RealGM

Rumors online that the Nets offered 19 and Cam Johnson to the Raptors for 9 and "a bad contract" and the obvious form of this is:

Raptors get: Cam Johnson, 19
Nets get: RJ Barrett, 9

What do people think value wise of this rumored offer?

Why for Toronto: Get more shooting and offball scoring to balance ball handler heavy offense
Why for Brooklyn: Give up good players for picks and to tank.

Missing #26 or #27 at a minimum. I don't think Toronto values R.J. and Cam very differently (R.J. Neutral and showed some positive signs last year while Cam Johnson is a mid-prime role player coming off a career year).

Factoring in salary is where the gap in value can be bridged.

Sounds rude, but feels like Toronto just goes back to a worse version of the longboi trio they just moved away from.

I guess if they want, the value is close-ish getting to trim RJ’s contract some. But seems like breaking down an asset when they should be consolidating if they really want to stick with this group.

value is close but directionally doesnt make sense for Toronto

HadAnEffectHere wrote:Rumors online that the Nets offered 19 and Cam Johnson to the Raptors for 9 and "a bad contract" and the obvious form of this is:

Raptors get: Cam Johnson, 19
Nets get: RJ Barrett, 9

What do people think value wise of this rumored offer?

Please add reasons for each team. That requirement is still here for OPs. If you just want to discuss the rumor, let me know and I can shift this to the thread created just for that.

But hopefully you add reasons since you have already sparked some discussion.

Looks good to me...
replace a bad shooter on an overpaid deal with good shooter on OK deal, drop 10 spots...
I disagree about not fitting directionally, Raptors are capped out team, with freshly signed long term deals, they aren't tanking, they should prefer the better player and fit for a worse pick.

Biggest question here is what is the Raptors stragegy going forward. Their recent moves seem contradictory: tanking while trading for questionable / mediocre talent and then overpaying to keep them (RJ Barrett, Ingram, even Quickley I'd lump into this category).

If Masai is happy with making the playoffs in the East even if only to be bounced back in the first round, then this trade makes sense, Cam Johnson fits and the cost might be subject to debate but it isn't irrational, give or take a minor asset either way.

Personally, I believe they're farther away from contention, so I'd rather sell and try to land a true franchise changing talent which they don't have (Scottie Barnes isn't it). But Masai might fear his title aura may be fading away and perhaps he's getting desperate to show results, so I wouldn't rule this out.

Mavrelous wrote:Looks good to me...
replace a bad shooter on an overpaid deal with good shooter on OK deal, drop 10 spots...
I disagree about not fitting directionally, Raptors are capped out team, with freshly signed long term deals, they aren't tanking, they should prefer the better player and fit for a worse pick.

i dont think replacing RJ with CamJ moves us out of the play in tournament. rather keep the lotto pick for a higher ceiling prospect

Godaddycurse wrote:

Mavrelous wrote:Looks good to me...
replace a bad shooter on an overpaid deal with good shooter on OK deal, drop 10 spots...
I disagree about not fitting directionally, Raptors are capped out team, with freshly signed long term deals, they aren't tanking, they should prefer the better player and fit for a worse pick.

i dont think replacing RJ with CamJ moves us out of the play in tournament. rather keep the lotto pick for a higher ceiling prospect

I'm with Khalil on this one. Maybe he doesn't, but you have to give the actual core guys a chance to succeed. Cam in for RJ just makes the lineup make a lot more sense. I'd want to know if Barnes/IQ/Poeltl/BI have a chance of becoming anything worth adding to. But how do they find out with a roster this out of sync and no financial room to add to it?

Of course I'm lower on the value of mid-1sts in general and RJ in particular, but even setting aside the value, I'd want to have a lineup that lets me evaluate my talent. I keep hearing in Raptors threads that we can't put any stock into the actual play level of their individual players because of how bad the roster fits, but....

Texas Chuck wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

Mavrelous wrote:Looks good to me...
replace a bad shooter on an overpaid deal with good shooter on OK deal, drop 10 spots...
I disagree about not fitting directionally, Raptors are capped out team, with freshly signed long term deals, they aren't tanking, they should prefer the better player and fit for a worse pick.

i dont think replacing RJ with CamJ moves us out of the play in tournament. rather keep the lotto pick for a higher ceiling prospect

I'm with Khalil on this one. Maybe he doesn't, but you have to give the actual core guys a chance to succeed. Cam in for RJ just makes the lineup make a lot more sense. I'd want to know if Barnes/IQ/Poeltl/BI have a chance of becoming anything worth adding to. But how do they find out with a roster this out of sync and no financial room to add to it?

