Updated salary situation for 2021-2022.

[LBJKB24MJ23]

Lol Stanley and Mccaw made like $4-5M 2 yr deals. Baynes was around the MLE; none of these set the franchise back.

Baynes and Johnson were free agent contracts, they were not extensions. McCaw was a bad extension but 4 million/year is not a significant price tag given where he was projecting at the time. But I'll give you that one.

Excuse for "insignificant price tag" when adding up to be near 20m?
Baynes didn't set the franchise back?

I don't think we have a horrible contract, but we are over the tax for a play-in team? Even we trade away Dragic to be under the tax, it does not mean we have salary flexibility next year, might as well lose Boucher. So we are happy with this roster for the next 2 years?

No, Baynes didn't set the franchise back. Stanley Johnson didn't set this franchise back. They were stop-gap players.

I mean you can blame covid and playing in Tampa for setting this franchise back. That's what Masai said. He even said "years".

But I bet signing Ibaka and/or Gasol would have been bad extensions and would have set the franchise back aka multiple years. Ibaka having back surgery or whatever and Gasol a real shadow of himself now. By getting rid of them, we were able to move on and go find big men who fit in the timeline.

So not many extensions, according to the question originally asked, were considered "bad".





Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

[bluerap23]

Lol Stanley and Mccaw made like $4-5M 2 yr deals. Baynes was around the MLE; none of these set the franchise back.

Baynes and Johnson were free agent contracts, they were not extensions. McCaw was a bad extension but 4 million/year is not a significant price tag given where he was projecting at the time. But I'll give you that one.

Excuse for "insignificant price tag" when adding up to be near 20m?
Baynes didn't set the franchise back?

I don't think we have a horrible contract, but we are over the tax for a play-in team? Even we trade away Dragic to be under the tax, it does not mean we have salary flexibility next year, might as well lose Boucher. So we are happy with this roster for the next 2 years?

I guess you don't understand the difference between a free agent signing and a contract extension.

[Indeed]

Lol Stanley and Mccaw made like $4-5M 2 yr deals. Baynes was around the MLE; none of these set the franchise back.

Baynes and Johnson were free agent contracts, they were not extensions. McCaw was a bad extension but 4 million/year is not a significant price tag given where he was projecting at the time. But I'll give you that one.

Excuse for "insignificant price tag" when adding up to be near 20m?
Baynes didn't set the franchise back?

I don't think we have a horrible contract, but we are over the tax for a play-in team? Even we trade away Dragic to be under the tax, it does not mean we have salary flexibility next year, might as well lose Boucher. So we are happy with this roster for the next 2 years?

No, Baynes didn't set the franchise back. Stanley Johnson didn't set this franchise back. They were stop-gap players.

I mean you can blame covid and playing in Tampa for setting this franchise back. That's what Masai said. He even said "years".

But I bet signing Ibaka and/or Gasol would have been bad extensions and would have set the franchise back aka multiple years. Ibaka having back surgery or whatever and Gasol a real shadow of himself now. By getting rid of them, we were able to move on and go find big men who fit in the timeline.

So not many extensions, according to the question originally asked, were considered "bad".





Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Baynes was clearly the major problem that we started the season in a negative way, and Lowry was shaking his head as he cannot pass the ball to him at rim nor pass to him for 3s. Ujiri and Nurse wouldn't blame on the players, but clearly Baynes sets us back in the first 10 games.

Meanwhile, Ibaka won't have the same back issue that was due to playing 30+mins against bigger C as a Raptors. Boucher and Siakam will share some time (that goes for Leonard who got hurt as a Clippers, while unlikely as a Raptors). It feels you are making yourself feel better by saying we are not getting Ibaka (or even Leonard), but the reality of our medical staff and ability to load manage would not be the same for these players.

Claiming we don't have bad contracts (Ujiri didn't sign / extend bad contracts) is just wishful thinking. The strategy of praying for an all-star to join without plan B was a failure. I don't see how people can still argue that our management did no wrong after how things happened last year.

[Indeed]

Lol Stanley and Mccaw made like $4-5M 2 yr deals. Baynes was around the MLE; none of these set the franchise back.

Baynes and Johnson were free agent contracts, they were not extensions. McCaw was a bad extension but 4 million/year is not a significant price tag given where he was projecting at the time. But I'll give you that one.

Excuse for "insignificant price tag" when adding up to be near 20m?
Baynes didn't set the franchise back?

I don't think we have a horrible contract, but we are over the tax for a play-in team? Even we trade away Dragic to be under the tax, it does not mean we have salary flexibility next year, might as well lose Boucher. So we are happy with this roster for the next 2 years?

I guess you don't understand the difference between a free agent signing and a contract extension.

I guess you just don't want to admit we gave out bad contracts before (some how you admit McCaw), and came back and say "they are insignificant". Regardless of they are significant or not, it happens once, and it could happen twice.

Keep in mind that we are sticking to these rosters for this 2 seasons, as we don't have cap flexibility. Even Dragic expiring may at most allow us to re-sign Boucher, and such lineup that is cost above the tax would be a top tier team? If not, are we sure there is no bad contract?

