Monitoring the Trade: Rob Dillingham for Jakob Poeltl

[Scase]

You're just sitting here making up scenarios to prove an imaginary point. I love this.

Ehhh, as someone who lurks more than they post (until recently), I've definitely seen this mentality. TWO was big on that, critiquing every move as an attempt of treadmilling until they ended up getting better and better and better. Scottie hate, the Siakam pick hate, etc. There are definitely people who just crap on everything until they end up being right, but that's not an accomplishment. It's like picking C for every question on a test and getting a few right. Like sure, but you were only right out of sheer luck.

And no, I'm not going to scour the forums years in the past and start building out timelines for specific users bc who would be a big enough psycho to do that work.

yeah everything went so right the last couple of years we were a 25 win team that just started a rebuild, is already pressured to win with a thin pool of talent.
if anyone is right due to sheer luck its the people who praise the FO for everything, and they end up half-right sometimes, because the FO also got a bit lucky. You are not going to find some master plan, since everything up till this year is like adding a deck to a collapsing house. This is like telling whistle blowers they are just being "negative".

Hey, pipe down negative Nancy! You want a reputation or something?!

But yeah, I'm not disputing there are some people that claim everything is bad, no different than there are people who claim everything is good.

But to try and pull out that weak ass excuse when what this team has been doing for at least 2 years, has been objectively bad, is just a terrible attempt to explain everything away as whining.

"This gas line has a leak, we should do something."
"Shut up whiner, you're always complaining"

Boom

Man, sure is a good thing they put him in his place.

[Scase]

There's no need to throw around absolutes, it detracts from your point.

Lol. Scase trying to edify people on the danger of speaking in absolutes. Your lack of self awareness is incredible.

Let's try to stay on topic instead of personal attacks, shall we?

Did you miss this part too?

[Tripod]

To assume there's some kind of unified group of posters who will unanimously hate every move made by the FO doesn't seem right. Even amongst those who have been highly critical of the FO there is infighting and major differences of opinion. If Masai actually makes what seems to be a smart move then the people you think are part of this contingent will praise him for it and your remark disproven.

I openly praised the FO for their use of 2nd rounders this year despite what I view as the Filipowski blip yet I have people who claim I'm negative all the time. I just call it as I see it. Perhaps I overanalyze things but that's what you're supposed to do when contributing to a discussion forum in my eyes.

I didn't say unified. But there is a large group of posters who generally react negatively to every move, at least to start.

So saying "well generally the Poeltl trade was viewed negatively" doesn't mean much. Pretty much every move on this forum is viewed negatively at first.

The irony of two of the most widely perceived negative and combative posters having this debate with me is not lost on me.

Oh look, there's that bias again!

He is not wrong.

Lol

[deck]

There's no need to throw around absolutes, it detracts from your point.

Lol. Scase trying to edify people on the danger of speaking in absolutes. Your lack of self awareness is incredible.

Let's try to stay on topic instead of personal attacks, shall we?

Did you miss this part too?

Nope. I read that part. I just find it interesting that you embody so many of the qualities that you are often critiquing in others.

[Duffman100]

Team "toxic positive" also told people to just be patient on the Quickley deal and wait for the numbers to come out. Which some people, ahem, didn't do.

A lot of the time, it isn't "this move was good". It's "just wait a few minutes and see how it turns out" before claiming it's awful.

[Raps in 4]

Team "toxic positive" also told people to just be patient on the Quickley deal and wait for the numbers to come out. Which some people, ahem, didn't do.

A lot of the time, it isn't "this move was good". It's "just wait a few minutes and see how it turns out" before claiming it's awful.

There is really no scenario in which this trade was good. A rebuilding team had no business trading a top-10 pick (and 2x SRPs) for a middling, 28 year-old C on an expiring contract.

The only positive we can take away from this is that it might not be as bad as it initially looked. I'd still rather have a prospect to grow with our young core instead of a now-29 year-old C, but none of the players taken at #8 and later look like future stars out of the gate.

[Duffman100]

Team "toxic positive" also told people to just be patient on the Quickley deal and wait for the numbers to come out. Which some people, ahem, didn't do.

