Siakam trade for basically nothing is now showing its effect

[aj174]

I think we're all feeling the sting seeing Siakam play like this, as much as we loved the guy, we didn't get a great return for him. IMO, it wasn't bad, but we need to see what we get from those picks to make a real conclusion

The truth is, Indiana is ready to compete with pieces that compliment Hali and Siakam, we don't. Siakam with us couldn't even win us a play in game. We can't pay him 40-50 mil a year from age 30-35, while also trying to rebuild and get better, it leaves us in no man's land. We chose a direction and this is the painful part on it. We suck, while the team he's on is obviously better

This FO is still solid guys. The Poeltl trade sucks, and the Siakam trade is underwhelming. But we got our young all star, we have quick and RJ who look like they can grow with this core, the Dick pick is looking a LOT better than it did in October. And we got more picks this year anyway

Imagine if we kept siakam? This board would be irate, our pick would convey FOR SURE, and we'd be a fringe play in team again. So by trading Siakam, we get to most likely keep our pick this year which can be a top pick, we never know. So keep that in mind when evaluating this trade

[DreamTeam09]

all this shows is that the tankers aren't even ready to tank. I mean if it's tank or die, and we are tanking, complaining about past trades is like the meme of old man shaking his fist at the clouds... & really ppl are griping about missing out on walker kessler (trading down 13 spots meanwhile no1 valuable was even there in that range regardless, unless it's walker kessler, or not getting Jerace walker from Indy, (really lol)
Jakob trade could look bad in hindsight, but totally disregarding the rationale is disingenuous to whatever claim is trying to be made, nor is that trade even concluded to actually see the ramifications if any.... But I digress, whoa is us around here, it is what it is....

[ArthurVandelay]

This idea the FO didn’t get a good return so the FO in turn is bad is ridiculous

Does anyone really think a better offer was turned down??? Seriously?

If Siakam is all that and Indiana managed to hose the Raps in the trade, getting Siakam for peanuts, there should be upwards of 28 GMs out there kicking themselves.

But the reality is Siakam intentionally tanked his trade value in an attempt to extort a full get a max deal from Toronto, with a possibility of a supermax. That is imo what 85% of the selfish was about and 15% on court play. It’s also why the relationship went cold and radio silent, again all my opinion.

As a Raptor fan, I’m still pretty annoyed with Siakam but hope he gets his max in Indy.

[ATLTimekeeper]

The reference to selfishness was Masai calling it back to what he said last year, and had nothing to do with Siakam wanting a big contract. Blake Murphy insists the Indy package was stronger at the draft, so there's at least one report that Masai lost some value by waiting. Masai lost that one, but waiting may have given him a better return for OG. Maybe it ends up being a wash. What Masai did to Siakam in order to try and win a trade negotiation was classless and Masai admitted fault and was in tears over it at the press conference.

In the end, Siakam repped the city well, won a chip, he worked harder than any Raptor Masai brought onto the team, he improved more than any Raptor Masai brought onto the team, he volunteered for Masai's charity. He deserved a better end than what Masai gave him. This wasn't a situation where he had to keep a deal quiet in order to preserve it. It was a situation where he thought a cone of silence would create confusion as to his intentions. Not one of the competitive bidders bought Masai's ploy, and the end result is 3 weak picks and Bruce Brown's rapidly declining trade value.

[JJ From Deep]

Pacers fan - Siakam trade for Brown and 3 picks has shown nothing in the effect. 11-11, .500 ball with Pacers playing worse than before the Siakam trade

He's literally carrying you in the playoffs rn

[DelAbbot]

Post championship, this board has gone to complete shite.

A line in the sand had been drawn.

One one side you have posters that are constantly negative in all contexts.....whining and complaining about everything like 3 year old toddlers about even the most marginal things. On the other side, you have a subset of posters who are constantly positive in all contexts, always supporting management decisions even in situations where they clearly goofed.

The more crazy one side gets, the more locked into their positions the other side gets and vice versa. Its almost reminiscent of modern day politics or dare I say it, Leaf fans for like the last 30 years.

I see very few posters left who can call a spade a spade without personal biases or agendas getting in the way. Perhaps I'm guilty of this myself sometimes...I dont know but I feel lost on island alone in thinking this management is still strong with most of their decisions being rational but also thinking the return they got for Siakam was poor and largely due to taking too long to pick a direction/make decisions. Patience in some circumstances is a virtue but in others it can be a handicap.