[Raptorfan2012]

Lol Stanley and Mccaw made like $4-5M 2 yr deals. Baynes was around the MLE; none of these set the franchise back.

Baynes and Johnson were free agent contracts, they were not extensions. McCaw was a bad extension but 4 million/year is not a significant price tag given where he was projecting at the time. But I'll give you that one.

Excuse for "insignificant price tag" when adding up to be near 20m?
Baynes didn't set the franchise back?

I don't think we have a horrible contract, but we are over the tax for a play-in team? Even we trade away Dragic to be under the tax, it does not mean we have salary flexibility next year, might as well lose Boucher. So we are happy with this roster for the next 2 years?

According to Hoopshype:
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/toronto_raptors/2020-2021/

Baynes earned $7M
Patrick McCaw earned $4M
Stanley earned $3.8M
Total $14.8M

Total salary for 2020/21 was $129,131,910.

Your 'near $20M' was only around 11% of the total payroll - for 3 rotation/bench guys. So yes, they were pretty insignificant.

More importantly, all three guys are no longer on the payroll. Not sure how you think a $7M for one year contract set a franchise back. Kevin Love-type contracts sets a franchise back

[LBJKB24MJ23]

Excuse for "insignificant price tag" when adding up to be near 20m?
Baynes didn't set the franchise back?

I don't think we have a horrible contract, but we are over the tax for a play-in team? Even we trade away Dragic to be under the tax, it does not mean we have salary flexibility next year, might as well lose Boucher. So we are happy with this roster for the next 2 years?

No, Baynes didn't set the franchise back. Stanley Johnson didn't set this franchise back. They were stop-gap players.

I mean you can blame covid and playing in Tampa for setting this franchise back. That's what Masai said. He even said "years".

But I bet signing Ibaka and/or Gasol would have been bad extensions and would have set the franchise back aka multiple years. Ibaka having back surgery or whatever and Gasol a real shadow of himself now. By getting rid of them, we were able to move on and go find big men who fit in the timeline.

So not many extensions, according to the question originally asked, were considered "bad".





Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Baynes was clearly the major problem that we started the season in a negative way, and Lowry was shaking his head as he cannot pass the ball to him at rim nor pass to him for 3s. Ujiri and Nurse wouldn't blame on the players, but clearly Baynes sets us back in the first 10 games.

Meanwhile, Ibaka won't have the same back issue that was due to playing 30+mins against bigger C as a Raptors. Boucher and Siakam will share some time (that goes for Leonard who got hurt as a Clippers, while unlikely as a Raptors). It feels you are making yourself feel better by saying we are not getting Ibaka (or even Leonard), but the reality of our medical staff and ability to load manage would not be the same for these players.

Claiming we don't have bad contracts (Ujiri didn't sign / extend bad contracts) is just wishful thinking. The strategy of praying for an all-star to join without plan B was a failure. I don't see how people can still argue that our management did no wrong after how things happened last year.

laughable to blame 1 player for the bad start of the season. clearly you didn't see the rest of the team play horribly either. with no go to offensive player + terrible team defense, yes blame it all on Baynes. to start a season 2-8 is because of 1 minor role player is terrible.

Ibaka's injury may or may not have been prevented because of the jersey he was in. injuries happen, esp during the covid year.

oh I didn't say Baynes wasn't a bad contract. he was because he didn't us anything nearly for what we paid him for. but he didn't set the franchise back - which is what i'm countering your point of setting this franchise back. or SJ for that matter. If we had ibaka, I think we would have resigned Lowry to another extension, and we would have kept going into this perpetual motion of 2nd round playoff team.

I think can clearly say, signing Baynes, not signing Ibaka/Gasol, Covid, playing in Tampa, not resigning Lowry, our future couldn't have been more clear with drafting a player like Barnes. all those things have collectively led us here where we don't have any questionable tread-milling.

again the question to be asked was any extension that Masai signed turned out to be bad overall. and I think the answer to that is: no there were no extensions that handcuffed the organization at all.

[Indeed]

Lol Stanley and Mccaw made like $4-5M 2 yr deals. Baynes was around the MLE; none of these set the franchise back.

Baynes and Johnson were free agent contracts, they were not extensions. McCaw was a bad extension but 4 million/year is not a significant price tag given where he was projecting at the time. But I'll give you that one.

Excuse for "insignificant price tag" when adding up to be near 20m?
Baynes didn't set the franchise back?

I don't think we have a horrible contract, but we are over the tax for a play-in team? Even we trade away Dragic to be under the tax, it does not mean we have salary flexibility next year, might as well lose Boucher. So we are happy with this roster for the next 2 years?

According to Hoopshype:
https://hoopshype.com/salaries/toronto_raptors/2020-2021/

Baynes earned $7M
Patrick McCaw earned $4M
Stanley earned $3.8M
Total $14.8M

Total salary for 2020/21 was $129,131,910.

Your 'near $20M' was only around 11% of the total payroll - for 3 rotation/bench guys. So yes, they were pretty insignificant.

