PG - Raps Lose

[Fairview4Life]

Yes, they were extremely lucky that Kawhi wanted Paul George, went to the Clippers instead of the Lakers, that the Clippers had drafted SGA, that SGA hadn't broken out yet and it was acceptable to use him as a throw in for that trade, and they had team treadmilled it up by extending his contract and not trading him to tank a few years prior and and and and and. And, you know, SGA turned into a top 5 player. That's all enormously unlikely.

[Duffman100]

It's luck when Masai does it but it's 'positioning correctly' when another team does it.

Spoiler alert. It's both for everyone.

[OakleyDokely]

Yes, they were extremely lucky that Kawhi wanted Paul George, went to the Clippers instead of the Lakers, that the Clippers had drafted SGA, that SGA hadn't broken out yet and it was acceptable to use him as a throw in for that trade, and they had team treadmilled it up by extending his contract and not trading him to tank a few years prior and and and and and. And, you know, SGA turned into a top 5 player. That's all enormously unlikely.

yup, if Kawhi had picked the Raptors or Lakers instead, Shai would still be on the Clippers, Jalen Williams would be on another team (the pick used for him was a clippers pick) and OKC would be building around something like a Chet/Giddey core instead (if they even decided to trade PG).

[YogurtProducer]

It's luck when Masai does it but it's 'positioning correctly' when another team does it.

Spoiler alert. It's both for everyone.

And then when we try to position correctly and it does not work out, people lose their minds again (see - Masai going after Giannis)

[deck]

I am of course not going to be baited into you moving the goal posts and the discussion. I was responding to your initial post. I've said nothing about my expectations of this team winning a championship or making another Kawhi trade. I simply pointed out that we have had past teams and players do the things your declared as effectively impossible in your first post.

1. Lowry went from being a role player before Toronto to becoming an all star at age 28

2. Derozan became an all-star and improved significantly after RJs current age and tenure

3. A Raptors team that didn't meet your arbitrary criteria of acquiring a first star and second star via the draft went on to be the most successful team in franchise history and one of the most successful regular season teams in the league during that time-frame.

You are not arguing against me, you are arguing against the factual history of this franchise less than a decade removed.

You are the one who wants to talk about history, so we're talking about history. The Kyle/DeMar years were not some kind of wonderful amazing experience as a fan, there were a lot of years of disappointment there, most of the winning was due to a combination of luck and the East being garbage at the time.

Playoffs year one we lose in the first round to a team that would be broken up immediately afterwards to tank without their draft picks because they weren't competitive with the Heat and the owner didn't want to pay luxury taxes.

The next season we got swept in the first round by the Washington Wizards and everyone talked about making big changes, how DeMar wasn't a real star and how the entire team was fool's gold. Those years are an experience I could really do without reliving, it was one of the most depressing offseasons to be a Raptors fan, we thought the team was finally headed in the right direction but we were a regular season team, not one built for the playoffs.

The next season we went to the Conference Finals! The teams we beat to get there, a one-star Pacers team built around a 25 year old Paul George, their second best player was probably George Hill, they started a 19 year old Myles Turner in 4 out of the 7 games and we barely squeaked out that series winning a game 7 grinder 89-84. Then we beat a Miami Heat team built around a 34 year old Dwyane Wade and 34 year old Joe Johnson missing Chris Bosh due to career ending injuries, both Wade and Johnson were pretty much washed after that. Then we played a real team with a real stars in LeBron, Kyrie, and Kevin Love, and lost. Sure we won a couple of games, but you have to look at the point differentials in the 4 games we lost, the truth is we got utterly crushed, those games were not competitive at all.

Next season we beat the Bucks before losing to the Cavs again, Giannis was 22 and had just been an All-Star for the first time in his career and Kris Middleton hadn't been an All-Star even once yet, not surprising we beat them though it wasn't a cakewalk, we trailed in this series after 3 games, and game 6 was very close, we only won by 3 points.

