To tank or retool?

Scase · Post #41 » by **Scase** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 12:08 am

ForeverTFC wrote:
TimeForChange wrote:
ForeverTFC wrote:
What do you mean when you say tank in 2025? Tanking is purposeful. For us to tank, we'd have to trade at least one of Scottie/IQ/Barrett/Poeltl for no on-court return.

I think we are all unanimous that we want to build with Scottie and IQ. Barrett isn't in a place right now to get you a decent draft return despite his good showing with us; needs at least one more year of that and one less year on his contract before he becomes a real asset. So to tank, we would have to trade Poeltl.

I'm not against it mid-season tbh, especially if we have a prospect behind him. But I think it would be a mistake to go into the season with no C in order to up our draft stock 3-5 positions. To me, IQ learning how to run the pick and roll and Scottie continuing his defensive learnings by not having to guard Cs and being able to roam has a higher expected value than a tank that moves you up 3-5 spots at best

trade poeltl
don't bring back gary
take on bad contracts for picks

all 3 of those guarantee a top 10 pick in 2025

Do you think we don't get a top 10 pick with Poeltl? Unless Scottie or IQ go past expectations, I think we are already pretty much guaranteed a top 10.

I think by trading Poeltl without another a real C option, you stunt the growth of Scottie and IQ, and I would say that's not worth a couple more losses and a pick that's 2-3 spots higher.

I dont disagree entirely with this, but I dont think you need Jak to prevent stunting their growth. You can get a "worse" centre to fulfill the same role, while also not inflating the teams floor and costing some drafting position. Jak doesn't fit very well from a skill set perspective, but ignoring that entirely, he's at a point where his impact would be best placed on a contending/playoff team.

ArthurVandelay · Post #42 » by **ArthurVandelay** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 12:15 am

Pointgod wrote:Let’s look at the teams in the finals and their best players.

Luka - #3 overall pick
Kyrie- #1 overall pick
Tatum - #3 overall pick
Brown - #3 overall pick

Let’s look at last year - an anomaly for sure but

Jokic - 41st pick
Murray - 7th pick
Gordon - 4th pick

Butler -30th pick
Bam - 14th pick

Pretty obvious that you need high end talent just to get in the conversation in this league and the easiest way to get it is in the draft. All it takes to develop players is to give them minutes, no one says those minutes have to go to vets to develop as a team.

Strong vets have more value off the court than on imo. Show the young guys how to care for their bodies, be professional, emphasis on the right way to play, ie. how to stay in the league for a long time.

deck · Post #43 » by **deck** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 12:55 am

The organization has never outright tanked to start a season. It is naive to think that option is readily available to a FO that wants to stay employed.

Barnes is on record now saying he doesn't want to go through another season like last season, so it is also naive to think that he is going to be OK with the team purposefully tanking.

We spend a lot of time on RealGM advocating for tanking but yet spend very little time interrogating if that is actually a viable path for an organization that is bureaucratic, and for players that aren't losers that would be OK with conceding they are not good enough to win.

Dyehardrapsfan · Post #44 » by **Dyehardrapsfan** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 1:00 am

I was pump for the Raptors to add some free agents to make the team better but after reading a lot of the post, it makes sense to rebuild.

Keep core four and trade everything else for picks in this year or next draft even if we have to absorb a bad contract or two to get picks.

Core four:
Dick
RJ
Quickly
Barnes

JB7 · Post #45 » by **JB7** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 1:37 am

Pointgod wrote:Let’s look at the teams in the finals and their best players.

Luka - #3 overall pick
Kyrie- #1 overall pick
Tatum - #3 overall pick
Brown - #3 overall pick

Let’s look at last year - an anomaly for sure but

Jokic - 41st pick
Murray - 7th pick
Gordon - 4th pick

Butler -30th pick
Bam - 14th pick

Pretty obvious that you need high end talent just to get in the conversation in this league and the easiest way to get it is in the draft. All it takes to develop players is to give them minutes, no one says those minutes have to go to vets to develop as a team.