More importantly, all three guys are no longer on the payroll. Not sure how you think a $7M for one year contract set a franchise back. Kevin Love-type contracts sets a franchise back

First, the original question was "When was the last time Masai handed out an extension that looked like bad value by the end of the contract?"
Therefore, your argument of "all three guys are no longer on the payroll" is to dodge that answer?

Regardless of significant of those money, we are above the tax, and we will live with the same roster if you believe this is a top tier team / lineup. To me, it is not.

Quick question:
When was the last time that Masai handed out an extension that looked like bad value by the end of the contract?

Baynes, Stanley Johnson, McCaw, ...
(People got short memories?)

Lol Stanley and Mccaw made like $4-5M 2 yr deals. Baynes was around the MLE; none of these set the franchise back.

As for how Baynes sets the franchise back. We were horrible defensively and offensively in the first 10 games. Until we move away Baynes, we went on a run as we got back to above 500 record. And if you didn't read the reply above (or you only read your own response), then I repeat my argument about Lowry was shaking his head on one game, where Baynes can't defend, can't catch the ball, can't shoot the 3s as Lowry made those pass for suppose to be easy buckets. I may not able to find that video, but clearly showed how bad Baynes were impacting us in the win column.

[Indeed]

No, Baynes didn't set the franchise back. Stanley Johnson didn't set this franchise back. They were stop-gap players.

I mean you can blame covid and playing in Tampa for setting this franchise back. That's what Masai said. He even said "years".

But I bet signing Ibaka and/or Gasol would have been bad extensions and would have set the franchise back aka multiple years. Ibaka having back surgery or whatever and Gasol a real shadow of himself now. By getting rid of them, we were able to move on and go find big men who fit in the timeline.

So not many extensions, according to the question originally asked, were considered "bad".





Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Baynes was clearly the major problem that we started the season in a negative way, and Lowry was shaking his head as he cannot pass the ball to him at rim nor pass to him for 3s. Ujiri and Nurse wouldn't blame on the players, but clearly Baynes sets us back in the first 10 games.

Meanwhile, Ibaka won't have the same back issue that was due to playing 30+mins against bigger C as a Raptors. Boucher and Siakam will share some time (that goes for Leonard who got hurt as a Clippers, while unlikely as a Raptors). It feels you are making yourself feel better by saying we are not getting Ibaka (or even Leonard), but the reality of our medical staff and ability to load manage would not be the same for these players.

Claiming we don't have bad contracts (Ujiri didn't sign / extend bad contracts) is just wishful thinking. The strategy of praying for an all-star to join without plan B was a failure. I don't see how people can still argue that our management did no wrong after how things happened last year.

laughable to blame 1 player for the bad start of the season. clearly you didn't see the rest of the team play horribly either. with no go to offensive player + terrible team defense, yes blame it all on Baynes. to start a season 2-8 is because of 1 minor role player is terrible.

Ibaka's injury may or may not have been prevented because of the jersey he was in. injuries happen, esp during the covid year.

oh I didn't say Baynes wasn't a bad contract. he was because he didn't us anything nearly for what we paid him for. but he didn't set the franchise back - which is what i'm countering your point of setting this franchise back. or SJ for that matter. If we had ibaka, I think we would have resigned Lowry to another extension, and we would have kept going into this perpetual motion of 2nd round playoff team.

I think can clearly say, signing Baynes, not signing Ibaka/Gasol, Covid, playing in Tampa, not resigning Lowry, our future couldn't have been more clear with drafting a player like Barnes. all those things have collectively led us here where we don't have any questionable tread-milling.

again the question to be asked was any extension that Masai signed turned out to be bad overall. and I think the answer to that is: no there were no extensions that handcuffed the organization at all.

You continue to miss the point.
Do you think this roster, which is above the tax, is a top tier team?
Unless you believe this is a top tier team, otherwise, how you believe there were no extensions that handcuffed the organization with such a payroll?

[LBJKB24MJ23]

Baynes was clearly the major problem that we started the season in a negative way, and Lowry was shaking his head as he cannot pass the ball to him at rim nor pass to him for 3s. Ujiri and Nurse wouldn't blame on the players, but clearly Baynes sets us back in the first 10 games.

Meanwhile, Ibaka won't have the same back issue that was due to playing 30+mins against bigger C as a Raptors. Boucher and Siakam will share some time (that goes for Leonard who got hurt as a Clippers, while unlikely as a Raptors). It feels you are making yourself feel better by saying we are not getting Ibaka (or even Leonard), but the reality of our medical staff and ability to load manage would not be the same for these players.

Claiming we don't have bad contracts (Ujiri didn't sign / extend bad contracts) is just wishful thinking. The strategy of praying for an all-star to join without plan B was a failure. I don't see how people can still argue that our management did no wrong after how things happened last year.

laughable to blame 1 player for the bad start of the season. clearly you didn't see the rest of the team play horribly either. with no go to offensive player + terrible team defense, yes blame it all on Baynes. to start a season 2-8 is because of 1 minor role player is terrible.

