Windhorst: Raptors making noise around the league looking for a “big fish” // Giannis & Toronto "Mutual Interest"/KD too

[Scase]

Same tier, not exact talent level. BI/RJ/SB/IQ are all tier 2/3 level players.

RJ, Barnes and IQ are not Trae-tier players.

BI, when he's healthy, maybe. The playmaking value, though, separates Trae a lot from those other guys even though his scoring has come down in recent years.

Not same tier sure, but also not enough of a gap to be throwing assets at IMO. Like what is the point of another offence first horrific defender guard? Obviously it always comes down to cost, so I'm flexible on that, but I don't think I'd be open to moving more than an IQ/RJ + the 9th.

And don't forget, he's essentially an expiring UFA, cause he is not picking up a PO at 28. And then you have to not only match salaries, but figure out how to absorb a new guy making more than 50mil a year.

[tsherkin]

Not same tier sure, but also not enough of a gap to be throwing assets at IMO.

Can't say I agree. Trae on this team would be able to score less and focus more on driving our offense. With relatively little help, he's been still doing impressive things in Atlanta. With the talent we have lined up for 25-26, he'd be able to do a fair bit for us, I'd say.

And don't forget, he's essentially an expiring UFA, cause he is not picking up a PO at 28. And then you have to not only match salaries, but figure out how to absorb a new guy making more than 50mil a year.

Yes, the finances of it make it less tenable, but I was originally just speaking of player quality. For sure, the size of his contract and ensuring he's actually locked up and the cost of a trade are all relevant to whether or not we'd want him. My initial remark, was incredulity over the notion that we have anyone who is really on Trae's level.

[ForeverTFC]

Consistent health issues. This is his first year of 70+ games. Inconsistent scorer, clearly best-suited as a #2 option to a real superstar offensive player. Pretty good playmaker. Hasn't stunned in the playoffs, though obviously this year in particular, he was injured.

I think they're probably wondering what the team's ceiling is with him and Mitchell alongside one another. They need a scoring upgrade to get to that ultimate goal. He's quite good, but they are discovering the need for a real #1, I suspect.

I totally understand why they'd look to trade him. But If I'm not mistaken, he was their primary playmaker last year and if there is a weakness Mitchell has, it's his playmaking. I do wonder what their offence looks like without Garland and the impact it would have on the offense/Mobley's growth.

Mitchell is definitely a real number 1 btw if you meant on the offensive end.

The Cavs have been unceremoniously owned in the playoffs in the last 2 years by teams they definitely thought they were better than, and neither of which are thought as contenders.

They've got a "two small guards who don't play a lot of defense problem" compromising their bigs in the playoffs, and a polar opposite problem on offense with those bigs. That'll prompt changes the same way DeRozan 4th quarter benchings did for us.

Shopping for an upgrade with the lesser pieces of both problems was what most people (Matt Bonner was bringing this up back in December when they were rolling) were thinking before their great regular season run. But then the playoffs happened and all those questions come right back to the forefront. It's not a viable playoff composition if you want to contend.

A lot of what you said is correct, but Garland being injured/not 100% last 2 runs doesn't get the attention it deserves. I know everyone thinks Mitchell drives the offense on the Cavs - and this is true to a large degree - but really Mitchell mostly drives Mitchell's offense. Garland is the guy that gets the other guys their shots.

Teams have been taking advantage of a limited Garland by funneling usage to Mitchell and taking away his 1st/2nd options when they run plays, exposing his playmaking. So in that sense, I fully am aligned with tsherkin that they need another 1st option or at least a high usage playmaker in that offense to replace Garland if they do move on from him. I don't think they can trade Garland for depth and get better or even stay at the same level.

[PushDaRock]

Sure, but that's you having an issue with his game rather than him "fading in the playoffs". His play style is no different in the regular season and he doesn't perform any differently in the playoffs.

But again, him having a pattern of his 3 running out IS him "fading in the playoffs. He's had some noteworthy troubles in a lot of his postseason runs, and he DOES perform differently in the playoffs.

