islandboy53 wrote:Scase wrote:islandboy53 wrote:
Speaking of utter hyperbole, you've done a great job! How did trading for Poeltl "sacrifice the future of the team"? How was that trade a "far reaching and extremely risky move"? Poeltl may not be a top 10 center, but "scraping the bottom of the league"? Major hyperbole, my guy.
Also, most people have their perspective on the Poeltl trade. You didn't like it and, apparently, will rail against it till your dying breath. It's your time, but I'd suggest you move on, and save your energy for something important. However, if you insist on beating this particular dead horse, at least bring something a little more defensible than "Pretty much all analysts were saying it was a baffling move".
Sacrificed the future of the team by trading away an immediate lotto pick which is handcuffing this team for a specific direction.
Trading one (1) first round pick is NOT "sacrificing the future of the team". Worst case,
perhaps there's a centre available who can replace what Jacob brings, in 2 or 3 years. In that scenario, the team
may be better in the long term, but it's worse in the short to medium term.
Far reaching and "extremely" risky, a lotto team, trading a lightly protected pick, with the sole purpose of making the play in, all while doing this with 3 pending FAs.
At the time of the trade, only FVV was a pending UFA. The trade was made to provide a competent, starting level centre as part of a final evaluation of the core and coach. The result of that evaluation was a new coach and, with the loss of FVV, a rebuild. Making the play in can be seen as part of the evaluation, but it was hardly "the sole purpose".
Scraping the bottom of the league. We are currently 6th worst in the NBA. This one I admittedly could have been clearer on.
But sure, it's hyperbole.
Your statement seemed to be that Poeltl was "scraping the bottom of the league", which is clearly massively hyperbolic. If you really meant that our current record is scraping that bottom, I agree, obviously.
If it were one pick and gone, sure. But until it conveys it directly determines how the team can plan moving forward. If Masai thought that the best course of action for this team was to tank a couple years, get some good prospects from high picks, and go from there. He is handcuffed by the exact scenario we are currently dealing with, a potential 60 loss season with no pick to show for it. Now deal with that for 3 years hanging over your head, and every year it doesn't convey you are essentially held hostage.
You view it as a single pick, and I get that. The rest of the leagues GMs view it as leverage. The same way the Nets/Rockets have zero incentive to tank because they don't own their picks, that means that in any sort of trade negotiations any GM with half a brain will have some additional leverage, you can lowball, or raise your trade prices because you know that team cannot afford to be too bad. This is why I keep saying the trades biggest issues are the cascading effects.
Not trading Siakam let us into a position where the opposing teams and Siakam himself held the most leverage, which results in worse returns and less bargaining power. None of this stuff exists in a vacuum.
As for the time of the trade, yeah FVV was the only one immediately pending, but OG was 100% going to be a UFA as there was no way he was sacrificing potentially 50mil just to sign an extension with us, so he is a UFA for all intents and purposes. Siakam, there was clearly no efforts made to extend him, and he also wanted to push his luck going for a supermax, so again, for all intents and purposes, a UFA.
Trading a barely protected FRP when you are a lotto team, and have effectively 3 pending UFAs, for a mid tier centre is objectively bad management. Or at best, a terribly stupid gamble.
No one views a 28 year old mid tier centre as part of a "rebuild", you're being naive if you think so. Jak is going to be 29 years old at the start of next season, who in their right mind spends those kinds of assets to get a player that unequivocally provides no useful benefit for a rebuilding team? Jak belongs on a contender, not on a rebuilding team, at best all he contributes to is some empty wins that devalue our picks.
By the time our "rebuilding" core gets to a competitive age, Jak is most likely turning 31 and his contract his expiring. So we spent assets and money for what exactly? Empty wins?
A core of BBQ+P is unlikely to result in anything other than a first round playoff team. This team is starved for talent, trading away picks for win now players does not help the team long term.