24/25 Predictions

[OakleyDokely]

I think IQ is in a different stage of development compared with RJ despite being around the same age.

RJ started from year 1, playing 30+ minutes a game every season of his career. I think there's ways for him to still improve, especially in terms of his efficiency, but he's more of a known commodity at this point.

IQ was a late pick so he wasn't gifted minutes right away. He's only started 65 NBA games and over half of those were with TOR in half a season. His role also changed pretty dramatically after the trade as he was mostly used as a gunner off the bench for the Knicks while the Raptors expect a more all-around game from him. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he vastly outperformed expectations (or underperformed expectations) because he doesn't have a long history of being a 30+ minute a game starter.

[nikster]

Do you think that a player in their prime is some magic ability that just makes them better or something? If Scottie is dragging a team to a .500 record while the rest of the them flounder, that does not, in any way mean, you continue with that core.

It means you continue with Scottie, and replace the dead weight.

Again, stop ignoring the context of the post and concocting arguments.

Where did I say prime makes them better? I said i expect incremental improvements from them. THe fact that they will be in there prime means if they are fits around Scottie they can be kept around without worry about them dropping off or losing value to be used as trade assets. Like I said, There is no leap reasonably possible for Scottie where he is so good he is dragging a "floundering" core to above 0.500, so that means we have something there. What if Warriors blew it up after 12-13, or Bucks after 2017-18?

Cool, but that has no relevancy to the discussion, or my comment. I quite literally put forth 2 outcomes, 1 where Scottie took a huge leap and carried the team, and one where it was balanced.

Both are hypotheticals, and quite frankly each of them are just as unlikely to come to fruition as the other. So talking about the reasonable possibility is pointless, neither are reasonably possible.

As for the prime comment, if it has no impact on their skill level or their improvement, why bother bringing it up? It serves zero purpose to mention, especially under the guise of saying it has nothing to do with their performance. Every single time a players prime is discussed, it is strictly from the perspective of their peak level improvements and production.

So either you brought it up implying they would be better in their prime, or you brought it up for no reason. Take your pick, neither option really supports your argument though.

I described why i brought up the primes. 1) if they fit beside Scottie they will be fit for a long time and 2) they are more valuable trade chips.

I think the Warriors and Bucks are perfect examples of why not to blow it up. Bucks in 17-18 are largely carried by Giannis, 26 year old Middleton is the only meaningful contributor and the only one who would remain for a title team, and they had back to back barely above 0.500 seasons. Warriors had Klay who was having a good not great season, Barnes never became more than mediocre, Dray was an unknown.

If Scottie is having a Lebron James like impact and carrying a bunch of scrubs to above 0.500 then he's too good to tank with and it's too late to draft a rookie that will develop by the end of his contract.

[TravisScott55]

Team Predictions:

Record: 28-54
Conference Rank: 12th
Playoffs (if yes, how far): NO
Longest Win Streak: 4
Longest Losing Streak: 9
Offensive Rank: 14
Defensive Rank: 23
Draft position prior to lottery: 6th

Player Predictions:

MPG Leader: Barnes
PPG Leader: Barnes
RPG Leader: Poeltl
APG Leader: Barnes
BLK Leader: Barnes
STL Leader: Barnes
3P Leader: Quickley
Team MVP: Barnes
Best Rookie: Walter
Biggest Good Surprise: Walter
Biggest Disappointment: Agbaji
Best Bench Player: Olynyk
First Player(s) Traded: Brown

[Scase]

Where did I say prime makes them better? I said i expect incremental improvements from them. THe fact that they will be in there prime means if they are fits around Scottie they can be kept around without worry about them dropping off or losing value to be used as trade assets. Like I said, There is no leap reasonably possible for Scottie where he is so good he is dragging a "floundering" core to above 0.500, so that means we have something there. What if Warriors blew it up after 12-13, or Bucks after 2017-18?

Cool, but that has no relevancy to the discussion, or my comment. I quite literally put forth 2 outcomes, 1 where Scottie took a huge leap and carried the team, and one where it was balanced.

Both are hypotheticals, and quite frankly each of them are just as unlikely to come to fruition as the other. So talking about the reasonable possibility is pointless, neither are reasonably possible.

As for the prime comment, if it has no impact on their skill level or their improvement, why bother bringing it up? It serves zero purpose to mention, especially under the guise of saying it has nothing to do with their performance. Every single time a players prime is discussed, it is strictly from the perspective of their peak level improvements and production.

