Sam Vecenie: Raptors Off-Season Preview (Video)

[Indeed]

It doesn’t matter though. He’s starting and likely finishing games. Plus he’s going to look for a raise on his next deal which we cannot afford. You can supplement better fit with defense and 3’s on a lesser AAV. That’s the whole point to move him now.

What he adds though is depth to the core 4, since the top 2 players won’t match up better than many teams. So having a stronger core 4 becomes the competitive advantage. And if they split up the minutes of that core 4, they will be able to avoid lulls in the game when other teams need to rest their top players. Similar to what the Cavs have done.

And with BI at $40M and IQ at $32.5M, he’ll probably be somewhere in there. Probably closer to IQ’s number. And with the cap going up, that shouldn’t be a problem.

No it's a problem. We are not paying him $30+ while also having to factor in Jak's extension. As I said, you can supplement RJ's money for better fits in defense and 3's which is why Masai has already been shopping him.

The problem is Barnes.

[HumbleRen]

What he adds though is depth to the core 4, since the top 2 players won’t match up better than many teams. So having a stronger core 4 becomes the competitive advantage. And if they split up the minutes of that core 4, they will be able to avoid lulls in the game when other teams need to rest their top players. Similar to what the Cavs have done.

And with BI at $40M and IQ at $32.5M, he’ll probably be somewhere in there. Probably closer to IQ’s number. And with the cap going up, that shouldn’t be a problem.

No it's a problem. We are not paying him $30+ while also having to factor in Jak's extension. As I said, you can supplement RJ's money for better fits in defense and 3's which is why Masai has already been shopping him.

The problem is Barnes.

Its RJ. He just doesn’t provide what playoff teams need from their SG position and he’s paid more than what most of these SG’s make.



Teams don’t want to pay SG’s who are below average defenders and high volume scorers on average to below average efficiency.

He brings more holes to cover up than the holes he’s supposed to cover up when it comes to roster construction. It won’t suddenly change in his 7th year.

[Shakril]

No it's a problem. We are not paying him $30+ while also having to factor in Jak's extension. As I said, you can supplement RJ's money for better fits in defense and 3's which is why Masai has already been shopping him.

The problem is Barnes.

Its RJ. He just doesn’t provide what playoff teams need from their SG position and he’s paid more than what most of these SG’s make.



Teams don’t want to pay SG’s who are below average defenders and high volume scorers on average to below average efficiency.

He brings more holes to cover up than the holes he’s supposed to cover up when it comes to roster construction. It won’t suddenly change in his 7th year.

They are both the problem the way their roles are defined right now.

Barnes is not a #1 guy, but we treat him like one. This makes it harder to put him into the right spot where a #2 guy would thrieve. Thats where BI comes in, but with him its about health which concerns me.

RJ in a vacuum is ok, but he has too much overlap with barnes and BI when it comes to playertype. And out of the three he is simply the one that has the least value on the court. If he were willing to come from the bench, thats a role that would fit, but paying 27 mil for a bench player is a hard pill to swallow.

A Lineup of Poeltl, Barnes, RJ, BI and IQ cannot work as the defense is atroicious. Instead of RJ we need a defending wing. With BI, Barnes and IQ we would still have three players that can score and Poeltl is very good around the rim cleaning up or making his shots in general. So the offense is good to go, as long as BI stays healthy.

S

[mtcan]

i think we should evaluate the trade based on the available information at the time.
We traded Siakam for Bruce Brown (matching salary) and 3 FRPs. We already knew at the time 2 were going to be pretty bad because the Pacers and OKC were good teams. 2026 was the upside pick and even that was a little iffy because i don't see the Pacers falling off next year.

You can always draft a star in the second round but that doesn't change the value of the pick. If Jayson Tatum was traded for the 41st pick, it's a bad trade even if the team ended up picking Jokic with that pick.

You can't fully evaluate a trade before all the assets are revealed for who they are IRL.

Trade looked bad last year when it was Pascal for Bruce Brown, Kelly Olynyk, Jordan Nwora, Ochai and 2 first round picks.

But when you realize that the trade became Brandon Ingram, Jakobe and Ochai...the value proposition is very different.

Pascal for BI might seem to favor Indiana especially because of recency bias since Pascal is in the finals and BI isn't...but no...the deal isn't nearly as lopsided today as it was a year ago.

