Siakam trade for basically nothing is now showing its effect

[brownbobcat]

I think they were 16-12 with Poeltl last year. Not a championship squad obviously but still a decent team especially with a 21 year old Scottie who has a lot of untapped potential. Once they lost Fred, that was it though because the team wasn’t going anywhere with Dennis Schroder.

Obviously it's a better team with FVV instead of Schroder. But unless you actually think the correct decision was to max out FVV for a 40-ish win team and still be in the same situation with Siakam/OG hitting free agency, what are we even talking about?

[YogurtProducer]

A big reason you seemingly overlook is that the team was 12-20 partially due to Masai pivoting in the direction of the team and OG/Siakam having half a foot out the door as a result.

If FVV is retained it likely means Siakam is locked up this past summer, and who knows what happens with OG (maybe the IQ/RJ trade still happens anyways).

Going into a season with a team whose goal is to win is a lot different than going into a season where the entire FO and coaching staff is talking about "development" and making Scottie to face of the team. That probably does not happen if FVV is kept around.

Yeah, you convinced me - the same team that crawled into the play-in and got embarrassed by a 9yr old girl was going to suddenly become a powerhouse if only FVV stayed and they changed out the coaching staff. All those accusations of selfishness would've disappeared and - wait, doesn't that mean the FO messed up by not maxing out FVV and Siakam?

I think they were 16-12 with Poeltl last year. Not a championship squad obviously but still a decent team especially with a 21 year old Scottie who has a lot of untapped potential. Once they lost Fred, that was it though because the team wasn’t going anywhere with Dennis Schroder.

And the same team was 48-34 the year prior.

The goalposts just move whenever this guy posts man, its insane. Everything is pure hyperbole and simply stating the direction of the team would be different means I think they would be a powerhouse and that we messed up not maxing FVV and Siakam

[KrazyP]

At the time of the Siakam trade, the Pacers were 23-17 (.575), with a balanced lineup of young talent and a good cap situation.

Good cap situation?

About to have 110M locked into Hali/Turner/Siakam/Nesmith, with Obi/Smith hitting FA, and Mathurin/Nembhard/Jackson needing extensions in the next 2 years, and 1 first in the next 3 drafts.

It is not bad, but it certainly not good.

Their record and cap situation at the time of the Siakam trade was significantly better than the Raps record and cap situatioon at the time of the Poeltl trade. There is no argument to be had here.

[MiamiSPX]

Hali is getting a supermax. Siakam is getting close to 50 mill a year. Turner will want more when he's up. They have a bunch of good but not great guys on rookie deals who will be looking for big extensions. This is their team going forward once everyone is paid. While it's a solid core, it's not elite. The 2016 pick could be in the teens as well, and if something happens to Hali, it could be a lot higher.

With most contenders you deal with, the likelihood is that you're getting picks in the mid to high 20s back. I think there's more potential with the Indy pick.

This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post, but you did so much better. By no means do i think that Indy pick will be top 5 or anything crazy like that. I just don't think it will be in the mid 20s like many lamented at the time of the trade. I could definitely see it being in the teens again.

They have to start paying guys as early as the '25-26 season. Turner admitted earlier in the season that he's finally happy in Indy, after many years of being unhappy there. That discontent will return if they don't pay him. Nembhard and Mathurin will need to be paid the season after. Do they move either of them first? Keep in mind this is an owner that won't pay the tax.

They are not in cap hell...yet, but they could be there in the blink of an eye as soon as they max out their 2 best players and Haliburton ends up not being a true #1. They would then be in the situation that Masai correctly avoided.

[DreamTeam09]

2026 is a nice draft year as well, if we could get one more pick in 26 we could throw our weight around that year. Do we have our 2nd or any 2nds that year?

[WaltFrazier]

Hali is getting a supermax. Siakam is getting close to 50 mill a year. Turner will want more when he's up. They have a bunch of good but not great guys on rookie deals who will be looking for big extensions. This is their team going forward once everyone is paid. While it's a solid core, it's not elite. The 2016 pick could be in the teens as well, and if something happens to Hali, it could be a lot higher.

