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

[Mikistan]

Yes, I got the joke; I have used Power BI, I was being facetious

I'm glad my clever joke landed 4 months after I made.

I didn't see it when it first came around, so I thought I'd make a fuss xD

Tableau is better

[tsherkin]

I'm glad my clever joke landed 4 months after I made.

I didn't see it when it first came around, so I thought I'd make a fuss xD

Tableau is better

I'm learning a bunch of Tableau right now, as it happens.

[brownbobcat]

I think Rich was speaking to the lack of available free agency dollars in general these days/this ofseason, and the value of the extension mechanism, as opposed to BI's worth on the open market. He's saying that teams simply don't have that much cap space these days to outright sign star tier free agents, so player movement/signings tend to be these types of trades/extensions vs. traditional free agency. I don't think it's an indictment at all on the Raptors FO/the deal itself.

Exactly.

Would Harden have gotten 40+million this summer as a UFA? No. Kyrie? No. Lebron? Hmm. Etc...

The money wasn't there for UFA's but it was there by owning their rights and re-signing them.

Ummm, yeah, that's the whole point - you don't have to bid against yourself, especially not for a guy like BI coming off a major injury.

[Mikistan]

I didn't see it when it first came around, so I thought I'd make a fuss xD

Tableau is better

I'm learning a bunch of Tableau right now, as it happens.

I'm actually not sure if it's better or not but it does feel more sleek/intuitive.

I did a masters of science and picked Tableau over using powerBI for all the assignments and projects and then my firm dropped all Tableau licenses in favor of powerBI, so I'm just sour.

When it comes to the Raptors, I think we got FinesseBI

[dTox]

Read on Twitter

?t=OydbLtA2khm0Xa4FABf6vA&s=19

[tsherkin]

I'm actually not sure if it's better or not but it does feel more sleek/intuitive.

I did a masters of science and picked Tableau over using powerBI for all the assignments and projects and then my firm dropped all Tableau licenses in favor of powerBI, so I'm just sour.

Right on. I'm doing a data science program right now and Tableau seems to be their choice based on industry trends and so forth, so we'll see how it goes.

When it comes to the Raptors, I think we got FinesseBI

I'm quite comfortable with FinesseBI. Honestly, Ingram is really intriguing, and a huge question mark for us. There's just such a delta in what we could get from him over the next couple of seasons, so it makes for some compelling anticipation and pondering.

[djsunyc]

Read on Twitter

?t=OydbLtA2khm0Xa4FABf6vA&s=19

it woudlve had to be a s&t so yeah, there would'nt have been alot of opportunity

[Los_29]

I think Rich was speaking to the lack of available free agency dollars in general these days/this ofseason, and the value of the extension mechanism, as opposed to BI's worth on the open market. He's saying that teams simply don't have that much cap space these days to outright sign star tier free agents, so player movement/signings tend to be these types of trades/extensions vs. traditional free agency. I don't think it's an indictment at all on the Raptors FO/the deal itself.

Exactly.

Would Harden have gotten 40+million this summer as a UFA? No. Kyrie? No. Lebron? Hmm. Etc...

The money wasn't there for UFA's but it was there by owning their rights and re-signing them.

Ummm, yeah, that's the whole point - you don't have to bid against yourself, especially not for a guy like BI coming off a major injury.

Wow, they didn’t bid against themselves. Pelicans were offering more, Hawks were going to give BI a similar deal. He chose us.

We do not get BI in free agency. We wouldn’t have the money to get him.

[brownbobcat]

Wow, they didn’t bid against themselves. Pelicans were offering more, Hawks were going to give BI a similar deal. He chose us.

We do not get BI in free agency. We wouldn’t have the money to get him.

I am not saying they would have gotten him in free agency, I'm saying it's a bad idea for ANY team to have given him that much money because his options were limited.

Randle got $100/3 and he's way more consistent. There's no rule that says you have to outbid other teams in order to make a bad decision. The first clue that it's a bad decision is if the other frontrunners are the Pelicans and the Hawks.

And to be clear, I don't believe reports that Ingram turned down more money from ATL.
1. Why would he?
2. Why would the Pelicans?
3. Not that everything NOP does makes sense, but they clearly were fine with clearing $ off the books

[djsunyc]

Wow, they didn’t bid against themselves. Pelicans were offering more, Hawks were going to give BI a similar deal. He chose us.

We do not get BI in free agency. We wouldn’t have the money to get him.

I am not saying they would have gotten him in free agency, I'm saying it's a bad idea for ANY team to have given him that much money because his options were limited.

Randle got $100/3 and he's way more consistent. There's no rule that says you have to outbid other teams in order to make a bad decision. The first clue that it's a bad decision is if the other frontrunners are the Pelicans and the Hawks.

cap/contracts don't have the same meaning here. you want someone in toronto, you have to pay. i don't see a problem paying guys that could make an all star game.

[brownbobcat]

cap/contracts don't have the same meaning here. you want someone in toronto, you have to pay. i don't see a problem paying guys that could make an all star game.

