Siakam trade for basically nothing is now showing its effect

[bballsparkin]

When would you have elected to trade Pascal and what do you think a feasible return would have been?

In my eyes, by not taking much back on the Pascal trade maybe they keep this year's pick. It gives players like IQ and RJ an opportunity to be featured and more playing time for Gradey. Plus financial flexibility.

In the summer they failed to sign Siakam, failed to trade him and also subsequently called him selfish in the media....those sequence of events were the start of the downward slide in his trade value. Even if you think he's selfish (I never thought Siakam was a selfish player or person), whats the point of attacking him in front of the public eye? It was childish and stupid.

By last year's draft, they should have had a clear picture of what direction they wanted to go in. If Siakam wanted the max and the Raps werent willing to give it to him, they should have traded him then and there. The return would likely have been higher.... something like the Pacers #7 more likely to be in play. It also would have saved the team from wasting half a season when they had just hired a new coach who was coming in and attempting to implement a new system.

You can go back and look at my post history, I am rarely one to criticize management as the majority of the moves they make are fairly value moves with moderate risk profiles. This one was bungled.

I agree that was the time to trade him and a strange way to handle the situation. Although, I'm not convinced that it effected his trade value. Pascal wanted to get paid for max term and was unwilling to commit to any team he was traded too. That too me effected his trade value and I'd imagine is the reason why Masai said what he did. Darko never mentioned Pascal IIRC. So the writing was on the wall.

We seem to agree on the timeline but not on what Pascal would return at those dates. Ultimately we'll never know. The process was definitely bungled. And the FO could have handled things better for sure. I'm happy they've picked a direction and am optimistic that the trade will look better in hindsight. They need to get the next moves right for that to happen though. They have to get something tangibly right this draft.

[Tacoma]

When would you have elected to trade Pascal and what do you think a feasible return would have been?

In my eyes, by not taking much back on the Pascal trade maybe they keep this year's pick. It gives players like IQ and RJ an opportunity to be featured and more playing time for Gradey. Plus financial flexibility.

In the summer they failed to sign Siakam, failed to trade him and also subsequently called him selfish in the media....those sequence of events were the start of the downward slide in his trade value. Even if you think he's selfish (I never thought Siakam was a selfish player or person), whats the point of attacking him in front of the public eye? It was childish and stupid.

By last year's draft, they should have had a clear picture of what direction they wanted to go in. If Siakam wanted the max and the Raps werent willing to give it to him, they should have traded him then and there. The return would likely have been higher.... something like the Pacers #7 more likely to be in play. It also would have saved the team from wasting half a season when they had just hired a new coach who was coming in and attempting to implement a new system.

You can go back and look at my post history, I am rarely one to criticize management as the majority of the moves they make are fairly value moves with moderate risk profiles. This one was bungled.

I agree that was the time to trade him and a strange way to handle the situation. Although, I'm not convinced that it effected his trade value. Pascal wanted to get paid for max term and was unwilling to commit to any team he was traded too. That too me effected his trade value and I'd imagine is the reason why Masai said what he did. Darko never mentioned Pascal IIRC. So the writing was on the wall.

We seem to agree on the timeline but not on what Pascal would return at those dates. Ultimately we'll never know. The process was definitely bungled. And the FO could have handled things better for sure. I'm happy they've picked a direction and am optimistic that the trade will look better in hindsight. They need to get the next moves right for that to happen though. They have to get something tangibly right this draft.

First you say you're not convinced that timing affected his trade value and then you say Siakam not committing to any team he was traded to did affected his trade value. There's a kind of contradiction here because the 2 thoughts are related.

The reason Siakam not committing mattered is because of timing - i.e., without that commitment, he'd only be a very short term rental to any team that trades for him. If he had 2 years left on his contract instead, then him saying he wouldn't commit would have materially less impact.

Thus it comes down to value being impacted by timing and the Masai waiting too late to get full value in return.

[bballsparkin]

I agree that was the time to trade him and a strange way to handle the situation. Although, I'm not convinced that it effected his trade value. Pascal wanted to get paid for max term and was unwilling to commit to any team he was traded too. That too me effected his trade value and I'd imagine is the reason why Masai said what he did. Darko never mentioned Pascal IIRC. So the writing was on the wall.

