Former Raptor discussion thread 3.0

[MiamiSPX]

Although not a great prospect, it was reasonable to expect GTJ to improve. I'm not a fan of Masai's last few years at all, but I won't kill him for this one. it was a swing and miss, simple as that. Nobody could foresee GTJ likely being out of the league by age 28-29. Dude is averaging less than an assist per game and 2 rebounds in 25 minutes. When he is not scoring (which he never does anymore), he provides nothing else at all.

[raptorstime]

Norm was continuing to work hard while GTJ was too worried about what outfit he was going to wear. Congrats to Norm though he will be an all star this year imo.

[Mister Ze]

Demar was a bad fit for Sacramento. I think he needs to accept he’s a 6th man

[Dennis 37]

Pascal 25 and 18 over Suns. Norm 29 in win over Dallas. Charles saying Norm should make ASG.

Norman Powell is shooting 47% from 3 on 8 attempts per game lmao…

It’s funny when people keep talking about efficiency when evaluating certain scoring prospects but in norms best year with us when he was shooting lights out people couldn’t wait to get rid of him.

This year he’s at 49/47/85. Damn.

That a GM would take a risk on a younger player might make sense. To then offer a contract, that would pay the same as a guy who contributed to a championship, was lunacy. Why not just keep Norm? I was so ticked when Gary ended up being paid similar money.

[djsunyc]

Although not a great prospect, it was reasonable to expect GTJ to improve. I'm not a fan of Masai's last few years at all, but I won't kill him for this one. it was a swing and miss, simple as that. Nobody could foresee GTJ likely being out of the league by age 28-29. Dude is averaging less than an assist per game and 2 rebounds in 25 minutes. When he is not scoring (which he never does anymore), he provides nothing else at all.

yeah, gtj had some really good moments and potential before we traded for him. a big factor was the contract norm was going to ask for - which we didn't want to give out. he asked for and got 5 years. gary was here for only 3. while norm was and still is a much better player, he's also under contract for another year after this one. if we still had him, we probably are a better team the next 2 years w/ nurse and who knows how all that plays out.

[djsunyc]

That a GM would take a risk on a younger player might make sense. To then offer a contract, that would pay the same as a guy who contributed to a championship, was lunacy. Why not just keep Norm? I was so ticked when Gary ended up being paid similar money.

while masai misjudged the AAV of the contract, he didn't misjudge the years. norm signed for 5 while we only signed gary for a 2+1.

[WaltFrazier]

Although not a great prospect, it was reasonable to expect GTJ to improve. I'm not a fan of Masai's last few years at all, but I won't kill him for this one. it was a swing and miss, simple as that. Nobody could foresee GTJ likely being out of the league by age 28-29. Dude is averaging less than an assist per game and 2 rebounds in 25 minutes. When he is not scoring (which he never does anymore), he provides nothing else at all.

yeah, gtj had some really good moments and potential before we traded for him. a big factor was the contract norm was going to ask for - which we didn't want to give out. he asked for and got 5 years. gary was here for only 3. while norm was and still is a much better player, he's also under contract for another year after this one. if we still had him, we probably are a better team the next 2 years w/ nurse and who knows how all that plays out.

I thought that core deserved a better chance to succeed together before breaking it up. Yes they would have been better under Nurse longer, with Norm Pascal OG and FVV, add Scottie and later Jak. When they traded Norm in the Tampa year, they should have moved Kyle at the time as expected. They gave in to Kyle and traded Norm for no good reason. Masai tried to do two opposing things at once, keep the core together and do a little rebuilding by moving Norm. It made no sense because they were all the same age, still young enough, and part of the culture Raps had built. Keep those guys, add a back-up PG behind Fred, another big, and that core was good to make a run, which they deserved. Norm himself expressed that idea in an interview after. But by trading away Norm , Masai pulled the rug from under the core while still paying lip service to that core, ie the former bench mob guys.

