Monitoring the Trade: Rob Dillingham for Jakob Poeltl

[ConSarnit]

What are you even arguing?

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

What’s illogical about saying it’s a bad trade in hindsight?

I believe the trade was ok when it was made. It was a projected non-lotto/back of lotto pick in a weak draft for a starting C. The team made that trade coming off a 5th seed, with the ROY, 1st time all star PG, a 3rd team all NBA guy, and the best 3+D guy in the league on its roster. It was underperforming and needed a jolt. I didn’t love it. But I also didn’t think it was horrendous.


Would I have thought the same if I knew FVV was a flight risk? Absolutely not. So in hindsight, bad trade.

You may disagree with my read of the situation, but you can’t argue the logic of it.

I’m not saying that thinking it was a bad trade in hindsight is irrational. That’s a complete rational position. I’m saying that arguing that it was only a bad trade in hindsight (like some are doing here) is just false as many were saying it was bad at the time it was made.

We were also 4 games under .500 at the time of the trade which is one of the main cruxes of the “we shouldn’t have made the trade” argument. The argument that the trade made sense holds less water when the team was already in the midst of failing during the ‘22/23 season. At that point it was just dumb to chase the play-in. The trade would have made more sense had it been done at the start of the year or after the season, not in the middle of a somewhat lost season. It wasn’t a terrible trade but it was not good especially factoring in Poeltl’s questionable offensive fit with Siakam and Barnes. Hindsight: bad trade. At the moment: bad trade.

[Scase]

What are you even arguing?

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

What’s illogical about saying it’s a bad trade in hindsight?

I believe the trade was ok when it was made. It was a projected non-lotto/back of lotto pick in a weak draft for a starting C. The team made that trade coming off a 5th seed, with the ROY, 1st time all star PG, a 3rd team all NBA guy, and the best 3+D guy in the league on its roster. It was underperforming and needed a jolt. I didn’t love it. But I also didn’t think it was horrendous.


Would I have thought the same if I knew FVV was a flight risk? Absolutely not. So in hindsight, bad trade.

You may disagree with my read of the situation, but you can’t argue the logic of it.

A championship calibre FO should be able to identify a flash in the pan/fools gold season, that is not an expectation placed on fans, but definitely on a guy making 15mil/yr.

It's even worse when a lot of fans and analysts expressed their concerns and virtually every one of them was based in reality, and came true. FVV wasn't a flight risk, every single player that is a UFA is a flight risk, and making a major trade like that without having that issue shored up is one of the biggest failings of the FO.

If there was a price they weren't willing to pay to keep FVV, then they shouldn't have made that trade. It wasn't a "let's see if this fixes the team" type of trade, I would have still thought it to be a bad trade, but could at least see some of the logic. It was a "let's see if this fixes the team, oh and also a major part of that team is an expiring UFA, oh and the next year we have 2 more, and all 3 will cost an arm leg and a foot to pay. Yeah let's take that gamble" type of trade.

If you need to make a major trade like that to take a team that was projected at the time to be 10 wins below the previous season, despite being the exact same roster, then you shouldn't be making that trade. this wasn't some team with a major shakeup, it was the same core that had been around for multiple years prior, you knew what they were capable of, we all did.

There was no logic behind the trade, there was hope. And as admirable as hope is to have, it isn't enough.

[Chandan]

I actually think it’s more like 5 to 10 years, but don’t want to be dramatic.

Again, it’s not so much that a late lotto pick for Poeltl is terrible value in a vacuum, but the trade represents the failure to start the rebuild at the right time.

Scottie has already signed his extension and people are going into this season thinking we need to tank. If that doesn’t mean we’re set back 3-5 years, I don’t know what does. If we’re already back to being a playoff fixture with room to improve, I’ll be wrong. That’s fine.

The 5-10 years is based on the “Scottie Barnes era” never amounting to anything. Maybe that will have nothing to do with this trade, but I feel like it significantly reduced the chances.

Its just that "toxic negativities" have been saying pretty much we are going the wrong direction for 3 years. And yet there are still some notion floating around that the side that is a skeptic at all the moves arnt the side that is level-headed.

[Chandan]

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

What’s illogical about saying it’s a bad trade in hindsight?

I believe the trade was ok when it was made. It was a projected non-lotto/back of lotto pick in a weak draft for a starting C. The team made that trade coming off a 5th seed, with the ROY, 1st time all star PG, a 3rd team all NBA guy, and the best 3+D guy in the league on its roster. It was underperforming and needed a jolt. I didn’t love it. But I also didn’t think it was horrendous.


Would I have thought the same if I knew FVV was a flight risk? Absolutely not. So in hindsight, bad trade.

You may disagree with my read of the situation, but you can’t argue the logic of it.

A championship calibre FO should be able to identify a flash in the pan/fools gold season, that is not an expectation placed on fans, but definitely on a guy making 15mil/yr.

