PG: 13 Game Losing Streak

[Drakeem]

I didn't want the trade and still don't like the trade. Timing and fit wise it just didn't make sense and really reeked of a FO being told to drive revenue.

I really like Poeltl. I think his value as a center is often underrated by many people and he's really good. Top 15 for sure, at times can appear in the top 12. The perception of Poeltl is being driven by the trade.

At 19.5 flat, he's a great value contract going forward.

Not only is he underrated a bit here on this board, but the endless droning on and on about the same move is exhausting to read. It genuinely makes reading these threads a slog and prompts me to take breaks from the Raptors board.

We get it, the move wasn't great. It was badly timed and it could heavily blow up in our faces this year. You're all right about the situation. However, at some point we gotta start talking about something else or divert our focus towards something else whether its positive or negative bc this stuff reads sometimes like a person who's clinging onto the same grudge for decades. It would be nice to start talking more about what might happen the next year, or the year after that.

[ConSarnit]

Theres a 54% chance right now that we lose the pick for this year.

And a 46 percent chance we do. Half this board has advocated on a yearly basis that we tank an entire season for a 14.5 percent chance at the top pick - the shifting sands of TWO are hilarious - clearly so bitter that there "theory" has worked as much as a broken clock does per day.

14.5% for a generational player that could be a dynasty building block? sign me up. If you dont even try you are a moron.
There are 30 teams in the league,14% chance is gigantic for a move that allows a team to have a overwhelming advantage against the rest of the playing field.

The 14.5% chance only tells half the story. Many posters weren’t calling for the team to be torn down just for the chance at Victor.

-a team led by FVV and Siakam had limited upside and both guys were due for massive raises

-Barnes and Siakam had a lot of positional overlap that created a less than ideal fit on the floor

-FVV/OG/Siakam were all slated to be free agents over 2 off-seasons. Keeping all 3 would have been incredibly difficult given their UFA status and salary demands (which played out with a godfather offer to FVV)

It was a team slated to be stretched thin by high salary, non-elite talent whose ceiling seemed limited. Some pro-tankers have actual logic behind their motives. As does some of the win-now group.

[tecumseh18]

Must mean that Masai is going to use the assets that Masai has left himself and build another championship contender.

Wow, after the 2016, 2017 and 2021 drafts, I did not expect to see the "trust fund baby" argument rear its repulsive head again on this board. But here we are. Between 2006 and 2012, Colangelo picked Bargnani, DeMar, Ed Davis, JV and T-Ross in the first round. What do those lottery picks all have in common? None of them have even been to the Finals, let alone won the championship. That's the trust fund that Bryan left Masai?

OK, Kyle was a good get. Everyone knew he was available from the Rockets. Colangelo could have used the 2012 FRP to acquire Kyle, but instead he uses the 2013 pick. If Masai had the 2013 pick at his disposal, can we all agree that he undoubtedly would have picked Giannis. Also, can we agree that Masai would have been reluctant to part with the 2013 pick for that reason? So the difference between Colangelo and Masai is the difference between having T-Ross and Kyle, and having Giannis and Kyle. Which duo would you rather have?

[edit] And if we're going to relitigate the Jak trade yet again, recall that the Spurs were demanding TWO first round picks for him. Masai, who thought a pairing of Jak with his buddy Pascal, plus OG, Scottie and Fred, was at least a playoff team this season, opted to instead give up a lightly protected first. In retrospect, it was a mistake. But only in retrospect.

How was the Poeltl trade only a mistake in retrospect? A large contingent on this board called
it a mistake immediately after it happened. There were immediate questions about his fit due to the lack of shooting when paired with Siakam and Barnes. There were also smaller questions about tying up our draft for multiple seasons. The trade was criticized at the time and a lot of those criticisms proved valid.

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

So for a team lacking a centre, the second-half 2021-2022 Raptors were pretty good. They would have given the Sixers a lot more trouble if Embiid didn't squash Scottie's foot in the first game (Scottie was on his way to registering a triple double at the time), and if Fred had been healthy to start the series, or not played at all in the first three games. After all, the Raps had already beaten the Sixers twice late in the regular season - without Fred.