Agreed. Though the problem, just like in politics, is that one side wants to see everything burn to the ground to be proven right. We have a poster here who has clearly communicated that he would like to see us lose the 7th pick this year so that "the fanbase can become hysterical and Ujiri to finally get fired". That type of stuff doesn't sit right with me at all.

The Poeltl trade turned out to be a disaster but was rational. FVV walking for nothing was the big disaster and somehow it was the widely celebrated. It led to the Poeltl trade becoming a disaster, led to us being forced to move on from Pascal with limited leverage leading to subpar packages and ultimately an underwhelming return, and resulted in us having to go into the tank in a year where we don't fully control our pick.

Yeah if Masai didn't blow so much gas up my butt and me eating it up over the years, I wouldn't be calling for his head for feeling lied to and how much he set this franchise back. But it's not a crime (or against forum rules) to call for Masai's departure; we need some new GM to come in and make better moves. You are exaggerating my call to that of calling for dismantling of Raptors organization or relocation away from Toronto.

[Duffman100]

Post championship, this board has gone to complete shite.

A line in the sand had been drawn.

One one side you have posters that are constantly negative in all contexts.....whining and complaining about everything like 3 year old toddlers about even the most marginal things. On the other side, you have a subset of posters who are constantly positive in all contexts, always supporting management decisions even in situations where they clearly goofed.

The more crazy one side gets, the more locked into their positions the other side gets and vice versa. Its almost reminiscent of modern day politics or dare I say it, Leaf fans for like the last 30 years.

I see very few posters left who can call a spade a spade without personal biases or agendas getting in the way. Perhaps I'm guilty of this myself sometimes...I dont know but I feel lost on island alone in thinking this management is still strong with most of their decisions being rational but also thinking the return they got for Siakam was poor and largely due to taking too long to pick a direction/make decisions. Patience in some circumstances is a virtue but in others it can be a handicap.

Agreed. Though the problem, just like in politics, is that one side wants to see everything burn to the ground to be proven right. We have a poster here who has clearly communicated that he would like to see us lose the 7th pick this year so that "the fanbase can become hysterical and Ujiri to finally get fired". That type of stuff doesn't sit right with me at all.

The Poeltl trade turned out to be a disaster but was rational. FVV walking for nothing was the big disaster and somehow it was the widely celebrated. It led to the Poeltl trade becoming a disaster, led to us being forced to move on from Pascal with limited leverage leading to subpar packages and ultimately an underwhelming return, and resulted in us having to go into the tank in a year where we don't fully control our pick.

Yeah if Masai didn't blow so much gas up my butt and me eating it up over the years, I wouldn't be calling for his head for feeling lied to and how much he set this franchise back. But it's not a crime (or against forum rules) to call for Masai's departure; we need some new GM to come in and make better moves. You are exaggerating my call to that of calling for dismantling of Raptors organization or relocation away from Toronto.

To be clear, this is 100% true and I hope nobody thinks otherwise.

[mtcan]

To be fair...I don't think Masai needs to go (yet). I think he drank his own Kool-Aid after pulling off 2 heists in the same year and winning a championship. In fact...we were all drinking the Kool-Aid while celebrating a championship...who wouldn't in that case?

But it's ultimately not how you fall...it's how you get back up and keep going. So his rebuild will determine if he still has it or needs to go. I want to see how he proceeds starting in this draft.

[ArthurVandelay]

To be fair...I don't think Masai needs to go (yet). I think he drank his own Kool-Aid after pulling off 2 heists in the same year and winning a championship. In fact...we were all drinking the Kool-Aid while celebrating a championship...who wouldn't in that case?

But it's ultimately not how you fall...it's how you get back up and keep going. So his rebuild will determine if he still has it or needs to go. I want to see how he proceeds starting in this draft.

2 years coincides with the end of his current contract.

Depending how they go will determine my opinion on his future. Im a big Masai fan but if he accelerates the rebuild like BryCo, I’m out.

[Scase]

When you make trades like this, there are probabilities attached to the picks. If we pick a better player at 21 than the Spurs get at say 7, does that mean our trade was better?

Poeltl cost 1 top 6 protected pick 1 year removed. Siakam cost 2 top 4 protected picks along with Ochai and Kelly. It’s clear that Siakam got the much better package.

I don’t like the package but I thought we should have re-signed Siakam. If you were in the trade bandwagon, this is as good as it’s gonna get. People here were hype about that garbage Atlanta package in the off season for crying out loud.