I think you're just looking for patterns that aren't really there. If you check out his regular season game log, I guarantee you he's not just 3/8 every game from three, he's a high variance type player. He's going to have extremely hot shooting games and extremely cold shooting games. He's also had very notable games late in playoff series that are the opposite of "fading".

17/18 he knocked OKC out with 38 points in a game 6.

19/20 he was amazing against Denver except one bad game 7, if you want to call that fading, sure that's probably the one time that qualifies.

20/21 he was great against Memphis and dropped 39 against the Clippers in the elimination game, that's certainly not "fading"

23/24 he scored 50 in game 6 against Orlando and then 39 in game 7 to knock them out, definitely not fading. He was tremendous against Boston as well.

[Scase]

Not same tier sure, but also not enough of a gap to be throwing assets at IMO.

Can't say I agree. Trae on this team would be able to score less and focus more on driving our offense. With relatively little help, he's been still doing impressive things in Atlanta. With the talent we have lined up for 25-26, he'd be able to do a fair bit for us, I'd say.

And don't forget, he's essentially an expiring UFA, cause he is not picking up a PO at 28. And then you have to not only match salaries, but figure out how to absorb a new guy making more than 50mil a year.

Yes, the finances of it make it less tenable, but I was originally just speaking of player quality. For sure, the size of his contract and ensuring he's actually locked up and the cost of a trade are all relevant to whether or not we'd want him. My initial remark, was incredulity over the notion that we have anyone who is really on Trae's level.

Fair enough, my hesitation is with the overall cost to add him, both the acquisition and the future cost. And if we are getting Trae, why is it for driving the offence and not scoring, I don't see him sitting back and being a pass first PG for no reason. He's a scorer first and foremost, and there's only one ball.

He averages a 45% AST% with the Hawks, I don't see his game changing dramatically being here, if anything we need his scoring. Not to mention his overall efficacy is worse with him looking to pass more than score based off the last 3 years or so.

[tsherkin]

Fair enough, my hesitation is with the overall cost to add him, both the acquisition and the future cost. And if we are getting Trae, why is it for driving the offence and not scoring, I don't see him sitting back and being a pass first PG for no reason. He's a scorer first and foremost, and there's only one ball.

I don't think we've seen what he could be like with real scoring talent around him, to be honest. He's never really had it in Atlanta, so he's shot in volume as much out of necessity as anything else.

It's something I would love to see. Maybe not with us, given the logistics, but in general.

He averages a 45% AST% with the Hawks, I don't see his game changing dramatically being here, if anything we need his scoring. Not to mention his overall efficacy is worse with him looking to pass more than score based off the last 3 years or so.

He's been shooting a similar volume for a long time, I don't think the past 3 years tells us anything except that his 3 is shaky and Atlanta hasn't put scorers around him. He just led the league in APG and was an All-Star with a main starting lineup around him of Jalen Johnson (for half a season), Dyson Daniels, Onyeka Okongwu (for half a season, the rest off the bench), Clint Capela (half a season) and Risacher. And a litany of other partial seasons rounding things out.

That's actually quite impressive to me.

[Scase]

Fair enough, my hesitation is with the overall cost to add him, both the acquisition and the future cost. And if we are getting Trae, why is it for driving the offence and not scoring, I don't see him sitting back and being a pass first PG for no reason. He's a scorer first and foremost, and there's only one ball.

I don't think we've seen what he could be like with real scoring talent around him, to be honest. He's never really had it in Atlanta, so he's shot in volume as much out of necessity as anything else.

It's something I would love to see. Maybe not with us, given the logistics, but in general.

He averages a 45% AST% with the Hawks, I don't see his game changing dramatically being here, if anything we need his scoring. Not to mention his overall efficacy is worse with him looking to pass more than score based off the last 3 years or so.

He's been shooting a similar volume for a long time, I don't think the past 3 years tells us anything except that his 3 is shaky and Atlanta hasn't put scorers around him. He just led the league in APG and was an All-Star with a main starting lineup around him of Jalen Johnson (for half a season), Dyson Daniels, Onyeka Okongwu (for half a season, the rest off the bench), Clint Capela (half a season) and Risacher. And a litany of other partial seasons rounding things out.