For any podcaster to not recognize the other parts of that trade...I lose respect for their opinions immediately.

i disagree. you should evaluate them as separate trades.
Siakam for 2 poor FRPs and Ochai is meh value. It was not a great trade

2026 Pacers pick for BI is good value, this was a good trade.

BI trade doesn't happen without the Pascal trade so in total...it is a net neutral in terms of who won the trade.

Again...my criticism with Vecenie and earlier last week when Windhorst and Bontemps were talking about...if it the was only Pascal for BI...sure we would all say that Indy got the better. But we also got Jakobe and Ochai out of it and both will be very good pros. We also got a trade exception that allowed us to do the McDaniels for Mitchell trade that got us back the pick that would become Jamal Shead, the 39th pick in this draft and another 2nd round pick.

So...Pascal for BI, Walter, Agbaji, Shead and 2 more 2nd round picks. That is the net effect of the trade. Solid return IMO. Both teams win the trade.

Pacers got their 2nd star. We got younger, deeper and a guy who fits better with Scottie as a shooter and can lead the team in scoring.

[Indeed]

The problem is Barnes.

Its RJ. He just doesn’t provide what playoff teams need from their SG position and he’s paid more than what most of these SG’s make.



Teams don’t want to pay SG’s who are below average defenders and high volume scorers on average to below average efficiency.

He brings more holes to cover up than the holes he’s supposed to cover up when it comes to roster construction. It won’t suddenly change in his 7th year.

They are both the problem the way their roles are defined right now.

Barnes is not a #1 guy, but we treat him like one. This makes it harder to put him into the right spot where a #2 guy would thrieve. Thats where BI comes in, but with him its about health which concerns me.

RJ in a vacuum is ok, but he has too much overlap with barnes and BI when it comes to playertype. And out of the three he is simply the one that has the least value on the court. If he were willing to come from the bench, thats a role that would fit, but paying 27 mil for a bench player is a hard pill to swallow.

A Lineup of Poeltl, Barnes, RJ, BI and IQ cannot work as the defense is atroicious. Instead of RJ we need a defending wing. With BI, Barnes and IQ we would still have three players that can score and Poeltl is very good around the rim cleaning up or making his shots in general. So the offense is good to go, as long as BI stays healthy.

S

I am unsure Ingram is the #1 guy, otherwise, New Orleans wouldn't be an average team.
Meanwhile, the biggest problem are:
1) Barnes and Poeltl cannot shoot
2) Barnes and Quickley are not a good pair (in theory, they are good, but in reality, their PnR doesn't connect, and Barnes is now the corner 3)
3) Barrett and Ingram are not good defenders
4) Quickley is not a lockdown and his offense may not compensate for his average defense

We have a problem at PF and C, the salary is a lot
We have a problem at perimeter defense and point of attack defense

So I would not surprised if we separate Barnes and Poeltl, and another change would be either Barrett or Quickley, but it will come down to our bigs. If we are getting a defensive big with shooting, than most likely an upgrade at PG for better PnR to get rim pressure. If we are getting an offensive big without defense, than most likely an upgrade at SG for better PoA defense.

[Shakril]

Its RJ. He just doesn’t provide what playoff teams need from their SG position and he’s paid more than what most of these SG’s make.



Teams don’t want to pay SG’s who are below average defenders and high volume scorers on average to below average efficiency.

He brings more holes to cover up than the holes he’s supposed to cover up when it comes to roster construction. It won’t suddenly change in his 7th year.

They are both the problem the way their roles are defined right now.

Barnes is not a #1 guy, but we treat him like one. This makes it harder to put him into the right spot where a #2 guy would thrieve. Thats where BI comes in, but with him its about health which concerns me.

RJ in a vacuum is ok, but he has too much overlap with barnes and BI when it comes to playertype. And out of the three he is simply the one that has the least value on the court. If he were willing to come from the bench, thats a role that would fit, but paying 27 mil for a bench player is a hard pill to swallow.

A Lineup of Poeltl, Barnes, RJ, BI and IQ cannot work as the defense is atroicious. Instead of RJ we need a defending wing. With BI, Barnes and IQ we would still have three players that can score and Poeltl is very good around the rim cleaning up or making his shots in general. So the offense is good to go, as long as BI stays healthy.

