To tank or retool?

[deck]

The organization has never outright tanked to start a season. It is naive to think that option is readily available to a FO that wants to stay employed.

Barnes is on record now saying he doesn't want to go through another season like last season, so it is also naive to think that he is going to be OK with the team purposefully tanking.

We spend a lot of time on RealGM advocating for tanking but yet spend very little time interrogating if that is actually a viable path for an organization that is bureaucratic, and for players that aren't losers that would be OK with conceding they are not good enough to win.

To be blunt, who cares? Who cares if a player doesn't want to tank. No player is going to admit they arent good enough to get a team to win, doesn't change reality.

Teenagers think they are invincible, and yet parent spend tons of effort keeping the idiots alive. Doctors tell you to take the antibiotics until they run out, even if you dont need it, and so on.

There's a whole myriad of things people do, and need to do, even if they don't think they should, and we've all seen how some players would build teams.

Scottie is under contract control for many more years, and is in line for a massive 200-250mil contract, he's not going anywhere. And quite frankly, he's less of a long term flight risk if you can turn those bad years into great years further on, rather than mid years as is most likely.

An organization that wants to be successful should care. Apathy is toxic as fk. We are about to give Barnes a $250M contract, and the disposition of the organization is that it is OK to not try? This flippant attitude like there are no consequences to tanking is exactly what I am talking about. It completely ignores how the real world works.

If Barnes wants out, regardless of contract situation, it is naive to think the organization has any kind of real power or control. If anything, the moment he signs that contract, he has far more power over the organization.

And of course it is not just Barnes. It's the players, the coaches, the training staff, the scouts, the towel guy, all people that would be right to be adversely affected by the FO giving up and putting the fate of the organization into the lottery balls. Several years of tanking can result in loosing talent throughout the entire organization.

My point here is that it is a simplistic take to rant daily about how the front office is too scared or too stupid to tank without considering the many reasons why that path is not a simple decision. It's laughable to think that RealGM posters actually think they know more about the value of the draft than executives that do this for a living. It's far more likely that the organization just doesn't endorse tanking and / or that the FO understands far better than we do the implications of stupid statements like 'who cares if Barnes doesn't want to tank'.

[Scase]

The organization has never outright tanked to start a season. It is naive to think that option is readily available to a FO that wants to stay employed.

Barnes is on record now saying he doesn't want to go through another season like last season, so it is also naive to think that he is going to be OK with the team purposefully tanking.

We spend a lot of time on RealGM advocating for tanking but yet spend very little time interrogating if that is actually a viable path for an organization that is bureaucratic, and for players that aren't losers that would be OK with conceding they are not good enough to win.

To be blunt, who cares? Who cares if a player doesn't want to tank. No player is going to admit they arent good enough to get a team to win, doesn't change reality.

Teenagers think they are invincible, and yet parent spend tons of effort keeping the idiots alive. Doctors tell you to take the antibiotics until they run out, even if you dont need it, and so on.

There's a whole myriad of things people do, and need to do, even if they don't think they should, and we've all seen how some players would build teams.

Scottie is under contract control for many more years, and is in line for a massive 200-250mil contract, he's not going anywhere. And quite frankly, he's less of a long term flight risk if you can turn those bad years into great years further on, rather than mid years as is most likely.

An organization that wants to be successful should care. Apathy is toxic as fk. We are about to give Barnes a $250M contract, and the disposition of the organization is that it is OK to not try? This flippant attitude like there are no consequences to tanking is exactly what I am talking about. It completely ignores how the real world works.

If Barnes wants out, regardless of contract situation, it is naive to think the organization has any kind of real power or control. If anything, the moment he signs that contract, he has far more power over the organization.

And of course it is not just Barnes. It's the players, the coaches, the training staff, the scouts, the towel guy, all people that would be right to be adversely affected by the FO giving up and putting the fate of the organization into the lottery balls. Several years of tanking can result in loosing talent throughout the entire organization.

My point here is that it is a simplistic take to rant daily about how the front office is too scared or too stupid to tank without considering the many reasons why that path is not a simple decision. It's laughable to think that RealGM posters actually think they know more about the value of the draft than executives that do this for a living. It's far more likely that the organization just doesn't endorse tanking and / or that the FO understands far better than we do the implications of stupid statements like 'who cares if Barnes doesn't want to tank'.

Yeah man, every single tank job in the history of the NBA has resulted in a franchise player forcing their way out right? Plenty of teams have tanked to get better, some worked out, some didn't. KD left a team that went to the finals, sometimes even success isn't enough.

And I'm always a fan of the lazy and stupid argument of "Hurr durr you think you know better than people who do this for a living". Yeah, I don't need to be a doctor to know that stitching someones arm to their head, when they went in for a broken leg is stupid. Plenty of people called the Jak trade a terrible idea, and lo and behold it was. And Masai himself admitted it was a mistake on his part. Stop treating them like they are infallible. If they were, we wouldn't have been in **** purgatory the last 4 years.

Teams understand the value of taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward, if they didn't we wouldn't have traded Siakam and OG. Tanking is no different. Barnes doesn't even have his extension on the table, and you're talking about him wanting out already? And I'm the one that doesn't understand how this works

[ArthurVandelay]

How much more developing are you expecting from Scottie, IQ and RJ if they're in year 4,5 and 6 and leading us to 25 wins? They should be either entering or perhaps even already in their prime right now.

IQ is pretty much what he is. If he can maintain his Raptor starter numbers that would be good

RJ is still 23. I expect him to get better but ultimately to be a 6th man. DD is one of his idols and I see similarities in approach to the game and work ethic. I wasn’t a DD fan, understatement, but his devotion to getting better sure made me respect him, especially after he left.

Based on Scottie’s role in high school and college, then growing into his new role, I expect a couple of more years of development. I think he is a late bloomer.

Derozans first allstar appearance was at 25. Lowry was 28 and his best years were 28-33 as a raptor.

It takes time to develop young players and develop depth, outside the rare Gay-type trades.

I think you need to be patient and enjoy the ride. Getting rid of those guys now because they aren’t going to win next year is shortsighted and would likely very easily lead to situation like Detroit.

Players like DeMar and Lowry who ended up peaking later on in their career are more the exception than the norm. They're also both Hall of Famers for that reason.

Not sure how you label Scottie as a late bloomer when he came in and won ROY. It's certainly possible he improves but wouldn't be based on that.

So, we're looking at a 6th man, slightly above average starter and then Scottie might improve but will take a few years? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a core you build around.

Scottie is evolving from primarily a great defender and offensive connector/elite role player at Montverde and with the U16/18 USA teams to leading an NBA team. If you can’t see the growth in his game over the last 3 years, especially from year 2 to 3, and think there is no room for improvement, I don’t know what to say.

IQ averaged 19/5/7 as a raptor. That is pretty good in my books. His 2pt fg%, especially finishing in the paint, could use improvement but that is more than doable as he shot 52% in his 3rd year with NY and 51% until the trade. It was 45% in Toronto.

RJ is going to have to consistently hit 3s and significantly improve his D. Absent that, that is where I see 6th man potential. But he’d be elite and likely winning 6POY award. What is wrong with that? That would be a sign that the team continues to add depth and has put shooters around Scottie.

This branch of the conversation started with you saying, “How much more developing are you expecting from Scottie, IQ and RJ if they're in year 4,5 and 6 and leading us to 25 wins?”

I didn’t say 25 wins. I said 27-32. 32 would be a 7 win improvement. I’m not sure how much progress is expected adding a couple of rookies and a role player or two for a team lacking so much depth this last season.

I also have left the possibility open for my opinion to change or be wrong if they made some great trades, add rookies who step in and contribute from the start (which is not the norm), and/or see all of BBQ make significant jumps. These are all unknown future events.

You then end with, “Yeah, (BBQ) doesn't sound like a core you build around.” This might be semantics but Scottie is the only talent you build around. RJ and IQ are pieces to go around Scottie. Scottie is the only elite talent on the roster. The Raptors need more of that. So no, BBQ as a whole isn’t the core, they are part of it. The core will continue to evolve and develop as players are added (via trade, draft, or FA) which takes time.