So hopes were justifiably high for the 2022-23 Raptors. And early on in that season (like this season), such hope seemed to be justified. But then ... the vibes turned bad. I'd love to know the real story of what was going on ... with Nurse, with Pascal, with OG, with Fred and with Scottie. So what do you do when the vibes turn bad? Yeah, you could give up your all-stars/all-NBAers/near DPOYers for a bunch of draft capital and mediocre players, or you can double down and bring in a buddy of your superstar player to fill a gaping hole in the lineup. At the time, it was controversial, but understandable. In retrospect, it was a mistake.

Masai's last presser laid it all out. And most of us accepted his explanation. But now, the Negative Nancies re-emerge.

[Scase]

Wow, after the 2016, 2017 and 2021 drafts, I did not expect to see the "trust fund baby" argument rear its repulsive head again on this board. But here we are. Between 2006 and 2012, Colangelo picked Bargnani, DeMar, Ed Davis, JV and T-Ross in the first round. What do those lottery picks all have in common? None of them have even been to the Finals, let alone won the championship. That's the trust fund that Bryan left Masai?

OK, Kyle was a good get. Everyone knew he was available from the Rockets. Colangelo could have used the 2012 FRP to acquire Kyle, but instead he uses the 2013 pick. If Masai had the 2013 pick at his disposal, can we all agree that he undoubtedly would have picked Giannis. Also, can we agree that Masai would have been reluctant to part with the 2013 pick for that reason? So the difference between Colangelo and Masai is the difference between having T-Ross and Kyle, and having Giannis and Kyle. Which duo would you rather have?

[edit] And if we're going to relitigate the Jak trade yet again, recall that the Spurs were demanding TWO first round picks for him. Masai, who thought a pairing of Jak with his buddy Pascal, plus OG, Scottie and Fred, was at least a playoff team this season, opted to instead give up a lightly protected first. In retrospect, it was a mistake. But only in retrospect.

How was the Poeltl trade only a mistake in retrospect? A large contingent on this board called
it a mistake immediately after it happened. There were immediate questions about his fit due to the lack of shooting when paired with Siakam and Barnes. There were also smaller questions about tying up our draft for multiple seasons. The trade was criticized at the time and a lot of those criticisms proved valid.

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

So for a team lacking a centre, the second-half 2021-2022 Raptors were pretty good. They would have given the Sixers a lot more trouble if Embiid didn't squash Scottie's foot in the first game (Scottie was on his way to registering a triple double at the time), and if Fred had been healthy to start the series, or not played at all in the first three games. After all, the Raps had already beaten the Sixers twice late in the regular season - without Fred.

So hopes were justifiably high for the 2022-23 Raptors. And early on in that season (like this season), such hope seemed to be justified. But then ... the vibes turned bad. I'd love to know the real story of what was going on ... with Nurse, with Pascal, with OG, with Fred and with Scottie. So what do you do when the vibes turn bad? Yeah, you could give up your all-stars/all-NBAers/near DPOYers for a bunch of draft capital and mediocre players, or you can double down and bring in a buddy of your superstar player to fill a gaping hole in the lineup. At the time, it was controversial, but understandable. In retrospect, it was a mistake.

Masai's last presser laid it all out. And most of us accepted his explanation. But now, the Negative Nancies re-emerge.

Pretty much all analysts were saying it was a baffling move. This isn't even about tanking vs not tanking, trading for an ok centre when you are in the lotto and not properly protecting your pick is just objectively bad. It is indefensible.

Also I'm sorry what lmao. Siakam is a superstar now? If we had that EXACT same team, with the exact same result, and you replaced Siakam with Kawhi, or Giannis, Lebron, Shai, Luka, etc. yeah, you make that trade. Because those are actual franchise players. You do not, and never should, sacrifice the future flexibility of your team for a second banana like Siakam.

I honestly still can't get over you calling him a superstar either

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Must mean that Masai is going to use the assets that Masai has left himself and build another championship contender.

