Sam Vecenie: Brandon Ingram EXTENDED in Toronto! What exactly is the Raptors plan?!

[DG88]

Watch on YouTube

[YogurtProducer]

So Ingram makes sense in Miami next to Adebayo and Herro but not in TO next to Quickley / Scottie / Barrett / 2025 1st? Okay.

[Scase]

Vecenie as usual hits the nail on the head, he would make sense on the Nuggets but obviously salary wont work, Miami would work since it's Miami and they can count on the FA market/players pushing trades there, plus having a defensive beast like Bam and Hero seemingly taking that next step. Miami never needs to rebuild, so moves like this can always work.

But for us, it's an expensive team with no clear cut player that can/will take the next step, and if it doesn't work out, we don't have the location that people want to come to, to act as a fallback. Whether or not you think the trade is good/bad, one thing everyone can probably agree on, is that it's a risky play.

[WuTang_CMB]

the bald guy doesn't know much, he's a draft guy
Raps bought cheap. If they continue to be in a position to get a high pick for 2025, that's two big talents incoming for next season.
TF they yapping about with this MIA nonsense. It's not like Toronto traded 25' 26' (their own) picks for Ingram.

Like any other team rebuilding, the biggest question is the ceiling of the team. Yes we all want it to be a championship caliber club when this process is over but I think this team will tinker as we go along through trades.

We got talent. End of story

[YogurtProducer]

These guys seem to not fully understand the cap either

- Being $3M below the 1st apron or $3M below the cap really has next to no significant impacts on anything you do.
- They don't seem to be aware IQ's contract is flat ($32.5M today vs 4 years from now is SIGNFICANTLY different)
- They keep talking about how we have so much long term money, but ignore that Barnes/IQ/2025 1st rounder are our only 3 players on the books in 2027-28. (AKA - we have 2 years worth of money locked up)

The fit issues are certainly there, but they also seem to not understand that no one expects a contender out of this group. If Ingram makes sense beside Jokic, then why is there no dicsussion that there is a chance Scottie becomes an perennial 1st team All-NBA guy (unlikely), or our 2025 1st does, or we sign/trade for a superstar player who is down the road? You dont NEED to get the superstar before the support.

Seems to be that people who think tanking is the only way to elevate your team hate this trade. People who understand there is more than 1 route are okay with it.

[YogurtProducer]

Miami never needs to rebuild, so moves like this can always work.
.

Maybe they should. One season over 50 wins since LBJ left, with a couple finals appearances which required some CRAZY circumstances to even get to (total of 88 wins in those 2 season combined).

Funny how they never have to rebuild, when they've been the definition of a treadmill since LBJ departed lol

[Kurtz]

. Whether or not you think the trade is good/bad, one thing everyone can probably agree on, is that it's a risky play.

What do you think the risk is with BI's deal? The only opportunity cost I'm seeing is the loss of Indy's 1st.

[HiJiNX]

It’s easy to see the plan if you’re thinking. Load up on talent. Hope someone breaks through. And if nobody does there’s enough talent to consolidate into a star player or two.

[douggood]

they saw a asset they could get cheap and jumped on it, sort it out later. makes sense to me.

[Tha Cynic]

The entire take seems to indicate some mysterious something else. Maybe they can give an explanation of what this mysterious alternative is for the Raptors?

The Raptors made this decision based on projections they have for their team going forward and how they see this team fit together. I would relate it to the Lowry and Derozan Raptors.

The Raptors are clearly accumulating talent and looking to increase player value at every position.

[aminiaturebuddha]

I generally like Vecenie's draft stuff, but I don't think he's really a great analyst when it comes to team-specific commentary. I've noticed this whenever they do overviews of individual teams, and not just with the Raptors.