We seem to agree on the timeline but not on what Pascal would return at those dates. Ultimately we'll never know. The process was definitely bungled. And the FO could have handled things better for sure. I'm happy they've picked a direction and am optimistic that the trade will look better in hindsight. They need to get the next moves right for that to happen though. They have to get something tangibly right this draft.

First you say you're not convinced that timing affected his trade value and then you say Siakam not committing to any team he was traded to did affected his trade value. There's a kind of contradiction here because the 2 thoughts are related.

The reason Siakam not committing mattered is because of timing - i.e., without that commitment, he'd only be a very short term rental to any team that trades for him. If he had 2 years left on his contract instead, then him saying he wouldn't commit would have materially less impact.

Thus it comes down to value being impacted by timing and the Masai waiting too late to get full value in return.

I was responding to his comment that he should have been traded last summer. Which I agree with. Maybe at the deadline he would have fetched a touch more but it would have been underwhelming I suspect. By summer he was a rental due to not being willing to commit and wanting the full term. As a player who lacks range with his shot and depends on his athleticism about to make big money I don't think he was worth much. The Hawks didn't even want to include their "hopeful potential players".

I like Pascal but I was always a doubter to be honest. People think he's better than Bosh was. Talk about recency bias. LBJ recruited Bosh. That means something. To really cash in on Siakam I 'd imagine he should have been traded the year after the championship. But I can understand why they didn't.

[bballsparkin]

I agree that was the time to trade him and a strange way to handle the situation. Although, I'm not convinced that it effected his trade value. Pascal wanted to get paid for max term and was unwilling to commit to any team he was traded too. That too me effected his trade value and I'd imagine is the reason why Masai said what he did. Darko never mentioned Pascal IIRC. So the writing was on the wall.

We seem to agree on the timeline but not on what Pascal would return at those dates. Ultimately we'll never know. The process was definitely bungled. And the FO could have handled things better for sure. I'm happy they've picked a direction and am optimistic that the trade will look better in hindsight. They need to get the next moves right for that to happen though. They have to get something tangibly right this draft.

First you say you're not convinced that timing affected his trade value and then you say Siakam not committing to any team he was traded to did affected his trade value. There's a kind of contradiction here because the 2 thoughts are related.

The reason Siakam not committing mattered is because of timing - i.e., without that commitment, he'd only be a very short term rental to any team that trades for him. If he had 2 years left on his contract instead, then him saying he wouldn't commit would have materially less impact.

Thus it comes down to value being impacted by timing and the Masai waiting too late to get full value in return.

I was responding to his comment that he should have been traded last summer. Which I agree with. Maybe at the deadline he would have fetched a touch more but it would have been underwhelming I suspect. By summer he was a rental due to not being willing to commit and wanting the full term. As a player who lacks range with his shot and depends on his athleticism about to make big money I don't think he was worth much. The Hawks didn't even want to include their "hopeful potential players".

I like Pascal but I was always a doubter to be honest. People think he's better than Bosh was. Talk about recency bias. LBJ recruited Bosh. That means something. To really cash in on Siakam I 'd imagine he should have been traded the year after the championship. But I can understand why they didn't.

edit: two seasons left he would have been more valuable. but IIRC that was the season back from the Tampa season. Doens't seem realistic that season to trade him.

[brownbobcat]

The irony of the "any way you slice it" comment is that one way to slice it is on court value since the trade. In Pascal's 24 games he's put up a BPM of 2.6 (negative defensively) and a VORP of 0.9. In Olynyk's 13 games with Toronto he's put up BPM of 2.1 and VORP of 0.3. You can make a legitimate stats based argument that Olynyk is providing value at roughly the same rate as Pascal (alone), which also aligns with the eye test when watching the games - Pascal has been a nice addition offensively, but they were already one of the top offences in the game and he's been a net negative defensively. Pacers are 12-12 since the deal.

Huh? By one of your own metrics, Siakam has put up 3X the production of Olynyk. And you're conveniently ignoring that the very same metric has Ogbaji at -0.5 and Brown at -0.3. So slicing it by "on court value" means the Siakam trade had a net swing of -1.4 in 24 games - equivalent to Jayson Tatum over a whole season.