Hey, based on this argument, the Raps are already there as a contender :wink:

RJ 3rd overall pick
Scottie 4th overall pick

TheAlchemist23 · Post #46 » by **TheAlchemist23** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 1:45 am

I doubt MLSE would ever okay entering a season with the plan to tank. Maximizing ticket sales is all they care about. That being said this team has a massive talent deficiency both top end talent wise and depth wise. Obvious answer is accumulating top assets (tanking) but that's never gonna happen.

JB7 · Post #47 » by **JB7** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 2:13 am

TheAlchemist23 wrote:I doubt MLSE would ever okay entering a season with the plan to tank. Maximizing ticket sales is all they care about. That being said this team has a massive talent deficiency both top end talent wise and depth wise. Obvious answer is accumulating top assets (tanking) but that's never gonna happen.

The one positive with the parity around the league, combined with the lottery odds, is teams do not need to tank the full season for a shot at a decent pick. They can choose to tank hard halfway or even in the last third of the season, and put themselves in a position to get a high pick.

Indeed · Post #48 » by **Indeed** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 3:12 am

aminiaturebuddha wrote:
Indeed wrote:Said it multiple times, and discussed multiple times.
BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl is barely getting us to 500, so trading Siakam is clearly not going to put us above .500.
So what exactly is the expectation for retool with BBQ where we unlikely to make the play-in.

BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl played in exactly 4 games together (and were 3-1). I'm not sure that's really enough of a sample size to determine what kind of a record they would have had over a season. A 4-game sample size shouldn't be a starting point for a discussion on that issue.

iBall101 · Post #49 » by **iBall101** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 3:20 am

Tank.
The east is stacked with teams better then this current raptors squad. Pacers, Knicks, Celtics, Cavs, Magic, Sixers, Heat, Bucks, can even add the Hawks are levels ahead. I don't think we can compete with any of these teams with this current roster. Masai needs to tank and build through the lottery this time.

ConSarnit · Post #50 » by **ConSarnit** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 3:27 am

deck wrote:The organization has never outright tanked to start a season. It is naive to think that option is readily available to a FO that wants to stay employed.

Barnes is on record now saying he doesn't want to go through another season like last season, so it is also naive to think that he is going to be OK with the team purposefully tanking.

We spend a lot of time on RealGM advocating for tanking but yet spend very little time interrogating if that is actually a viable path for an organization that is bureaucratic, and for players that aren't losers that would be OK with conceding they are not good enough to win.

To those players I say: prove us wrong. If you are angry that the team is tanking then play well and stop the tank. And if you’re not good enough to stop the tank then maybe they need to look at their own games and see where they are failing,

Here’s the thing about tanking: if you actually have great players on your team they don’t let you tank because they are too good. The entire goal is to get a player(s) who is too good to tank with. If this seasons success lives or dies with keeping someone like Poeltl (the easiest target to trade for tanking purposes) then we have really big problems long term and will need the talent infusion tanking theoretically provides.

I do agree that we probably will not tank out of the gate (it’s not the FO’s m.o.). I will also say that most posters who are pro tank pretty much only advocate for getting rid of Poeltl so it’s not like we are stripping the team to the studs. I also don’t know if placating Barnes in the short term (next season) is wise given that he could top out at a #2/3 option, which is a level of player you can’t really build a contender with (hopefully he surpasses #2/3 but he hasn’t done so yet). I don’t think we should be doing anything to placate anyone on this team until they have proven they can actually carry the team to some degree.

ConSarnit · Post #51 » by **ConSarnit** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 3:46 am

deeps6x wrote:
Clutch0z24 wrote:No matter how bad some people want the team to be winners next season its just highly unlikely....We can't really retool in free agency when we are not a free agent destination, and we can't really retool with trades when we lack the assets...

We are stuck in a place right now where we just let BBQ/Dick get chemistry together even if we are not a winning team we just let them 4 grow....

Gotta make the right draft picks regardless if its a top 1-8 in the draft...We need to make the right picks and build up our assets and talent.

They really need a C more aligned with the ages of BBQ+Dick.

I think they should trade Poeltl to Memphis, as they are in a win now situation and need a C, and Poeltl wants to be on a win now team. I think a fair deal would be salary filler plus #9 and #39 for Poeltl.