The last championship run took 5 years to play out. It started with teams built around a 5th year, 24 year old DD and a 7th year, 27 year old Lowry.

The Raptors are 5-6 months in on turning the page and are building with 4/5/6 year, 23/24/25 year olds.

I think you are vastly underestimating the importance of depth on a team lacking elite/All-NBA talent and simultaneously overestimating the capabilities of the current roster as a whole (team/roster are the key word there, not individual players).

I’m not sure why people seem so offended that this is a developing young team and will likely have a record next year that reflects that. It’s funny because if they draft well, guys continue to improve, the FO adds to the roster over the next two summers, and they get some lottery luck next year, 2025-2026 should see a return to a very competitive team that would have completely transformed in 1.5 seasons. That is pretty damn good in my opinion.

[ArthurVandelay]

The organization has never outright tanked to start a season. It is naive to think that option is readily available to a FO that wants to stay employed.

Barnes is on record now saying he doesn't want to go through another season like last season, so it is also naive to think that he is going to be OK with the team purposefully tanking.

We spend a lot of time on RealGM advocating for tanking but yet spend very little time interrogating if that is actually a viable path for an organization that is bureaucratic, and for players that aren't losers that would be OK with conceding they are not good enough to win.

I'm sure the losing played a major factor in his comments, but he could also very well have been talking about any or all of the following:

1) his best friend(s) being traded away,
2) injuries to himself,
3) injuries to teammates,
4) having a teammate manipulate games and involved in a gambling scandal,
5) watching teammates go through deaths of close loved ones,
6) mid-season roster turnover.

This season was a terrible year for many reasons.

He's also said his goal is to win and bring another championship to Toronto. I'm sure he recognizes that is a process and can look to the fortunes of other players and teams that went through a rough stretch(es) to get there.

[PushDaRock]

IQ is pretty much what he is. If he can maintain his Raptor starter numbers that would be good

RJ is still 23. I expect him to get better but ultimately to be a 6th man. DD is one of his idols and I see similarities in approach to the game and work ethic. I wasn’t a DD fan, understatement, but his devotion to getting better sure made me respect him, especially after he left.

Based on Scottie’s role in high school and college, then growing into his new role, I expect a couple of more years of development. I think he is a late bloomer.

Derozans first allstar appearance was at 25. Lowry was 28 and his best years were 28-33 as a raptor.

It takes time to develop young players and develop depth, outside the rare Gay-type trades.

I think you need to be patient and enjoy the ride. Getting rid of those guys now because they aren’t going to win next year is shortsighted and would likely very easily lead to situation like Detroit.

Players like DeMar and Lowry who ended up peaking later on in their career are more the exception than the norm. They're also both Hall of Famers for that reason.

Not sure how you label Scottie as a late bloomer when he came in and won ROY. It's certainly possible he improves but wouldn't be based on that.

So, we're looking at a 6th man, slightly above average starter and then Scottie might improve but will take a few years? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a core you build around.

Scottie is evolving from primarily a great defender and offensive connector/elite role player at Montverde and with the U16/18 USA teams to leading an NBA team. If you can’t see the growth in his game over the last 3 years, especially from year 2 to 3, and think there is no room for improvement, I don’t know what to say.

IQ averaged 19/5/7 as a raptor. That is pretty good in my books. His 2pt fg%, especially finishing in the paint, could use improvement but that is more than doable as he shot 52% in his 3rd year with NY and 51% until the trade. It was 45% in Toronto.

RJ is going to have to consistently hit 3s and significantly improve his D. Absent that, that is where I see 6th man potential. But he’d be elite and likely winning 6POY award. What is wrong with that? That would be a sign that the team continues to add depth and has put shooters around Scottie.

This branch of the conversation started with you saying, “How much more developing are you expecting from Scottie, IQ and RJ if they're in year 4,5 and 6 and leading us to 25 wins?”

I didn’t say 25 wins. I said 27-32. 32 would be a 7 win improvement. I’m not sure how much progress is expected adding a couple of rookies and a role player or two for a team lacking so much depth this last season.

I also have left the possibility open for my opinion to change or be wrong if they made some great trades, add rookies who step in and contribute from the start (which is not the norm), and/or see all of BBQ make significant jumps. These are all unknown future events.

You then end with, “Yeah, (BBQ) doesn't sound like a core you build around.” This might be semantics but Scottie is the only talent you build around. RJ and IQ are pieces to go around Scottie. Scottie is the only elite talent on the roster. The Raptors need more of that. So no, BBQ as a whole isn’t the core, they are part of it. The core will continue to evolve and develop as players are added (via trade, draft, or FA) which takes time.

The last championship run took 5 years to play out. It started with teams built around a 5th year, 24 year old DD and a 7th year, 27 year old Lowry.

The Raptors are 5-6 months in on turning the page and are building with 4/5/6 year, 23/24/25 year olds.

I think you are vastly underestimating the importance of depth on a team lacking elite/All-NBA talent and simultaneously overestimating the capabilities of the current roster as a whole (team/roster are the key word there, not individual players).

I’m not sure why people seem so offended that this is a developing young team and will likely have a record next year that reflects that. It’s funny because if they draft well, guys continue to improve, the FO adds to the roster over the next two summers, and they get some lottery luck next year, 2025-2026 should see a return to a very competitive team that would have completely transformed in 1.5 seasons. That is pretty damn good in my opinion.

Scottie went from averaging 11 ppg in college to winning ROY, I mean what part of that screams late bloomer? If you want to say he still has room to grow, sure that's fine. But, he came into the NBA already ready to contribute at a high level and that's not what late bloomers do.

This team pivoted to a tank to win 25 games, they fielded a G League Roster for 1/4 of the season along with constant roster turnover, speculation and a new coach implementing a totally new system. There was a lot of disfunction the entire year and nobody was really comfortable, surely you agree that played into the performance of the team right? Under the assumption that the core is healthy (plays 70 games) and plays up to their expected level, we get some continuity with guys more comfortable in their 2nd year in Darko's system, a ceiling where this team might potentially only win 2 games more and only 7 games more in a best case scenario seems ridiculous to me.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Derozan and Lowry as comparisons if you don't expect RJ and IQ to get to that level. Someone like Lowry being a role player/solid starter for 7 seasons before turning into a Hall of Famer is an anomaly and very far from the typical career arc.

Of course this is a developing team, but I wouldn't really call it that young. If they were all on their rookie deals, sure we can have much lower expectations and time is on our side. But, we are paying them big money on their 2nd contracts (Scottie will be on his the following year), you expect some results at least when all 3 will be making over 100m combined the following year.

Where we disagree is I don't really see the pathway where this core plays up to expectations and can only win 27 games but then is able to be competitive in 25-26, you're basically assuming we draft a generational talent to improve by that much.

[ConSarnit]

To do what? Win more than 30 games?

Unless your three guys are all-nba then yeah, 27-32 games. That is the ceiling right now.

If they kill some trades, that can change. If Scottie takes the jump to all-nba and IQ/RJ become all-stars, Dick improves on the second half, Poeltl stays what he is, that can all change. Maybe they get some Jacquez or Podz impact rookies. But all together that is asking a lot outside Poeltl.

How many win streaks did the team have last year over 3 games? How many back to back wins? You can’t point to the 15 game losing streak without acknowledging their record minus the streak was 25-68, which is a .367 clip. 32 wins over 82 games is a .390 clip.

Long way to go before the start of the season, but if the plan is to bring back the main core, add a couple of rookies, and get another rotation player, then 32 wins is the best case scenario imo.

Were Siakam, FVV and OG All-NBA players? They won 47 and 41 games and those teams had no bench either.

If you think this team is winning so few games, you don't believe in Scottie, RJ and IQ as a core. That's a reasonable opinion but if they are as bad as you think, I think we need to blow it all up.