Ibaka's injury may or may not have been prevented because of the jersey he was in. injuries happen, esp during the covid year.

oh I didn't say Baynes wasn't a bad contract. he was because he didn't us anything nearly for what we paid him for. but he didn't set the franchise back - which is what i'm countering your point of setting this franchise back. or SJ for that matter. If we had ibaka, I think we would have resigned Lowry to another extension, and we would have kept going into this perpetual motion of 2nd round playoff team.

I think can clearly say, signing Baynes, not signing Ibaka/Gasol, Covid, playing in Tampa, not resigning Lowry, our future couldn't have been more clear with drafting a player like Barnes. all those things have collectively led us here where we don't have any questionable tread-milling.

again the question to be asked was any extension that Masai signed turned out to be bad overall. and I think the answer to that is: no there were no extensions that handcuffed the organization at all.

You continue to miss the point.
Do you think this roster, which is above the tax, is a top tier team?
Unless you believe this is a top tier team, otherwise, how you believe there were no extensions that handcuffed the organization with such a payroll?

I didn't miss the point, you're just not in tune with what is happening.

this is not a top tier team, at the moment, but they made the trade for Lowry's replacements in Precious and Dragic. they could have easily let him go through free agency. they have a lot of tradeable assets. Raptors were never big players on the free agency market to begin with. so the most logical route is gather as many assets to trade later down the road. GTJ, Dragic, etc. If they can't make a splash in FA, they might as well load up in assets to trade for a star as the main source of getting good players as a possibility. they have a 3 year plan from what it looks like with most of their big contracts ending then. so being a tax team now is kinda irrelevant.

[Indeed]

laughable to blame 1 player for the bad start of the season. clearly you didn't see the rest of the team play horribly either. with no go to offensive player + terrible team defense, yes blame it all on Baynes. to start a season 2-8 is because of 1 minor role player is terrible.

Ibaka's injury may or may not have been prevented because of the jersey he was in. injuries happen, esp during the covid year.

oh I didn't say Baynes wasn't a bad contract. he was because he didn't us anything nearly for what we paid him for. but he didn't set the franchise back - which is what i'm countering your point of setting this franchise back. or SJ for that matter. If we had ibaka, I think we would have resigned Lowry to another extension, and we would have kept going into this perpetual motion of 2nd round playoff team.

I think can clearly say, signing Baynes, not signing Ibaka/Gasol, Covid, playing in Tampa, not resigning Lowry, our future couldn't have been more clear with drafting a player like Barnes. all those things have collectively led us here where we don't have any questionable tread-milling.

again the question to be asked was any extension that Masai signed turned out to be bad overall. and I think the answer to that is: no there were no extensions that handcuffed the organization at all.

You continue to miss the point.
Do you think this roster, which is above the tax, is a top tier team?
Unless you believe this is a top tier team, otherwise, how you believe there were no extensions that handcuffed the organization with such a payroll?

I didn't miss the point, you're just not in tune with what is happening.

this is not a top tier team, at the moment, but they made the trade for Lowry's replacements in Precious and Dragic. they could have easily let him go through free agency. they have a lot of tradeable assets. Raptors were never big players on the free agency market to begin with. so the most logical route is gather as many assets to trade later down the road. GTJ, Dragic, etc. If they can't make a splash in FA, they might as well load up in assets to trade for a star as the main source of getting good players as a possibility. they have a 3 year plan from what it looks like with most of their big contracts ending then. so being a tax team now is kinda irrelevant.

Bad contract aren't assets, which is my point, so I am not sure you are not in tune or me.
Last year Stanley Johnson, McCaw nor Baynes can get us anything (otherwise, we already traded them). Bad contracts aren't something we can package for a star.

Meanwhile, Dragic may have better value, plus he is an expiring, but if we are taking a non-expiring with a young player for Dragic, it makes little difference than having cap space and take a bad contract with a pick.

Furthermore, I have to disagree the team being a tax now is irrelevant. For me, you are giving excuse, and the 3 years plan being a tax team but borderline playoff team is just meaningless.

[LBJKB24MJ23]

You continue to miss the point.
Do you think this roster, which is above the tax, is a top tier team?
Unless you believe this is a top tier team, otherwise, how you believe there were no extensions that handcuffed the organization with such a payroll?

I didn't miss the point, you're just not in tune with what is happening.

this is not a top tier team, at the moment, but they made the trade for Lowry's replacements in Precious and Dragic. they could have easily let him go through free agency. they have a lot of tradeable assets. Raptors were never big players on the free agency market to begin with. so the most logical route is gather as many assets to trade later down the road. GTJ, Dragic, etc. If they can't make a splash in FA, they might as well load up in assets to trade for a star as the main source of getting good players as a possibility. they have a 3 year plan from what it looks like with most of their big contracts ending then. so being a tax team now is kinda irrelevant.

Bad contract aren't assets, which is my point, so I am not sure you are not in tune or me.
Last year Stanley Johnson, McCaw nor Baynes can get us anything (otherwise, we already traded them). Bad contracts aren't something we can package for a star.

Meanwhile, Dragic may have better value, plus he is an expiring, but if we are taking a non-expiring with a young player for Dragic, it makes little difference than having cap space and take a bad contract with a pick.