Then we could draft whatever Masai finds more attractive at #9, a SF or a backup PG, (Holland/Castle/Knecht/Williams/Salaun/McCain/Carter), take Ware or Edey at #19, take Homes or Carrington (whichever drops) at #31, then use #39 on Sandfort or Scheierman, or even on Scottie's buddy Mogbo. Hell, I would even try to trade #31 to Portland for #34 and #40, just so I could land two of these three (or possibly Djurasic/Chomche).

Give all four picks decent minutes to grow with our core of BBQ+Dick, lose enough games to get a decent 2025 pick, and the rebuild will be complete.

The 2025 draft will be so stacked that people will be going back to college and stacking the 2026 draft as well, where we will also have 2 FRPs If Masai gets things right in this draft we will be set for future success. And will retain our financial flexibility as well.

But you've gotta move Poeltl now to make it all happen. And do NOT pick up Brown's option. It effectively nets us nothing. We don't need his crap contract to make a trade that will never happen. The fans don't want to watch him. Just dump that idea now Masai. And tell your lackey reporters to stop pushing the idea.

Man, if we came out of the draft with one of McCain/Carter/Knecht at #9 (the high floor, won't bust players).

With Ware or Edey at #19

With Homes or Carrington at #31 (or if neither are available, trade down with Portland and take...)

two of Sandfort/Scheierman/Mogbo/Djurisic/Chomche ....

Well lets just say I'd be super excited to watch this team grow together. With BBQ+Dick, these players, and the three FRPs in the next two stacked drafts, we'd very likely have a very good core of 7 players that every great team needs to win in the playoffs.

I think there are diminishing returns on having 4 picks in any draft, let alone a bad one. Even in bad drafts, historically the high end talent still goes in the top 15. If we have 3 picks outside of that range it becomes more and more difficult to identify talent and by the 39th pick we’d probably be drafting a player we’re not all that high on. Which team who has drafted 4 players in the same draft has ever come close to hitting on all 4?

We already know what this FO thinks of the later part of the draft. We traded a late 1st for Agbaji. That means there is a good chance they aren’t valuing the players past 25 any higher than Agbaji, who is already a flawed, borderline NBA player. So we’d have 31 and 39 to take swings on players worse than Agbaji? Then there is the issue of giving all 4 picks minutes, which rarely ever happens. If we are trading Poeltl (let’s say for Kennard, who makes less money) and cutting Brown that’s going to open salary that we’ll need to spend to hit the floor. So you’re still looking at:

IQ
Barrett
Barnes
Olynyk
Dick
#9
#19
Agbaji
Kennard (who is still playable)
Boucher
Filler FA to hit salary floor

Finding reasonable playing time with the big team, even if you get rid of Poeltl and Brown, isn’t going to be easy for 4 draft picks.

aminiaturebuddha · Post #52 » by **aminiaturebuddha** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 4:00 am

Indeed wrote:
aminiaturebuddha wrote:
Indeed wrote:Said it multiple times, and discussed multiple times.
BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl is barely getting us to 500, so trading Siakam is clearly not going to put us above .500.
So what exactly is the expectation for retool with BBQ where we unlikely to make the play-in.

BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl played in exactly 4 games together (and were 3-1). I'm not sure that's really enough of a sample size to determine what kind of a record they would have had over a season. A 4-game sample size shouldn't be a starting point for a discussion on that issue.

I found 11 games, and the record seems to be 4-7, would that be enough for a discussion on that issue now?
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585320 - Lost against Houston 106 - 135
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585338 - Lost against Oklahoma City 127 - 135 (OT)
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585354 - Win against Charlotte 123 - 127
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585372 - Win against Houston (no VanVleet) 107 - 104
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585384 - Lost against Cleveland 95 - 115
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585392 - Lost against San Antonio 99 - 122
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585410 - Lost against Indiana 125 - 127
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585423 - Win against Brooklyn 121 - 93
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585457 - Win against Indiana 130 - 122
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585472 - Lost against Dallas 125 - 130
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585488 - Lost against Golden States 105 - 120

Umm...you might want to check those links again. The first 5 that you posted were all from after the Raps traded Siakam. I didn't bother checking the rest.

