Bill Simmons RIPS the Raptors roster and salaries. (UPDATE Zach Lowe & Rob Mahoney go in on Raptors)

[Thaddy]

The contracts aren't bad. IQ and Ingram could be all stars. Barnes is a ROTY and all star and projected to get better. Then we have solid role players all around with tradeable contracts. We will probably be better than the Celtics this year, I think he's just salty. We get nothing from having cap space. We have decent players that can improve and then can be traded for better pieces later.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Each team has to build according to their market. It's easy to run Boston because half the prominent media members grew up Celtic fans, so any move they make is immediately acknowledged as 'smaht.' The Raptors have to do their own thing, whether that's Masai, Bobby or whomever comes in. They will always be counted out first.

[OakleyDokely]

Managing your roster and salaries is the most important aspect of a GM's job outside of the more luck based art of drafting.

There is no "Toronto premium". There is a number that is acceptable for the org to provide, and there is no getting around constructing a roster without having some of those market or below contracts on your roster. There are many ways to do this (stocking up on cheap draft capital, leveraging RFA to extract concessions, trading talent at peak for bargain assets), and this FO is allergic to all of them.

When almost every part of your roster is 3 to 5+mil over market, there isn't much difference between you and the Bucks having 20mil of dead cap.

I'm sure there's a "Memphis premium", but they hit a wall on their current build and traded a piece of that core in his peak for more value than he's worth (hello FVV!); many cheap, premium assets. They don't spend Every. Single. Offseason trying to find ways to leverage their cheapest, most valuable asset, their 1st round pick (hello RJ+9!) just to pay above market somewhere else (hello BI, Thad, KO, etc!), or fix a previous trade where you also are paying a premium (hello OG trade!).

There are plenty of successful small markets who prioritize that value and don't end up in our situation for that reason.

What exactly is our situation. A 15 man roster under the tax?

[SpezNc]

It's still too early to come to any sort of conclusions regarding guys like Ingram and Quickley and if they're overpaid or not. If they underperform next season or spend most if it riding the bench while injured, then we can have that discussion. I think they're dead wrong about Poeltl's extension though, he is definitely worth that money.

I agree they are wrong on Poeltl.

People blasting the Poeltl extension are often referencing to Poeltl AAV in last three years of contract without looking at it from a 5 years perspective which bring us to the 24,7 AAV on that 5 years period

People are also forgetting that Poeltl pickup his option that he was likely to opt out.

Raptors could be very close to luxury tax next season depending on which moves we make . Poeltl opt is solid move.

And then in two years when the extension is really kicking in the cap going to be up by at least 15%.

Unless Poeltl get injured or his performance unexpectedly dip, the contract is not going to be an issue IMO.

Also if not mistaken the last year (allegedly with the higher cap value) could be “mostly” non guaranteed

Meaning a safety net if thinks go wrong .

[sidsid]

Managing your roster and salaries is the most important aspect of a GM's job outside of the more luck based art of drafting.

There is no "Toronto premium". There is a number that is acceptable for the org to provide, and there is no getting around constructing a roster without having some of those market or below contracts on your roster. There are many ways to do this (stocking up on cheap draft capital, leveraging RFA to extract concessions, trading talent at peak for bargain assets), and this FO is allergic to all of them.

When almost every part of your roster is 3 to 5+mil over market, there isn't much difference between you and the Bucks having 20mil of dead cap.

I'm sure there's a "Memphis premium", but they hit a wall on their current build and traded a piece of that core in his peak for more value than he's worth (hello FVV!); many cheap, premium assets. They don't spend Every. Single. Offseason trying to find ways to leverage their cheapest, most valuable asset, their 1st round pick (hello RJ+9!) just to pay above market somewhere else (hello BI, Thad, KO, etc!), or fix a previous trade where you also are paying a premium (hello OG trade!).

There are plenty of successful small markets who prioritize that value and don't end up in our situation for that reason.

What exactly is our situation. A 15 man roster under the tax?

An FO that wanted to do more this offseason, but is constrained by the series of decisions they've taken over the past 5 years. And with their only below market assets being largely gathered in one of the worst drafts this century, and a lot of it in the second round. After years of neglecting that avenue, the best one for small market teams to use, for improvement.