And you're criticizing Siakam for the Pacers' 12-12 record (with Haliburton injured) while the Raptors have gone 8-19 in the same span?

On court value, seriously?

You can also quantify the value of the pick the Raptors traded, which is going to end up as the worst of the Clippers/OKC. There are many ways to do this, one of the more fun models maps the pick to "top" and "median" outcomes. This one lists the average-luck outcomes as Bryan Warrick and John Thomas at the 25th slot (Mark Price and Al Harrington were the top outcomes; OKC pick would be even worse obviously):

https://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

And the Jazz return is just considering what is arguably the least valuable asset from the Pascal trade (depending on how you value Nwora vs. the avg value of a late 1st). Add in the Indy '24 and '26 first rounders and the "basically nothing" comment becomes even sillier.

EDIT - forgot about Bruce Brown and whatever he brings lol

I didn't say it was "nothing", but it was a poor return. You can't pooh-pooh the value of the 25th pick and claim it returned such a haul at the same time, that's having it both ways.

[islandboy53]

The irony of the "any way you slice it" comment is that one way to slice it is on court value since the trade. In Pascal's 24 games he's put up a BPM of 2.6 (negative defensively) and a VORP of 0.9. In Olynyk's 13 games with Toronto he's put up BPM of 2.1 and VORP of 0.3. You can make a legitimate stats based argument that Olynyk is providing value at roughly the same rate as Pascal (alone), which also aligns with the eye test when watching the games - Pascal has been a nice addition offensively, but they were already one of the top offences in the game and he's been a net negative defensively. Pacers are 12-12 since the deal.

Huh? By one of your own metrics, Siakam has put up 3X the production of Olynyk. And you're conveniently ignoring that the very same metric has Ogbaji at -0.5 and Brown at -0.3. So slicing it by "on court value" means the Siakam trade had a net swing of -1.4 in 24 games - equivalent to Jayson Tatum over a whole season.

And you're criticizing Siakam for the Pacers' 12-12 record (with Haliburton injured) while the Raptors have gone 8-19 in the same span?

On court value, seriously?

You can also quantify the value of the pick the Raptors traded, which is going to end up as the worst of the Clippers/OKC. There are many ways to do this, one of the more fun models maps the pick to "top" and "median" outcomes. This one lists the average-luck outcomes as Bryan Warrick and John Thomas at the 25th slot (Mark Price and Al Harrington were the top outcomes; OKC pick would be even worse obviously):

https://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

And the Jazz return is just considering what is arguably the least valuable asset from the Pascal trade (depending on how you value Nwora vs. the avg value of a late 1st). Add in the Indy '24 and '26 first rounders and the "basically nothing" comment becomes even sillier.

EDIT - forgot about Bruce Brown and whatever he brings lol

I didn't say it was "nothing", but it was a poor return. You can't pooh-pooh the value of the 25th pick and claim it returned such a haul at the same time, that's having it both ways.

He's not "pooh-poohing" the value of the OKC pick (which, by the way, is currently 28th), merely describing it as potentially the least valuable asset. Strictly speaking, Lewis was the least valuable part of the return, but clearly he was salary filler, so that's not entirely relevant. Nor do I see him touting Olynyk and Agbaji as a "massive haul" for that pick, though it's certainly a solid return. But, getting back to the question of the overall "value" of the Siakam trade, it's still TBD. Olynyk, Agbaji, Nwora, 2 1sts and whatever Brown turns into will never be a GREAT return unless one or both of the picks turns into the next Siakam or OG or ... That said, it's certainly not a "poor" return.

[OakleyDokely]

*Face palm*. Aww, I guess it’s too difficult for you to make a counter argument? Your head must hurt from all the thinking.

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?

[srhcan]

A lot of you have really missed the mark, so let me spell it out:

We traded siakam for 34 million in expring contracts, up to like 40 something million in cap space and a bunch of future picks.

The siakam trade is TO BE CONTINUED

No, not really. As it stands, they have Olynyk, Brown, Ogbaji, Nwora, 2024 FRP, 2026 FRP (protected)

The space from Siakam's $37.9M salary has already been partially filled. Olynyk and Ogbaji are owed $17.11M next year, and the 2024 FRP will have a caphold of something around $3.5M. Even if they jettison Brown and Nwora, they'll have gained $17.4M of cap space at best.

