Moderators: 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford, DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX
OAKLEY_2 wrote:Zeno wrote:So in totality for the Kings it’s Harrison Barnes, Vezenkov, Mitchell, Duarte, a 2031 unprotected pick swap and three 2nds for Demar
Scase wrote:nikster wrote:Tor_Raps wrote:
I am giving Masai credit for being a near genius up until 2020. He was probably more important to the franchise than any player.
However if you look since 2020, we have slowly turning back into the pre-masai raptors that you are outling. We are all hopeful Masai gets his mojo back because none of truly want those dark times you described.
Not at all. The only mistake we've made was competing a season or 2 longer with the previous core. Since then we have the acquisition of Scottie, RJ, Quickley and Gradey already puts in a great position for a rebuild, and in a better position than any of the pre masai years. There's nothing truly dark about the outlook of this team right now.
That's a very myopic way to look at it. Yes, we tried to compete for about 2 seasons too long, but the problem is what that resulted in. We traded away picks we needed, we sacrificed draft positioning in years we could have acquired players that would have expedited the rebuild.
IQ/RJ are fine, they aren't great building blocks for a rebuild, but they aren't bad. The biggest benefit from a rebuild, other than obviously the players, is the contract those players are on. We have a core primarily made up of players that are already on their second contracts, and one going into his second contract that is a max. This severely limits future flexibility as we don't have the luxury of time, next year we will be looking at 100mil in salary just for BBQ, that is far from an ideal place to enter "year 2" of a rebuild.
There is a lot more to it than just "well, we waited a bit long", it's the cascading impact it has on the future. At this point, we need players to make unrealistic leaps to be competitive, that's not a great place to be. I have high hopes for Gradey and he's been looking pretty damn good so far this pre season and that's great, but that's not going to be enough if this is the core for the next 4ish years.
nikster wrote:Scase wrote:nikster wrote:Not at all. The only mistake we've made was competing a season or 2 longer with the previous core. Since then we have the acquisition of Scottie, RJ, Quickley and Gradey already puts in a great position for a rebuild, and in a better position than any of the pre masai years. There's nothing truly dark about the outlook of this team right now.
That's a very myopic way to look at it. Yes, we tried to compete for about 2 seasons too long, but the problem is what that resulted in. We traded away picks we needed, we sacrificed draft positioning in years we could have acquired players that would have expedited the rebuild.
IQ/RJ are fine, they aren't great building blocks for a rebuild, but they aren't bad. The biggest benefit from a rebuild, other than obviously the players, is the contract those players are on. We have a core primarily made up of players that are already on their second contracts, and one going into his second contract that is a max. This severely limits future flexibility as we don't have the luxury of time, next year we will be looking at 100mil in salary just for BBQ, that is far from an ideal place to enter "year 2" of a rebuild.
There is a lot more to it than just "well, we waited a bit long", it's the cascading impact it has on the future. At this point, we need players to make unrealistic leaps to be competitive, that's not a great place to be. I have high hopes for Gradey and he's been looking pretty damn good so far this pre season and that's great, but that's not going to be enough if this is the core for the next 4ish years.
The downside of competing longer is obviously implied. The only noticeable loss outside the usual downsides is the high pick from the Poeltl trade.
The contracts from a rebuild don't tend to be big advantages because by the time they grow into impactful players they are already getting into their extensions. Look at the Rockets, their improvement came from adding Vets, but already next year Sengun and Green are gonna be getting their big contracts and the year after so is Smith.
I think people alao exaggerate about how bad Fred/Siakam led teams were. After Tampa season we won 48 games despite no C, thin bench and several Injuries (Fred and Pascal missing about 15 games each, OG almost half the season, Fred and Scottie going down in post season). We had a 20 year old ROY and everyone with a meaningful role was 27 and younger. For some reason people act like it was a brain dead decision to try and compete the next season.
Scase wrote:nikster wrote:Scase wrote:That's a very myopic way to look at it. Yes, we tried to compete for about 2 seasons too long, but the problem is what that resulted in. We traded away picks we needed, we sacrificed draft positioning in years we could have acquired players that would have expedited the rebuild.
IQ/RJ are fine, they aren't great building blocks for a rebuild, but they aren't bad. The biggest benefit from a rebuild, other than obviously the players, is the contract those players are on. We have a core primarily made up of players that are already on their second contracts, and one going into his second contract that is a max. This severely limits future flexibility as we don't have the luxury of time, next year we will be looking at 100mil in salary just for BBQ, that is far from an ideal place to enter "year 2" of a rebuild.
