Moderators: 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford, DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX
YogurtProducer wrote:Duffman100 wrote:YogurtProducer wrote: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.
Duffman100 wrote:YogurtProducer wrote:Duffman100 wrote:
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.
To be fair, he may be taking about the McDaniels/shead deal and the TPE.
- Raptors RealGM Forum re: Masai Ujiri - June 2023What an absolute failure and disaster this franchise is, ran by one of the most incompetent front offices in the league.
TimeForChange wrote:You can't include the McDaniels trade in with the return for Pascal
Indeed wrote:Siakam is still better.
Sure we did well on asset management, but I am unsure we are better record wise and future wise.
Ell Curry wrote:Indeed wrote:Siakam is still better.
Sure we did well on asset management, but I am unsure we are better record wise and future wise.
Ultimately we'll never know what offers we had 6 months to a year prior for Siakam and OG before we traded them and Fred before we didn't trade him.
Basically we moved Siakam for Ingram (3.5 years young), Walter and bench pieces.
OG for Quickley and Barrett (2 and 3 years younger).
Hard not to think we're probably going to be in the same place we were the 2-3 years ago, unless we end up with a really, really good player from this draft.
I think the ideal move would have been a proper 2-3 year tank but either Rogers wasn't okay with that or Masai didn't want to.
For me, the red line is not trading any of our own first rounders. Unless we get a guy who, for example, would have been the runaway Rookie of the Year this year, so in recent years that would be a Brandon Miller/Chet/Jalen Williams level guy, I hope we don't move any future firsts and we keep open the possibility of moving Scottie for 4 or 5 firsts, Poeltl for 1, Ingram for 1 and tanking properly with about 7-8 extra first rounders.
Basically feels like we gambled everything on this one tank season. Trading for an injured Ingram is the logical (and so I get the strategic logic) extension of this. So this year's draft just seems like a huge crossroads.
If we get a star, we're in good shape. If we don't, this group never sniffs contender status, and we shouldn't be okay with being the Kings (just happy not to be losing 50 games) or Bulls (cheap ownership). We won a title recently, had I don't know 7 playoff seasons surrounding it. I can deal with watching a young, tanking team for 3-4 seasons.
TLDR: If we get a top 4 pick and a star, then pretty much every move we made, including the Siakam trade, was good. If we don't, it was the wrong approach. That's not fair, or a good way to evaluate strategy or plan future moves, but it's the way it is.
Ell Curry wrote:Indeed wrote:Siakam is still better.
Sure we did well on asset management, but I am unsure we are better record wise and future wise.
Ultimately we'll never know what offers we had 6 months to a year prior for Siakam and OG before we traded them and Fred before we didn't trade him.
Basically we moved Siakam for Ingram (3.5 years young), Walter and bench pieces.
OG for Quickley and Barrett (2 and 3 years younger).
Hard not to think we're probably going to be in the same place we were the 2-3 years ago, unless we end up with a really, really good player from this draft.
I think the ideal move would have been a proper 2-3 year tank but either Rogers wasn't okay with that or Masai didn't want to.
For me, the red line is not trading any of our own first rounders. Unless we get a guy who, for example, would have been the runaway Rookie of the Year this year, so in recent years that would be a Brandon Miller/Chet/Jalen Williams level guy, I hope we don't move any future firsts and we keep open the possibility of moving Scottie for 4 or 5 firsts, Poeltl for 1, Ingram for 1 and tanking properly with about 7-8 extra first rounders.
Basically feels like we gambled everything on this one tank season. Trading for an injured Ingram is the logical (and so I get the strategic logic) extension of this. So this year's draft just seems like a huge crossroads.
If we get a star, we're in good shape. If we don't, this group never sniffs contender status, and we shouldn't be okay with being the Kings (just happy not to be losing 50 games) or Bulls (cheap ownership). We won a title recently, had I don't know 7 playoff seasons surrounding it. I can deal with watching a young, tanking team for 3-4 seasons.
TLDR: If we get a top 4 pick and a star, then pretty much every move we made, including the Siakam trade, was good. If we don't, it was the wrong approach. That's not fair, or a good way to evaluate strategy or plan future moves, but it's the way it is.
youngRAPZ wrote:lol you tankers will never quit eh. Masai will never do a 2-3 year tank. If you want to see a 2-3 year tank become a fan of the wizards.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
youngRAPZ wrote:Barnes also will never be traded for 4 or 5 picks that is completely delusional unless you’re salivating at 2nd rd picks for Scottie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
brownbobcat wrote:youngRAPZ wrote:lol you tankers will never quit eh. Masai will never do a 2-3 year tank. If you want to see a 2-3 year tank become a fan of the wizards.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd like to hear your explanation about how a 1 year tank is enough when:
a) They have no idea who they'll get to draft and no meaningful sense of development for another 2-3 years.
b) Nobody else on the current team has taken the next step to becoming a star.
Why tank at all then, why not trade that pick right now for someone like LaVine or Herro?
Ell Curry wrote:youngRAPZ wrote:Barnes also will never be traded for 4 or 5 picks that is completely delusional unless you’re salivating at 2nd rd picks for Scottie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's locked into a long-term deal. Mikal Bridges went for 5. Just need the right small-market team with scoring talent at the guards spots and is ready to make their big move for a frontcourt guy to join them.