Wow, after the 2016, 2017 and 2021 drafts, I did not expect to see the "trust fund baby" argument rear its repulsive head again on this board. But here we are. Between 2006 and 2012, Colangelo picked Bargnani, DeMar, Ed Davis, JV and T-Ross in the first round. What do those lottery picks all have in common? None of them have even been to the Finals, let alone won the championship. That's the trust fund that Bryan left Masai?

OK, Kyle was a good get. Everyone knew he was available from the Rockets. Colangelo could have used the 2012 FRP to acquire Kyle, but instead he uses the 2013 pick. If Masai had the 2013 pick at his disposal, can we all agree that he undoubtedly would have picked Giannis. Also, can we agree that Masai would have been reluctant to part with the 2013 pick for that reason? So the difference between Colangelo and Masai is the difference between having T-Ross and Kyle, and having Giannis and Kyle. Which duo would you rather have?

[edit] And if we're going to relitigate the Jak trade yet again, recall that the Spurs were demanding TWO first round picks for him. Masai, who thought a pairing of Jak with his buddy Pascal, plus OG, Scottie and Fred, was at least a playoff team this season, opted to instead give up a lightly protected first. In retrospect, it was a mistake. But only in retrospect.

How was the Poeltl trade only a mistake in retrospect? A large contingent on this board called
it a mistake immediately after it happened. There were immediate questions about his fit due to the lack of shooting when paired with Siakam and Barnes. There were also smaller questions about tying up our draft for multiple seasons. The trade was criticized at the time and a lot of those criticisms proved valid.

Poeltl trade was not a mistake - how much evidence do you need? Did you watch this team with and without Poeltl? He's a top ten centre - more like this board can never admit that it is wrong. Hasn't been able to do so dating back to 2014 when TWO was unfortunately born.

[tecumseh18]

How was the Poeltl trade only a mistake in retrospect? A large contingent on this board called
it a mistake immediately after it happened. There were immediate questions about his fit due to the lack of shooting when paired with Siakam and Barnes. There were also smaller questions about tying up our draft for multiple seasons. The trade was criticized at the time and a lot of those criticisms proved valid.

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

So for a team lacking a centre, the second-half 2021-2022 Raptors were pretty good. They would have given the Sixers a lot more trouble if Embiid didn't squash Scottie's foot in the first game (Scottie was on his way to registering a triple double at the time), and if Fred had been healthy to start the series, or not played at all in the first three games. After all, the Raps had already beaten the Sixers twice late in the regular season - without Fred.

So hopes were justifiably high for the 2022-23 Raptors. And early on in that season (like this season), such hope seemed to be justified. But then ... the vibes turned bad. I'd love to know the real story of what was going on ... with Nurse, with Pascal, with OG, with Fred and with Scottie. So what do you do when the vibes turn bad? Yeah, you could give up your all-stars/all-NBAers/near DPOYers for a bunch of draft capital and mediocre players, or you can double down and bring in a buddy of your superstar player to fill a gaping hole in the lineup. At the time, it was controversial, but understandable. In retrospect, it was a mistake.

Masai's last presser laid it all out. And most of us accepted his explanation. But now, the Negative Nancies re-emerge.

Pretty much all analysts were saying it was a baffling move. This isn't even about tanking vs not tanking, trading for an ok centre when you are in the lotto and not properly protecting your pick is just objectively bad. It is indefensible.

Also I'm sorry what lmao. Siakam is a superstar now? If we had that EXACT same team, with the exact same result, and you replaced Siakam with Kawhi, or Giannis, Lebron, Shai, Luka, etc. yeah, you make that trade. Because those are actual franchise players. You do not, and never should, sacrifice the future flexibility of your team for a second banana like Siakam.

I honestly still can't get over you calling him a superstar either

I honestly can't believe you are focusing on a semantic point as opposed to the meat of an issue. But I'm quite willing to instead refer to Siakam as a two-time all-NBAer and two-time all-star who paired with Kawhi to be one of the highest scoring duos in NBA playoff history. It's just takes too long to write all that out. "Star" doesn't quite cut it. "Superstar" maybe a little much in the abstract, but on this team, Pascal has been the superstar the last four years. And sometimes - such as the first half of the 2019-2020 season before he had a groin pull or whatever, he's played like a real superstar.

