Siakam trade for basically nothing is now showing its effect

[OakleyDokely]

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.

Like I mentioned, if the Raps traded Siakam a year earlier, maybe they get an extra late pick or middle tier prospect as well. But the deal was always going to involve middle to late picks and mid tier prospects, not top assets.

Overall, I'm content with getting 3 1sts + Brown + financial flexibility once they decided to pivot.

[agkagk]

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.

What if we trade brown/boucher and allour future picks for jimmy butler in the offseason?

Rj quick jimmy scottie jakob with an above avg bench.


Is it still a bad trade then?

[brownbobcat]

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.

No, I'm a notorious anti-crap hater. You don't see me criticizing the OG trade because I thought that was decent.

[Scase]

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.

Like I mentioned, if the Raps traded Siakam a year earlier, maybe they get an extra late pick or middle tier prospect as well. But the deal was always going to involve middle to late picks and mid tier prospects, not top assets.

Overall, I'm content with getting 3 1sts + Brown + financial flexibility once they decided to pivot.

More = better in this instance.

Brown is looking to be a waste so far, as his primary value was before the deadline, when the receiving team still had the option to decline his last year. As of now, WE have to pick up his option if we want to trade him. So the financial flexibility we have amounts to letting him walk for nothing, and the trade ultimately being Siakam for 2 mediocre firsts and an awful first.

[Scase]

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.

What if we trade brown/boucher and allour future picks for jimmy butler in the offseason?

Rj quick jimmy scottie jakob with an above avg bench.


Is it still a bad trade then?

That would be a horrendous trade lol.

We give up all our future options, to add Jimmy to a rebuilding team, all while paying him 45/48/52mil while he's 34/35/36? Yes, that would be terrible lol. That would be up there with trading Scottie for Dame/KD.

Maybe you need to be more specific about what "all our future picks" entails exactly? Are we talking the 2 indy picks and the DET one?

[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.

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.

Every player turns 30 at some point, assuming they don't drop dead. Donovan Mitchell, Jamal Murray, Sabonis, KAT, Dejounte Murray, Jaylen Brown - all of those guys will turn 30 on their next deal or on the current one.

The argument is either that Siakam isn't a top-20 player worth building around (valid point) or that Toronto got a mediocre package for a star player, it just can't be both. Regardless of which is true, the entire affair was a failure of strategy and execution.

[ForeverTFC]

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.

No, I'm a notorious anti-crap hater. You don't see me criticizing the OG trade because I thought that was decent.

I agree with you. I hated the return for Siakam and I'm regarded as an FO apologist by some on this board. With that said, I've come to the conclusion that the league severely underrates Siakam. I can find the pod if folks want, but Lowe came out and said that he believes the return for Siakam would have been similar if it was done the year before based on what he had heard on what was being offered to the Raptors. So while I hate the return, I can't really fault the FO for it.

With that said, it can be argued that if the Raptors knew about this value mismatch and they knew they didn't want to max Siakam, they should have just gotten it over with the year before (I believe Scase has made this argument in the past). I tend to agree at this point, but only because they made no real push to re-sign Fred based on what Fred said himself about how the off-season transpired for him. If they weren't dead set on bringing Fred back, there was no way this was going to work with Siakam.

If I was a real FO apologist, I'd say that they only came to this conclusion after finishing out the season but I think that doesn't align with how patient and calculated this FO has been through its tenure.

With all that said, I'd much rather Onlynyk and Agbaji than a late 1st in a weak draft where we will have 2-3 picks already. I like this trade in a vaccum.

[MiamiSPX]

Another thing people are forgetting is that Masai has some sort of mantra where he trades players he loves to where they want to go (or doesn't trade them to where they don't want to, as has been implied in FVV's case by Masai himself). Siakam only wanted Indy.

There is certainly a debate to be had whether this is the right approach or not. Personally, I hope this crap is over and that was just for the title winning guys.

[brownbobcat]

I agree with you. I hated the return for Siakam and I'm regarded as an FO apologist by some on this board. With that said, I've come to the conclusion that the league severely underrates Siakam. I can find the pod if folks want, but Lowe came out and said that he believes the return for Siakam would have been similar if it was done the year before based on what he had heard on what was being offered to the Raptors. So while I hate the return, I can't really fault the FO for it.

With that said, it can be argued that if the Raptors knew about this value mismatch and they knew they didn't want to max Siakam, they should have just gotten it over with the year before (I believe Scase has made this argument in the past). I tend to agree at this point, but only because they made no real push to re-sign Fred based on what Fred said himself about how the off-season transpired for him. If they weren't dead set on bringing Fred back, there was no way this was going to work with Siakam.