Of course I'm lower on the value of mid-1sts in general and RJ in particular, but even setting aside the value, I'd want to have a lineup that lets me evaluate my talent. I keep hearing in Raptors threads that we can't put any stock into the actual play level of their individual players because of how bad the roster fits, but....

Masai did that with Poeltl trade and it backfired majorly. He already acquired Ingram as the big move for this core. I would want to see how this group fits together first before deciding to invest more or not.

A good move for the Nets. Who are they targeting at 9? They need so much it will be either a specific player or BPA.

This is a fair deal. Great job. I saw this rumor just now as well. It is a small deal that helps both teams.

I wonder if this could also be a move that allows Toronto to make a pitch at Milwaukee for Giannis. Johnson could be more valuable than Barrett to a receiving team.

Johnson, Poeltl, Agbaji, Dick, Walker and picks ...

ReggiesKnicks wrote:Missing #26 or #27 at a minimum. I don't think Toronto values R.J. and Cam very differently (R.J. Neutral and showed some positive signs last year while Cam Johnson is a mid-prime role player coming off a career year).

Factoring in salary is where the gap in value can be bridged.

Nets throwing in the high second rounder they have this year (pick 36 overall) would seem to make this one right for both teams.

HadAnEffectHere wrote:Rumors online that the Nets offered 19 and Cam Johnson to the Raptors for 9 and "a bad contract" and the obvious form of this is:

Raptors get: Cam Johnson, 19
Nets get: RJ Barrett, 9

What do people think value wise of this rumored offer?

Why for Toronto: Get more shooting and offball scoring to balance ball handler heavy offense
Why for Brooklyn: Give up good players for picks and to tank.

As a Raptors fan who watches quite a few games, I am puzzled by everyone saying that he is a bad contract. Last year he averaged 22,7 and 6 at $27m, in today's NBA that is not a terrible contract given he is still only 24 years old. There are a lot of bad contracts in this league, but I don't put him in that box at all.

Cam Johnson is 5 years older and only gets paid a few million less over the course of his contract (same length as Barrett's). With Barnes and Ingram at the 3 and 4 spots, where would Johnson even play?

drchaos wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:Missing #26 or #27 at a minimum. I don't think Toronto values R.J. and Cam very differently (R.J. Neutral and showed some positive signs last year while Cam Johnson is a mid-prime role player coming off a career year).

Factoring in salary is where the gap in value can be bridged.

Nets throwing in the high second rounder they have this year (pick 36 overall) would seem to make this one right for both teams.

I think Brooklyn pays a "premium asset tax" and will happily include #26 or #27 in order to move up this far.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

drchaos wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:Missing #26 or #27 at a minimum. I don't think Toronto values R.J. and Cam very differently (R.J. Neutral and showed some positive signs last year while Cam Johnson is a mid-prime role player coming off a career year).

Factoring in salary is where the gap in value can be bridged.

Nets throwing in the high second rounder they have this year (pick 36 overall) would seem to make this one right for both teams.

I think Brooklyn pays a "premium asset tax" and will happily include #26 or #27 in order to move up this far.

Meh, I don't think it is worth all that.

Marks has done a very good job finding guys like Levert and Allen later in round one.

Don't think this would be the best use of Toronto's assets here. The drop from 9-19 is significant in terms of draft tiers.

Cam Jo doesn't take Toronto to a different tier of contention and the drop in pick value doesn't make it worth it to save 15-16 million over 2 years for a guy playing a position that is already filled in the starting lineup. If Toronto is that desperate to dump RJ they can do so without giving up a top 10 pick, he had the best year of his career last year and is still relatively young. I don't think Cam is a different tier of player personally

If the pick is in trade talks I'm using RJ as neutral salary as a bridge to get a bigger piece. That or stay pat for now and see how the team actually looks when altogether and healthy.

If the Nets really want to get this done there needs to be more added to make it worth it for Toronto.

drchaos wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

drchaos wrote:
Nets throwing in the high second rounder they have this year (pick 36 overall) would seem to make this one right for both teams.

I think Brooklyn pays a "premium asset tax" and will happily include #26 or #27 in order to move up this far.

Meh, I don't think it is worth all that.

Marks has done a very good job finding guys like Levert and Allen later in round one.

And they can still do so with #26

Brooklyn should do it. Hopefully they can rehab RJs value too, then swindle someone into taking him, but I doubt it.