In short, no.

In long, still no, but reasons

I've made this argument before, but the player that is ultimately picked, is absolutely irrelevant to the "quality" of the trade.

Trading prime Lebron for a SRP would be a horrible trade even if that SRP was the 2014 41st OA pick. Picks have inherent value that is unrelated to who ultimately gets selected with said pick.

A 1st is more valuable than a 2nd, than a 3rd, and so on. A 7th can be packaged to move up into the top 5 without too much more in additional assets. Trading up from 21 to top 5 is virtually impossible.

It's precisely why everyone was so upset that we had such weak protections on the pick for Jak. Because a top 10 pick is more valuable, than say an 11-15th. The inherent value of the pick is what the "quality" of the trade is based off of, not the far flung future of what a pick might become, teams are buying lotto tickets here, and you sell them on the "what if". The higher the chance of that "what if" paying out, the higher the cost.

So then we're in agreement. You said "The likelihood of getting a player better than Jak with the 7th OA pick is way higher than whatever crap we got from the Siakam trade." How do you know this? The Pacers '26 pick could be 5th overall pick. The players picked at either of the Pacers pick could be better than anything the Spurs get at 7th if the pick conveys.

The comparison is that a bubble playoff team traded a top 6 protected pick and a bottom of the playoffs team traded 2 top 4 protected picks + change. Clearly, what we got for Pascal is more valuable - this is the objective truth. So no, the Siakam return isn't worse than the Poeltl return. What you're doing is ascribing a new valuation to the Jakob trade and comparing it to a trade that still has a higher variance outcome attached to it.

Well I don't know, that's why I said the likelihood is high, not that it is a certainty.

What we got absolutely is not more valuable. A pick being top 4 protected is meaningless if the team is projected to be a playoff team, it's even more meaningless if from this trade you provide them a player who will make that more of a reality, and it's even MORE useless if those picks are not timed to have any chance of becoming high picks.

There was very little actual chance the 2024 pick was going to be in the top 10. And barring Siakam not re-signing, and/or Hali getting a season ending injury in the first couple of months, there is very little chance the 2026 one does.

The only way you could argue the Siakam return would be better, is if that 2026 pick ends up in the top 4....but if it does, it's not ours anyways.

Granted this is all under the assumption we convey our pick this year. Also, I think calling us a bubble playoff team is incredibly complementary. We were a bubble play in team, at best.

But lets put it more plainly :
A lotto team with the 8th worst record in the NBA, traded a lightly protected lotto pick.
A team that was playoff bound with the 12th best record in the NBA, traded 1 worthless pick, and 2 very lightly protected FRPs that will probably never even be top 15.

There is a very large difference from a team in playoff position on an upward trajectory with the leagues best offence, vs a team that was well outside even a play in spot on a downward trajectory with multiple key UFAs.

One of those trades is a calculated risk, the other is an inadvisable high risk gamble.

If we end up only conveying 2 SRPs, then yes, the Jak trade was better. If we convey this year, that's all she wrote. Again, the value of the pick is intrinsically tied to the position of the pick. The wizards trading a top 2 protected 2025 pick has TONS more value than the Nuggets trading the same.

If it didn't, then Masai got played by Pop and overpaid. Or he got played by Indy and got fleeced. Take your pick.

[ForeverTFC]

Post championship, this board has gone to complete shite.

A line in the sand had been drawn.

One one side you have posters that are constantly negative in all contexts.....whining and complaining about everything like 3 year old toddlers about even the most marginal things. On the other side, you have a subset of posters who are constantly positive in all contexts, always supporting management decisions even in situations where they clearly goofed.

The more crazy one side gets, the more locked into their positions the other side gets and vice versa. Its almost reminiscent of modern day politics or dare I say it, Leaf fans for like the last 30 years.

I see very few posters left who can call a spade a spade without personal biases or agendas getting in the way. Perhaps I'm guilty of this myself sometimes...I dont know but I feel lost on island alone in thinking this management is still strong with most of their decisions being rational but also thinking the return they got for Siakam was poor and largely due to taking too long to pick a direction/make decisions. Patience in some circumstances is a virtue but in others it can be a handicap.

Agreed. Though the problem, just like in politics, is that one side wants to see everything burn to the ground to be proven right. We have a poster here who has clearly communicated that he would like to see us lose the 7th pick this year so that "the fanbase can become hysterical and Ujiri to finally get fired". That type of stuff doesn't sit right with me at all.