[WaltFrazier]

That a GM would take a risk on a younger player might make sense. To then offer a contract, that would pay the same as a guy who contributed to a championship, was lunacy. Why not just keep Norm? I was so ticked when Gary ended up being paid similar money.

while masai misjudged the AAV of the contract, he didn't misjudge the years. norm signed for 5 while we only signed gary for a 2+1.

5 is a good thing, Norm wouldn't have been coming due at the same time as Fred, Pascal and OG. And could have been traded if the rest of the core was breaking up.

[ForeverTFC]

Pascal 25 and 18 over Suns. Norm 29 in win over Dallas. Charles saying Norm should make ASG.

Norman Powell is shooting 47% from 3 on 8 attempts per game lmao…

It’s funny when people keep talking about efficiency when evaluating certain scoring prospects but in norms best year with us when he was shooting lights out people couldn’t wait to get rid of him.

This year he’s at 49/47/85. Damn.

That a GM would take a risk on a younger player might make sense. To then offer a contract, that would pay the same as a guy who contributed to a championship, was lunacy. Why not just keep Norm? I was so ticked when Gary ended up being paid similar money.

5 years vs 2+1. A 2+1 carries an AAV premium.

The FO bet on upside and development. They lost that one, but you can't expect them to bat 100%. Every contract we've signed, from Demar to Lowry to OG and now Barnes has been ridiculed as being too high. Yet, a large share have become value contracts by the end.

[Boogie!]

Pascal 25 and 18 over Suns. Norm 29 in win over Dallas. Charles saying Norm should make ASG.

Norman Powell is shooting 47% from 3 on 8 attempts per game lmao…

It’s funny when people keep talking about efficiency when evaluating certain scoring prospects but in norms best year with us when he was shooting lights out people couldn’t wait to get rid of him.

This year he’s at 49/47/85. Damn.

That a GM would take a risk on a younger player might make sense. To then offer a contract, that would pay the same as a guy who contributed to a championship, was lunacy. Why not just keep Norm? I was so ticked when Gary ended up being paid similar money.

Clippers are 19-14 this year with no kawhi and Paul George gone. Powell might be an all star. Bobby and company thought they were so smart… seriously it seemed like they just kept trying to push Norman Powell out for years I remember when kawhi left they mentioned more shots for everyone but Powell… I wonder what was going on behind The scenes… no idea why you get rid of elite 3 point shooting in todays nba… for a team starving for shooting, we haven’t had a more efficient shooter since… not to mention all the other facets of his game…

[Dennis 37]

Norman Powell is shooting 47% from 3 on 8 attempts per game lmao…

It’s funny when people keep talking about efficiency when evaluating certain scoring prospects but in norms best year with us when he was shooting lights out people couldn’t wait to get rid of him.

This year he’s at 49/47/85. Damn.

That a GM would take a risk on a younger player might make sense. To then offer a contract, that would pay the same as a guy who contributed to a championship, was lunacy. Why not just keep Norm? I was so ticked when Gary ended up being paid similar money.

5 years vs 2+1. A 2+1 carries an AAV premium.

The FO bet on upside and development. They lost that one, but you can't expect them to bat 100%. Every contract we've signed, from Demar to Lowry to OG and now Barnes has been ridiculed as being too high. Yet, a large share have become value contracts by the end.

If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.

[Boogie!]

Norman Powell is shooting 47% from 3 on 8 attempts per game lmao…

It’s funny when people keep talking about efficiency when evaluating certain scoring prospects but in norms best year with us when he was shooting lights out people couldn’t wait to get rid of him.

This year he’s at 49/47/85. Damn.

That a GM would take a risk on a younger player might make sense. To then offer a contract, that would pay the same as a guy who contributed to a championship, was lunacy. Why not just keep Norm? I was so ticked when Gary ended up being paid similar money.

5 years vs 2+1. A 2+1 carries an AAV premium.

The FO bet on upside and development. They lost that one, but you can't expect them to bat 100%. Every contract we've signed, from Demar to Lowry to OG and now Barnes has been ridiculed as being too high. Yet, a large share have become value contracts by the end.

Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…

And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.

[ForeverTFC]

If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.

2+1 is a prove it contract. We've handed many of these out during our franchise history. You don't pay more for term.

Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…

And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.

He was only traded once on that contract. And it was a complete salary dump: Norm and Covington for Eric Bledsoe, Justise Winslow, Keon Johnson and a '25 2nd.

The rest of the post is irrelevant to the original topic of the contract. GTJ netted to the downside while Norm netted to the upside. The FO lost that bet. Norm was 28 years old while Trent was 22 years old. They sold an older vet for a younger player, believing he had much more untapped upside. They got that wrong, but I don't understand how you can't see the rationale. 22 year old Norm is nowhere the prospect that 22 year old GTJ was.

[Tripod]

If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.

2+1 is a prove it contract. We've handed many of these out during our franchise history. You don't pay more for term.

Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…

And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.

He was only traded once on that contract. And it was a complete salary dump: Norm and Covington for Eric Bledsoe, Justise Winslow, Keon Johnson and a '25 2nd.

The rest of the post is irrelevant to the original topic of the contract. GTJ netted to the downside while Norm netted to the upside. The FO lost that bet. Norm was 28 years old while Trent was 22 years old. They sold an older vet for a younger player, believing he had much more untapped upside. They got that wrong, but I don't understand how you can't see the rationale. 22 year old Norm is nowhere the prospect that 22 year old GTJ was.

Because he has stated numerous times that he is great at seeing talent and it was obvious GTJ would never get to Powell levels.

Interesting enough, GTJ has the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best PPG seasons between the 2 while Raptors.

Odd that the Raps moved him for a younger guy, Portland dumped him, and then the Clips underutilized him last year....13.9 PPG.

[WaltFrazier]

If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.

2+1 is a prove it contract. We've handed many of these out during our franchise history. You don't pay more for term.

Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…

And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.

He was only traded once on that contract. And it was a complete salary dump: Norm and Covington for Eric Bledsoe, Justise Winslow, Keon Johnson and a '25 2nd.

The rest of the post is irrelevant to the original topic of the contract. GTJ netted to the downside while Norm netted to the upside. The FO lost that bet. Norm was 28 years old while Trent was 22 years old. They sold an older vet for a younger player, believing he had much more untapped upside. They got that wrong, but I don't understand how you can't see the rationale. 22 year old Norm is nowhere the prospect that 22 year old GTJ was.

Norm was older but not old. And now 4 seasons later playing better than ever. "Got that wrong" isn't nearly strong enough to describe how bad a mistake it was

[WaltFrazier]

That a GM would take a risk on a younger player might make sense. To then offer a contract, that would pay the same as a guy who contributed to a championship, was lunacy. Why not just keep Norm? I was so ticked when Gary ended up being paid similar money.

5 years vs 2+1. A 2+1 carries an AAV premium.

The FO bet on upside and development. They lost that one, but you can't expect them to bat 100%. Every contract we've signed, from Demar to Lowry to OG and now Barnes has been ridiculed as being too high. Yet, a large share have become value contracts by the end.

Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…

And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.

All those things plus breaking up the culture of the Raptors core that came up behind Kyle and Demar. Tampa was a bad year but the rebound the next couple seasons would have been so much better with Norm

[Dennis 37]

If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.

2+1 is a prove it contract. We've handed many of these out during our franchise history. You don't pay more for term.

Yes, 2+1 is a prove it contract, but in this situation the selling point of the trade was we were getting a player with either greater upside or an equal player at a cheaper cost.

This contract proved to be close to the same cost per year.

A 2+1 prove it is the kind of contract you give a free agent coming off a poor year you think has upside. You sign relatively cheap and if the player improves he gets rewarded after the 2nd year by being an FA. GTJ didn't sign that much cheaper per year than Norm.