There is a lot more to it than just "well, we waited a bit long", it's the cascading impact it has on the future. At this point, we need players to make unrealistic leaps to be competitive, that's not a great place to be. I have high hopes for Gradey and he's been looking pretty damn good so far this pre season and that's great, but that's not going to be enough if this is the core for the next 4ish years.
The downside of competing longer is obviously implied. The only noticeable loss outside the usual downsides is the high pick from the Poeltl trade.
The contracts from a rebuild don't tend to be big advantages because by the time they grow into impactful players they are already getting into their extensions. Look at the Rockets, their improvement came from adding Vets, but already next year Sengun and Green are gonna be getting their big contracts and the year after so is Smith.
I think people alao exaggerate about how bad Fred/Siakam led teams were. After Tampa season we won 48 games despite no C, thin bench and several Injuries (Fred and Pascal missing about 15 games each, OG almost half the season, Fred and Scottie going down in post season). We had a 20 year old ROY and everyone with a meaningful role was 27 and younger. For some reason people act like it was a brain dead decision to try and compete the next season.
The contracts are huge advantages, because now you have 4+ years to evaluate them while they grow, and then you decide what contract to give them. Much like Scottie. The problem is with players like RJ you have to see their fit while paying them, and with IQ we had to pay him based off like 30 games on the team. That is a massive difference in future outlook and bargaining. Trading for IQ had us absolutely over a barrel and we basically had to pay whatever he demanded since we already sent out assets to acquire him.
You use the rockets as an example, except they were a .500 team last year and still have all their core players on rookie contracts. We were a 25 win team last year, and only have Scottie on that rookie contract (only counting BBQ for now). Or take a look at OKC, most of their players are on low cost/rookie scale contracts and they were the 2nd best team last year. They don't get there paying their core 100mil. You vastly undervalue how important rookie contracts are.
As for the FVV/Siakam teams, they weren't bad, they were mediocre. That was always the complaint, a low ceiling, high-ish floor team is an awful team to have. The hawks had that that for like the last 15 years straight aside from an outlier year or two, no one wants that. Not bad enough for a good draft pick to change your fortunes, and not good enough to have any actual chance of winning anything, hence the 1st round exit. It's not braindead just because you couldn't see the massive limitations of that roster.
nikster wrote:Scase wrote:nikster wrote:The downside of competing longer is obviously implied. The only noticeable loss outside the usual downsides is the high pick from the Poeltl trade.
The contracts from a rebuild don't tend to be big advantages because by the time they grow into impactful players they are already getting into their extensions. Look at the Rockets, their improvement came from adding Vets, but already next year Sengun and Green are gonna be getting their big contracts and the year after so is Smith.
I think people alao exaggerate about how bad Fred/Siakam led teams were. After Tampa season we won 48 games despite no C, thin bench and several Injuries (Fred and Pascal missing about 15 games each, OG almost half the season, Fred and Scottie going down in post season). We had a 20 year old ROY and everyone with a meaningful role was 27 and younger. For some reason people act like it was a brain dead decision to try and compete the next season.
The contracts are huge advantages, because now you have 4+ years to evaluate them while they grow, and then you decide what contract to give them. Much like Scottie. The problem is with players like RJ you have to see their fit while paying them, and with IQ we had to pay him based off like 30 games on the team. That is a massive difference in future outlook and bargaining. Trading for IQ had us absolutely over a barrel and we basically had to pay whatever he demanded since we already sent out assets to acquire him.
You use the rockets as an example, except they were a .500 team last year and still have all their core players on rookie contracts. We were a 25 win team last year, and only have Scottie on that rookie contract (only counting BBQ for now). Or take a look at OKC, most of their players are on low cost/rookie scale contracts and they were the 2nd best team last year. They don't get there paying their core 100mil. You vastly undervalue how important rookie contracts are.
As for the FVV/Siakam teams, they weren't bad, they were mediocre. That was always the complaint, a low ceiling, high-ish floor team is an awful team to have. The hawks had that that for like the last 15 years straight aside from an outlier year or two, no one wants that. Not bad enough for a good draft pick to change your fortunes, and not good enough to have any actual chance of winning anything, hence the 1st round exit. It's not braindead just because you couldn't see the massive limitations of that roster.
We still have their previous production to go by when evaluating players like IQ and RJ (who's actually on a good contract). And players get over paid all the time on that initial contract, largely based on potential. Wiggins is a famous example, and looking back at the Rockets they will have a tough decision with Green if he doesn't show much more this year.