BTW, Kawhi left Siakam to instead team up with PG in LA. Have a look at the box score for the Pacers-Clippers game last week to see how that's going.

Anyhoo, "Pretty much all analysts" isn't a thing. It isn't an argument, and you've done nothing to prove it. But we all know what the two main expressed concerns were:

(1) Trading a lightly protected FRP for a guy who could walk in free agency. That was a risk (as it was in the trade to bring in Serge), especially as Jak had expressed a desire to play on a winner. But the concern turned out to be groundless. Masai wanted Bird rights to his center of the future, who could finish at the rim, pass out of the post and not completely embarrass himself while defending the perimeter, and he used them to re-sign Jak. Mission accomplished. So why complain?

(2) That none of the three forward players had a respectable outside shot. Well, Scottie learned to shoot, and it was pretty clear by the summer that Pascal was not long for the team. All of Darko's talk was about building around Scottie. So that concern also turned out to be groundless. So why complain?

Of course, the other concern of the perma-tankers was losing out on the microscopic chance of drafting Wemby. Sure, but 2023 wasn't 2021. If we missed out on Wemby, there weren't a ton of other generational talents at the top of the draft. Why miss out on potential playoff money just to end up with Anthony Black?

[Mikistan]

Oh look another thread devolving into mud slinging, yup, this is way better than some HOOOOOO mans spam

[WaltFrazier]

Oh look another thread devolving into mud slinging, yup, this is way better than some HOOOOOO mans spam

I read this as, free Will.
It's true he was never as bad as the neverending arguments here.

[Duffman100]

Oh look another thread devolving into mud slinging, yup, this is way better than some HOOOOOO mans spam

I read this as, free Will.
It's true he was never as bad as the neverending arguments here.

Will is welcome back if he'd follow some very clear rules that apply to all posters.

[Scase]

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

So for a team lacking a centre, the second-half 2021-2022 Raptors were pretty good. They would have given the Sixers a lot more trouble if Embiid didn't squash Scottie's foot in the first game (Scottie was on his way to registering a triple double at the time), and if Fred had been healthy to start the series, or not played at all in the first three games. After all, the Raps had already beaten the Sixers twice late in the regular season - without Fred.

So hopes were justifiably high for the 2022-23 Raptors. And early on in that season (like this season), such hope seemed to be justified. But then ... the vibes turned bad. I'd love to know the real story of what was going on ... with Nurse, with Pascal, with OG, with Fred and with Scottie. So what do you do when the vibes turn bad? Yeah, you could give up your all-stars/all-NBAers/near DPOYers for a bunch of draft capital and mediocre players, or you can double down and bring in a buddy of your superstar player to fill a gaping hole in the lineup. At the time, it was controversial, but understandable. In retrospect, it was a mistake.

Masai's last presser laid it all out. And most of us accepted his explanation. But now, the Negative Nancies re-emerge.

Pretty much all analysts were saying it was a baffling move. This isn't even about tanking vs not tanking, trading for an ok centre when you are in the lotto and not properly protecting your pick is just objectively bad. It is indefensible.

Also I'm sorry what lmao. Siakam is a superstar now? If we had that EXACT same team, with the exact same result, and you replaced Siakam with Kawhi, or Giannis, Lebron, Shai, Luka, etc. yeah, you make that trade. Because those are actual franchise players. You do not, and never should, sacrifice the future flexibility of your team for a second banana like Siakam.

I honestly still can't get over you calling him a superstar either

I honestly can't believe you are focusing on a semantic point as opposed to the meat of an issue. But I'm quite willing to instead refer to Siakam as a two-time all-NBAer and two-time all-star who paired with Kawhi to be one of the highest scoring duos in NBA playoff history. It's just takes too long to write all that out. "Star" doesn't quite cut it. "Superstar" maybe a little much in the abstract, but on this team, Pascal has been the superstar the last four years. And sometimes - such as the first half of the 2019-2020 season before he had a groin pull or whatever, he's played like a real superstar.

BTW, Kawhi left Siakam to instead team up with PG in LA. Have a look at the box score for the Pacers-Clippers game last week to see how that's going.