[Courtside]

These guys seem to not fully understand the cap either

- Being $3M below the 1st apron or $3M below the cap really has next to no significant impacts on anything you do.
- They don't seem to be aware IQ's contract is flat ($32.5M today vs 4 years from now is SIGNFICANTLY different)
- They keep talking about how we have so much long term money, but ignore that Barnes/IQ/2025 1st rounder are our only 3 players on the books in 2027-28. (AKA - we have 2 years worth of money locked up)

The fit issues are certainly there, but they also seem to not understand that no one expects a contender out of this group. If Ingram makes sense beside Jokic, then why is there no dicsussion that there is a chance Scottie becomes an perennial 1st team All-NBA guy (unlikely), or our 2025 1st does, or we sign/trade for a superstar player who is down the road? You dont NEED to get the superstar before the support.

Seems to be that people who think tanking is the only way to elevate your team hate this trade. People who understand there is more than 1 route are okay with it.

The bolded part here is the main issue for people. There has become this consensus that the best/only way to get stars is in the draft, but that's not true. What *is* true is that most very high draft picks that lead a team to a title don't do it on the team they were drafted by. One reason for this is that it's hard to build out a supporting cast with just young guys, or FAs who are willing to join a possibly good team but lesser perceived team, or that you'd be able to align all the pieces and money properly.

Masai has already built a champion once by first building up a good team with depth, so that an incoming star has the actual support to put the team into real contention. Other teams have done this too. There is FAR more evidence that this path works, than the repeat lotto tanking to rebuild process, which has yet to work even once.

Also, no one is saying that this team is now complete with Ingram and the incoming pick. It's a work in progress that isn't going for a big home run, but rather slowly loading up the bases.

Going the tank/draft/rebuild is most hopium way one could want to build a team, yet it's somehow become the trusted process. The legacy teams *want* everyone else to believe that, so they can eventually poach those stars who won't respect those lotto bound teams due to their losing habits.

[Rapsfan07]

These guys seem to not fully understand the cap either

- Being $3M below the 1st apron or $3M below the cap really has next to no significant impacts on anything you do.
- They don't seem to be aware IQ's contract is flat ($32.5M today vs 4 years from now is SIGNFICANTLY different)
- They keep talking about how we have so much long term money, but ignore that Barnes/IQ/2025 1st rounder are our only 3 players on the books in 2027-28. (AKA - we have 2 years worth of money locked up)

The fit issues are certainly there, but they also seem to not understand that no one expects a contender out of this group. If Ingram makes sense beside Jokic, then why is there no dicsussion that there is a chance Scottie becomes an perennial 1st team All-NBA guy (unlikely), or our 2025 1st does, or we sign/trade for a superstar player who is down the road? You dont NEED to get the superstar before the support.

Seems to be that people who think tanking is the only way to elevate your team hate this trade. People who understand there is more than 1 route are okay with it.

Even then still. I consider myself a tanker to a certain extent and even I was very happy with this trade.

Ingram will be playing very little, if at all this year so the acquisition shouldn't really affect our standings in the draft lottery. In the meantime, we bought VERY low on an extremely talented player who plays a position of need and is a 3 level bucket getter. Provided that our medical team is as good as they've always been, Ingram should be poised for a big year next year we should be pushing for the playoffs. Not to mention we were able to sign him to a fair deal with reasonable term on it.

Sure, this team is not a contender but rarely, if ever is there a one-trade-fixes-all kind of move. Plus hopefully we can walk away with a Top 4 pick this year.

[Rapsfan07]

These guys seem to not fully understand the cap either

- Being $3M below the 1st apron or $3M below the cap really has next to no significant impacts on anything you do.
- They don't seem to be aware IQ's contract is flat ($32.5M today vs 4 years from now is SIGNFICANTLY different)
- They keep talking about how we have so much long term money, but ignore that Barnes/IQ/2025 1st rounder are our only 3 players on the books in 2027-28. (AKA - we have 2 years worth of money locked up)

The fit issues are certainly there, but they also seem to not understand that no one expects a contender out of this group. If Ingram makes sense beside Jokic, then why is there no dicsussion that there is a chance Scottie becomes an perennial 1st team All-NBA guy (unlikely), or our 2025 1st does, or we sign/trade for a superstar player who is down the road? You dont NEED to get the superstar before the support.

