Monitoring the Trade: Rob Dillingham for Jakob Poeltl

[Merit]

Regarding the FO pivoting from shooting bigs - Serge was supposed to be a PF but he was too slow so we moved him to C. Agreed he can shoot. Marc Gasol never shot well for us, and in theory he could shoot - but the reality never happened. I’m not even going to talk about baynes because he was a complete flop. Well intentioned given his previous seasons performance, but a flop nonetheless.

Please tell me what stretch big was available in lieu of Poeltl. If we’re doing revisionist history again, the best who might have been available from my memory was Myles Turner. I don’t think the picks and protections we used for Poeltl get it done for him. Not sure why you’re so insistent on ignoring the issues that were raised at the time - including culture, locker room, Fred and Nurse. As I keep saying over, and over and over again - our lineup with Fred/OG/Scottie/Pascal/Poeltl was the plan. Since Fred didn’t return and that was both sudden and unexpected - instead of knowing the depth pieces the FO may have acquired - we were left with Schroeder.

Can’t create a shooting c out of nowhere and magically send him to the Raps for scraps.

Many are hoping for a tank given next year’s deep draft. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be worrying about “gaping holes”. We still have Bruce Brown to trade and the most obvious trade may still happen with wiggins. Even if it doesn’t, this is a developmental year. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you.

The Bucks signed Bobby Portis for barely above the minimum and we signed Aaron Baynes at over 2x the price. It's been years of other teams finding good rotation players for cheap and the Raptors overpaying for marginal talent or guys who shouldn't even be in the NBA anymore.

Myles Turner was very available, the asking price was 2 first round picks and we used those two picks on Thad Young and Jakob Poeltl instead, I think it would have made more sense to just pay up for Turner, an actual 3+D centre that would have fit perfectly on our team. I guess it would have cost us the flexibility to keep guys like Chris Boucher or Khem Birch, or sign Otto Porter Jr. in free agency, what a disaster that would have been.

Any way you look at it they've failed for years at putting together a decent team without glaring weaknesses.

Haters gonna hate.

[Merit]

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.

I’m not saying that thinking it was a bad trade in hindsight is irrational. That’s a complete rational position. I’m saying that arguing that it was only a bad trade in hindsight (like some are doing here) is just false as many were saying it was bad at the time it was made.

We were also 4 games under .500 at the time of the trade which is one of the main cruxes of the “we shouldn’t have made the trade” argument. The argument that the trade made sense holds less water when the team was already in the midst of failing during the ‘22/23 season. At that point it was just dumb to chase the play-in. The trade would have made more sense had it been done at the start of the year or after the season, not in the middle of a somewhat lost season. It wasn’t a terrible trade but it was not good especially factoring in Poeltl’s questionable offensive fit with Siakam and Barnes. Hindsight: bad trade. At the moment: bad trade.

Disagree. Of course this is my opinion but it seems reasonable given how the events played out. The reason for my disagreeing is that the trade was made with a purpose. The purpose was to bring the band together. More specifically, to convince Fred/Nick to stick around. We were in the midst of an average season, and we wanted to develop the kids more and tank, but Fred and Nick wanted to win. To appease them both, the trade was made.

In hindsight, the trade didn’t work well for us. At the time, the logic was sound because we had no C and were begging for one. We lost because of a lack of guard play and because of Embiid injuring Scottie with his usual flailing of legs and limbs. We lost even more to a godfather offer for Fred from Houston.

The trade can still be neutral. We can still win. Having Poeltl did not set the franchise back years. All it did was lose one pick in a crappy draft. (Edit: where we picked 4!! Players) Maybe Edey becomes the next Yao, or maybe Dillingham becomes the next Trae (or more likely Lou Will) but there will always be surprises in the draft before and after and we’re judged by the picks we did make and not the ones we couldn’t.

[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.

There is zero evidence that this trade alone will set us back 5-10 years. Regardless of conjecture there is no way to pin it all on one transaction. This one is only lopsided because of the plans shifting from when the trade was made.

You’re entitled to your feelings and I disagree.

No move in the NBA can set you back 5-10 years. The league is designed to allow for teams to recover from miss-steps quickly. The Nets made one of the worst trades of all time and were back within 5 years. Hell, we traded the pick that would have been used to draft Giannis and we all know how that turned out.

