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

[brownbobcat]

When you don't have a superstar and are trying to win by committee, every little thing matters. You have to draft well, trade well, make smart decisions with money - all of it counts.

So let's play that game. What MLE signing do you think could have happened, and would have significantly shifted this team's ceiling for 2026?

You get there gradually, that's the entire point. No single MLE signing would have shifted the ceiling, but neither does overpaying guys. You draft a few Delon Wrights instead of Brunos and it adds up over time.

When you make a good signing, there's always the benefit of on-court performance and future trade value. Trades will give you more for a Caruso than a Boucher.

[YogurtProducer]

When you don't have a superstar and are trying to win by committee, every little thing matters. You have to draft well, trade well, make smart decisions with money - all of it counts.

So let's play that game. What MLE signing do you think could have happened, and would have significantly shifted this team's ceiling for 2026?

Convince Jokic to sign for the MLE

[YogurtProducer]

If IQ/RJ/Ingram/Barnes/Poeltl all made 3M less this year, the Raps all of a sudden go from being the 8th/9th highest payroll to the 19th/20th payroll.

Does IQ going from 33M to 30M all of a sudden make him a value contract? Ingram going from 38 to 35 makes him much more attractive? In the end, these small differences make little difference to their actual value. You either think these guys are good players or you don't. If they play well, they will be tradeable, if they don't play well or they are hurt, they will be hard to trade. That's why there should be a lot more discussion about the on court fit. That will largely determine their value.

If you believe that the Raps are taking the wrong approach to team building and should be stripped down like BRK so they can use their cap space to absorb bad deals instead of bringing in established players, that's a different argument. But there's really no functional difference between spending 170, 175, 180, 185 other than the owner paying a little more in salary.

OK, let's say they do a better job with salary negotiation and shave $3M/contract here and there. Then you skip re-signing Temple and all of a sudden you have enough money to toss the full MLE at someone without going over the apron - you don't think that makes the team better?

When you don't have a superstar and are trying to win by committee, every little thing matters. You have to draft well, trade well, make smart decisions with money - all of it counts.

Sure, it 100% makes us better if we can add someone with the MLE, but you are also very much overestimating who you can acquire with the MLE. It’s typically at best a mid bench bench player and isn’t a true difference maker.

But to say “do better on salary negotiation” when we have no bad contracts is wild. All our contracts are fair, moveable, and free of any albatross deals

[OakleyDokely]

If IQ/RJ/Ingram/Barnes/Poeltl all made 3M less this year, the Raps all of a sudden go from being the 8th/9th highest payroll to the 19th/20th payroll.

Does IQ going from 33M to 30M all of a sudden make him a value contract? Ingram going from 38 to 35 makes him much more attractive? In the end, these small differences make little difference to their actual value. You either think these guys are good players or you don't. If they play well, they will be tradeable, if they don't play well or they are hurt, they will be hard to trade. That's why there should be a lot more discussion about the on court fit. That will largely determine their value.

If you believe that the Raps are taking the wrong approach to team building and should be stripped down like BRK so they can use their cap space to absorb bad deals instead of bringing in established players, that's a different argument. But there's really no functional difference between spending 170, 175, 180, 185 other than the owner paying a little more in salary.

OK, let's say they do a better job with salary negotiation and shave $3M/contract here and there. Then you skip re-signing Temple and all of a sudden you have enough money to toss the full MLE at someone without going over the apron - you don't think that makes the team better?

When you don't have a superstar and are trying to win by committee, every little thing matters. You have to draft well, trade well, make smart decisions with money - all of it counts.

I guess it depends on who that MLE player is, but the Raps issue isn't the need for more depth players. I'd rather play the young guys over a vet MLE player. The Raps need to upgrade their talent at the top, and you aren't getting that with the MLE.

[tsherkin]

You get there gradually, that's the entire point. No single MLE signing would have shifted the ceiling, but neither does overpaying guys. You draft a few Delon Wrights instead of Brunos and it adds up over time.

When you make a good signing, there's always the benefit of on-court performance and future trade value. Trades will give you more for a Caruso than a Boucher.

I think you're overselling this a little hard, to be honest. MAYBE we could get away shaving some of those contracts. And MAYBE it nets us an MLE signing. Whom we still have to find minutes for, somewhere, whilst we already have depth issues with which to contend. And MAYBE that MLE signing is better than some of the bench guys we have (surely not one of our starters).

Does that really improve us over time? It's possible, and it might open doors to some moves down the line, but not really anything we can't already pursue.

[tsherkin]

When you don't have a superstar and are trying to win by committee, every little thing matters. You have to draft well, trade well, make smart decisions with money - all of it counts.

So let's play that game. What MLE signing do you think could have happened, and would have significantly shifted this team's ceiling for 2026?

Convince Jokic to sign for the MLE

[JB7]

If IQ/RJ/Ingram/Barnes/Poeltl all made 3M less this year, the Raps all of a sudden go from being the 8th/9th highest payroll to the 19th/20th payroll.