It's even worse when a lot of fans and analysts expressed their concerns and virtually every one of them was based in reality, and came true. FVV wasn't a flight risk, every single player that is a UFA is a flight risk, and making a major trade like that without having that issue shored up is one of the biggest failings of the FO.

If there was a price they weren't willing to pay to keep FVV, then they shouldn't have made that trade. It wasn't a "let's see if this fixes the team" type of trade, I would have still thought it to be a bad trade, but could at least see some of the logic. It was a "let's see if this fixes the team, oh and also a major part of that team is an expiring UFA, oh and the next year we have 2 more, and all 3 will cost an arm leg and a foot to pay. Yeah let's take that gamble" type of trade.

If you need to make a major trade like that to take a team that was projected at the time to be 10 wins below the previous season, despite being the exact same roster, then you shouldn't be making that trade. this wasn't some team with a major shakeup, it was the same core that had been around for multiple years prior, you knew what they were capable of, we all did.

There was no logic behind the trade, there was hope. And as admirable as hope is to have, it isn't enough.

We literally watched Fred reck up the stats and pushed for the AS spot first half of the season, then proceed to bring his broken body to the post AS break and had one of the most inefficient stretch in a historic fashion.

Was calling fake all star the whole time. It didn't take much to see the FVV siakam tandem weren't taking us anywhere. There were chances to sell high but they doubled down on poeltl instead. Looking back, this is one of the worst possible outcome for the whole contract year situations, and we ended up losing both for some really meager returns. The only saving grace might be getting RJ and IQ for OG

[Kingsway_fan]

The real discussion should be around the terrible protection around that pick. At least other teams scale it after 1 year, Bobby didn't even bother. Terrible negotiations.

Act of desperation.

[PhilBlackson]

Even though Dillingham was the pick, I’m gonna compare it to missing out on Buzelis because that’s both who I think we’d pick & who I would’ve taken. I still think Rob is gonna be a hooper but Booze is the guy I would’ve taken with the pick….and yes it still is a horrible trade, lottery protection should’ve been the bare minimum.

[ForeverTFC]

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

What’s illogical about saying it’s a bad trade in hindsight?

I believe the trade was ok when it was made. It was a projected non-lotto/back of lotto pick in a weak draft for a starting C. The team made that trade coming off a 5th seed, with the ROY, 1st time all star PG, a 3rd team all NBA guy, and the best 3+D guy in the league on its roster. It was underperforming and needed a jolt. I didn’t love it. But I also didn’t think it was horrendous.


Would I have thought the same if I knew FVV was a flight risk? Absolutely not. So in hindsight, bad trade.

You may disagree with my read of the situation, but you can’t argue the logic of it.

A championship calibre FO should be able to identify a flash in the pan/fools gold season, that is not an expectation placed on fans, but definitely on a guy making 15mil/yr.

It's even worse when a lot of fans and analysts expressed their concerns and virtually every one of them was based in reality, and came true. FVV wasn't a flight risk, every single player that is a UFA is a flight risk, and making a major trade like that without having that issue shored up is one of the biggest failings of the FO.

If there was a price they weren't willing to pay to keep FVV, then they shouldn't have made that trade. It wasn't a "let's see if this fixes the team" type of trade, I would have still thought it to be a bad trade, but could at least see some of the logic. It was a "let's see if this fixes the team, oh and also a major part of that team is an expiring UFA, oh and the next year we have 2 more, and all 3 will cost an arm leg and a foot to pay. Yeah let's take that gamble" type of trade.

If you need to make a major trade like that to take a team that was projected at the time to be 10 wins below the previous season, despite being the exact same roster, then you shouldn't be making that trade. this wasn't some team with a major shakeup, it was the same core that had been around for multiple years prior, you knew what they were capable of, we all did.

There was no logic behind the trade, there was hope. And as admirable as hope is to have, it isn't enough.

the same thinking could be applied to the Demar/Lowry teams. Just because that team wasn't going to win didn't mean it needed a teardown. The same (seemingly) applied here. Also, there were many analysts that were high on those Raptors, specifically Pelton who's model I believe had us 3rd in the east. I think consensus was that that team as constructed was not a contender. The debate was whether to build up from there or build down. So I disagree with the assertions that it was a no-brainer to tear down the team.

With that said, I agree that if they weren't all in on bringing FVV back, they should have never done this move. Additionally, while we as fans didn't know how bad the locker room had gotten, the FO definitely did. So knowing those 2 things - which the FO definitely did at the time - they should not have made that trade. It's that simple. However, you can't go around telling fans they're stupid because they weren't privy to this information.

We can debate whether that team should have been built up or built down, and based on the information we had, both sides have a valid and logical argument to present. Do you not agree with that? If you do, then I'm not sure why someone can't say: "I thought the move was fine when it was made, but in hindsight I was proven wrong."

