Regrading the Pascal Trade

[bluerap23]

I was among the many disappointed with the Pascal return. Now that the BI extension is taken care of it is a good time to regrade it, the full return determined (outside of 2 2nd rounders).

Out:
Pascal (plus McDaniels and Otto if you want to get technical)

In:
Brandon Ingram
Jakobe Walter
Ochai Agbagi
Jamal Shead
Portland 2025 Second round pick
Lakers 2026 Second round pick

[BoyzNTheHood]

The initial return was lackluster, and I don't even consider Ingram part of the return. But when you see who Masai drafted with those picks, it makes it all better. What a monster this guy is, and the day Masai leaves might be one of the darkest in franchise history.

[artsncrafts]

Its fine. We essentially chose to pay Ingram instead of Siakam and got a few late picks. Siakam is the overall better and healthier player but clearly we were moving on and we needed to get much younger. I am not going to say it was a huge win because they probably should done a full rebuild instead of trading OG and Siakam for Ingram/RJ/ IQ, but I guess in terms of pushing the "asset" can down the road it worked out well. I gave it a B.

[sidsid]

Ill be interested in this once I see where Indy lands next year. Wondering what they'll do with the Turner situation.

[tecumseh18]

... I don't even consider Ingram part of the return.

In loudly declaring Scottie to be the face of the team the summer before Pascal was traded, clearly the organization had decided that Pascal was not a good fit with Scottie. Too old, not a good enough or consistent enough shooter. Scottie loves to pass, and needs an elite shooter to pass to. So I have to believe that we had been targeting BI as far back as then, and that all moves have been designed to facilitate his acquisition.

In that sense, Ingram can well be looked at as part of the return for Siakam.

[Mak]

I was among the many disappointed with the Pascal return. Now that the BI extension is taken care of it is a good time to regrade it, the full return determined (outside of 2 2nd rounders).

Out:
Pascal (plus McDaniels and Otto if you want to get technical)

In:
Brandon Ingram
Jakobe Walter
Ochai Agbagi
Jamal Shead
Portland 2025 Second round pick
Lakers 2026 Second round pick

Right now I would grade it B+ or B but a lot can change to swing this trade either way. Have to see how this works, we want to tank next year so don't be surprised if next year does not start amazing. We need to see at least 1 year of this team healthy, hopefully its next year and we are not this years Pelicans. Ingram is 27, if he stays healthy and Walter becomes good rotation player or a starter, this can move to A.

[ForeverTFC]

Ill be interested in this once I see where Indy lands next year. Wondering what they'll do with the Turner situation.

They're an anti-tank org with a win now mandate. They'll be pushing for the POs but injuries could derail them.

I'm still mad that we couldn't top 10 protect that pick. 1-4 goes to Indiana, 6-10 Raptors, otherwise Pelicans.

[artsncrafts]

Ill be interested in this once I see where Indy lands next year. Wondering what they'll do with the Turner situation.

They're an anti-tank org with a win now mandate. They'll be pushing for the POs but injuries could derail them.

I'm still mad that we couldn't top 10 protect that pick. 1-4 goes to Indiana, 6-10 Raptors, otherwise Pelicans.

Or just a pick swap would be fine. You never know whats going to happen.

[brownbobcat]

Its fine. We essentially chose to pay Ingram instead of Siakam and got a few late picks. Siakam is the overall better and healthier player but clearly we were moving on and we needed to get much younger. I am not going to say it was a huge win because they probably should done a full rebuild instead of trading OG and Siakam for Ingram/RJ/ IQ, but I guess in terms of pushing the "asset" can down the road it worked out well. I gave it a B.

Same. It's decent, not too dissimilar from initial view of the Norm/GTJ trade but with a few more depth pieces.

I look at it this way, it would have been an acceptable win to have traded Siakam for a younger/cheaper version of himself but it wouldn't have been a foundational move because of limited upside. It's fine

[ForeverTFC]

Ill be interested in this once I see where Indy lands next year. Wondering what they'll do with the Turner situation.

They're an anti-tank org with a win now mandate. They'll be pushing for the POs but injuries could derail them.

I'm still mad that we couldn't top 10 protect that pick. 1-4 goes to Indiana, 6-10 Raptors, otherwise Pelicans.

Or just a pick swap would be fine. You never know whats going to happen.

Agree. Even the lesser of Raptors and Pacers pick would have been better than just giving up the Pacers pick.

[sidsid]

They're an anti-tank org with a win now mandate. They'll be pushing for the POs but injuries could derail them.

I'm still mad that we couldn't top 10 protect that pick. 1-4 goes to Indiana, 6-10 Raptors, otherwise Pelicans.

Or just a pick swap would be fine. You never know whats going to happen.

Agree. Even the lesser of Raptors and Pacers pick would have been better than just giving up the Pacers pick.

The reason they should have fought harder on this is the Turner situation. This is already a team that doesn't play defense and if they lose him, they'll have no size and to find a replacement that's also a stretch 5. Or else restructuring the offense around whatever is new. Some potential core changes on top of this weird vibes team where you can short them for sure.

[Scase]

Its fine. We essentially chose to pay Ingram instead of Siakam and got a few late picks. Siakam is the overall better and healthier player but clearly we were moving on and we needed to get much younger. I am not going to say it was a huge win because they probably should done a full rebuild instead of trading OG and Siakam for Ingram/RJ/ IQ, but I guess in terms of pushing the "asset" can down the road it worked out well. I gave it a B.

Same. It's decent, not too dissimilar from initial view of the Norm/GTJ trade but with a few more depth pieces.