We won games largely because we ran our guys into the ground.

In 20/21 there were 21 players who averaged >35mpg. We had 5 of those players. No other team had more than 2. This includes Siakam, FVV and OG who finished 1st, 2nd and 9th in mpg that season.

We won 41 games in 22/23 because we ended the season going 15-11 once Poeltl was brought in. We beat up on the dregs of the league to win those 15 games. We played our guys extremely heavy minutes again.

So to get to 40+ wins we had to:

-play our starters crazy heavy minutes. Maybe we can do that again but it means foregoing any reasonable development minutes for the younger players

-playing a very specific style of basketball designed to jank the game up to win the possession battle

If we are going to focus on development and playing a more sustainable style of basketball that is going to remove the things that made us “decent” during the last 2 Nurse years. Then there is the question of whether BBQ will be better than Siakam/FVV/OG on the whole. Having Poeltl helps but the new ball movement play style and mandate to play the young guys is going to take away the advantages those Nurse teams had.

I also don’t think that projecting 32 wins means we need to trade any of BBQ. Development is usually linear and not exponential. Those guys can still improve and not have it translate to wins (if we play more young guys that will hurt us) nor does it preclude them from improving in 25/26 as well. I would also say that when it comes to IQ and Barrett they are probably close-ish to their finished products due to age and experience. They can still get better but I’m not expecting any massive leaps. And if they are both solid roles players making $25m those are fine players to have. If IQ can be a FVV level impact player that is a good player to have making $25m (assuming that is around what he will be paid).

[ArthurVandelay]

Players like DeMar and Lowry who ended up peaking later on in their career are more the exception than the norm. They're also both Hall of Famers for that reason.

Not sure how you label Scottie as a late bloomer when he came in and won ROY. It's certainly possible he improves but wouldn't be based on that.

So, we're looking at a 6th man, slightly above average starter and then Scottie might improve but will take a few years? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a core you build around.

Scottie is evolving from primarily a great defender and offensive connector/elite role player at Montverde and with the U16/18 USA teams to leading an NBA team. If you can’t see the growth in his game over the last 3 years, especially from year 2 to 3, and think there is no room for improvement, I don’t know what to say.

IQ averaged 19/5/7 as a raptor. That is pretty good in my books. His 2pt fg%, especially finishing in the paint, could use improvement but that is more than doable as he shot 52% in his 3rd year with NY and 51% until the trade. It was 45% in Toronto.

RJ is going to have to consistently hit 3s and significantly improve his D. Absent that, that is where I see 6th man potential. But he’d be elite and likely winning 6POY award. What is wrong with that? That would be a sign that the team continues to add depth and has put shooters around Scottie.

This branch of the conversation started with you saying, “How much more developing are you expecting from Scottie, IQ and RJ if they're in year 4,5 and 6 and leading us to 25 wins?”

I didn’t say 25 wins. I said 27-32. 32 would be a 7 win improvement. I’m not sure how much progress is expected adding a couple of rookies and a role player or two for a team lacking so much depth this last season.

I also have left the possibility open for my opinion to change or be wrong if they made some great trades, add rookies who step in and contribute from the start (which is not the norm), and/or see all of BBQ make significant jumps. These are all unknown future events.

You then end with, “Yeah, (BBQ) doesn't sound like a core you build around.” This might be semantics but Scottie is the only talent you build around. RJ and IQ are pieces to go around Scottie. Scottie is the only elite talent on the roster. The Raptors need more of that. So no, BBQ as a whole isn’t the core, they are part of it. The core will continue to evolve and develop as players are added (via trade, draft, or FA) which takes time.

The last championship run took 5 years to play out. It started with teams built around a 5th year, 24 year old DD and a 7th year, 27 year old Lowry.

The Raptors are 5-6 months in on turning the page and are building with 4/5/6 year, 23/24/25 year olds.

I think you are vastly underestimating the importance of depth on a team lacking elite/All-NBA talent and simultaneously overestimating the capabilities of the current roster as a whole (team/roster are the key word there, not individual players).

I’m not sure why people seem so offended that this is a developing young team and will likely have a record next year that reflects that. It’s funny because if they draft well, guys continue to improve, the FO adds to the roster over the next two summers, and they get some lottery luck next year, 2025-2026 should see a return to a very competitive team that would have completely transformed in 1.5 seasons. That is pretty damn good in my opinion.

Scottie went from averaging 11 ppg in college to winning ROY, I mean what part of that screams late bloomer? If you want to say he still has room to grow, sure that's fine. But, he came into the NBA already ready to contribute at a high level and that's not what late bloomers do.

This team pivoted to a tank to win 25 games, they fielded a G League Roster for 1/4 of the season along with constant roster turnover, speculation and a new coach implementing a totally new system. There was a lot of disfunction the entire year and nobody was really comfortable, surely you agree that played into the performance of the team right? Under the assumption that the core is healthy (plays 70 games) and plays up to their expected level, we get some continuity with guys more comfortable in their 2nd year in Darko's system, a ceiling where this team might potentially only win 2 games more and only 7 games more in a best case scenario seems ridiculous to me.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Derozan and Lowry as comparisons if you don't expect RJ and IQ to get to that level. Someone like Lowry being a role player/solid starter for 7 seasons before turning into a Hall of Famer is an anomaly and very far from the typical career arc.

Of course this is a developing team, but I wouldn't really call it that young. If they were all on their rookie deals, sure we can have much lower expectations and time is on our side. But, we are paying them big money on their 2nd contracts (Scottie will be on his the following year), you expect some results at least when all 3 will be making over 100m combined the following year.

Where we disagree is I don't really see the pathway where this core plays up to expectations and can only win 27 games but then is able to be competitive in 25-26, you're basically assuming we draft a generational talent to improve by that much.

You clearly don't know Barnes history if you don't see how his role has changed from his youth teams to college and now to the NBA. He wasn't a guy Montverde was building around and was a 6th man in university. He wasn't the go to guy on U16/18 team USA. Even in his rookie year, despite winning ROY, he wasn't a go to guy. He wasn't the guy they were building around, he was always referred to as the future. I think he has a lot more room to grow and the fact he is a late bloomer is because of how his game has developed and the role he is now playing going into his 4th year. He's gone from an elite role player in his youth to the guy an NBA team is building around. You don't agree? OK then. But if you can't see that transition and growth, again, I don't know what else to tell you.

Even before tanking a 1/4 of the season as you put it (21 games) and before the injuries, they were only winning at a .377 pace (23-38). That is 30-31 wins over 82. It's funny you mention continuity as a reason for improvement when there could easily be up to 8-9 new players next year.

I keep bringing up Lowry and DeRozan because they were older than the guys you're saying the Raptors should ditch next year if the team struggles. I disagree wholeheartedly that either of IQ/RJ or Scottie should be traded if the team struggles next year mainly because I have patience and can see what a few more pieces will do for the team.

Also, IQ as a starter over 65 games in his career has averaged 20/5/6 with just 1.6TO on 44/39/82 splits. On a winning team, that is quite possibly an all-star. I expect him to maintain that. I see RJ eventually as a Manu type 6th man, which isn't an insult. I don't understand why you're implying I don't think these guys aren't good or worthy of having. I see them as solid pros who are going to continue to work on their games and get better or maintain what they are already doing.

Scottie/IQ/RJ contracts don't really matter much except when it comes to the luxury tax. NBA teams have to pay a minimum amount. Who cares if Scottie, RJ, and IQ are on their second contracts? The Raptors are never going to be a free agent destination. As long as they have Bird RIghts and don't end up with terrible contracts, they'll be able to continue along developing.

Where we disagree is on many things, including what I've actually said and laid out lol. 27 wins would be the floor, 32 wins the ceiling. And again, based on what happens this summer, that view could change.

