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

[Los_29]

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.

I think you have this idea that these things are easy. "Just draft a few Delon Wrights." Drafting a Delon Wright in that range he was drafted in is actually a great outcome. You can't expect to constantly hit in that range.

Secondly, you keep talking about players being overpaid but the IQ signing was seen as a good deal and reflected the market. Scottie was going to get the max whether you like it or not. The Ingram signing reflects his value but there is obviously a bit of risk due to his inability to stay healthy. But it's a risk worth taking. You need to keep adding pieces and if BI can contribute like we think he can then this team will have a good year.

Not sure your point with Caruso. Caruso was signed 5 years ago. And look at the players that sign for the MLE. We're not missing much. In fact, the MLE guys are often overpaid.

[Psubs]

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.

I meant like a Caruso, not actually Caruso. OKC traded Giddey for Caruso. That's something we should be looking to do.

[Pointgod]

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?

I think NAW would have been a good MLE signing in a nutshell but you can’t remove the context of ownership not wanting to go into the tax.

[OakleyDokely]

If the Raps traded a recent top 6 pick for a role playing vet, this board would likely spontaneously combust.

Trading down from the low 20s to a high 30s pick still gets brought up years later as a big failure.

[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.

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.

He's the same age as Poeltl and it's only a 3 year deal with a team option for year 4. Even the 3rd year is only fully guaranteed for $2.5M. They didn't seem to have any issues giving a 2yr deal with more guaranteed $ l to KO's old ass. Again, it's one example - I'm not dying on the hill of getting Luke Kornet.

[brownbobcat]

I think you have this idea that these things are easy. "Just draft a few Delon Wrights." Drafting a Delon Wright in that range he was drafted in is actually a great outcome. You can't expect to constantly hit in that range.

I didn't say it was easy, obviously it isn't. I'm saying that ought to be the goal if you're not tanking. This is specifically in response to the "player X wouldn't make a difference" posts.

Secondly, you keep talking about players being overpaid but the IQ signing was seen as a good deal and reflected the market. Scottie was going to get the max whether you like it or not. The Ingram signing reflects his value but there is obviously a bit of risk due to his inability to stay healthy. But it's a risk worth taking. You need to keep adding pieces and if BI can contribute like we think he can then this team will have a good year.

I disagree that it was a "good" deal. Good means better than average. My own personal valuation, which you can see in the data as well.

>= 25%: All Star
20-25%: high-level starter to borderline All Star or guys with "potential" coming off their rookie scale
15-20%: average to high-level starter --> IQ

They paid IQ on the top end of the scale, particularly as he was a RFA and hadn't proven much as a starter. He got a higher % than Brunson did from NYK, despite Brunson being a UFA and having started way more games. I don't think IQ was hugely overpaid, but he was at the top-end and certainly not a bargain.

Again, the problem is the collective and not the individual. You can have 1-2 guys at the top-end if you have "value" contracts elsewhere - the problem is that ALL of their big money contracts are paying top dollar.

Not sure your point with Caruso. Caruso was signed 5 years ago. And look at the players that sign for the MLE. We're not missing much. In fact, the MLE guys are often overpaid.

Overpaid guys are overpaid, I'm saying one of the goals should be to avoid that and that it does have a consequence. Again, in direct response to posts stating the contrary.

[tsherkin]

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.

But it's irrelevant, since we never saw the Spurs make the playoffs to see if, in a comparable situation, Mamu would get minutes.

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

That is hysterically inaccurate. I'm not sure how you can write that and expect to be taken seriously, no offense. Everything points towards him being very valuable for us.

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.

I agree with the notion that we should be making incremental moves to try and improve. I don't specifically agree that Kornet is of any meaningful value over Mamu, especially since we have larger issues with our offense than with our defense. I also don't think shaving salary for an MLE acquisition this year was going to be a consequential difference-maker.

I DO agree that we should be slowly looking to upgrade places in ways that make sense. And that we need to be keeping our 1st rounders and trying to make things happen with them, even at a lower level. I only disagree with the specific examples you've put out, that's all. The broader principle of how to approach building this team (as in, not only looking for home runs, but sometimes bunting or looking for singles and doubles) is very much something I agree with.

