Shams: Raps acquire Ingram for Brown + Olynyk + IND 1st

[WuTang_CMB]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=0YpMScWXY2zRUqR8fH-usg

[Scase]

Edgecomb babyy

I hope we explore trading RJ if we resign BI. RJ to me loses value as a 4th option to our team if he's not asked to score as much. Need more defense from the 2 spot if we have Quick and BI at the 1 and 3. I'd rather draft Edgecomb (I'm on board with you on that), trade RJ for a guy who fits the 3&D mold better, and/or trade RJ for a backup big. Honestly Ochai fit's well with that group. I think one of RJ or Gradey has to go long term. RJ because of his salary and Gradey because of his defense.

I keep thinking the guy that will be traded is IQ. He will have value in the league & if the Raps have the opportunity to trade for a legit two way PG, they may have to pull the trigger in order to take this team to next level.

The guy who just signed a big contract, barely played this year, and looked worse when he did play, has more value than the guy on a shorter and cheaper contract, has actually improved since he got here, and still has a bit of the "youth" veneer left on him?

Not to mention the fit issue where RJ and BI have overlap, BI is about to sign a new long term contract with us, and is a better scorer. I think you are reading this quite wrong.

[RealFaction]

BAH GAWD, THAT'S MALUACH'S MUSIC

Watch on YouTube

no way that masai will be able to resist his boy unless we get some real lotto luck and end up top 4

Are we sure he wouldn't take him 3 or 4?

Are we sure Charlotte wouldn't draft him around 4 if the don't get Flagg?

They got Nurkic, but Maluach can be the backup for a couple of years to learn. Heck, Atlanta brought Okongwu off the bench slowly for forever.

I can totally see that. Maybe Masai likes Maluach enough that he'd take him at 4 like Scottie over Suggs, but Hornets end up taking him before we get a chance like the Cavs getting Mobley before us. Another team I could see is if Philly flukes into the 4th spot via lottery to keep their pick and takes him to backup Embiid.

[gerrit4]

We also got James Wiseman (former #2 pick)

]

Yeah man, totally have that former second pick, that we already waived. Players and what position they were picked at 5-9 years ago doesn't mean squat. BI and RJ have both underperformed historically speaking for their draft position. BI less so, but still not by much.

But hey, if draft position is all that matters, why not give Anthony Bennett a call, he was a 1st OA, should make us a better team.

I'd say BI is about average for a 2nd overall pick, possibly above average. He's likely better than the 8 2nd overall picks before him (guys like Jabari Parker, Evans Turner, thabeet, d Angelo russell, MKG) You've got Marvin Bagley, Lonzo ball and Wiseman since. Hard to say if Jalen Green will really be better.

I'd say he's pretty far above average. Going back to 2000, and ignoring the past three (to early to tell on Sarr, Chet & Miller), you have Ja, Durant and Aldridge who are clearly above (although it's not crazy that he'd have a better career than Aldridge). Similar would be Chandler and Green. He's definitely above Wiseman, Ball, Ingram, Russell, Parker, MKG, Williams, Turner, Thabeet, Beasley, Williams, Okafor, Darko, Williams.

So in the top 6 for sure, which is quite good, one of the bets #2 picks in the past twenty years.

[tsherkin]

Plus we have Scottie Barnes who needs real talent around him in order for him to get better and ultimately the team.

Now I get people's concerns about this deal but it's not like Masai knee jerked and gave up our 2025 or 2026 FRP. He gave up the Indy pick. In a perfect world we give up just 2 seconds but on the overall, getting BI is worth the swing and you bought him for VERY cheap vs what his production is when healthy. Gotta also see where the contract goes but still you make this deal 10/10. We have all our picks moving forward.

Yeah, the financial consequences and the future implications from a pick perspective seem to make some sense, pending whatever extension he gets.

We will roll into next year with Scottie leading the way and solid shooters in BI and Quick and an attacking RJ.

Just FWIW, but if Scottie needs other players to get better, then he isn't really leading us places. He's being led. Which is fine, we're going to need lots of those guys and the ones who aren't that are fairly rare, to be sure. Look at RJ, right? But we're going to need an actual focal point, or at least a capable substitute for the ensemble/offense by committee team, and he isn't that. We need to get a little more realistic about what he is and is not at this stage. We can get good value out of him (on our team, I mean, not that we should move him), we just need to shift his role. Next year, of course. Not now. Right at the moment, this is working fine.

