Monitoring the Trade: Rob Dillingham for Jakob Poeltl

[Airmiess]

Trade is looking more digestible, I don’t know why Spurs did this. Perhaps I am missing something.

[Duffman100]

Trade is looking more digestible, I don’t know why Spurs did this. Perhaps I am missing something.

Someone brought up a good point of adding rookie scale contracts / depth when Wemby is making Max money. So you can add that cheap depth in a championship window

[dhackett1565]

I think the story of the Jak trade will be written based on what the timeline is for a Scottie-centric team, not so much based on what that pick could have been (there's always a chance that pick turns into a star but statistically speaking you will miss on that guy most of the time).

If the team is on the upswing either this year or next, Jak's contributions will be key to getting Scottie a competitive team ASAP. If the team is going to struggle into 2025-26, then the value of having Jak on the team is limited.

I suspect the intent right now (and I suspect it was the intent right from when they started considering moving on from the previous core) is that this rebuild around Scottie is a very short term one, with this one more year of a potential high pick, and a competitive team thereafter (if not sooner, in a scenario where a lot goes right this year). The win-now return for OG supports that theory, as does the flipping of one of the Pascal picks for a prospect further along the development curve (whether or not that works out).

Remove Jak from the team and we know what it will look like without a quality C to replace him. Which is a great argument for not having him here if the goal is to lose (which I know many are in favour of and the merits of which I can appreciate). But I don't think that's the goal - or at least, I don't think the Raptors view that as the appropriate path to getting to that goal. If they can be competitive around Scottie, I think they believe they should be, as soon as possible, within reasonable cost.

They kind of took a low asset cost approach to this summer, which makes me think they are not confident in being good right away - but they also didn't hold a fire sale, which makes me think they are confident they can be good very soon. If they are right, Jak's presence may yet pay off, even if they still need to backfill that position for the longer term.

[ConSarnit]

Trade is looking more digestible, I don’t know why Spurs did this. Perhaps I am missing something.

Someone brought up a good point of adding rookie scale contracts / depth when Wemby is making Max money. So you can add that cheap depth in a championship window

I would think there could be a variety of reasons the Spurs did it that would not have made sense for us.

-a pick swap is more likely to favor the Spurs when it comes due. Having Wemby in his prime probably means they’ll have a very good team which increases the swap odds in their favor

-unprotected pick at a time they’ll need cheap talent or need talent upgrades through trade to keep Wemby happy right at the point the “Wemby might want out” rumblings could happen (near the end of his first max and if they haven’t built a contender)

-already selected 4th in this draft and are not facing any real win now pressure, which makes trading the 8th pick easier to swallow

-maybe they just flat out didn’t like anyone in the 8-12 range and thought they’d be over-drafting someone just for the sake of making a pick

Trading the 8th pick is a risk but it makes more sense for the Spurs than it would have for us. It’s much easier to sell patience to your fan base when you just picked 4th.

[Duffman100]

Trade is looking more digestible, I don’t know why Spurs did this. Perhaps I am missing something.

Someone brought up a good point of adding rookie scale contracts / depth when Wemby is making Max money. So you can add that cheap depth in a championship window

I would think there could be a variety of reasons the Spurs did it that would not have made sense for us.

-a pick swap is more likely to favor the Spurs when it comes due. Having Wemby in his prime probably means they’ll have a very good team which increases the swap odds in their favor

-unprotected pick at a time they’ll need cheap talent or need talent upgrades through trade to keep Wemby happy right at the point the “Wemby might want out” rumblings could happen (near the end of his first max and if they haven’t built a contender)

-already selected 4th in this draft and are not facing any real win now pressure, which makes trading the 8th pick easier to swallow

-maybe they just flat out didn’t like anyone in the 8-12 range and thought they’d be over-drafting someone just for the sake of making a pick

Trading the 8th pick is a risk but it makes more sense for the Spurs than it would have for us. It’s much easier to sell patience to your fan base when you just picked 4th.

Yeah all of this makes a lot of sense.

[ConSarnit]

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?

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

[Duffman100]

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?

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

I was saying that using the argument of "The board was against the Poeltl trade when it happened" as some sort of meaningful argument falls flat because the board tends to be overwhelmingly negative, immediately, about every move. That was it, but Scase can never concede anything so it turned into a bigger conversation that spiralled.

[OakleyDokely]

There's really nothing to monitor.

If Dillingham becomes a bust, that makes the trade good? if Dillingham becomes Iverson that makes it the worst trade of all-time?

Poeltl was traded for an unknown protected top 6 1st and a couple seconds. As a whole, it's not bad value for a 27 year old starting caliber C. The problem with the trade was not what they gave up, it was the timing of the trade and the fact management overestimated the quality of their team.

Based on their moves since and their lack of activity this offseason, they've changed course and are focusing more on youth and development over immediate win now moves. It remains to be seen whether Poeltl will be part of this core or not, but given his age and reasonable contract, he still has value as an asset if they decide to move him.

[Duffman100]

There's really nothing to monitor.

And again, what do you monitor? Dillingham? The results of the trade (pick + swap)? The players after Dillingham but before Walter?