Next season we won a ton of regular season games (most in franchise history). We beat the Wizards to get revenge for the sweep a few years prior, it was probably the only series win to be proud of for the entire Lowry/DeRozan run. Then we were swept by the Cavs, game 4 was an embarrassing blowout that led to our city and franchise being branded "LeBronto".

We didn't see real success until we traded for Kawhi and lucked out drafting Pascal with the 27th pick. Even a miracle trade for a top 5 guy in his prime only won us a title because we lucked out in the draft and got a third star in Pascal, we would have won nothing if not for that. It's stars that win, that's the lesson we should be learning from our history, not team building based on a rose-coloured glasses view of the Kyle/DeMar years.

Thank you for the history lesson. You've written a lot here without saying anything relevant.

2012/2013 - Finished 11th in the league
2013/2014 - Finished 12th in the league
2014/2015 - Finished 11th in the league
2015/2016 - Finished 4th in the league
2016/2017 - Finished 7th in the league
2017/2018 - Finished 2nd in the league
2018/2019 - Finished 2nd in the league
2019/2020 - Finished 2nd in the league

None of this constitutes success to you? These years were disappointing for fans? What about the rest of the franchise history that was objectively much worse? What about all the other franchises that have tried to build through tanking and have been stuck there for 10 years? Would you rather the above, even without Kawhi and the 2019 championship? Or would you rather endure a decade of tanking like Magic fans have been subjected to?

Your original post was making assertions that this current team cannot be successful and that our current roster effectively cannot improve. I called out the flaws in that logic with concrete examples from the history of our franchise. You've not said anything to defend your original position. Instead you have tried to re-frame what the franchise accomplished when starting with a similar talent base as all being disappointing and the result of luck rather than team building. Again, your position is not support by facts. No amount of hand waving about how lucky we were to draft Pascal / FVV, how lucky we were that other teams had injuries, how being one of the best teams in the league for a sustained period of time was actually really disappointing, none of that can avoid the simple fact that we were successful, we did win a championship, and all of that happened with a massive amount of that success being attributable to the internal growth you are asserting is not possible for the current roster.

[YogurtProducer]

Yes, they were extremely lucky that Kawhi wanted Paul George, went to the Clippers instead of the Lakers, that the Clippers had drafted SGA, that SGA hadn't broken out yet and it was acceptable to use him as a throw in for that trade, and they had team treadmilled it up by extending his contract and not trading him to tank a few years prior and and and and and. And, you know, SGA turned into a top 5 player. That's all enormously unlikely.

yup, if Kawhi had picked the Raptors or Lakers instead, Shai would still be on the Clippers, Jalen Williams would be on another team (the pick used for him was a clippers pick) and OKC would be building around something like a Chet/Giddey core instead.

Yeah the entire OKC rebuild that everyone wants is literally only possible due to a once-in-a-generation trade. What the Kawhi trade was to us (impossible to fully replicate), the SGA trade is to OKC.

Seriously - if there was a trade offer in the last 2 years for Siakam, OG, or FVV that included getting back a young stud (SGA), and like 6 or 7 firsts or whatever the **** it was, you don't think we would have accepted?

[OakleyDokely]

Yes, they were extremely lucky that Kawhi wanted Paul George, went to the Clippers instead of the Lakers, that the Clippers had drafted SGA, that SGA hadn't broken out yet and it was acceptable to use him as a throw in for that trade, and they had team treadmilled it up by extending his contract and not trading him to tank a few years prior and and and and and. And, you know, SGA turned into a top 5 player. That's all enormously unlikely.

yup, if Kawhi had picked the Raptors or Lakers instead, Shai would still be on the Clippers, Jalen Williams would be on another team (the pick used for him was a clippers pick) and OKC would be building around something like a Chet/Giddey core instead.

Yeah the entire OKC rebuild that everyone wants is literally only possible due to a once-in-a-generation trade. What the Kawhi trade was to us (impossible to fully replicate), the SGA trade is to OKC.