So either you brought it up implying they would be better in their prime, or you brought it up for no reason. Take your pick, neither option really supports your argument though.

I described why i brought up the primes. 1) if they fit beside Scottie they will be fit for a long time and 2) they are more valuable trade chips.

I think the Warriors and Bucks are perfect examples of why not to blow it up. Bucks in 17-18 are largely carried by Giannis, 26 year old Middleton is the only meaningful contributor and the only one who would remain for a title team, and they had back to back barely above 0.500 seasons. Warriors had Klay who was having a good not great season, Barnes never became more than mediocre, Dray was an unknown.

If Scottie is having a Lebron James like impact and carrying a bunch of scrubs to above 0.500 then he's too good to tank with and it's too late to draft a rookie that will develop by the end of his contract.

Yeah man, all we need is Scottie to reach the heights of the greatest shooter in NBA history, or a multi MVP and DPOY player. Oh and then have already on the team one of the OTHER greatest shooters in NBA history. Or in Giannis's case, "all he had" was Middleton, you know, the guy who if he were put onto this team at 26, would immediately be the best player on the entire team.

There is a reason those teams worked, because Steph is the GOAT shooter, and they already had players like Klay and Dray who eventually played WELL above their expected career ceilings on the team. So yeah, if we had Scottie go gang busters AND we had 2 players that showed incredible promise, you don't blow it up. Klay was a 21 year old rookie putting up solid numbers and showing lots of promise and they jumped to 47 wins, an increase of 24 wins.

What we have, is a 25 win team, with 2 players you are trying to equate to Klay/Draymond (LOL) with 4 and 5 years of experience already. Yes, you give a 23 and 21 year old more time to cook, than a 23, 24, and 25 year old. Thanks captain obvious.

As for Giannis, you act as if Middleton being the only one is some glorious reason to just trudge it along. Middleton put up AS numbers that year and was an AS the next 2 years in a row, all on very good efficiency AND defence. We don't have that, and if we DID have that, as I already laid it out, you don't blow that team up. Neither of those 2 teams were MVP calibre player + scrubs, as we have in the hypothetical.

TLDR; your examples are not good analogues, for the 1 player carrying a team hypothetical. And they are much more inline with the "They all play well" hypothetical that I already said should not result in blowing the team up.

[Scase]

I think IQ is in a different stage of development compared with RJ despite being around the same age.

RJ started from year 1, playing 30+ minutes a game every season of his career. I think there's ways for him to still improve, especially in terms of his efficiency, but he's more of a known commodity at this point.

IQ was a late pick so he wasn't gifted minutes right away. He's only started 65 NBA games and over half of those were with TOR in half a season. His role also changed pretty dramatically after the trade as he was mostly used as a gunner off the bench for the Knicks while the Raptors expect a more all-around game from him. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he vastly outperformed expectations (or underperformed expectations) because he doesn't have a long history of being a 30+ minute a game starter.

This is why I see IQ as having the potential to be our Maxey-lite. If I had to move one of them now to improve the team, or get some prospects it would be RJ over IQ a million times out of a million.

I think given some time to adjust to his new role, we should see IQ grow some more, RJ has been in the same situation from almost day 1. Any changes will be moderate and (hopefully) efficiency related, while largely impacted by style of play.

[nikster]

Cool, but that has no relevancy to the discussion, or my comment. I quite literally put forth 2 outcomes, 1 where Scottie took a huge leap and carried the team, and one where it was balanced.

Both are hypotheticals, and quite frankly each of them are just as unlikely to come to fruition as the other. So talking about the reasonable possibility is pointless, neither are reasonably possible.

As for the prime comment, if it has no impact on their skill level or their improvement, why bother bringing it up? It serves zero purpose to mention, especially under the guise of saying it has nothing to do with their performance. Every single time a players prime is discussed, it is strictly from the perspective of their peak level improvements and production.

So either you brought it up implying they would be better in their prime, or you brought it up for no reason. Take your pick, neither option really supports your argument though.

I described why i brought up the primes. 1) if they fit beside Scottie they will be fit for a long time and 2) they are more valuable trade chips.

I think the Warriors and Bucks are perfect examples of why not to blow it up. Bucks in 17-18 are largely carried by Giannis, 26 year old Middleton is the only meaningful contributor and the only one who would remain for a title team, and they had back to back barely above 0.500 seasons. Warriors had Klay who was having a good not great season, Barnes never became more than mediocre, Dray was an unknown.