That's actually quite impressive to me.

I only bring up the last 3 years as they been a notable downtick in his FGA and an uptick in his APG, that to me suggests a shifting in his approach or focus.

As for him with a true scorer, yeah it would be fun to see him not have to shoulder the load so much, but I still see him as a guy who is less effective not being the core focus.

If we could swap him out for IQ, sign me right up, that would be interesting.

[mtcan]

ingram didnt come here because its Toronto, he came here cause we were willing to extend him.

He chose us over Atlanta and someone else I believe as they were also willing to extend him. Pelicans themselves were willing to extend him at 4/160 but he turned them down.

hawks pelicans couldnt agree on trade, otherwise if pelicans got a better return from hawks, he would have been traded there and signed extension.

4/160 is something new to me, is that something they offered during the season or is it offseason when he was looking for the max.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NOLAPelicans/comments/1inzet0/the_stein_line_brandon_ingram_passed_on_a/
The reference is from this Reddit post on the Pelicans Reddit regarding the 4 year 160 million extension.

And let's not discount the fact that BI actually loves the city. He made mention of how they look for when they are going to play the Raptors in Toronto because it's a top 3 NBA city to him.

Watch on YouTube

At around the 11-12 minute mark...they start talking about their favourite NBA cities...and BI name drops Toronto. This 2 or 3 years before the trade itself. Toronto on his mind even back then.

As a city that is usually overlooked and ignored by American players...you don't just trade a guy like this when he wants to be here. Basketball is a business I get it...but when someone a good player is rep'ing the city...you can't ignore that.

[ConSarnit]

I believe the thinking on Ingram's part is that he's going to revitalize his career playing here for two seasons, opt out in 2027, and sign a larger contract. In particular the Lakers are set up to have max cap space in 2027, if they don't get a player like Giannis in free agency they might be willing to throw a big contract at Ingram if he's coming off a season where he was healthy and putting up numbers. They will be desperate to get talent to put next to Luka in 2027, essentially he's looking to pull a Fred VanVleet and be a free agent at exactly the right time.

Exactly this! NOP offered 4 yrs while TOR offered 3 yrs, both offers at $40/yr. That extra year is the guaranteed money left on the table, which, given BI's injury history is a risky bet. but much as FVV did, BI is betting on himself. It's clearly about the money. It's almost always about money.

The 3rd yr of his TOR contract is a player option which coincides with projected increase in salary cap in 2027-28 by >$30 million. Then, if everything goes right for him, he'll opt out in two years at 29, still relatively young, for that one big beautiful payday.

If he's in line for a big beautiful payday in two years, that's good for all sides. Means he's probably made an all-star team or two and the Raptors are a legit playoff team. I think all parties would be happy with that outcome

Ingram doesn’t even need a pay raise to come out ahead with his 2+1. If he opts out and gets 25% of the cap again that’s probably an extra $15m he’ll earn over what he would have gotten on a 4/160 with NOP. Ingram just needs to hold the fort over the next 2 seasons to come out ahead.

2+1 player option deals never help the team. If the guy plays well he just opts out. If he opts in that likely means something went wrong and he can’t do any better on the open market.

[James_Raptors]

Exactly this! NOP offered 4 yrs while TOR offered 3 yrs, both offers at $40/yr. That extra year is the guaranteed money left on the table, which, given BI's injury history is a risky bet. but much as FVV did, BI is betting on himself. It's clearly about the money. It's almost always about money.

The 3rd yr of his TOR contract is a player option which coincides with projected increase in salary cap in 2027-28 by >$30 million. Then, if everything goes right for him, he'll opt out in two years at 29, still relatively young, for that one big beautiful payday.

If he's in line for a big beautiful payday in two years, that's good for all sides. Means he's probably made an all-star team or two and the Raptors are a legit playoff team. I think all parties would be happy with that outcome

Ingram doesn’t even need a pay raise to come out ahead with his 2+1. If he opts out and gets 25% of the cap again that’s probably an extra $15m he’ll earn over what he would have gotten on a 4/160 with NOP. Ingram just needs to hold the fort over the next 2 seasons to come out ahead.