S

I am unsure Ingram is the #1 guy, otherwise, New Orleans wouldn't be an average team.
Meanwhile, the biggest problem are:
1) Barnes and Poeltl cannot shoot
2) Barnes and Quickley are not a good pair (in theory, they are good, but in reality, their PnR doesn't connect, and Barnes is now the corner 3)
3) Barrett and Ingram are not good defenders
4) Quickley is not a lockdown and his offense may not compensate for his average defense

We have a problem at PF and C, the salary is a lot
We have a problem at perimeter defense and point of attack defense

So I would not surprised if we separate Barnes and Poeltl, and another change would be either Barrett or Quickley, but it will come down to our bigs. If we are getting a defensive big with shooting, than most likely an upgrade at PG for better PnR to get rim pressure. If we are getting an offensive big without defense, than most likely an upgrade at SG for better PoA defense.

I agree about ingram, i should have added that it terms of scoring, ingram is the better choice so maybe it can work in tandem with Barnes.

Poeltl provides everything we need at C, we have seen multiple teams just this playoffs, playing succesful with a non-shooting C.
But i agree it is a problem if both C and PF cant shoot, which in this case is Barnes, so i agree there. But that is more a critique on Barnes, that he hasnt developed a decent three point shot.
For me the Jury is still out for IQ and Barnes as they havent played much together, so i have no opinion on that for now.

Point 3 and 4 is why i want replace RJ with a defending wing. Scoringwise we are good with BI as the #1 option and Barnes and IQ as the follow ups.

Just to make it clear, i dont see this team as a contender, but a reliable playoff team. Giannis would have changed the equasion of course.

[JB7]

Its RJ. He just doesn’t provide what playoff teams need from their SG position and he’s paid more than what most of these SG’s make.



Teams don’t want to pay SG’s who are below average defenders and high volume scorers on average to below average efficiency.

He brings more holes to cover up than the holes he’s supposed to cover up when it comes to roster construction. It won’t suddenly change in his 7th year.

They are both the problem the way their roles are defined right now.

Barnes is not a #1 guy, but we treat him like one. This makes it harder to put him into the right spot where a #2 guy would thrieve. Thats where BI comes in, but with him its about health which concerns me.

RJ in a vacuum is ok, but he has too much overlap with barnes and BI when it comes to playertype. And out of the three he is simply the one that has the least value on the court. If he were willing to come from the bench, thats a role that would fit, but paying 27 mil for a bench player is a hard pill to swallow.

A Lineup of Poeltl, Barnes, RJ, BI and IQ cannot work as the defense is atroicious. Instead of RJ we need a defending wing. With BI, Barnes and IQ we would still have three players that can score and Poeltl is very good around the rim cleaning up or making his shots in general. So the offense is good to go, as long as BI stays healthy.

S

I am unsure Ingram is the #1 guy, otherwise, New Orleans wouldn't be an average team.
Meanwhile, the biggest problem are:
1) Barnes and Poeltl cannot shoot
2) Barnes and Quickley are not a good pair (in theory, they are good, but in reality, their PnR doesn't connect, and Barnes is now the corner 3)
3) Barrett and Ingram are not good defenders
4) Quickley is not a lockdown and his offense may not compensate for his average defense

We have a problem at PF and C, the salary is a lot
We have a problem at perimeter defense and point of attack defense

So I would not surprised if we separate Barnes and Poeltl, and another change would be either Barrett or Quickley, but it will come down to our bigs. If we are getting a defensive big with shooting, than most likely an upgrade at PG for better PnR to get rim pressure. If we are getting an offensive big without defense, than most likely an upgrade at SG for better PoA defense.

Ingram just has to be the clutch scorer for the team, which fits his mid range game. Plus, he shot well from 3pt range (37%) at decent volume (6.4 3PA per game) last season. With this lineup, he doesn't even need to drive that much, if that is an injury concern.

Also, with the depth on this team, I would think most wins would come with a decent scoring spread (not a lot of close games). So Ingram's scoring in the clutch is probably not as critical.

Poeltl is more important as a PnR partner with IQ than Barnes. I think all of Poeltl's minutes on the floor should align with Quickley.

