RealGM

2025-26 Salaries

Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 46M
OG - 40M
Barnes - 39M
FVV - 45M
Total=190M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 39M
Ingram - 40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 33M
Total=160M

We didn't want to keep the old core because it was too expensive but it looks like we're just as expensive but we have worse players.

How in the hell is this a successful rebuild? We have a young bench but we could have done the same since they're all mid first to second picks.

The roster will probably struggle to be a play in team next year while being near tax level. None of our starters are in their early 20s or shoe ins for the all star team or all NBA.

The ceiling for this group is probably the 2nd round at absolute most. We haven't seen much improvement from Barnes. I am going to predict we blow things up again within the next 4 years after another retooling phase.

Why should we be optimistic about this squad? It seems like we would have been better off retooling the last generation of our developed draft picks.

first of all, yes they did want to keep that core. Fred leaving changed the dynamic. Secondly we have a solid group of rookies and young guys like Dick and Ochai not to mention our 2025 pick.

I fail to see how people can't understand that many people see this roster as having a lot of upside potential.
I'm predicting this roster is top 5 in the east in two years

S.W.A.N wrote:first of all, yes they did want to keep that core. Fred leaving changed the dynamic. Secondly we have a solid group of rookies and young guys like Dick and Ochai not to mention our 2025 pick.

I fail to see how people can't understand that many people see this roster as having a lot of upside potential.
I'm predicting this roster is top 5 in the east in two years

In order for our roster to work we will need Barnes, Ingram, and IQ to be all star level players. They are currently (maybe not Barnes) viewed as bad contracts. IQ and Ingram are looking injury prone and Barnes hasn't improved much since his rookie year. If IQ or Ingram were capable of being all stars their prior teams wouldn't have given up on them. OG is a non-all star and never will be an all star yet the Knicks gave up both IQ and Barrett for him. We have rose tinted goggles on and think they'll suddenly become all star level, it's irrational.

Dick, Ochai, Mogbo, Shead, Chomche, Walter, etc are premium prospects. They are mid 1st to 2nd round talents we could have gotten any way without rebuilding years. We can't bank on them as the future of the franchise.

For comparison sake Dick versus Trent is a crapshoot and the rest of the bench are non-factors similar to what we already have. There are also extremely comparable players from then (Ex. Achiuwa) and now (Ex. Mogbo). I don't see anyone that's worthwhile 2 losing years for.

The better alternative would have been to tank this year harder, meaning selling Mitchell, Boucher, Brown, etc earlier in the season for whatever we could get and prevently the winning streak. This would have made us a T3 team in the tankathon, then we could tank again the following season while rehabbing the values of IQ/Barrett and selling them for better fitting pieces.

That would have landed us Flagg, Harper, Bailey, Kasp, Edgecombe, or Johnson at the bare minimum. The following season we would be in the running for Boozer, Dybantsa, Peterson, Stokes, or Arenas. That would have given us a cheap rookie core we could develop into all star players.

Maybe none of those guys become all stars, but the chances would have been higher than expecting IQ, Barrett, or Ingram to become all stars while they are pretty much in their prime years.

Thaddy wrote:Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 42M
OG - 37M
Barnes - 10M
FVV - 43M
Total=152M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 35M
Ingram - 35-40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 32M
Total=155M

We didn't want to keep the old core because it was too expensive but it looks like we're just as expensive but we have worse players.

How in the hell is this a successful rebuild? We have a young bench but we could have done the same since they're all mid first to second picks.

The roster will probably struggle to be a play in team next year while being near tax level. None of our starters are in their early 20s or shoe ins for the all star team or all NBA.

The ceiling for this group is probably the 2nd round at absolute most. We haven't seen much improvement from Barnes. I am going to predict we blow things up again within the next 4 years after another retooling phase.

Why should we be optimistic about this squad? It seems like we would have been better off retooling the last generation of our developed draft picks.

Should I be the first to point out the flaw in his logic? Or would someone else like to go first?