I look at it this way, it would have been an acceptable win to have traded Siakam for a younger/cheaper version of himself but it wouldn't have been a foundational move because of limited upside. It's fine

IMO it's meh on its own, and just still bad based on all the surrounding impacts like the year(s) wasted treadmilling etc. A couple SRP players aint changing that. Trying to spin a bunch of ancillary trades into the value is just pure cope.

[ForeverTFC]

Its fine. We essentially chose to pay Ingram instead of Siakam and got a few late picks. Siakam is the overall better and healthier player but clearly we were moving on and we needed to get much younger. I am not going to say it was a huge win because they probably should done a full rebuild instead of trading OG and Siakam for Ingram/RJ/ IQ, but I guess in terms of pushing the "asset" can down the road it worked out well. I gave it a B.

Same. It's decent, not too dissimilar from initial view of the Norm/GTJ trade but with a few more depth pieces.

I look at it this way, it would have been an acceptable win to have traded Siakam for a younger/cheaper version of himself but it wouldn't have been a foundational move because of limited upside. It's fine

IMO it's meh on its own, and just still bad based on all the surrounding impacts like the year(s) wasted treadmilling etc. A couple SRP players aint changing that. Trying to spin a bunch of ancillary trades into the value is just pure cope.

It's meh, though any Siakam trade would have been meh it seems like. Lowe said the deals available to them the year before at the deadline were very comparable. I will recognize that Lewenberg said they could have gotten more, but I side with Lowe here for obvious reasons. And seeing what Ingram, Fox, Lavine, etc. got back further cements this for me. We were never going to get value for this guy unless we traded him right after Scottie's rookie year in the off-season, which I think is a tall ask for an org like ours.

I really wish he would have been amendable to signing a 3 year deal. I'd have given him that at his max dollars.

[TimeForChange]

You can't include the McDaniels trade in with the return for Pascal

[Scase]

Same. It's decent, not too dissimilar from initial view of the Norm/GTJ trade but with a few more depth pieces.

I look at it this way, it would have been an acceptable win to have traded Siakam for a younger/cheaper version of himself but it wouldn't have been a foundational move because of limited upside. It's fine

IMO it's meh on its own, and just still bad based on all the surrounding impacts like the year(s) wasted treadmilling etc. A couple SRP players aint changing that. Trying to spin a bunch of ancillary trades into the value is just pure cope.

It's meh, though any Siakam trade would have been meh it seems like. Lowe said the deals available to them the year before at the deadline were very comparable. I will recognize that Lewenberg said they could have gotten more, but I side with Lowe here for obvious reasons. And seeing what Ingram, Fox, Lavine, etc. got back further cements this for me. We were never going to get value for this guy unless we traded him right after Scottie's rookie year in the off-season, which I think is a tall ask for an org like ours.

I really wish he would have been amendable to signing a 3 year deal. I'd have given him that at his max dollars.

Honestly it's less about the return and more about the timing for me. I'd have still been irritated if we got the same return, but I'd have been happier overall since we didn't waste another year doing nothing. Or alternatively, if they planned on trading him anyways, they would've have traded for Jak, opens up a whole new avenue for the rebuild.

But this FO doesn't have the stones to rebuild.

[pbernardi]

Two points to consider:

1 - We may lose Chris Boucher in the offseason because we do not want to stay above the 1st apron. In this case, I would consider that this is an indirect effect of BI extension, and thus and indirect effect of Pascal trade. (Ofc, this depends a lot of what happen in offseason. We only will know in free agency, I guess).
2 - With Pascal on this team, we would not tank this year, we would be probably a play-in team. Thus, having (hopefully) a top-5 pick in this year is also an indirect effect of PS trade.

[YogurtProducer]

Its fine. We essentially chose to pay Ingram instead of Siakam and got a few late picks. Siakam is the overall better and healthier player but clearly we were moving on and we needed to get much younger. I am not going to say it was a huge win because they probably should done a full rebuild instead of trading OG and Siakam for Ingram/RJ/ IQ, but I guess in terms of pushing the "asset" can down the road it worked out well. I gave it a B.

Same. It's decent, not too dissimilar from initial view of the Norm/GTJ trade but with a few more depth pieces.

I look at it this way, it would have been an acceptable win to have traded Siakam for a younger/cheaper version of himself but it wouldn't have been a foundational move because of limited upside. It's fine

IMO it's meh on its own, and just still bad based on all the surrounding impacts like the year(s) wasted treadmilling etc. A couple SRP players aint changing that. Trying to spin a bunch of ancillary trades into the value is just pure cope.

No, it’s literally how it works.
Ignoring it is just disingenuous to hate.

[AndreasLeftCalf]

i voted b.

we still need to see how this plays out first, its a nice start though

[Duffman100]

Same. It's decent, not too dissimilar from initial view of the Norm/GTJ trade but with a few more depth pieces.

I look at it this way, it would have been an acceptable win to have traded Siakam for a younger/cheaper version of himself but it wouldn't have been a foundational move because of limited upside. It's fine

IMO it's meh on its own, and just still bad based on all the surrounding impacts like the year(s) wasted treadmilling etc. A couple SRP players aint changing that. Trying to spin a bunch of ancillary trades into the value is just pure cope.

No, it’s literally how it works.
Ignoring it is just disingenuous to hate.

I'm confused and maybe I'm misunderstanding.

We can't judge the trade by all of the moving that happened related to the trade?

[YogurtProducer]

IMO it's meh on its own, and just still bad based on all the surrounding impacts like the year(s) wasted treadmilling etc. A couple SRP players aint changing that. Trying to spin a bunch of ancillary trades into the value is just pure cope.

No, it’s literally how it works.
Ignoring it is just disingenuous to hate.

I'm confused and maybe I'm misunderstanding.

We can't judge the trade by all of the moving that happened related to the trade?

apparently not.

People tried to say be patient and were told “we’re not going to get anything!” And now the goal posts shift.