To compensate for BI and RJs lack of d, in the starting lineup they will have Yak and Barnes on the back line, and they could easily structure the rotations so that the rest of their minutes are with Mogbo & Shead, probably two of the better defenders on the team.

While many of the players are average to below average defenders, where the team can make up for that is in its depth. With a roster that is 11-12 deep (depending on who they draft at 9), injuries should not be as much of a concern, and they can keep the players minutes down, and therefore their hustle up, to compensate for their poor D.

This is not a championship team. That is not the goal this season. The goal is to see significant improvement in their performance during the season (more wins), which will reflect well back on the team and players, driving their values up for potential future trades to consolidate the talent.

[Indeed]

They are both the problem the way their roles are defined right now.

Barnes is not a #1 guy, but we treat him like one. This makes it harder to put him into the right spot where a #2 guy would thrieve. Thats where BI comes in, but with him its about health which concerns me.

RJ in a vacuum is ok, but he has too much overlap with barnes and BI when it comes to playertype. And out of the three he is simply the one that has the least value on the court. If he were willing to come from the bench, thats a role that would fit, but paying 27 mil for a bench player is a hard pill to swallow.

A Lineup of Poeltl, Barnes, RJ, BI and IQ cannot work as the defense is atroicious. Instead of RJ we need a defending wing. With BI, Barnes and IQ we would still have three players that can score and Poeltl is very good around the rim cleaning up or making his shots in general. So the offense is good to go, as long as BI stays healthy.

S

I am unsure Ingram is the #1 guy, otherwise, New Orleans wouldn't be an average team.
Meanwhile, the biggest problem are:
1) Barnes and Poeltl cannot shoot
2) Barnes and Quickley are not a good pair (in theory, they are good, but in reality, their PnR doesn't connect, and Barnes is now the corner 3)
3) Barrett and Ingram are not good defenders
4) Quickley is not a lockdown and his offense may not compensate for his average defense

We have a problem at PF and C, the salary is a lot
We have a problem at perimeter defense and point of attack defense

So I would not surprised if we separate Barnes and Poeltl, and another change would be either Barrett or Quickley, but it will come down to our bigs. If we are getting a defensive big with shooting, than most likely an upgrade at PG for better PnR to get rim pressure. If we are getting an offensive big without defense, than most likely an upgrade at SG for better PoA defense.

Ingram just has to be the clutch scorer for the team, which fits his mid range game. Plus, he shot well from 3pt range (37%) at decent volume (6.4 3PA per game) last season. With this lineup, he doesn't even need to drive that much, if that is an injury concern.

Also, with the depth on this team, I would think most wins would come with a decent scoring spread (not a lot of close games). So Ingram's scoring in the clutch is probably not as critical.

Poeltl is more important as a PnR partner with IQ than Barnes. I think all of Poeltl's minutes on the floor should align with Quickley.

To compensate for BI and RJs lack of d, in the starting lineup they will have Yak and Barnes on the back line, and they could easily structure the rotations so that the rest of their minutes are with Mogbo & Shead, probably two of the better defenders on the team.

While many of the players are average to below average defenders, where the team can make up for that is in its depth. With a roster that is 11-12 deep (depending on who they draft at 9), injuries should not be as much of a concern, and they can keep the players minutes down, and therefore their hustle up, to compensate for their poor D.

This is not a championship team. That is not the goal this season. The goal is to see significant improvement in their performance during the season (more wins), which will reflect well back on the team and players, driving their values up for potential future trades to consolidate the talent.

The offense just isn't enough with lack of spacing from your starting bigs, plus Barnes being bottom in the league for scoring efficiency. Even your solution is to give the touches from Barnes to Ingram, and with Darko having an advanced offensive system, but that requires Ingram, Barrett and Quickley to create, which is more around average offense.

If you are to replace any of our perimeter scorer for defense (which is good for that balance), I do not see we get enough scoring. We will definitely need to have one of our starting big with better offense before we discuss our backcourt replacing better defensive player.