But even if it had been 11 games with BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl I'm still not sure that would be enough to extrapolate to a full season with any confidence that it would give you an accurate indication of how a team would perform going forward.

Indeed · Post #53 » by **Indeed** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 5:14 am

aminiaturebuddha wrote:
Indeed wrote:
aminiaturebuddha wrote:
BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl played in exactly 4 games together (and were 3-1). I'm not sure that's really enough of a sample size to determine what kind of a record they would have had over a season. A 4-game sample size shouldn't be a starting point for a discussion on that issue.

I found 11 games, and the record seems to be 4-7, would that be enough for a discussion on that issue now?
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585320 - Lost against Houston 106 - 135
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585338 - Lost against Oklahoma City 127 - 135 (OT)
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585354 - Win against Charlotte 123 - 127
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585372 - Win against Houston (no VanVleet) 107 - 104
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585384 - Lost against Cleveland 95 - 115
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585392 - Lost against San Antonio 99 - 122
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585410 - Lost against Indiana 125 - 127
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585423 - Win against Brooklyn 121 - 93
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585457 - Win against Indiana 130 - 122
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585472 - Lost against Dallas 125 - 130
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585488 - Lost against Golden States 105 - 120

Umm...you might want to check those links again. The first 5 that you posted were all from after the Raps traded Siakam. I didn't bother checking the rest.

But even if it had been 11 games with BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl I'm still not sure that would be enough to extrapolate to a full season with any confidence that it would give you an accurate indication of how a team would perform going forward.

Why we include Siakam? The title is "retool", meaning based on without someone at the Siakam level and we add some talent.
If we are adding Siakam or equivalent level, we are changing our core, I suppose.

With that said, there is no point in "retool", because we are basically tanking even we "retool". We were 4-7 (or 4-6) with wins against mainly sub .500 teams, so adding some role players would make us 5-6? Getting a lottery pick in the 10th - 15th? Meaningless!

Indeed · Post #54 » by **Indeed** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 5:19 am

ruckus wrote:
Indeed wrote:Said it multiple times, and discussed multiple times.
BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl is barely getting us to 500, so trading Siakam is clearly not going to put us above .500.
So what exactly is the expectation for retool with BBQ where we unlikely to make the play-in.

They played in 4 games/53 minutes together. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that that 5 man lineup is barely getting them to 0.500.

But if we're making conclusions off of small sample sizes, Poeltl, Barnes, Barrett, Trent and Quickley had a Net Rating of 10.3 (119.4/109.2) in 164 minutes over 10 games. A 119.4 ORTG wouldn't been good for 3rd in the league and a 109.2 DRTG would've been good for 2nd.

So if they resign Trent, they're going to the Finals?

I am unsure how you can get 4 games/53 minutes together, then from your own stats, then 164 minutes over 10 games. So is it 4 games? Or is it 10 games?

I found 11 games (maybe it should be 10), and the record seems to be 4-7 (or 4-6).
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585320 - Lost against Houston 106 - 135
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585338 - Lost against Oklahoma City 127 - 135 (OT)
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585354 - Win against Charlotte 123 - 127
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585372 - Win against Houston (no VanVleet) 107 - 104
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585384 - Lost against Cleveland 95 - 115
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585392 - Lost against San Antonio 99 - 122
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585410 - Lost against Indiana 125 - 127
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585423 - Win against Brooklyn 121 - 93
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585457 - Win against Indiana 130 - 122
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585472 - Lost against Dallas 125 - 130
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585488 - Lost against Golden States 105 - 120

I am unsure how the NetRtg being that high, but pretty much with a lot of minutes already, meaning we can't fault the bench as they don't play a lot. Yet, the record is 4-6, and winning mainly against sub .500 teams.

Afterall, the question is, can they win more games? Regardless of NetRtg, I just don't see them winning half of the games, and don't see them being in the playoffs. So we should retool and get a pick in the range of 10th - 15th?

S.W.A.N · Post #55 » by **S.W.A.N** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 8:02 am

Need a third option...

Development year.