Anyhoo, "Pretty much all analysts" isn't a thing. It isn't an argument, and you've done nothing to prove it. But we all know what the two main expressed concerns were:

(1) Trading a lightly protected FRP for a guy who could walk in free agency. That was a risk (as it was in the trade to bring in Serge), especially as Jak had expressed a desire to play on a winner. But the concern turned out to be groundless. Masai wanted Bird rights to his center of the future, who could finish at the rim, pass out of the post and not completely embarrass himself while defending the perimeter, and he used them to re-sign Jak. Mission accomplished. So why complain?

(2) That none of the three forward players had a respectable outside shot. Well, Scottie learned to shoot, and it was pretty clear by the summer that Pascal was not long for the team. All of Darko's talk was about building around Scottie. So that concern also turned out to be groundless. So why complain?

Of course, the other concern of the perma-tankers was losing out on the microscopic chance of drafting Wemby. Sure, but 2023 wasn't 2021. If we missed out on Wemby, there weren't a ton of other generational talents at the top of the draft. Why miss out on potential playoff money just to end up with Anthony Black?

It's not a semantic point, it is quite literally the crux of the argument. You do not ever sacrifice the future of your team, for a non actual superstar player.

As I previously stated :

Kawhi, or Giannis, Lebron, Shai, Luka, etc. yeah, you make that trade. Because those are actual franchise players. You do not, and never should, sacrifice the future flexibility of your team for a second banana like Siakam.

Siakam is not the level of player that you risk the livelihood of your team and its structure. You don't make far reaching and extremely risky moves, to keep B level players, you do that for top tier talent. Siakam is not and has never been that.

Additionally, calling Jak the "centre of the future" is as laughable as calling Siakam a superstar. What successful future has a 28 year old centre that cant shoot outside of 5 feet scraping the bottom of the league? The utter hyperbole being thrown around here is insanity.

Doesn't completely embarrass himself while defending the perimeter? He's in the TENTH PERCENTILE for 3pt ON/OFF opponent accuracy this year. Yeah, mission accomplished.

I have no clue how anyone actually musters up the energy to defend this clearly, and objectively bad trade.

[islandboy53]

It's not a semantic point, it is quite literally the crux of the argument. You do not ever sacrifice the future of your team, for a non actual superstar player.

Siakam is not the level of player that you risk the livelihood of your team and its structure. You don't make far reaching and extremely risky moves, to keep B level players, you do that for top tier talent. Siakam is not and has never been that.

Additionally, calling Jak the "centre of the future" is as laughable as calling Siakam a superstar. What successful future has a 28 year old centre that cant shoot outside of 5 feet scraping the bottom of the league? The utter hyperbole being thrown around here is insanity.

I have no clue how anyone actually musters up the energy to defend this clearly, and objectively bad trade.

Speaking of utter hyperbole, you've done a great job! How did trading for Poeltl "sacrifice the future of the team"? How was that trade a "far reaching and extremely risky move"? Poeltl may not be a top 10 center, but "scraping the bottom of the league"? Major hyperbole, my guy.

Also, most people have their perspective on the Poeltl trade. You didn't like it and, apparently, will rail against it till your dying breath. It's your time, but I'd suggest you move on, and save your energy for something important. However, if you insist on beating this particular dead horse, at least bring something a little more defensible than "Pretty much all analysts were saying it was a baffling move".

[ConSarnit]

Wow, after the 2016, 2017 and 2021 drafts, I did not expect to see the "trust fund baby" argument rear its repulsive head again on this board. But here we are. Between 2006 and 2012, Colangelo picked Bargnani, DeMar, Ed Davis, JV and T-Ross in the first round. What do those lottery picks all have in common? None of them have even been to the Finals, let alone won the championship. That's the trust fund that Bryan left Masai?

OK, Kyle was a good get. Everyone knew he was available from the Rockets. Colangelo could have used the 2012 FRP to acquire Kyle, but instead he uses the 2013 pick. If Masai had the 2013 pick at his disposal, can we all agree that he undoubtedly would have picked Giannis. Also, can we agree that Masai would have been reluctant to part with the 2013 pick for that reason? So the difference between Colangelo and Masai is the difference between having T-Ross and Kyle, and having Giannis and Kyle. Which duo would you rather have?