Furthermore, I have to disagree the team being a tax now is irrelevant. For me, you are giving excuse, and the 3 years plan being a tax team but borderline playoff team is just meaningless.

the convo is about extensions. which player was considered a bad contract after they got extended? obv McCaw is 'bad' contract but he makes like less than 5% of the cap. hardly significant and hardly damaging to the franchise and holding it back as you said. so a moot point.

You want to talk about Baynes and SJ. are they bad contracts - sure. Baynes is done and SJ is the new McCaw, but they sure aren't holding back and damaging the franchise as you said. so a moot point.

the assets we are talking about are basically anyone on the team. Baynes making $7M would have been a cap filler if he were be part of a trade but we obv don't have a trade capital because our only significant assets last year was Lowry - who already making near max... and Powell, who we traded for a younger SG in GTJ.

lets put it bluntly - as of right now, Raptors don't have any bad assets on the team unless you hate Siakam. Operating as a team over the cap allows them to an extra allotment of money they couldn't use before. at the end of the day, Masai is trying to rebuild on the fly and gathering enough trade capital - one significant trade can definitely change the outlook of this team in a hurry.

and about being a tax team - its only relevant by end of season. Raptors are only slightly above the tax number - trading Dragic or someone else by end of the season could easily mitigate this lol. you worried about them being a tax team, at this moment and time, is kinda hilarious.

[Indeed]

I didn't miss the point, you're just not in tune with what is happening.

this is not a top tier team, at the moment, but they made the trade for Lowry's replacements in Precious and Dragic. they could have easily let him go through free agency. they have a lot of tradeable assets. Raptors were never big players on the free agency market to begin with. so the most logical route is gather as many assets to trade later down the road. GTJ, Dragic, etc. If they can't make a splash in FA, they might as well load up in assets to trade for a star as the main source of getting good players as a possibility. they have a 3 year plan from what it looks like with most of their big contracts ending then. so being a tax team now is kinda irrelevant.

Bad contract aren't assets, which is my point, so I am not sure you are not in tune or me.
Last year Stanley Johnson, McCaw nor Baynes can get us anything (otherwise, we already traded them). Bad contracts aren't something we can package for a star.

Meanwhile, Dragic may have better value, plus he is an expiring, but if we are taking a non-expiring with a young player for Dragic, it makes little difference than having cap space and take a bad contract with a pick.

Furthermore, I have to disagree the team being a tax now is irrelevant. For me, you are giving excuse, and the 3 years plan being a tax team but borderline playoff team is just meaningless.

the convo is about extensions. which player was considered a bad contract after they got extended? obv McCaw is 'bad' contract but he makes like less than 5% of the cap. hardly significant and hardly damaging to the franchise and holding it back as you said. so a moot point.

You want to talk about Baynes and SJ. are they bad contracts - sure. Baynes is done and SJ is the new McCaw, but they sure aren't holding back and damaging the franchise as you said. so a moot point.

the assets we are talking about are basically anyone on the team. Baynes making $7M would have been a cap filler if he were be part of a trade but we obv don't have a trade capital because our only significant assets last year was Lowry - who already making near max... and Powell, who we traded for a younger SG in GTJ.

lets put it bluntly - as of right now, Raptors don't have any bad assets on the team unless you hate Siakam. Operating as a team over the cap allows them to an extra allotment of money they couldn't use before. at the end of the day, Masai is trying to rebuild on the fly and gathering enough trade capital - one significant trade can definitely change the outlook of this team in a hurry.

and about being a tax team - its only relevant by end of season. Raptors are only slightly above the tax number - trading Dragic or someone else by end of the season could easily mitigate this lol. you worried about them being a tax team, at this moment and time, is kinda hilarious.

Trent is pretty much a bad contract being overpaid with his third year being a player option.
As for calling it being early and hilarious of seeing things in the long term, I think you are just short sighted, as trade is required to be 150%, while we have no flexibility next season. I am not surprised we lose Boucher for nothing next year.

[bluerap23]

Excuse for "insignificant price tag" when adding up to be near 20m?
Baynes didn't set the franchise back?

I don't think we have a horrible contract, but we are over the tax for a play-in team? Even we trade away Dragic to be under the tax, it does not mean we have salary flexibility next year, might as well lose Boucher. So we are happy with this roster for the next 2 years?

I guess you don't understand the difference between a free agent signing and a contract extension.

I guess you just don't want to admit we gave out bad contracts before (some how you admit McCaw), and came back and say "they are insignificant". Regardless of they are significant or not, it happens once, and it could happen twice.

Keep in mind that we are sticking to these rosters for this 2 seasons, as we don't have cap flexibility. Even Dragic expiring may at most allow us to re-sign Boucher, and such lineup that is cost above the tax would be a top tier team? If not, are we sure there is no bad contract?

I never said we have never given out bad contracts. In fact, the worst contract wasn't even mentioned (Carroll).

The topic was Gary Trent's extension. Free agency is a very different game than contract extensions (especially when dealing with an RFA).

