Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
Moderators: 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford, DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX
Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- MainEvent
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,220
- And1: 2,856
- Joined: Oct 02, 2004
- Location: ottawa
-
Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
Dumars said he offered the deal starting at #9 and worked down until he got a yes
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- LoveMyRaps
- RealGM
- Posts: 28,207
- And1: 48,650
- Joined: Jun 10, 2013
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
Yes, I would've.
But again, this just goes to show how high the front office is on CMB.
Not only did they pass up on Maluach, Noa, etc., but they also passed up on #23 + a potential lotto pick in 2026.
But again, this just goes to show how high the front office is on CMB.
Not only did they pass up on Maluach, Noa, etc., but they also passed up on #23 + a potential lotto pick in 2026.
In Masai We Trust 



Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- Duffman100
- Forum Mod - Raptors
- Posts: 47,815
- And1: 72,155
- Joined: Jun 27, 2002
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
Yeah I would have. Pelicans will likely be terrible again.
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,929
- And1: 4,508
- Joined: Dec 16, 2014
- Contact:
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
No. The FO rightfully declined.
RealGM fans have a tendency to overrate future picks and it shows.
With #9, they would have a better player than they got at 13, so the ‘26 pick wouldn’t be that good. And the ‘25 talent drop to #23 is massive. If you like a guy at 9, take him.
RealGM fans have a tendency to overrate future picks and it shows.
With #9, they would have a better player than they got at 13, so the ‘26 pick wouldn’t be that good. And the ‘25 talent drop to #23 is massive. If you like a guy at 9, take him.
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- artsncrafts
- RealGM
- Posts: 22,357
- And1: 26,034
- Joined: Feb 04, 2013
- Location: Shambleland, Ont.
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
I mean the Raptors arent really in a position to kick the can down the road yet another year. Sure it is possible its a lottery pick and even a good one, but also possible its in the 10-16 range. So if you think CMB (or whoever you take at 9) is better than next years lets say #10, although obviously it could be higher or lower, its not really worth the risk/reward. We might not even be alive in a year! Time to get back on the...fun to watch basketball.
Harold_and_Kumar wrote:What if the 10 incher was overrated and the 4 incher was too small for any playing time, but the 7 incher was a perfect fit for our roster and the 5 incher was good for specific situations, like backdoor cuts?
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- MainEvent
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,220
- And1: 2,856
- Joined: Oct 02, 2004
- Location: ottawa
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
MessiahUjiri wrote:No. The FO rightfully declined.
RealGM fans have a tendency to overrate future picks and it shows.
With #9, they would have a better player than they got at 13, so the ‘26 pick wouldn’t be that good. And the ‘25 talent drop to #23 is massive. If you like a guy at 9, take him.
One would think Queen was their target, it's not like they are sending out that package and then the #1 guy they wanted gets taken and then they are like okay lets run it for our 2nd choice!
The pick is different from the overrated ones or whatever, it's an unprotected pick next year from a bad team. Do you think they make the playoffs? they look like a bottom 3 team in the west
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- artsncrafts
- RealGM
- Posts: 22,357
- And1: 26,034
- Joined: Feb 04, 2013
- Location: Shambleland, Ont.
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
MainEvent wrote:MessiahUjiri wrote:No. The FO rightfully declined.
RealGM fans have a tendency to overrate future picks and it shows.
With #9, they would have a better player than they got at 13, so the ‘26 pick wouldn’t be that good. And the ‘25 talent drop to #23 is massive. If you like a guy at 9, take him.
One would think Queen was their target, it's not like they are sending out that package and then the #1 guy they wanted gets taken and then they are like okay lets run it for our 2nd choice!
The pick is different from the overrated ones or whatever, it's an unprotected pick next year from a bad team. Do you think they make the playoffs? they look like a bottom 3 team in the west
Well even if they are bad, you still need luck. So you need them to be bad and then get lucky to get a top 4 pick. Otherwise you are later in the lotto and you are trading #9 for mid lotto draft pick next year and #23 this year. Its not like its a guaranteed top pick. Obviously it depends on who you want to draft at 9. Do you think next years #7-10 is better? if you dont like anyone that much at #9 it make sense I guess. In that sense people are overrating the pick as we dont know where it will land (or who will be available). Its a risk/reward thing, there are no guarantees except for who you can draft at #9 when its your turn to pick.
Harold_and_Kumar wrote:What if the 10 incher was overrated and the 4 incher was too small for any playing time, but the 7 incher was a perfect fit for our roster and the 5 incher was good for specific situations, like backdoor cuts?
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,460
- And1: 2,077
- Joined: Oct 27, 2001
- Location: Newfoundland
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
Absolutely. It's the best of the Pelicans/Bucks, right? If so, you have the Pels being a mess in a brutal conference and a Giannis injury/trade as possibilities.
A small chance at a star creator offensively is better than none, and I still think we aren't going anywhere without one.
A small chance at a star creator offensively is better than none, and I still think we aren't going anywhere without one.
Where's the D?
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- WuTang_CMB
- RealGM
- Posts: 40,962
- And1: 51,426
- Joined: Sep 26, 2017
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
prob would
dumars is fried
his best player averages 40 games a year
dumars is fried
his best player averages 40 games a year
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,504
- And1: 3,043
- Joined: Jun 29, 2021
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
MessiahUjiri wrote:No. The FO rightfully declined.
RealGM fans have a tendency to overrate future picks and it shows.
With #9, they would have a better player than they got at 13, so the ‘26 pick wouldn’t be that good. And the ‘25 talent drop to #23 is massive. If you like a guy at 9, take him.
Yes.