Rockets were 0.500 but that improvement was almost entirely driven by their acquisition of veteran role players. Advanced stats and on/off paint FVV as their most impactful player last year. They have a very small window next year to decide whether to keep him or replace him before Green and Senguns contract kicks in and they no longer have any real advantage in terms of cap space.
They were 48 win teams with a bunch of injuries and no depth. Not crazy to think with some health and depth they are a 50 plus win team. I think thats better than Mediocre. Similar to the Lowry/Derozan era, except we also had a ROY as an excellent prospect. I don't think it's reasonable to blow up that kind of team to tank, and I'd bet you couldn't find a single example of a franchise blowing up a team like that in NBA history. To act like that was some massive blunder by Masai is ridiculous.
Scase wrote:nikster wrote:Scase wrote:The contracts are huge advantages, because now you have 4+ years to evaluate them while they grow, and then you decide what contract to give them. Much like Scottie. The problem is with players like RJ you have to see their fit while paying them, and with IQ we had to pay him based off like 30 games on the team. That is a massive difference in future outlook and bargaining. Trading for IQ had us absolutely over a barrel and we basically had to pay whatever he demanded since we already sent out assets to acquire him.
You use the rockets as an example, except they were a .500 team last year and still have all their core players on rookie contracts. We were a 25 win team last year, and only have Scottie on that rookie contract (only counting BBQ for now). Or take a look at OKC, most of their players are on low cost/rookie scale contracts and they were the 2nd best team last year. They don't get there paying their core 100mil. You vastly undervalue how important rookie contracts are.
As for the FVV/Siakam teams, they weren't bad, they were mediocre. That was always the complaint, a low ceiling, high-ish floor team is an awful team to have. The hawks had that that for like the last 15 years straight aside from an outlier year or two, no one wants that. Not bad enough for a good draft pick to change your fortunes, and not good enough to have any actual chance of winning anything, hence the 1st round exit. It's not braindead just because you couldn't see the massive limitations of that roster.
We still have their previous production to go by when evaluating players like IQ and RJ (who's actually on a good contract). And players get over paid all the time on that initial contract, largely based on potential. Wiggins is a famous example, and looking back at the Rockets they will have a tough decision with Green if he doesn't show much more this year.
Rockets were 0.500 but that improvement was almost entirely driven by their acquisition of veteran role players. Advanced stats and on/off paint FVV as their most impactful player last year. They have a very small window next year to decide whether to keep him or replace him before Green and Senguns contract kicks in and they no longer have any real advantage in terms of cap space.
They were 48 win teams with a bunch of injuries and no depth. Not crazy to think with some health and depth they are a 50 plus win team. I think thats better than Mediocre. Similar to the Lowry/Derozan era, except we also had a ROY as an excellent prospect. I don't think it's reasonable to blow up that kind of team to tank, and I'd bet you couldn't find a single example of a franchise blowing up a team like that in NBA history. To act like that was some massive blunder by Masai is ridiculous.
RJ is not on a "good" contract, he's on an ok contract. His contract can be considered good if his production from the 30 games here carries over to a full season. Otherwise the only reason his contract isn't bad, is because of the cap increase, when it was signed it was 22% of the cap, and is now 17ish. If all it took to evaluate those players was past experience, then there would never be a bad trade in the league, you are still gambling with way more money than a rookie.
As for the Rockets, you're not really changing much of what I said, having vets is useful when your players are starting to take those next steps, the fact that they were able to pay FVV 40mil is literally BECAUSE those young players were still on rookie contracts, you're proving my point.
As for that 48 win team, they were 15th in the NBA for injuries by cash, right in the middle. If not for injuries they'd be a 50+ win team? Yeah and if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bike. Sure, in this imaginary land where we pretend the raps are all ironmen, and no one else in the league is afforded the same benefit you're right. But if Kawhi and PG never get injured, they probably win a chip, doesn't mean a damn thing though. That team wasn't crippled by injuries like the Grizz were last year, they had an average level. The team was mediocre, as evidenced by the following year. Again, just because you couldn't identify a low ceiling team, doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Not completely blowing up the team wasn't a massive blunder, continuing to double down on the same thing year after year was.
nikster wrote:Scase wrote:nikster wrote:We still have their previous production to go by when evaluating players like IQ and RJ (who's actually on a good contract). And players get over paid all the time on that initial contract, largely based on potential. Wiggins is a famous example, and looking back at the Rockets they will have a tough decision with Green if he doesn't show much more this year.