If I was a real FO apologist, I'd say that they only came to this conclusion after finishing out the season but I think that doesn't align with how patient and calculated this FO has been through its tenure.

With all that said, I'd much rather Onlynyk and Agbaji than a late 1st in a weak draft where we will have 2-3 picks already. I like this trade in a vaccum.

I think those are decent points and certainly a plausible situation. While underwhelming, this trade is better than what Washington got for Beal. Having said that, doing better than Washington is a low, low, low bar. Not everything has to be a homerun, but getting back to contention means the FO has to start coming out ahead on a lot more moves.

[Scase]

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.

No, I'm a notorious anti-crap hater. You don't see me criticizing the OG trade because I thought that was decent.

I agree with you. I hated the return for Siakam and I'm regarded as an FO apologist by some on this board. With that said, I've come to the conclusion that the league severely underrates Siakam. I can find the pod if folks want, but Lowe came out and said that he believes the return for Siakam would have been similar if it was done the year before based on what he had heard on what was being offered to the Raptors. So while I hate the return, I can't really fault the FO for it.

With that said, it can be argued that if the Raptors knew about this value mismatch and they knew they didn't want to max Siakam, they should have just gotten it over with the year before (I believe Scase has made this argument in the past). I tend to agree at this point, but only because they made no real push to re-sign Fred based on what Fred said himself about how the off-season transpired for him. If they weren't dead set on bringing Fred back, there was no way this was going to work with Siakam.

If I was a real FO apologist, I'd say that they only came to this conclusion after finishing out the season but I think that doesn't align with how patient and calculated this FO has been through its tenure.

With all that said, I'd much rather Onlynyk and Agbaji than a late 1st in a weak draft where we will have 2-3 picks already. I like this trade in a vaccum.

I'm not a big hater on the KO/AO for the 28th trade, but one would assume that you could probably pull that trade off using the DET 31st pick +filler instead no? If anything that pick has more value than the 28th due to guaranteed salary.

Now this all obviously goes down the whole rabbit hole of, "If we trade Siakam last year, do we still trade OG for the Knicks package" and so on, I personally think we do.

But I just cannot for the life of me, see any reason as to why we kept Siakam as long as we did. Feels like sunk cost after trading for Jak.

[agkagk]

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.

What if we trade brown/boucher and allour future picks for jimmy butler in the offseason?

Rj quick jimmy scottie jakob with an above avg bench.


Is it still a bad trade then?

That would be a horrendous trade lol.

We give up all our future options, to add Jimmy to a rebuilding team, all while paying him 45/48/52mil while he's 34/35/36? Yes, that would be terrible lol. That would be up there with trading Scottie for Dame/KD.

Maybe you need to be more specific about what "all our future picks" entails exactly? Are we talking the 2 indy picks and the DET one?

Jeez man come on dont get lost in the minutia just to be stubborn.

Some of the picks, ok?

Or brown and a pick for lu dort


Get creative loose the brick wall.

Think. Lol.

[OakleyDokely]

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.

Every player turns 30 at some point, assuming they don't drop dead. Donovan Mitchell, Jamal Murray, Sabonis, KAT, Dejounte Murray, Jaylen Brown - all of those guys will turn 30 on their next deal or on the current one.

The argument is either that Siakam isn't a top-20 player worth building around (valid point) or that Toronto got a mediocre package for a star player, it just can't be both. Regardless of which is true, the entire affair was a failure of strategy and execution.

Yes, and all those guys will be less valuable on huge contracts into their 30s than they are now.

[OakleyDokely]

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.

Like I mentioned, if the Raps traded Siakam a year earlier, maybe they get an extra late pick or middle tier prospect as well. But the deal was always going to involve middle to late picks and mid tier prospects, not top assets.

Overall, I'm content with getting 3 1sts + Brown + financial flexibility once they decided to pivot.

More = better in this instance.

Brown is looking to be a waste so far, as his primary value was before the deadline, when the receiving team still had the option to decline his last year. As of now, WE have to pick up his option if we want to trade him. So the financial flexibility we have amounts to letting him walk for nothing, and the trade ultimately being Siakam for 2 mediocre firsts and an awful first.

I'm definitely not arguing that they wouldn't gotten more if they traded him a year earlier, I just don't believe the deal would be substantially better.

Was a deal out there that would've netted a top draft pick or top young player? Doubtful. When you're trading vets to a contender, contenders usually don't have a top picks to trade, and they want to win, so they're not going to trade you the players that are helping them to win. Mid to late 1sts is what they have to offer.