[/b]Olynyk, Ogbaji, a non-lotto FRP and another protected FRP is not a good return any way you slice it. Doesn't matter if that pick becomes Giannis.[/b]

At best, you could say that was the highest return available at the deadline - but whose fault is that?

The irony of the "any way you slice it" comment is that one way to slice it is on court value since the trade. In Pascal's 24 games he's put up a BPM of 2.6 (negative defensively) and a VORP of 0.9. In Olynyk's 13 games with Toronto he's put up BPM of 2.1 and VORP of 0.3. You can make a legitimate stats based argument that Olynyk is providing value at roughly the same rate as Pascal (alone), which also aligns with the eye test when watching the games - Pascal has been a nice addition offensively, but they were already one of the top offences in the game and he's been a net negative defensively. Pacers are 12-12 since the deal.

You can also quantify the value of the pick the Raptors traded, which is going to end up as the worst of the Clippers/OKC. There are many ways to do this, one of the more fun models maps the pick to "top" and "median" outcomes. This one lists the average-luck outcomes as Bryan Warrick and John Thomas at the 25th slot (Mark Price and Al Harrington were the top outcomes; OKC pick would be even worse obviously):

https://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

And the Jazz return is just considering what is arguably the least valuable asset from the Pascal trade (depending on how you value Nwora vs. the avg value of a late 1st). Add in the Indy '24 and '26 first rounders and the "basically nothing" comment becomes even sillier.

EDIT - forgot about Bruce Brown and whatever he brings lol

Come on now, no need to disrespect Siakam by saying Olynyk is better than him. You are indirectly disrespecting our championship this way.

[Badonkadonk]

No, not really. As it stands, they have Olynyk, Brown, Ogbaji, Nwora, 2024 FRP, 2026 FRP (protected)

The space from Siakam's $37.9M salary has already been partially filled. Olynyk and Ogbaji are owed $17.11M next year, and the 2024 FRP will have a caphold of something around $3.5M. Even if they jettison Brown and Nwora, they'll have gained $17.4M of cap space at best.

[/b]Olynyk, Ogbaji, a non-lotto FRP and another protected FRP is not a good return any way you slice it. Doesn't matter if that pick becomes Giannis.[/b]

At best, you could say that was the highest return available at the deadline - but whose fault is that?

The irony of the "any way you slice it" comment is that one way to slice it is on court value since the trade. In Pascal's 24 games he's put up a BPM of 2.6 (negative defensively) and a VORP of 0.9. In Olynyk's 13 games with Toronto he's put up BPM of 2.1 and VORP of 0.3. You can make a legitimate stats based argument that Olynyk is providing value at roughly the same rate as Pascal (alone), which also aligns with the eye test when watching the games - Pascal has been a nice addition offensively, but they were already one of the top offences in the game and he's been a net negative defensively. Pacers are 12-12 since the deal.

You can also quantify the value of the pick the Raptors traded, which is going to end up as the worst of the Clippers/OKC. There are many ways to do this, one of the more fun models maps the pick to "top" and "median" outcomes. This one lists the average-luck outcomes as Bryan Warrick and John Thomas at the 25th slot (Mark Price and Al Harrington were the top outcomes; OKC pick would be even worse obviously):

https://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

And the Jazz return is just considering what is arguably the least valuable asset from the Pascal trade (depending on how you value Nwora vs. the avg value of a late 1st). Add in the Indy '24 and '26 first rounders and the "basically nothing" comment becomes even sillier.

EDIT - forgot about Bruce Brown and whatever he brings lol

Come on now, no need to disrespect Siakam by saying Olynyk is better than him. You are indirectly disrespecting our championship this way.

Fortunately for all, I made a comment about quantifiable on-court impact since the trade and not about "who the better player is", which is obviously ridiculous.

You may continue with your fake outrage.

[brownbobcat]

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?

If Siakam is so mediocre, why did the FO delay the inevitable rebuild for so long? It's completely inconsistent to take this after-the-fact view that FVV and Siakam were trash while simultaneously trading away lotto picks to build around them.