[Shakril]

I am unsure Ingram is the #1 guy, otherwise, New Orleans wouldn't be an average team.
Meanwhile, the biggest problem are:
1) Barnes and Poeltl cannot shoot
2) Barnes and Quickley are not a good pair (in theory, they are good, but in reality, their PnR doesn't connect, and Barnes is now the corner 3)
3) Barrett and Ingram are not good defenders
4) Quickley is not a lockdown and his offense may not compensate for his average defense

We have a problem at PF and C, the salary is a lot
We have a problem at perimeter defense and point of attack defense

So I would not surprised if we separate Barnes and Poeltl, and another change would be either Barrett or Quickley, but it will come down to our bigs. If we are getting a defensive big with shooting, than most likely an upgrade at PG for better PnR to get rim pressure. If we are getting an offensive big without defense, than most likely an upgrade at SG for better PoA defense.

Ingram just has to be the clutch scorer for the team, which fits his mid range game. Plus, he shot well from 3pt range (37%) at decent volume (6.4 3PA per game) last season. With this lineup, he doesn't even need to drive that much, if that is an injury concern.

Also, with the depth on this team, I would think most wins would come with a decent scoring spread (not a lot of close games). So Ingram's scoring in the clutch is probably not as critical.

Poeltl is more important as a PnR partner with IQ than Barnes. I think all of Poeltl's minutes on the floor should align with Quickley.

To compensate for BI and RJs lack of d, in the starting lineup they will have Yak and Barnes on the back line, and they could easily structure the rotations so that the rest of their minutes are with Mogbo & Shead, probably two of the better defenders on the team.

While many of the players are average to below average defenders, where the team can make up for that is in its depth. With a roster that is 11-12 deep (depending on who they draft at 9), injuries should not be as much of a concern, and they can keep the players minutes down, and therefore their hustle up, to compensate for their poor D.

This is not a championship team. That is not the goal this season. The goal is to see significant improvement in their performance during the season (more wins), which will reflect well back on the team and players, driving their values up for potential future trades to consolidate the talent.

The offense just isn't enough with lack of spacing from your starting bigs, plus Barnes being bottom in the league for scoring efficiency. Even your solution is to give the touches from Barnes to Ingram, and with Darko having an advanced offensive system, but that requires Ingram, Barrett and Quickley to create, which is more around average offense.

If you are to replace any of our perimeter scorer for defense (which is good for that balance), I do not see we get enough scoring. We will definitely need to have one of our starting big with better offense before we discuss our backcourt replacing better defensive player.

You are too hung up on 3point shooting. Poeltl creates space for others, by screening, by passing, by rolling to the basket and on rare occasion he drives himself to the basket. Problem is only, as you said, when both your bigs cant shoot. And even here there are exceptions.

Between BI, Barnes and IQ there is enough ballhandling and scoring available. And poeltl is automatic around the rim, he will give you your 10 points a night at least. If the others chip in between 20 and 25, you already are at minimum 70 points with just four starters. The rest should come from the bench. Defense is much more important to adress than offense.

[djsunyc]

#9 may play a part on who stays or goes.

but even before that pick, we still have the following at the 2/3: rj/ingram/jakobe/ochai/gradey and even then, we don't have a real SF size/strength backup tho. gradey is too weak.

surplus slots so i expect a move involving one or more of them.

[Indeed]

Ingram just has to be the clutch scorer for the team, which fits his mid range game. Plus, he shot well from 3pt range (37%) at decent volume (6.4 3PA per game) last season. With this lineup, he doesn't even need to drive that much, if that is an injury concern.

Also, with the depth on this team, I would think most wins would come with a decent scoring spread (not a lot of close games). So Ingram's scoring in the clutch is probably not as critical.

Poeltl is more important as a PnR partner with IQ than Barnes. I think all of Poeltl's minutes on the floor should align with Quickley.

To compensate for BI and RJs lack of d, in the starting lineup they will have Yak and Barnes on the back line, and they could easily structure the rotations so that the rest of their minutes are with Mogbo & Shead, probably two of the better defenders on the team.

While many of the players are average to below average defenders, where the team can make up for that is in its depth. With a roster that is 11-12 deep (depending on who they draft at 9), injuries should not be as much of a concern, and they can keep the players minutes down, and therefore their hustle up, to compensate for their poor D.

This is not a championship team. That is not the goal this season. The goal is to see significant improvement in their performance during the season (more wins), which will reflect well back on the team and players, driving their values up for potential future trades to consolidate the talent.