[TorontoBarneys]

Man, offseason sucks.

[ConSarnit]

What’s illogical about saying it’s a bad trade in hindsight?

I believe the trade was ok when it was made. It was a projected non-lotto/back of lotto pick in a weak draft for a starting C. The team made that trade coming off a 5th seed, with the ROY, 1st time all star PG, a 3rd team all NBA guy, and the best 3+D guy in the league on its roster. It was underperforming and needed a jolt. I didn’t love it. But I also didn’t think it was horrendous.


Would I have thought the same if I knew FVV was a flight risk? Absolutely not. So in hindsight, bad trade.

You may disagree with my read of the situation, but you can’t argue the logic of it.

A championship calibre FO should be able to identify a flash in the pan/fools gold season, that is not an expectation placed on fans, but definitely on a guy making 15mil/yr.

It's even worse when a lot of fans and analysts expressed their concerns and virtually every one of them was based in reality, and came true. FVV wasn't a flight risk, every single player that is a UFA is a flight risk, and making a major trade like that without having that issue shored up is one of the biggest failings of the FO.

If there was a price they weren't willing to pay to keep FVV, then they shouldn't have made that trade. It wasn't a "let's see if this fixes the team" type of trade, I would have still thought it to be a bad trade, but could at least see some of the logic. It was a "let's see if this fixes the team, oh and also a major part of that team is an expiring UFA, oh and the next year we have 2 more, and all 3 will cost an arm leg and a foot to pay. Yeah let's take that gamble" type of trade.

If you need to make a major trade like that to take a team that was projected at the time to be 10 wins below the previous season, despite being the exact same roster, then you shouldn't be making that trade. this wasn't some team with a major shakeup, it was the same core that had been around for multiple years prior, you knew what they were capable of, we all did.

There was no logic behind the trade, there was hope. And as admirable as hope is to have, it isn't enough.

the same thinking could be applied to the Demar/Lowry teams. Just because that team wasn't going to win didn't mean it needed a teardown. The same (seemingly) applied here. Also, there were many analysts that were high on those Raptors, specifically Pelton who's model I believe had us 3rd in the east. I think consensus was that that team as constructed was not a contender. The debate was whether to build up from there or build down. So I disagree with the assertions that it was a no-brainer to tear down the team.

With that said, I agree that if they weren't all in on bringing FVV back, they should have never done this move. Additionally, while we as fans didn't know how bad the locker room had gotten, the FO definitely did. So knowing those 2 things - which the FO definitely did at the time - they should not have made that trade. It's that simple. However, you can't go around telling fans they're stupid because they weren't privy to this information.

We can debate whether that team should have been built up or built down, and based on the information we had, both sides have a valid and logical argument to present. Do you not agree with that? If you do, then I'm not sure why someone can't say: "I thought the move was fine when it was made, but in hindsight I was proven wrong."

IMO, making the team better made some sense. The problem is Poeltl was not that player. This front office knows what is required to be successful in the league (shooting) yet the Barnes/Siakam/Poeltl front court put us on a track where having a good offense was near impossible. You can’t build a contending team with that lack of shooting. For years the FO seemingly knew this and only pursued stretch bigs (Ibaka, Gasol and even Baynes). Why they shifted their MO and targeted a non-shooting big I’ll never understand.

I can understand wanting to build the team up. I don’t understand why they thought Poeltl would be the answer given the nature of the current NBA (3pt shooting being a key factor in success). The Poeltl trade immediately limited our offensive upside.

[ForeverTFC]

A championship calibre FO should be able to identify a flash in the pan/fools gold season, that is not an expectation placed on fans, but definitely on a guy making 15mil/yr.

It's even worse when a lot of fans and analysts expressed their concerns and virtually every one of them was based in reality, and came true. FVV wasn't a flight risk, every single player that is a UFA is a flight risk, and making a major trade like that without having that issue shored up is one of the biggest failings of the FO.

If there was a price they weren't willing to pay to keep FVV, then they shouldn't have made that trade. It wasn't a "let's see if this fixes the team" type of trade, I would have still thought it to be a bad trade, but could at least see some of the logic. It was a "let's see if this fixes the team, oh and also a major part of that team is an expiring UFA, oh and the next year we have 2 more, and all 3 will cost an arm leg and a foot to pay. Yeah let's take that gamble" type of trade.

If you need to make a major trade like that to take a team that was projected at the time to be 10 wins below the previous season, despite being the exact same roster, then you shouldn't be making that trade. this wasn't some team with a major shakeup, it was the same core that had been around for multiple years prior, you knew what they were capable of, we all did.