Unprotected swaps are the most undervalued asset in the game. Three potential chances at the 1st overall. The asset could also be split in two. It’s a pick with two swaps attached. One of which belongs to a team with Giannis in the event he asks out this summer, during the season or leading into next. The team also saves $ next season.
I wasn’t crazy high on any of the prospects in our range though.
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,144
- And1: 20,306
- Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
Zion is the only thing keeping that team afloat, and he's always injured.
I'd do it
I'd do it
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- ForeverTFC
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,959
- And1: 19,578
- Joined: Dec 07, 2004
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
I find that people have a tough time with expected values.
Let's assume there is a 100% chance that either the Pels or Bucks finish in the bottom 5, with equal odds for worst to 5th worst. The expected pick at each spot is 3.7, 3.9, 4.1, 4.4 and 5. Multiply each for a 1/5th chance and the expected value of that pick is the 4.2. And keep in mind we are being generous by assuming a 100% of a bottom 5 finish. So even if you are convinced that one of those teams would SUCK next season, you are still trading for the 4th pick as the most likely outcome. If you assume BOTH have a 100% chance of finishing in the bottom 5, the most likely outcome becomes 3.1.
Depending on where the Raptors had CMB ranked, how they projected the Pels and Bucks next season, and how they projected the talent in the lottery next year, it's completely feasible that they thought the expected value of CMB was higher than the expected value of that pick.
Let's assume there is a 100% chance that either the Pels or Bucks finish in the bottom 5, with equal odds for worst to 5th worst. The expected pick at each spot is 3.7, 3.9, 4.1, 4.4 and 5. Multiply each for a 1/5th chance and the expected value of that pick is the 4.2. And keep in mind we are being generous by assuming a 100% of a bottom 5 finish. So even if you are convinced that one of those teams would SUCK next season, you are still trading for the 4th pick as the most likely outcome. If you assume BOTH have a 100% chance of finishing in the bottom 5, the most likely outcome becomes 3.1.
Depending on where the Raptors had CMB ranked, how they projected the Pels and Bucks next season, and how they projected the talent in the lottery next year, it's completely feasible that they thought the expected value of CMB was higher than the expected value of that pick.
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- JShuttlesworth
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,194
- And1: 13,376
- Joined: Dec 09, 2013
- Location: Toronto
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
artsncrafts wrote:I mean the Raptors arent really in a position to kick the can down the road yet another year. Sure it is possible its a lottery pick and even a good one, but also possible its in the 10-16 range. So if you think CMB (or whoever you take at 9) is better than next years lets say #10, although obviously it could be higher or lower, its not really worth the risk/reward. We might not even be alive in a year! Time to get back on the...fun to watch basketball.
Bingo
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,160
- And1: 1,053
- Joined: Dec 19, 2004
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
Honestly I can totally see why they passed on trading down and instead took CMB. A lot of analyst had CMB at around 6. I don’t think you move down for just a potential gamble for a higher pick next year.
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 143
- And1: 89
- Joined: Jul 06, 2019
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
I would do it if they gave us Herb Jones and 23 for 9 and Agbadi
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 11,286
- And1: 7,222
- Joined: May 16, 2010
- Location: ♫ Whoa Black Betty Shambleland ♫
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
CMB doesn't seem to have a clear path to meaningful minutes right now. Why couldn't we kick the can down the road?

This place is insufferable.
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- Gold Dragon
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,024
- And1: 4,605
- Joined: Jul 02, 2006
- Location: Oz
-
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
If CMB was gone, then yes. But CMB was there so, no.
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
- Supermann98
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,017
- And1: 681
- Joined: May 09, 2003
- Location: Toronto
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
Considering that pick is unprotected and could be a top 4 pick, yes I would've definitely taken that deal
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,276
- And1: 4,665
- Joined: Oct 19, 2004
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
I would. Problem with Raptors though is that they needed somebody now. Someone more substantial than what #23 would provide. So I'm not mad at it even though it could come bite us in the ass down the road. Could be the big what-if.
On a separate note, Joe Dumars sure as heck isn't off to a great start though. What a terrible trade. I have no idea why they would think Derik Queen is worth giving up an unprotected pick in 2026, which is likely a high lotto. That's mind blowing when you really think about it. The man is showing why he stopped being relevant shortly after drafting Darko Milicic in 2003.
On a separate note, Joe Dumars sure as heck isn't off to a great start though. What a terrible trade. I have no idea why they would think Derik Queen is worth giving up an unprotected pick in 2026, which is likely a high lotto. That's mind blowing when you really think about it. The man is showing why he stopped being relevant shortly after drafting Darko Milicic in 2003.
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,525
- And1: 9,637
- Joined: Jun 22, 2011
Re: Would you have traded #9 for the Pelicans package?
ForeverTFC wrote:I find that people have a tough time with expected values.
Let's assume there is a 100% chance that either the Pels or Bucks finish in the bottom 5, with equal odds for worst to 5th worst. The expected pick at each spot is 3.7, 3.9, 4.1, 4.4 and 5. Multiply each for a 1/5th chance and the expected value of that pick is the 4.2. And keep in mind we are being generous by assuming a 100% of a bottom 5 finish. So even if you are convinced that one of those teams would SUCK next season, you are still trading for the 4th pick as the most likely outcome. If you assume BOTH have a 100% chance of finishing in the bottom 5, the most likely outcome becomes 3.1.
Depending on where the Raptors had CMB ranked, how they projected the Pels and Bucks next season, and how they projected the talent in the lottery next year, it's completely feasible that they thought the expected value of CMB was higher than the expected value of that pick.
lol not surprising considering how pissed people were that we didn't tank for a 14% at best chance at Wemby