By now it is pretty obvious that Toronto is not a free agent destination. Masai swung for the fences aiming for this particular free agent class because he thought that proving we could win with a star would make us a more attractive destination. Unfortunately that is not working. It means overpaying for mediocre free agents if you want to address team building through that avenue.

The reality for this organization is to improve through the draft, development and trades (we are now well positioned to do so). There is no question that Masai and co. have done an exceptional job with those. He thought he could turn Toronto into a free agency destination as well. I don't fault him for trying and I don't fault him for changing course when that didn't pan out.

[Indeed]

I guess you don't understand the difference between a free agent signing and a contract extension.

I guess you just don't want to admit we gave out bad contracts before (some how you admit McCaw), and came back and say "they are insignificant". Regardless of they are significant or not, it happens once, and it could happen twice.

Keep in mind that we are sticking to these rosters for this 2 seasons, as we don't have cap flexibility. Even Dragic expiring may at most allow us to re-sign Boucher, and such lineup that is cost above the tax would be a top tier team? If not, are we sure there is no bad contract?

I never said we have never given out bad contracts. In fact, the worst contract wasn't even mentioned (Carroll).

The topic was Gary Trent's extension. Free agency is a very different game than contract extensions (especially when dealing with an RFA).

By now it is pretty obvious that Toronto is not a free agent destination. Masai swung for the fences aiming for this particular free agent class because he thought that proving we could win with a star would make us a more attractive destination. Unfortunately that is not working. It means overpaying for mediocre free agents if you want to address team building through that avenue.

The reality for this organization is to improve through the draft, development and trades (we are now well positioned to do so). There is no question that Masai and co. have done an exceptional job with those. He thought he could turn Toronto into a free agency destination as well. I don't fault him for trying and I don't fault him for changing course when that didn't pan out.

So you mean Norman Powell as a FA got 5 years with the same first 3 years contract as Trent is not a better contract? Or you mean Powell won't sign the same contract with us but with Portland?
I think Trent being a RFA should cost less than Powell. And the argument that Trent will be Powell or better in 2 years has much more to proof.

Certainly the benefit of us trading Powell for Trent is to allow us to work below and above the cap, but I feel the contract of Powell is more friendly and easier to be traded. Same for the contract of OG, it is more friendlier. So I am not sure how people think this is a good contract (or not a bad as in below average contract).

[LBJKB24MJ23]

Bad contract aren't assets, which is my point, so I am not sure you are not in tune or me.
Last year Stanley Johnson, McCaw nor Baynes can get us anything (otherwise, we already traded them). Bad contracts aren't something we can package for a star.

Meanwhile, Dragic may have better value, plus he is an expiring, but if we are taking a non-expiring with a young player for Dragic, it makes little difference than having cap space and take a bad contract with a pick.

Furthermore, I have to disagree the team being a tax now is irrelevant. For me, you are giving excuse, and the 3 years plan being a tax team but borderline playoff team is just meaningless.

the convo is about extensions. which player was considered a bad contract after they got extended? obv McCaw is 'bad' contract but he makes like less than 5% of the cap. hardly significant and hardly damaging to the franchise and holding it back as you said. so a moot point.

You want to talk about Baynes and SJ. are they bad contracts - sure. Baynes is done and SJ is the new McCaw, but they sure aren't holding back and damaging the franchise as you said. so a moot point.

the assets we are talking about are basically anyone on the team. Baynes making $7M would have been a cap filler if he were be part of a trade but we obv don't have a trade capital because our only significant assets last year was Lowry - who already making near max... and Powell, who we traded for a younger SG in GTJ.

lets put it bluntly - as of right now, Raptors don't have any bad assets on the team unless you hate Siakam. Operating as a team over the cap allows them to an extra allotment of money they couldn't use before. at the end of the day, Masai is trying to rebuild on the fly and gathering enough trade capital - one significant trade can definitely change the outlook of this team in a hurry.

and about being a tax team - its only relevant by end of season. Raptors are only slightly above the tax number - trading Dragic or someone else by end of the season could easily mitigate this lol. you worried about them being a tax team, at this moment and time, is kinda hilarious.

Trent is pretty much a bad contract being overpaid with his third year being a player option.
As for calling it being early and hilarious of seeing things in the long term, I think you are just short sighted, as trade is required to be 150%, while we have no flexibility next season. I am not surprised we lose Boucher for nothing next year.

Trent is not a bad contract as of yet. he's going into his first year of his extension. obv the case is if he lives up the contract. for a young player, a jump in production would seem likely. so lets not say its a bad contract just yet, monetary wise - contract years and length/options is a whole other discussion it seems, at least on this board.

Raptors can trade players for protected picks etc and can play with a minimum of # players after the trade deadline. there are many ways to get out of the luxury tax, ~$137M, at least for Toronto, ~$140M, isn't such a far stretch - I doubt the Raptors paying repeat luxury tax if they aren't in a playoff mix. trading Dragic for the proposed Dallas package of Brown+Powell+Burke(or picks) pretty much gets us around under the luxury tax threshold. or if a star becomes available and Raptors are in a good playoff position by the trade deadline, we stay a tax paying team. I think the Raptors situation is flexible enough not to lose any sleep over it by end of season.