Trading him to IND is one of the better scenarios, because their picks aren't locks to be in the 20s like most contenders. This years pick is likely to be in the mid to high teens and 2026 could be in the same range as well. The picks also have minimal protections, so if IND suffers an injury or two in 2026, that could end up being valuable pick. IND isn't some juggernaut team.

[Scase]

What if we trade brown/boucher and allour future picks for jimmy butler in the offseason?

Rj quick jimmy scottie jakob with an above avg bench.


Is it still a bad trade then?

That would be a horrendous trade lol.

We give up all our future options, to add Jimmy to a rebuilding team, all while paying him 45/48/52mil while he's 34/35/36? Yes, that would be terrible lol. That would be up there with trading Scottie for Dame/KD.

Maybe you need to be more specific about what "all our future picks" entails exactly? Are we talking the 2 indy picks and the DET one?

Jeez man come on dont get lost in the minutia just to be stubborn.

Some of the picks, ok?

Or brown and a pick for lu dort


Get creative loose the brick wall.

Think. Lol.

You just gave me flashbacks of all day management meetings in NYC, I hate you

If we could swing say Brown + the 2024/26 pick for Lu dort, I'd be happy with that actually. But I don't see a snowballs chance in hell the Thunder do that.

[ArthurVandelay]

Like I mentioned, if the Raps traded Siakam a year earlier, maybe they get an extra late pick or middle tier prospect as well. But the deal was always going to involve middle to late picks and mid tier prospects, not top assets.

Overall, I'm content with getting 3 1sts + Brown + financial flexibility once they decided to pivot.

More = better in this instance.

Brown is looking to be a waste so far, as his primary value was before the deadline, when the receiving team still had the option to decline his last year. As of now, WE have to pick up his option if we want to trade him. So the financial flexibility we have amounts to letting him walk for nothing, and the trade ultimately being Siakam for 2 mediocre firsts and an awful first.

I'm definitely not arguing that they wouldn't gotten more if they traded him a year earlier, I just don't believe the deal would be substantially better.

Was a deal out there that would've netted a top draft pick or top young player? Doubtful. When you're trading vets to a contender, contenders usually don't have a top picks to trade, and they want to win, so they're not going to trade you the players that are helping them to win. Mid to late 1sts is what they have to offer. Trading him to IND is one of the better scenarios, because their picks aren't locks to be in the 20s like most contenders.

In 2023 the Pacers weren’t offering rookie Mathurin or their own pick. They were offering what ended up being 26 and/or 29 in ‘23 and future picks.

I think the debate on the return of Siakam is silly. The issue people have to be annoyed over is the lost draft position in 2023 and most likely giving up a pick for Poeltl.

[Scase]

Like I mentioned, if the Raps traded Siakam a year earlier, maybe they get an extra late pick or middle tier prospect as well. But the deal was always going to involve middle to late picks and mid tier prospects, not top assets.

Overall, I'm content with getting 3 1sts + Brown + financial flexibility once they decided to pivot.

More = better in this instance.

Brown is looking to be a waste so far, as his primary value was before the deadline, when the receiving team still had the option to decline his last year. As of now, WE have to pick up his option if we want to trade him. So the financial flexibility we have amounts to letting him walk for nothing, and the trade ultimately being Siakam for 2 mediocre firsts and an awful first.

I'm definitely not arguing that they wouldn't gotten more if they traded him a year earlier, I just don't believe the deal would be substantially better.

Was a deal out there that would've netted a top draft pick or top young player? Doubtful. When you're trading vets to a contender, contenders usually don't have a top picks to trade, and they want to win, so they're not going to trade you the players that are helping them to win. Mid to late 1sts is what they have to offer.

Trading him to IND is one of the better scenarios, because their picks aren't locks to be in the 20s like most contenders. This years pick is likely to be in the mid to high teens and 2026 could be in the same range as well. The picks also have minimal protections, so if IND suffers an injury or two in 2026, that could end up being valuable pick. IND isn't some juggernaut team.

The thing is, to me, you can't separate moving him earlier from his return, because of the cascading effects.

Moving him earlier is more about picking a direction sooner, the better return is icing on the cake. I think we can all agree that his return would be middling overall, but I would happily have taken middling and rebuilding a year or more ago, over sub par and wasting another year+.

