HumbleRen wrote:SpezNc wrote:HumbleRen wrote:
This is what we said with Siakam and we got fleeced for that.
People overestimate the value of an expiring contract. These teams do not want to hit the 2nd apron for the likes of Bruce Brown.
We either get peanuts for him or just simply let him expire.
Siakam is a lower end max player somewhat under appreciated in the NBA.
The return was not good but the reality is that there was not a lot of interest in Siakam .
Especially since he said he would not sign with the team that acquired him
Basically he chose Indiana. Indiana chose the price .
Not much else to say .
He got leverage because we let it happen that way. Either way, that’s not the point.
To really create leverage we needed to sign Pascal to an extension - I don’t think he wanted it, except for the max or supermax, which would'vebeen worse. I could be wrong here?
We could have traded him in the summer to Atlanta for a worse return based on the rumours. Perhaps I missed some rumours about this?
We could've traded him at the deadline instead of trading for Poeltl. I may misremember, but I think the return was only 2 picks, 3 were offered only for OG. So that's a worse return too , did I forget anything?
So realistically, to get a better return, (unless I forgot or missed something) they would have had to trade Pascal and blow up the team right after our last playoff series against Philly. I don’t think that was going to happen, the team was doing good at the time. I don't see MLSE approving such a move, it doesn't sound like a Raptors thing to do. You think MLSE would've approved?