A lot of the time, it isn't "this move was good". It's "just wait a few minutes and see how it turns out" before claiming it's awful.

There is really no scenario in which this trade was good. A rebuilding team had no business trading a top-10 pick (and 2x SRPs) for a middling, 28 year-old C on an expiring contract.

The only positive we can take away from this is that it might not be as bad as it initially looked. I'd still rather have a prospect to grow with our young core instead of a now-29 year-old C, but none of the players taken at #8 and later look like future stars out of the gate.

Oh I'm not saying the trade was good.

[Scase]

Team "toxic positive" also told people to just be patient on the Quickley deal and wait for the numbers to come out. Which some people, ahem, didn't do.

A lot of the time, it isn't "this move was good". It's "just wait a few minutes and see how it turns out" before claiming it's awful.

I still think the contract was an overpay, it's just structured better than anticipated. The numbers coming out changed very little, a little more flexibility, but it's still 175mil, this is a terrible example.

Also the Jak trade was never good, there was no scenario where it was going to end up positively. Team toxic positivity are not the people saying "give it a second", team toxic positivity are on full display in this thread where they continue to defend it despite every single sign pointing otherwise.

People can be positive or negative, the issue is the people who are unwilling to re-adjust their POV on it when they were wrong. I was wrong about wanting Suggs, I might be wrong about RJ, that one is still pending. There is no shame in being wrong, there is shame in being unwilling to change your opinion on something

But it makes it an awfully hard situation to have a genuine discussion when someone like you is just throwing around blanket statements because you are wildly biased.

But again, to circle back for like the 7th time now. That doesn't make it a call in hindsight, just because you have a bias.

[Tripod]

The part that is ignored....we have no idea if MLSE pushed Masai to try and make the playoffs to try and recoup lost revenue thru the covid years.

Even if the deal didn't make sense at the time to us considering where we were in the standings, Yak did fill a need we had for multiple years. A hole we we again would have if we traded him.

And even with the pick being high, SA deemed no one worthy of being a running mate of Wemby and were willing to punt the punt the 6 years down the road where for all we know, could be a mid to late 1st.

And Yak is still an asset we could move if they choose.....but I still won't be shocked if he is re-signed when the time comes. It's not like the asset is gone.

[REJECTEDBYCLARK]

The part that is ignored....we have no idea if MLSE pushed Masai to try and make the playoffs to try and recoup lost revenue thru the covid years.

Even if the deal didn't make sense at the time to us considering where we were in the standings, Yak did fill a need we had for multiple years. A hole we we again would have if we traded him.

And even with the pick being high, SA deemed no one worthy of being a running mate of Wemby and were willing to punt the punt the 6 years down the road where for all we know, could be a mid to late 1st.

And Yak is still an asset we could move if they choose.....but I still won't be shocked if he is re-signed when the time comes. It's not like the asset is gone.

Idk Yak played like booty cheeks this past season. Have to hope that with more familiarity with Darko's system and roster stability that he produces more in line w whats to be expected of prime seasons.

[ConSarnit]

Team "toxic positive" also told people to just be patient on the Quickley deal and wait for the numbers to come out. Which some people, ahem, didn't do.

A lot of the time, it isn't "this move was good". It's "just wait a few minutes and see how it turns out" before claiming it's awful.

There is really no scenario in which this trade was good. A rebuilding team had no business trading a top-10 pick (and 2x SRPs) for a middling, 28 year-old C on an expiring contract.

The only positive we can take away from this is that it might not be as bad as it initially looked. I'd still rather have a prospect to grow with our young core instead of a now-29 year-old C, but none of the players taken at #8 and later look like future stars out of the gate.

Oh I'm not saying the trade was good.

Multiple posters in this thread are saying the Poeltl deal is STILL not bad for us or are arguing that it’s only bad in hindsight? What exactly should the response to those posters be when we have actual evidence of being against the Poeltl trade from the start? Should we just say “no worries guys, you’re right! We don’t want to be negative and correct you with actual evidence! Carry on with your continued dumb justifications for the trade!” In regard to negative posters, I agree they can go overboard at times but given the state of this team the past 3 years what exactly should we be cheering about? Our non-playoff appearances and loss of draft picks? Or is that too “negative”?