Thaddy wrote:

S.W.A.N wrote:first of all, yes they did want to keep that core. Fred leaving changed the dynamic. Secondly we have a solid group of rookies and young guys like Dick and Ochai not to mention our 2025 pick.

I fail to see how people can't understand that many people see this roster as having a lot of upside potential.
I'm predicting this roster is top 5 in the east in two years

In order for our roster to work we will need Barnes, Ingram, and IQ to be all star level players. They are currently (maybe not Barnes) viewed as bad contracts. IQ and Ingram are looking injury prone and Barnes hasn't improved much since his rookie year. If IQ or Ingram were capable of being all stars their prior teams wouldn't have given up on them. OG is a non-all star and never will be an all star yet the Knicks gave up both IQ and Barrett for him. We have rose tinted goggles on and think they'll suddenly become all star level, it's irrational.

Dick, Ochai, Mogbo, Shead, Chomche, Walter, etc are premium prospects. They are mid 1st to 2nd round talents we could have gotten any way without rebuilding years. We can't bank on them as the future of the franchise.

For comparison sake Dick versus Trent is a crapshoot and the rest of the bench are non-factors similar to what we already have. There are also extremely comparable players from then (Ex. Achiuwa) and now (Ex. Mogbo). I don't see anyone that's worthwhile 2 losing years for.

The better alternative would have been to tank this year harder, meaning selling Mitchell, Boucher, Brown, etc earlier in the season for whatever we could get and prevently the winning streak. This would have made us a T3 team in the tankathon, then we could tank again the following season while rehabbing the values of IQ/Barrett and selling them for better fitting pieces.

That would have landed us Flagg, Harper, Bailey, Kasp, Edgecombe, or Johnson at the bare minimum. The following season we would be in the running for Boozer, Dybantsa, Peterson, Stokes, or Arenas. That would have given us a cheap rookie core we could develop into all star players.

Maybe none of those guys become all stars, but the chances would have been higher than expecting IQ, Barrett, or Ingram to become all stars while they are pretty much in their prime years.

Disagree. All-star level is subjective. Ingrams numbers in New Orleans this year were all-star level in the east. Hell, if we had a good record RJ might've gotten a look.


While I am far from anti-tank I don't believe we could out tank Washington, Utah or Charlotte just by selling our bench players.

We still have an excellent chance at all the top 8 guys in this draft. As for next tears draft I fully believe that are young guys are going to prove that trying to tank next year wouldve been a fools errand.

Tanking isn't a path to put all your eggs in.

Right now we have a nice mix of good starters, young guys and a high pick in 2025.
Your path has us sucking for 4-5 season on the hope those kids in 2026 are the real deal and few extra lotto balls this year.

Appostis wrote:

Thaddy wrote:Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 42M
OG - 37M
Barnes - 10M
FVV - 43M
Total=152M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 35M
Ingram - 35-40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 32M
Total=155M

We didn't want to keep the old core because it was too expensive but it looks like we're just as expensive but we have worse players.

How in the hell is this a successful rebuild? We have a young bench but we could have done the same since they're all mid first to second picks.

The roster will probably struggle to be a play in team next year while being near tax level. None of our starters are in their early 20s or shoe ins for the all star team or all NBA.

The ceiling for this group is probably the 2nd round at absolute most. We haven't seen much improvement from Barnes. I am going to predict we blow things up again within the next 4 years after another retooling phase.

Why should we be optimistic about this squad? It seems like we would have been better off retooling the last generation of our developed draft picks.

Should I be the first to point out the flaw in his logic? Or would someone else like to go first?

This is the definition of a low quality post. Are the numbers off by a couple million? The point is that the prior construct was around the same money maybe 10% more. But the talent in the prior roster was better than what we currently have. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, such as why you think we're in a better position now, then maybe you should not bother coming into the thread.

