Remind me why the Raptors traded Norman Powell

[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.

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.

Powell was going crazy that season. He was maybe their best player, averaging 20 a game on 50/44/87 splits.

We can argue the motives, but trading him made the team worse, at least in the short term.

[Zeno]

There was the additional benefit above Trent’s age and contract control of his low caphold. At the time there was a dream of signing someone with capspace even though the Giannis dream had already died. Masai has given up on a lot of better options for improving the team now in the name of cap flexibility.
Since the flexibility has basically resulted in very little benefit in trades or signings, we’re paying the price in pursuing it year after year. This to me is why we’ve ended up with zero depth. Three years of waiting for a golden opportunity to materialize when nothing has.

[Raptorfan2012]

At the time, it was thought Norm was going to make well over $20M a season, but somehow he only got around $18M.

More importantly, Norm was traded to the Trailblazers over 2 years ago - we don't need to ask why we traded Norm anymore; that question belongs to Portland.

[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.

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.

Yes, but also Trent has developed well. He might not embrace his role here, but he's going to have a long career doing what he does. He's being talked about like he's trash and Norm is an all-star. Norm is coming off the bench. Where hanging onto Norm would have made sense is that other adult in the locker room, and another guy they could point to that paid his dues. Once they went into development mode it felt like more of a free for all with Achiuwa, Trent, Boucher, OG all calling their own number. It was by design, but it flopped.

[Wise80]

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.

I've heard that argument for sitting Fred this year as well. I don't buy it.

They negotiated Thad's extension before the trade was even done and I'm sure Jakob and the front office know what it's going to take to have him back.

You have a guy come up thru the organization and have had the same front office since he was a rookie and you think they never talked about an extension leading up to the deadline before trading him? He wouldn't of left if there was an agreement in place because they were sitting him. That's nonsense.

Like I said in my first post, it very well could of been Powell wanting a change of scenery. If you were going to make a list of reasons of why you were trading him. I would have Powell wanting to leave, cost control of a younger player (turned out to be not as big of savings as they thought), and then tanking or him wanting out because he was sitting.

[aminiaturebuddha]

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.

Yeah, it was definitely a defensible mistake at the time, especially given their ages, and the fact that it appeared that Norm might be seeking a bigger salary. And as Oakley pointed out, the difference in play from Norm and Trent hasn't been that much over the past two years.

The bigger question is why the hell did Portland trade him for spare parts when Dame has been begging for higher caliber teammates for about 5 years now? Now that was a truly awful trade - WITH Covington for Bledsoe, Keon Johnson, Justice Winslow, and a 2nd. But I guess the Raptors are the only team in the league that makes mistakes.

[canada_dry]

Because tanking, you goofies.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[Duffman100]

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.

Yes, but also Trent has developed well. He might not embrace his role here, but he's going to have a long career doing what he does. He's being talked about like he's trash and Norm is an all-star. Norm is coming off the bench. Where hanging onto Norm would have made sense is that other adult in the locker room, and another guy they could point to that paid his dues. Once they went into development mode it felt like more of a free for all with Achiuwa, Trent, Boucher, OG all calling their own number. It was by design, but it flopped.

I'm not sure I'd say Trent has developed well. He's not much better or different from his Portland days. His usage is just slightly up.

Considering we traded for him when he was 22, I think there was hope he'd develop into a knockdown 3 point shooter.

[Fairview4Life]

Why did Masai trade Norman Powell?

Because Nurse decided to start Fred over Norm after Leonard left, that was when the Fred and Siakam **** show started

Norm started 31 of 42 games before he was traded that year and he was only active in 40 of those games. We were 17-17, lost 8 in a row and then traded Norm.

[Wise80]

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.

Powell was going crazy that season. He was maybe their best player, averaging 20 a game on 50/44/87 splits.

We can argue the motives, but trading him made the team worse, at least in the short term.

All I remember were people upset with his constant missed rotations and defensive lapses.

Him playing with Baynes, birch, Stanley Johnson and whoever else, was not going to win us more games then inserting Trent for Powell.

[Fairview4Life]

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.