With most contenders you deal with, the likelihood is that you're getting picks in the mid to high 20s back. I think there's more potential with the Indy pick.

This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post, but you did so much better. By no means do i think that Indy pick will be top 5 or anything crazy like that. I just don't think it will be in the mid 20s like many lamented at the time of the trade. I could definitely see it being in the teens again.

They have to start paying guys as early as the '25-26 season. Turner admitted earlier in the season that he's finally happy in Indy, after many years of being unhappy there. That discontent will return if they don't pay him. Nembhard and Mathurin will need to be paid the season after. Do they move either of them first? Keep in mind this is an owner that won't pay the tax.

They are not in cap hell...yet, but they could be there in the blink of an eye as soon as they max out their 2 best players and Haliburton ends up not being a true #1. They would then be in the situation that Masai correctly avoided.

This seems a common issue for contending teams right? Under the newest CBA rules? Every team that's good has to juggle paying veteran stars with the upcoming and of rookie contracts looming. No one can keep a great team together for too long, even Denver had to let Brown go and count on Braun and Watson stepping up. And only one team can win every year.

[YogurtProducer]

At the time of the Siakam trade, the Pacers were 23-17 (.575), with a balanced lineup of young talent and a good cap situation.

Good cap situation?

About to have 110M locked into Hali/Turner/Siakam/Nesmith, with Obi/Smith hitting FA, and Mathurin/Nembhard/Jackson needing extensions in the next 2 years, and 1 first in the next 3 drafts.

It is not bad, but it certainly not good.

Their record and cap situation at the time of the Siakam trade was significantly better than the Raps record and cap situatioon at the time of the Poeltl trade. There is no argument to be had here.

Within 4 months Indiana is going to be capped out as well. I am not sure that is "significantly better", considering the easiest way to fill out a cheap roster is making draft selections, and while TOR gave up 1 first, IND gave up 3. That has significant cap implications.

Neither situation is good from a cap perspective.

[YogurtProducer]

Hali is getting a supermax. Siakam is getting close to 50 mill a year. Turner will want more when he's up. They have a bunch of good but not great guys on rookie deals who will be looking for big extensions. This is their team going forward once everyone is paid. While it's a solid core, it's not elite. The 2016 pick could be in the teens as well, and if something happens to Hali, it could be a lot higher.

With most contenders you deal with, the likelihood is that you're getting picks in the mid to high 20s back. I think there's more potential with the Indy pick.

This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post, but you did so much better. By no means do i think that Indy pick will be top 5 or anything crazy like that. I just don't think it will be in the mid 20s like many lamented at the time of the trade. I could definitely see it being in the teens again.

They have to start paying guys as early as the '25-26 season. Turner admitted earlier in the season that he's finally happy in Indy, after many years of being unhappy there. That discontent will return if they don't pay him. Nembhard and Mathurin will need to be paid the season after. Do they move either of them first? Keep in mind this is an owner that won't pay the tax.

They are not in cap hell...yet, but they could be there in the blink of an eye as soon as they max out their 2 best players and Haliburton ends up not being a true #1. They would then be in the situation that Masai correctly avoided.

This seems a common issue for contending teams right? Under the newest CBA rules? Every team that's good has to juggle paying veteran stars with the upcoming and of rookie contracts looming. No one can keep a great team together for too long, even Denver had to let Brown go and count on Braun and Watson stepping up. And only one team can win every year.

IT just further shows the stupidity of the NBA max contracts.

You shouldn't "need" top 5 players to win. I wish teams could be savvy and create a well balanced but lower top end talent teams and experience success.

It is crazy that the Pacers (or former Raptors) who were low-mid 40 win teams are even possible to cap themselves out without really having any bad deals on their books.