Does IQ going from 33M to 30M all of a sudden make him a value contract? Ingram going from 38 to 35 makes him much more attractive? In the end, these small differences make little difference to their actual value. You either think these guys are good players or you don't. If they play well, they will be tradeable, if they don't play well or they are hurt, they will be hard to trade. That's why there should be a lot more discussion about the on court fit. That will largely determine their value.

If you believe that the Raps are taking the wrong approach to team building and should be stripped down like BRK so they can use their cap space to absorb bad deals instead of bringing in established players, that's a different argument. But there's really no functional difference between spending 170, 175, 180, 185 other than the owner paying a little more in salary.

OK, let's say they do a better job with salary negotiation and shave $3M/contract here and there. Then you skip re-signing Temple and all of a sudden you have enough money to toss the full MLE at someone without going over the apron - you don't think that makes the team better?

When you don't have a superstar and are trying to win by committee, every little thing matters. You have to draft well, trade well, make smart decisions with money - all of it counts.

The team is already 13 deep, not including Martin and Temple. Outside of Yak, Temple is the only vet on the team. There needs to be someone, other than coaches, to set an example for the younger players on how to conduct themselves on and off the court.

The reality is, they already are going to have a hard time getting mins for all the players they have on the roster. Temple is the perfect signing. He brings something to the team that is lacking, and he does not require any minutes.

Adding another MLE signing just brings in another player fighting for mins.

[brownbobcat]

I guess it depends on who that MLE player is, but the Raps issue isn't the need for more depth players. I'd rather play the young guys over a vet MLE player. The Raps need to upgrade their talent at the top, and you aren't getting that with the MLE.

OK, explain how the path to upgrading top-end talent is better by overpaying young guys instead of having those same young guys at a lower salary + a vet MLE player.

This team won 30 games last year, and all of a sudden you have people here who turn up their noses at bench-caliber players because they don't raise the ceiling.

They're against gradual improvement, but also against tanking - apparently nothing satisfies them except for voraciously cheering for mediocrity.

[brownbobcat]

The team is already 13 deep, not including Martin and Temple. Outside of Yak, Temple is the only vet on the team. There needs to be someone, other than coaches, to set an example for the younger players on how to conduct themselves on and off the court.

The reality is, they already are going to have a hard time getting mins for all the players they have on the roster. Temple is the perfect signing. He brings something to the team that is lacking, and he does not require any minutes.

Adding another MLE signing just brings in another player fighting for mins.

1. No, 30-win teams are not 13-deep nor do they a hard time with minutes.

2. Instead of getting a vet that keeps the bench warm, you can get a useful vet who actually does something and has trade value.

[Psubs]

Trading 2 for 1 for someone like Caruso would be huge.

[Psubs]

When you don't have a superstar and are trying to win by committee, every little thing matters. You have to draft well, trade well, make smart decisions with money - all of it counts.

So let's play that game. What MLE signing do you think could have happened, and would have significantly shifted this team's ceiling for 2026?

Pay the full MLE for Luke Kornet. SA got him for in between full and tax-payer MLE. We went cheap and Mamu likely is on par on offense but not as good on defense than Kornet. I guess a spot holder for a year until Chomche is ready for rotation minutes.

[brownbobcat]

When you don't have a superstar and are trying to win by committee, every little thing matters. You have to draft well, trade well, make smart decisions with money - all of it counts.

So let's play that game. What MLE signing do you think could have happened, and would have significantly shifted this team's ceiling for 2026?

Pay the full MLE for Luke Kornet. SA got him for in between full and tax-payer MLE. We went cheap and Mamu likely is on par on offense but not as good on defense than Kornet. I guess a spot holder for a year until Chomche is ready for rotation minutes.

I was thinking about Kornet exactly. Now, I'm sure the next knee-jerk response is going to be something like "But Kornet doesn't lift the ceiling!"

OK, but he makes the team better and isn't that what they wanted in the first place? Otherwise, why are they supporting all these other low-upside moves?

[tsherkin]

Pay the full MLE for Luke Kornet. SA got him for in between full and tax-payer MLE. We went cheap and Mamu likely is on par on offense but not as good on defense than Kornet. I guess a spot holder for a year until Chomche is ready for rotation minutes.

Kornet's like a 15 mpg center who isn't any better a rebounder than Mamu. Granted, better on D, but still not sure he's any kind of meaningful difference-maker compared to Mamu, or for the team as a whole. Doesn't change our overall outlook in 2026 at all, IMHO.

[tsherkin]

Trading 2 for 1 for someone like Caruso would be huge.

Can't imagine OKC doing that for any reason.

I was thinking about Kornet exactly. Now, I'm sure the next knee-jerk response is going to be something like "But Kornet doesn't lift the ceiling!"

OK, but he makes the team better and isn't that what they wanted in the first place? Otherwise, why are they supporting all these other low-upside moves?

Does he make the team better in a meaningful way, though, compared to our actual signing? I don't think so.