S.W.A.N wrote:

Thaddy wrote:

S.W.A.N wrote:first of all, yes they did want to keep that core. Fred leaving changed the dynamic. Secondly we have a solid group of rookies and young guys like Dick and Ochai not to mention our 2025 pick.

I fail to see how people can't understand that many people see this roster as having a lot of upside potential.
I'm predicting this roster is top 5 in the east in two years

In order for our roster to work we will need Barnes, Ingram, and IQ to be all star level players. They are currently (maybe not Barnes) viewed as bad contracts. IQ and Ingram are looking injury prone and Barnes hasn't improved much since his rookie year. If IQ or Ingram were capable of being all stars their prior teams wouldn't have given up on them. OG is a non-all star and never will be an all star yet the Knicks gave up both IQ and Barrett for him. We have rose tinted goggles on and think they'll suddenly become all star level, it's irrational.

Dick, Ochai, Mogbo, Shead, Chomche, Walter, etc are premium prospects. They are mid 1st to 2nd round talents we could have gotten any way without rebuilding years. We can't bank on them as the future of the franchise.

For comparison sake Dick versus Trent is a crapshoot and the rest of the bench are non-factors similar to what we already have. There are also extremely comparable players from then (Ex. Achiuwa) and now (Ex. Mogbo). I don't see anyone that's worthwhile 2 losing years for.

The better alternative would have been to tank this year harder, meaning selling Mitchell, Boucher, Brown, etc earlier in the season for whatever we could get and prevently the winning streak. This would have made us a T3 team in the tankathon, then we could tank again the following season while rehabbing the values of IQ/Barrett and selling them for better fitting pieces.

That would have landed us Flagg, Harper, Bailey, Kasp, Edgecombe, or Johnson at the bare minimum. The following season we would be in the running for Boozer, Dybantsa, Peterson, Stokes, or Arenas. That would have given us a cheap rookie core we could develop into all star players.

Maybe none of those guys become all stars, but the chances would have been higher than expecting IQ, Barrett, or Ingram to become all stars while they are pretty much in their prime years.

Disagree. All-star level is subjective. Ingrams numbers in New Orleans this year were all-star level in the east. Hell, if we had a good record RJ might've gotten a look.


While I am far from anti-tank I don't believe we could out tank Washington, Utah or Charlotte just by selling our bench players.

We still have an excellent chance at all the top 8 guys in this draft. As for next tears draft I fully believe that are young guys are going to prove that trying to tank next year wouldve been a fools errand.

Tanking isn't a path to put all your eggs in.

Right now we have a nice mix of good starters, young guys and a high pick in 2025.
Your path has us sucking for 4-5 season on the hope those kids in 2026 are the real deal and few extra lotto balls this year.

Ingram has a pretty bad PER, if he were an all star he'd probably have the worst among all the all stars in both conferences.

Barrett isn't a young player he's in his athletic prime. He's probably the worst shooter among SGs in the NBA and he has crappy defense to match his bad shooting. He hasn't improved in Toronto we just changed his shot diet.

We were out tanking those teams before our vets got healthy. It was a combo of sitting out Yak and IQ too.

Tanking is the only way a small market team can get a top 10 NBA player. If we added one of Flagg, Bailey, Harper, Kasp, or Johnson we would have a higher chance of developing that prospect into a star compared to Barrett or Quickely.

The following season we would be trying to develop our youth and tank again. Adding Boozer, Arenas, Dybantsa, etc would have completed a trifecta of 3 high potential and high lottery picks. Those rookie deals would have given us ample space to sign a player like Myles Turner which would cascade into making the Pacers worse. We would be adding several high caliber prospects compared to mid 1st round talent and 2nd round picks like we currently have.

Even if tanking doesn't directly lead to a star it gives you a high value piece that can be traded for one. It also provides cheap quality pieces that give flexibility. We're the complete opposite now where we have several expensive pieces that don't fit together and won't be improving much.