While retaining O.G., Pascal, and Fred at their expected new salaries was not in the cards, Norm was affordable. Outside of Kyle, what player has this team kept from young to old? And we didn't even have Kyle when he was real young.

[Boogie!]

If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.

2+1 is a prove it contract. We've handed many of these out during our franchise history. You don't pay more for term.

Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…

And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.

He was only traded once on that contract. And it was a complete salary dump: Norm and Covington for Eric Bledsoe, Justise Winslow, Keon Johnson and a '25 2nd.

The rest of the post is irrelevant to the original topic of the contract. GTJ netted to the downside while Norm netted to the upside. The FO lost that bet. Norm was 28 years old while Trent was 22 years old. They sold an older vet for a younger player, believing he had much more untapped upside. They got that wrong, but I don't understand how you can't see the rationale. 22 year old Norm is nowhere the prospect that 22 year old GTJ was.

That last line is why I constantly criticize people’s ability to evaluate players…

[Boogie!]

If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.

2+1 is a prove it contract. We've handed many of these out during our franchise history. You don't pay more for term.

Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…

And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.

He was only traded once on that contract. And it was a complete salary dump: Norm and Covington for Eric Bledsoe, Justise Winslow, Keon Johnson and a '25 2nd.

The rest of the post is irrelevant to the original topic of the contract. GTJ netted to the downside while Norm netted to the upside. The FO lost that bet. Norm was 28 years old while Trent was 22 years old. They sold an older vet for a younger player, believing he had much more untapped upside. They got that wrong, but I don't understand how you can't see the rationale. 22 year old Norm is nowhere the prospect that 22 year old GTJ was.

Because he has stated numerous times that he is great at seeing talent and it was obvious GTJ would never get to Powell levels.

Interesting enough, GTJ has the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best PPG seasons between the 2 while Raptors.

Odd that the Raps moved him for a younger guy, Portland dumped him, and then the Clips underutilized him last year....13.9 PPG.

And yet Trent’s efficiency has never come close to Powells…

People are constantly **** on Rj for his inefficiency and style of play, but now we have Powell elite shooting + athleticism and finishing ability but now we’re gonna downplay that too… I’m not sure what kind of basketball players people like… I’ve often been called emotional but it really seems like most people just become fans of players and then find ways to make a case for defending them or **** regardless of how they actually perform.

I’m not sure in what world someone that regularly shoots close to 50%/40 should be seen as a throwaway piece. Every team needs someone like that.

For example everyone is on gradey dicks jock because of what he could become… oh he’s versatile, he has more to his game than shooting but his defense sucks… people do realize that gradey dicks best case offensive scenario is pretty much Norman Powell right?

[ForeverTFC]

If the FO is betting on upside you don't offer 2 plus player option. The player option would only be picked up if the player didn’t develop. So if he developed he would be even more expensive to resign after year 2. If you bet upside you offer 4 years. Or 3 plus team option. Offering 2+1 means you expect to fail.

2+1 is a prove it contract. We've handed many of these out during our franchise history. You don't pay more for term.

Norman Powell was traded twice… he could be considered a value contract as well, it wasn’t some albatross… meanwhile we lost Trent for nothing and he’s declined…

And then there’s the fact that it was an obvious talent downgrade when the trade happened simply because again if you actually watch them play and understand their skill sets you’d see that Trent would never be able to do the things Powell does and therefore would limit his potential.

He was only traded once on that contract. And it was a complete salary dump: Norm and Covington for Eric Bledsoe, Justise Winslow, Keon Johnson and a '25 2nd.

The rest of the post is irrelevant to the original topic of the contract. GTJ netted to the downside while Norm netted to the upside. The FO lost that bet. Norm was 28 years old while Trent was 22 years old. They sold an older vet for a younger player, believing he had much more untapped upside. They got that wrong, but I don't understand how you can't see the rationale. 22 year old Norm is nowhere the prospect that 22 year old GTJ was.

That last line is why I constantly criticize people’s ability to evaluate players…

You should be working in a front office then. Your talents are going to waste.