[sbsat]

everything that indy is doing depends on Hali being HIM

[MiamiSPX]

This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post, but you did so much better. By no means do i think that Indy pick will be top 5 or anything crazy like that. I just don't think it will be in the mid 20s like many lamented at the time of the trade. I could definitely see it being in the teens again.

They have to start paying guys as early as the '25-26 season. Turner admitted earlier in the season that he's finally happy in Indy, after many years of being unhappy there. That discontent will return if they don't pay him. Nembhard and Mathurin will need to be paid the season after. Do they move either of them first? Keep in mind this is an owner that won't pay the tax.

They are not in cap hell...yet, but they could be there in the blink of an eye as soon as they max out their 2 best players and Haliburton ends up not being a true #1. They would then be in the situation that Masai correctly avoided.

This seems a common issue for contending teams right? Under the newest CBA rules? Every team that's good has to juggle paying veteran stars with the upcoming and of rookie contracts looming. No one can keep a great team together for too long, even Denver had to let Brown go and count on Braun and Watson stepping up. And only one team can win every year.

IT just further shows the stupidity of the NBA max contracts.

You shouldn't "need" top 5 players to win. I wish teams could be savvy and create a well balanced but lower top end talent teams and experience success.

It is crazy that the Pacers (or former Raptors) who were low-mid 40 win teams are even possible to cap themselves out without really having any bad deals on their books.

Ideally they would make the supermax criteria harder to reach. For example, nobody in their right mind thinks Jaylen Brown is worth 60M per season. Some nights he doesn't even look like a 30M player. But he met the (easy) criteria and given the Celtics current situation of being a legit contender, they had to pay him. If they don't pull off a title soon, they are going to be in a cap hell that reverberates for many years afterwards.

Haliburton has played all of 260 career games, and 1 career playoff game, and he currently has a shot at a 260M max contract. That's nuts.

I don't have an issue with their annual salaries at all (I'm a capitalist and this is what the market will bear). My issue is how insanely easy and quickly some of these guys can qualify for these deals without having accomplished any team success in some cases. And bam, just like that, Indy is going to be capped out soon when they haven't even done anything wrong lol.

[aminiaturebuddha]

2026 is a nice draft year as well, if we could get one more pick in 26 we could throw our weight around that year. Do we have our 2nd or any 2nds that year?

We should have our own 2nd in 2026. Next year we don't have one though, so if we don't confer the 1st this year to the Spurs, as it stands right now, the Raps won't be involved in the draft in 2025 at all.

[youreachiteach]

Okay guys but Haliburton is still only 24. Is he really not going to take another step forward over the next 6 years? That’s just not a smart bet. Jontay Porter would not even be dumb enough to touch that one.

He better because this is basically it. Internal development from Hali and Mathurin are it. They are always going to be poor defenders whose scoring has to be at a high level to compensate for their lack of defense.

To be fair, Toronto only has Scottie's ascension (together with RJ, Quickly and Dick) in the same manner. I just prefer Scottie to Hali.

[Fairview4Life]

Okay guys but Haliburton is still only 24. Is he really not going to take another step forward over the next 6 years? That’s just not a smart bet. Jontay Porter would not even be dumb enough to touch that one.

He better because this is basically it. Internal development from Hali and Mathurin are it. They are always going to be poor defenders whose scoring has to be at a high level to compensate for their lack of defense.

To be fair, Toronto only has Scottie's ascension (together with RJ, Quickly and Dick) in the same manner. I just prefer Scottie to Hali.

I prefer Scottie to post injury Haliburton, but if first half Haliburton is the real guy then that's absolutely someone you can build around, moreso than Scottie.

[Smalltown]

They are not in cap hell...yet, but they could be there in the blink of an eye as soon as they max out their 2 best players and Haliburton ends up not being a true #1. They would then be in the situation that Masai correctly avoided.

100% - Indy was/is swinging to make some noise this year and next. After that things are going to get tricky in a hurry.