Seriously - if there was a trade offer in the last 2 years for Siakam, OG, or FVV that included getting back a young stud (SGA), and like 6 or 7 firsts or whatever the **** it was, you don't think we would have accepted?

It was the perfect storm because PG was locked up to a contract and the Clippers could only sign Kawhi if they traded for PG as well. The Clippers had zero leverage and OKC had all the leverage. That kind of situation is a lot more unlikely than trading for a star rental, which seems to happen every year now.

[ciueli]

This is the last thing I will say on this topic since you guys are desperate to drag this conversation in weird direction you think you can win instead of talking about the real issue, the lack of talent on this team and what needs to be done to address it.

We have about 4 quality players on this team at the moment (Scottie, Jak, RJ, IQ) with Dick as a TBD. We need more talent and the best way to get that talent is through the draft. Higher picks give a better chance of getting that talent, especially star level talent rathern than lower picks. We should bottom out for a few years to increase our odds of getting that talent, but we won't because then MLSE wouldn't be able to charge their exorbitant prices for tickets and the casual fans would tune out of games. And Masai would probably get fired eventually since I believe he only has a few years left on his contract. So he'll try to cobble together a team that can push for the play-in every year instead.

Maybe it will work out, maybe Barrett or Quickley are stars in the making and we don't know it yet. Maybe we luck out and land a star with a teens pick or a 20s pick or even the next Jokic with a 2nd round pick (that we don't have anymore because we traded them all to San Antonio, but whatever). But our odds of it working out are better with higher picks due to odds, and higher picks are more valuable if we do find rare trade for a complimentary star as the greater value of higher picks lets us outbid other competing teams. It's pretty straightforward and I don't think it's an especially controversial take, but apparently it is with some posters.

[tdotrep2]

We were playing really well before the injuries, if we inject some talent in the offseason and further refine the roster I think we could be a decent young team next year.

[deck]

This is the last thing I will say on this topic since you guys are desperate to drag this conversation in weird direction you think you can win instead of talking about the real issue, the lack of talent on this team and what needs to be done to address it.

We have about 4 quality players on this team at the moment (Scottie, Jak, RJ, IQ) with Dick as a TBD. We need more talent and the best way to get that talent is through the draft. Higher picks give a better chance of getting that talent, especially star level talent rathern than lower picks. We should bottom out for a few years to increase our odds of getting that talent, but we won't because then MLSE wouldn't be able to charge their exorbitant prices for tickets and the casual fans would tune out of games. And Masai would probably get fired eventually since I believe he only has a few years left on his contract. So he'll try to cobble together a team that can push for the play-in every year instead.

Maybe it will work out, maybe Barrett or Quickley are stars in the making and we don't know it yet. Maybe we luck out and land a star with a teens pick or a 20s pick or even the next Jokic with a 2nd round pick (that we don't have anymore because we traded them all to San Antonio, but whatever). But our odds of it working out are better with higher picks due to odds, and higher picks are more valuable if we do find rare trade for a complimentary star as the greater value of higher picks lets us outbid other competing teams. It's pretty straightforward and I don't think it's an especially controversial take, but apparently it is with some posters.

No one was trying to take the conversation in a weird direction, folks were just pointing out the flaws in your original post that was presenting a false dichotomy. Your post here is reasonable. If you had just started with this, honestly, I wouldn't have been triggered to respond at all.

[OakleyDokely]

This is the last thing I will say on this topic since you guys are desperate to drag this conversation in weird direction you think you can win instead of talking about the real issue, the lack of talent on this team and what needs to be done to address it.

We have about 4 quality players on this team at the moment (Scottie, Jak, RJ, IQ) with Dick as a TBD. We need more talent and the best way to get that talent is through the draft. Higher picks give a better chance of getting that talent, especially star level talent rathern than lower picks. We should bottom out for a few years to increase our odds of getting that talent, but we won't because then MLSE wouldn't be able to charge their exorbitant prices for tickets and the casual fans would tune out of games. And Masai would probably get fired eventually since I believe he only has a few years left on his contract. So he'll try to cobble together a team that can push for the play-in every year instead.