Competitive in 2025-2026 doesn't mean contending for a title. It's hopefully a winning play in team or better and in the playoffs while at .500 or better. They wouldn't need a generational talent to do that. They'd need all the things you're saying you're expecting for 2024-2025 except:
1. they'd be returning 10-11 players versus 6-7 this year,
2. Scottie/RJ/IQ would be 24/25/26 and entering their prime with another year of experience,
3. Dick would be 22,
4. the rookies drafted this year would be going into year 2,
5. it would be a second summer of adding players to the style of play Darko is going towards (remember the roster he was given to start the year wasn't suited to his style of play or built around Scottie), and
6. it just might be and hopefully will be a top 4 or 10 draft pick in a strong draft.

Obviously we disagree on 2024-2025. Maybe some unexpected transactions in the offseason and we agree. Time will tell.

[ConSarnit]

To be blunt, who cares? Who cares if a player doesn't want to tank. No player is going to admit they arent good enough to get a team to win, doesn't change reality.

Teenagers think they are invincible, and yet parent spend tons of effort keeping the idiots alive. Doctors tell you to take the antibiotics until they run out, even if you dont need it, and so on.

There's a whole myriad of things people do, and need to do, even if they don't think they should, and we've all seen how some players would build teams.

Scottie is under contract control for many more years, and is in line for a massive 200-250mil contract, he's not going anywhere. And quite frankly, he's less of a long term flight risk if you can turn those bad years into great years further on, rather than mid years as is most likely.

An organization that wants to be successful should care. Apathy is toxic as fk. We are about to give Barnes a $250M contract, and the disposition of the organization is that it is OK to not try? This flippant attitude like there are no consequences to tanking is exactly what I am talking about. It completely ignores how the real world works.

If Barnes wants out, regardless of contract situation, it is naive to think the organization has any kind of real power or control. If anything, the moment he signs that contract, he has far more power over the organization.

And of course it is not just Barnes. It's the players, the coaches, the training staff, the scouts, the towel guy, all people that would be right to be adversely affected by the FO giving up and putting the fate of the organization into the lottery balls. Several years of tanking can result in loosing talent throughout the entire organization.

My point here is that it is a simplistic take to rant daily about how the front office is too scared or too stupid to tank without considering the many reasons why that path is not a simple decision. It's laughable to think that RealGM posters actually think they know more about the value of the draft than executives that do this for a living. It's far more likely that the organization just doesn't endorse tanking and / or that the FO understands far better than we do the implications of stupid statements like 'who cares if Barnes doesn't want to tank'.

Yeah man, every single tank job in the history of the NBA has resulted in a franchise player forcing their way out right? Plenty of teams have tanked to get better, some worked out, some didn't. KD left a team that went to the finals, sometimes even success isn't enough.

And I'm always a fan of the lazy and stupid argument of "Hurr durr you think you know better than people who do this for a living". Yeah, I don't need to be a doctor to know that stitching someones arm to their head, when they went in for a broken leg is stupid. Plenty of people called the Jak trade a terrible idea, and lo and behold it was. And Masai himself admitted it was a mistake on his part. Stop treating them like they are infallible. If they were, we wouldn't have been in **** purgatory the last 4 years.

Teams understand the value of taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward, if they didn't we wouldn't have traded Siakam and OG. Tanking is no different. Barnes doesn't even have his extension on the table, and you're talking about him wanting out already? And I'm the one that doesn't understand how this works

For those suggesting that Barnes may want out I would ask who their example is? Who was the last player to turn down a rookie max extension?

Might Barnes want out at some point? Sure. But the earliest anyone has ever asked out is after the 2nd year of their post-rookie max. That player: Kyrie. So the earliest anyone has ever asked out was a guy who is one of the biggest headcases of all-time. If Barnes follows Kyrie’s path and asks out that still gives us 3 full years from today.

Here is how the course of events will go based on 2 scenarios:

We tank this year: Barnes signs the max extension

We don’t tank this year: Barnes signs the max extension

Then there is the fact that the main reason guys want out isn’t due to tanking during their rookie contract but because the franchise failed to build a contender around them during their primes. So what gets us closer to a contender? Winning 39 games this year and drafting 11th or taking a single year step back and getting a top 5 pick in a strong draft? If I had my choice for the long term health of the franchise I’d choose the latter.

[ConSarnit]

Scottie is evolving from primarily a great defender and offensive connector/elite role player at Montverde and with the U16/18 USA teams to leading an NBA team. If you can’t see the growth in his game over the last 3 years, especially from year 2 to 3, and think there is no room for improvement, I don’t know what to say.

IQ averaged 19/5/7 as a raptor. That is pretty good in my books. His 2pt fg%, especially finishing in the paint, could use improvement but that is more than doable as he shot 52% in his 3rd year with NY and 51% until the trade. It was 45% in Toronto.

RJ is going to have to consistently hit 3s and significantly improve his D. Absent that, that is where I see 6th man potential. But he’d be elite and likely winning 6POY award. What is wrong with that? That would be a sign that the team continues to add depth and has put shooters around Scottie.

This branch of the conversation started with you saying, “How much more developing are you expecting from Scottie, IQ and RJ if they're in year 4,5 and 6 and leading us to 25 wins?”

I didn’t say 25 wins. I said 27-32. 32 would be a 7 win improvement. I’m not sure how much progress is expected adding a couple of rookies and a role player or two for a team lacking so much depth this last season.

I also have left the possibility open for my opinion to change or be wrong if they made some great trades, add rookies who step in and contribute from the start (which is not the norm), and/or see all of BBQ make significant jumps. These are all unknown future events.

You then end with, “Yeah, (BBQ) doesn't sound like a core you build around.” This might be semantics but Scottie is the only talent you build around. RJ and IQ are pieces to go around Scottie. Scottie is the only elite talent on the roster. The Raptors need more of that. So no, BBQ as a whole isn’t the core, they are part of it. The core will continue to evolve and develop as players are added (via trade, draft, or FA) which takes time.

The last championship run took 5 years to play out. It started with teams built around a 5th year, 24 year old DD and a 7th year, 27 year old Lowry.

The Raptors are 5-6 months in on turning the page and are building with 4/5/6 year, 23/24/25 year olds.

I think you are vastly underestimating the importance of depth on a team lacking elite/All-NBA talent and simultaneously overestimating the capabilities of the current roster as a whole (team/roster are the key word there, not individual players).

I’m not sure why people seem so offended that this is a developing young team and will likely have a record next year that reflects that. It’s funny because if they draft well, guys continue to improve, the FO adds to the roster over the next two summers, and they get some lottery luck next year, 2025-2026 should see a return to a very competitive team that would have completely transformed in 1.5 seasons. That is pretty damn good in my opinion.

Scottie went from averaging 11 ppg in college to winning ROY, I mean what part of that screams late bloomer? If you want to say he still has room to grow, sure that's fine. But, he came into the NBA already ready to contribute at a high level and that's not what late bloomers do.

This team pivoted to a tank to win 25 games, they fielded a G League Roster for 1/4 of the season along with constant roster turnover, speculation and a new coach implementing a totally new system. There was a lot of disfunction the entire year and nobody was really comfortable, surely you agree that played into the performance of the team right? Under the assumption that the core is healthy (plays 70 games) and plays up to their expected level, we get some continuity with guys more comfortable in their 2nd year in Darko's system, a ceiling where this team might potentially only win 2 games more and only 7 games more in a best case scenario seems ridiculous to me.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Derozan and Lowry as comparisons if you don't expect RJ and IQ to get to that level. Someone like Lowry being a role player/solid starter for 7 seasons before turning into a Hall of Famer is an anomaly and very far from the typical career arc.

Of course this is a developing team, but I wouldn't really call it that young. If they were all on their rookie deals, sure we can have much lower expectations and time is on our side. But, we are paying them big money on their 2nd contracts (Scottie will be on his the following year), you expect some results at least when all 3 will be making over 100m combined the following year.

Where we disagree is I don't really see the pathway where this core plays up to expectations and can only win 27 games but then is able to be competitive in 25-26, you're basically assuming we draft a generational talent to improve by that much.