1. Were the Nets ever "back"? No 50 win seasons, no conference finals appearances, one second round appearance. I'll give you that they had the aura of a contender, which is what we're looking for. I'm not setting the bar at a championship, but you want to be in the mix.

2. When are you starting and stopping the clock? That 2014 trade for Pierce and Garnett to the 2020-21 season where KD actually played? Looks like 5+ years to me.

3. This is the worst trade in recent memory. It clearly set the Nets back 5 to 10 years - maybe more. At a certain point it stops making sense to talk about it in terms of years. The Poeltl trade is not as bad as the worst trade in recent memory. You got me there.

So the Poeltl trade was made at the 2023 deadline. When do you think we'll be "back"? 50 wins, conference finals, or generally recognized as a contender. This season? 2026? 2028? I'm leaning towards it not happening at all with this group, which is where the 5-10 years comes from. However, there are some obvious caveats. The first is that not making the Poeltl trade would have started the rebuild, so it's not really fair to start the clock in 2023, when that hypothetical team probably wouldn't have been good for years either. We should really be looking at the difference, but we don't get to actually see both. The second is that maybe this group doesn't get there regardless of the Poeltl trade. If we blew it up in 2023 to build around Scottie, but he's not a "build a contender around" level player, then none of this matters.

All of this 3-5, 5-10 year talk is just an attempt to illustrate how much worse of a situation we were put in by making this deal. I will repeat, it is not specifically about the deal of a first round pick for a starting center. The deal represents the decision to delay the rebuild. I'm going to continue discussing it in that manner, so if you disagree with the premise, just ignore it.

[YogurtProducer]

There is zero evidence that this trade alone will set us back 5-10 years. Regardless of conjecture there is no way to pin it all on one transaction. This one is only lopsided because of the plans shifting from when the trade was made.

You’re entitled to your feelings and I disagree.

No move in the NBA can set you back 5-10 years. The league is designed to allow for teams to recover from miss-steps quickly. The Nets made one of the worst trades of all time and were back within 5 years. Hell, we traded the pick that would have been used to draft Giannis and we all know how that turned out.

1. Were the Nets ever "back"? No 50 win seasons, no conference finals appearances, one second round appearance. I'll give you that they had the aura of a contender, which is what we're looking for. I'm not setting the bar at a championship, but you want to be in the mix.

2. When are you starting and stopping the clock? That 2014 trade for Pierce and Garnett to the 2020-21 season where KD actually played? Looks like 5+ years to me.

3. This is the worst trade in recent memory. It clearly set the Nets back 5 to 10 years - maybe more. At a certain point it stops making sense to talk about it in terms of years. The Poeltl trade is not as bad as the worst trade in recent memory. You got me there.

The Nets made the playoffs in 2013/14 and 2014/15 after making those trades... missed the playoffs for 3, and were back in the playoffs by 2018/19 and were literally an inch away from the ECF in 2020/21.

Just because there was 7 years between playoff series wins, does not mean the trade set them back 7 years.

So the Poeltl trade was made at the 2023 deadline. When do you think we'll be "back"? 50 wins, conference finals, or generally recognized as a contender. This season? 2026? 2028? I'm leaning towards it not happening at all with this group, which is where the 5-10 years comes from. However, there are some obvious caveats. The first is that not making the Poeltl trade would have started the rebuild, so it's not really fair to start the clock in 2023, when that hypothetical team probably wouldn't have been good for years either. We should really be looking at the difference, but we don't get to actually see both. The second is that maybe this group doesn't get there regardless of the Poeltl trade. If we blew it up in 2023 to build around Scottie, but he's not a "build a contender around" level player, then none of this matters.

And where would we be if the Poeltl trade wasn't made? 50 wins, conference finals or a contender? It STILL would be leaning towards it not happening, because that is the reality of most rebuilds.

All of this 3-5, 5-10 year talk is just an attempt to illustrate how much worse of a situation we were put in by making this deal. I will repeat, it is not specifically about the deal of a first round pick for a starting center. The deal represents the decision to delay the rebuild. I'm going to continue discussing it in that manner, so if you disagree with the premise, just ignore it.

So 12 months. It delayed it 12 months. Poeltl was traded here Feb 2023, and OG/Siakam were gone by Jan 2024. A whole whopping 11-12 months.