If Scottie is having a Lebron James like impact and carrying a bunch of scrubs to above 0.500 then he's too good to tank with and it's too late to draft a rookie that will develop by the end of his contract.

Yeah man, all we need is Scottie to reach the heights of the greatest shooter in NBA history, or a multi MVP and DPOY player. Oh and then have already on the team one of the OTHER greatest shooters in NBA history. Or in Giannis's case, "all he had" was Middleton, you know, the guy who if he were put onto this team at 26, would immediately be the best player on the entire team.

There is a reason those teams worked, because Steph is the GOAT shooter, and they already had players like Klay and Dray who eventually played WELL above their expected career ceilings on the team. So yeah, if we had Scottie go gang busters AND we had 2 players that showed incredible promise, you don't blow it up. Klay was a 21 year old rookie putting up solid numbers and showing lots of promise and they jumped to 47 wins, an increase of 24 wins.

What we have, is a 25 win team, with 2 players you are trying to equate to Klay/Draymond (LOL) with 4 and 5 years of experience already. Yes, you give a 23 and 21 year old more time to cook, than a 23, 24, and 25 year old. Thanks captain obvious.

As for Giannis, you act as if Middleton being the only one is some glorious reason to just trudge it along. Middleton put up AS numbers that year and was an AS the next 2 years in a row, all on very good efficiency AND defence. We don't have that, and if we DID have that, as I already laid it out, you don't blow that team up. Neither of those 2 teams were MVP calibre player + scrubs, as we have in the hypothetical.

TLDR; your examples are not good analogues, for the 1 player carrying a team hypothetical. And they are much more inline with the "They all play well" hypothetical that I already said should not result in blowing the team up.

If we are above 0.500 that means Scottie is playing like a legit MVP or we are getting good contribution from elsewhere. It also means we have a roughly 20 win increase in win total from the previous year despite losing Pascal, OG etc.. which is the same "lots of promise" you described with the Warriors jump. Draymond did not show "incredible promise" in that year, so yeah their only other real good young prospect was Klay who was in his 2nd year at the time of that 47 win season.

[Scase]

I described why i brought up the primes. 1) if they fit beside Scottie they will be fit for a long time and 2) they are more valuable trade chips.

I think the Warriors and Bucks are perfect examples of why not to blow it up. Bucks in 17-18 are largely carried by Giannis, 26 year old Middleton is the only meaningful contributor and the only one who would remain for a title team, and they had back to back barely above 0.500 seasons. Warriors had Klay who was having a good not great season, Barnes never became more than mediocre, Dray was an unknown.

If Scottie is having a Lebron James like impact and carrying a bunch of scrubs to above 0.500 then he's too good to tank with and it's too late to draft a rookie that will develop by the end of his contract.

Yeah man, all we need is Scottie to reach the heights of the greatest shooter in NBA history, or a multi MVP and DPOY player. Oh and then have already on the team one of the OTHER greatest shooters in NBA history. Or in Giannis's case, "all he had" was Middleton, you know, the guy who if he were put onto this team at 26, would immediately be the best player on the entire team.

There is a reason those teams worked, because Steph is the GOAT shooter, and they already had players like Klay and Dray who eventually played WELL above their expected career ceilings on the team. So yeah, if we had Scottie go gang busters AND we had 2 players that showed incredible promise, you don't blow it up. Klay was a 21 year old rookie putting up solid numbers and showing lots of promise and they jumped to 47 wins, an increase of 24 wins.

What we have, is a 25 win team, with 2 players you are trying to equate to Klay/Draymond (LOL) with 4 and 5 years of experience already. Yes, you give a 23 and 21 year old more time to cook, than a 23, 24, and 25 year old. Thanks captain obvious.

As for Giannis, you act as if Middleton being the only one is some glorious reason to just trudge it along. Middleton put up AS numbers that year and was an AS the next 2 years in a row, all on very good efficiency AND defence. We don't have that, and if we DID have that, as I already laid it out, you don't blow that team up. Neither of those 2 teams were MVP calibre player + scrubs, as we have in the hypothetical.

TLDR; your examples are not good analogues, for the 1 player carrying a team hypothetical. And they are much more inline with the "They all play well" hypothetical that I already said should not result in blowing the team up.