You clearly don't know Barnes history if you don't see how his role has changed from his youth teams to college and now to the NBA. He wasn't a guy Montverde was building around and was a 6th man in university. He wasn't the go to guy on U16/18 team USA. Even in his rookie year, despite winning ROY, he wasn't a go to guy. He wasn't the guy they were building around, he was always referred to as the future. I think he has a lot more room to grow and the fact he is a late bloomer is because of how his game has developed and the role he is now playing going into his 4th year. He's gone from an elite role player in his youth to the guy an NBA team is building around. You don't agree? OK then. But if you can't see that transition and growth, again, I don't know what else to tell you.

Even before tanking a 1/4 of the season as you put it (21 games) and before the injuries, they were only winning at a .377 pace (23-38). That is 30-31 wins over 82. It's funny you mention continuity as a reason for improvement when there could easily be up to 8-9 new players next year.

I keep bringing up Lowry and DeRozan because they were older than the guys you're saying the Raptors should ditch next year if the team struggles. I disagree wholeheartedly that either of IQ/RJ or Scottie should be traded if the team struggles next year mainly because I have patience and can see what a few more pieces will do for the team.

Also, IQ as a starter over 65 games in his career has averaged 20/5/6 with just 1.6TO on 44/39/82 splits. On a winning team, that is quite possibly an all-star. I expect him to maintain that. I see RJ eventually as a Manu type 6th man, which isn't an insult. I don't understand why you're implying I don't think these guys aren't good or worthy of having. I see them as solid pros who are going to continue to work on their games and get better or maintain what they are already doing.

Scottie/IQ/RJ contracts don't really matter much except when it comes to the luxury tax. NBA teams have to pay a minimum amount. Who cares if Scottie, RJ, and IQ are on their second contracts? The Raptors are never going to be a free agent destination. As long as they have Bird RIghts and don't end up with terrible contracts, they'll be able to continue along developing.

Where we disagree is on many things, including what I've actually said and laid out lol. 27 wins would be the floor, 32 wins the ceiling. And again, based on what happens this summer, that view could change.

Competitive in 2025-2026 doesn't mean contending for a title. It's hopefully a winning play in team or better and in the playoffs while at .500 or better. They wouldn't need a generational talent to do that. They'd need all the things you're saying you're expecting for 2024-2025 except:
1. they'd be returning 10-11 players versus 6-7 this year,
2. Scottie/RJ/IQ would be 24/25/26 and entering their prime with another year of experience,
3. Dick would be 22,
4. the rookies drafted this year would be going into year 2,
5. it would be a second summer of adding players to the style of play Darko is going towards (remember the roster he was given to start the year wasn't suited to his style of play or built around Scottie), and
6. it just might be and hopefully will be a top 4 or 10 draft pick in a strong draft.

Obviously we disagree on 2024-2025. Maybe some unexpected transactions in the offseason and we agree. Time will tell.

As far as I see it, 27 wins can only occur if the team starts out slow and we pull the plug (like last year). Basically we’d have to start out something like 12-18 during the first 30 games and we pull the plug by trading Poeltl because it’s clear we don’t have it this year.

The team is too good to end the season as a sub 30 win team if there isn’t a mid-season pivot to a tank. Full health, play out the season and they probably win 36-38 games.

[dTox]

If you took anything away from Masai's end of year presser, it's that this team is going to rebuild, and it's going to take a ton of patience, if you don't believe me, then here's the link:

Watch on YouTube

[ArthurVandelay]

Scottie went from averaging 11 ppg in college to winning ROY, I mean what part of that screams late bloomer? If you want to say he still has room to grow, sure that's fine. But, he came into the NBA already ready to contribute at a high level and that's not what late bloomers do.

This team pivoted to a tank to win 25 games, they fielded a G League Roster for 1/4 of the season along with constant roster turnover, speculation and a new coach implementing a totally new system. There was a lot of disfunction the entire year and nobody was really comfortable, surely you agree that played into the performance of the team right? Under the assumption that the core is healthy (plays 70 games) and plays up to their expected level, we get some continuity with guys more comfortable in their 2nd year in Darko's system, a ceiling where this team might potentially only win 2 games more and only 7 games more in a best case scenario seems ridiculous to me.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Derozan and Lowry as comparisons if you don't expect RJ and IQ to get to that level. Someone like Lowry being a role player/solid starter for 7 seasons before turning into a Hall of Famer is an anomaly and very far from the typical career arc.

Of course this is a developing team, but I wouldn't really call it that young. If they were all on their rookie deals, sure we can have much lower expectations and time is on our side. But, we are paying them big money on their 2nd contracts (Scottie will be on his the following year), you expect some results at least when all 3 will be making over 100m combined the following year.

Where we disagree is I don't really see the pathway where this core plays up to expectations and can only win 27 games but then is able to be competitive in 25-26, you're basically assuming we draft a generational talent to improve by that much.

You clearly don't know Barnes history if you don't see how his role has changed from his youth teams to college and now to the NBA. He wasn't a guy Montverde was building around and was a 6th man in university. He wasn't the go to guy on U16/18 team USA. Even in his rookie year, despite winning ROY, he wasn't a go to guy. He wasn't the guy they were building around, he was always referred to as the future. I think he has a lot more room to grow and the fact he is a late bloomer is because of how his game has developed and the role he is now playing going into his 4th year. He's gone from an elite role player in his youth to the guy an NBA team is building around. You don't agree? OK then. But if you can't see that transition and growth, again, I don't know what else to tell you.

Even before tanking a 1/4 of the season as you put it (21 games) and before the injuries, they were only winning at a .377 pace (23-38). That is 30-31 wins over 82. It's funny you mention continuity as a reason for improvement when there could easily be up to 8-9 new players next year.

I keep bringing up Lowry and DeRozan because they were older than the guys you're saying the Raptors should ditch next year if the team struggles. I disagree wholeheartedly that either of IQ/RJ or Scottie should be traded if the team struggles next year mainly because I have patience and can see what a few more pieces will do for the team.

Also, IQ as a starter over 65 games in his career has averaged 20/5/6 with just 1.6TO on 44/39/82 splits. On a winning team, that is quite possibly an all-star. I expect him to maintain that. I see RJ eventually as a Manu type 6th man, which isn't an insult. I don't understand why you're implying I don't think these guys aren't good or worthy of having. I see them as solid pros who are going to continue to work on their games and get better or maintain what they are already doing.

Scottie/IQ/RJ contracts don't really matter much except when it comes to the luxury tax. NBA teams have to pay a minimum amount. Who cares if Scottie, RJ, and IQ are on their second contracts? The Raptors are never going to be a free agent destination. As long as they have Bird RIghts and don't end up with terrible contracts, they'll be able to continue along developing.

Where we disagree is on many things, including what I've actually said and laid out lol. 27 wins would be the floor, 32 wins the ceiling. And again, based on what happens this summer, that view could change.

Competitive in 2025-2026 doesn't mean contending for a title. It's hopefully a winning play in team or better and in the playoffs while at .500 or better. They wouldn't need a generational talent to do that. They'd need all the things you're saying you're expecting for 2024-2025 except:
1. they'd be returning 10-11 players versus 6-7 this year,
2. Scottie/RJ/IQ would be 24/25/26 and entering their prime with another year of experience,
3. Dick would be 22,
4. the rookies drafted this year would be going into year 2,
5. it would be a second summer of adding players to the style of play Darko is going towards (remember the roster he was given to start the year wasn't suited to his style of play or built around Scottie), and
6. it just might be and hopefully will be a top 4 or 10 draft pick in a strong draft.

Obviously we disagree on 2024-2025. Maybe some unexpected transactions in the offseason and we agree. Time will tell.

As far as I see it, 27 wins can only occur if the team starts out slow and we pull the plug (like last year). Basically we’d have to start out something like 12-18 during the first 30 games and we pull the plug by trading Poeltl because it’s clear we don’t have it this year.

The team is too good to end the season as a sub 30 win team if there isn’t a mid-season pivot to a tank. Full health, play out the season and they probably win 36-38 games.