Beyond that, if Ingram IS healthy, he is already a better scorer than Scottie. That isn't the biggest compliment I could give a player because Scottie's pretty rough in a volume role, but we at least know that Ingram will likely hover around league-average efficiency and is an elite shooter with mid-range game. IF he can stay healthy, he does meaningfully take the lead as far as who should be shouldering shooting volume.

Gradey and Ochai are improving.

I dunno about Gradey just yet, but we'll see. He's got time. We get to be very patient with him, I think, as we shuffle these other pieces around. He's had three pretty similar months in a row, but is starting February well. He's doing some things that look kind of promising for the future, though, even if the results aren't there yet, so there's that. And he's what, 21? In his second season, so we have time with him. If he can start hitting 3s at an elite rate, then his movement and spacing will be very useful. He does seem intriguing.

[tsherkin]

Yeah man, totally have that former second pick, that we already waived. Players and what position they were picked at 5-9 years ago doesn't mean squat. BI and RJ have both underperformed historically speaking for their draft position. BI less so, but still not by much.

But hey, if draft position is all that matters, why not give Anthony Bennett a call, he was a 1st OA, should make us a better team.

I'd say BI is about average for a 2nd overall pick, possibly above average. He's likely better than the 8 2nd overall picks before him (guys like Jabari Parker, Evans Turner, thabeet, d Angelo russell, MKG) You've got Marvin Bagley, Lonzo ball and Wiseman since. Hard to say if Jalen Green will really be better.

I'd say he's pretty far above average. Going back to 2000, and ignoring the past three (to early to tell on Sarr, Chet & Miller), you have Ja, Durant and Aldridge who are clearly above (although it's not crazy that he'd have a better career than Aldridge). Similar would be Chandler and Green. He's definitely above Wiseman, Ball, Ingram, Russell, Parker, MKG, Williams, Turner, Thabeet, Beasley, Williams, Okafor, Darko, Williams.

So in the top 6 for sure, which is quite good, one of the bets #2 picks in the past twenty years.

Following that back into the 90s:

90: Gary Payton
91: Kenny Anderson
92: Alonzo Mourning
93: Shawn Bradley
94: Jason Kidd
95: Antonio McDyess
96: Marcus Camby
97: Keith Van Horn
98: Mike Bibby
99: Steve Francis

Very different experience.

Early 2000s were a little interesting: Stromile Swift, Tyson Chandler (eventually a champion and DPOY), Jay Williams (would have been better apart from the injuries), Darko Milicic (odd selection in that specific draft, but whatever, I guess), Emeka Okafor (solid vet), Marvin Williams (decent, but obviously not what was desired from a #2 overall), Aldridge, Kevin Durant, Michael Beasley, Hasheem Thabeet (yikes). Evan Turner in 2010, then Derrick Williams (eeek), MKG, Oladipo, Jabari Parker, D'Angelo Russell, Brandon Ingram, Lonzo Ball, Marvin Bagley, Ja Morant, James Wiseman, Jalen Green, and I'll cut it there.

Ingram wasn't a bad get at the 2, were he healthy. But the past 20 years have been a lot rougher than the 10 prior to that, for sure.

[Scase]

Yeah man, totally have that former second pick, that we already waived. Players and what position they were picked at 5-9 years ago doesn't mean squat. BI and RJ have both underperformed historically speaking for their draft position. BI less so, but still not by much.

But hey, if draft position is all that matters, why not give Anthony Bennett a call, he was a 1st OA, should make us a better team.

I'd say BI is about average for a 2nd overall pick, possibly above average. He's likely better than the 8 2nd overall picks before him (guys like Jabari Parker, Evans Turner, thabeet, d Angelo russell, MKG) You've got Marvin Bagley, Lonzo ball and Wiseman since. Hard to say if Jalen Green will really be better.

I'd say he's pretty far above average. Going back to 2000, and ignoring the past three (to early to tell on Sarr, Chet & Miller), you have Ja, Durant and Aldridge who are clearly above (although it's not crazy that he'd have a better career than Aldridge). Similar would be Chandler and Green. He's definitely above Wiseman, Ball, Ingram, Russell, Parker, MKG, Williams, Turner, Thabeet, Beasley, Williams, Okafor, Darko, Williams.