If we are above 0.500 that means Scottie is playing like a legit MVP or we are getting good contribution from elsewhere. It also means we have a roughly 20 win increase in win total from the previous year despite losing Pascal, OG etc.. which is the same "lots of promise" you described with the Warriors jump. Draymond did not show "incredible promise" in that year, so yeah their only other real good young prospect was Klay who was in his 2nd year at the time of that 47 win season.

Yes, a 21 year old rookie showed promise his first year, and more promise his second year.

Not a 24 year old 5 year vet and a 25 year old 4 year player. If you can't see the differences there, nothing here is worth discussing. If RJ was a rookie, I wouldn't be saying a damn thing, but he's a literal vet.

[nikster]

Yeah man, all we need is Scottie to reach the heights of the greatest shooter in NBA history, or a multi MVP and DPOY player. Oh and then have already on the team one of the OTHER greatest shooters in NBA history. Or in Giannis's case, "all he had" was Middleton, you know, the guy who if he were put onto this team at 26, would immediately be the best player on the entire team.

There is a reason those teams worked, because Steph is the GOAT shooter, and they already had players like Klay and Dray who eventually played WELL above their expected career ceilings on the team. So yeah, if we had Scottie go gang busters AND we had 2 players that showed incredible promise, you don't blow it up. Klay was a 21 year old rookie putting up solid numbers and showing lots of promise and they jumped to 47 wins, an increase of 24 wins.

What we have, is a 25 win team, with 2 players you are trying to equate to Klay/Draymond (LOL) with 4 and 5 years of experience already. Yes, you give a 23 and 21 year old more time to cook, than a 23, 24, and 25 year old. Thanks captain obvious.

As for Giannis, you act as if Middleton being the only one is some glorious reason to just trudge it along. Middleton put up AS numbers that year and was an AS the next 2 years in a row, all on very good efficiency AND defence. We don't have that, and if we DID have that, as I already laid it out, you don't blow that team up. Neither of those 2 teams were MVP calibre player + scrubs, as we have in the hypothetical.

TLDR; your examples are not good analogues, for the 1 player carrying a team hypothetical. And they are much more inline with the "They all play well" hypothetical that I already said should not result in blowing the team up.

If we are above 0.500 that means Scottie is playing like a legit MVP or we are getting good contribution from elsewhere. It also means we have a roughly 20 win increase in win total from the previous year despite losing Pascal, OG etc.. which is the same "lots of promise" you described with the Warriors jump. Draymond did not show "incredible promise" in that year, so yeah their only other real good young prospect was Klay who was in his 2nd year at the time of that 47 win season.

Yes, a 21 year old rookie showed promise his first year, and more promise his second year.

Not a 24 year old 5 year vet and a 25 year old 4 year player. If you can't see the differences there, nothing here is worth discussing. If RJ was a rookie, I wouldn't be saying a damn thing, but he's a literal vet.

Theres reason to think we can see some improvement from Quick as he adjusts to a different role, he averaged 19/6/5. RJ just needs to maintain the production he's already shown in his time here to be a valuable piece. And they arent our only prospects. We have a teenager in Gradey that showed promise scoring 11+ ppg the 2nd half of the season. We have Jakobe and our other picks.

Regardless, if you want to argue everything we have around Scottie is trash, if he's carrying them like that how do you expect the team to tank? How do you expect them to retool around Scottie before his extension expires with draft picks 2, 3 years in the future?

[Tacoma]

Looks like most are predicting 30-35 wins if we don't tank. That's not even play-in teritory, not a great endorsement of BBQ. If this is the best BBQ can lead if they try their mightiest, then why even bother? We should be tanking from day 1 aiming for best chance at a top 5 draft slot.

My prediction is Masai will have a high bar & short leash and if we are not around .500 (or looking like a .500 team) by end of the first quarter (around 20 games), he will start the tank early, including possibly trading IQ or RJ, in an effort to land a top 5 pick.

We have a tough schedule to start so maybe it's unfair but if Masai is true to his word (i.e., Championship is what matters), then tough choices need to be made and fast because looks like BBQ ain't cutting it if they top out at 30-35 wins.

[Scase]

If we are above 0.500 that means Scottie is playing like a legit MVP or we are getting good contribution from elsewhere. It also means we have a roughly 20 win increase in win total from the previous year despite losing Pascal, OG etc.. which is the same "lots of promise" you described with the Warriors jump. Draymond did not show "incredible promise" in that year, so yeah their only other real good young prospect was Klay who was in his 2nd year at the time of that 47 win season.

Yes, a 21 year old rookie showed promise his first year, and more promise his second year.