The assets we "lost out on" were never going to materially change anything. Especially when if we tank this year and end up with Flagg instead of last year and getting Sarr it is hard to say we really lost out on anything at all.

[Los_29]

I can’t believe there are some people thinking the Poeltl trade set us back 5-10 years. That’s outrageous.

[YogurtProducer]

I can’t believe there are some people thinking the Poeltl trade set us back 5-10 years. That’s outrageous.

And to quadruple down on it

[Los_29]

I can’t believe there are some people thinking the Poeltl trade set us back 5-10 years. That’s outrageous.

And to quadruple down on it

It’s actually impossible to justify.

[OAKLEY_2]

I can’t believe there are some people thinking the Poeltl trade set us back 5-10 years. That’s outrageous.

And to quadruple down on it

It’s actually impossible to justify.

But wait this thread claims we flipped Poetl for Rob Dillingham? I checked and is fake news. Poetl still is a Raptor and Dillingham is in Minny. Some posters just got to dump on Poetl because Betting Freddy or Max Trashkal are ggone so.. Poetl ya him is the new fixation of glass half full traps fans who would like to tank for draft picks to make up two rosters.

[WaltFrazier]

For reference, how many legit stretch 5s are there in the league? Starter level I mean, not Kelly O level.

Embiid, Joker , Turner, AD, who else. Lopez is pretty much washed. I'm sure I'm forgetting some but it's not like enough in the league for every team to have one. If you don't you have to find a center who does other things besides threes.

[Los_29]

For reference, how many legit stretch 5s are there in the league? Starter level I mean, not Kelly I level.

Embiid, Joker , Turner, AD, who else. Lopez is pretty much washed. I'm sure I'm forgetting some but it's not like enough in the league for every team to have one. If you don't you have to find a center who does other things besides threes.

This is a good point. They are very hard to find. And some of the centers who are stretch 5s can’t play defense. So what you gain on the offensive end, you lose on the defensive end.

Dallas did a good job going out and getting Gafford and drafting Lively. Neither of those guys are stretch 5s but they defend, rebound and can finish in the paint.

No reason why a team can’t do well with centers like that.

[CPT]

No move in the NBA can set you back 5-10 years. The league is designed to allow for teams to recover from miss-steps quickly. The Nets made one of the worst trades of all time and were back within 5 years. Hell, we traded the pick that would have been used to draft Giannis and we all know how that turned out.

1. Were the Nets ever "back"? No 50 win seasons, no conference finals appearances, one second round appearance. I'll give you that they had the aura of a contender, which is what we're looking for. I'm not setting the bar at a championship, but you want to be in the mix.

2. When are you starting and stopping the clock? That 2014 trade for Pierce and Garnett to the 2020-21 season where KD actually played? Looks like 5+ years to me.

3. This is the worst trade in recent memory. It clearly set the Nets back 5 to 10 years - maybe more. At a certain point it stops making sense to talk about it in terms of years. The Poeltl trade is not as bad as the worst trade in recent memory. You got me there.

The Nets made the playoffs in 2013/14 and 2014/15 after making those trades... missed the playoffs for 3, and were back in the playoffs by 2018/19 and were literally an inch away from the ECF in 2020/21.

Just because there was 7 years between playoff series wins, does not mean the trade set them back 7 years.

So the Poeltl trade was made at the 2023 deadline. When do you think we'll be "back"? 50 wins, conference finals, or generally recognized as a contender. This season? 2026? 2028? I'm leaning towards it not happening at all with this group, which is where the 5-10 years comes from. However, there are some obvious caveats. The first is that not making the Poeltl trade would have started the rebuild, so it's not really fair to start the clock in 2023, when that hypothetical team probably wouldn't have been good for years either. We should really be looking at the difference, but we don't get to actually see both. The second is that maybe this group doesn't get there regardless of the Poeltl trade. If we blew it up in 2023 to build around Scottie, but he's not a "build a contender around" level player, then none of this matters.

And where would we be if the Poeltl trade wasn't made? 50 wins, conference finals or a contender? It STILL would be leaning towards it not happening, because that is the reality of most rebuilds.

All of this 3-5, 5-10 year talk is just an attempt to illustrate how much worse of a situation we were put in by making this deal. I will repeat, it is not specifically about the deal of a first round pick for a starting center. The deal represents the decision to delay the rebuild. I'm going to continue discussing it in that manner, so if you disagree with the premise, just ignore it.