I found it laughable that Webster called Ingram an unfinished product. BI is 27, been injured a ton, and he's going to be older while working through his contract with us. He's probably going to play even fewer games than he already was. That's a red alert in terms of panicking about our future. The BI trade is very comparable to the Rudy Gay trade we made 10 years ago.

Thaddy wrote:Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 42M
OG - 37M
Barnes - 10M
FVV - 43M
Total=152M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 35M
Ingram - 35-40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 32M
Total=155M

If you're going to mix and match numbers...at least keep the **** on the same year. You're comparing some 2024/25 to next season's numbers.. kinda picking and choosing in order to seem like you have an argument.


Pascal: age:33. - 45.5 million
(then:45.5/48.9/52.3 million)

OG: : age:28. - 39.5 million
(then: 42.5/45.4/48.3 million )

Barnes: age 24 - 38.6.million
(Then 41.7/44.8/47.9/51 million)

FVV age: 31 - 44.9million


So you're purposely mixing some 2024 salaries and comparing them to 2025/26 salaries and kinda forgetting about the age issue.

Thaddy wrote:

Appostis wrote:

Thaddy wrote:Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 42M
OG - 37M
Barnes - 10M
FVV - 43M
Total=152M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 35M
Ingram - 35-40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 32M
Total=155M

We didn't want to keep the old core because it was too expensive but it looks like we're just as expensive but we have worse players.

How in the hell is this a successful rebuild? We have a young bench but we could have done the same since they're all mid first to second picks.

The roster will probably struggle to be a play in team next year while being near tax level. None of our starters are in their early 20s or shoe ins for the all star team or all NBA.

The ceiling for this group is probably the 2nd round at absolute most. We haven't seen much improvement from Barnes. I am going to predict we blow things up again within the next 4 years after another retooling phase.

Why should we be optimistic about this squad? It seems like we would have been better off retooling the last generation of our developed draft picks.

Should I be the first to point out the flaw in his logic? Or would someone else like to go first?

This is the definition of a low quality post. Are the numbers off by a couple million? The point is that the prior construct was around the same money maybe 10% more. But the talent in the prior roster was better than what we currently have. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, such as why you think we're in a better position now, then maybe you should not bother coming into the thread.

You're choosing to compare salaries of 2024 on the first team to salaries of the current raptors in 2025..

If you're going to do the comparison at least keep them all I'm the same year.. You're original post is the low quality nonsense post. Be better next time?

But hey if you do the math it's 188.5 million to 155 million.. what's 33.5 million between friends right?

Appostis wrote:

Thaddy wrote:

Appostis wrote:

Should I be the first to point out the flaw in his logic? Or would someone else like to go first?

This is the definition of a low quality post. Are the numbers off by a couple million? The point is that the prior construct was around the same money maybe 10% more. But the talent in the prior roster was better than what we currently have. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, such as why you think we're in a better position now, then maybe you should not bother coming into the thread.

You're choosing to compare salaries of 2024 on the first team to salaries of the current raptors in 2025..

If you're going to do the comparison at least keep them all I'm the same year.. You're original post is the low quality nonsense post. Be better next time?

Instead of putting together a good argument you're worried about being 10% off the salary numbers? The prior team was just as expensive, maybe slightly more, but it was sure as hell A LOT more talented.

Thaddy wrote:

Appostis wrote:

Thaddy wrote:This is the definition of a low quality post. Are the numbers off by a couple million? The point is that the prior construct was around the same money maybe 10% more. But the talent in the prior roster was better than what we currently have. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, such as why you think we're in a better position now, then maybe you should not bother coming into the thread.

You're choosing to compare salaries of 2024 on the first team to salaries of the current raptors in 2025..

If you're going to do the comparison at least keep them all I'm the same year.. You're original post is the low quality nonsense post. Be better next time?

Instead of putting together a good argument you're worried about being 10% off the salary numbers? The prior team was just as expensive, maybe slightly more, but it was sure as hell A LOT more talented.

Math is fun..

Your numbers come to 152 million vs 188.5 million they would be in reality.