Not a 24 year old 5 year vet and a 25 year old 4 year player. If you can't see the differences there, nothing here is worth discussing. If RJ was a rookie, I wouldn't be saying a damn thing, but he's a literal vet.

Theres reason to think we can see some improvement from Quick as he adjusts to a different role, he averaged 19/6/5. RJ just needs to maintain the production he's already shown in his time here to be a valuable piece. And they arent our only prospects. We have a teenager in Gradey that showed promise scoring 11+ ppg the 2nd half of the season. We have Jakobe and our other picks.

Regardless, if you want to argue everything we have around Scottie is trash, if he's carrying them like that how do you expect the team to tank? How do you expect them to retool around Scottie before his extension expires with draft picks 2, 3 years in the future?

RJ would just have to maintain the same production right? Easy no big deal. He only needs to become the 19th most efficient forward in the entire NBA, and maintain a paltry 10% TS% improvement over his career averages. Yeah man, real simple. And that is being generous by lumping all forwards together. He would need to be the 5th most efficient SF in the NBA to maintain that for a full season. But nah, I'm sure that is super realistic.

As for your second statement, I wasn't suggesting Scottie would be going MVP mode and the rest of the team averages 2 points a game. I was saying if no one else showed any improvement, and it was ONLY Scottie, then you blow it up. And that is not difficult, just because RJ/IQ/Jak are not high talent players, doesn't mean they are garbage and provide no contribution. You remove them and you suffer.

The point is to not be some middling treadmill team.

[nikster]

Yes, a 21 year old rookie showed promise his first year, and more promise his second year.

Not a 24 year old 5 year vet and a 25 year old 4 year player. If you can't see the differences there, nothing here is worth discussing. If RJ was a rookie, I wouldn't be saying a damn thing, but he's a literal vet.

Theres reason to think we can see some improvement from Quick as he adjusts to a different role, he averaged 19/6/5. RJ just needs to maintain the production he's already shown in his time here to be a valuable piece. And they arent our only prospects. We have a teenager in Gradey that showed promise scoring 11+ ppg the 2nd half of the season. We have Jakobe and our other picks.

Regardless, if you want to argue everything we have around Scottie is trash, if he's carrying them like that how do you expect the team to tank? How do you expect them to retool around Scottie before his extension expires with draft picks 2, 3 years in the future?

RJ would just have to maintain the same production right? Easy no big deal. He only needs to become the 19th most efficient forward in the entire NBA, and maintain a paltry 10% TS% improvement over his career averages. Yeah man, real simple. And that is being generous by lumping all forwards together. He would need to be the 5th most efficient SF in the NBA to maintain that for a full season. But nah, I'm sure that is super realistic.

As for your second statement, I wasn't suggesting Scottie would be going MVP mode and the rest of the team averages 2 points a game. I was saying if no one else showed any improvement, and it was ONLY Scottie, then you blow it up. And that is not difficult, just because RJ/IQ/Jak are not high talent players, doesn't mean they are garbage and provide no contribution. You remove them and you suffer.

The point is to not be some middling treadmill team.

How is it possible for the Raps to win about 20 more games without either A) Scottie going MVP mode or B) significant improvement from multiple players? Your describing an impossible scenario. And then if we do blow it up does that mean we're giving up on competing with Scottie?

[Scase]

Theres reason to think we can see some improvement from Quick as he adjusts to a different role, he averaged 19/6/5. RJ just needs to maintain the production he's already shown in his time here to be a valuable piece. And they arent our only prospects. We have a teenager in Gradey that showed promise scoring 11+ ppg the 2nd half of the season. We have Jakobe and our other picks.

Regardless, if you want to argue everything we have around Scottie is trash, if he's carrying them like that how do you expect the team to tank? How do you expect them to retool around Scottie before his extension expires with draft picks 2, 3 years in the future?

RJ would just have to maintain the same production right? Easy no big deal. He only needs to become the 19th most efficient forward in the entire NBA, and maintain a paltry 10% TS% improvement over his career averages. Yeah man, real simple. And that is being generous by lumping all forwards together. He would need to be the 5th most efficient SF in the NBA to maintain that for a full season. But nah, I'm sure that is super realistic.

As for your second statement, I wasn't suggesting Scottie would be going MVP mode and the rest of the team averages 2 points a game. I was saying if no one else showed any improvement, and it was ONLY Scottie, then you blow it up. And that is not difficult, just because RJ/IQ/Jak are not high talent players, doesn't mean they are garbage and provide no contribution. You remove them and you suffer.