I’m much closer to the 32 games than 27

The issue isn’t Scottie/IQ/RJ/Poeltl, it’s everyone else. Those core are good but the depth is lacking greatly. Maybe that changes, but I doubt it. Masai preached patience. Bobby talked singles. Maybe they are lowering expectations intentionally but when someone tells you what they are, believe them.

Depth doesn’t matter in the playoffs as much but it does matter regular season.

If even one of those guys go down it is going to be a major issue. Expecting none of your core to get injured isn’t realistic imo.

[PushDaRock]

Scottie went from averaging 11 ppg in college to winning ROY, I mean what part of that screams late bloomer? If you want to say he still has room to grow, sure that's fine. But, he came into the NBA already ready to contribute at a high level and that's not what late bloomers do.

This team pivoted to a tank to win 25 games, they fielded a G League Roster for 1/4 of the season along with constant roster turnover, speculation and a new coach implementing a totally new system. There was a lot of disfunction the entire year and nobody was really comfortable, surely you agree that played into the performance of the team right? Under the assumption that the core is healthy (plays 70 games) and plays up to their expected level, we get some continuity with guys more comfortable in their 2nd year in Darko's system, a ceiling where this team might potentially only win 2 games more and only 7 games more in a best case scenario seems ridiculous to me.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Derozan and Lowry as comparisons if you don't expect RJ and IQ to get to that level. Someone like Lowry being a role player/solid starter for 7 seasons before turning into a Hall of Famer is an anomaly and very far from the typical career arc.

Of course this is a developing team, but I wouldn't really call it that young. If they were all on their rookie deals, sure we can have much lower expectations and time is on our side. But, we are paying them big money on their 2nd contracts (Scottie will be on his the following year), you expect some results at least when all 3 will be making over 100m combined the following year.

Where we disagree is I don't really see the pathway where this core plays up to expectations and can only win 27 games but then is able to be competitive in 25-26, you're basically assuming we draft a generational talent to improve by that much.

You clearly don't know Barnes history if you don't see how his role has changed from his youth teams to college and now to the NBA. He wasn't a guy Montverde was building around and was a 6th man in university. He wasn't the go to guy on U16/18 team USA. Even in his rookie year, despite winning ROY, he wasn't a go to guy. He wasn't the guy they were building around, he was always referred to as the future. I think he has a lot more room to grow and the fact he is a late bloomer is because of how his game has developed and the role he is now playing going into his 4th year. He's gone from an elite role player in his youth to the guy an NBA team is building around. You don't agree? OK then. But if you can't see that transition and growth, again, I don't know what else to tell you.

Even before tanking a 1/4 of the season as you put it (21 games) and before the injuries, they were only winning at a .377 pace (23-38). That is 30-31 wins over 82. It's funny you mention continuity as a reason for improvement when there could easily be up to 8-9 new players next year.

I keep bringing up Lowry and DeRozan because they were older than the guys you're saying the Raptors should ditch next year if the team struggles. I disagree wholeheartedly that either of IQ/RJ or Scottie should be traded if the team struggles next year mainly because I have patience and can see what a few more pieces will do for the team.

Also, IQ as a starter over 65 games in his career has averaged 20/5/6 with just 1.6TO on 44/39/82 splits. On a winning team, that is quite possibly an all-star. I expect him to maintain that. I see RJ eventually as a Manu type 6th man, which isn't an insult. I don't understand why you're implying I don't think these guys aren't good or worthy of having. I see them as solid pros who are going to continue to work on their games and get better or maintain what they are already doing.

Scottie/IQ/RJ contracts don't really matter much except when it comes to the luxury tax. NBA teams have to pay a minimum amount. Who cares if Scottie, RJ, and IQ are on their second contracts? The Raptors are never going to be a free agent destination. As long as they have Bird RIghts and don't end up with terrible contracts, they'll be able to continue along developing.

Where we disagree is on many things, including what I've actually said and laid out lol. 27 wins would be the floor, 32 wins the ceiling. And again, based on what happens this summer, that view could change.

Competitive in 2025-2026 doesn't mean contending for a title. It's hopefully a winning play in team or better and in the playoffs while at .500 or better. They wouldn't need a generational talent to do that. They'd need all the things you're saying you're expecting for 2024-2025 except:
1. they'd be returning 10-11 players versus 6-7 this year,
2. Scottie/RJ/IQ would be 24/25/26 and entering their prime with another year of experience,
3. Dick would be 22,
4. the rookies drafted this year would be going into year 2,
5. it would be a second summer of adding players to the style of play Darko is going towards (remember the roster he was given to start the year wasn't suited to his style of play or built around Scottie), and
6. it just might be and hopefully will be a top 4 or 10 draft pick in a strong draft.

Obviously we disagree on 2024-2025. Maybe some unexpected transactions in the offseason and we agree. Time will tell.

As far as I see it, 27 wins can only occur if the team starts out slow and we pull the plug (like last year). Basically we’d have to start out something like 12-18 during the first 30 games and we pull the plug by trading Poeltl because it’s clear we don’t have it this year.

The team is too good to end the season as a sub 30 win team if there isn’t a mid-season pivot to a tank. Full health, play out the season and they probably win 36-38 games.

This is in line with what I am thinking as well. I would think if we were on an actual 27 win pace with everyone fully healthy, the plug gets pulled much earlier than it did this season. I just don't agree with the tanking without trying premise as we should be on paper too good to be doing that.

[Scase]

An organization that wants to be successful should care. Apathy is toxic as fk. We are about to give Barnes a $250M contract, and the disposition of the organization is that it is OK to not try? This flippant attitude like there are no consequences to tanking is exactly what I am talking about. It completely ignores how the real world works.

If Barnes wants out, regardless of contract situation, it is naive to think the organization has any kind of real power or control. If anything, the moment he signs that contract, he has far more power over the organization.

And of course it is not just Barnes. It's the players, the coaches, the training staff, the scouts, the towel guy, all people that would be right to be adversely affected by the FO giving up and putting the fate of the organization into the lottery balls. Several years of tanking can result in loosing talent throughout the entire organization.

My point here is that it is a simplistic take to rant daily about how the front office is too scared or too stupid to tank without considering the many reasons why that path is not a simple decision. It's laughable to think that RealGM posters actually think they know more about the value of the draft than executives that do this for a living. It's far more likely that the organization just doesn't endorse tanking and / or that the FO understands far better than we do the implications of stupid statements like 'who cares if Barnes doesn't want to tank'.

Yeah man, every single tank job in the history of the NBA has resulted in a franchise player forcing their way out right? Plenty of teams have tanked to get better, some worked out, some didn't. KD left a team that went to the finals, sometimes even success isn't enough.

And I'm always a fan of the lazy and stupid argument of "Hurr durr you think you know better than people who do this for a living". Yeah, I don't need to be a doctor to know that stitching someones arm to their head, when they went in for a broken leg is stupid. Plenty of people called the Jak trade a terrible idea, and lo and behold it was. And Masai himself admitted it was a mistake on his part. Stop treating them like they are infallible. If they were, we wouldn't have been in **** purgatory the last 4 years.

Teams understand the value of taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward, if they didn't we wouldn't have traded Siakam and OG. Tanking is no different. Barnes doesn't even have his extension on the table, and you're talking about him wanting out already? And I'm the one that doesn't understand how this works

For those suggesting that Barnes may want out I would ask who their example is? Who was the last player to turn down a rookie max extension?

Might Barnes want out at some point? Sure. But the earliest anyone has ever asked out is after the 2nd year of their post-rookie max. That player: Kyrie. So the earliest anyone has ever asked out was a guy who is one of the biggest headcases of all-time. If Barnes follows Kyrie’s path and asks out that still gives us 3 full years from today.