36.5 + million is not being 10% off...

Especially in this current CBA that's a functional team vs the dysfunction of the Suns.


Beyond forgetting about the ages of that roster, the additional young players drafted(and to be drafted with this lottery pick).

This is a troll account right? At least that would make the lack of honesty make sense..

Thaddy wrote:Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 42M
OG - 37M
Barnes - 10M
FVV - 43M
Total=152M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 35M
Ingram - 35-40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 32M
Total=155M

top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

manjusaka wrote:

Thaddy wrote:Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 42M
OG - 37M
Barnes - 10M
FVV - 43M
Total=152M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 35M
Ingram - 35-40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 32M
Total=155M

top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison). If it's not a troll post then...

Appostis wrote:

manjusaka wrote:

Thaddy wrote:Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 42M
OG - 37M
Barnes - 10M
FVV - 43M
Total=152M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 35M
Ingram - 35-40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 32M
Total=155M

top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison)

I updated to reflect 2025-26 salaries. It's 30M more expensive but the prior construct was actually capable of getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs. It wouldn't be that hard to trade Barnes for a Lowry type of player we had. That roster had serious balance problems too.

Appostis wrote:

manjusaka wrote:

Thaddy wrote:Poeltl - 20M
Siakam - 42M
OG - 37M
Barnes - 10M
FVV - 43M
Total=152M

Vs

Poeltl - 20M
Barnes - 35M
Ingram - 35-40M
Barrett - 28M
IQ - 32M
Total=155M

top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison). If it's not a troll post then...

Going again with the dumb argument. Instead of worrying about the meat and bones you're worried about a pinch of salt. I rounded the salaries up. You are a better fit for Twitter than RealGM.

Thaddy wrote:

Appostis wrote:

manjusaka wrote:
top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison)

I updated to reflect 2025-26 salaries. It's 30M more expensive but the prior construct was actually capable of getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs. It wouldn't be that hard to trade Barnes for a Lowry type of player we had. That roster had serious balance problems too.

36.5 million. Already over the tax based off of 2025/26 projections.

Please look at the Phoenix Suns for why this would not work.

Thaddy wrote:

Appostis wrote:

manjusaka wrote:
top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison)

I updated to reflect 2025-26 salaries. It's 30M more expensive but the prior construct was actually capable of getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs. It wouldn't be that hard to trade Barnes for a Lowry type of player we had. That roster had serious balance problems too.

Appostis wrote:

manjusaka wrote:
top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison). If it's not a troll post then...

Going again with the dumb argument. Instead of worrying about the meat and bones you're worried about a pinch of salt. I rounded the salaries up. You are a better fit for Twitter than RealGM.

I agreed away SB could be an all star calibre player back, but that also mean it needs to add a lot more salary. You forgot the effect of Apron.

Thaddy wrote:

Appostis wrote:

manjusaka wrote:
top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison)

I updated to reflect 2025-26 salaries. It's 30M more expensive but the prior construct was actually capable of getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs. It wouldn't be that hard to trade Barnes for a Lowry type of player we had. That roster had serious balance problems too.

Appostis wrote:

manjusaka wrote:
top Barnes 10m
Bottom Barnes 35m

We probably won’t able to keep SB with the original core with the given salary.

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison). If it's not a troll post then...

Going again with the dumb argument. Instead of worrying about the meat and bones you're worried about a pinch of salt. I rounded the salaries up. You are a better fit for Twitter than RealGM.

You keep yelling "dumb argument" when your numbers are off by over 24%. That's not a pinch of salt.. When you look at the impact of the 2nd apron.

Again..if this is not a troll account

Appostis wrote:

Thaddy wrote:

Appostis wrote:

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison)

I updated to reflect 2025-26 salaries. It's 30M more expensive but the prior construct was actually capable of getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs. It wouldn't be that hard to trade Barnes for a Lowry type of player we had. That roster had serious balance problems too.