[Duffman100]

There is really no scenario in which this trade was good. A rebuilding team had no business trading a top-10 pick (and 2x SRPs) for a middling, 28 year-old C on an expiring contract.

The only positive we can take away from this is that it might not be as bad as it initially looked. I'd still rather have a prospect to grow with our young core instead of a now-29 year-old C, but none of the players taken at #8 and later look like future stars out of the gate.

Oh I'm not saying the trade was good.

Multiple posters in this thread are saying the Poeltl deal is STILL not bad for us or are arguing that it’s only bad in hindsight? What exactly should the response to those posters be when we have actual evidence of being against the Poeltl trade from the start? Should we just say “no worries guys, you’re right! We don’t want to be negative and correct you with actual evidence! Carry on with your continued dumb justifications for the trade!” In regard to negative posters, I agree they can go overboard at times but given the state of this team the past 3 years what exactly should we be cheering about? Our non-playoff appearances and loss of draft picks? Or is that too “negative”?

What are you even arguing?

[YogurtProducer]

There is really no scenario in which this trade was good. A rebuilding team had no business trading a top-10 pick (and 2x SRPs) for a middling, 28 year-old C on an expiring contract.

The only positive we can take away from this is that it might not be as bad as it initially looked. I'd still rather have a prospect to grow with our young core instead of a now-29 year-old C, but none of the players taken at #8 and later look like future stars out of the gate.

Oh I'm not saying the trade was good.

Multiple posters in this thread are saying the Poeltl deal is STILL not bad for us or are arguing that it’s only bad in hindsight? What exactly should the response to those posters be when we have actual evidence of being against the Poeltl trade from the start? Should we just say “no worries guys, you’re right! We don’t want to be negative and correct you with actual evidence! Carry on with your continued dumb justifications for the trade!” In regard to negative posters, I agree they can go overboard at times but given the state of this team the past 3 years what exactly should we be cheering about? Our non-playoff appearances and loss of draft picks? Or is that too “negative”?

It might be bad, but not nearly to the depths some posters try to make it out to be.

We are talking a SINGLE first round pick in weak ass draft, and we have people legitimately saying it put the franchise back 3 to 5 years.

[DreamTeam09]

Oh I'm not saying the trade was good.

Multiple posters in this thread are saying the Poeltl deal is STILL not bad for us or are arguing that it’s only bad in hindsight? What exactly should the response to those posters be when we have actual evidence of being against the Poeltl trade from the start? Should we just say “no worries guys, you’re right! We don’t want to be negative and correct you with actual evidence! Carry on with your continued dumb justifications for the trade!” In regard to negative posters, I agree they can go overboard at times but given the state of this team the past 3 years what exactly should we be cheering about? Our non-playoff appearances and loss of draft picks? Or is that too “negative”?

It might be bad, but not nearly to the depths some posters try to make it out to be.

We are talking a SINGLE first round pick in weak ass draft, and we have people legitimately saying it put the franchise back 3 to 5 years.

The Spurs traded the 24 1st & the 25 2nd & Birch is in Europe

[YogurtProducer]

Team "toxic positive" also told people to just be patient on the Quickley deal and wait for the numbers to come out. Which some people, ahem, didn't do.

A lot of the time, it isn't "this move was good". It's "just wait a few minutes and see how it turns out" before claiming it's awful.

I still think the contract was an overpay, it's just structured better than anticipated. The numbers coming out changed very little, a little more flexibility, but it's still 175mil, this is a terrible example.

I mean, other than the fact it is actually 162.5M and you claiming it to be 175 is exactly the point Duff was trying to make The numbers coming out actually changed quite a lot. 32.5/year flat is a lot different than raises ending up north of 40M in year 5.

Also the Jak trade was never good, there was no scenario where it was going to end up positively. Team toxic positivity are not the people saying "give it a second", team toxic positivity are on full display in this thread where they continue to defend it despite every single sign pointing otherwise.