Maybe it will work out, maybe Barrett or Quickley are stars in the making and we don't know it yet. Maybe we luck out and land a star with a teens pick or a 20s pick or even the next Jokic with a 2nd round pick (that we don't have anymore because we traded them all to San Antonio, but whatever). But our odds of it working out are better with higher picks due to odds, and higher picks are more valuable if we do find rare trade for a complimentary star as the greater value of higher picks lets us outbid other competing teams. It's pretty straightforward and I don't think it's an especially controversial take, but apparently it is with some posters.

No one is really disputing that getting higher picks is better than the alternative.

I think most people just disagreed with your notion that the Raps lucked their way to a title while other teams are successful because they've built the right way.

[ArthurVandelay]

This is the last thing I will say on this topic since you guys are desperate to drag this conversation in weird direction you think you can win instead of talking about the real issue, the lack of talent on this team and what needs to be done to address it.

We have about 4 quality players on this team at the moment (Scottie, Jak, RJ, IQ) with Dick as a TBD. We need more talent and the best way to get that talent is through the draft. Higher picks give a better chance of getting that talent, especially star level talent rathern than lower picks. We should bottom out for a few years to increase our odds of getting that talent, but we won't because then MLSE wouldn't be able to charge their exorbitant prices for tickets and the casual fans would tune out of games. And Masai would probably get fired eventually since I believe he only has a few years left on his contract. So he'll try to cobble together a team that can push for the play-in every year instead.

Maybe it will work out, maybe Barrett or Quickley are stars in the making and we don't know it yet. Maybe we luck out and land a star with a teens pick or a 20s pick or even the next Jokic with a 2nd round pick (that we don't have anymore because we traded them all to San Antonio, but whatever). But our odds of it working out are better with higher picks due to odds, and higher picks are more valuable if we do find rare trade for a complimentary star as the greater value of higher picks lets us outbid other competing teams. It's pretty straightforward and I don't think it's an especially controversial take, but apparently it is with some posters.

The controversial take, which is now missing in this conversation wrap up post, is minimizing the greatest achievement in franchise history and the greatest sporting memory for many Raptor fans (only thing that comes close for me is Joe Carter’s WS winning HR).

There might never be another Kawhi trade. But so what? There was once and it created a championship.

It’s pretty obvious what Masai is doing now. He’s accumulating assets and developing players to move forward. Should he have started a year ago and never traded for Poeltl, I think everyone can honestly say yes. But that isn’t the reality so on we go.

[YogurtProducer]

This is the last thing I will say on this topic since you guys are desperate to drag this conversation in weird direction you think you can win instead of talking about the real issue, the lack of talent on this team and what needs to be done to address it.

We have about 4 quality players on this team at the moment (Scottie, Jak, RJ, IQ) with Dick as a TBD. We need more talent and the best way to get that talent is through the draft. Higher picks give a better chance of getting that talent, especially star level talent rathern than lower picks. We should bottom out for a few years to increase our odds of getting that talent, but we won't because then MLSE wouldn't be able to charge their exorbitant prices for tickets and the casual fans would tune out of games. And Masai would probably get fired eventually since I believe he only has a few years left on his contract. So he'll try to cobble together a team that can push for the play-in every year instead.

Maybe it will work out, maybe Barrett or Quickley are stars in the making and we don't know it yet. Maybe we luck out and land a star with a teens pick or a 20s pick or even the next Jokic with a 2nd round pick (that we don't have anymore because we traded them all to San Antonio, but whatever). But our odds of it working out are better with higher picks due to odds, and higher picks are more valuable if we do find rare trade for a complimentary star as the greater value of higher picks lets us outbid other competing teams. It's pretty straightforward and I don't think it's an especially controversial take, but apparently it is with some posters.

We have a lack of star power.

Not including guys like Brown (literal 6th man on a champ 9 months ago) or GTJ not "quality players" is just so far from reality. Same with Olynyk, not quite sure how he is not "quality".