[brownbobcat]

But it's irrelevant, since we never saw the Spurs make the playoffs to see if, in a comparable situation, Mamu would get minutes.

Just to be clear, you're telling me:

1. Being good enough to play more minutes on an elite team is irrelevant.
2. Being good enough to see playoff minutes on an elite team is also irrelevant.

If you're standing on that, I'm just going to move on because it's completely ludicrous.

That is hysterically inaccurate. I'm not sure how you can write that and expect to be taken seriously, no offense. Everything points towards him being very valuable for us.

I agree with the notion that we should be making incremental moves to try and improve. I don't specifically agree that Kornet is of any meaningful value over Mamu, especially since we have larger issues with our offense than with our defense. I also don't think shaving salary for an MLE acquisition this year was going to be a consequential difference-maker.

With Poeltl = 30 wins
Without Poeltl = 25 wins and a better pick

So, what meaningful value has Poeltl brought? Zero. He's not a bad player, he's an average starter. Fill your roster with Poeltl-equivalents at all positions and you have a 41-41 team.

Nowhere am I saying that shaving salary alone is going to lead to a title, obviously that's ludicrous. I'm saying that without a star, they have to perform better-than-average in all aspects of team building. Better-than-average contracts, better-than-average drafting, better-than-average trades.

[tsherkin]

But it's irrelevant, since we never saw the Spurs make the playoffs to see if, in a comparable situation, Mamu would get minutes.

Just to be clear, you're telling me:

1. Being good enough to play more minutes on an elite team is irrelevant.
2. Being good enough to see playoff minutes on an elite team is also irrelevant.

If you're standing on that, I'm just going to move on because it's completely ludicrous.

I'm saying him playing 5 more minutes per game as a reserve doesn't mean a lot to me, and that he played on a playoff team doesn't mean much in a comparison with a player who has been playing on a team which hasn't made the playoffs.

With Poeltl = 30 wins
Without Poeltl = 25 wins and a better pick

So, what meaningful value has Poeltl brought? Zero. He's not a bad player, he's an average starter. Fill your roster with Poeltl-equivalents at all positions and you have a 41-41 team.

Yeah, because he can't bootstrap a team that blows donkeys on offense. He's obviously supporting cast, but we fall apart every time he goes off the floor. He's an excellent offensive rebounder (strong rebounder in general), plays big well, is good as a roll man, a solid defender and a pretty decent passing big as well. That isn't a common breadth of skill at all. Dude's been a 17/12/3.5 guy PER36 for us since we reacquired him, not someone to trivialize.

Nowhere am I saying that shaving salary alone is going to lead to a title, obviously that's ludicrous. I'm saying that without a star, they have to perform better-than-average in all aspects of team building. Better-than-average contracts, better-than-average drafting, better-than-average trades.

I didn't even IMPLY that you had said shaving salary alone was going to lead to a title, so that sentence is weird to write. My comment about salary shaving was specifically referencing the salary shaving to get an MLE signing this year bit from earlier in this thread. You need to calm down a little instead of jumping on everything as if I'm attempting to paint you into a corner as a villain in this conversation. We disagree, and that's fine, but there's no need for that level of aggression in this discussion, and I certainly don't appreciate you putting random words in my mouth.

[JB7]

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.

You do realize they were purposely tanking last year, right? That is 30 wins in spite of trying to lose games.

[JB7]

But it's irrelevant, since we never saw the Spurs make the playoffs to see if, in a comparable situation, Mamu would get minutes.

Just to be clear, you're telling me:

1. Being good enough to play more minutes on an elite team is irrelevant.
2. Being good enough to see playoff minutes on an elite team is also irrelevant.

If you're standing on that, I'm just going to move on because it's completely ludicrous.

That is hysterically inaccurate. I'm not sure how you can write that and expect to be taken seriously, no offense. Everything points towards him being very valuable for us.

I agree with the notion that we should be making incremental moves to try and improve. I don't specifically agree that Kornet is of any meaningful value over Mamu, especially since we have larger issues with our offense than with our defense. I also don't think shaving salary for an MLE acquisition this year was going to be a consequential difference-maker.

With Poeltl = 30 wins
Without Poeltl = 25 wins and a better pick

So, what meaningful value has Poeltl brought? Zero. He's not a bad player, he's an average starter. Fill your roster with Poeltl-equivalents at all positions and you have a 41-41 team.