Yes, but also Trent has developed well. He might not embrace his role here, but he's going to have a long career doing what he does. He's being talked about like he's trash and Norm is an all-star. Norm is coming off the bench. Where hanging onto Norm would have made sense is that other adult in the locker room, and another guy they could point to that paid his dues. Once they went into development mode it felt like more of a free for all with Achiuwa, Trent, Boucher, OG all calling their own number. It was by design, but it flopped.

I'm not sure I'd say Trent has developed well. He's not much better or different from his Portland days. His usage is just slightly up.

Considering we traded for him when he was 22, I think there was hope he'd develop into a knockdown 3 point shooter.

Norm isn't as good as he was in 20/21,

[Duffman100]

Yes, but also Trent has developed well. He might not embrace his role here, but he's going to have a long career doing what he does. He's being talked about like he's trash and Norm is an all-star. Norm is coming off the bench. Where hanging onto Norm would have made sense is that other adult in the locker room, and another guy they could point to that paid his dues. Once they went into development mode it felt like more of a free for all with Achiuwa, Trent, Boucher, OG all calling their own number. It was by design, but it flopped.

I'm not sure I'd say Trent has developed well. He's not much better or different from his Portland days. His usage is just slightly up.

Considering we traded for him when he was 22, I think there was hope he'd develop into a knockdown 3 point shooter.

Norm isn't as good as he was in 20/21,

Oh sure, whatever, wasn't really the point of the conversation. The point was they took a shot at a young player with potential, that player hasn't quite developed to the extent I'm sure they hoped.

But as people want to sell of Pascal, Fred etc for young players with potential. We do have to be cognisant of the 'hit rate' on these players.

[Wise80]

I'm all for the thinking of the trade. I get it. But at the end of the day, it's about results. And this management team doesn't have a lot of wins when you look back at there roster moves since the championship. They've simply missed on everything except for Scottie. And that's why we're where we are right now. As of now, I'd say they missed on this trade. Trent hasn't really developed and they judged the contract situation of these two horribly.

This trade is still up in the air. If you get Trent back at a reasonable number where he can still be considered an asset, then great. If he walks, then it was a bad trade. What most likely will happen, is that he'll get paid and you'll be moving him for other guys who are overpaid and have flaws. They can't afford to lose him, so I think they'll pay the man.

[ItsDanger]

It's OK to admit some trades just don't work out as planned. Nobody's perfect.

[OakleyDokely]

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.

Powell was going crazy that season. He was maybe their best player, averaging 20 a game on 50/44/87 splits.

We can argue the motives, but trading him made the team worse, at least in the short term.

All I remember were people upset with his constant missed rotations and defensive lapses.

Him playing with Baynes, birch, Stanley Johnson and whoever else, was not going to win us more games then inserting Trent for Powell.

Norm was better than Trent that season so it had to have had some impact.

[OakleyDokely]

It's OK to admit some trades just don't work out as planned. Nobody's perfect.

It's OK to admit that you're now advocating against tanking.

[Wise80]

Powell was going crazy that season. He was maybe their best player, averaging 20 a game on 50/44/87 splits.

We can argue the motives, but trading him made the team worse, at least in the short term.

All I remember were people upset with his constant missed rotations and defensive lapses.

Him playing with Baynes, birch, Stanley Johnson and whoever else, was not going to win us more games then inserting Trent for Powell.

Norm was better than Trent that season so it had to have had some impact.

Lose by 10 instead of 20.

[ItsDanger]

It's OK to admit some trades just don't work out as planned. Nobody's perfect.

It's OK to admit that you're now advocating against tanking.

I'm only stating it was a bad trade. Has nothing to do with tanking, that's just your perception.

[Duffman100]

It's OK to admit some trades just don't work out as planned. Nobody's perfect.

But trades should always work out right. Being a GM is simple.

[OakleyDokely]

It's OK to admit some trades just don't work out as planned. Nobody's perfect.

It's OK to admit that you're now advocating against tanking.

I'm only stating it was a bad trade. Has nothing to do with tanking, that's just your perception.

My perception is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth.