Siakam trade for basically nothing is now showing its effect

[ArthurVandelay]

Hindsight is 20/20. Almost half of the board agreed with the trade. Move on...


viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2265184

46/54

Hilarious irony

[Scase]

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.

The level of impact Siakam has vs Jak, is disproportionate from what was traded for each player. A lotto pick vs what is already a 19th, a 29th, and likely to be a 20th, is objectively worse than what is statistically likely to be a 7th or 8th. So at best, we can say for now it's TBD, but if it does convey this year, the only way Siakams return results in a better return is if somehow the pacers drop the protections and we get a top 4 in 2026.

[ForeverTFC]

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.

The level of impact Siakam has vs Jak, is disproportionate from what was traded for each player. A lotto pick vs what is already a 19th, a 29th, and likely to be a 20th, is objectively worse than what is statistically likely to be a 7th or 8th. So at best, we can say for now it's TBD, but if it does convey this year, the only way Siakams return results in a better return is if somehow the pacers drop the protections and we get a top 4 in 2026.

Have you ever said "ah, I see what you're saying"? Do you always have to be right?

We just went through a whole thing about not judging deals in hindsight, which you yourself said should never be done, and here you are again doing it in hindsight. For the last time, the pick the Spurs are getting was not statically likely to be the 7th or 8th pick AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. You are adjusting the value of that pick based on information you have now; you can't do that when comparing the return AT THE TIME OF THE DEAL. I'm done with this conversation.

[Scase]

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.

The level of impact Siakam has vs Jak, is disproportionate from what was traded for each player. A lotto pick vs what is already a 19th, a 29th, and likely to be a 20th, is objectively worse than what is statistically likely to be a 7th or 8th. So at best, we can say for now it's TBD, but if it does convey this year, the only way Siakams return results in a better return is if somehow the pacers drop the protections and we get a top 4 in 2026.

Have you ever said "ah, I see what you're saying"? Do you always have to be right?

We just went through a whole thing about not judging deals in hindsight, which you yourself said should never be done, and here you are again doing it in hindsight. For the last time, the pick the Spurs are getting was not statically likely to be the 7th or 8th pick AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. You are adjusting the value of that pick based on information you have now; you can't do that when comparing the return AT THE TIME OF THE DEAL. I'm done with this conversation.

Literally earlier today today. So yeah.

This isn't judging it in hindsight. We had the 8th worst record in the league when the trade was made, which was a 68% chance of the pick conveying, with the highest likelihood being the 8th pick itself. So again, it wasn't hindsight it was the literal place of the pick AT THE TIME OF THE DEAL.

We're not talking hypotheticals man, we're talking real world, objective, and verifiable facts. 8th worst record in the league, and we traded a lightly protected FRP.

[bballsparkin]

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.

Better package at the draft, such as? If Blake is going to put that out there than he better provide specifics.

Masai's ploy? Maybe the offers were constantly underwhelming. The FO seemed to prioritize cap flexibility and picks. It's not the return many envisioned, yet, it's the return we got.

I think the problem is not so much the Pascal trade. It's everything. Fred walking. The end of the NN tenure was not great. Tampa and the bubble. Taking so long to acquire a dependable Centre and then for that acquisition only to be attained via a lightly protected pick that may convene despite the Raptors having one of the franchise's worst seasons. Play-in decided by a screaming girl. It's been a rough stretch.

But I'm happy they didn't offer Pskillz the max for 5 years. He could go on and win the MVP and I wouldn't fault the FO trading him.

[disoblige]

Hindsight raptors sucked in 2022.

Neither fans or betting sites expected the raptors to suck.
https://dknetwork.draftkings.com/2022/10/7/23341781/toronto-raptors-predictions-2022-23-nba-picks-odds-betting-lines-win-total-playoffs-player-futures

It’s practically the same core that won 48 games. People forget we were injured and didn’t have a true centre until February. Technically we were average 41-41.

[WaltFrazier]

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.

Great post, the part about how Masai treated Pascal. Especially at media day talking about selfishness. Only to apologize and cry about it after the trade. He deserved better is the appropriate way to put it.

[ForeverTFC]

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.

Better package at the draft, such as? If Blake is going to put that out there than he better provide specifics.

Masai's ploy? Maybe the offers were constantly underwhelming. The FO seemed to prioritize cap flexibility and picks. It's not the return many envisioned, yet, it's the return we got.

I think the problem is not so much the Pascal trade. It's everything. Fred walking. The end of the NN tenure was not great. Tampa and the bubble. Taking so long to acquire a dependable Centre and then for that acquisition only to be attained via a lightly protected pick that may convene despite the Raptors having one of the franchise's worst seasons. Play-in decided by a screaming girl. It's been a rough stretch.

But I'm happy they didn't offer Pskillz the max for 5 years. He could go on and win the MVP and I wouldn't fault the FO trading him.

FWIW, Zach Lowe said his understanding is the deal wouldn’t have been much better even if it was done a year earlier. I think I put more stock into Lowe’s sources than Blake’s. Pascal just didn’t have value because the guy is criminally underrated. I’m convinced it’s one of the reasons Masai couldn’t move on.