The Poeltl trade turned out to be a disaster but was rational. FVV walking for nothing was the big disaster and somehow it was the widely celebrated. It led to the Poeltl trade becoming a disaster, led to us being forced to move on from Pascal with limited leverage leading to subpar packages and ultimately an underwhelming return, and resulted in us having to go into the tank in a year where we don't fully control our pick.

Yeah if Masai didn't blow so much gas up my butt and me eating it up over the years, I wouldn't be calling for his head for feeling lied to and how much he set this franchise back. But it's not a crime (or against forum rules) to call for Masai's departure; we need some new GM to come in and make better moves. You are exaggerating my call to that of calling for dismantling of Raptors organization or relocation away from Toronto.

I never said it was, you can hope for that outcome all you want. But when you explicitly hope for bad outcomes for the team so that you can get what you want, that I have an issue with.

[CazOnReal]

Let's not forget that the 2024 Pacers pick was Top 3 protected

There was a very real possibility that, if the Pacers missed the playoffs, they could have been the team to push our pick out of its protections and we would end up with no firsts in this draft.

[DreamTeam09]

Let's not forget that the 2024 Pacers pick was Top 3 protected

There was a very real possibility that, if the Pacers missed the playoffs, they could have been the team to push our pick out of its protections and we would end up with no firsts in this draft.

lol lol lets not forget, but lets also drum up the fact & pretend like that possibility was greater than 1%

Its okay lol, things will be fine

[ForeverTFC]

In short, no.

In long, still no, but reasons

I've made this argument before, but the player that is ultimately picked, is absolutely irrelevant to the "quality" of the trade.

Trading prime Lebron for a SRP would be a horrible trade even if that SRP was the 2014 41st OA pick. Picks have inherent value that is unrelated to who ultimately gets selected with said pick.

A 1st is more valuable than a 2nd, than a 3rd, and so on. A 7th can be packaged to move up into the top 5 without too much more in additional assets. Trading up from 21 to top 5 is virtually impossible.

It's precisely why everyone was so upset that we had such weak protections on the pick for Jak. Because a top 10 pick is more valuable, than say an 11-15th. The inherent value of the pick is what the "quality" of the trade is based off of, not the far flung future of what a pick might become, teams are buying lotto tickets here, and you sell them on the "what if". The higher the chance of that "what if" paying out, the higher the cost.

So then we're in agreement. You said "The likelihood of getting a player better than Jak with the 7th OA pick is way higher than whatever crap we got from the Siakam trade." How do you know this? The Pacers '26 pick could be 5th overall pick. The players picked at either of the Pacers pick could be better than anything the Spurs get at 7th if the pick conveys.

The comparison is that a bubble playoff team traded a top 6 protected pick and a bottom of the playoffs team traded 2 top 4 protected picks + change. Clearly, what we got for Pascal is more valuable - this is the objective truth. So no, the Siakam return isn't worse than the Poeltl return. What you're doing is ascribing a new valuation to the Jakob trade and comparing it to a trade that still has a higher variance outcome attached to it.

Well I don't know, that's why I said the likelihood is high, not that it is a certainty.

What we got absolutely is not more valuable. A pick being top 4 protected is meaningless if the team is projected to be a playoff team, it's even more meaningless if from this trade you provide them a player who will make that more of a reality, and it's even MORE useless if those picks are not timed to have any chance of becoming high picks.

There was very little actual chance the 2024 pick was going to be in the top 10. And barring Siakam not re-signing, and/or Hali getting a season ending injury in the first couple of months, there is very little chance the 2026 one does.

The only way you could argue the Siakam return would be better, is if that 2026 pick ends up in the top 4....but if it does, it's not ours anyways.

Granted this is all under the assumption we convey our pick this year. Also, I think calling us a bubble playoff team is incredibly complementary. We were a bubble play in team, at best.

But lets put it more plainly :
A lotto team with the 8th worst record in the NBA, traded a lightly protected lotto pick.
A team that was playoff bound with the 12th best record in the NBA, traded 1 worthless pick, and 2 very lightly protected FRPs that will probably never even be top 15.

There is a very large difference from a team in playoff position on an upward trajectory with the leagues best offence, vs a team that was well outside even a play in spot on a downward trajectory with multiple key UFAs.

One of those trades is a calculated risk, the other is an inadvisable high risk gamble.