Nowhere am I saying that shaving salary alone is going to lead to a title, obviously that's ludicrous. I'm saying that without a star, they have to perform better-than-average in all aspects of team building. Better-than-average contracts, better-than-average drafting, better-than-average trades.

In terms of the C position, I think the Raps FO has clearly indicated their preference. They think Yak provides all the support they need at C over the course of a season, for the next few seasons, and have marginal pieces in Mamu & Chomche to supplement for the present and future.

If they really were interested in adding more at the C position they would have drafted Maluach, but clearly they didn't think the investment in a back-up C was worth it, in a game where C's are still generally played off the floor in critical moments of the game.

Teams need a decent C to establish a floor for the teams overall performance. But teams are not using a true C for the full 48 mins a game.

[Raptors Realtor]

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.

You do realize they were purposely tanking last year, right? That is 30 wins in spite of trying to lose games.

Ya more often then not we were missing 2 starters because of injuries, not to mention, we're also adding Ingram this season.

[brownbobcat]

I'm saying him playing 5 more minutes per game as a reserve doesn't mean a lot to me, and that he played on a playoff team doesn't mean much in a comparison with a player who has been playing on a team which hasn't made the playoffs.

You can't just look at the averages, Mamu gets a ton of DNPCDs and it's not just last year either. Of course I'm hoping Mamu turns that around in a new situation, but there is zero comparison to a guy who sees regular minutes on an elite team.

Yeah, because he can't bootstrap a team that blows donkeys on offense. He's obviously supporting cast, but we fall apart every time he goes off the floor. He's an excellent offensive rebounder (strong rebounder in general), plays big well, is good as a roll man, a solid defender and a pretty decent passing big as well. That isn't a common breadth of skill at all. Dude's been a 17/12/3.5 guy PER36 for us since we reacquired him, not someone to trivialize.

Poeltl is an average starter, and Kornet is the bench-player equivalent. Neither is going to make a huge difference, I'm suggesting an improvement from below-average spending to average spending.

I didn't even IMPLY that you had said shaving salary alone was going to lead to a title, so that sentence is weird to write. My comment about salary shaving was specifically referencing the salary shaving to get an MLE signing this year bit from earlier in this thread. You need to calm down a little instead of jumping on everything as if I'm attempting to paint you into a corner as a villain in this conversation. We disagree, and that's fine, but there's no need for that level of aggression in this discussion, and I certainly don't appreciate you putting random words in my mouth.

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?

I think you're getting caught up in semantics, I'm not stating your position but rather using an extreme as a reference point for my position - i.e. moderate improvement. I started by pointing out that the value-for-money spending has been average, at best. Then the usual clowns (not you) start jumping out to be contrarian for the sake of it ("Oh, I guess we coulda used the MLE on Jokic, right?").

I don't think this particular team-building path is likely to bear fruit. But if they're going to do it, then they should be consistent and look really hard for small wins everywhere - that's my point.

[brownbobcat]

You do realize they were purposely tanking last year, right? That is 30 wins in spite of trying to lose games.

Going from tanking to then suddenly being good enough to utilize big money on BI - without even having realized the benefit of tanking - is poor strategy.

[tsherkin]

You can't just look at the averages, Mamu gets a ton of DNPCDs and it's not just last year either. Of course I'm hoping Mamu turns that around in a new situation, but there is zero comparison to a guy who sees regular minutes on an elite team.

We aren't going to agree about this, so I'm going to move on.

Poeltl is an average starter, and Kornet is the bench-player equivalent. Neither is going to make a huge difference, I'm suggesting an improvement from below-average spending to average spending.

Poeltl is not an average starter. He exerted noteworthy defensive impact. And this past year, we were +5 ORTG when he was on the court. He was a meaningful part of any success we enjoyed.

I started by pointing out that the value-for-money spending has been average, at best.

Yes, we certainly haven't enjoyed maximization there. I don't know that we can afford to, though, given Toronto's position in the NBA hierarchy, and I don't know that it's a difference-maker, which is where we really deviate. I appreciate the argument that we need to do a little better on ALL fronts instead of smashing one in particular in order to achieve success at this stage, but in this case, salary-shaving leading to an MLE signing isn't really something I see as leading to anything substantive for us, as I was trying ot say earlier.

