Remind me why the Raptors traded Norman Powell

[2019nbachamps]

They thought Norm was going to be too expensive to re-sign but he ended up signing for the same amount as GTJ. And it was a 5 year deal instead of Gary’s 2.

This is pretty much what Bobby intimated. He said GTJ was under salary control for longer. Their calculation was wrong.

[OakleyDokely]

LETS TANK BUT DON'T TRADE THE GOOD PLAYERS!!

[OakleyDokely]

The move was made to replace the oder, more expensive win now player who was becoming a free agent for the younger, cheaper, less established player with potential during a season they were tanking. I think it's pretty self explanatory. If they don't deal Powell, they probably also don't move up in the draft and get Barnes because keeping Powell would've made the team better.

[Fairview4Life]

Lmaoo "higher potential" player gifted you a whole 2 pts during the play-in game, quite impressive!

Who are you quoting there, exactly?

[Truthrising]

Masai keeps on losing..shame on him

[sidsid]

The move was made to replace the oder, more expensive win now player who was becoming a free agent for the younger, cheaper, less established player with potential during a season they were tanking. I think it's pretty self explanatory. If they don't deal Powell, they probably also don't move up in the draft and get Barnes because keeping Powell would've made the team better.

It was a no-brainer to move Norm. The only mistake was not moving Fred for the same reasons. And we're paying for that now.

[OakleyDokely]

Last 2 seasons:

Trent J: 33.6 MIN, 17.9 PPG, 2.7 REB, 1.8 AST, 1.7 STL, .423 FG, .377 3PT, .846 FT, .552 TS, 10.1 WIN SHARES
Powell: 28.8 MIM, 17.8 PPG, 2.6 REB, 2.0 AST, 0.9 STL, .471 FG, .407 3PT, .812 FT, .608 TS, 6.3 WIN SHARES

[Duffman100]

I understood the trade at the time. Get the younger player who has some upside and who would be signed for cheaper.

I didn't realize how much I really wasn't going to like Trent.

When you compare the two players,

Norm: 17, 3 and 2 on 26% usage, 48/40/81. 61 TS%, 3.5 WS. .9 VORP
Trent: 17, 2.5, 1.5, 21% usage, 43/37/84, 57 TS%, 4.5 WS, 1.1 VORP

Obviously I prefer Norm. Better shooter and rim pressure.

But this wasn't a HUGE mistake. The difference in terms of standings wouldn't be that much.

[hoopstime]

I understood the trade at the time. Get the younger player who has some upside and who would be signed for cheaper.

I didn't realize how much I really wasn't going to like Trent.

When you compare the two players,

Norm: 17, 3 and 2 on 26% usage, 48/40/81. 61 TS%, 3.5 WS. .9 VORP
Trent: 17, 2.5, 1.5, 21% usage, 43/37/84, 57 TS%, 4.5 WS, 1.1 VORP

Obviously I prefer Norm. Better shooter and rim pressure.

But this wasn't a HUGE mistake. The difference in terms of standings wouldn't be that much.

It actually is, especially Norm plays well off the bench and GT only plays well (ok) when he starts

[OakleyDokely]

I understood the trade at the time. Get the younger player who has some upside and who would be signed for cheaper.

I didn't realize how much I really wasn't going to like Trent.

When you compare the two players,

Norm: 17, 3 and 2 on 26% usage, 48/40/81. 61 TS%, 3.5 WS. .9 VORP
Trent: 17, 2.5, 1.5, 21% usage, 43/37/84, 57 TS%, 4.5 WS, 1.1 VORP

Obviously I prefer Norm. Better shooter and rim pressure.

But this wasn't a HUGE mistake. The difference in terms of standings wouldn't be that much.

Powell was traded during the tank season. The goal that season wasn't to get better because that would hurt their draft position so they traded the established but older, more expensive player for the younger, cheaper guy with potential.

Anyone who has advocated for tanking but then says they should've kept Powell during a tank season is just talking out of both sides of their mouth. You can't have it both ways.

