the last 4 trades, conveniently posted above, even you should be able to admit that your statement was massively hyperbolic.

You also said, regarding Brown, "He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal." That's based on absolutely nothing. All 4 trades noted here involved expirings - Dinwiddie brought value to Brooklyn, Olynyk helped bring value to Utah, and Siakam and OG brought value to the Raptors. Brown is overpaid, but not massively. Teams value what he brings, and some will value the future flexibility provided by his expiring salary in addition to what he brings as a player. At the same time, if things work out, a team acquiring him will have his early bird rights if they want to retain him.

Also, Siakam was traded for exactly his market value. Some like to argue that that value decreased because he wasn't traded earlier, and that seems reasonable. I mean, 1 and 1/2 years of Siakam plus a chance to resign him should be worth a little more than 1/2 year plus a chance to resign him. Still, that 1/2 year was worth 2 useful players and 3 1st round picks. Brown isn't worth nearly as much as Siakam, but 1 year of Brown is absolutely worth more than nothing.

The last four transactions involved selling Siakam for much less than he would have been worth. That is selling for 50 cents on the dollar. If he wasn't an impending free agent him wanting the max wouldn't be an immediate factor in his value. So being an expiring affected his value. It's just logic...

The Jazz didn't get value. They traded a rotation level big and a recent lottery pick for a late first rounder in a weak draft. How do you think they got value from that. If you have Olynyk as the same value as Brown it means we would have to add Gradey to get a similar package

Siakam market value wasn't this low 2 years ago. He was a second option on a championship team. No one will think he was sold for his full value.

[ArthurVandelay]

Expiring contracts have lower value. Re-signing Brown to a longer term deal and trading him later would yield a better return. Siakam was sold for less than his value due to his contract situation. The player might leave for nothing which leads to "50 cent on the dollar" trades that return half as much value compared to if that player was signed to a longer term deal. Is that clear enough for you?

No. You said, "The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations." Looking at the last 4 trades, conveniently posted above, even you should be able to admit that your statement was massively hyperbolic.

You also said, regarding Brown, "He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal." That's based on absolutely nothing. All 4 trades noted here involved expirings - Dinwiddie brought value to Brooklyn, Olynyk helped bring value to Utah, and Siakam and OG brought value to the Raptors. Brown is overpaid, but not massively. Teams value what he brings, and some will value the future flexibility provided by his expiring salary in addition to what he brings as a player. At the same time, if things work out, a team acquiring him will have his early bird rights if they want to retain him.

Also, Siakam was traded for exactly his market value. Some like to argue that that value decreased because he wasn't traded earlier, and that seems reasonable. I mean, 1 and 1/2 years of Siakam plus a chance to resign him should be worth a little more than 1/2 year plus a chance to resign him. Still, that 1/2 year was worth 2 useful players and 3 1st round picks. Brown isn't worth nearly as much as Siakam, but 1 year of Brown is absolutely worth more than nothing.

The last four transactions involved selling Siakam for much less than he would have been worth. That is selling for 50 cents on the dollar. If he wasn't an impending free agent him wanting the max wouldn't be an immediate factor in his value. So being an expiring affected his value. It's just logic...

The Jazz didn't get value. They traded a rotation level big and a recent lottery pick for a late first rounder in a weak draft. How do you think they got value from that. If you have Olynyk as the same value as Brown it means we would have to add Gradey to get a similar package

Siakam market value wasn't this low 2 years ago. He was a second option on a championship team. No one will think he was sold for his full value.

I think we Raptor fans, definitely-absolutely-totally me included, over valued his trade return.

We have to acknowledge Siakam/his agent tanked his own trade value last summer and in any discussions with teams about the possibility of resigning long term. Also of note is he was a max player, but one of those players who wasn't really looked at as a max player.

His trade value took major hits due to his play in the bubble and then his shoulder injury, that takes him up to November 2022.