There was no logic behind the trade, there was hope. And as admirable as hope is to have, it isn't enough.

the same thinking could be applied to the Demar/Lowry teams. Just because that team wasn't going to win didn't mean it needed a teardown. The same (seemingly) applied here. Also, there were many analysts that were high on those Raptors, specifically Pelton who's model I believe had us 3rd in the east. I think consensus was that that team as constructed was not a contender. The debate was whether to build up from there or build down. So I disagree with the assertions that it was a no-brainer to tear down the team.

With that said, I agree that if they weren't all in on bringing FVV back, they should have never done this move. Additionally, while we as fans didn't know how bad the locker room had gotten, the FO definitely did. So knowing those 2 things - which the FO definitely did at the time - they should not have made that trade. It's that simple. However, you can't go around telling fans they're stupid because they weren't privy to this information.

We can debate whether that team should have been built up or built down, and based on the information we had, both sides have a valid and logical argument to present. Do you not agree with that? If you do, then I'm not sure why someone can't say: "I thought the move was fine when it was made, but in hindsight I was proven wrong."

IMO, making the team better made some sense. The problem is Poeltl was not that player. This front office knows what is required to be successful in the league (shooting) yet the Barnes/Siakam/Poeltl front court put us on a track where having a good offense was near impossible. You can’t build a contending team with that lack of shooting. For years the FO seemingly knew this and only pursued stretch bigs (Ibaka, Gasol and even Baynes). Why they shifted their MO and targeted a non-shooting big I’ll never understand.

I can understand wanting to build the team up. I don’t understand why they thought Poeltl would be the answer given the nature of the current NBA (3pt shooting being a key factor in success). The Poeltl trade immediately limited our offensive upside.

That's a totally valid debate. I can only speak for myself here: it was a matter of getting a rim protector into the lineup. I didn't like the Scottie at the 5 experiment and I thought it was bad for his growth. And while the league has become positionless, a C is still a very distinct player. It also helped that Poeltl could exist as a hub in the offense and that he was a good defender which is a pre-requisite for getting minutes from Nurse. Of course 3pt shooting was needed, but it's hard enough to find that, let alone at the deadline. And my thinking was that it wasn't going to be a lottery pick which I think is ok value for Poeltl.

Again, in hindsight, I think the FO got desperate. My read of the situation at this point is that they didn't fully believe in the team, but like most "non-destination" markets were afraid of letting good, home grown players go and starting again. That's unlike Masai who always operates with confidence. It also seems like the locker room was such a mess that it made it hard for them to diagnose exactly what's happening and Jakob was a known commodity that they believed could bring some of the "old feelings" back to the locker room. It's telling that they now cede they need a new culture and that the old culture doesn't work for their current stock of players, mainly Barnes.

[ciueli]

the same thinking could be applied to the Demar/Lowry teams. Just because that team wasn't going to win didn't mean it needed a teardown. The same (seemingly) applied here. Also, there were many analysts that were high on those Raptors, specifically Pelton who's model I believe had us 3rd in the east. I think consensus was that that team as constructed was not a contender. The debate was whether to build up from there or build down. So I disagree with the assertions that it was a no-brainer to tear down the team.

With that said, I agree that if they weren't all in on bringing FVV back, they should have never done this move. Additionally, while we as fans didn't know how bad the locker room had gotten, the FO definitely did. So knowing those 2 things - which the FO definitely did at the time - they should not have made that trade. It's that simple. However, you can't go around telling fans they're stupid because they weren't privy to this information.

We can debate whether that team should have been built up or built down, and based on the information we had, both sides have a valid and logical argument to present. Do you not agree with that? If you do, then I'm not sure why someone can't say: "I thought the move was fine when it was made, but in hindsight I was proven wrong."

IMO, making the team better made some sense. The problem is Poeltl was not that player. This front office knows what is required to be successful in the league (shooting) yet the Barnes/Siakam/Poeltl front court put us on a track where having a good offense was near impossible. You can’t build a contending team with that lack of shooting. For years the FO seemingly knew this and only pursued stretch bigs (Ibaka, Gasol and even Baynes). Why they shifted their MO and targeted a non-shooting big I’ll never understand.

I can understand wanting to build the team up. I don’t understand why they thought Poeltl would be the answer given the nature of the current NBA (3pt shooting being a key factor in success). The Poeltl trade immediately limited our offensive upside.

That's a totally valid debate. I can only speak for myself here: it was a matter of getting a rim protector into the lineup. I didn't like the Scottie at the 5 experiment and I thought it was bad for his growth. And while the league has become positionless, a C is still a very distinct player. It also helped that Poeltl could exist as a hub in the offense and that he was a good defender which is a pre-requisite for getting minutes from Nurse. Of course 3pt shooting was needed, but it's hard enough to find that, let alone at the deadline. And my thinking was that it wasn't going to be a lottery pick which I think is ok value for Poeltl.