So 12 months. It delayed it 12 months. Poeltl was traded here Feb 2023, and OG/Siakam were gone by Jan 2024. A whole whopping 11-12 months.

The assets we "lost out on" were never going to materially change anything. Especially when if we tank this year and end up with Flagg instead of last year and getting Sarr it is hard to say we really lost out on anything at all.

Oh wow, they made the playoffs in 14 and 15 and were back in 19? Should we throw a parade? Should we invite Keith Van Horn?

I'm not the one comparing the Poeltl trade to the Pierce/KG one, but if we can't agree that the latter set the Nets back so far that they still haven't recovered then there's no discussion to be had. The Poeltl trade did not do that kind of damage, but if we cannot agree that that kind of effect is even possible, then there's no point.

I haven't set the bar that high for what it means to be a contender. 50 wins, conference finals appearance, or just "contender vibes" describes 8-10 teams every year. I guess you can still say that the "majority" of rebuilds don't get there, but I'm hoping we're not going to be one of the terrible teams that stays mid-to-bad for years at a time. This year, the list would have included OKC, Denver, Minny, LAC, Dallas, Boston, NY, and Indy. That's 8. You could talk me into "contender" status for Milwaukee and Philly, maybe even teams like Phoenix or the Lakers. It's not some unattainable standard.

It did not set back the team "11-12" months because of the importance of those months. I'd argue we were closer to being low enough for Wemby in 2023 than we will be in 2025 for Flagg, but even to take that as a possibility, by the time he's ready to actually be good, we'll be running into the same timeline stuff we did with Scottie and the old core. That's if Scottie is still willing to stick around after a few more losing seasons. If we didn't make that decision to delay the rebuild, we could be looking at turning things around now or 2025-26. Now we might be looking to start being bad (meaning for 2-3 years) - after already having been bad for 2 years with nothing to show for it.

If those events lead us to Cooper Flagg and he's awesome and ready to be an All-Star in year 2, all is forgiven. But it looks more like we're heading for years and years of being between 7/8th worst and the 7/8 seed. That may have been avoided by bottoming out earlier. The Poeltl trade represents the decision to not do that.

I can already tell there will be a reply saying there's no guarantee that would have worked, which is true. The whole point is there was a rebuild/compete fork in the road, and management took the wrong one. If they took the rebuild one and it still went wrong, we'd arguably still be in a better position than we are now in terms of future assets. It's not as simple as just saying they were one year late. That one year could have the effect of 3, 5, or 10+ like the Nets. Maybe it's just a bad way to describe it, but I don't know of a better way.

[DreamTeam09]

1. Were the Nets ever "back"? No 50 win seasons, no conference finals appearances, one second round appearance. I'll give you that they had the aura of a contender, which is what we're looking for. I'm not setting the bar at a championship, but you want to be in the mix.

2. When are you starting and stopping the clock? That 2014 trade for Pierce and Garnett to the 2020-21 season where KD actually played? Looks like 5+ years to me.

3. This is the worst trade in recent memory. It clearly set the Nets back 5 to 10 years - maybe more. At a certain point it stops making sense to talk about it in terms of years. The Poeltl trade is not as bad as the worst trade in recent memory. You got me there.

The Nets made the playoffs in 2013/14 and 2014/15 after making those trades... missed the playoffs for 3, and were back in the playoffs by 2018/19 and were literally an inch away from the ECF in 2020/21.

Just because there was 7 years between playoff series wins, does not mean the trade set them back 7 years.

So the Poeltl trade was made at the 2023 deadline. When do you think we'll be "back"? 50 wins, conference finals, or generally recognized as a contender. This season? 2026? 2028? I'm leaning towards it not happening at all with this group, which is where the 5-10 years comes from. However, there are some obvious caveats. The first is that not making the Poeltl trade would have started the rebuild, so it's not really fair to start the clock in 2023, when that hypothetical team probably wouldn't have been good for years either. We should really be looking at the difference, but we don't get to actually see both. The second is that maybe this group doesn't get there regardless of the Poeltl trade. If we blew it up in 2023 to build around Scottie, but he's not a "build a contender around" level player, then none of this matters.

And where would we be if the Poeltl trade wasn't made? 50 wins, conference finals or a contender? It STILL would be leaning towards it not happening, because that is the reality of most rebuilds.