[REJECTEDBYCLARK]

There's really nothing to monitor.

If Dillingham becomes a bust, that makes the trade good? if Dillingham becomes Iverson that makes it the worst trade of all-time?

Poeltl was traded for an unknown protected top 6 1st and a couple seconds. As a whole, it's not bad value for a 27 year old starting caliber C. The problem with the trade was not what they gave up, it was the timing of the trade and the fact management overestimated the quality of their team.

Based on their moves since and their lack of activity this offseason, they've changed course and are focusing more on youth and development over immediate win now moves. It remains to be seen whether Poeltl will be part of this core or not, but given his age and reasonable contract, he still has value as an asset if they decide to move him.

dillingham is so different from iverson that i don't really understand why comparisons are made, he's not going to grade as well as a defender and is not a free throw merchant while at the same time he's less turnover prone and much more efficient of a scorer capable of playing within a team framework better. i think he ends up as lead guard version of tim hardaway jr. so for the sake of OP's reasoning chances are Poeltl is more valuable.

[OakleyDokely]

There's really nothing to monitor.

If Dillingham becomes a bust, that makes the trade good? if Dillingham becomes Iverson that makes it the worst trade of all-time?

Poeltl was traded for an unknown protected top 6 1st and a couple seconds. As a whole, it's not bad value for a 27 year old starting caliber C. The problem with the trade was not what they gave up, it was the timing of the trade and the fact management overestimated the quality of their team.

Based on their moves since and their lack of activity this offseason, they've changed course and are focusing more on youth and development over immediate win now moves. It remains to be seen whether Poeltl will be part of this core or not, but given his age and reasonable contract, he still has value as an asset if they decide to move him.

dillingham is so different from iverson that i don't really understand why comparisons are made, he's not going to grade as well as a defender and is not a free throw merchant while at the same time he's less turnover prone and much more efficient of a scorer capable of playing within a team framework better. i think he ends up as lead guard version of tim hardaway jr. so for the sake of OP's reasoning chances are Poeltl is more valuable.

I didn't really mean it as a direct style comparison, I just meant if Dillingham became a hall of fame level guard like Iverson.

[OakleyDokely]

There's really nothing to monitor.

And again, what do you monitor? Dillingham? The results of the trade (pick + swap)? The players after Dillingham but before Walter?

The 12 year old the Spurs traded for maybe?

[ItsDanger]

The real discussion should be around the terrible protection around that pick. At least other teams scale it after 1 year, Bobby didn't even bother. Terrible negotiations.

[ConSarnit]

What are you even arguing?

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

I was saying that using the argument of "The board was against the Poeltl trade when it happened" as some sort of meaningful argument falls flat because the board tends to be overwhelmingly negative, immediately, about every move. That was it, but Scase can never concede anything so it turned into a bigger conversation that spiralled.

Have to disagree here. Go back and read the Poeltl trade reaction thread, it’s split pretty evenly on opinions. I think it’s more than reasonable to bring up past board sentiment when someone is arguing that the Poeltl trade was only bad in hindsight. I get where you’re coming from in terms of being frustrated with negative sentiment but no one would have to bring up past board sentiment if there weren’t initially claims of “only being able to know this in hindsight”, which just wasn’t the case with the Poeltl trade. Now, if someone brings up board sentiment out of the blue I agree that position is not overly strong as an argument (and I am sure people are bringing it up out of the blue so I get where you are coming from in regards to those posters). Basically, using board sentiment as a response: can be legitimate. Unprompted: not such a great argument.

[Duffman100]

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

I was saying that using the argument of "The board was against the Poeltl trade when it happened" as some sort of meaningful argument falls flat because the board tends to be overwhelmingly negative, immediately, about every move. That was it, but Scase can never concede anything so it turned into a bigger conversation that spiralled.

Have to disagree here. Go back and read the Poeltl trade reaction thread, it’s split pretty evenly on opinions. I think it’s more than reasonable to bring up past board sentiment when someone is arguing that the Poeltl trade was only bad in hindsight. I get where you’re coming from in terms of being frustrated with negative sentiment but no one would have to bring up past board sentiment if there weren’t initially claims of “only being able to know this in hindsight”, which just wasn’t the case with the Poeltl trade. Now, if someone brings up board sentiment out of the blue I agree that position is not overly strong as an argument (and I am sure people are bringing it up out of the blue so I get where you are coming from in regards to those posters). Basically, using board sentiment as a response: can be legitimate. Unprompted: not such a great argument.

Except, again, then every move is bad in hindsight because people are viewing the trade as bad almost all of the time. You lose the hindsight aspect when you paint it that way.

If 10 boats pass by me and I'm not looking and I say every boat is red. Did I have hindsight that 2 of the boats were red?

[ciueli]

Trade is looking more digestible, I don’t know why Spurs did this. Perhaps I am missing something.

Someone brought up a good point of adding rookie scale contracts / depth when Wemby is making Max money. So you can add that cheap depth in a championship window

I would think there could be a variety of reasons the Spurs did it that would not have made sense for us.