Seems to be that people who think tanking is the only way to elevate your team hate this trade. People who understand there is more than 1 route are okay with it.

The bolded part here is the main issue for people. There has becomes this consensus that the best/only way to get stars is in the draft, but that's not true. What *is* true is that most very high draft picks that lead a team to a title don't do it on the team they were drafted by. One reason for this is that it's hard to build out a supporting cast with just young guys, or FAs who are willing to join a possibly good team in a non legacy market, or that you'd be able to align all the pieces and money properly.

Masai has already built a champion once by first building up a good team with depth, so that an incoming star has the actual support to put the team into real contention. Other teams have done this too. There is FAR more evidence that this path works, than the repeat lotto tanking to rebuild process, which has yet to work even once.

Also, no one is saying that this team is now complete with Ingram and the incoming pick. It's a work in progress that isn't going for a big home run, but rather slowly loading up the bases.

Going the tank/draft/rebuild is most hopium way one could want to build a team, yet it's somehow become the trusted process. The legacy teams *want* everyone else to believe that, so they can eventually poach those stars who won't respect those lotto bound teams due to their losing habits.

To be fair, a team's inability to build around a star acquired through the draft does not negate that the best way to acquire a star is through the draft.

When it comes to non-legacy markets, they can't rely on player's desire to be here so they need to make risky trades like the one we made for Kawhi. Thankfully it worked out and yes, Masai did a great job with drafting and trades to provide the right supporting cast for him but we had one shot and if that didn't work out, we'd all be singing a much different song right now.

See the thing is, teams who have presumably drafted their stars don't have to trade them until the end of their second contract most of the time, which is about 7 years give or take. That's plenty time to figure things out. If/when they don't and the players want to leave, they don't trade that player until the absolutely have to, which is usually at the end of the contract when that play will have full control of their next destination. Most of time, that isn't going to be Toronto or Minnesota or Portland or whatever. Which leaves teams like ours in a place where we have to gamble on the last year of a star's contract and hope we can convince him to stay.

OKC for example leveraged George against the Clippers and where able to get SGA. Then over time they got Williams then Chet and other great FA signings. And while they haven't won yet, I don't think there's a team better poised to dominate the NBA than them.

[Courtside]

These guys seem to not fully understand the cap either

- Being $3M below the 1st apron or $3M below the cap really has next to no significant impacts on anything you do.
- They don't seem to be aware IQ's contract is flat ($32.5M today vs 4 years from now is SIGNFICANTLY different)
- They keep talking about how we have so much long term money, but ignore that Barnes/IQ/2025 1st rounder are our only 3 players on the books in 2027-28. (AKA - we have 2 years worth of money locked up)

The fit issues are certainly there, but they also seem to not understand that no one expects a contender out of this group. If Ingram makes sense beside Jokic, then why is there no dicsussion that there is a chance Scottie becomes an perennial 1st team All-NBA guy (unlikely), or our 2025 1st does, or we sign/trade for a superstar player who is down the road? You dont NEED to get the superstar before the support.

Seems to be that people who think tanking is the only way to elevate your team hate this trade. People who understand there is more than 1 route are okay with it.

The bolded part here is the main issue for people. There has becomes this consensus that the best/only way to get stars is in the draft, but that's not true. What *is* true is that most very high draft picks that lead a team to a title don't do it on the team they were drafted by. One reason for this is that it's hard to build out a supporting cast with just young guys, or FAs who are willing to join a possibly good team in a non legacy market, or that you'd be able to align all the pieces and money properly.

Masai has already built a champion once by first building up a good team with depth, so that an incoming star has the actual support to put the team into real contention. Other teams have done this too. There is FAR more evidence that this path works, than the repeat lotto tanking to rebuild process, which has yet to work even once.

Also, no one is saying that this team is now complete with Ingram and the incoming pick. It's a work in progress that isn't going for a big home run, but rather slowly loading up the bases.