Appostis wrote:

Every single one of his numbers are off besides Poeltl(even that is missing 0.5 million but at least he used the same comparison). If it's not a troll post then...

Going again with the dumb argument. Instead of worrying about the meat and bones you're worried about a pinch of salt. I rounded the salaries up. You are a better fit for Twitter than RealGM.

You keep yelling "dumb argument" when your numbers are off by over 24%. That's not a pinch of salt.. When you look at the impact of the 2nd apron.

Again..if this is not a troll account

Yeah it is a dumb argument because you're going on about semantics.

If you want to go there you should consider the prior roster had a real all star that actually got selected and a stronger performer in the finals (Siakam), the best wing defender in the league (OG), and more (FVV).

That's more than enough to account for the 24%. Then you can also consider that FVV has a team option next year that would trim 40M off the salary.

Barnes could be traded for smaller pieces to fill in the gaps and balance the roster and that we would draft players that would be similar to the 2nd round prospects we currently have.

The meat and bones is that we did not improve at all, the ceiling is the same if not lower, and we didn't benefit at all from tanking the past two seasons.

Agreed this is a pretty bad post

This went from being off by a few million to 30 million and the argument stands?

The depth of our bench was acquired (largely) from dealing those players.

Our average age has dropped significantly.

Cmon man.

Duffman100 wrote:Agreed this is a pretty bad post

This went from being off by a few million to 30 million and the argument stands?

The depth of our bench was acquired (largely) from dealing those players.

Our average age has dropped significantly.

Cmon man.

Ingram is 3 years younger than Siakam but he hasn't been on any all NBA teams and he's only a 1x all star. There's no reason to believe he's suddenly going to be healthier once he's playing as a Raptor. We're going to have a 40M dollar man sitting on the bench, considering how pissed fans were about Brown I can't see that going well.

OG, IQ, and Barrett are all about the same age (~2 year difference). But OG clearly is more impactful when it comes to winning. He had an immediate impact on the Knicks as soon as he arrived.

We lost a ton of talent to get 2-3 years younger, and we still have Yak on the roster. If age is a huge concern why didn't we trade Yak for a younger asset.

FVV has a TO for next year and Houston will likely decline it. There aren't a lot of teams with cap space and the apron is clearly affecting the market. I can see him getting GTJ'd in the off season and settling for a much smaller contract. The Rockets might not even bring him back with Thompson and Sheppherd needing minutes and being higher ceiling players.

Thaddy wrote:

Duffman100 wrote:Agreed this is a pretty bad post

This went from being off by a few million to 30 million and the argument stands?

The depth of our bench was acquired (largely) from dealing those players.

Our average age has dropped significantly.

Cmon man.

Ingram is 3 years younger than Siakam but he hasn't been on any all NBA teams and he's only a 1x all star. There's no reason to believe he's suddenly going to be healthier once he's playing as a Raptor. We're going to have a 40M dollar man sitting on the bench, considering how pissed fans were about Brown I can't see that going well.

OG, IQ, and Barrett are all about the same age (~2 year difference). But OG clearly is more impactful when it comes to winning. He had an immediate impact on the Knicks as soon as he arrived.

We lost a ton of talent to get 2-3 years younger, and we still have Yak on the roster. If age is a huge concern why didn't we trade Yak for a younger asset.

FVV has a TO for next year and Houston will likely decline it. There aren't a lot of teams with cap space and the apron is clearly affecting the market. I can see him getting GTJ'd in the off season and settling for a much smaller contract. The Rockets might not even bring him back with Thompson and Sheppherd needing minutes and being higher ceiling players.

On average 4 years younger. Again your tweaking your numbers to exaggerate or to confirmation bias your conclusion.

It went from a few million one way to 30 million.
2-3 years to 4 years.
The bench we have is from the trades. Walter, Ochai, Mogbo, Shead (tpe) plus we wouldn't have a top pick this year.

All of this matters in the context of your argument.