Every day there are threads advocating for trading the older players for guys with potential. When you do that, there's a good chance that the player with potential won't be as good as the established player you just traded. That's the risk with choosing the 'mystery box' option.

[Madvillainy2004]

I understood the trade at the time. Get the younger player who has some upside and who would be signed for cheaper.

I didn't realize how much I really wasn't going to like Trent.

When you compare the two players,

Norm: 17, 3 and 2 on 26% usage, 48/40/81. 61 TS%, 3.5 WS. .9 VORP
Trent: 17, 2.5, 1.5, 21% usage, 43/37/84, 57 TS%, 4.5 WS, 1.1 VORP

Obviously I prefer Norm. Better shooter and rim pressure.

But this wasn't a HUGE mistake. The difference in terms of standings wouldn't be that much.

It actually is, especially Norm plays well off the bench and GT only plays well (ok) when he starts

They're both extremely mediocre score only guards that don't contribute anywhere else. Norms impact metrics really aren't anything I'd be crying over.

Negative EPM, RAPTOR, and Slightly positive VORP and BPM. Lots of complaints that are made about Gary also apply to Norm. Poor defender, bad handle, no playmaking, and doesn't rebound. They both don't do a whole lot when the ball isn't going in the hoop. To Norms credit he's become extreme efficient as a scorer but even with that he's an extremely meh player that doesn't move the needle one way or the other.

[OakleyDokely]

It's hilarious seeing all TWO guys now arguing the Raps should've kept the 30 year old win now player during the TB season which would have resulted in a much worse draft pick.

[Ganjamayne]

People are also forgetting Norm was pretty injury prone.

[Rapsfan07]

They thought Norm was going to be too expensive to re-sign but he ended up signing for the same amount as GTJ. And it was a 5 year deal instead of Gary’s 2.

It was a pretty bad trade at the time and it still is.

But it all comes down to planning and a lack of direction. If the direction was compete, we should have kept him.

[ATLTimekeeper]

There were folks here saying Trent was the superior player. The reasoning was Norm was traded for expiring contracts from the Blazers and that Trent had a higher ceiling than Norm.
One of them is in Cancun right now while the other just dropped 42 points in a playoff game.

One of them is 24. The other is 30 in a month. When Norm was 24 he was averaging 5 points a game. I would have preferred to keep Norm, but the difference between the two isn't stark and Trent's done more earlier on in his career. He's going to have a long NBA career.

[Wise80]

I understood the trade at the time. Get the younger player who has some upside and who would be signed for cheaper.

I didn't realize how much I really wasn't going to like Trent.

When you compare the two players,

Norm: 17, 3 and 2 on 26% usage, 48/40/81. 61 TS%, 3.5 WS. .9 VORP
Trent: 17, 2.5, 1.5, 21% usage, 43/37/84, 57 TS%, 4.5 WS, 1.1 VORP

Obviously I prefer Norm. Better shooter and rim pressure.

But this wasn't a HUGE mistake. The difference in terms of standings wouldn't be that much.

Powell was traded during the tank season. The goal that season wasn't to get better because that would hurt their draft position so they traded the established but older, more expensive player for the younger, cheaper guy with potential.

Anyone who has advocated for tanking but then says they should've kept Powell during a tank season is just talking out of both sides of their mouth. You can't have it both ways.

Every day there are threads advocating for trading the older players for guys with potential. When you do that, there's a good chance that the player with potential won't be as good as the established player you just traded. That's the risk with choosing the 'mystery box' option.

I think you're overestimating how much of the trade was made to tank. That team was bad and they clearly mailed it in. Lowry was out golfing and sitting games. Same with everybody else who was halfway decent. They could of easily sat powell as well. And even if he played, he wasn't going to make a difference. The team and him were flat out bad that year and people here were fed up with him.

I think that trade was made moreso because of his upcoming contract, rather then trying to tank.