Nothing about your take is controversial, it is just extremely misinformed. Yes - the higher you pick the more likely it is to find a stud. That being said, to get a stud is extremely lucky. You need to A) be bad enough to pick high (likely meaning you have next to no quality players), B) get lottery luck and C) actually pick in a year a stud is actually available.

So sure, even if that ALL goes right. You are now in a situation where you have top end talent with nothing to support them.

There is a reason why there are very few tanking teams that ever end up winning anything.

[YogurtProducer]

This is the last thing I will say on this topic since you guys are desperate to drag this conversation in weird direction you think you can win instead of talking about the real issue, the lack of talent on this team and what needs to be done to address it.

We have about 4 quality players on this team at the moment (Scottie, Jak, RJ, IQ) with Dick as a TBD. We need more talent and the best way to get that talent is through the draft. Higher picks give a better chance of getting that talent, especially star level talent rathern than lower picks. We should bottom out for a few years to increase our odds of getting that talent, but we won't because then MLSE wouldn't be able to charge their exorbitant prices for tickets and the casual fans would tune out of games. And Masai would probably get fired eventually since I believe he only has a few years left on his contract. So he'll try to cobble together a team that can push for the play-in every year instead.

Maybe it will work out, maybe Barrett or Quickley are stars in the making and we don't know it yet. Maybe we luck out and land a star with a teens pick or a 20s pick or even the next Jokic with a 2nd round pick (that we don't have anymore because we traded them all to San Antonio, but whatever). But our odds of it working out are better with higher picks due to odds, and higher picks are more valuable if we do find rare trade for a complimentary star as the greater value of higher picks lets us outbid other competing teams. It's pretty straightforward and I don't think it's an especially controversial take, but apparently it is with some posters.

The controversial take, which is now missing in this conversation wrap up post, is minimizing the greatest achievement in franchise history and the greatest sporting memory for many Raptor fans (only thing that comes close for me is Joe Carter’s WS winning HR).

There might never be another Kawhi trade. But so what? There was once and it created a championship.

It’s pretty obvious what Masai is doing now. He’s accumulating assets and developing players to move forward. Should he have started a year ago and never traded for Poeltl, I think everyone can honestly say yes. But that isn’t the reality so on we go.

Yeah he probably should not have traded for Poeltl.

Is trading for Poeltl some franchise crippling move? Not really. The odds that a player outside the top 6 becomes better than Poeltl is not actually as good as some posters seem to think. The odds he becomes materially better where not doing the trade would actually severely change our future fortunes is even less likely.

So yeah - bad move but far from as bad as posters want to make it sound.

[DelAbbot]

This is the last thing I will say on this topic since you guys are desperate to drag this conversation in weird direction you think you can win instead of talking about the real issue, the lack of talent on this team and what needs to be done to address it.

We have about 4 quality players on this team at the moment (Scottie, Jak, RJ, IQ) with Dick as a TBD. We need more talent and the best way to get that talent is through the draft. Higher picks give a better chance of getting that talent, especially star level talent rathern than lower picks. We should bottom out for a few years to increase our odds of getting that talent, but we won't because then MLSE wouldn't be able to charge their exorbitant prices for tickets and the casual fans would tune out of games. And Masai would probably get fired eventually since I believe he only has a few years left on his contract. So he'll try to cobble together a team that can push for the play-in every year instead.

Maybe it will work out, maybe Barrett or Quickley are stars in the making and we don't know it yet. Maybe we luck out and land a star with a teens pick or a 20s pick or even the next Jokic with a 2nd round pick (that we don't have anymore because we traded them all to San Antonio, but whatever). But our odds of it working out are better with higher picks due to odds, and higher picks are more valuable if we do find rare trade for a complimentary star as the greater value of higher picks lets us outbid other competing teams. It's pretty straightforward and I don't think it's an especially controversial take, but apparently it is with some posters.

Thank you for the posts. I enjoyed reading them and learned a lot