So in the top 6 for sure, which is quite good, one of the bets #2 picks in the past twenty years.

Average 2nd picks have projected win shares in the mid to high 60's, and make multiple ASGs. BI in 9 seasons has 27.3 winshares, and 1 ASG 6 years ago, so unless he plans on playing another 10-15 years, he's going to underperform relative to the average 2nd pick.

Had he been healthy, maybe it would look a lot rosier, but he hasn't been, so it doesn't matter.

[navyblue]

Per Winhorst on his hoops collective podcast he has heard the raptors and Ingram have already talked about extension and he wasn't sure if it was announced yet, so in his mind we are close or there at an extension already in place.

Multi year 9 figure.

Considering he is only eligible for 3 year extension so it's between 3year 100mil and 3 year 144(his max).

[tsherkin]

Average 2nd picks have projected win shares in the mid to high 60's, and make multiple ASGs. BI in 9 seasons has 27.3 winshares, and 1 ASG 6 years ago, so unless he plans on playing another 10-15 years, he's going to underperform relative to the average 2nd pick.

Like all-time? Maybe. But the past 30 years, which are shown above, it doesn't look like he's too far off the average level. A little stronger, of course, in the 90s, but as we start getting so many more freshman (and a decade or so of HS picks), that average starts to tail off because it's harder to get a bead on a guy after a single year in college as an 18 year-old, you know?

[Scase]

Average 2nd picks have projected win shares in the mid to high 60's, and make multiple ASGs. BI in 9 seasons has 27.3 winshares, and 1 ASG 6 years ago, so unless he plans on playing another 10-15 years, he's going to underperform relative to the average 2nd pick.

Like all-time? Maybe. But the past 30 years, which are shown above, it doesn't look like he's too far off the average level. A little stronger, of course, in the 90s, but as we start getting so many more freshman (and a decade or so of HS picks), that average starts to tail off because it's harder to get a bead on a guy after a single year in college as an 18 year-old, you know?

1979-2018 data.

The issue isn't that 2nd OA picks have gotten worse, it's that NBA teams have gotten worse at drafting since 2006. Players don't decide where they are picked, so the average value or performance of these players weighs pretty heavily on where they are picked.

And if anything the argument that he's not bad relative to the last decade or two, just speaks more to the fact that he probably shouldn't/wouldn't have gone 2nd (or the others picked 2nd), had the teams drafting been smarter/better at doing so. There is naturally a bit of a chicken and egg situation, but the end result remains that it's not that player X underperforms, but rather that player X shouldn't have been picked there had there been more due diligence.

Which also largely disarms the whole nonsensical argument of "but you guys wanted a high draft pick, this guy was picked 2nd!". No, we want this FO to be able to pick second, because they have shown a very good drafting record. Grabbing a guy 9 years into the league and saying he was a 2nd OA pick is meaningless and shows a complete lack of understanding of why people want high picks.

It also completely ignores the whole thing about getting a player when they are 20, having them on a cheap contract for like 5 years, and having contract control for almost a decade. People see a draft pick, and think that's it that's all. It's about team building, and you cannot do that in this new CBA by having your entire core on it's second or third contract, in year **** one of a rebuild.

[tsherkin]

1979-2018 data.

The issue isn't that 2nd OA picks have gotten worse, it's that NBA teams have gotten worse at drafting since 2006.

There are been a fair number of gambles, sure. But again, that's still influenced by HS draftees, as the article indicates. But again, we're also into a period where there is no incentive for guys to stay longer, so amount of available data is lower. Guys are coming out at 19 from their freshman seasons, like I said. That meaningfully changes what teams expect from them.

I think that it's far more difficult to draft when you don't have 3 or 4 years of information on the players in question. It's easier to spot development, it's easier to spot guys who aren't just flashes in the pan. This is ALSO something the article indicates. And of course, it also notes that there is a much wider pool of overall talent, so actively scouting all of it is much more challenging.

It also completely ignores the whole thing about getting a player when they are 20, having them on a cheap contract for like 5 years, and having contract control for almost a decade. People see a draft pick, and think that's it that's all. It's about team building, and you cannot do that in this new CBA by having your entire core on it's second or third contract, in year **** one of a rebuild.

Certainly.