Again, in hindsight, I think the FO got desperate. My read of the situation at this point is that they didn't fully believe in the team, but like most "non-destination" markets were afraid of letting good, home grown players go and starting again. That's unlike Masai who always operates with confidence. It also seems like the locker room was such a mess that it made it hard for them to diagnose exactly what's happening and Jakob was a known commodity that they believed could bring some of the "old feelings" back to the locker room. It's telling that they now cede they need a new culture and that the old culture doesn't work for their current stock of players, mainly Barnes.

The problem wasn't culture, that's just a sneaky way for the front office to blame the players. "Culture issues" is code for "it's not our fault, we had a few bad apples".

The real problem was the team was poorly constructed. No 3 point shooting, they were 3rd last in the league. No shot creation or even one primary ball handler/shot creator on the perimeter. No quality guards in a guard driven league. It was so obvious at the time and it's the main reason why I was against the Poeltl trade from the day it was announced, it didn't solve the single biggest problem the team had.

The recent moves have just changed what the problem is, now it's defence and rebounding, they have exactly two quality bigs in Scottie and Jak and there's a massive gaping hole at SF for a 3+D wing, they haven't addressed this at all outside of hoping Agbaji miraculously turns into an NBA calibre player.

[Merit]

I actually think it’s more like 5 to 10 years, but don’t want to be dramatic.

Again, it’s not so much that a late lotto pick for Poeltl is terrible value in a vacuum, but the trade represents the failure to start the rebuild at the right time.

Scottie has already signed his extension and people are going into this season thinking we need to tank. If that doesn’t mean we’re set back 3-5 years, I don’t know what does. If we’re already back to being a playoff fixture with room to improve, I’ll be wrong. That’s fine.

The 5-10 years is based on the “Scottie Barnes era” never amounting to anything. Maybe that will have nothing to do with this trade, but I feel like it significantly reduced the chances.

There is zero evidence that this trade alone will set us back 5-10 years. Regardless of conjecture there is no way to pin it all on one transaction. This one is only lopsided because of the plans shifting from when the trade was made.

You’re entitled to your feelings and I disagree.

[Merit]

IMO, making the team better made some sense. The problem is Poeltl was not that player. This front office knows what is required to be successful in the league (shooting) yet the Barnes/Siakam/Poeltl front court put us on a track where having a good offense was near impossible. You can’t build a contending team with that lack of shooting. For years the FO seemingly knew this and only pursued stretch bigs (Ibaka, Gasol and even Baynes). Why they shifted their MO and targeted a non-shooting big I’ll never understand.

I can understand wanting to build the team up. I don’t understand why they thought Poeltl would be the answer given the nature of the current NBA (3pt shooting being a key factor in success). The Poeltl trade immediately limited our offensive upside.

That's a totally valid debate. I can only speak for myself here: it was a matter of getting a rim protector into the lineup. I didn't like the Scottie at the 5 experiment and I thought it was bad for his growth. And while the league has become positionless, a C is still a very distinct player. It also helped that Poeltl could exist as a hub in the offense and that he was a good defender which is a pre-requisite for getting minutes from Nurse. Of course 3pt shooting was needed, but it's hard enough to find that, let alone at the deadline. And my thinking was that it wasn't going to be a lottery pick which I think is ok value for Poeltl.

Again, in hindsight, I think the FO got desperate. My read of the situation at this point is that they didn't fully believe in the team, but like most "non-destination" markets were afraid of letting good, home grown players go and starting again. That's unlike Masai who always operates with confidence. It also seems like the locker room was such a mess that it made it hard for them to diagnose exactly what's happening and Jakob was a known commodity that they believed could bring some of the "old feelings" back to the locker room. It's telling that they now cede they need a new culture and that the old culture doesn't work for their current stock of players, mainly Barnes.

The problem wasn't culture, that's just a sneaky way for the front office to blame the players. "Culture issues" is code for "it's not our fault, we had a few bad apples".

The real problem was the team was poorly constructed. No 3 point shooting, they were 3rd last in the league. No shot creation or even one primary ball handler/shot creator on the perimeter. No quality guards in a guard driven league. It was so obvious at the time and it's the main reason why I was against the Poeltl trade from the day it was announced, it didn't solve the single biggest problem the team had.

The recent moves have just changed what the problem is, now it's defence and rebounding, they have exactly two quality bigs in Scottie and Jak and there's a massive gaping hole at SF for a 3+D wing, they haven't addressed this at all outside of hoping Agbaji miraculously turns into an NBA calibre player.

Regarding the FO pivoting from shooting bigs - Serge was supposed to be a PF but he was too slow so we moved him to C. Agreed he can shoot. Marc Gasol never shot well for us, and in theory he could shoot - but the reality never happened. I’m not even going to talk about baynes because he was a complete flop. Well intentioned given his previous seasons performance, but a flop nonetheless.