Blake also said Boucher will be dealt at the deadline iirc.

[mdenny]

How many posters in this thread are merely trying to distract from their anti-Siakam narrative by focusing on 'bad trade by masai"?

[disoblige]

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.

Better package at the draft, such as? If Blake is going to put that out there than he better provide specifics.

Masai's ploy? Maybe the offers were constantly underwhelming. The FO seemed to prioritize cap flexibility and picks. It's not the return many envisioned, yet, it's the return we got.

I think the problem is not so much the Pascal trade. It's everything. Fred walking. The end of the NN tenure was not great. Tampa and the bubble. Taking so long to acquire a dependable Centre and then for that acquisition only to be attained via a lightly protected pick that may convene despite the Raptors having one of the franchise's worst seasons. Play-in decided by a screaming girl. It's been a rough stretch.

But I'm happy they didn't offer Pskillz the max for 5 years. He could go on and win the MVP and I wouldn't fault the FO trading him.

FWIW, Zach Lowe said his understanding is the deal wouldn’t have been much better even if it was done a year earlier. I think I put more stock into Lowe’s sources than Blake’s. Pascal just didn’t have value because the guy is criminally underrated. I’m convinced it’s one of the reasons Masai couldn’t move on.

Blake also said Boucher will be dealt at the deadline iirc.

The reason they didn't move him a year earlier is because we won 48games prior that year with that core of FV, Siakam,OG, GTJ and Barnes. I made a tank/rebuild thread that year and it was locked because people think it's unreasonable.

[bballsparkin]

The reason they didn't move him a year earlier is because we won 48games prior that year with that core of FV, Siakam,OG, GTJ and Barnes. I made a tank/rebuild thread that year and it was locked because people think it's unreasonable.

It was unreasonable. Raptor ownership will never approve a tank/rebuild after a 48 win season. Too much moola at stake imho.

edit: however, I agree it would have been a good time to strike early on the rebuild.

[SpezNc]

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.

Fair but we can also argue there was a world where Poeltl is acquired for a bunch (4) of second rounders and Thad Young and a high second was acquired for Dragic and a lower second .

[disoblige]

The reason they didn't move him a year earlier is because we won 48games prior that year with that core of FV, Siakam,OG, GTJ and Barnes. I made a tank/rebuild thread that year and it was locked because people think it's unreasonable.

It was unreasonable. Raptor ownership will never approve a tank/rebuild after a 48 win season. Too much moola at stake imho.

edit: however, I agree it would have been a good time to strike early on the rebuild.

Not on my perspective. After watching Kawhi, dominating in the playoffs in 2019, to Siakam failing to carry us twice (vs Boston and Philly), I thought we needed a superstar. Barnes was not pegged to become one but as high end role player like Draymond. So I wanted to tank/build that year.
Masai has a good track record of drafting and winning. I don't think we can replace him with someone better like some people here thinks.

[bballsparkin]

Not on my perspective. After watching Kawhi, dominating in the playoffs in 2019, to Siakam failing to carry us twice (vs Boston and Chicago), I thought we needed a superstar. Barnes was not pegged to become one but as high end role player like Draymond. So I wanted to tank/build that year.
Masai has a good track record of drafting and winning. I don't think we can replace him with someone better like some people here thinks.

I would have been down for that.

[OAKLEY_2]

Not on my perspective. After watching Kawhi, dominating in the playoffs in 2019, to Siakam failing to carry us twice (vs Boston and Chicago), I thought we needed a superstar. Barnes was not pegged to become one but as high end role player like Draymond. So I wanted to tank/build that year.
Masai has a good track record of drafting and winning. I don't think we can replace him with someone better like some people here thinks.

Coulda shoulda = water under bridge. How will fans ever know what was on offer at some point on the critical date timeline? OG had a stellar return and we obsess the fact that near 30 year old Psskal did not. Tale of two upsides. Agents want the money. Paskal and Fred were never worth it. Masai cleaned house. Could not have predicted that. I thought he would at lt least keep OG but he had to have some decent pieces. I'm pretty sick of listening to fans whining. If you clean house part of the duties are picking up the pieces and fragments of that which didn't translate. Paskal's value was yes underrated but others also made the decision Paskal was not worth what Paskal would be asking.

[Truthrising]

I’ve been complaining to trade Siakam and FVV years ago due to cap restrictions and fit. I can clearly see the future wasn’t so bright, I can’t believe ppl are coming to this conclusion now. They should’ve trade both of them a lot earlier to gain the most value but this management are too late to figure things out and are mostly reactionary.

[ConSarnit]

I’ve been complaining to trade Siakam and FVV years ago due to cap restrictions and fit. I can clearly see the future wasn’t so bright, I can’t believe ppl are coming to this conclusion now. They should’ve trade both of them a lot earlier to gain the most value but this management are too late to figure things out and are mostly reactionary.

The biggest issue is timing and the value of each player. Having 3 key free agents all expire within a year of each other was, imo, too risky to let play out. Especially with players who were primed to be overpaid (FVV and OG). The upside just wasn’t there.