Here is how the course of events will go based on 2 scenarios:

We tank this year: Barnes signs the max extension

We don’t tank this year: Barnes signs the max extension

Then there is the fact that the main reason guys want out isn’t due to tanking during their rookie contract but because the franchise failed to build a contender around them during their primes. So what gets us closer to a contender? Winning 39 games this year and drafting 11th or taking a single year step back and getting a top 5 pick in a strong draft? If I had my choice for the long term health of the franchise I’d choose the latter.

Bingo, it's such a low risk move. The only way it truly back fires is if the FO gets gifted a couple top 5 picks, and completely whiffs on them. Which, as critical as I can be of them at times, drafting is the one thing I have full faith in them to do.

I just don't understand why so many people would rather hope for an outlier pick to turn into something good, instead of a high pick that will most likely be pretty good, with an outlier to turn into something great. People keep acting like we're advocating for a decades long tank fest, or being the process 2.0.

[ConSarnit]

You clearly don't know Barnes history if you don't see how his role has changed from his youth teams to college and now to the NBA. He wasn't a guy Montverde was building around and was a 6th man in university. He wasn't the go to guy on U16/18 team USA. Even in his rookie year, despite winning ROY, he wasn't a go to guy. He wasn't the guy they were building around, he was always referred to as the future. I think he has a lot more room to grow and the fact he is a late bloomer is because of how his game has developed and the role he is now playing going into his 4th year. He's gone from an elite role player in his youth to the guy an NBA team is building around. You don't agree? OK then. But if you can't see that transition and growth, again, I don't know what else to tell you.

Even before tanking a 1/4 of the season as you put it (21 games) and before the injuries, they were only winning at a .377 pace (23-38). That is 30-31 wins over 82. It's funny you mention continuity as a reason for improvement when there could easily be up to 8-9 new players next year.

I keep bringing up Lowry and DeRozan because they were older than the guys you're saying the Raptors should ditch next year if the team struggles. I disagree wholeheartedly that either of IQ/RJ or Scottie should be traded if the team struggles next year mainly because I have patience and can see what a few more pieces will do for the team.

Also, IQ as a starter over 65 games in his career has averaged 20/5/6 with just 1.6TO on 44/39/82 splits. On a winning team, that is quite possibly an all-star. I expect him to maintain that. I see RJ eventually as a Manu type 6th man, which isn't an insult. I don't understand why you're implying I don't think these guys aren't good or worthy of having. I see them as solid pros who are going to continue to work on their games and get better or maintain what they are already doing.

Scottie/IQ/RJ contracts don't really matter much except when it comes to the luxury tax. NBA teams have to pay a minimum amount. Who cares if Scottie, RJ, and IQ are on their second contracts? The Raptors are never going to be a free agent destination. As long as they have Bird RIghts and don't end up with terrible contracts, they'll be able to continue along developing.

Where we disagree is on many things, including what I've actually said and laid out lol. 27 wins would be the floor, 32 wins the ceiling. And again, based on what happens this summer, that view could change.

Competitive in 2025-2026 doesn't mean contending for a title. It's hopefully a winning play in team or better and in the playoffs while at .500 or better. They wouldn't need a generational talent to do that. They'd need all the things you're saying you're expecting for 2024-2025 except:
1. they'd be returning 10-11 players versus 6-7 this year,
2. Scottie/RJ/IQ would be 24/25/26 and entering their prime with another year of experience,
3. Dick would be 22,
4. the rookies drafted this year would be going into year 2,
5. it would be a second summer of adding players to the style of play Darko is going towards (remember the roster he was given to start the year wasn't suited to his style of play or built around Scottie), and
6. it just might be and hopefully will be a top 4 or 10 draft pick in a strong draft.

Obviously we disagree on 2024-2025. Maybe some unexpected transactions in the offseason and we agree. Time will tell.

As far as I see it, 27 wins can only occur if the team starts out slow and we pull the plug (like last year). Basically we’d have to start out something like 12-18 during the first 30 games and we pull the plug by trading Poeltl because it’s clear we don’t have it this year.

The team is too good to end the season as a sub 30 win team if there isn’t a mid-season pivot to a tank. Full health, play out the season and they probably win 36-38 games.

I’m much closer to the 32 games than 27

The issue isn’t Scottie/IQ/RJ/Poeltl, it’s everyone else. Those core are good but the depth is lacking greatly. Maybe that changes, but I doubt it. Masai preached patience. Bobby talked singles. Maybe they are lowering expectations intentionally but when someone tells you what they are, believe them.

Depth doesn’t matter in the playoffs as much but it does matter regular season.

If even one of those guys go down it is going to be a major issue. Expecting none of your core to get injured isn’t realistic imo.

I think it's one of the hardest teams to predict.

Barnes/IQ/Barrett: all young enough to improve, maybe significantly

After that we have legit NBA players but almost all of their status are up in the air:

Poeltl: solid C, know exactly what we're getting with him
Trent: might not be on the team
Brown: might not be on the team
Dick: if there is slight improvement from the end of last year and I'd have him as a "solid" bench piece
Olynyk: the only guy who we really have any idea what we're getting
Boucher: still a real NBA player imo. Doesn't fit the ball-movement, higher iq style we want to play. Is he out of the rotation altogether?

In theory we have 6 guys outside of the core who can be rotation level players. We might only get positive (or any) contributions from two of them (Poeltl and Olynyk). Projecting for this team should be much easier after free agency. Right now I can't really argue with someone who says 30 wins or someone who says 42 wins because the only guys who I am 90% sure on how they will play is Poeltl and Olynyk.

If there is a "play the young guys/development mandate" I think erring on the lower side of 35 wins seems the most reasonable. Throw in any injuries to Barnes or Poeltl and that probably kills that stretch of the season, which probably makes a late season tank more likely, and therefor lowers our wins total.

[Tripod]

We will play games and try to win as many as possible while also giving development minutes to the youth. Guys like Gradey and Ochai will get minutes. The #19 and #31 pick...their play will determine what happens just like it did with Gradey.

Let's see the what happens with Brown, Trent and Boucher and what we do in FA.

[Tripod]

Double post

[DreamTeam09]

We will probably try to trade brown for someone 28 & under
Might resign GTJ on a 3yr deal
Draft 2 players
Might use the MLE on someone under 28

Whatever you wanna call that seems like the outcome.

[deck]

To be blunt, who cares? Who cares if a player doesn't want to tank. No player is going to admit they arent good enough to get a team to win, doesn't change reality.

Teenagers think they are invincible, and yet parent spend tons of effort keeping the idiots alive. Doctors tell you to take the antibiotics until they run out, even if you dont need it, and so on.

There's a whole myriad of things people do, and need to do, even if they don't think they should, and we've all seen how some players would build teams.

Scottie is under contract control for many more years, and is in line for a massive 200-250mil contract, he's not going anywhere. And quite frankly, he's less of a long term flight risk if you can turn those bad years into great years further on, rather than mid years as is most likely.

An organization that wants to be successful should care. Apathy is toxic as fk. We are about to give Barnes a $250M contract, and the disposition of the organization is that it is OK to not try? This flippant attitude like there are no consequences to tanking is exactly what I am talking about. It completely ignores how the real world works.

If Barnes wants out, regardless of contract situation, it is naive to think the organization has any kind of real power or control. If anything, the moment he signs that contract, he has far more power over the organization.

And of course it is not just Barnes. It's the players, the coaches, the training staff, the scouts, the towel guy, all people that would be right to be adversely affected by the FO giving up and putting the fate of the organization into the lottery balls. Several years of tanking can result in loosing talent throughout the entire organization.

My point here is that it is a simplistic take to rant daily about how the front office is too scared or too stupid to tank without considering the many reasons why that path is not a simple decision. It's laughable to think that RealGM posters actually think they know more about the value of the draft than executives that do this for a living. It's far more likely that the organization just doesn't endorse tanking and / or that the FO understands far better than we do the implications of stupid statements like 'who cares if Barnes doesn't want to tank'.

Yeah man, every single tank job in the history of the NBA has resulted in a franchise player forcing their way out right? Plenty of teams have tanked to get better, some worked out, some didn't. KD left a team that went to the finals, sometimes even success isn't enough.