Going the tank/draft/rebuild is most hopium way one could want to build a team, yet it's somehow become the trusted process. The legacy teams *want* everyone else to believe that, so they can eventually poach those stars who won't respect those lotto bound teams due to their losing habits.

To be fair, a team's inability to build around a star acquired through the draft does not negate that the best way to acquire a star is through the draft.

When it comes to non-legacy markets, they can't rely on player's desire to be here so they need to make risky trades like the one we made for Kawhi. Thankfully it worked out and yes, Masai did a great job with drafting and trades to provide the right supporting cast for him but we had one shot and if that didn't work out, we'd all be singing a much different song right now.

See the thing is, teams who have presumably drafted their stars don't have to trade them until the end of their second contract most of the time, which is about 7 years give or take. That's plenty time to figure things out. If/when they don't and the players want to leave, they don't trade that player until the absolutely have to, which is usually at the end of the contract when that play will have full control of their next destination. Most of time, that isn't going to be Toronto or Minnesota or Portland or whatever. Which leaves teams like ours in a place where we have to gamble on the last year of a star's contract and hope we can convince him to stay.

OKC for example leveraged George against the Clippers and where able to get SGA. Then over time they got Williams then Chet and other great FA signings. And while they haven't won yet, I don't think there's a team better poised to dominate the NBA than them.

Sure the best way to acquire stars is through the draft. Have you stopped to examine whether this is also the best way to build championship contenders?

Oklahoma may be close, but there are still many more examples of teams who won titles by acquiring stars from the teams who drafted them.

[MEDIC]

The biggest issue with this deal is potential chronic injuries. Other than that it is a no brainer. Is there some risk with BI? For sure. But the contract isn't all that long (for some reason they are trying to make it sound like it is). At worst, he is a tradeable expiring contact in 2.5 seasons. It's not all that risky. 2.5 seasons goes by in the blink of an eye. They basically gave up nothing for a potentially high reward. The pick this year is still going to be high lottery.

I have the same concerns that they do with player fit, but that's what trades are for. You get the talent. You play them & evaluate. Then you tinker & find the right complimentary talent to put around Scottie, BI & whoever else steps up & solidifies themselves as a core piece.

RJ, Quickley, Dick & all the young guys are tradeable assets. If there are fit issues with any of them, you target talent that fits better & you move those guys.

[sidsid]

These guys seem to not fully understand the cap either

- Being $3M below the 1st apron or $3M below the cap really has next to no significant impacts on anything you do.
- They don't seem to be aware IQ's contract is flat ($32.5M today vs 4 years from now is SIGNFICANTLY different)
- They keep talking about how we have so much long term money, but ignore that Barnes/IQ/2025 1st rounder are our only 3 players on the books in 2027-28. (AKA - we have 2 years worth of money locked up)

The fit issues are certainly there, but they also seem to not understand that no one expects a contender out of this group. If Ingram makes sense beside Jokic, then why is there no dicsussion that there is a chance Scottie becomes an perennial 1st team All-NBA guy (unlikely), or our 2025 1st does, or we sign/trade for a superstar player who is down the road? You dont NEED to get the superstar before the support.

Seems to be that people who think tanking is the only way to elevate your team hate this trade. People who understand there is more than 1 route are okay with it.

The bolded part here is the main issue for people. There has becomes this consensus that the best/only way to get stars is in the draft, but that's not true. What *is* true is that most very high draft picks that lead a team to a title don't do it on the team they were drafted by. One reason for this is that it's hard to build out a supporting cast with just young guys, or FAs who are willing to join a possibly good team in a non legacy market, or that you'd be able to align all the pieces and money properly.

Masai has already built a champion once by first building up a good team with depth, so that an incoming star has the actual support to put the team into real contention. Other teams have done this too. There is FAR more evidence that this path works, than the repeat lotto tanking to rebuild process, which has yet to work even once.

Also, no one is saying that this team is now complete with Ingram and the incoming pick. It's a work in progress that isn't going for a big home run, but rather slowly loading up the bases.