No scenario? The fact you are still unable to even entertain the thought that there was possible upside is just ridiculous.

FVV/GTJ/OG/Siakam/Barnes and absolutely zero bench won 48 games. It is frankly, and I won't use the term I want to use, foolish to suggest there is "no scenario it was going to end up positively".

People can be positive or negative, the issue is the people who are unwilling to re-adjust their POV on it when they were wrong. I was wrong about wanting Suggs, I might be wrong about RJ, that one is still pending. There is no shame in being wrong, there is shame in being unwilling to change your opinion on something

Problem is you like to jump out in front and tell people how stupid they are before you give anything a chance. The way you act now, is the same way you act about Suggs or anything else. You like to act like you are 100% right and everyone else should bow down to your greatness.

But it makes it an awfully hard situation to have a genuine discussion when someone like you is just throwing around blanket statements because you are wildly biased.

LOL. This is ironic.

But again, to circle back for like the 7th time now. That doesn't make it a call in hindsight, just because you have a bias.

And you don't have bias? Again, you think your **** does not stink, yet based on how a large majority of this board cannot stand you - I would reconsider that notion.

[YogurtProducer]

Oh I'm not saying the trade was good.

Multiple posters in this thread are saying the Poeltl deal is STILL not bad for us or are arguing that it’s only bad in hindsight? What exactly should the response to those posters be when we have actual evidence of being against the Poeltl trade from the start? Should we just say “no worries guys, you’re right! We don’t want to be negative and correct you with actual evidence! Carry on with your continued dumb justifications for the trade!” In regard to negative posters, I agree they can go overboard at times but given the state of this team the past 3 years what exactly should we be cheering about? Our non-playoff appearances and loss of draft picks? Or is that too “negative”?

What are you even arguing?

the reality of the NBA is most draft picks don't pan out, most teams never win anything of substance, and every coach and GM outside a few are eventually going to be fired.

Being on the side of "this is not going to work out" about every move means you are going to be right the majority of the time. So really, it is not impressive at all to be negative - that is the reality for 29 franchises every single year.

[YogurtProducer]

Multiple posters in this thread are saying the Poeltl deal is STILL not bad for us or are arguing that it’s only bad in hindsight? What exactly should the response to those posters be when we have actual evidence of being against the Poeltl trade from the start? Should we just say “no worries guys, you’re right! We don’t want to be negative and correct you with actual evidence! Carry on with your continued dumb justifications for the trade!” In regard to negative posters, I agree they can go overboard at times but given the state of this team the past 3 years what exactly should we be cheering about? Our non-playoff appearances and loss of draft picks? Or is that too “negative”?

It might be bad, but not nearly to the depths some posters try to make it out to be.

We are talking a SINGLE first round pick in weak ass draft, and we have people legitimately saying it put the franchise back 3 to 5 years.

The Spurs traded the 24 1st & the 25 2nd & Birch is in Europe

damn, the Spurs set themselves back 7 years by getting rid of that pick

[Merit]

I don’t think anyone takes issue with the idea of putting a real 5 next to Barnes. The issue was fit (a front court of Poeltl/Siakam/Barnes was always a questionable offensive fit due to lack of shooting) and cost (even a slight adjustment to top 10 pick protection would have mitigated a bunch of risk). Centers or Poeltl’s ilk just don’t go for top 10 picks. Capela, Allen and Adams all went for a pick between 15-25 and as such we should have protected ourselves better. So not only did we bring in an ill-fitting C our downside on the cost was well above historical market costs for a C in the 12th-18th best center range. The best case outcome for the Poeltl trade would have been paying fair value (let’s say the 16th overall pick). If that’s the best case then that’s not a good trade to make, especially considering the easily foreseen offensive fit issues with Siakam and Barnes.

As for the Spurs not keeping the 8th pick, there are numerous reasons why they did not value that pick at this time. It’s a risk they can take given the stage they are at, the fact that they already picked 4th and the stage they presume to be at when those picks are due (Wemby’s prime when they will likely be very good). They didn’t dump the 8th pick, they’re still going to get value out of it (something we are not).