The offense just isn't enough with lack of spacing from your starting bigs, plus Barnes being bottom in the league for scoring efficiency. Even your solution is to give the touches from Barnes to Ingram, and with Darko having an advanced offensive system, but that requires Ingram, Barrett and Quickley to create, which is more around average offense.

If you are to replace any of our perimeter scorer for defense (which is good for that balance), I do not see we get enough scoring. We will definitely need to have one of our starting big with better offense before we discuss our backcourt replacing better defensive player.

You are too hung up on 3point shooting. Poeltl creates space for others, by screening, by passing, by rolling to the basket and on rare occasion he drives himself to the basket. Problem is only, as you said, when both your bigs cant shoot. And even here there are exceptions.

Between BI, Barnes and IQ there is enough ballhandling and scoring available. And poeltl is automatic around the rim, he will give you your 10 points a night at least. If the others chip in between 20 and 25, you already are at minimum 70 points with just four starters. The rest should come from the bench. Defense is much more important to adress than offense.

Those ppg does not include efficiency, it is for casual.
Defense is important, but neither we have enough on both end. It wasn't even fun to watch last year without Barrett for a reason, we can't get good looking shot and our efficiency was pretty bad. I am not saying we need Barrett, but my point is, our team doesn't have the offense. And our defense is bad that we already have so called two good defenders, so if those two defenders can't make up for it, they should go.

[Scase]

You guys realize they don’t have to play all their minutes together right. They might start the games together, but I can easily see them going to subs early and splitting up the rotation, so they have at all times at least 2 of Barnes, BI, RJ and IQ on the floor.

All of the bench players fit as complimentary players around that core 4.

He’s still starting next season no matter how u slice it.

Yes, but I could also see other units play significant minutes like Yak, Barnes, Dick, Agbaji, IQ, and the other could be Mogbo, BI, RJ, Walter, Shead. And Battle could sub for Dick or Walter in either of those other two lineups.

The starting is just to keep those 4 happy. It is the rotations after the start, and how quickly Darko goes to them that will matter.

Starting matters, if you get out to a slow start and are in a deficit after the first like 8min of the game, then who cares about keeping people happy. Being in a hole is more detrimental than someones feelings being hurt.

[WuTang_CMB]

Starting matters, if you get out to a slow start and are in a deficit after the first like 8min of the game, then who cares about keeping people happy. Being in a hole is more detrimental than someones feelings being hurt.

He's got 2 years left. Would be nice to move on from someone rather than waiting last minute, especially when that someone is not in your future plans.

[Scase]

Starting matters, if you get out to a slow start and are in a deficit after the first like 8min of the game, then who cares about keeping people happy. Being in a hole is more detrimental than someones feelings being hurt.

He's got 2 years left. Would be nice to move on from someone rather than waiting last minute, especially when that someone is not in your future plans.

Especially since we've seen that play out multiple times in just the last couple years. He's had a better performance on our team than he did with the Knicks, but not enough to be a worthwhile piece for us, but we could sell another team on that potential. Wasn't that the whole point of us accumulating guys like RJ, to flip them for better value?

[WuTang_CMB]

Starting matters, if you get out to a slow start and are in a deficit after the first like 8min of the game, then who cares about keeping people happy. Being in a hole is more detrimental than someones feelings being hurt.

He's got 2 years left. Would be nice to move on from someone rather than waiting last minute, especially when that someone is not in your future plans.

Especially since we've seen that play out multiple times in just the last couple years. He's had a better performance on our team than he did with the Knicks, but not enough to be a worthwhile piece for us, but we could sell another team on that potential. Wasn't that the whole point of us accumulating guys like RJ, to flip them for better value?

I think that's the next shoe to drop. They tried to include him with BI. I expect they will keep trying and he will be traded hopefully this off-season or at the very least by the deadline. See what happens on draft night

[Shakril]

The offense just isn't enough with lack of spacing from your starting bigs, plus Barnes being bottom in the league for scoring efficiency. Even your solution is to give the touches from Barnes to Ingram, and with Darko having an advanced offensive system, but that requires Ingram, Barrett and Quickley to create, which is more around average offense.

If you are to replace any of our perimeter scorer for defense (which is good for that balance), I do not see we get enough scoring. We will definitely need to have one of our starting big with better offense before we discuss our backcourt replacing better defensive player.