No tank. BBQ in full effect and we only add a few pieces around the margins.
Trade Brown for pieces-hopefully a pick.
Draft 2-3 guys and maybe a 4th drafted rookie on 2-way

In total we'll go looking for a backup pg and big man and more two way players. Then Scottie and team will be allowed to win as many games as they can. Which will probably be in the 35-45 win range depending on development/injuries etc.

At that point we'll know if BBQ is the real deal or if big changes needed.

Post #56 » by **CPT** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 8:34 am

I'm pro tank, but I've never wanted an extended stretch of tanking. That **** gets old quick.

Once a team has shown its ceiling is low and/or underachieved, you should bottom out for a year. Maybe two. See what you have, and go from there. Don't make win now moves, but you don't have to have a fire sale either. You can sign vets, but development should be prioritized. Year 3/4, with a decent core, you can start the "building" part of "rebuilding." Still trying not to mortgage the future, but make moves in the interest of being competitive now or soon.

I don't actually know what stage we are in.

The Tampa year was unplanned in more ways than one. In a way it should have been a "free" tank. I think the team treated it as such, but went right back into win now mode instead of recognizing that the team had a low ceiling. Selling on OG, FVV, and Pascal at that point could have really set us up nicely. I think they thought we had a shot at recasting the championship team, with OG/Scottie possibly combining to be a Kawhi, but underestimated the impact of the loss of depth.

We had our second chance to tank last year and whiffed again. Wemby was never guaranteed, but I'd still trade our whole team for a 10-20% chance at him (and you wouldn't even have had to do that). It's not clear if that *only* set us back 3ish years or 5+. The "Scottie Era" could very well amount to nothing because of that decision.

So now we're looking at tanking in Scottie's 4th year, which is not ideal, but not the worst. The problem is the "core" is extremely weak, and it's not like we're flush with assets either. Scottie is good, but it's not clear if he's "best player on a championship team" good or just top 30-40 player good. IQ is fine, but I'm not sure he'll be much more than an average starter (at a position where you probably want to be above average). Gradey is also fine, but I'm not sure what people are expecting from him. Putting him in the "core four" seems aggressive. I still think RJ is kind of bad, but there could be room to improve. It's hard to imagine him sustaining some of the shooting numbers he had, but also worrying that even with those numbers his advanced stats weren't particularly impressive. For me, it matched the eye test that the numbers were kind of "empty" and he wasn't having a huge impact on team success.

I would full on tank this year. This includes the possibility of trading anyone we don't expect to be on the next successful version of the team for draft capital, even in this "weak" draft. I would like to get some young depth and start developing them now so we don't have an extended stay at the bottom of the table.

aminiaturebuddha · Post #57 » by **aminiaturebuddha** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 2:00 pm

Indeed wrote:
aminiaturebuddha wrote:
Indeed wrote:
I found 11 games, and the record seems to be 4-7, would that be enough for a discussion on that issue now?
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585320 - Lost against Houston 106 - 135
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585338 - Lost against Oklahoma City 127 - 135 (OT)
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585354 - Win against Charlotte 123 - 127
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585372 - Win against Houston (no VanVleet) 107 - 104
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585384 - Lost against Cleveland 95 - 115
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585392 - Lost against San Antonio 99 - 122
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585410 - Lost against Indiana 125 - 127
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585423 - Win against Brooklyn 121 - 93
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585457 - Win against Indiana 130 - 122
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585472 - Lost against Dallas 125 - 130
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585488 - Lost against Golden States 105 - 120

Umm...you might want to check those links again. The first 5 that you posted were all from after the Raps traded Siakam. I didn't bother checking the rest.

But even if it had been 11 games with BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl I'm still not sure that would be enough to extrapolate to a full season with any confidence that it would give you an accurate indication of how a team would perform going forward.

Why we include Siakam? The title is "retool", meaning based on without someone at the Siakam level and we add some talent.
If we are adding Siakam or equivalent level, we are changing our core, I suppose.

With that said, there is no point in "retool", because we are basically tanking even we "retool". We were 4-7 (or 4-6) with wins against mainly sub .500 teams, so adding some role players would make us 5-6? Getting a lottery pick in the 10th - 15th? Meaningless!