[Dexjackson]

Edgecomb babyy

I hope we explore trading RJ if we resign BI. RJ to me loses value as a 4th option to our team if he's not asked to score as much. Need more defense from the 2 spot if we have Quick and BI at the 1 and 3. I'd rather draft Edgecomb (I'm on board with you on that), trade RJ for a guy who fits the 3&D mold better, and/or trade RJ for a backup big. Honestly Ochai fit's well with that group. I think one of RJ or Gradey has to go long term. RJ because of his salary and Gradey because of his defense.

Gradey we can make that exception tho. He’ll be 6th man , used as a microwave scorer / 3pt threat. Shead mogbo and ochai are all good defenders from the bench already

If RJ is traded, I can see the rationale for keeping Gradey. I guess I'm just not as high on Gradey as most. I don't like having a bench guy with that bad of defense.

[Scase]

1979-2018 data.

The issue isn't that 2nd OA picks have gotten worse, it's that NBA teams have gotten worse at drafting since 2006.

There are been a fair number of gambles, sure. But again, that's still influenced by HS draftees, as the article indicates. But again, we're also into a period where there is no incentive for guys to stay longer, so amount of available data is lower. Guys are coming out at 19 from their freshman seasons, like I said. That meaningfully changes what teams expect from them.

I think that it's far more difficult to draft when you don't have 3 or 4 years of information on the players in question. It's easier to spot development, it's easier to spot guys who aren't just flashes in the pan. This is ALSO something the article indicates. And of course, it also notes that there is a much wider pool of overall talent, so actively scouting all of it is much more challenging.

It also completely ignores the whole thing about getting a player when they are 20, having them on a cheap contract for like 5 years, and having contract control for almost a decade. People see a draft pick, and think that's it that's all. It's about team building, and you cannot do that in this new CBA by having your entire core on it's second or third contract, in year **** one of a rebuild.

Certainly.

Exactly, but to me that doesn't mean you change the expectations of a 2nd OA pick, it means that you have higher standards of the teams picking them. If teams can find quite good players outside the top 5, I'm not willing to chalk that entirely up to blind luck, but that the teams drafting in most cases did their due diligence.

I think it's fair to say that you'd expect more than a single AS appearance, and no All NBA selections, in a 9 year career from a 2nd OA pick. That to me is an underwhelming pick, to say the least.

[Dexjackson]

I hope we explore trading RJ if we resign BI. RJ to me loses value as a 4th option to our team if he's not asked to score as much. Need more defense from the 2 spot if we have Quick and BI at the 1 and 3. I'd rather draft Edgecomb (I'm on board with you on that), trade RJ for a guy who fits the 3&D mold better, and/or trade RJ for a backup big. Honestly Ochai fit's well with that group. I think one of RJ or Gradey has to go long term. RJ because of his salary and Gradey because of his defense.

I keep thinking the guy that will be traded is IQ. He will have value in the league & if the Raps have the opportunity to trade for a legit two way PG, they may have to pull the trigger in order to take this team to next level.

U need his playmaking and shooting, he’s our best 3 point shooter. RJ is the most expendable because we have enough scoring with Ingram added

Also iq can defend, RJ not so much

I feel like IQ's defense get's overrated for me. It just doesn't pass the eye test. He get's muscled easily. He could make up by it with having quick feet but he's not as agile laterally as I would expect from someone his size. He get's blown by way too much.

[tsherkin]

Exactly, but to me that doesn't mean you change the expectations of a 2nd OA pick, it means that you have higher standards of the teams picking them. If teams can find quite good players outside the top 5, I'm not willing to chalk that entirely up to blind luck, but that the teams drafting in most cases did their due diligence.

It kind of does, though. Like, obviously you WANT better players, but when you introduce that sort of variability, you are now gambling more than you ever were before. That has to be acknowledged, so when you present something saying "NBA GMs are worse than ever before at drafting," it's still so very relevant to note that it is harder to draft well than at any other time in NBA history. And that means that average expectations of 2nd OA picks are no longer really related to what we saw from drafting prior to 1995.

I think it's fair to say that you'd expect more than a single AS appearance, and no All NBA selections, in a 9 year career from a 2nd OA pick. That to me is an underwhelming pick, to say the least.