As recently as last year, you called Siakam a top-15 player (top 20 at worst) who should only be traded if Toronto got a "massive" package - so, what happened? Why do they have to pay rack-plus price for a role player like Poelt but only get cents on the dollar for an All Star?

[Scase]

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?

I don't think this is an either or situation.

Siakam is both not worth any genuine high end prospects, but the return was also pretty crappy due to waiting until the last actual minute.

Could it have gotten better? Most likely, but probably not a crazy amount. This is why I wanted us to pull a hard reset after Tampa and start rebuilding then, but I can admit that it was pretty unlikely/unrealistic. That said, there is no excuse for dragging this out as long as it took.

It also brings into question Masais judgment, if Siakam is so low value, why did we stick with him in a core for so long? Why did we try and build a contender with him as the #1 option?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, either Masai was wrong holding onto him thinking he was worth more than he was, or Masai was wrong for trying for so long to build a team with him as the centre piece. Either way, bad judgment got us here.

[Tha Cynic]

The time to trade was during last year’s trade deadline. Even then, the return would probably have been just marginally better. Unfortunately, the market just wasn’t what it used to be for someone at his level. The league learned their lesson a couple of seasons back when the Hawks, Timberwolves, etc emptied out their coffers for guys like Murray, Gobert, etc

This is the best take imo.

By the time the Raptors decided to trade Siakam, he and his agent were also telling all teams but Indiana that he wouldn't sign an extension with them. That played a huge part and isn't mentioned here enough

[OakleyDokely]

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?

If Siakam is so mediocre, why did the FO delay the inevitable rebuild for so long? It's completely inconsistent to take this after-the-fact view that FVV and Siakam were trash while simultaneously trading away lotto picks to build around them.

As recently as last year, you called Siakam a top-15 player (top 20 at worst) who should only be traded if Toronto got a "massive" package - so, what happened? Why do they have to pay rack-plus price for a role player like Poelt but only get cents on the dollar for an All Star?

Siakam isn't mediocre, he's just an older player looking for a huge payday. Unless you're a superstar, these type of guys usually don't bring in top assets. You usually get a mix of middle tier prospects and mid-late 1sts.

[OakleyDokely]

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?

I don't think this is an either or situation.

Siakam is both not worth any genuine high end prospects, but the return was also pretty crappy due to waiting until the last actual minute.

Could it have gotten better? Most likely, but probably not a crazy amount. This is why I wanted us to pull a hard reset after Tampa and start rebuilding then, but I can admit that it was pretty unlikely/unrealistic. That said, there is no excuse for dragging this out as long as it took.

It also brings into question Masais judgment, if Siakam is so low value, why did we stick with him in a core for so long? Why did we try and build a contender with him as the #1 option?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, either Masai was wrong holding onto him thinking he was worth more than he was, or Masai was wrong for trying for so long to build a team with him as the centre piece. Either way, bad judgment got us here.

The expected return for Siakam and when to pivot (rebuilding the roster) are two separate questions though. Even if they pivoted earlier, I'm not convinced the package for Siakam gets substantially better. The bigger impact of an early pivot would've been an improvement on our draft picks.

[brownbobcat]

Siakam isn't mediocre, he's just an older player looking for a huge payday. Unless you're a superstar, these type of guys usually don't bring in top assets. You usually get a mix of middle tier prospects and mid-late 1sts.

SIakam didn't suddenly turn older overnight - the man was a 28 yr old All Star last season.

[Scase]

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?

I don't think this is an either or situation.

Siakam is both not worth any genuine high end prospects, but the return was also pretty crappy due to waiting until the last actual minute.

Could it have gotten better? Most likely, but probably not a crazy amount. This is why I wanted us to pull a hard reset after Tampa and start rebuilding then, but I can admit that it was pretty unlikely/unrealistic. That said, there is no excuse for dragging this out as long as it took.

It also brings into question Masais judgment, if Siakam is so low value, why did we stick with him in a core for so long? Why did we try and build a contender with him as the #1 option?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, either Masai was wrong holding onto him thinking he was worth more than he was, or Masai was wrong for trying for so long to build a team with him as the centre piece. Either way, bad judgment got us here.