All of this 3-5, 5-10 year talk is just an attempt to illustrate how much worse of a situation we were put in by making this deal. I will repeat, it is not specifically about the deal of a first round pick for a starting center. The deal represents the decision to delay the rebuild. I'm going to continue discussing it in that manner, so if you disagree with the premise, just ignore it.

So 12 months. It delayed it 12 months. Poeltl was traded here Feb 2023, and OG/Siakam were gone by Jan 2024. A whole whopping 11-12 months.

The assets we "lost out on" were never going to materially change anything. Especially when if we tank this year and end up with Flagg instead of last year and getting Sarr it is hard to say we really lost out on anything at all.

Oh wow, they made the playoffs in 14 and 15 and were back in 19? Should we throw a parade? Should we invite Keith Van Horn?

I'm not the one comparing the Poeltl trade to the Pierce/KG one, but if we can't agree that the latter set the Nets back so far that they still haven't recovered then there's no discussion to be had. The Poeltl trade did not do that kind of damage, but if we cannot agree that that kind of effect is even possible, then there's no point.

I haven't set the bar that high for what it means to be a contender. 50 wins, conference finals appearance, or just "contender vibes" describes 8-10 teams every year. I guess you can still say that the "majority" of rebuilds don't get there, but I'm hoping we're not going to be one of the terrible teams that stays mid-to-bad for years at a time. This year, the list would have included OKC, Denver, Minny, LAC, Dallas, Boston, NY, and Indy. That's 8. You could talk me into "contender" status for Milwaukee and Philly, maybe even teams like Phoenix or the Lakers. It's not some unattainable standard.

It did not set back the team "11-12" months because of the importance of those months. I'd argue we were closer to being low enough for Wemby in 2023 than we will be in 2025 for Flagg, but even to take that as a possibility, by the time he's ready to actually be good, we'll be running into the same timeline stuff we did with Scottie and the old core. That's if Scottie is still willing to stick around after a few more losing seasons. If we didn't make that decision to delay the rebuild, we could be looking at turning things around now or 2025-26. Now we might be looking to start being bad (meaning for 2-3 years) - after already having been bad for 2 years with nothing to show for it.

If those events lead us to Cooper Flagg and he's awesome and ready to be an All-Star in year 2, all is forgiven. But it looks more like we're heading for years and years of being between 7/8th worst and the 7/8 seed. That may have been avoided by bottoming out earlier. The Poeltl trade represents the decision to not do that.

I can already tell there will be a reply saying there's no guarantee that would have worked, which is true. The whole point is there was a rebuild/compete fork in the road, and management took the wrong one. If they took the rebuild one and it still went wrong, we'd arguably still be in a better position than we are now in terms of future assets. It's not as simple as just saying they were one year late. That one year could have the effect of 3, 5, or 10+ like the Nets. Maybe it's just a bad way to describe it, but I don't know of a better way.

We don't make the yak trade, finish 6th worst and end up with the 6th pick in the lottery, absolutely nothing changes, maybe we take Bilal instead of Gradey, or maybe we still take the prognosticated better shooter in the draft with upside in Gradey to pair with Scottie to provide floor spacing
This year we end up with Edey instead of having Jakob
None of those outcomes are franchise crippling

[Merit]

1. Were the Nets ever "back"? No 50 win seasons, no conference finals appearances, one second round appearance. I'll give you that they had the aura of a contender, which is what we're looking for. I'm not setting the bar at a championship, but you want to be in the mix.

2. When are you starting and stopping the clock? That 2014 trade for Pierce and Garnett to the 2020-21 season where KD actually played? Looks like 5+ years to me.

3. This is the worst trade in recent memory. It clearly set the Nets back 5 to 10 years - maybe more. At a certain point it stops making sense to talk about it in terms of years. The Poeltl trade is not as bad as the worst trade in recent memory. You got me there.

The Nets made the playoffs in 2013/14 and 2014/15 after making those trades... missed the playoffs for 3, and were back in the playoffs by 2018/19 and were literally an inch away from the ECF in 2020/21.

Just because there was 7 years between playoff series wins, does not mean the trade set them back 7 years.