If we end up only conveying 2 SRPs, then yes, the Jak trade was better. If we convey this year, that's all she wrote. Again, the value of the pick is intrinsically tied to the position of the pick. The wizards trading a top 2 protected 2025 pick has TONS more value than the Nuggets trading the same.

If it didn't, then Masai got played by Pop and overpaid. Or he got played by Indy and got fleeced. Take your pick.

Again, this is all in hindsight dude.

When the Spurs traded for our pick, the reality was that we were a play-in team that after the trade had the win % of an actual playoff team. We were projected to be at least a play-in team in the following year when the pick would likely convey, in one of the worst drafts in recent memory.

You say "There was very little actual chance the 2024 pick was going to be in the top 10. And barring Siakam not re-signing, and/or Hali getting a season ending injury in the first couple of months, there is very little chance the 2026 one does."

This is the same as saying, "barring FVV not re-singing and/or the Raptors completely tearing down their team and tanking and/or Scottie Barnes and Jakob Poeltl getting injured, that Raptors '24 pick is unlikely to be a very good pick" Well guess what, it happened.

And if we were "barely a play-in team", the Pacers this year were "barely a playoff team". They were literally tied with the 7th seed, 1 game out of the 8th seed, and avoided the play-in on a tie breaker.

[YogurtProducer]

Or, you know, both teams made atrocious decisions but only 1 of those teams was literal inches away from beating the eventual champs in 2021 and is owed 4 unprotected future FRPs. But keep talking about misinformation.


Firstly, the Raptors would have had better opportunity to draft gems if they didn't trade away picks - excuse me, trade down - in 2022 and 2023.

Secondly, who said it was limited to late 1st gems? The list of players Toronto could've signed or drafted with their actual picks:

Dort, Reaves, Bane, Vincent, Strus, Duncan Robinson, Martin, Caruso, Tate, Alvarado, GP2, Melton, Aaron Wiggins, Dean Wade, KJ Martin, Tre Jones, Tillman, Isaiah Joe, Paul Reed, Naz Reid, Hauser, Konchar, Coffey.

They're not all not all starters or needle-movers but they get minutes.

Brooklyn in the mid teens weren’t an inch from the finals my guy.

Also, we made a pick in both 2022 AND 2023. Koloko had an unexpected illness, and Dick looks like he could be a solid player.

Come on man. We’re now at you bitching at the one first rounder in a decade that Masai missed on.

Like i am sorry, but trying to suggest our FO is anything less than great at finding talent is just so far from reality.

+1
https://www.sportsgamblingpodcast.com/2023/06/17/nba-draft-franchise-rankings-who-is-best-at-drafting/
https://towardsdatascience.com/which-nba-teams-are-best-at-drafting-20070ccd1702

Crazy, when you look at the whole picture instead of cherry picking a 5 year span (where we had 1 first rounder and 1 decent 2nd) the results look a lot more like what you would expect.

[vulture]

The reference to selfishness was Masai calling it back to what he said last year, and had nothing to do with Siakam wanting a big contract. Blake Murphy insists the Indy package was stronger at the draft, so there's at least one report that Masai lost some value by waiting. Masai lost that one, but waiting may have given him a better return for OG. Maybe it ends up being a wash. What Masai did to Siakam in order to try and win a trade negotiation was classless and Masai admitted fault and was in tears over it at the press conference.

In the end, Siakam repped the city well, won a chip, he worked harder than any Raptor Masai brought onto the team, he improved more than any Raptor Masai brought onto the team, he volunteered for Masai's charity. He deserved a better end than what Masai gave him. This wasn't a situation where he had to keep a deal quiet in order to preserve it. It was a situation where he thought a cone of silence would create confusion as to his intentions. Not one of the competitive bidders bought Masai's ploy, and the end result is 3 weak picks and Bruce Brown's rapidly declining trade value.

This is the post.
I would just add that on the court Masai asked pascal to play in a phone booth with very little shooting on the floor. He traded for 2 non shooters in Thad and jak. Despite that pascal improved his game when people were saying he had no bag. I’m happy that he’s thriving.

Yeah the trade sucked but we should focus on what the raptors have to do to improve.

[Scase]

So then we're in agreement. You said "The likelihood of getting a player better than Jak with the 7th OA pick is way higher than whatever crap we got from the Siakam trade." How do you know this? The Pacers '26 pick could be 5th overall pick. The players picked at either of the Pacers pick could be better than anything the Spurs get at 7th if the pick conveys.