The point is to not be some middling treadmill team.

How is it possible for the Raps to win about 20 more games without either A) Scottie going MVP mode or B) significant improvement from multiple players? Your describing an impossible scenario. And then if we do blow it up does that mean we're giving up on competing with Scottie?

We're going around in circles man.

I set forth 2 scenarios.

1. MVP level production from Scottie, no one else improving, and him being the only reason the team gets a .500 record. Trade people, and get Scottie a young, high talent running mate in the upcoming draft(s).

2. Improvements from the entire core showing progress and overachieving, resulting in a .500 record. Don't blow it up.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be here.

[nikster]

RJ would just have to maintain the same production right? Easy no big deal. He only needs to become the 19th most efficient forward in the entire NBA, and maintain a paltry 10% TS% improvement over his career averages. Yeah man, real simple. And that is being generous by lumping all forwards together. He would need to be the 5th most efficient SF in the NBA to maintain that for a full season. But nah, I'm sure that is super realistic.

As for your second statement, I wasn't suggesting Scottie would be going MVP mode and the rest of the team averages 2 points a game. I was saying if no one else showed any improvement, and it was ONLY Scottie, then you blow it up. And that is not difficult, just because RJ/IQ/Jak are not high talent players, doesn't mean they are garbage and provide no contribution. You remove them and you suffer.

The point is to not be some middling treadmill team.

How is it possible for the Raps to win about 20 more games without either A) Scottie going MVP mode or B) significant improvement from multiple players? Your describing an impossible scenario. And then if we do blow it up does that mean we're giving up on competing with Scottie?

We're going around in circles man.

I set forth 2 scenarios.

1. MVP level production from Scottie, no one else improving, and him being the only reason the team gets a .500 record. Trade people, and get Scottie a young, high talent running mate in the upcoming draft(s).

2. Improvements from the entire core showing progress and overachieving, resulting in a .500 record. Don't blow it up.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be here.

Yeah and I am specifically taking issue about scenario 1. I think it is absurd to consider blowing it up when you have a legit MVP level talent and there has never been a scenario in NBA history where a team has done that. If he is having MVP level production it both becomes difficult to tank with the worst teams, and tanking is unlikely to produce a running mate who is ready to compete by the time his extension is up.

[causal_fan]

I'm hoping for a top 3 pick.

[Scase]

How is it possible for the Raps to win about 20 more games without either A) Scottie going MVP mode or B) significant improvement from multiple players? Your describing an impossible scenario. And then if we do blow it up does that mean we're giving up on competing with Scottie?

We're going around in circles man.

I set forth 2 scenarios.

1. MVP level production from Scottie, no one else improving, and him being the only reason the team gets a .500 record. Trade people, and get Scottie a young, high talent running mate in the upcoming draft(s).

2. Improvements from the entire core showing progress and overachieving, resulting in a .500 record. Don't blow it up.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be here.

Yeah and I am specifically taking issue about scenario 1. I think it is absurd to consider blowing it up when you have a legit MVP level talent and there has never been a scenario in NBA history where a team has done that. If he is having MVP level production it both becomes difficult to tank with the worst teams, and tanking is unlikely to produce a running mate who is ready to compete by the time his extension is up.

I'm not saying blow it up and raze it to the ground, I'm saying take a step back, much like we should be doing this season. But again, it's all an impossible hypothetical, so it's pointless top argue about something that will never happen.

[Indeed]

Looks like most are predicting 30-35 wins if we don't tank. That's not even play-in teritory, not a great endorsement of BBQ. If this is the best BBQ can lead if they try their mightiest, then why even bother? We should be tanking from day 1 aiming for best chance at a top 5 draft slot.

My prediction is Masai will have a high bar & short leash and if we are not around .500 (or looking like a .500 team) by end of the first quarter (around 20 games), he will start the tank early, including possibly trading IQ or RJ, in an effort to land a top 5 pick.

We have a tough schedule to start so maybe it's unfair but if Masai is true to his word (i.e., Championship is what matters), then tough choices need to be made and fast because looks like BBQ ain't cutting it if they top out at 30-35 wins.

I think most are predicting 27 - 32 wins if we don't tank.
And with the injuries (Barrett in particular), we might be the decision after 25 games.

The biggest question between BBQ is Quickley to me, his defensive fit isn't great, and shall see his offensive fit.