[edit] And if we're going to relitigate the Jak trade yet again, recall that the Spurs were demanding TWO first round picks for him. Masai, who thought a pairing of Jak with his buddy Pascal, plus OG, Scottie and Fred, was at least a playoff team this season, opted to instead give up a lightly protected first. In retrospect, it was a mistake. But only in retrospect.

How was the Poeltl trade only a mistake in retrospect? A large contingent on this board called
it a mistake immediately after it happened. There were immediate questions about his fit due to the lack of shooting when paired with Siakam and Barnes. There were also smaller questions about tying up our draft for multiple seasons. The trade was criticized at the time and a lot of those criticisms proved valid.

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

So for a team lacking a centre, the second-half 2021-2022 Raptors were pretty good. They would have given the Sixers a lot more trouble if Embiid didn't squash Scottie's foot in the first game (Scottie was on his way to registering a triple double at the time), and if Fred had been healthy to start the series, or not played at all in the first three games. After all, the Raps had already beaten the Sixers twice late in the regular season - without Fred.

So hopes were justifiably high for the 2022-23 Raptors. And early on in that season (like this season), such hope seemed to be justified. But then ... the vibes turned bad. I'd love to know the real story of what was going on ... with Nurse, with Pascal, with OG, with Fred and with Scottie. So what do you do when the vibes turn bad? Yeah, you could give up your all-stars/all-NBAers/near DPOYers for a bunch of draft capital and mediocre players, or you can double down and bring in a buddy of your superstar player to fill a gaping hole in the lineup. At the time, it was controversial, but understandable. In retrospect, it was a mistake.

Masai's last presser laid it all out. And most of us accepted his explanation. But now, the Negative Nancies re-emerge.

You arguing that everyone who was against the Poeltl trade is in favor of some multi-year tank is not helping your position. It’s not other posters fault if you don’t understand nuance and want to paint everyone with the same brush when clearly some posters who were against the trade aren’t perma-tankers. You want to hand wave away any valid criticism under the guise of “everyone who isn’t agains the trade is tWO” instead of actually debating. Just because you couldn’t see it so it much be “retrospect” doesn’t mean other posters didn’t see the downside.

[Scase]

It's not a semantic point, it is quite literally the crux of the argument. You do not ever sacrifice the future of your team, for a non actual superstar player.

Siakam is not the level of player that you risk the livelihood of your team and its structure. You don't make far reaching and extremely risky moves, to keep B level players, you do that for top tier talent. Siakam is not and has never been that.

Additionally, calling Jak the "centre of the future" is as laughable as calling Siakam a superstar. What successful future has a 28 year old centre that cant shoot outside of 5 feet scraping the bottom of the league? The utter hyperbole being thrown around here is insanity.

I have no clue how anyone actually musters up the energy to defend this clearly, and objectively bad trade.

Speaking of utter hyperbole, you've done a great job! How did trading for Poeltl "sacrifice the future of the team"? How was that trade a "far reaching and extremely risky move"? Poeltl may not be a top 10 center, but "scraping the bottom of the league"? Major hyperbole, my guy.

Also, most people have their perspective on the Poeltl trade. You didn't like it and, apparently, will rail against it till your dying breath. It's your time, but I'd suggest you move on, and save your energy for something important. However, if you insist on beating this particular dead horse, at least bring something a little more defensible than "Pretty much all analysts were saying it was a baffling move".

Sacrificed the future of the team by trading away an immediate lotto pick which is handcuffing this team for a specific direction.

Far reaching and risky, a lotto team, trading a lightly protected pick, with the sole purpose of making the play in, all while doing this with 3 pending FAs.

Scraping the bottom of the league. We are currently 6th worst in the NBA. This one I admittedly could have been clearer on.

But sure, it's hyperbole.

[islandboy53]

It's not a semantic point, it is quite literally the crux of the argument. You do not ever sacrifice the future of your team, for a non actual superstar player.

Siakam is not the level of player that you risk the livelihood of your team and its structure. You don't make far reaching and extremely risky moves, to keep B level players, you do that for top tier talent. Siakam is not and has never been that.