FVV: good player who fits everywhere but not a player you’d want to max. All it takes is one team to outbid you and then you’re screwed because a) you have to match and you’re stuck with a bad contract or b) you lose him for nothing. We saw that play out with HOU

OG: similar to FVV. Don’t want to max him but someone could and then you’re stuck with a bad deal if you match. Also wasn’t extendable so it had to go to free agency

Siakam: don’t want to supermax him so then you open yourself up to all bidders. So now instead of having an incumbent advantage everyone with cap space is on equal footing and Siakam might be mad at you for not maxing him.

The odds on keeping all 3 guys as free agent signings must have been very low. And to do so with all on fair value deals? Even lower. If you have 3 good players go to free agency the odds have to be in favor of losing at least 1. The odds of overpaying 1-2 of them also have to be high. There was no path to retaining all 3 on positive value contracts and total salary would have become an issue once Barnes extension kicked in. The front office should have realized that retaining all 3 was going to be incredibly difficult given all could have commanded huge salaries and the general league sentiment of “it only takes one a**hole” (in our case Houston).

[Los_29]

The reason they didn't move him a year earlier is because we won 48games prior that year with that core of FV, Siakam,OG, GTJ and Barnes. I made a tank/rebuild thread that year and it was locked because people think it's unreasonable.

It was unreasonable. Raptor ownership will never approve a tank/rebuild after a 48 win season. Too much moola at stake imho.

edit: however, I agree it would have been a good time to strike early on the rebuild.

Not on my perspective. After watching Kawhi, dominating in the playoffs in 2019, to Siakam failing to carry us twice (vs Boston and Philly), I thought we needed a superstar. Barnes was not pegged to become one but as high end role player like Draymond. So I wanted to tank/build that year.
Masai has a good track record of drafting and winning. I don't think we can replace him with someone better like some people here thinks.

Drafting a superstar is incredibly hard to do. Masai has a better track record of trading for one. OKC, Houston, Orlando, Detroit, Cleveland, Portland, Charlotte, Sacramento and New Orleans all bottomed out and never drafted a superstar.

No one tanks after a 48 win season. And that Boston series was in 2020. Pascal’s first year as a 1st option. Also was during a worldwide pandemic. A lot of elite 1st options have failed to take their team past the 2nd round.

[JB7]

It was unreasonable. Raptor ownership will never approve a tank/rebuild after a 48 win season. Too much moola at stake imho.

edit: however, I agree it would have been a good time to strike early on the rebuild.

Not on my perspective. After watching Kawhi, dominating in the playoffs in 2019, to Siakam failing to carry us twice (vs Boston and Philly), I thought we needed a superstar. Barnes was not pegged to become one but as high end role player like Draymond. So I wanted to tank/build that year.
Masai has a good track record of drafting and winning. I don't think we can replace him with someone better like some people here thinks.

Drafting a superstar is incredibly hard to do. Masai has a better track record of trading for one. OKC, Houston, Orlando, Detroit, Cleveland, Portland, Charlotte, Sacramento and New Orleans all bottomed out and never drafted a superstar.

No one tanks after a 48 win season. And that Boston series was in 2020. Pascal’s first year as a 1st option. Also was during a worldwide pandemic. A lot of elite 1st options have failed to take their team past the 2nd round.

Active superstars that have led their teams to championships can probably be counted on one hand (LBJ, Curry, Giannis, Kawhi & Jokic). LBJ was drafted 1st overall, and like Wemby, was a draft many teams were tanking for the possibility to draft him. So very difficult to get the 1st pick to select him. Others were drafted later in the draft, and not one of them was identified as being generational stars at the time, otherwise they would have been drafted higher.

Not that this is the only way a team can win, as the Pistons have proven, but it is the most dominant method for teams winning.

[Los_29]

Not on my perspective. After watching Kawhi, dominating in the playoffs in 2019, to Siakam failing to carry us twice (vs Boston and Philly), I thought we needed a superstar. Barnes was not pegged to become one but as high end role player like Draymond. So I wanted to tank/build that year.
Masai has a good track record of drafting and winning. I don't think we can replace him with someone better like some people here thinks.

Drafting a superstar is incredibly hard to do. Masai has a better track record of trading for one. OKC, Houston, Orlando, Detroit, Cleveland, Portland, Charlotte, Sacramento and New Orleans all bottomed out and never drafted a superstar.

No one tanks after a 48 win season. And that Boston series was in 2020. Pascal’s first year as a 1st option. Also was during a worldwide pandemic. A lot of elite 1st options have failed to take their team past the 2nd round.

Active superstars that have led their teams to championships can probably be counted on one hand (LBJ, Curry, Giannis, Kawhi & Jokic). LBJ was drafted 1st overall, and like Wemby, was a draft many teams were tanking for the possibility to draft him. So very difficult to get the 1st pick to select him. Others were drafted later in the draft, and not one of them was identified as being generational stars at the time, otherwise they would have been drafted higher.

Not that this is the only way a team can win, as the Pistons have proven, but it is the most dominant method for teams winning.

Yeah don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying punt the entire draft in general. You basically nailed it when you said most of those superstars were drafted after. That’s even less incentive to gut the team and tank (unless it’s absolutely necessary).