Either way, moving him earlier gets us a better return, even if only marginally, which is better overall. What if instead we end up with a 20th pick, instead of the 28th OKC one. OKC finished 40-42 last season, right now they are 47-20, for second best in the league. Even if we make the EXACT same trade with Indy, that OKC/LAC/HOU pick is looking like a 20ish pick, which inherently has more value and can be traded for a better return.

It's all about the flexibility.

[Scase]

More = better in this instance.

Brown is looking to be a waste so far, as his primary value was before the deadline, when the receiving team still had the option to decline his last year. As of now, WE have to pick up his option if we want to trade him. So the financial flexibility we have amounts to letting him walk for nothing, and the trade ultimately being Siakam for 2 mediocre firsts and an awful first.

I'm definitely not arguing that they wouldn't gotten more if they traded him a year earlier, I just don't believe the deal would be substantially better.

Was a deal out there that would've netted a top draft pick or top young player? Doubtful. When you're trading vets to a contender, contenders usually don't have a top picks to trade, and they want to win, so they're not going to trade you the players that are helping them to win. Mid to late 1sts is what they have to offer. Trading him to IND is one of the better scenarios, because their picks aren't locks to be in the 20s like most contenders.

In 2023 the Pacers weren’t offering rookie Mathurin or their own pick. They were offering what ended up being 26 and/or 29 in ‘23 and future picks.

I think the debate on the return of Siakam is silly. The issue people have to be annoyed over is the lost draft position in 2023 and most likely giving up a pick for Poeltl.

Exactly this, that said, you move Siakam earlier, and that Jak trade never gets made. Hell, even if they only planned on moving Siakam in the off season last year, they STILL don't make that Jak trade. Two sides of the same coin I think.

[brownbobcat]

Yes, and all those guys will be less valuable on huge contracts into their 30s than they are now.

Less valuable in the future. The point is that Siakam of last year would've been in a similar spot as those guys are now or will be soon.

Again, there is a line of argument that Siakam was never ever worth a haul at any point in his career post-bubble, that nobody else in the NBA valued him as an All Star. That I could accept. But I'm hearing some of the same people who pleaded for patience for Masai to work his magic, who said it was ONLY worth trading Siakam for a haul now rationalizing all kinds of things about his age and salary.

In a vacuum, it's a mediocre trade. In context, it's dismal and only looks decent compared to the FVV debacle

[ill-Will03]

It's pretty clear and Masai pretty much admitted to it in his presser that the Jak trade was a mistake in hindsight, and the early returns on the Pascal trade don't seem too good. Obviously time will tell because the key pieces were picks which will take time to develop. It could turn out to be a good trade in the end, if our scouting department does what is needs to do. I think we won the OG trade personally so maybe that balances out. But you guys are right, if the FO wants to get back into contention they need to come out ahead on these moves rather than even or slightly better.

[2019nbachamps]

No, I'm a notorious anti-crap hater. You don't see me criticizing the OG trade because I thought that was decent.

I agree with you. I hated the return for Siakam and I'm regarded as an FO apologist by some on this board. With that said, I've come to the conclusion that the league severely underrates Siakam. I can find the pod if folks want, but Lowe came out and said that he believes the return for Siakam would have been similar if it was done the year before based on what he had heard on what was being offered to the Raptors. So while I hate the return, I can't really fault the FO for it.

With that said, it can be argued that if the Raptors knew about this value mismatch and they knew they didn't want to max Siakam, they should have just gotten it over with the year before (I believe Scase has made this argument in the past). I tend to agree at this point, but only because they made no real push to re-sign Fred based on what Fred said himself about how the off-season transpired for him. If they weren't dead set on bringing Fred back, there was no way this was going to work with Siakam.

If I was a real FO apologist, I'd say that they only came to this conclusion after finishing out the season but I think that doesn't align with how patient and calculated this FO has been through its tenure.

With all that said, I'd much rather Onlynyk and Agbaji than a late 1st in a weak draft where we will have 2-3 picks already. I like this trade in a vaccum.

I'm not a big hater on the KO/AO for the 28th trade, but one would assume that you could probably pull that trade off using the DET 31st pick +filler instead no? If anything that pick has more value than the 28th due to guaranteed salary.

Now this all obviously goes down the whole rabbit hole of, "If we trade Siakam last year, do we still trade OG for the Knicks package" and so on, I personally think we do.

But I just cannot for the life of me, see any reason as to why we kept Siakam as long as we did. Feels like sunk cost after trading for Jak.

We held onto Siakam because Masai wanted to see what our team could do. He finally realized we were a treadmill team in December and began the rebuild. He’ll then end the season by claiming it was a development year all along. He better get us a decent return for Bruce Brown.