[Duffman100]

There were folks here saying Trent was the superior player. The reasoning was Norm was traded for expiring contracts from the Blazers and that Trent had a higher ceiling than Norm.
One of them is in Cancun right now while the other just dropped 42 points in a playoff game.

One of them is 24. The other is 30 in a month. When Norm was 24 he was averaging 5 points a game. I would have preferred to keep Norm, but the difference between the two isn't stark and Trent's done more earlier on in his career. He's going to have a long NBA career.

Isn't this the inherent risk in trading for young players with potential? That they don't develop to their potential.

Not to say you don't do it, because you have to take that risk at times. Many on here are pushing for this strategy to be increased. But then really harping on when it doesn't pan out.

[SirKen]

Masai traded Norm because he was tanking the season. Tankers in this thread just need to sit this one out and cry in any of the other threads. At the time, I suggested re-signing Norm and tankers lost their mind at the thought.

What ended up happening is one of the fallouts of making tanking moves. The Raptors traded a guy that they built a culture with, who was close with the core they were going forward with, for a younger guy that has been harder to integrate in. Still, if they re-sign Gary he's more than capable of going off for 40 in a playoff game. His best years are ahead. Right now feels like a bad trade, but Norm didn't really come into his own until he was 27.

Like, they traded an older guy on an expiring deal for a 22 year old with "potential". The exact type of trade a whole lot of people constantly advocate for. Sometimes the older guy keeps playing well, and/or the younger guy doesn't develop as quickly. We don't need Columbo on the case to figure this out.

The real story is that they had to choose between Fred and Norm and they picked Fred. They thought they could replace Norm's contribution with GTJ and also acquire a younger piece to develop at the same time. What they didn't foresee was how negative Fred's existence would affect the team.

We should have had the balls to trade Fred when we traded Kyle to his destination. I think the management prioritized the continuity and feared the drop off in system execution if they were to acquire a new PG on the heels of a championship.

I also think that Fred (and also the way team developed Siakam) had a hand in all our incoming young guys looking for their own shots. That **** did not happen under Lowry's leadership.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I think you're overestimating how much of the trade was made to tank. That team was bad and they clearly mailed it in. Lowry was out golfing and sitting games. Same with everybody else who was halfway decent. They could of easily sat powell as well. And even if he played, he wasn't going to make a difference. The team and him were flat out bad that year and people here were fed up with him.

I think that trade was made moreso because of his upcoming contract, rather then trying to tank.

If they sat out Norm he would have left in the summer for nothing. Instead they used their bargaining power (Zach Lowe, "half the league is in on Norman Powell" and flipped him for a younger player they liked. This is just re-setting the table for the next year, and it helped them lose games.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Masai traded Norm because he was tanking the season. Tankers in this thread just need to sit this one out and cry in any of the other threads. At the time, I suggested re-signing Norm and tankers lost their mind at the thought.

What ended up happening is one of the fallouts of making tanking moves. The Raptors traded a guy that they built a culture with, who was close with the core they were going forward with, for a younger guy that has been harder to integrate in. Still, if they re-sign Gary he's more than capable of going off for 40 in a playoff game. His best years are ahead. Right now feels like a bad trade, but Norm didn't really come into his own until he was 27.

Like, they traded an older guy on an expiring deal for a 22 year old with "potential". The exact type of trade a whole lot of people constantly advocate for. Sometimes the older guy keeps playing well, and/or the younger guy doesn't develop as quickly. We don't need Columbo on the case to figure this out.

The real story is that they had to choose between Fred and Norm and they picked Fred. They thought they could replace Norm's contribution with GTJ and also acquire a younger piece to develop at the same time. What they didn't foresee was how negative Fred's existence would affect the team.

We should have had the balls to trade Fred when we traded Kyle to his destination. I think the management prioritized the continuity and feared the drop off in system execution if they were to acquire a new PG on the heels of a championship.

I also think that Fred (and also the way team developed Siakam) had a hand in all our incoming young guys looking for their own shots. That **** did not happen under Lowry's leadership.

They chose the significantly better player. Not much of a story. Next.