The comparison is that a bubble playoff team traded a top 6 protected pick and a bottom of the playoffs team traded 2 top 4 protected picks + change. Clearly, what we got for Pascal is more valuable - this is the objective truth. So no, the Siakam return isn't worse than the Poeltl return. What you're doing is ascribing a new valuation to the Jakob trade and comparing it to a trade that still has a higher variance outcome attached to it.

Well I don't know, that's why I said the likelihood is high, not that it is a certainty.

What we got absolutely is not more valuable. A pick being top 4 protected is meaningless if the team is projected to be a playoff team, it's even more meaningless if from this trade you provide them a player who will make that more of a reality, and it's even MORE useless if those picks are not timed to have any chance of becoming high picks.

There was very little actual chance the 2024 pick was going to be in the top 10. And barring Siakam not re-signing, and/or Hali getting a season ending injury in the first couple of months, there is very little chance the 2026 one does.

The only way you could argue the Siakam return would be better, is if that 2026 pick ends up in the top 4....but if it does, it's not ours anyways.

Granted this is all under the assumption we convey our pick this year. Also, I think calling us a bubble playoff team is incredibly complementary. We were a bubble play in team, at best.

But lets put it more plainly :
A lotto team with the 8th worst record in the NBA, traded a lightly protected lotto pick.
A team that was playoff bound with the 12th best record in the NBA, traded 1 worthless pick, and 2 very lightly protected FRPs that will probably never even be top 15.

There is a very large difference from a team in playoff position on an upward trajectory with the leagues best offence, vs a team that was well outside even a play in spot on a downward trajectory with multiple key UFAs.

One of those trades is a calculated risk, the other is an inadvisable high risk gamble.

If we end up only conveying 2 SRPs, then yes, the Jak trade was better. If we convey this year, that's all she wrote. Again, the value of the pick is intrinsically tied to the position of the pick. The wizards trading a top 2 protected 2025 pick has TONS more value than the Nuggets trading the same.

If it didn't, then Masai got played by Pop and overpaid. Or he got played by Indy and got fleeced. Take your pick.

Again, this is all in hindsight dude.

When the Spurs traded for our pick, the reality was that we were a play-in team that after the trade had the win % of an actual playoff team. We were projected to be at least a play-in team in the following year when the pick would likely convey, in one of the worst drafts in recent memory.

You say "There was very little actual chance the 2024 pick was going to be in the top 10. And barring Siakam not re-signing, and/or Hali getting a season ending injury in the first couple of months, there is very little chance the 2026 one does."

This is the same as saying, "barring FVV not re-singing and/or the Raptors completely tearing down their team and tanking and/or Scottie Barnes and Jakob Poeltl getting injured, that Raptors '24 pick is unlikely to be a very good pick" Well guess what, it happened.

And if we were "barely a play-in team", the Pacers this year were "barely a playoff team". They were literally tied with the 7th seed, 1 game out of the 8th seed, and avoided the play-in on a tie breaker.

We were 11th in the east when the trade was made, they were 7th. They were on the upswing, we were on the down swing. It's not hindsight, that was literally the state of the 2 teams when the trades were made.

After the Jak trade we were 14-10 (I'm not counting the last game of the season for obvious reasons) and we lost against every single team that was above .500 aside from that one game against denver.

The pacers were a playoff team that traded to get better. We were a lotto team that traded a lotto pick to lose in the play in. I honestly cannot understand how you are defending trading valuable futures as a losing team, as if it's the same situation as a team with a winning record trying to move up.

All while ignoring the pending UFA issues. Hindsight is saying "Oh it was stupid because both of them got traded". It is not hindsight to have said, "Making that trade with those risks is a stupid idea".

The Jak trade is practically indefensible, and even some of the most ardent Masai defenders are admitting it wasn't a good trade. It's probably one of the least controversial statements to make now a days. Losing teams shouldn't trade futures for mid players, that's a pretty reasonable take.

[ForeverTFC]

Well I don't know, that's why I said the likelihood is high, not that it is a certainty.

What we got absolutely is not more valuable. A pick being top 4 protected is meaningless if the team is projected to be a playoff team, it's even more meaningless if from this trade you provide them a player who will make that more of a reality, and it's even MORE useless if those picks are not timed to have any chance of becoming high picks.