I have no idea what this even means. Yes, there's a premium to get players to sign in Toronto. No, it's not $10M/yr. If Ingram didn't like the offer from Toronto, he could have tested free agency and likely wound up with much less - according to his own agent. I'm not so sure Atlanta would've given him that huge contract either given that they dumped Hunter to get cap flexibility. And they weren't forced to extend Porzingis either just because they traded for him.

And once more, you don't have to beat other teams in a race to the bottom.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Wow, they didn’t bid against themselves. Pelicans were offering more, Hawks were going to give BI a similar deal. He chose us.

We do not get BI in free agency. We wouldn’t have the money to get him.

I am not saying they would have gotten him in free agency, I'm saying it's a bad idea for ANY team to have given him that much money because his options were limited.

Randle got $100/3 and he's way more consistent. There's no rule that says you have to outbid other teams in order to make a bad decision. The first clue that it's a bad decision is if the other frontrunners are the Pelicans and the Hawks.

The risk of waiting for free agency is he takes someone else's lowball, and then you're out the trade assets. While losing Randle would have hurt the Wolves, they did get some value for him this season. He's 31 so he's being paid for his decline, whereas Ingram is still in his prime production years. Imagine trading for Ingram and sticking to your guns and he bolts without ever playing a game?

[brownbobcat]

The risk of waiting for free agency is he takes someone else's lowball, and then you're out the trade assets. While losing Randle would have hurt the Wolves, they did get some value for him this season. He's 31 so he's being paid for his decline, whereas Ingram is still in his prime production years. Imagine trading for Ingram and sticking to your guns and he bolts without ever playing a game?

Are you familiar with the concept of a sunk cost? You don't have to throw good money after bad.

I'd say that's either a risk worth taking or else just a dumb trade that shouldn't have been made in the first place. I highly question the characterization of Randle being in decline and Ingram being in his prime when it's the latter that just missed 75% of the season.

Turner just signed for $108/4 and he's a year and a half older.

[djsunyc]

cap/contracts don't have the same meaning here. you want someone in toronto, you have to pay. i don't see a problem paying guys that could make an all star game.

I have no idea what this even means. Yes, there's a premium to get players to sign in Toronto. No, it's not $10M/yr. If Ingram didn't like the offer from Toronto, he could have tested free agency and likely wound up with much less - according to his own agent. I'm not so sure Atlanta would've given him that huge contract either given that they dumped Hunter to get cap flexibility. And they weren't forced to extend Porzingis either just because they traded for him.

And once more, you don't have to beat other teams in a race to the bottom.

it means in toronto, if you want to be prudent with contracts and not spend then don't expect any real talent to play for the team while forcing you to basically tank for years with more pressure to hit on all those picks.

[YogurtProducer]

True. Here are the facts:
Statistically speaking, since the invent of the lottery, teams have jumped up in the lottery WAY more than the odds imply they should.

Gonna need some sourcing on these "facts". To me, sounds like you dont understand it

Well, with the new weighted lottery odds since 2019:
Seed 1: Slightly overperformed (+4.94%), appearing in top 4 more than projected.
Seed 2: Huge underperformance (−23.63% absolute, −45% relative).
Seed 3: Underperformed (−9.34%, −17.9%)
Seed 4: Substantial underperformance (−18.53%, −39.3%)
Seed 5: Performed much worse than probability (−27.81%, −66%)
Especially for seeds 2–5, actual outcomes have clearly fell short of theoretical expectations.

Based on the analysis of NBA Draft Lottery outcomes from 2019–2025, there are several clear statistical anomalies when comparing actual results to expected average draft picks:

Seed 11 (Massive Overperformance, Mavs win lottery in 2025)
Expected Avg Pick: ~11.0
Actual Avg Pick: ~6.5
Anomaly: Moved up ~4.5 positions on average — an extraordinary jump for a team with just 7.1% odds of a top-4 pick.

Seed 10 (Atlanta Hawks win in 2024)
Expected Avg Pick: ~10.0
Actual Avg Pick: ~7.0
Anomaly: Overperformed by 3 draft positions on average.

Seed 2 (Underperformance)
Expected Avg Pick: ~2.9
Actual Avg Pick: ~4.0
Anomaly: Moved down by more than 1 pick on average — substantially worse than expected.

Seed 5 (Severe Underperformance)
Expected Avg Pick: ~5.0
Actual Avg Pick: ~6.1
Anomaly: Over 1 pick worse than expectation.

The lottery is working as intended in flattening outcomes and introducing randomness.
But Seeds 10–11 overperforming, and Seeds 2–6 underperforming, raise questions about true randomness vs. variance in small samples.
Over a longer time horizon, these may normalize — but over 7 years, they're clearly statistical anomalies.

If 5 of the top 6 seeds are all underperforming their actual odds expectations, that means teams below them are performing way better than expected. Seeds 2-6 all have average picks 1-2 picks worse than expected given the odds. So, yeah. Variance exists - so given the small sample size since the recent modern lottery odds, maybe it's just randomness or outliers affecting results. This graph will help visualize it.