So the Poeltl trade was made at the 2023 deadline. When do you think we'll be "back"? 50 wins, conference finals, or generally recognized as a contender. This season? 2026? 2028? I'm leaning towards it not happening at all with this group, which is where the 5-10 years comes from. However, there are some obvious caveats. The first is that not making the Poeltl trade would have started the rebuild, so it's not really fair to start the clock in 2023, when that hypothetical team probably wouldn't have been good for years either. We should really be looking at the difference, but we don't get to actually see both. The second is that maybe this group doesn't get there regardless of the Poeltl trade. If we blew it up in 2023 to build around Scottie, but he's not a "build a contender around" level player, then none of this matters.

And where would we be if the Poeltl trade wasn't made? 50 wins, conference finals or a contender? It STILL would be leaning towards it not happening, because that is the reality of most rebuilds.

All of this 3-5, 5-10 year talk is just an attempt to illustrate how much worse of a situation we were put in by making this deal. I will repeat, it is not specifically about the deal of a first round pick for a starting center. The deal represents the decision to delay the rebuild. I'm going to continue discussing it in that manner, so if you disagree with the premise, just ignore it.

So 12 months. It delayed it 12 months. Poeltl was traded here Feb 2023, and OG/Siakam were gone by Jan 2024. A whole whopping 11-12 months.

The assets we "lost out on" were never going to materially change anything. Especially when if we tank this year and end up with Flagg instead of last year and getting Sarr it is hard to say we really lost out on anything at all.

Oh wow, they made the playoffs in 14 and 15 and were back in 19? Should we throw a parade? Should we invite Keith Van Horn?

I'm not the one comparing the Poeltl trade to the Pierce/KG one, but if we can't agree that the latter set the Nets back so far that they still haven't recovered then there's no discussion to be had. The Poeltl trade did not do that kind of damage, but if we cannot agree that that kind of effect is even possible, then there's no point.

I haven't set the bar that high for what it means to be a contender. 50 wins, conference finals appearance, or just "contender vibes" describes 8-10 teams every year. I guess you can still say that the "majority" of rebuilds don't get there, but I'm hoping we're not going to be one of the terrible teams that stays mid-to-bad for years at a time. This year, the list would have included OKC, Denver, Minny, LAC, Dallas, Boston, NY, and Indy. That's 8. You could talk me into "contender" status for Milwaukee and Philly, maybe even teams like Phoenix or the Lakers. It's not some unattainable standard.

It did not set back the team "11-12" months because of the importance of those months. I'd argue we were closer to being low enough for Wemby in 2023 than we will be in 2025 for Flagg, but even to take that as a possibility, by the time he's ready to actually be good, we'll be running into the same timeline stuff we did with Scottie and the old core. That's if Scottie is still willing to stick around after a few more losing seasons. If we didn't make that decision to delay the rebuild, we could be looking at turning things around now or 2025-26. Now we might be looking to start being bad (meaning for 2-3 years) - after already having been bad for 2 years with nothing to show for it.

If those events lead us to Cooper Flagg and he's awesome and ready to be an All-Star in year 2, all is forgiven. But it looks more like we're heading for years and years of being between 7/8th worst and the 7/8 seed. That may have been avoided by bottoming out earlier. The Poeltl trade represents the decision to not do that.

I can already tell there will be a reply saying there's no guarantee that would have worked, which is true. The whole point is there was a rebuild/compete fork in the road, and management took the wrong one. If they took the rebuild one and it still went wrong, we'd arguably still be in a better position than we are now in terms of future assets. It's not as simple as just saying they were one year late. That one year could have the effect of 3, 5, or 10+ like the Nets. Maybe it's just a bad way to describe it, but I don't know of a better way.

It was the trades for KD and Harden and Kyrie that set the nets back.

Yes, it’s always better to tank in a generational draft. As was previously discussed - that was blocked by Nurse and Fred and evidenced by their trying to win and the Jak trade.

Isn’t the point of the game to win? Pretty sure the moves were made with winning in mind since we knew a bunch of teams would be tanking in the hopes of getting Wemby. When you lose a player that’s just below Kyrie in terms of impact for nothing, it sets your franchise back. A number of fluke things had to happen including Houston getting a new coach and their finally putting their foot down on Harden. On top of it, they gave Fred a godfather short term offer that was hard for him to turn down.

You can cry over the fact that we didn’t tank for Wemby, or you can realize that it is a developmental year THIS YEAR and that we could very well end up tanking by year end in a loaded draft. Oh and we have 2 picks in 2026, which is similarly solid.