The expected return for Siakam and when to pivot (rebuilding the roster) are two separate questions though. Even if they pivoted earlier, I'm not convinced the package for Siakam gets substantially better. The bigger impact of an early pivot would've been an improvement on our draft picks.

I think it's realistic that a younger player, on a longer term contract would fetch more than an older one with zero time on their contract. The question is how much better. I don't think a crazy amount, but it's hard to argue it would be just as bad.

Moving him sooner naturally would benefit our picks, but it would also mean that we would probably be more willing to get picks further out, giving us increased flexibility. We moved Siakam to Indy for that crap sandwich, because we had no choice but to move him then, or stupidly re-sign him. Shopping him a year+ in advance opens up the options. Maybe they are the same type of picks, but from a different team that isn't on an up swing, but rather one looking to push over the hump and decline shortly after.

The dubs are a good example (not saying it was an option, just an example), trade to a team that with Siakam and whatever prospects they have now, will not result in a good team for long with Curry etc retiring/falling off in a couple years. Immediate picks would be great for sure, but better ones further out, ultimately hold more value. Especially when you take into account how meh this draft is supposed to be.

[LoveMyRaps]

A lot of you have really missed the mark, so let me spell it out:

We traded siakam for 34 million in expring contracts, up to like 40 something million in cap space and a bunch of future picks.

The siakam trade is TO BE CONTINUED

Olynyk, Ogbaji, a non-lotto FRP and another protected FRP is not a good return any way you slice it. Doesn't matter if that pick becomes Giannis.

Ah, the classic "No matter what Masai does, I'm gonna hate him no matter" mindset.
Not surprised to see the people that liked (and-1) this comment are also notorious Masai haters.

[OakleyDokely]

Siakam isn't mediocre, he's just an older player looking for a huge payday. Unless you're a superstar, these type of guys usually don't bring in top assets. You usually get a mix of middle tier prospects and mid-late 1sts.

SIakam didn't suddenly turn older overnight - the man was a 28 yr old All Star last season.

I mean, he's still a player whose next contract will take him through his 30s regardless if you traded him last year or this year. That reality doesn't go away for the teams trading for him.

[binjumper]

A lot of you have really missed the mark, so let me spell it out:

We traded siakam for 34 million in expring contracts, up to like 40 something million in cap space and a bunch of future picks.

The siakam trade is TO BE CONTINUED

Olynyk, Ogbaji, a non-lotto FRP and another protected FRP is not a good return any way you slice it. Doesn't matter if that pick becomes Giannis.

Ah, the classic "No matter what Masai does, I'm gonna hate him no matter" mindset.
Not surprised to see the people that liked (and-1) this comment are also notorious Masai haters.

some people are just dense, they belong on Instagram's comment section.

[Scase]

A lot of you have really missed the mark, so let me spell it out:

We traded siakam for 34 million in expring contracts, up to like 40 something million in cap space and a bunch of future picks.

The siakam trade is TO BE CONTINUED

Olynyk, Ogbaji, a non-lotto FRP and another protected FRP is not a good return any way you slice it. Doesn't matter if that pick becomes Giannis.

Ah, the classic "No matter what Masai does, I'm gonna hate him no matter" mindset.
Not surprised to see the people that liked (and-1) this comment are also notorious Masai haters.

Implying that if Masai picked the next Giannis with a mediocre pick that the trade is a success, insinuates that it was "all part of the plan". Which I think is a ridiculous way to look at the situation.

You can celebrate him for picking that player, you cannot pretend that making a bad/mediocre trade for bad/mediocre picks was all fine because he found a needle in a haystack.

If the Nuggets traded Andre Iguodala for the 41st pick in the 2014 draft, and still picked Jokic. It's still a terrible trade.

You could trade Siakam for 3 FRPs that all resulted in the 1st OA selection, and we could pick 3 Bargnianis in a row who are all massive busts, still doesn't make the trade bad.

Picks have inherent value, regardless of the player at that position. A 1st OA is more valuable than a 2nd, than a 3rd, than a 4th, and so on. You can flip a 1st OA pick to another team for a very good player, you cannot do the same for a 17th OA pick, even if the next Giannis is just sitting there.