Additionally, calling Jak the "centre of the future" is as laughable as calling Siakam a superstar. What successful future has a 28 year old centre that cant shoot outside of 5 feet scraping the bottom of the league? The utter hyperbole being thrown around here is insanity.

I have no clue how anyone actually musters up the energy to defend this clearly, and objectively bad trade.

Speaking of utter hyperbole, you've done a great job! How did trading for Poeltl "sacrifice the future of the team"? How was that trade a "far reaching and extremely risky move"? Poeltl may not be a top 10 center, but "scraping the bottom of the league"? Major hyperbole, my guy.

Also, most people have their perspective on the Poeltl trade. You didn't like it and, apparently, will rail against it till your dying breath. It's your time, but I'd suggest you move on, and save your energy for something important. However, if you insist on beating this particular dead horse, at least bring something a little more defensible than "Pretty much all analysts were saying it was a baffling move".

Sacrificed the future of the team by trading away an immediate lotto pick which is handcuffing this team for a specific direction.

Trading one (1) first round pick is NOT "sacrificing the future of the team". Worst case, perhaps there's a centre available who can replace what Jacob brings, in 2 or 3 years. In that scenario, the team may be better in the long term, but it's worse in the short to medium term.

Far reaching and "extremely" risky, a lotto team, trading a lightly protected pick, with the sole purpose of making the play in, all while doing this with 3 pending FAs.

At the time of the trade, only FVV was a pending UFA. The trade was made to provide a competent, starting level centre as part of a final evaluation of the core and coach. The result of that evaluation was a new coach and, with the loss of FVV, a rebuild. Making the play in can be seen as part of the evaluation, but it was hardly "the sole purpose".

Scraping the bottom of the league. We are currently 6th worst in the NBA. This one I admittedly could have been clearer on.

But sure, it's hyperbole.

Your statement seemed to be that Poeltl was "scraping the bottom of the league", which is clearly massively hyperbolic. If you really meant that our current record is scraping that bottom, I agree, obviously.

[ciueli]

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

If you think the Poeltl trade was a good move, you don't understand modern NBA basketball. It's impossible to have an entire front court worth of non and poor 3 point shooters in the 2020s and be successful, this is the era when the floor spacing provided by 3 point shooting is absolutely critical to success, the entire league is built around it now.

The fact that only 2 out of our 5 starters (OG and Fred) and one bench player (Gary) were above average 3 point shooters was recipe for disaster, it's completely mind blowing that guys who make millions per year to do their job somehow didn't understand this.

[Duffman100]

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

If you think the Poeltl trade was a good move, you don't understand modern NBA basketball. It's impossible to have an entire front court worth of non and poor 3 point shooters in the 2020s and be successful, this is the era when the floor spacing provided by 3 point shooting is absolutely critical to success, the entire league is built around it now.

The fact that only 2 out of our 5 starters (OG and Fred) and one bench player (Gary) were above average 3 point shooters was recipe for disaster, it's completely mind blowing that guys who make millions per year to do their job somehow didn't understand this.

I think they understood it. I believe they thought they could just train those players to shoot (not Poeltl obviously).

They had a strategy of draft raw talent, size and teach them to become shooters. It clearly didn't work.

[OakleyDokely]

Masai made the point during his Siakam presser that he probably got too attached to the players that brought the organization success, which made it harder to part ways early, so he gave that core every opportunity to figure it out (hence the Poeltl trade). Probably the worse thing that happened looking back was that 48 win season which gave management hope that they could build another Lowry/DD type team for multiple years. It obviously didn't work out, and it sucks to potentially give up a pick, but it could be a lot worse. Some organizations owe multiple picks and swaps over multiple years after "going for it", the Raps are done with their obligation after 1 pick, which at worst can be 7th.

[DelAbbot]

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

If you think the Poeltl trade was a good move, you don't understand modern NBA basketball. It's impossible to have an entire front court worth of non and poor 3 point shooters in the 2020s and be successful, this is the era when the floor spacing provided by 3 point shooting is absolutely critical to success, the entire league is built around it now.