Going the tank/draft/rebuild is most hopium way one could want to build a team, yet it's somehow become the trusted process. The legacy teams *want* everyone else to believe that, so they can eventually poach those stars who won't respect those lotto bound teams due to their losing habits.

I think there are key differences in approaches, and expectations on the outputs that lead those approaches to success.

The tank route isn't complicated:
1. Be bad
2. Draft well
3. Try to keep the culture from tanking with it on the way up (see OKC/Spurs, or even Utah)

The talent at the expense of assets is different:
1. Make sure the pieces fit
2. Be good
3. Increase value of talent

It's much harder to accomplish 2 and 3 for the latter if 1 isn't there and if the talent isn't up to snuff either.

This can go disastrously, especially when the latter approach tends to cost you assets. See our experience with Jak, and the idea of putting 4 non-spacers on the floor together to create the worst offense in existence on our way to losing a lotto pick.

The fit concerns with Ingram are there as well if he doesn't change - I've made the comp to DeRozan on the Kings - which is why you can't just say "get talent, increase value, trade for star" (see the Bulls) quite like "trade talent, get picks/assets, tank for better value pick".

[brownbobcat]

The bolded part here is the main issue for people. There has becomes this consensus that the best/only way to get stars is in the draft, but that's not true. What *is* true is that most very high draft picks that lead a team to a title don't do it on the team they were drafted by. One reason for this is that it's hard to build out a supporting cast with just young guys, or FAs who are willing to join a possibly good team in a non legacy market, or that you'd be able to align all the pieces and money properly.

My main worry is that this team lacks not only superstars (top-5 talent), but maybe doesn't have any top-25 talent either.

DeRozan was never the guy who could carry a team there, but he was a multiple time All Star and so was Lowry. That might be in the future for Barnes, but it's shaky based on his play this year. A lot of things have to go right, and it probably starts with Barnes taking another step and Ingram playing 60+ games next season.

[Ell Curry]

. Whether or not you think the trade is good/bad, one thing everyone can probably agree on, is that it's a risky play.

What do you think the risk is with BI's deal? The only opportunity cost I'm seeing is the loss of Indy's 1st.

The opportunity cost is the Pacers pick, and also the median season next year is probably Ingram playing his average number of games (55), us winning like 37 games and going into the lotto with the 13th slot.

With no trade maybe we go into the lottery with the 6th or 7th slot (There's really only Washington and Utah who look hopeless, Brooklyn has money, everyone else is in the same hope/development/can our guys stay healthy stage as us, it's not like Charlotte fans look at us as some team they can't win more games than next year if they get better luck) and 20th (Pacers seem likely to be around there again).

And I guess whatever we'd have gotten for eating 15-20M in bad money, like a Gabe Vincent, Kleber or Cole Anthony, but that's getting too nit-picky, it's probably like 2 good 2nds or something, 99% of the time not franchise-altering or anything. Or adding another Agbaji level player with the MLE if we hit on it. Again, not franchise-altering.

The money situation with Ingram really opened up to make it a safe gamble in that regard, and we didn't move any of our own picks, so we've kept the tank option open, but a wasted Bulls-esque 35 game wine year is reasonably likely, and a Pacers collapse and picking 5th to 10th is maybe like a 1 in 10 kinda deal, so probably not happening but it does seem to happen to one "good" team every few years like the Pels this year. Currently a 47.8% chance they pick 5th or 6th.

[MainEvent]

the bald guy doesn't know much, he's a draft guy
Raps bought cheap. If they continue to be in a position to get a high pick for 2025, that's two big talents incoming for next season.
TF they yapping about with this MIA nonsense. It's not like Toronto traded 25' 26' (their own) picks for Ingram.

Like any other team rebuilding, the biggest question is the ceiling of the team. Yes we all want it to be a championship caliber club when this process is over but I think this team will tinker as we go along through trades.

We got talent. End of story

I watched when Bryce first started coming during last years draft videos, he basically tries to tell Sam what he wants to hear and is super happy if he says something Sam agrees with lol.. he'll say something, see how Sam reacts and either backtrack quickly if he makes a weird face or go with it if he agrees