[Indeed]

the convo is about extensions. which player was considered a bad contract after they got extended? obv McCaw is 'bad' contract but he makes like less than 5% of the cap. hardly significant and hardly damaging to the franchise and holding it back as you said. so a moot point.

You want to talk about Baynes and SJ. are they bad contracts - sure. Baynes is done and SJ is the new McCaw, but they sure aren't holding back and damaging the franchise as you said. so a moot point.

the assets we are talking about are basically anyone on the team. Baynes making $7M would have been a cap filler if he were be part of a trade but we obv don't have a trade capital because our only significant assets last year was Lowry - who already making near max... and Powell, who we traded for a younger SG in GTJ.

lets put it bluntly - as of right now, Raptors don't have any bad assets on the team unless you hate Siakam. Operating as a team over the cap allows them to an extra allotment of money they couldn't use before. at the end of the day, Masai is trying to rebuild on the fly and gathering enough trade capital - one significant trade can definitely change the outlook of this team in a hurry.

and about being a tax team - its only relevant by end of season. Raptors are only slightly above the tax number - trading Dragic or someone else by end of the season could easily mitigate this lol. you worried about them being a tax team, at this moment and time, is kinda hilarious.

Trent is pretty much a bad contract being overpaid with his third year being a player option.
As for calling it being early and hilarious of seeing things in the long term, I think you are just short sighted, as trade is required to be 150%, while we have no flexibility next season. I am not surprised we lose Boucher for nothing next year.

Trent is not a bad contract as of yet. he's going into his first year of his extension. obv the case is if he lives up the contract. for a young player, a jump in production would seem likely. so lets not say its a bad contract just yet, monetary wise - contract years and length/options is a whole other discussion it seems, at least on this board.

Raptors can trade players for protected picks etc and can play with a minimum of # players after the trade deadline. there are many ways to get out of the luxury tax, ~$137M, at least for Toronto, ~$140M, isn't such a far stretch - I doubt the Raptors paying repeat luxury tax if they aren't in a playoff mix. trading Dragic for the proposed Dallas package of Brown+Powell+Burke(or picks) pretty much gets us around under the luxury tax threshold. or if a star becomes available and Raptors are in a good playoff position by the trade deadline, we stay a tax paying team. I think the Raptors situation is flexible enough not to lose any sleep over it by end of season.

Taking on D Powell and Burke means we are near the tax and cannot re-sign Boucher. Certainly Powell would be redundant to Boucher, but I don't see other teams would pay more for Boucher as they know we will lose him for nothing over the FA.

Clearly Raptors situation is NOT flexible enough unless you only care for this year.

[bluerap23]

I guess you just don't want to admit we gave out bad contracts before (some how you admit McCaw), and came back and say "they are insignificant". Regardless of they are significant or not, it happens once, and it could happen twice.

Keep in mind that we are sticking to these rosters for this 2 seasons, as we don't have cap flexibility. Even Dragic expiring may at most allow us to re-sign Boucher, and such lineup that is cost above the tax would be a top tier team? If not, are we sure there is no bad contract?

I never said we have never given out bad contracts. In fact, the worst contract wasn't even mentioned (Carroll).

The topic was Gary Trent's extension. Free agency is a very different game than contract extensions (especially when dealing with an RFA).

By now it is pretty obvious that Toronto is not a free agent destination. Masai swung for the fences aiming for this particular free agent class because he thought that proving we could win with a star would make us a more attractive destination. Unfortunately that is not working. It means overpaying for mediocre free agents if you want to address team building through that avenue.

The reality for this organization is to improve through the draft, development and trades (we are now well positioned to do so). There is no question that Masai and co. have done an exceptional job with those. He thought he could turn Toronto into a free agency destination as well. I don't fault him for trying and I don't fault him for changing course when that didn't pan out.

So you mean Norman Powell as a FA got 5 years with the same first 3 years contract as Trent is not a better contract? Or you mean Powell won't sign the same contract with us but with Portland?
I think Trent being a RFA should cost less than Powell. And the argument that Trent will be Powell or better in 2 years has much more to proof.

Certainly the benefit of us trading Powell for Trent is to allow us to work below and above the cap, but I feel the contract of Powell is more friendly and easier to be traded. Same for the contract of OG, it is more friendlier. So I am not sure how people think this is a good contract (or not a bad as in below average contract).

What I mean is a 22 year old with a maximum of 52 million guaranteed is a significantly better asset than a 28 year old with 90 million guaranteed. There can be quibbling over which player is better and which player is going to be better over the term of the contract, but the reality is that they are both very similar and Trent has more upside (greater chance to improve significantly).

Please go take a look at Norm's production when he was 22 years old (his rookie season) or in his 3rd season and compare with Trent last year.

In my view neither is a long-term piece. But Trent is a good trade asset that can be used to trade up in talent (combined with other assets of course).

[Indeed]

I never said we have never given out bad contracts. In fact, the worst contract wasn't even mentioned (Carroll).