They'll be a cap team (but below the luxury) next year already which will already make improving on their team tough. They only have 1 first rounder over the next 3 years so it's all gonna be exceptions and second rounders to fill out the roster.

[brownbobcat]

And the same team was 48-34 the year prior.

The goalposts just move whenever this guy posts man, its insane. Everything is pure hyperbole and simply stating the direction of the team would be different means I think they would be a powerhouse and that we messed up not maxing FVV and Siakam

Stop beating around the bush.

Should this team have kept FVV at the max, yes or no?
Would this team have won anywhere close to 48 games with FVV instead of Schroder, yes or no?

You keep making random objections that lead absolutely nowhere. Obviously keeping FVV would have meant a different direction - it means so by definition since that choice precludes the selection of other choices. I mean, DUH. I very clearly did not dispute that very obvious, logically circular and entirely useless statement. Instead, I pointed out that such a direction would have been a massive disaster because the team still wouldn't have been good enough and the rebuild would have been delayed even longer.

[Scase]

The rumour at the time was Harden returning to Houston. When Udoka nixed that and they gave Fred a godfather offer that’s when things changed.

That possibility was something they would’ve planned for, but not one that was highly likely in their eyes, considering they literally said they wanted to bring Fed back.

“You’ve got to have some type of foresight and vision,” the now Houston Rockets guard said here Wednesday night. “You can feel it. You could see it. You’ve got to be able to kind of look ahead and think ahead.

“It’s not like I absolutely knew, but you could sense it. Up to the point where it was like, ‘Okay, do I just sign the (new Toronto) deal knowing that I’m not going to make it through this deal to come back or do I have another situation?’



the writing was on the wall. They were going to hand the franchise to Scottie and I doubt Fred wanted any part of that. Should have seen it coming and just traded him the year prior if that's the route they were going towards.

Of course they were handing the reins to Scottie. What do you want Fred to say? “I wasn’t going to get my touches and they didn’t bring back the coach I wanted.” That’s the real reason IMO. And the $$ obviously.

He has not one bad thing to say about his time here or the FO. He just chose the money and someplace new. He said this after signing with them, not before.

I think the point is less about FVV openly admitting that stuff, and more that if he was able to "feel it and see it", then it was pretty obvious what the FO was planning on doing, and that they could have handled it better by making moves sooner. It's like what happened with Siakam, he got jerked around a whole bunch and then we shipped him out with 2 months left on a contract, they knew what they were doing and that was the result.

Maybe they were waiting to see if Scottie was "it", which is a fair approach, but that ROTY year should've been enough to get the idea. So maybe they fumbled the FVV situation and they get a bit of a pass based on the above, but not the Siakam one. They should have learned from their mistakes.

[ArthurVandelay]

Hali is getting a supermax. Siakam is getting close to 50 mill a year. Turner will want more when he's up. They have a bunch of good but not great guys on rookie deals who will be looking for big extensions. This is their team going forward once everyone is paid. While it's a solid core, it's not elite. The 2016 pick could be in the teens as well, and if something happens to Hali, it could be a lot higher.

With most contenders you deal with, the likelihood is that you're getting picks in the mid to high 20s back. I think there's more potential with the Indy pick.

This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post, but you did so much better. By no means do i think that Indy pick will be top 5 or anything crazy like that. I just don't think it will be in the mid 20s like many lamented at the time of the trade. I could definitely see it being in the teens again.

They have to start paying guys as early as the '25-26 season. Turner admitted earlier in the season that he's finally happy in Indy, after many years of being unhappy there. That discontent will return if they don't pay him. Nembhard and Mathurin will need to be paid the season after. Do they move either of them first? Keep in mind this is an owner that won't pay the tax.

They are not in cap hell...yet, but they could be there in the blink of an eye as soon as they max out their 2 best players and Haliburton ends up not being a true #1. They would then be in the situation that Masai correctly avoided.