Please tell me what stretch big was available in lieu of Poeltl. If we’re doing revisionist history again, the best who might have been available from my memory was Myles Turner. I don’t think the picks and protections we used for Poeltl get it done for him. Not sure why you’re so insistent on ignoring the issues that were raised at the time - including culture, locker room, Fred and Nurse. As I keep saying over, and over and over again - our lineup with Fred/OG/Scottie/Pascal/Poeltl was the plan. Since Fred didn’t return and that was both sudden and unexpected - instead of knowing the depth pieces the FO may have acquired - we were left with Schroeder.

Can’t create a shooting c out of nowhere and magically send him to the Raps for scraps.

Many are hoping for a tank given next year’s deep draft. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be worrying about “gaping holes”. We still have Bruce Brown to trade and the most obvious trade may still happen with wiggins. Even if it doesn’t, this is a developmental year. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you.

[ForeverTFC]

I actually think it’s more like 5 to 10 years, but don’t want to be dramatic.

Again, it’s not so much that a late lotto pick for Poeltl is terrible value in a vacuum, but the trade represents the failure to start the rebuild at the right time.

Scottie has already signed his extension and people are going into this season thinking we need to tank. If that doesn’t mean we’re set back 3-5 years, I don’t know what does. If we’re already back to being a playoff fixture with room to improve, I’ll be wrong. That’s fine.

The 5-10 years is based on the “Scottie Barnes era” never amounting to anything. Maybe that will have nothing to do with this trade, but I feel like it significantly reduced the chances.

There is zero evidence that this trade alone will set us back 5-10 years. Regardless of conjecture there is no way to pin it all on one transaction. This one is only lopsided because of the plans shifting from when the trade was made.

You’re entitled to your feelings and I disagree.

No move in the NBA can set you back 5-10 years. The league is designed to allow for teams to recover from miss-steps quickly. The Nets made one of the worst trades of all time and were back within 5 years. Hell, we traded the pick that would have been used to draft Giannis and we all know how that turned out.

[Chandan]

Regarding the FO pivoting from shooting bigs - Serge was supposed to be a PF but he was too slow so we moved him to C. Agreed he can shoot. Marc Gasol never shot well for us, and in theory he could shoot - but the reality never happened. I’m not even going to talk about baynes because he was a complete flop. Well intentioned given his previous seasons performance, but a flop nonetheless.

Gasol had some highest of highs and lowest of lows here.

You could tell he was almost at Raptors Olajuwon territory with his diminishing post game. He was a really great player at the end of his line and it shows. And yet, his pedigree was 100% deserved and he's unquestionably a good player. He did some really weird **** that you didn't think it's possible even from a more capable center at the time, like holding embiid to 0 and destroying curry, then some games he would hit like 3 threes in a row. But his overall performance was average most of the time.

[ciueli]

Regarding the FO pivoting from shooting bigs - Serge was supposed to be a PF but he was too slow so we moved him to C. Agreed he can shoot. Marc Gasol never shot well for us, and in theory he could shoot - but the reality never happened. I’m not even going to talk about baynes because he was a complete flop. Well intentioned given his previous seasons performance, but a flop nonetheless.

Please tell me what stretch big was available in lieu of Poeltl. If we’re doing revisionist history again, the best who might have been available from my memory was Myles Turner. I don’t think the picks and protections we used for Poeltl get it done for him. Not sure why you’re so insistent on ignoring the issues that were raised at the time - including culture, locker room, Fred and Nurse. As I keep saying over, and over and over again - our lineup with Fred/OG/Scottie/Pascal/Poeltl was the plan. Since Fred didn’t return and that was both sudden and unexpected - instead of knowing the depth pieces the FO may have acquired - we were left with Schroeder.

Can’t create a shooting c out of nowhere and magically send him to the Raps for scraps.

Many are hoping for a tank given next year’s deep draft. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be worrying about “gaping holes”. We still have Bruce Brown to trade and the most obvious trade may still happen with wiggins. Even if it doesn’t, this is a developmental year. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you.

The Bucks signed Bobby Portis for barely above the minimum and we signed Aaron Baynes at over 2x the price. It's been years of other teams finding good rotation players for cheap and the Raptors overpaying for marginal talent or guys who shouldn't even be in the NBA anymore.

Myles Turner was very available, the asking price was 2 first round picks and we used those two picks on Thad Young and Jakob Poeltl instead, I think it would have made more sense to just pay up for Turner, an actual 3+D centre that would have fit perfectly on our team. I guess it would have cost us the flexibility to keep guys like Chris Boucher or Khem Birch, or sign Otto Porter Jr. in free agency, what a disaster that would have been.

Any way you look at it they've failed for years at putting together a decent team without glaring weaknesses.

[Scase]

the same thinking could be applied to the Demar/Lowry teams. Just because that team wasn't going to win didn't mean it needed a teardown. The same (seemingly) applied here.