The topic was Gary Trent's extension. Free agency is a very different game than contract extensions (especially when dealing with an RFA).

By now it is pretty obvious that Toronto is not a free agent destination. Masai swung for the fences aiming for this particular free agent class because he thought that proving we could win with a star would make us a more attractive destination. Unfortunately that is not working. It means overpaying for mediocre free agents if you want to address team building through that avenue.

The reality for this organization is to improve through the draft, development and trades (we are now well positioned to do so). There is no question that Masai and co. have done an exceptional job with those. He thought he could turn Toronto into a free agency destination as well. I don't fault him for trying and I don't fault him for changing course when that didn't pan out.

So you mean Norman Powell as a FA got 5 years with the same first 3 years contract as Trent is not a better contract? Or you mean Powell won't sign the same contract with us but with Portland?
I think Trent being a RFA should cost less than Powell. And the argument that Trent will be Powell or better in 2 years has much more to proof.

Certainly the benefit of us trading Powell for Trent is to allow us to work below and above the cap, but I feel the contract of Powell is more friendly and easier to be traded. Same for the contract of OG, it is more friendlier. So I am not sure how people think this is a good contract (or not a bad as in below average contract).

What I mean is a 22 year old with a maximum of 52 million guaranteed is a significantly better asset than a 28 year old with 90 million guaranteed. There can be quibbling over which player is better and which player is going to be better over the term of the contract, but the reality is that they are both very similar and Trent has more upside (greater chance to improve significantly).

Please go take a look at Norm's production when he was 22 years old (his rookie season) or in his 3rd season and compare with Trent last year.

In my view neither is a long-term piece. But Trent is a good trade asset that can be used to trade up in talent (combined with other assets of course).

I am not the only one claiming that 22 years old does not mean he can progress further. Because Trent can shoot the 3 and nothing else as compare to Powell, it doesn't mean he can improve other aspects (eg. quick first step). Player development is not linear, someone scores a lot at college level does not mean they can score a lot in the NBA. This is not how you evaluate talent.

This is between Trent Jr and Ross at age 22 (100 possession are rather similar):
https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=rosste01&p1yrfrom=2014&player_id2=trentga02&p2yrfrom=2021

[bluerap23]

So you mean Norman Powell as a FA got 5 years with the same first 3 years contract as Trent is not a better contract? Or you mean Powell won't sign the same contract with us but with Portland?
I think Trent being a RFA should cost less than Powell. And the argument that Trent will be Powell or better in 2 years has much more to proof.

Certainly the benefit of us trading Powell for Trent is to allow us to work below and above the cap, but I feel the contract of Powell is more friendly and easier to be traded. Same for the contract of OG, it is more friendlier. So I am not sure how people think this is a good contract (or not a bad as in below average contract).

What I mean is a 22 year old with a maximum of 52 million guaranteed is a significantly better asset than a 28 year old with 90 million guaranteed. There can be quibbling over which player is better and which player is going to be better over the term of the contract, but the reality is that they are both very similar and Trent has more upside (greater chance to improve significantly).

Please go take a look at Norm's production when he was 22 years old (his rookie season) or in his 3rd season and compare with Trent last year.

In my view neither is a long-term piece. But Trent is a good trade asset that can be used to trade up in talent (combined with other assets of course).

I am not the only one claiming that 22 years old does not mean he can progress further. Because Trent can shoot the 3 and nothing else as compare to Powell, it doesn't mean he can improve other aspects (eg. quick first step). Player development is not linear, someone scores a lot at college level does not mean they can score a lot in the NBA. This is not how you evaluate talent.

This is between Trent Jr and Ross at age 22 (100 possession are rather similar):
https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=rosste01&p1yrfrom=2014&player_id2=trentga02&p2yrfrom=2021

Even if you believe Trent has plateaued and will not improve any more, and even if you believe Norm is better than Trent, the difference in what they provide at present is minimal. They are both typical 2 guards that score first and don't do much else at this point. Both are below average rebounders, creators and defenders. It still makes Trent a better trade asset due to age and total dollar value on the contract.

[Kinger95]

Just took a quick look at trent he’s advanced stats and I can see why Portland traded him lol.

I honestly don’t like his game just from watch him. He’s a pretty average volume shooter that provides not much else. Just my opinion but he’s a black hole offensively that stops the ball, and defensively I don’t think he’s great positionally or disruptive, he looks like he’s trying but that doesn’t make u a good defender lol

Average volume shooter? He’s a 39% 3pt shooter on over 5 attempts per game.

I think his defense will be better after a full training camp. Trent has a high basketball IQ and he puts in effort on the defensive end. I think his issues last year were adjusting to Toronto’s schemes, which are known to be complex.

As far as his contract, unless he forgets how to shoot he’ll be a 25 year old who makes 3s at a 40% clip during that option year. That’s an easily tradable asset to a contender.

There’s 84 players during the season that shot a higher percentage from 3 than him.

38.5% is literally the definition of average when nearly 100 guys can shoot it the same/better.

Like o said . Mediocre. If his % drops to 36% from 3 he actually becomes a pretty below average player.