[OakleyDokely]

Managing your roster and salaries is the most important aspect of a GM's job outside of the more luck based art of drafting.

There is no "Toronto premium". There is a number that is acceptable for the org to provide, and there is no getting around constructing a roster without having some of those market or below contracts on your roster. There are many ways to do this (stocking up on cheap draft capital, leveraging RFA to extract concessions, trading talent at peak for bargain assets), and this FO is allergic to all of them.

When almost every part of your roster is 3 to 5+mil over market, there isn't much difference between you and the Bucks having 20mil of dead cap.

I'm sure there's a "Memphis premium", but they hit a wall on their current build and traded a piece of that core in his peak for more value than he's worth (hello FVV!); many cheap, premium assets. They don't spend Every. Single. Offseason trying to find ways to leverage their cheapest, most valuable asset, their 1st round pick (hello RJ+9!) just to pay above market somewhere else (hello BI, Thad, KO, etc!), or fix a previous trade where you also are paying a premium (hello OG trade!).

There are plenty of successful small markets who prioritize that value and don't end up in our situation for that reason.

What exactly is our situation. A 15 man roster under the tax?

An FO that wanted to do more this offseason, but is constrained by the series of decisions they've taken over the past 5 years. And with their only below market assets being largely gathered in one of the worst drafts this century, and a lot of it in the second round. After years of neglecting that avenue, the best one for small market teams to use, for improvement.

They made 2 draft picks, added a back up C in free agency to fill their biggest need and they re-signed a couple guys.

If the Raps had added Ingram this offseason instead of the deadline, the whole narrative changes. Ingram was their big move, they just made it early.

[dhackett1565]

There's not a whole lot that could make me feel better about the Raps' situation than Bill not liking it. It's like Doug Smith saying something won't happen.

[CPT]

The other thing is, people like Bill are still looking at the actual dollar amounts and not the % of the cap. The cap has risen significantly over the last few years. Bill acts like it's still 2008.

Salary rank, 25/26 season:
IQ - 25th among Gs
RJ - 32nd among Gs
BI - 17th among Fs
SB - 15th among Fs
JP - 14th among C's

1. I don't think that's true. I believe they mentioned we are 12th in salary going into this year. I'm not sure what's up to date/accurate, but I've seen 9th, 11th, and 12th. I'm not completely sure, but I don't think we're the 9th, 11th, or 12th best team in the league. I'd have to check.

2. Those rankings don't make me feel a whole lot better. I don't think IQ is a top 25 guard, nor is RJ a top 32 guard. BI and Scottie might have cases for being top 15-20 forwards, and Poeltl is probably in that top 15 range for Cs, maybe better.

The problem isn't that it's some kind of disaster, but there's also not a ton (or any?) surplus value.

Before anyone tries to argue that some of those top X positions are taken up by guys on rookie scale contacts or guys who are otherwise underpaid, yes, that's true. Wouldn't it be nice to have some players like that?

[MiamiSPX]

I've been following Bill since he was 'The Sports Guy on ESPN.com and still like him. I think he has mostly good takes except when discussing a divisional rival of the Cs, Pats, or BoSox. Additionally, he has always had it in for the Raps lol, but I don't mind because he often includes a disclaimer of how awesome the actual city is (like he did this week in a post on X).

The only element of truth here is that other than, say Ochai, the Raps currently don't have a guy (yet) that is FAR outperforming his contract. Like with most things in pro sports, winning cures all. For example, a 65-70 game season from Poeltl, putting up 15/10 on an above .500 team is an absolute steal at 19.5M.

[OakleyDokely]

The other thing is, people like Bill are still looking at the actual dollar amounts and not the % of the cap. The cap has risen significantly over the last few years. Bill acts like it's still 2008.

Salary rank, 25/26 season:
IQ - 25th among Gs
RJ - 32nd among Gs
BI - 17th among Fs
SB - 15th among Fs
JP - 14th among C's

1. I don't think that's true. I believe they mentioned we are 12th in salary going into this year. I'm not sure what's up to date/accurate, but I've seen 9th, 11th, and 12th. I'm not completely sure, but I don't think we're the 9th, 11th, or 12th best team in the league. I'd have to check.