This seems a common issue for contending teams right? Under the newest CBA rules? Every team that's good has to juggle paying veteran stars with the upcoming and of rookie contracts looming. No one can keep a great team together for too long, even Denver had to let Brown go and count on Braun and Watson stepping up. And only one team can win every year.

Draft picks, minimum contracts, and UDFA going to be more important than ever

[brownbobcat]

I think the point is less about FVV openly admitting that stuff, and more that if he was able to "feel it and see it", then it was pretty obvious what the FO was planning on doing, and that they could have handled it better by making moves sooner. It's like what happened with Siakam, he got jerked around a whole bunch and then we shipped him out with 2 months left on a contract, they knew what they were doing and that was the result.

Maybe they were waiting to see if Scottie was "it", which is a fair approach, but that ROTY year should've been enough to get the idea. So maybe they fumbled the FVV situation and they get a bit of a pass based on the above, but not the Siakam one. They should have learned from their mistakes.

No, no, you don't understand. If they gave FVV a massive max contract, all of these issues would have been magically fixed.

[Scase]

This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post, but you did so much better. By no means do i think that Indy pick will be top 5 or anything crazy like that. I just don't think it will be in the mid 20s like many lamented at the time of the trade. I could definitely see it being in the teens again.

They have to start paying guys as early as the '25-26 season. Turner admitted earlier in the season that he's finally happy in Indy, after many years of being unhappy there. That discontent will return if they don't pay him. Nembhard and Mathurin will need to be paid the season after. Do they move either of them first? Keep in mind this is an owner that won't pay the tax.

They are not in cap hell...yet, but they could be there in the blink of an eye as soon as they max out their 2 best players and Haliburton ends up not being a true #1. They would then be in the situation that Masai correctly avoided.

This seems a common issue for contending teams right? Under the newest CBA rules? Every team that's good has to juggle paying veteran stars with the upcoming and of rookie contracts looming. No one can keep a great team together for too long, even Denver had to let Brown go and count on Braun and Watson stepping up. And only one team can win every year.

Draft picks, minimum contracts, and UDFA going to be more important than ever

Finding players in the margins, which we have been atrocious at for years, is where the real moves will be made.

[ArthurVandelay]

“You’ve got to have some type of foresight and vision,” the now Houston Rockets guard said here Wednesday night. “You can feel it. You could see it. You’ve got to be able to kind of look ahead and think ahead.

“It’s not like I absolutely knew, but you could sense it. Up to the point where it was like, ‘Okay, do I just sign the (new Toronto) deal knowing that I’m not going to make it through this deal to come back or do I have another situation?’



the writing was on the wall. They were going to hand the franchise to Scottie and I doubt Fred wanted any part of that. Should have seen it coming and just traded him the year prior if that's the route they were going towards.

Of course they were handing the reins to Scottie. What do you want Fred to say? “I wasn’t going to get my touches and they didn’t bring back the coach I wanted.” That’s the real reason IMO. And the $$ obviously.

He has not one bad thing to say about his time here or the FO. He just chose the money and someplace new. He said this after signing with them, not before.

I think the point is less about FVV openly admitting that stuff, and more that if he was able to "feel it and see it", then it was pretty obvious what the FO was planning on doing, and that they could have handled it better by making moves sooner. It's like what happened with Siakam, he got jerked around a whole bunch and then we shipped him out with 2 months left on a contract, they knew what they were doing and that was the result.

Maybe they were waiting to see if Scottie was "it", which is a fair approach, but that ROTY year should've been enough to get the idea. So maybe they fumbled the FVV situation and they get a bit of a pass based on the above, but not the Siakam one. They should have learned from their mistakes.

Or it could have been the FO knew the team had to make changes and didn’t want to spend 7+ year max money on Siakam.

He was in trade talks for years but Siakam didn’t have the offers or trade value the FO, and many fans like me, felt was appropriate or necessary to pull the trigger.

In the end they doubled down with the Poeltl trade (a mistake) rather than take what they felt were lowball offers before they had to. This year was when they had to accept reality and take the perceived lowball (ie market) offer.