-a pick swap is more likely to favor the Spurs when it comes due. Having Wemby in his prime probably means they’ll have a very good team which increases the swap odds in their favor

-unprotected pick at a time they’ll need cheap talent or need talent upgrades through trade to keep Wemby happy right at the point the “Wemby might want out” rumblings could happen (near the end of his first max and if they haven’t built a contender)

-already selected 4th in this draft and are not facing any real win now pressure, which makes trading the 8th pick easier to swallow

-maybe they just flat out didn’t like anyone in the 8-12 range and thought they’d be over-drafting someone just for the sake of making a pick

Trading the 8th pick is a risk but it makes more sense for the Spurs than it would have for us. It’s much easier to sell patience to your fan base when you just picked 4th.

You missed a few reasons:

- If the Spurs are planning to trade for a star to put next to Victor Wembanyama, it's arguably better for them to have a future unprotected pick + swap to trade than a player who may or may not turn into anything in the short term.

- Their team already has a ton of young players to develop along with more near future draft picks in better, stronger drafts. There's a limit to how many young players they can dedicate time, roster spots, and minutes to. If the Spurs want to be a better team sooner rather than later as we've heard they do, they can't just keep adding young players who might not contribute to wins for years because they'll just wind up rotting away in the G-League or on the bench as they play veterans instead.

I believe there's a good chance we'll see a consolidation trade by the Spurs at some point, they are probably waiting for the next star to become available then they will have a ton of assets to throw at the team who controls that players rights to outbid anyone else.

[Scase]

What are you even arguing?

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

I was saying that using the argument of "The board was against the Poeltl trade when it happened" as some sort of meaningful argument falls flat because the board tends to be overwhelmingly negative, immediately, about every move. That was it, but Scase can never concede anything so it turned into a bigger conversation that spiralled.

I'm more than happy to concede, if there was an actual argument made based in some version of reality.

Thread on the general board with most people outside of the raps forum who think it was an overpay/bad deal.

Welcome Back Jakob thread which is filled with mostly positive comments, including your own. And with the first post of the thread openly mocking people who were hoping for a different outcome at the deadline.

Skillset that isn't replicated anywhere on the roster.

Excited for his passing, screen setting and finishing great passes from Scottie.

Rate the trade thread with poll. 290 votes, 46% good, 32% bad, 22% abysmal.

Stein rumours thread about the Jak trade before it happened, this thread was overwhelmingly negative, it was also not negative posts from most the people one would typically expect. It was also legitimate criticism before the trade even went off, primarily centred on how us trading a FRP for him would be a stupid idea.

Sure doesn't jive with your "the board tends to be overwhelmingly negative, immediately, about every move." statement. So maybe before you try and claim someone else needs to concede, maybe you should use the search feature, instead of your memory.

And hilariously enough, the one overwhelmingly negative thread, all turned out to be accurate in the vast majority of the complaints. Play-in bound, treadmill move, makes no sense, shouldn't be trading draft capital, etc. And the usual suspects were there to defend it before it even happened.

But I'm sure this is all hindsight and rampant negativity right? Definitely not your bias

[Tha Cynic]

We're really overthinking this. It was a bad trade. Period. That team should have been blown up rather than have them trade for a big man who can't shoot or hit freethrows. The fit was always going to be bad and they should have been trading others for young players and picks.

Poeltl in a vacuum is a good player and he gives this team a big man they sorely lack. He's definitely not worth a top 8 pick though. If the Raptors tried to trade him today for that, teams would laugh at them

[DreamTeam09]

We're really overthinking this. It was a bad trade. Period. That team should have been blown up rather than have them trade for a big man who can't shoot or hit freethrows. The fit was always going to be has and they should have been trading others for young players and picks.

Poeltl in a vacuum is a good player and he gives this team a big man they sorely lack. He's definitely not worth a top 8 pick though. If the Raptors tried to trade him today for that, teams would laugh at them

We probably could've gotten 9 or 12 in this draft if we wanted for Jakob. In a weak draft he's worth that for sure,

[ForeverTFC]

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?

You were arguing that people were being overly negative when discussing the Poeltl trade. I am saying that some of those negative rebuttals are in response to those who still think the trade is good (or that it’s only bad in hindsight). Some of these “negative” posts are trying to point out that no, this trade was never good. The main point: if someone is arguing the Poeltl trade is fine how are we supposed to counter without sounding “negative”? It’s not all negativity for the sake of negativity. Some of it is. Some of it is valid criticism in response to posters who continue to defend the trade. Just because some posters are consistently negative does not mean everyone who has issues with this team should be painted with the same brush.

What’s illogical about saying it’s a bad trade in hindsight?

I believe the trade was ok when it was made. It was a projected non-lotto/back of lotto pick in a weak draft for a starting C. The team made that trade coming off a 5th seed, with the ROY, 1st time all star PG, a 3rd team all NBA guy, and the best 3+D guy in the league on its roster. It was underperforming and needed a jolt. I didn’t love it. But I also didn’t think it was horrendous.


Would I have thought the same if I knew FVV was a flight risk? Absolutely not. So in hindsight, bad trade.

You may disagree with my read of the situation, but you can’t argue the logic of it.