Detroit comes to mind, maybe Charlotte (he should fit well with Lamelo and Miller, and maybe they come out of this draft with a shooter like Ace Bailey or Tre Johnson or they draft Maluach and his FT shooting is predictive of him being a Brook Lopez type spacer at the 5). Utah if they got Harper would make sense. Pels might need a PF if they move on from Zion, they have extra firsts. Maybe the Wizards draft big guards the next 2 years, decide Sarr is best off closing games at center and a Sarr-Barnes-Coulibaly-2025-2026 frontcourt could switch everything and outrun/out-skill teams. Lots of possibilities.
Some deal like this feels reasonable if we don't come out of this draft with a star, never win 45 games with this core and go full tank in 2 years:
Small Market Team X - Scottie
Team Y - 20M solid player from team X
Raptors - 3 firsts from Team X, 1 first from Team Y, 1 bad 20M contract each from Team X and team Y
youngRAPZ wrote:I’m sorry none of what you said makes sense to me.
A- I’m unsure why they need to know who they are drafting right now considering trades can be made as soon as the draft so not sure what that has to do with anything.
youngRAPZ wrote: Second part I have no idea what you mean at all. Are you saying they haven’t developed anyone in 2-3 years????? I guess you haven’t watched a single game last year or this year considering dick looks better today than he did to start his rookie season. Not to mention the 4 rookies this year that look better today than last month even.
youngRAPZ wrote:B- You do realize Scottie is 23. I don’t think he will be Gianni’s but I don’t think his development is over or close to being done. Same thing goes for dick and the rookies. Even RJ has improved.
You ask why tank and we are still in a bottom 5 spot I literally have no clue what you’re complaining about lol trade the pick for Lavine or herro why they don’t fit the lineup lol I would trade the pick right now for Luka/Ant/Giannis but who the hell is suggesting trading the pick for Lavine or herro stop making things up in your head just because you want something to complain about.
Back to point A as I said trades can be made sir. If we do something like IQ/walter or dick/ future 1st for ball/young/booker or anyone else that may become available soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
brownbobcat wrote:youngRAPZ wrote:I’m sorry none of what you said makes sense to me.
A- I’m unsure why they need to know who they are drafting right now considering trades can be made as soon as the draft so not sure what that has to do with anything.
The point of tanking is to get a high draft pick and use that pick to get a star, yes?
You can't possibly know if you drafted a star if you didn't even draft yet.
And if you wanted to just trade the pick, then you could have just done so and skipped the tank entirely.youngRAPZ wrote: Second part I have no idea what you mean at all. Are you saying they haven’t developed anyone in 2-3 years????? I guess you haven’t watched a single game last year or this year considering dick looks better today than he did to start his rookie season. Not to mention the 4 rookies this year that look better today than last month even.
Just about every young player in the league gets better, it would be embarrassing if they didn't despite round-the-clock access to the best coaches and facilities in the world. The key question is whether they have clearly developed into a star, and the answer so far is a resounding "no".youngRAPZ wrote:B- You do realize Scottie is 23. I don’t think he will be Gianni’s but I don’t think his development is over or close to being done. Same thing goes for dick and the rookies. Even RJ has improved.
You ask why tank and we are still in a bottom 5 spot I literally have no clue what you’re complaining about lol trade the pick for Lavine or herro why they don’t fit the lineup lol I would trade the pick right now for Luka/Ant/Giannis but who the hell is suggesting trading the pick for Lavine or herro stop making things up in your head just because you want something to complain about.
Back to point A as I said trades can be made sir. If we do something like IQ/walter or dick/ future 1st for ball/young/booker or anyone else that may become available soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you were a GM and had Ball/Young/Booker, would *you* want to trade them for Dick or IQ?
Scase wrote:ForeverTFC wrote:Scase wrote: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.
Ell Curry wrote:Indeed wrote:Siakam is still better.
Sure we did well on asset management, but I am unsure we are better record wise and future wise.
Ultimately we'll never know what offers we had 6 months to a year prior for Siakam and OG before we traded them and Fred before we didn't trade him.
Basically we moved Siakam for Ingram (3.5 years young), Walter and bench pieces.
OG for Quickley and Barrett (2 and 3 years younger).
Hard not to think we're probably going to be in the same place we were the 2-3 years ago, unless we end up with a really, really good player from this draft.
I think the ideal move would have been a proper 2-3 year tank but either Rogers wasn't okay with that or Masai didn't want to.
For me, the red line is not trading any of our own first rounders. Unless we get a guy who, for example, would have been the runaway Rookie of the Year this year, so in recent years that would be a Brandon Miller/Chet/Jalen Williams level guy, I hope we don't move any future firsts and we keep open the possibility of moving Scottie for 4 or 5 firsts, Poeltl for 1, Ingram for 1 and tanking properly with about 7-8 extra first rounders.
Basically feels like we gambled everything on this one tank season. Trading for an injured Ingram is the logical (and so I get the strategic logic) extension of this. So this year's draft just seems like a huge crossroads.
If we get a star, we're in good shape. If we don't, this group never sniffs contender status, and we shouldn't be okay with being the Kings (just happy not to be losing 50 games) or Bulls (cheap ownership). We won a title recently, had I don't know 7 playoff seasons surrounding it. I can deal with watching a young, tanking team for 3-4 seasons.
TLDR: If we get a top 4 pick and a star, then pretty much every move we made, including the Siakam trade, was good. If we don't, it was the wrong approach. That's not fair, or a good way to evaluate strategy or plan future moves, but it's the way it is.
ill-Will03 wrote:Scase wrote:ForeverTFC wrote:
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.
Bro what??? Couple SRPs ain’t changing that? Why not because they might actually turn out to be impactful and go against your narrative? How does anything Masai does somehow get spun into something negative. This one siakam trade almost got us an entire bench.