You are too hung up on 3point shooting. Poeltl creates space for others, by screening, by passing, by rolling to the basket and on rare occasion he drives himself to the basket. Problem is only, as you said, when both your bigs cant shoot. And even here there are exceptions.

Between BI, Barnes and IQ there is enough ballhandling and scoring available. And poeltl is automatic around the rim, he will give you your 10 points a night at least. If the others chip in between 20 and 25, you already are at minimum 70 points with just four starters. The rest should come from the bench. Defense is much more important to adress than offense.

Those ppg does not include efficiency, it is for casual.
Defense is important, but neither we have enough on both end. It wasn't even fun to watch last year without Barrett for a reason, we can't get good looking shot and our efficiency was pretty bad. I am not saying we need Barrett, but my point is, our team doesn't have the offense. And our defense is bad that we already have so called two good defenders, so if those two defenders can't make up for it, they should go.

Thats where i disagree, we have actually both. None of them are elite, but they arent bad either. When it comes to efficency, our biggest problem is that we miss too many open shots. What do i need Gradey, when he misses them? Those shots should be automatic, not just for him. And defense as i said, trade RJ for a defensive minded guy.

[Scase]

He's got 2 years left. Would be nice to move on from someone rather than waiting last minute, especially when that someone is not in your future plans.

Especially since we've seen that play out multiple times in just the last couple years. He's had a better performance on our team than he did with the Knicks, but not enough to be a worthwhile piece for us, but we could sell another team on that potential. Wasn't that the whole point of us accumulating guys like RJ, to flip them for better value?

I think that's the next shoe to drop. They tried to include him with BI. I expect they will keep trying and he will be traded hopefully this off-season or at the very least by the deadline. See what happens on draft night

That's my hope, but it really says something that the Pels wanted nothing to do with him, so my hopes aren't high.

[JB7]

He’s still starting next season no matter how u slice it.

Yes, but I could also see other units play significant minutes like Yak, Barnes, Dick, Agbaji, IQ, and the other could be Mogbo, BI, RJ, Walter, Shead. And Battle could sub for Dick or Walter in either of those other two lineups.

The starting is just to keep those 4 happy. It is the rotations after the start, and how quickly Darko goes to them that will matter.

Starting matters, if you get out to a slow start and are in a deficit after the first like 8min of the game, then who cares about keeping people happy. Being in a hole is more detrimental than someones feelings being hurt.

Then they adjust quicker. Don't leave the starting lineup in for so long. I just don't see them starting Agbaji over RJ, especially when Agbaji is going into a contract year. Don't need to give his agent more reason to ask for more money.

[JB7]

Starting matters, if you get out to a slow start and are in a deficit after the first like 8min of the game, then who cares about keeping people happy. Being in a hole is more detrimental than someones feelings being hurt.

He's got 2 years left. Would be nice to move on from someone rather than waiting last minute, especially when that someone is not in your future plans.

Especially since we've seen that play out multiple times in just the last couple years. He's had a better performance on our team than he did with the Knicks, but not enough to be a worthwhile piece for us, but we could sell another team on that potential. Wasn't that the whole point of us accumulating guys like RJ, to flip them for better value?

Give him this year. The play of the team needs to pick up, for RJs trade value to increase. They have been trying to outright tank the last two seasons, so that never helps a players value.

[JB7]

He's got 2 years left. Would be nice to move on from someone rather than waiting last minute, especially when that someone is not in your future plans.

Especially since we've seen that play out multiple times in just the last couple years. He's had a better performance on our team than he did with the Knicks, but not enough to be a worthwhile piece for us, but we could sell another team on that potential. Wasn't that the whole point of us accumulating guys like RJ, to flip them for better value?

I think that's the next shoe to drop. They tried to include him with BI. I expect they will keep trying and he will be traded hopefully this off-season or at the very least by the deadline. See what happens on draft night

RJ being included in the BI deal never really made a lot of sense, as they would be losing offense. They gave up nothing but the Indy pick for BI. Why include an actual player asset?

Also, the reason that deal worked for the Pelicans is they could not afford BI in the first place (reason he was on the market), and had to move him for expiring contracts and picks.