Sure, but that's the game. And how much of that accolade denial is health-related, right? Sometimes, that's just what you get. Sometimes you get Jason Kidd and sometimes you get Ralph Sampson and sometimes you get Hasheem Thabeet. It depends on how you approach your strategy for the selection , too. Shoot for the moon or go with something ostensibly a little safer? And that's assuming there's a given baseline of talent IN the draft from which to pick in the first place.

MANY variables.

[Scase]

Exactly, but to me that doesn't mean you change the expectations of a 2nd OA pick, it means that you have higher standards of the teams picking them. If teams can find quite good players outside the top 5, I'm not willing to chalk that entirely up to blind luck, but that the teams drafting in most cases did their due diligence.

It kind of does, though. Like, obviously you WANT better players, but when you introduce that sort of variability, you are now gambling more than you ever were before. That has to be acknowledged, so when you present something saying "NBA GMs are worse than ever before at drafting," it's still so very relevant to note that it is harder to draft well than at any other time in NBA history. And that means that average expectations of 2nd OA picks are no longer really related to what we saw from drafting prior to 1995.

I think it's fair to say that you'd expect more than a single AS appearance, and no All NBA selections, in a 9 year career from a 2nd OA pick. That to me is an underwhelming pick, to say the least.

Sure, but that's the game. And how much of that accolade denial is health-related, right? Sometimes, that's just what you get. Sometimes you get Jason Kidd and sometimes you get Ralph Sampson and sometimes you get Hasheem Thabeet. It depends on how you approach your strategy for the selection , too. Shoot for the moon or go with something ostensibly a little safer? And that's assuming there's a given baseline of talent IN the draft from which to pick in the first place.

MANY variables.

I will say the drafting pool absolutely has had an effect on muddying the waters, but the averages of poor drafting are also heavily impacted by there genuinely being considerably more FOs that suck at drafting than don't. SAS, OKC, and us have remained very good at drafting, despite the outside factors listed, so when I say I expect better out of that kind of pick, I mean because the FOs should be better. And for an FO like ours, I would absolutely trust the "this is a 2nd OA player, picked by Masai" than "this is a 2nd OA player" picked by the hornets or something.

The variable of a quality FO is the one with the most weight.

[tsherkin]

I will say the drafting pool absolutely has had an effect on muddying the waters, but the averages of poor drafting are also heavily impacted by there genuinely being considerably more FOs that suck at drafting than don't. SAS, OKC, and us have remained very good at drafting, despite the outside factors listed, so when I say I expect better out of that kind of pick, I mean because the FOs should be better. And for an FO like ours, I would absolutely trust the "this is a 2nd OA player, picked by Masai" than "this is a 2nd OA player" picked by the hornets or something.

The variable of a quality FO is the one with the most weight.

Not just the FO, though. You need a quality, well-staffed and well-funded scouting department. They need to deliver quality information to the FO, who has no ability to manage all that knowledge on their own while keeping up with all of their other duties. If the pipeline of information isn't there, the decision-makers are screwed before they started.

And pointing to San Antonio isn't great, because they are literally one of the best and most consistent front offices I can think of over the last 45 years. They're an exception.

We've done... all right. We certainly hit on Pascal and OG.

But again, up at the top, now you're dealing with a different type of expectation and strategy than you're "ah, screw it, let's try this" with your picks in the 20s no one is ever going to talk about again. So we'll have to see what happens with that level of pick.

Remember, Ujiri was here when we took Terrence Ross, Bruno Caboclo, Delon Wright, Malachi Flynn, etc. He took Barnes 4th overall, although I don't know that there was a more sensible choice in that draft. But certainly relative to draft slot expectations that you've been outlining, Barnes is a disappointment at odds with the way you're framing trust in Masai's ability to handle the #2.

So we'll have to see. But again, it cannot be ignored that the context of drafting has wildly changed and it has impacted the ability of teams to do well. Yes, some are crap at it. Some are better. San Antonio is nuts. But teams didn't just suddenly start sucking 20 years ago, things have meaningfully changed.

[Scase]

I will say the drafting pool absolutely has had an effect on muddying the waters, but the averages of poor drafting are also heavily impacted by there genuinely being considerably more FOs that suck at drafting than don't. SAS, OKC, and us have remained very good at drafting, despite the outside factors listed, so when I say I expect better out of that kind of pick, I mean because the FOs should be better. And for an FO like ours, I would absolutely trust the "this is a 2nd OA player, picked by Masai" than "this is a 2nd OA player" picked by the hornets or something.