2. Those rankings don't make me feel a whole lot better. I don't think IQ is a top 25 guard, nor is RJ a top 32 guard. BI and Scottie might have cases for being top 15-20 forwards, and Poeltl is probably in that top 15 range for Cs, maybe better.

The problem isn't that it's some kind of disaster, but there's also not a ton (or any?) surplus value.

Before anyone tries to argue that some of those top X positions are taken up by guys on rookie scale contacts or guys who are otherwise underpaid, yes, that's true. Wouldn't it be nice to have some players like that?

Total salary rank is pretty meaningless because most teams will be operating just below the tax line.

You can squabble about where a guy like IQ ranks among Gs, but his salary is that of a solid starting G, which is reasonable. Elite Gs are in the 45-60 range now.

The best value contracts are rookie deals and the Raps have 8 of those and all 8 of them could be in the rotation (at least 6 will be for sure). Debating whether a guy like IQ should be paid 2-5m less is pretty meaningless imo, because it doesn't functionally change what the Raps can do.

If the Raps were into the apron for this team, that would be one thing, but they aren't and won't be.

[James_Raptors]

Why are people still quoting Bill Simmons?
That was your first mistake.

[sidsid]

What exactly is our situation. A 15 man roster under the tax?

An FO that wanted to do more this offseason, but is constrained by the series of decisions they've taken over the past 5 years. And with their only below market assets being largely gathered in one of the worst drafts this century, and a lot of it in the second round. After years of neglecting that avenue, the best one for small market teams to use, for improvement.

They made 2 draft picks, added a back up C in free agency to fill their biggest need and they re-signed a couple guys.

If the Raps had added Ingram this offseason instead of the deadline, the whole narrative changes. Ingram was their big move, they just made it early.

This thread isn't about "big moves". The Kings and Joe Dumars love making "big moves". We're discussing roster, salaries and value.

The FO has been trying to move RJ for the better part of the calendar year, with no success. And the reason he's the target is that our next biggest contract who isn't slotted as a starter is making 6M and is looking for a contract next year. We didn't really have an option of re-signing Boucher because of the series of big moves. That's a constraint based on poor cap/asset management.

[nikster]

Managing your roster and salaries is the most important aspect of a GM's job outside of the more luck based art of drafting.

There is no "Toronto premium". There is a number that is acceptable for the org to provide, and there is no getting around constructing a roster without having some of those market or below contracts on your roster. There are many ways to do this (stocking up on cheap draft capital, leveraging RFA to extract concessions, trading talent at peak for bargain assets), and this FO is allergic to all of them.

When almost every part of your roster is 3 to 5+mil over market, there isn't much difference between you and the Bucks having 20mil of dead cap.

I'm sure there's a "Memphis premium", but they hit a wall on their current build and traded a piece of that core in his peak for more value than he's worth (hello FVV!); many cheap, premium assets. They don't spend Every. Single. Offseason trying to find ways to leverage their cheapest, most valuable asset, their 1st round pick (hello RJ+9!) just to pay above market somewhere else (hello BI, Thad, KO, etc!), or fix a previous trade where you also are paying a premium (hello OG trade!).

There are plenty of successful small markets who prioritize that value and don't end up in our situation for that reason.

What exactly is our situation. A 15 man roster under the tax?

An FO that wanted to do more this offseason, but is constrained by the series of decisions they've taken over the past 5 years. And with their only below market assets being largely gathered in one of the worst drafts this century, and a lot of it in the second round. After years of neglecting that avenue, the best one for small market teams to use, for improvement.

What makes you think they wanted to do more this off season? After the Ingeam acquisition i wasn't really expecting any big moves. Sure they were shopping RJ, but thought they'd only move him for the right deal

[nikster]

An FO that wanted to do more this offseason, but is constrained by the series of decisions they've taken over the past 5 years. And with their only below market assets being largely gathered in one of the worst drafts this century, and a lot of it in the second round. After years of neglecting that avenue, the best one for small market teams to use, for improvement.