2+1 player option deals never help the team. If the guy plays well he just opts out. If he opts in that likely means something went wrong and he can’t do any better on the open market.

...and the player performs so well that he warrants another contract/pay raise. In other words, the team were probably pretty damn happy with his performance. ie: If Brandon plays so well this propels him to a big multi-year reward, then this trade was a huge win, considering how little we gave up.

[Tripod]

Same tier, not exact talent level. BI/RJ/SB/IQ are all tier 2/3 level players.

RJ, Barnes and IQ are not Trae-tier players.

BI, when he's healthy, maybe. The playmaking value, though, separates Trae a lot from those other guys even though his scoring has come down in recent years.

Not same tier sure, but also not enough of a gap to be throwing assets at IMO. Like what is the point of another offence first horrific defender guard? Obviously it always comes down to cost, so I'm flexible on that, but I don't think I'd be open to moving more than an IQ/RJ + the 9th.

And don't forget, he's essentially an expiring UFA, cause he is not picking up a PO at 28. And then you have to not only match salaries, but figure out how to absorb a new guy making more than 50mil a year.

Yeah personally, I want to avoid those $50+ contracts unless it's for a real star...like a Giannis.

[iBall101]

I'm hoping these rumors stay as rumors. I still don't think acquiring either of KD or Giannis will equate to a chip. Especially, if we have to lose multiple young core players with picks. I would rather stand pat and utilize the 9th pick with what we have already. In the long run, this will age better then mortgaging all we built for both veterans that will only get us a second round trip in the playoffs at best.

[Kurtz]

I can't see ATL dealing Young - that's a nice potential roster they have there in place. They're a good defense/lob centre away from being a legit darkhorse in the East next year imo.

[basketballto]

If they try to trade Young we should grab him. To translate RJ/IQ plus Dick into Young would raise our ceiling and save money. His passing game would fit in so well here. We would need a defensive point of attack SG

[TGM]

Don’t think Trae or LaMelo is the kind of guy we need. They are stars, but don’t get you far enough. Like if you look at Atlanta’s team the talent pool is not bad, but still not enough to get them to the next level.

To win in today’s NBA you need a difference maker like Giannis or KD.

Also, people are underestimating BI’s impact. I don’t known where the narrative about BI, Barnes and RJ play a similar game and don’t space out well. That comment sis true for Barnes and RJ, but BI is a self shot creator. She has a 20 footer pull up, but his game works outside beyond the 3PT line just as much. The Raptors were casually tanking and resting players all last season. Reality is we are a much better team.

This summer is really going to be a test for Masai’s asset management ability. If he manages to keep Barnes, BI and Jakob and acquires either KD or Giannis this will be one of the top teams in the East.

[Potential]

@Bucks

[CPT]

I don’t want anything to do with Trae or Lamelo, but I also wanted nothing to do with BI, so maybe I can will it into existence.

[tsherkin]

I only bring up the last 3 years as they been a notable downtick in his FGA and an uptick in his APG, that to me suggests a shifting in his approach or focus.

He took 17.7 FGA/g in 2021. Since then, 20.3, 19.0, 18.7, 18.1. It isn't THAT much of a downtick (though it does look a bit larger per-minute). His AST% hasn't varied that wildly, in the meantime, what we've seen primarily is that his 3 has stabilized around 34% in volume and that he's horrible at finishing inside 5 feet and bottomed out there this season.

He's still taking 18+ FGA/g, and he's rocked 45%+ AST in 5 of the past 6 seasons, leading the league in 3 of the last 4. And in his second season, he posted 45.6% to kick that all off, so I don't really see a huge change in approach. He shoots a lot and he's an exceptional playmaker. He's been averaging 10.1+ AST36 since his season season.

[Duffman100]

I don’t want anything to do with Trae or Lamelo, but I also wanted nothing to do with BI, so maybe I can will it into existence.

Trae and LaMelo feel like perennial losers to me. Guys that will never craft their game to truly impact winning in the ultimate way.

Agreed, I didn't want BI either. I'm just here for the ride.

[WuTang_CMB]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=0YpMScWXY2zRUqR8fH-usg

/thread