The variable of a quality FO is the one with the most weight.

Not just the FO, though. You need a quality, well-staffed and well-funded scouting department. They need to deliver quality information to the FO, who has no ability to manage all that knowledge on their own while keeping up with all of their other duties. If the pipeline of information isn't there, the decision-makers are screwed before they started.

And pointing to San Antonio isn't great, because they are literally one of the best and most consistent front offices I can think of over the last 45 years. They're an exception.

We've done... all right. We certainly hit on Pascal and OG.

But again, up at the top, now you're dealing with a different type of expectation and strategy than you're "ah, screw it, let's try this" with your picks in the 20s no one is ever going to talk about again. So we'll have to see what happens with that level of pick.

Remember, Ujiri was here when we took Terrence Ross, Bruno Caboclo, Delon Wright, Malachi Flynn, etc. He took Barnes 4th overall, although I don't know that there was a more sensible choice in that draft. But certainly relative to draft slot expectations that you've been outlining, Barnes is a disappointment at odds with the way you're framing trust in Masai's ability to handle the #2.

So we'll have to see. But again, it cannot be ignored that the context of drafting has wildly changed and it has impacted the ability of teams to do well. Yes, some are crap at it. Some are better. San Antonio is nuts. But teams didn't just suddenly start sucking 20 years ago, things have meaningfully changed.

For clarity, I consider anyone not a player or a coach directly working with the team, as part of the FO. So scouting staff and so on. I could probably have been clearer on that though, the entire scouting staff to me, is an extension of the GM/Execs.

Barnes isn't a disappointment quite yet, he managed an AS selection at age 23, expected career winshares are about 50. He's 4 years in at 17, and assuming a 10 year career (which is super conservative) he's still very much on track for the usual performance expectations. His WS this year is below expectations, but I don't think that is indicative of the player, more the environment right now for everyone.

Scottie was one a very good pick, and I would have a lot of faith in this FO making the right pick with a 2nd OA one. Definitely more than with most FOs, and you know I am far from a Masai stan lol.

[tsherkin]

For clarity, I consider anyone not a player or a coach directly working with the team, as part of the FO. So scouting staff and so on. I could probably have been clearer on that though, the entire scouting staff to me, is an extension of the GM/Execs.

Fair. Not how I look at it, but thanks for clarifying.

Barnes isn't a disappointment quite yet, he managed an AS selection at age 23, expected career winshares are about 50. He's 4 years in at 17, and assuming a 10 year career (which is super conservative) he's still very much on track for the usual performance expectations. His WS this year is below expectations, but I don't think that is indicative of the player, more the environment right now for everyone.

I think he's proving that he's been heavily overextended. We're going to find more value with him as soon as we stop pretending he's a focal player and when, like with RJ, we start supporting his offense instead of demanding he create it all himself.

I can't fault the Barnes pick because honestly I can't think of anyone better he could have taken, to be fair. But I don't know that I"d prop it up as much more than that in the context of value expected at slot.

[Scase]

For clarity, I consider anyone not a player or a coach directly working with the team, as part of the FO. So scouting staff and so on. I could probably have been clearer on that though, the entire scouting staff to me, is an extension of the GM/Execs.

Fair. Not how I look at it, but thanks for clarifying.

Barnes isn't a disappointment quite yet, he managed an AS selection at age 23, expected career winshares are about 50. He's 4 years in at 17, and assuming a 10 year career (which is super conservative) he's still very much on track for the usual performance expectations. His WS this year is below expectations, but I don't think that is indicative of the player, more the environment right now for everyone.

I think he's proving that he's been heavily overextended. We're going to find more value with him as soon as we stop pretending he's a focal player and when, like with RJ, we start supporting his offense instead of demanding he create it all himself.

I can't fault the Barnes pick because honestly I can't think of anyone better he could have taken, to be fair. But I don't know that I"d prop it up as much more than that in the context of value expected at slot.

I agree entirely, that's why I have faith in them to handle high draft picks much better than other FOs, and it's why I value those picks so highly. If we were the Hornets, I'd be on board for an Ingram level trade, because they aren't exactly drafting powerhouses, you gotta play to your strengths, and drafting is ours.