They made 2 draft picks, added a back up C in free agency to fill their biggest need and they re-signed a couple guys.

If the Raps had added Ingram this offseason instead of the deadline, the whole narrative changes. Ingram was their big move, they just made it early.

This thread isn't about "big moves". The Kings and Joe Dumars love making "big moves". We're discussing roster, salaries and value.

The FO has been trying to move RJ for the better part of the calendar year, with no success. And the reason he's the target is that our next biggest contract who isn't slotted as a starter is making 6M and is looking for a contract next year. We didn't really have an option of re-signing Boucher because of the series of big moves. That's a constraint based on poor cap/asset management.

Oh no! We can't re sign the 32 year old that's been racking up DNPs under this new coach!

[Troubadour]

They're right!

[dagger]

Simmons is the East Coast version of Stephen A Smith - being deliberately outrageous with a bias favouring a city (Boston) which happens to be in our division in both basketball and baseball.

[YogurtProducer]

I know there are some posters that keep insisting the FO signs good deals

Probably because if you actually look at how contracts have aged they have constantly had one of the leagues cleanest cap sheets for over a decade.

Like seriously - go actually make a list of bad contracts we have in the past 10 years.

Have they kept under the tax? Yes.
Have they signed bargain deals? OG, that's probably it.
Have they signed terrible deals? I'd say not since DMC.

Overpaid: KO, BI, IQ, Boucher, GTJ, Birch. If Poeltl's last year was fully guaranteed, I'd put him here but it seems like only $5M. Given his age and being 1 year away from UFA, it's still top-dollar but I won't quite call it overpaid. Unrelated, they don't seem to like forcing the hand of RFAs. I can only guess their reasoning is that if they saved an extra $5M here, it wouldn't be enough to get a difference maker anyway.

Bargain Deals - Kyle Lowry - 3 year 36M deal in 2024. Both FVV and Powell's extensions ended up being huge bargains (FVV made an ASG as 57th highest paid guy)

Overpaid deals - KO, Boucher, Birch were all not overpays. Those were guys on the MLE and BLE. Completely reasonable deals for bench players. GTJ was, sure, but it also was an entirely fair deal at the time it was made

IQ is also not overpaid in the slightest. Neither is BI.

I tend to think you could add up minor savings here and there, combine it with Garrett Temple money and get a serviceable bench player, but they seem to have a different philosophy.

Nope. That really is not how the cap works. Once you are over it is not "if I save a dollar here I can spend it there"

[dhackett1565]

I think there's a solid argument for IQ being overpaid right now (mostly due to the injuries, frankly, but not entirely because of them), but everyone knows they intentionally overpaid him on the front end and in the final years of that deal he will certainly not be overpaid - and if he improves at all, has a very good chance of being well underpaid.

The rest of the roster the only player I could really argue is overpaid is RJ, and they didn't sign him to that deal.

[OakleyDokely]

An FO that wanted to do more this offseason, but is constrained by the series of decisions they've taken over the past 5 years. And with their only below market assets being largely gathered in one of the worst drafts this century, and a lot of it in the second round. After years of neglecting that avenue, the best one for small market teams to use, for improvement.

They made 2 draft picks, added a back up C in free agency to fill their biggest need and they re-signed a couple guys.

If the Raps had added Ingram this offseason instead of the deadline, the whole narrative changes. Ingram was their big move, they just made it early.

This thread isn't about "big moves". The Kings and Joe Dumars love making "big moves". We're discussing roster, salaries and value.

The FO has been trying to move RJ for the better part of the calendar year, with no success. And the reason he's the target is that our next biggest contract who isn't slotted as a starter is making 6M and is looking for a contract next year. We didn't really have an option of re-signing Boucher because of the series of big moves. That's a constraint based on poor cap/asset management.

Losing Boucher is a very minor detail. He's a replaceable depth player who wasn't being played. In fact they replaced him with Mamu who is a better fit on the roster because of his shooting ability.

[DG88]

My question is what's the big deal? It's not like the contracts that our starters have are untradeable. Just look at it as percentage of the cap it makes things simpler. Bill seems to be ranting on probably due to the gross cap management of the Bucks to appease their MVP in Giannis.