The same thing WAS the case with the Lowry/DD teams, and DD needed to be moved for the team to take a step forward. If not for Kawhi that team would've needed to be blown up for real, by the time he was traded that core had gone to the playoffs 5 years in a row with two first round exits, two second round exits, and one ECF exit. The DD/Lowry core was together for about 6 years, the FVV/Siakam/etc core was together for about 4 years and it managed 2 playoff appearances, one first round exit, and one second round exit.

As flawed as the DD/Lowry core was, it still maintained multiple 50 win seasons, whereas the best that core managed was a singular 53 win season. It was just a lower ceiling team with less talented players, Kawhi saved that DD/Lowry core. If not for that trade, we would have likely run it back again for more years.

Even most FO supporters would have a hard time arguing that our FO has a bad tendency to over evaluate and give players too much time. The only difference here was, that there was no magical Kawhi trade to salvage it, and at least the DD/Lowry core had the excuse that the east ran through Lebron. They had a harder set of opponents and still had more success, even post covid with a ROTY player, OG/Siakam/FVV all older and playing in, or entering their primes could only muster 48 wins. The core was just flawed, and it took too long for the FO to recognize it.

Also, there were many analysts that were high on those Raptors, specifically Pelton who's model I believe had us 3rd in the east. I think consensus was that that team as constructed was not a contender. The debate was whether to build up from there or build down. So I disagree with the assertions that it was a no-brainer to tear down the team.

As for the team being ranked 3rd in the east, I can't find any power rankings from anyone who held them to that high regard. The NBA power rankings had us 12th going into the first week of the season, and 5th in the east as of Aug 1st. B/R had us at 16th, ESPN had us 15th, BI had us 14th (5th in the east), NYT Hollinger had us 5th in the east/tied for 10th (Pels). All of them predicting 45-48 wins, which was a fair assessment.

Pelton actually gave them 4th in the east which was good for 10th league wide, but he stayed within the same range as everyone else with 47 wins. His system was probably the most off of all the estimates, not the Raps so much, but everything else. He estimated only a single team (Celtics) would break the 50 win barrier, meanwhile in actuality 6 of them did. So I wouldn't put too much weight into that, not a shot at him, but rather he was a pretty big outlier in general.

With that said, I agree that if they weren't all in on bringing FVV back, they should have never done this move. Additionally, while we as fans didn't know how bad the locker room had gotten, the FO definitely did. So knowing those 2 things - which the FO definitely did at the time - they should not have made that trade. It's that simple. However, you can't go around telling fans they're stupid because they weren't privy to this information.

To start, I never said any fan was stupid for anything. I said that the championship FO should have seen it coming, very big difference.

Them moving forward without knowing that they would keep FVV at all costs makes it a bad move, granted keeping FVV at all costs is also a bad move. But you don't pick the lesser of two evils just cause, you find another alternative. And that alternative should not have involved trading for Jak, and honestly, even if you want to give them the complete benefit of the doubt, the protections on the pick were still terrible. Any way you cut it, future, past, or present, the trade looked bad. It was based off too many unknowns and was a high risk, low reward move. Even if all the stars aligned, that team was not making it past the C's or the sixers, possibly the Knicks, and definitely unexpectedly, the Heat. So at best they traded a lightly protected pick to a team that was at the time of the trade, projected to end up in the lotto, to end up as a 2nd round exit with a major UFA pending?

None of that is logical.

We can debate whether that team should have been built up or built down, and based on the information we had, both sides have a valid and logical argument to present. Do you not agree with that? If you do, then I'm not sure why someone can't say: "I thought the move was fine when it was made, but in hindsight I was proven wrong."

I disagree that the Jak trade had any logical thoughts possible, but I understand that can be subjective, so that'll be an agree to disagree deal.

And I have no issues with anyone saying that they thought it was fine at the time, and changed their mind, that's not what is being discussed. The originating comment was that calling the Jak trade bad is only being done in hindsight. Which is just categorically false.

Plenty of people called it bad/criticized it before it even went down, and while it was still rumoured. Feb 8th thread discussing Marc Steins rumours about the trade.

Yeah, I figured it would be the most disappointing trade scenario out of the bunch.

lol the retool is real

Rip, can we add FVV to the deal then?

Masai is going to trade away another one of our 1sts, I can feel it in my plums

Yuck

Shut up .

Sorry I’m cranky

I want to vomit

i swear if we trade one of our own picks for poeltl masai and bobby are washed

by all means, facilitate a trade where we route worse picks to the Spurs, but not ours

jesus christ masai n bobby going full bryan colangelo mode

Sigh. I don't even care anymore man. Whatever

The only way I’m fine with sending a future first for Poeltl is if we’re getting back Tre Jones.