[brownbobcat]

Trading 2 for 1 for someone like Caruso would be huge.

Can't imagine OKC doing that for any reason.

I was thinking about Kornet exactly. Now, I'm sure the next knee-jerk response is going to be something like "But Kornet doesn't lift the ceiling!"

OK, but he makes the team better and isn't that what they wanted in the first place? Otherwise, why are they supporting all these other low-upside moves?

Does he make the team better in a meaningful way, though, compared to our actual signing? I don't think so.

Kornet plays twice as many minutes on the Celtics vs. Mamu on the Spurs. He gets playoff minutes for Boston.

If that's not meaningful, how on earth are any of you guys justifying Poeltl or RJ as meaningful?

[tsherkin]

Kornet plays twice as many minutes on the Celtics vs. Mamu on the Spurs. He gets playoff minutes for Boston.

Unclear why playoffs are relevant here, because the Spurs haven't made the playoffs while Mamu has been on the team, so we haven't seen if he would or wouldn't get minutes in that context. Also, Mamu was technically playing the 4 behind Harrison Barnes, and they had Wemby for half a season (and the previous year), as well as Sochan and others. We know he isn't some kind of savior, but San Antonio was evaluating its guys, so it wasn't like he was going to play 30 mpg.

Also, no, Kornet played 5 more minutes per game than Mamu, not "twice as many minutes." Mamu was an 11 mpg guy this season, don't forget.

If that's not meaningful, how on earth are any of you guys justifying Poeltl or RJ as meaningful?

This is a meaningless remark. Especially with Poeltl, who is obviously an impact player for us. RJ is more about potential, I think at this stage, and about the utility of his rim pressure and improved passing. You're talking about starters, and I'm talking about bench guys. This is an apples to stag beetles comparison.

[OakleyDokely]

I guess it depends on who that MLE player is, but the Raps issue isn't the need for more depth players. I'd rather play the young guys over a vet MLE player. The Raps need to upgrade their talent at the top, and you aren't getting that with the MLE.

OK, explain how the path to upgrading top-end talent is better by overpaying young guys instead of having those same young guys at a lower salary + a vet MLE player.

This team won 30 games last year, and all of a sudden you have people here who turn up their noses at bench-caliber players because they don't raise the ceiling.

They're against gradual improvement, but also against tanking - apparently nothing satisfies them except for voraciously cheering for mediocrity.

The Raps decided trading for a player like Ingram was worth more to them than flexibility this offseason.

Ingram was their big addition, it just happened last season. If they didn't make that move, they could've used the MLE. But you aren't getting a player as impactful as Ingram in free agency.

[brownbobcat]

Unclear why playoffs are relevant here, because the Spurs haven't made the playoffs while Mamu has been on the team, so we haven't seen if he would or wouldn't get minutes in that context. Also, Mamu was technically playing the 4 behind Harrison Barnes, and they had Wemby for half a season (and the previous year), as well as Sochan and others. We know he isn't some kind of savior, but San Antonio was evaluating its guys, so it wasn't like he was going to play 30 mpg.

It speaks to the quality of the player. You cannot compare someone who can't even get regular bench minutes on the Spurs to someone who's playing more minutes at the highest level on an elite team.

This is a meaningless remark. Especially with Poeltl, who is obviously an impact player for us. RJ is more about potential, I think at this stage, and about the utility of his rim pressure and improved passing. You're talking about starters, and I'm talking about bench guys. This is an apples to stag beetles comparison.

As a starter, Poeltl is not an impact player. He has made zero difference to this team winning any meaningful amount of games.

The point is not to compare Kornet to Poeltl directly, it's to show how some people are twisting themselves into knots to defend mediocrity - like they're actively wanting to treadmill. They only want high upside moves, but don't want tanking. They are fine trading lottery picks for average starters, but not fine allocating cap dollars to get average bench players. It's completely nonsensical.

[brownbobcat]

The Raps decided trading for a player like Ingram was worth more to them than flexibility this offseason.

Ingram was their big addition, it just happened last season. If they didn't make that move, they could've used the MLE. But you aren't getting a player as impactful as Ingram in free agency.

I'm saying if you spend dollars more wisely, you could have had all the same core players plus a better bench player like Kornet over Mamu. Nowhere did I say a big FA was ever the end goal of saving dollars.

[OakleyDokely]

The Raps decided trading for a player like Ingram was worth more to them than flexibility this offseason.

Ingram was their big addition, it just happened last season. If they didn't make that move, they could've used the MLE. But you aren't getting a player as impactful as Ingram in free agency.

I'm saying if you spend dollars more wisely, you could have had all the same core players plus a better bench player like Kornet over Mamu. Nowhere did I say a big FA was ever the end goal of saving dollars.

You really want to give a player like Kornet a 4 year deal? Especially with all the young the Raps need to look at. I doubt Kornet over Mamu changes much for the Raps, especially considering that Mamu is the better fit because of his shooting. The Raps needed a frontcourt player with the ability to hit 3s.