The binomial p-value for observing 2 or more #1 overall picks from Seed 10 or 11 over 7 NBA draft lotteries — given their combined odds of ~4.5% per year — is p = 0.0366. Anything below p of 0.05 is statistically significant. It means that if the lottery were truly random and followed the published odds, there would be only a 3.66% chance of seeing this outcome by "luck" alone.

Thoughts? Do I still seem like I don't "understand it"?

Yeah, you don’t lol

In such a small samples that’s actually not that bad at all. How you post thatgrsph and not grasp it is wild.

[brownbobcat]

cap/contracts don't have the same meaning here. you want someone in toronto, you have to pay. i don't see a problem paying guys that could make an all star game.

I have no idea what this even means. Yes, there's a premium to get players to sign in Toronto. No, it's not $10M/yr. If Ingram didn't like the offer from Toronto, he could have tested free agency and likely wound up with much less - according to his own agent. I'm not so sure Atlanta would've given him that huge contract either given that they dumped Hunter to get cap flexibility. And they weren't forced to extend Porzingis either just because they traded for him.

And once more, you don't have to beat other teams in a race to the bottom.

it means in toronto, if you want to be prudent with contracts and not spend then don't expect any real talent to play for the team while forcing you to basically tank for years with more pressure to hit on all those picks.

They HAVE to hit on the majority of their picks regardless, there's no hiding the weenie with cap dollars.

Cap dollars are limited, they aren't going into the luxury tax much less the 2nd apron. Paying top price for so-so talent is a highly limiting strategy.

[djsunyc]

I have no idea what this even means. Yes, there's a premium to get players to sign in Toronto. No, it's not $10M/yr. If Ingram didn't like the offer from Toronto, he could have tested free agency and likely wound up with much less - according to his own agent. I'm not so sure Atlanta would've given him that huge contract either given that they dumped Hunter to get cap flexibility. And they weren't forced to extend Porzingis either just because they traded for him.

And once more, you don't have to beat other teams in a race to the bottom.

it means in toronto, if you want to be prudent with contracts and not spend then don't expect any real talent to play for the team while forcing you to basically tank for years with more pressure to hit on all those picks.

They HAVE to hit on the majority of their picks regardless, there's no hiding the weenie with cap dollars.

Cap dollars are limited, they aren't going into the luxury tax much less the 2nd apron. Paying top price for so-so talent is a highly limiting strategy.

if you're not open to the idea of it not being a big deal then there's no point with the back and forth.

[Los_29]

Wow, they didn’t bid against themselves. Pelicans were offering more, Hawks were going to give BI a similar deal. He chose us.

We do not get BI in free agency. We wouldn’t have the money to get him.

I am not saying they would have gotten him in free agency, I'm saying it's a bad idea for ANY team to have given him that much money because his options were limited.

Randle got $100/3 and he's way more consistent. There's no rule that says you have to outbid other teams in order to make a bad decision. The first clue that it's a bad decision is if the other frontrunners are the Pelicans and the Hawks.

And to be clear, I don't believe reports that Ingram turned down more money from ATL.
1. Why would he?
2. Why would the Pelicans?
3. Not that everything NOP does makes sense, but they clearly were fine with clearing $ off the books

Pelicans didn’t want to get rid of BI, he turned down the offer which was a 4 year 160+ million dollar deal.

Randle got that contract because no one wanted him. Pelicans gave BI a big offer and the Hawks were going to as well. To get BI you had to trade for him.

Remember how many people criticized the OG, Fred, Norm, Ibaka, JV, Lowry and Pascal deals. All of them were either very fair value or complete bargains.

Hawks just traded for Porzingis. Of course they were willing to spend the money.

[brownbobcat]

if you're not open to the idea of it not being a big deal then there's no point with the back and forth.

Explain the path to being better than average, much less very successful, by overspending (relative to production) in a cap system and not hitting on the majority of picks.

[brownbobcat]

Pelicans didn’t want to get rid of BI, he turned down the offer which was a 4 year 160+ million dollar deal.

I just said I don't believe those reports and listed the reasons. Pelicans are rebuilding and handing out huge money to BI does nothing for that. And for his perspective, why would he turn down that much more money from Toronto? You guys are simultaneously making the argument that Toronto has to overpay and also isn't overpaying - which is it?

Randle got that contract because no one wanted him. Pelicans gave BI a big offer and the Hawks were going to as well. To get BI you had to trade for him.

What makes you think other teams value Ingram that much more than Randle? You have to trade for Ingram, but you don't have to give him the extension.

Remember how many people criticized the OG, Fred, Norm, Ibaka, JV, Lowry and Pascal deals. All of them were either very fair value or complete bargains.

Hawks just traded for Porzingis. Of course they were willing to spend the money.

We're talking about Ingram, what do those guys have to do with anything? Absolutely nobody criticized the OG deal. My point was also that ATL traded for Porzingis (who's better and cheaper than Ingram) and didn't extend him. No one forced Toronto to extend Ingram in-season for that price, that was their choice.