There was very little actual chance the 2024 pick was going to be in the top 10. And barring Siakam not re-signing, and/or Hali getting a season ending injury in the first couple of months, there is very little chance the 2026 one does.

The only way you could argue the Siakam return would be better, is if that 2026 pick ends up in the top 4....but if it does, it's not ours anyways.

Granted this is all under the assumption we convey our pick this year. Also, I think calling us a bubble playoff team is incredibly complementary. We were a bubble play in team, at best.

But lets put it more plainly :
A lotto team with the 8th worst record in the NBA, traded a lightly protected lotto pick.
A team that was playoff bound with the 12th best record in the NBA, traded 1 worthless pick, and 2 very lightly protected FRPs that will probably never even be top 15.

There is a very large difference from a team in playoff position on an upward trajectory with the leagues best offence, vs a team that was well outside even a play in spot on a downward trajectory with multiple key UFAs.

One of those trades is a calculated risk, the other is an inadvisable high risk gamble.

If we end up only conveying 2 SRPs, then yes, the Jak trade was better. If we convey this year, that's all she wrote. Again, the value of the pick is intrinsically tied to the position of the pick. The wizards trading a top 2 protected 2025 pick has TONS more value than the Nuggets trading the same.

If it didn't, then Masai got played by Pop and overpaid. Or he got played by Indy and got fleeced. Take your pick.

Again, this is all in hindsight dude.

When the Spurs traded for our pick, the reality was that we were a play-in team that after the trade had the win % of an actual playoff team. We were projected to be at least a play-in team in the following year when the pick would likely convey, in one of the worst drafts in recent memory.

You say "There was very little actual chance the 2024 pick was going to be in the top 10. And barring Siakam not re-signing, and/or Hali getting a season ending injury in the first couple of months, there is very little chance the 2026 one does."

This is the same as saying, "barring FVV not re-singing and/or the Raptors completely tearing down their team and tanking and/or Scottie Barnes and Jakob Poeltl getting injured, that Raptors '24 pick is unlikely to be a very good pick" Well guess what, it happened.

And if we were "barely a play-in team", the Pacers this year were "barely a playoff team". They were literally tied with the 7th seed, 1 game out of the 8th seed, and avoided the play-in on a tie breaker.

We were 11th in the east when the trade was made, they were 7th. They were on the upswing, we were on the down swing. It's not hindsight, that was literally the state of the 2 teams when the trades were made.

After the Jak trade we were 14-10 (I'm not counting the last game of the season for obvious reasons) and we lost against every single team that was above .500 aside from that one game against denver.

The pacers were a playoff team that traded to get better. We were a lotto team that traded a lotto pick to lose in the play in. I honestly cannot understand how you are defending trading valuable futures as a losing team, as if it's the same situation as a team with a winning record trying to move up.

All while ignoring the pending UFA issues. Hindsight is saying "Oh it was stupid because both of them got traded". It is not hindsight to have said, "Making that trade with those risks is a stupid idea".

The Jak trade is practically indefensible, and even some of the most ardent Masai defenders are admitting it wasn't a good trade. It's probably one of the least controversial statements to make now a days. Losing teams shouldn't trade futures for mid players, that's a pretty reasonable take.

This was not the argument. My original reply to you was to refute your claim that Spurs got a better return for Jak than we did for Siakam. This doesn't mean that I'm defending the Poeltl trade or that I like the Siakam trade.

I'm on the record as saying the Poeltl trade has become a disaster and that I hated the Siakam trade. With that said, I do not believe the Poeltl trade was indefensible. It was rational IF they were going to give the team one more run this season. However, the moment FVV walked, the trade became a disaster. You can go back to the FVV thread when he signed with Houston where I said this exact thing. And just flat out telling everyone we will be moving off of Siakam by reducing his role so much this year is another move I just don't understand.

[disoblige]

Hindsight is 20/20. Almost half of the board agreed with the trade. Move on... Not only that, the pick hasnt been traded yet



viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2265184

[CazOnReal]

Let's not forget that the 2024 Pacers pick was Top 3 protected

There was a very real possibility that, if the Pacers missed the playoffs, they could have been the team to push our pick out of its protections and we would end up with no firsts in this draft.

lol lol lets not forget, but lets also drum up the fact & pretend like that possibility was greater than 1%

Its okay lol, things will be fine

Technically it'd be 2.7% for picks 1-3

If we got a Top 4 pick then that would be wild but closer to 1%