Rockets were 0.500 but that improvement was almost entirely driven by their acquisition of veteran role players. Advanced stats and on/off paint FVV as their most impactful player last year. They have a very small window next year to decide whether to keep him or replace him before Green and Senguns contract kicks in and they no longer have any real advantage in terms of cap space.
They were 48 win teams with a bunch of injuries and no depth. Not crazy to think with some health and depth they are a 50 plus win team. I think thats better than Mediocre. Similar to the Lowry/Derozan era, except we also had a ROY as an excellent prospect. I don't think it's reasonable to blow up that kind of team to tank, and I'd bet you couldn't find a single example of a franchise blowing up a team like that in NBA history. To act like that was some massive blunder by Masai is ridiculous.
RJ is not on a "good" contract, he's on an ok contract. His contract can be considered good if his production from the 30 games here carries over to a full season. Otherwise the only reason his contract isn't bad, is because of the cap increase, when it was signed it was 22% of the cap, and is now 17ish. If all it took to evaluate those players was past experience, then there would never be a bad trade in the league, you are still gambling with way more money than a rookie.
As for the Rockets, you're not really changing much of what I said, having vets is useful when your players are starting to take those next steps, the fact that they were able to pay FVV 40mil is literally BECAUSE those young players were still on rookie contracts, you're proving my point.
As for that 48 win team, they were 15th in the NBA for injuries by cash, right in the middle. If not for injuries they'd be a 50+ win team? Yeah and if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bike. Sure, in this imaginary land where we pretend the raps are all ironmen, and no one else in the league is afforded the same benefit you're right. But if Kawhi and PG never get injured, they probably win a chip, doesn't mean a damn thing though. That team wasn't crippled by injuries like the Grizz were last year, they had an average level. The team was mediocre, as evidenced by the following year. Again, just because you couldn't identify a low ceiling team, doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Not completely blowing up the team wasn't a massive blunder, continuing to double down on the same thing year after year was.
I never said they had a high ceiling. I said some health AND some depth could push them over 50. We are talking 2 wins. A good chunk of their games were their top 3 players, They were probably slightly more impacted by most teams around them.
But that brings us back to the main point of the Masai criticism. Since it was reasonable to not blow them up right after that 48 win year, we've got the Masai criticism boiling down to delaying a tank by about half a season and the Poeltl trade. Is that enough to make this organization a "clusterf..." or think were headed for dark times like the guy I originally responded to said?
Scase wrote:nikster wrote:Scase wrote:RJ is not on a "good" contract, he's on an ok contract. His contract can be considered good if his production from the 30 games here carries over to a full season. Otherwise the only reason his contract isn't bad, is because of the cap increase, when it was signed it was 22% of the cap, and is now 17ish. If all it took to evaluate those players was past experience, then there would never be a bad trade in the league, you are still gambling with way more money than a rookie.
As for the Rockets, you're not really changing much of what I said, having vets is useful when your players are starting to take those next steps, the fact that they were able to pay FVV 40mil is literally BECAUSE those young players were still on rookie contracts, you're proving my point.
As for that 48 win team, they were 15th in the NBA for injuries by cash, right in the middle. If not for injuries they'd be a 50+ win team? Yeah and if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bike. Sure, in this imaginary land where we pretend the raps are all ironmen, and no one else in the league is afforded the same benefit you're right. But if Kawhi and PG never get injured, they probably win a chip, doesn't mean a damn thing though. That team wasn't crippled by injuries like the Grizz were last year, they had an average level. The team was mediocre, as evidenced by the following year. Again, just because you couldn't identify a low ceiling team, doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Not completely blowing up the team wasn't a massive blunder, continuing to double down on the same thing year after year was.
I never said they had a high ceiling. I said some health AND some depth could push them over 50. We are talking 2 wins. A good chunk of their games were their top 3 players, They were probably slightly more impacted by most teams around them.
But that brings us back to the main point of the Masai criticism. Since it was reasonable to not blow them up right after that 48 win year, we've got the Masai criticism boiling down to delaying a tank by about half a season and the Poeltl trade. Is that enough to make this organization a "clusterf..." or think were headed for dark times like the guy I originally responded to said?
How do you go from me saying it's not a massive blunder, to thinking that means by default it was a reasonable decision? Those aren't the only two options.
It was a bad decision, but it wasn't driving drunk through a school yard bad. There are levels to this.