Why are we including Siakam? Because your original post was "BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl". And then you took that to suggest that if that group couldn't get to .500 (which was actually incorrect because they went 3-1), then this current team won't. It's pretty obvious. Don't you remember what you wrote?

Scase · Post #58 » by **Scase** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 2:14 pm

deck wrote:The organization has never outright tanked to start a season. It is naive to think that option is readily available to a FO that wants to stay employed.

Barnes is on record now saying he doesn't want to go through another season like last season, so it is also naive to think that he is going to be OK with the team purposefully tanking.

We spend a lot of time on RealGM advocating for tanking but yet spend very little time interrogating if that is actually a viable path for an organization that is bureaucratic, and for players that aren't losers that would be OK with conceding they are not good enough to win.

To be blunt, who cares? Who cares if a player doesn't want to tank. No player is going to admit they arent good enough to get a team to win, doesn't change reality.

Teenagers think they are invincible, and yet parent spend tons of effort keeping the idiots alive. Doctors tell you to take the antibiotics until they run out, even if you dont need it, and so on.

There's a whole myriad of things people do, and need to do, even if they don't think they should, and we've all seen how some players would build teams.

Scottie is under contract control for many more years, and is in line for a massive 200-250mil contract, he's not going anywhere. And quite frankly, he's less of a long term flight risk if you can turn those bad years into great years further on, rather than mid years as is most likely.

Indeed · Post #59 » by **Indeed** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 2:37 pm

aminiaturebuddha wrote:
Indeed wrote:
aminiaturebuddha wrote:
Umm...you might want to check those links again. The first 5 that you posted were all from after the Raps traded Siakam. I didn't bother checking the rest.

But even if it had been 11 games with BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl I'm still not sure that would be enough to extrapolate to a full season with any confidence that it would give you an accurate indication of how a team would perform going forward.

Why we include Siakam? The title is "retool", meaning based on without someone at the Siakam level and we add some talent.
If we are adding Siakam or equivalent level, we are changing our core, I suppose.

With that said, there is no point in "retool", because we are basically tanking even we "retool". We were 4-7 (or 4-6) with wins against mainly sub .500 teams, so adding some role players would make us 5-6? Getting a lottery pick in the 10th - 15th? Meaningless!

Why are we including Siakam? Because your original post was "BBQ + Siakam + Poeltl". And then you took that to suggest that if that group couldn't get to .500 (which was actually incorrect because they went 3-1), then this current team won't. It's pretty obvious. Don't you remember what you wrote?

I guess I mixed up with another reply regarding the record without Siakam.
As for the record with Siakam, these are the games:
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585132 - Win against Golden States
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585120 - Lost against Sacramento
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585098 - Win against Memphis
https://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore/_/gameId/401585080 - Win against Cleveland

I am unsure these wins translate us being in the top half of the conference, definitely in the playoffs, however, that requires Trent and Schroder to be contributor. Assume Dick takes over Trent, we will still need someone at the level of Schroder, and we are most likely a tax team being just in the top 4 (in our conference) consideration.

It is also easy to say in finding Siakam level replacement, and their price tag is definitely a max contract. If people don't want to pay Siakam, I doubt we want to pay someone that much as well.

dhackett1565 · Post #60 » by **dhackett1565** » Mon Jun 3, 2024 2:59 pm

Ultimately this question is "trade Jak or keep him" and then all the moves that go with that.

Personally, I think Scottie is ready now, and if they have a chance to add talent around him they should take it, and in the same vein they should keep Jak.

But Scottie's age does give them a window where they can sign him longer term, take a year or two of not winning much, and try to build up from there. It's just tough, because wait too long and suddenly you are approaching free agency again with the players you have here and either it gets expensive fast or you lose guys. And waiting doesn't guarantee they add useful players through the draft - just gives them an increased chance to do so.

I'd hesitate to trade picks out at this stage - better to keep the powder dry on that front in case there is a big trade to be made later, and to use current picks to add prospects that have a chance to be part of the core moving forward. But using cap room/exceptions to add talent, and retaining the talent they have? I do think that's the way to go.