I don't think this particular team-building path is likely to bear fruit. But if they're going to do it, then they should be consistent and look really hard for small wins everywhere - that's my point.

Yeah, and like I already said, I agree with your broader point, just not your specific examples.

[Badonkadonk]

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

Not going to bother with the rest, just wanted to emphasize how much of an insane statement that first sentence is and how silly it is to use win totals over the past couple of (tanking) years to justify it.

[GLF]

The fact any of y’all go back and forth with someone who says Poeltl doesn’t have any meaningful impact is what really blows my mind lol. The moment I see anyone who claims to watch the Raptors say something like that they’re getting ignored lol. That’s some serious levels of delusion and insanity. Nothing you say can be taken seriously after a statement like that

[brownbobcat]

Not going to bother with the rest, just wanted to emphasize how much of an insane statement that first sentence is and how silly it is to use win totals over the past couple of (tanking) years to justify it.

Poeltl is not an average starter. He exerted noteworthy defensive impact. And this past year, we were +5 ORTG when he was on the court. He was a meaningful part of any success we enjoyed.

Zero. The amount of success enjoyed is zero. If you want to argue that he's 20% responsible for zero instead of 15% responsible, be my guest.

On what planet is Poeltl an above-average starter? Must be a distant world uninhabited by Allen, Mobley, Wemby, Jokic, Embiid, Porzingis, Sabonis, Adebayo, KAT, Chet, and Gobert

At best, he's in the mid-tier with guys like Turner, Zubac, Vuc, Gafford, Hartenstein, Williams

[tsherkin]

Zero. The amount of success enjoyed is zero.

That isn't true, obviously. We won 30 games, and we were visibly and statistically better with him on the floor.

He's not an All-Star, this is known. There's only so much he can do. But he's certainly an above-average player.

On what planet is Poeltl an above-average starter? Must be a distant world uninhabited by Allen, Mobley, Wemby, Jokic, Embiid, Porzingis, Sabonis, Adebayo, KAT, Chet, and Gobert

A) That's less than half the league
B) Mobley/Allen are on the same team, so both can't be on that list
C) Embiid and Porzingis have even more availability issues than Jak.

At best, he's in the mid-tier with guys like Turner, Zubac, Vuc, Gafford, Hartenstein, Williams

Sure. And those guys are quality players, and he's better than at least a couple of them.

Then, there's the idea that sometimes there's a bunch of talent in the league, so the measure of "average" becomes problematic. Jak is not an easily-replaceable guy for us. He provides a lot at both ends. Calling him an "average starter" is a disservice to the player's actual impact.

Anyway, we'll move on from that. We're making progress on the other part and Yak talk is taking us away from discussing Ingram, which is ostensibly what this thread is about... even though there's an Official Ingram thread already where conversation should be taking place.

[JB7]

Not going to bother with the rest, just wanted to emphasize how much of an insane statement that first sentence is and how silly it is to use win totals over the past couple of (tanking) years to justify it.

Poeltl is not an average starter. He exerted noteworthy defensive impact. And this past year, we were +5 ORTG when he was on the court. He was a meaningful part of any success we enjoyed.

Zero. The amount of success enjoyed is zero. If you want to argue that he's 20% responsible for zero instead of 15% responsible, be my guest.

On what planet is Poeltl an above-average starter? Must be a distant world uninhabited by Allen, Mobley, Wemby, Jokic, Embiid, Porzingis, Sabonis, Adebayo, KAT, Chet, and Gobert

At best, he's in the mid-tier with guys like Turner, Zubac, Vuc, Gafford, Hartenstein, Williams

I think what you just proved with that list is all playoff bound teams need to have a competent C. Of that above-average starter list, how many of those C's are successful playoff teams using those C's late in games?

In terms of the mid-tier guys, he is probably similar to IH.

When comparing Yak's impact to over above-average starters though, you also have to factor in money and therefore role on the team. Because Yak doesn't get paid as much, and is not considered a core piece, the team can easily pull him off the floor if needed. Whereas the teams with those other above-average starters (paid well), might be forced to play their C's in critical moments where they hurt the teams overall performance.