Gross gross gross unless it involves fvv its **** gross

And I'm not even cherry picking posts, that's damn near in exact order of posting on the first page. Some of those posters are people who are typically positive, others are more neutral and one o two would fall into the "negative" camp.

It isn't hindsight if people call out the literal assets being traded as a bad idea, before the trade happens. That was the crux of this whole line of discussion. The trade is only bad with hindsight, or Duffs brilliant (and false!) assertion that "the board tends to be overwhelmingly negative, immediately, about every move" (in reference to the Jak complaints) so you can ignore people that said it was bad before/when it happened.

[ConSarnit]

That's a totally valid debate. I can only speak for myself here: it was a matter of getting a rim protector into the lineup. I didn't like the Scottie at the 5 experiment and I thought it was bad for his growth. And while the league has become positionless, a C is still a very distinct player. It also helped that Poeltl could exist as a hub in the offense and that he was a good defender which is a pre-requisite for getting minutes from Nurse. Of course 3pt shooting was needed, but it's hard enough to find that, let alone at the deadline. And my thinking was that it wasn't going to be a lottery pick which I think is ok value for Poeltl.

Again, in hindsight, I think the FO got desperate. My read of the situation at this point is that they didn't fully believe in the team, but like most "non-destination" markets were afraid of letting good, home grown players go and starting again. That's unlike Masai who always operates with confidence. It also seems like the locker room was such a mess that it made it hard for them to diagnose exactly what's happening and Jakob was a known commodity that they believed could bring some of the "old feelings" back to the locker room. It's telling that they now cede they need a new culture and that the old culture doesn't work for their current stock of players, mainly Barnes.

The problem wasn't culture, that's just a sneaky way for the front office to blame the players. "Culture issues" is code for "it's not our fault, we had a few bad apples".

The real problem was the team was poorly constructed. No 3 point shooting, they were 3rd last in the league. No shot creation or even one primary ball handler/shot creator on the perimeter. No quality guards in a guard driven league. It was so obvious at the time and it's the main reason why I was against the Poeltl trade from the day it was announced, it didn't solve the single biggest problem the team had.

The recent moves have just changed what the problem is, now it's defence and rebounding, they have exactly two quality bigs in Scottie and Jak and there's a massive gaping hole at SF for a 3+D wing, they haven't addressed this at all outside of hoping Agbaji miraculously turns into an NBA calibre player.

Regarding the FO pivoting from shooting bigs - Serge was supposed to be a PF but he was too slow so we moved him to C. Agreed he can shoot. Marc Gasol never shot well for us, and in theory he could shoot - but the reality never happened. I’m not even going to talk about baynes because he was a complete flop. Well intentioned given his previous seasons performance, but a flop nonetheless.

Please tell me what stretch big was available in lieu of Poeltl. If we’re doing revisionist history again, the best who might have been available from my memory was Myles Turner. I don’t think the picks and protections we used for Poeltl get it done for him. Not sure why you’re so insistent on ignoring the issues that were raised at the time - including culture, locker room, Fred and Nurse. As I keep saying over, and over and over again - our lineup with Fred/OG/Scottie/Pascal/Poeltl was the plan. Since Fred didn’t return and that was both sudden and unexpected - instead of knowing the depth pieces the FO may have acquired - we were left with Schroeder.

Can’t create a shooting c out of nowhere and magically send him to the Raps for scraps.

Many are hoping for a tank given next year’s deep draft. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be worrying about “gaping holes”. We still have Bruce Brown to trade and the most obvious trade may still happen with wiggins. Even if it doesn’t, this is a developmental year. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you.

At the time of the Poeltl trade I was pushing for a more stop gap solution, in so much that we should have gotten a cheaper traditional C to see how the fit was with this team. Especially during what was more of a down/lost year. This would have appeased the “need a traditional C” crowd, retained our higher end assets (the Poeltl 1st), and gave the team some type of idea as to how the team would have looked with a non-spacing C (given my concerns about our offense). If it works then great, try to acquire a Poeltl (or whoever). If not, we would have to look elsewhere to build a higher ceiling team. I was not a fan that the first solution was “bring in ill-fitting C and live with the risk” (a risk that would later bare out when the team was not overly good and/or we lost key guys to free agency). I don’t know if a Myles Turner type was available (there are not a lot of 3+D centers) but I would have rather overpaid for a player that fit than pay a “fair” price for a player that I didn’t really think solved the teams biggest issues (lack of shot creation, 3pt shooting, etc). I also have my own bias that a C of Poeltl’s ilk (Capela, Allen, Adams as recent examples) are always available for trade at a reasonable price and as such should be the last piece a team should add. We were not at the finishing piece stage imo.

[Johnny Bball]

How is this 12 pages long when the entire premise is just dumb.

[Badonkadonk]

How is this 12 pages long when the entire premise is just dumb.

It's a hilarious thread when you have some folks in Foes