The fit is less questionable if you also have Fred and Gary (before he hadn’t developed enough) in the starting 5 to account for Jak’s inability to shoot and Pascal’s and Scottie’s inconsistency. We would also have Gradey off the bench still and would’ve hoped for shooting improvement from both Pascal and Scottie.

I agree we should have had better protection on the pick. We took a risk there and lost. IIRC the price for Poeltl set at the time was two firsts. We didn’t pay that. The price for non-shooting centers continues to drop and our plan was precisely the value that you shared - a mid-round first in a crappy draft. We were worse than expected due to losing a 5 win player in Fred, and as a result we ended up trading a pick 10 spots or so higher. Was it a good idea to have protections be as light as they were? No. Should’ve been top 10 protected in both years and converting to two seconds. Does that set us back 3-5 years? Hell no! Especially because we can still recoup value for Jak should we decide to trade him.

Who was Trent replacing in the starting lineup? Clearly he was the easy answer as to who was getting pushed out of the starting lineup. Even with FVV and Trent it’s almost impossible to have a good offense with 3 below average shooters at the 3-5. The only time anyone has ever been able to compensate for that lack of shooting is by having Steph and Klay in the backcourt.

How could you possibly include Dick in the plans? What was their plan if Dick was taken before 13th? You’re saying the front offices plan was to acquire Poeltl and know that Dick would for certain be available when we drafted 6 months later?

And yes, there might be a time where we recoup value for Poeltl but that doesn’t help us at all right now (or the past 2 years). But so far it’s put us in maybe the worst spot to be in the league for the past 2 seasons: 1 playin loss, 1 late lotto draft pick and completely losing another top 10 pick. We’ve not even sniffed the playoffs for 2 years and all we’ve walked away with is Dick. Objectively, I can’t think of a worse outcome for what was supposed to be a “win now” trade. I don’t know how far it set us back but it 100% set us back.

Imagine falling into a coma in 2022 and waking up today and finding out we missed the playoffs 2 years in a row and all we have to show for it is the 13th pick in 2023. Wouldn’t your first reaction be “what the hell happened?”

I agree that the trade wasn’t great, but it was fair value for a player like Poeltl at the time. I agree that it wasn’t the right thing for us to do, in hindsight. I don’t think it alone set us back. I think we should’ve started the tank a whole year earlier, but a tank is way riskier than player development and we had glaring holes on our team of which center was one and guard depth was the other.

As I said, the hope would have been that Scottie developed as a shooter and pascal improved a bit. In 2022 we thought Gary had another gear to get to.

I couldn’t have known we would get Gradey with our pick. We would’ve prioritized shooting - so Gradey was a best case scenario option for us and it happened.

I agree we would’ve been better if we started the tank earlier and I also shared why I thought that didn’t happen.

[CPT]

I actually think it’s more like 5 to 10 years, but don’t want to be dramatic.

Again, it’s not so much that a late lotto pick for Poeltl is terrible value in a vacuum, but the trade represents the failure to start the rebuild at the right time.

Scottie has already signed his extension and people are going into this season thinking we need to tank. If that doesn’t mean we’re set back 3-5 years, I don’t know what does. If we’re already back to being a playoff fixture with room to improve, I’ll be wrong. That’s fine.

The 5-10 years is based on the “Scottie Barnes era” never amounting to anything. Maybe that will have nothing to do with this trade, but I feel like it significantly reduced the chances.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

I actually think it’s more like 5 to 10 years, but don’t want to be dramatic.

Again, it’s not so much that a late lotto pick for Poeltl is terrible value in a vacuum, but the trade represents the failure to start the rebuild at the right time.

Scottie has already signed his extension and people are going into this season thinking we need to tank. If that doesn’t mean we’re set back 3-5 years, I don’t know what does. If we’re already back to being a playoff fixture with room to improve, I’ll be wrong. That’s fine.

The 5-10 years is based on the “Scottie Barnes era” never amounting to anything. Maybe that will have nothing to do with this trade, but I feel like it significantly reduced the chances.

They rode the season seat sales to max money. That's why they didn't start sooner.