IMO, the only realistic time there was to trade him was starting in the summer of 2022 coming off the 48 wins. Trading him at that time would have been ballsy to say the least. Raptors had ROTY, took Philly to 6 games with an injured Barnes and Trent. But by trade deadline 2023, what were the offers? Hield and Bagley? Raptors reportedly wanted Claxton, Simmons, and 1sts for Siakam from Nets. Pacers were always lurking, but they weren't trading their 2023 lottery first and they weren't trading Mathurin. Last summer offer Atlanta was Hunter, AJ, and "draft capital." These aren't great deals.

Even if Raptors didn't get max value, they did return at least 90% of his peak imo. There was never a rumour where the Raptors turned down a great offer...despite all the SportsNet talking heads crying over sabotaging the Atlanta deal because Masai asked for Bufkin.

The real source of animosity should be trading for Poeltl and jeopardizing future draft pick while lowering their draft lottery odds in 2023...although when its all said and done, Dick will be 5-9 in redrafts imo.

If the Raptors have top 10 protection on the pick for Poeltl there would be minimal griping in Raptorland.

[islandboy53]

Expiring contracts have lower value. Re-signing Brown to a longer term deal and trading him later would yield a better return. Siakam was sold for less than his value due to his contract situation. The player might leave for nothing which leads to "50 cent on the dollar" trades that return half as much value compared to if that player was signed to a longer term deal. Is that clear enough for you?

No. You said, "The front office has been letting assets go for fifty cents on the dollar for most of their last 5 transactions and operations." Looking at the last 4 trades, conveniently posted above, even you should be able to admit that your statement was massively hyperbolic.

You also said, regarding Brown, "He isn't bringing back anything on an expiring deal." That's based on absolutely nothing. All 4 trades noted here involved expirings - Dinwiddie brought value to Brooklyn, Olynyk helped bring value to Utah, and Siakam and OG brought value to the Raptors. Brown is overpaid, but not massively. Teams value what he brings, and some will value the future flexibility provided by his expiring salary in addition to what he brings as a player. At the same time, if things work out, a team acquiring him will have his early bird rights if they want to retain him.

Also, Siakam was traded for exactly his market value. Some like to argue that that value decreased because he wasn't traded earlier, and that seems reasonable. I mean, 1 and 1/2 years of Siakam plus a chance to resign him should be worth a little more than 1/2 year plus a chance to resign him. Still, that 1/2 year was worth 2 useful players and 3 1st round picks. Brown isn't worth nearly as much as Siakam, but 1 year of Brown is absolutely worth more than nothing.

The last four transactions involved selling Siakam for much less than he would have been worth. That is selling for 50 cents on the dollar. If he wasn't an impending free agent him wanting the max wouldn't be an immediate factor in his value. So being an expiring affected his value. It's just logic...

The Jazz didn't get value. They traded a rotation level big and a recent lottery pick for a late first rounder in a weak draft. How do you think they got value from that. If you have Olynyk as the same value as Brown it means we would have to add Gradey to get a similar package

Siakam market value wasn't this low 2 years ago. He was a second option on a championship team. No one will think he was sold for his full value.

We can spend as much time as you like debating the relative value of these trades. I mean, people get paid to do that, so it must be important, right. But the case that the Raptors were selling assets for "fifty cents on the dollar" just isn't there. OG brought back lots of value, so did Siakam, even if it was less than it theoretically could have been, so did Schroder, and so did the OKC 1st. In fact, if I use your logic, that was a masterful trade, and we really fleeced Ainge, which in turn means the return for Siakam became substantially better, because this is part of it. And, importantly, Brown will bring back value when he's traded this summer.

[ItsDanger]

If the return on the cumulative transactions was so great, why is the asset base so mediocre? Some of you sound like sub par money managers trying to justify a higher bonus at year end. Management sold off late and needs time to rebuild assets, assuming this is the actual course of action.

[islandboy53]

If the return on the cumulative transactions was so great, why is the asset base so mediocre? Some of you sound like sub par money managers trying to justify a higher bonus at year end. Management sold off late and needs time to rebuild assets, assuming this is the actual course of action.

As always, you’re trolling, but sometimes you need to be called out on your shyte. The asset base is fine, and will continue to improve. The team traded 2 of its top assets, established players who were key parts of the team, for less established players and picks. Additional moves - Brown, Boucher, Trent - will continue to add assets.

