RealGM

I could buy the salary cap fodder bit but it would have to be a 1 + team option on the years.

Otherwise, minimum or at the very most luxury tax MLE...but that feels like an overpay right now. He just hasn't developed much outside of shooting.

MLE is around 13m, I can't imagine a few teams won't be throwing that at him.
If we were to retain I think the 3/45 with the third year PO would likely be where we should be.

Yeah he’s similar to Monk and Beasley. Problem is he’s still youngish so he gets a bump in pay because of it.

I'd rather go after Monk

2-3 years around MLE is fine unless there are better options that we can sign or we want to straight up tank next season.

honestly he just doesnt fit what we are doing here, hes like boucher in that regard. dont want him back unless its to trade him for more assets.

he also making my watching experience less fun.
hes a good dude, but im more than ok letting him walk.

funnily enough though, i feel like he will perform really well under a coach that doesnt let him do whatever he wants, kinda like precious is performing under thibs.

3 years and people don't see why you cut these guys loose? Not a difference maker. If this roster had 2-3 top end guys, then sure, you can keep a limited player like this. But this roster doesn't, change direction and take chances on other players. Otherwise, embrace mediocrity.

Spida888 wrote:2-3 years around MLE is fine unless there are better options that we can sign or we want to straight up tank next season.

theres an argument to be made hes kinda valuable for the tank lol, did u see him vs washington? he pretty much cost us the game with his chucking. getting blocked by the rim and falling down ensured that loss lol.

Thaddy wrote:Trent is a professional and he is improving in some ways every year. I would keep him on a 3 year deal and start him until there's a large 3+D player available for trade or Dick grows to be better than Trent.

What has he improved since he got here?

I dont really want him back but I could live with an MLE sized deal.

PushDaRock wrote:None of these contracts. Check what Beasley and Monk got on the open market off similar type seasons. Nobody is paying big money to these gunner types anymore. It will be interesting to see what Monk gets this summer, he's the much better player but I'm not expecting him to crack 20m AAV. He might not even get much of a raise from his current deal and probably will settle for MLE if I was betting on it.

Monk will get a huge raise. He will easily crack $20M. He's a legitimately good basketball player and is still improving into his prime. He's nothing like Gary, who plateaued as a pullup/open jump shooter 4 years ago.

Morris_Shatford wrote:MLE is around 13m, I can't imagine a few teams won't be throwing that at him.
If we were to retain I think the 3/45 with the third year PO would likely be where we should be.

Yes, I'm surprised the poll didn't offer MLE as the floor offer.

Basketball_Jones wrote:Yeah he’s similar to Monk and Beasley. Problem is he’s still youngish so he gets a bump in pay because of it.

Malik Monk is being disrespected big time in this thread. He's a tier above these guys

rapsincr wrote:honestly he just doesnt fit what we are doing here, hes like boucher in that regard. dont want him back unless its to trade him for more assets.

I was going to post almost the exact same thing.

With Barnes/Barrett/Quickley, were does he fit in? There's not enough shot attempts to go around and he's not really a complimentary player.

Re-signing would be more of an accommodation for him than for us.

Me, I'd drop Barnes down to SF and find a decent PF to start. Then somehow make Dick/Nwora/Agbaji coming off the bench work.

I kinda don’t understand the hate for him. He’s automatic from 3 and his defence isn’t as bad as people make it out to be.

I’d definitely take him back on a reasonable contract.

C_Money wrote:I kinda don’t understand the hate for him. He’s automatic from 3 and his defence isn’t as bad as people make it out to be.

I’d definitely take him back on a reasonable contract.

I almost like him but I don't think he makes sense on this roster. He's a great shooter but he's also a ball stopper. His best role is a spark off the bench but he underperforms when he isn't starting.

With that said, something like 4/60 is reasonable but I think Dick makes him expendable.

Can never have too many shooters, especially with how bad our bench has been the last couple of years.

With the perpetual cap increases, I could see him making $20M a season.

Don't re sign. Let him go elsewhere....

C_Money wrote:I kinda don’t understand the hate for him. He’s automatic from 3 and his defence isn’t as bad as people make it out to be.

I’d definitely take him back on a reasonable contract.

The thing about Trent's 3pt shooting is one game he'll make like 5of7, the next game it's like 1of5.

So his overall numbers seem good, but from game to game it kills us.

Problem is that Trent and Dick both cant be on the court at the same time unless you're trying to tank and neither should be a starter next year unless they drastically improve. Since we're not getting rid of Dick, Trent doesn't make much basketball sense.

But basketball sense left this front office a while ago so I fully expect to see a bench lineup of Olynyk at C with Trent and Dick to give you the worst defense/rebounding imaginable lol.

artsncrafts wrote:Time and time and time and time and time again the raptors sign guys "as salary fodder" and then cant get rid of them or have to give up picks to get rid of them. I don't really understand NBA salary cap rules, but I do know that giving bad players contracts has never worked out for the Raptors. Now Gary isnt as bad as some of the past "salary fodder" guys but there are better players out there for this money.

Tiem and time again?

The only guys I can think of for guys we had to give up assets to get rid of was DMC (not signed "as salary fodder") and Birch (who also, was signed to be a backup C that did not pan out).

Would love to hear about the examples of this happening "Time and time and time and time and time again"