And I'm always a fan of the lazy and stupid argument of "Hurr durr you think you know better than people who do this for a living". Yeah, I don't need to be a doctor to know that stitching someones arm to their head, when they went in for a broken leg is stupid. Plenty of people called the Jak trade a terrible idea, and lo and behold it was. And Masai himself admitted it was a mistake on his part. Stop treating them like they are infallible. If they were, we wouldn't have been in **** purgatory the last 4 years.

Teams understand the value of taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward, if they didn't we wouldn't have traded Siakam and OG. Tanking is no different. Barnes doesn't even have his extension on the table, and you're talking about him wanting out already? And I'm the one that doesn't understand how this works

You failed to respond to anything I said.

Yeah man, every single tank job in the history of the NBA has resulted in a franchise player forcing their way out right? Plenty of teams have tanked to get better, some worked out, some didn't. KD left a team that went to the finals, sometimes even success isn't enough.

I didn't speak at all about the efficacy of tanking, I spoke to the limitations of implementing a tanking strategy when you are a GM that is employed by an organization that seeks to make profits, and a GM that has to be concerned with the moral and progression of an entire organization, not just the 5 players we on realgm feel are important enough to talk about.

And I'm always a fan of the lazy and stupid argument of "Hurr durr you think you know better than people who do this for a living". Yeah, I don't need to be a doctor to know that stitching someones arm to their head, when they went in for a broken leg is stupid. Plenty of people called the Jak trade a terrible idea, and lo and behold it was. And Masai himself admitted it was a mistake on his part. Stop treating them like they are infallible. If they were, we wouldn't have been in **** purgatory the last 4 years.

I didn't speak at all about the Poeltl trade. I also didn't agree with that trade.



The Poeltl trade is not related to what I posted.

Teams understand the value of taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward, if they didn't we wouldn't have traded Siakam and OG. Tanking is no different. Barnes doesn't even have his extension on the table, and you're talking about him wanting out already? And I'm the one that doesn't understand how this works

My post was about what the organization expects from the season and what that means for the options that are available to a front office. I was pointing out that often we make assertions on realgm about strategies that should be employed without considering the practical options that are actually available to a front office.

You responded to that post by saying that if you were GM, you 'wouldn't care' what our best player feels about the direction of the franchise. You 'wouldn't care' if tanking affected Barnes' moral / development / potential / motivation. This is a crazy admission about how you feel the franchise should be run.

And you failed entirely to respond to the posit that the FO doesn't have free reign to purposefully make the team bad for several seasons.

So yes, I don't think you have a good grasp of the realities of what a NBA GM actually has to deal with.

[Scase]

An organization that wants to be successful should care. Apathy is toxic as fk. We are about to give Barnes a $250M contract, and the disposition of the organization is that it is OK to not try? This flippant attitude like there are no consequences to tanking is exactly what I am talking about. It completely ignores how the real world works.

If Barnes wants out, regardless of contract situation, it is naive to think the organization has any kind of real power or control. If anything, the moment he signs that contract, he has far more power over the organization.

And of course it is not just Barnes. It's the players, the coaches, the training staff, the scouts, the towel guy, all people that would be right to be adversely affected by the FO giving up and putting the fate of the organization into the lottery balls. Several years of tanking can result in loosing talent throughout the entire organization.

My point here is that it is a simplistic take to rant daily about how the front office is too scared or too stupid to tank without considering the many reasons why that path is not a simple decision. It's laughable to think that RealGM posters actually think they know more about the value of the draft than executives that do this for a living. It's far more likely that the organization just doesn't endorse tanking and / or that the FO understands far better than we do the implications of stupid statements like 'who cares if Barnes doesn't want to tank'.

Yeah man, every single tank job in the history of the NBA has resulted in a franchise player forcing their way out right? Plenty of teams have tanked to get better, some worked out, some didn't. KD left a team that went to the finals, sometimes even success isn't enough.

And I'm always a fan of the lazy and stupid argument of "Hurr durr you think you know better than people who do this for a living". Yeah, I don't need to be a doctor to know that stitching someones arm to their head, when they went in for a broken leg is stupid. Plenty of people called the Jak trade a terrible idea, and lo and behold it was. And Masai himself admitted it was a mistake on his part. Stop treating them like they are infallible. If they were, we wouldn't have been in **** purgatory the last 4 years.

Teams understand the value of taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward, if they didn't we wouldn't have traded Siakam and OG. Tanking is no different. Barnes doesn't even have his extension on the table, and you're talking about him wanting out already? And I'm the one that doesn't understand how this works

You failed to respond to anything I said.

Yeah man, every single tank job in the history of the NBA has resulted in a franchise player forcing their way out right? Plenty of teams have tanked to get better, some worked out, some didn't. KD left a team that went to the finals, sometimes even success isn't enough.

I didn't speak at all about the efficacy of tanking, I spoke to the limitations of implementing a tanking strategy when you are a GM that is employed by an organization that seeks to make profits, and a GM that has to be concerned with the moral and progression of an entire organization, not just the 5 players we on realgm feel are important enough to talk about.

And I'm always a fan of the lazy and stupid argument of "Hurr durr you think you know better than people who do this for a living". Yeah, I don't need to be a doctor to know that stitching someones arm to their head, when they went in for a broken leg is stupid. Plenty of people called the Jak trade a terrible idea, and lo and behold it was. And Masai himself admitted it was a mistake on his part. Stop treating them like they are infallible. If they were, we wouldn't have been in **** purgatory the last 4 years.

I didn't speak at all about the Poeltl trade. I also didn't agree with that trade.



The Poeltl trade is not related to what I posted.

Teams understand the value of taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward, if they didn't we wouldn't have traded Siakam and OG. Tanking is no different. Barnes doesn't even have his extension on the table, and you're talking about him wanting out already? And I'm the one that doesn't understand how this works

My post was about what the organization expects from the season and what that means for the options that are available to a front office. I was pointing out that often we make assertions on realgm about strategies that should be employed without considering the practical options that are actually available to a front office.

You responded to that post by saying that if you were GM, you 'wouldn't care' what our best player feels about the direction of the franchise. You 'wouldn't care' if tanking affected Barnes' moral / development / potential / motivation. This is a crazy admission about how you feel the franchise should be run.

And you failed entirely to respond to the posit that the FO doesn't have free reign to purposefully make the team bad for several seasons.

So yes, I don't think you have a good grasp of the realities of what a NBA GM actually has to deal with.

Your entire post and argument are rendered moot by this single line. Masai has stated publicly that he answers to no one when making team decisions. Whether or not that is true, that's a different debate, but if he states it publicly, then it is treated as fact.

And it's not that I wouldn't care, rather that you shouldn't care. What happened last time we evidently flirted with the prospect of tanking? "You can't ask an NBA champion to tank", and then we traded him for peanuts, and have now had the worst season in the franchises history outside the expansion era.

These are players, not FO execs, they have knowledge and expertise pertaining to the game, execs have it pertaining to building an entire team. Lebron and MJ are the 2 best basketball players to ever step foot on a court, one of them pressured his FO(s) to make tons of terrible moves that left the teams in shambles after he bailed, and MJ was arguably one of the worst FO execs in NBA history.

It is the FOs job to manage the emotional and motivational state of the players (Barnes in this example) during rough patches, not everything is sunshine and rainbows. This is basic management, he is a player, he does not dictate what the team does, and a competent management staff can explain the logic behind decisions made and get players on board.

I didn't respond directly to most of your post because it's all surface level easily argued defences of why things are hard, boohoo. Masai is the highest paid FO exec in the league, he can figure it out. And because you went with the usual lazy "You don't know more than an exec" argument. It's tired and lazy, do better.

If tanking was as terrible of an option as you like to make it sound, no teams would ever do it. Yet multiple ones do it, every single year.

[akakalakin]

Excellent title question which no one has thought of before

another middling season is in stone