[ItsDanger]

If the return on the cumulative transactions was so great, why is the asset base so mediocre? Some of you sound like sub par money managers trying to justify a higher bonus at year end. Management sold off late and needs time to rebuild assets, assuming this is the actual course of action.

As always, you’re trolling, but sometimes you need to be called out on your shyte. The asset base is fine, and will continue to improve. The team traded 2 of its top assets, established players who were key parts of the team, for less established players and picks. Additional moves - Brown, Boucher, Trent - will continue to add assets.

If I was assessing their performance, I would state they're well behind the curve. Need time and prudent moves to correct the shortfall. That's the reality.

[islandboy53]

If the return on the cumulative transactions was so great, why is the asset base so mediocre? Some of you sound like sub par money managers trying to justify a higher bonus at year end. Management sold off late and needs time to rebuild assets, assuming this is the actual course of action.

As always, you’re trolling, but sometimes you need to be called out on your shyte. The asset base is fine, and will continue to improve. The team traded 2 of its top assets, established players who were key parts of the team, for less established players and picks. Additional moves - Brown, Boucher, Trent - will continue to add assets.

If I was assessing their performance, I would state they're well behind the curve. Need time and prudent moves to correct the shortfall. That's the reality.

That's a bizarre assessment, given that they've just begun the rebuild. At the same time, the team has a young core in place, and is developing well. They have a rotation that, absent the extended absences of Barnes, Poeltl and, currently, Barrett, would be challenging for a play in spot. They will be adding additional talent via 2, potentially 3 picks in this year's draft, and via the MLE this year. They will use Trent, Boucher, Brown and salary flexibility to bring back additional building blocks. Obviously, time is necessary for this process, and there is every reason to expect they will continue to make positive progress. That's the reality.

[KrazyP]

The players aren't in comparable situations though.

Barnes is a 22 year old on a rookie contract vs a soon to be 30 year old looking for a max contract. Expectations should be a lot different.

I was obviously using an exaggerated argument to make a point.

When a deal is made for future picks - you have to evaluate based on expected value which you can ascertain from years and years of draft history. The average mid 1st round pick over the last 20 years roughly equals Delon Wright. The average late 1st rounder is a scrub. In general, mid to late 1st rounders DO NOT have that much value especially in drafts considered 'weak'.

The return on the Siakam trade was poor because management backed themselves into a corner and lost all leverage.

Nobody was ever going to give up a top prospect or top pick for him. People's expectations were just unrealistic.

Who were all these great young players the Raps turned down? Teams aren't lining up to give you their young future star for Siakam.

Things like age and salary matter. A soon to be 30 year old who will command 45-50 million a season just isn't the huge asset many people think he is, even if they traded him last year.

If the Raps were trading for Siakam, would you offer Barnes? Or would you offer what every other team offered, a bunch of middle tier prospects and picks?

As fans, we obviously aren't privy to private trade conversations that happen across the league. We can only judge results. The result here is that we ended up trading an all-star level player in his prime for a package of middling picks, 2 of which are from a draft in which picks have been traded around like candy because it is universally percieved as weak.

Nobody here is claiming we should have gotten a Barnes level prospect in return. That said, you would think the package should have included at least a mid-tier lotto pick OR simply a starting level prospect like Kuminga, Mathurin, JJohnson or eqiuvalent. If you had dealt him at last years draft, it is way more likely the Pacers #7 or a lotto pick from another team could have been in play.

For a frame of reference - We gave up a higher pick to acquire Poeltl than any pick we got in return for Siakam......fans that are happy with the Siakam return should be extremely dissapointed with the Poeltl trade or vice versa....you cant really have it both ways.

The argument that Siakam's trade value was depressed because he's looking for a contract is fair but its not enough to justify moving him for a package that is essentially fodder and will require a significant degree of random luck to turn into anything close to needle moving.

[Fairview4Life]

For a frame of reference - We gave up a higher pick to acquire Poeltl than any pick we got in return for Siakam......

We did not.