The fact that only 2 out of our 5 starters (OG and Fred) and one bench player (Gary) were above average 3 point shooters was recipe for disaster, it's completely mind blowing that guys who make millions per year to do their job somehow didn't understand this.

I think they understood it. I believe they thought they could just train those players to shoot (not Poeltl obviously).

They had a strategy of draft raw talent, size and teach them to become shooters. It clearly didn't work.

That's why Masai failed. He didn't care about playmaking or offensive creation - which are way harder to develop than spot up 3s

[tecumseh18]

Yes, there are always a large contingent of perma-tankers on this board who like to indulge in draft porn annually and will never be called upon to manage billion dollar businesses. Oh no, they disagreed with Masai finally bringing in an actual legit centre! So it must have been a mistake.

If you think the Poeltl trade was a good move, you don't understand modern NBA basketball. It's impossible to have an entire front court worth of non and poor 3 point shooters in the 2020s and be successful, this is the era when the floor spacing provided by 3 point shooting is absolutely critical to success, the entire league is built around it now.

The fact that only 2 out of our 5 starters (OG and Fred) and one bench player (Gary) were above average 3 point shooters was recipe for disaster, it's completely mind blowing that guys who make millions per year to do their job somehow didn't understand this.

I think they understood it. I believe they thought they could just train those players to shoot (not Poeltl obviously).

They had a strategy of draft raw talent, size and teach them to become shooters. It clearly didn't work.

Well, it worked with Scottie for the first four months of this season. Back in the day, it sure worked with Norm. Was OG that much of a shooter in college? For some reason, RJ is now officially a shooter to be feared. And Pascal could shoot acceptably well in the first half of the 2019-2020 season, when he was the first option on a contending team - i.e. a legit superstar. Then came Covid, and off-season surgeries. How much worse would he be three years later, still in his 20s?

The challenge with making decisions as a GM is figuring out not where your players are (anyone can read a box score), but where they will be when the team is ready to compete. Only the team - NOT us - really knows the work habits of these guys and what they're working on in practice. Or the state of contract negotiations. Perhaps the plan was not to go forward with Pascal, because he wanted more than 3 years.

So, after three seasons of putting scrubs out there to eat minutes and absorb punishment and fouls until crunch time when the team would go small with OG, Scottie and Pascal up front, Masai and Bobby made a decision to try and lock in a real centre for the next few years by trading for Jak's Bird rights. Again, Masai explained it in his presser, and we seemed to forgive him. And to repeat, Spurs wanted TWO first round picks, and settled for on lightly protected one plus a second. It was a negotiation. Nobody was stupid or evil.

[Scase]

Speaking of utter hyperbole, you've done a great job! How did trading for Poeltl "sacrifice the future of the team"? How was that trade a "far reaching and extremely risky move"? Poeltl may not be a top 10 center, but "scraping the bottom of the league"? Major hyperbole, my guy.

Also, most people have their perspective on the Poeltl trade. You didn't like it and, apparently, will rail against it till your dying breath. It's your time, but I'd suggest you move on, and save your energy for something important. However, if you insist on beating this particular dead horse, at least bring something a little more defensible than "Pretty much all analysts were saying it was a baffling move".

Sacrificed the future of the team by trading away an immediate lotto pick which is handcuffing this team for a specific direction.

Trading one (1) first round pick is NOT "sacrificing the future of the team". Worst case, perhaps there's a centre available who can replace what Jacob brings, in 2 or 3 years. In that scenario, the team may be better in the long term, but it's worse in the short to medium term.

Far reaching and "extremely" risky, a lotto team, trading a lightly protected pick, with the sole purpose of making the play in, all while doing this with 3 pending FAs.

At the time of the trade, only FVV was a pending UFA. The trade was made to provide a competent, starting level centre as part of a final evaluation of the core and coach. The result of that evaluation was a new coach and, with the loss of FVV, a rebuild. Making the play in can be seen as part of the evaluation, but it was hardly "the sole purpose".

Scraping the bottom of the league. We are currently 6th worst in the NBA. This one I admittedly could have been clearer on.

But sure, it's hyperbole.

Your statement seemed to be that Poeltl was "scraping the bottom of the league", which is clearly massively hyperbolic. If you really meant that our current record is scraping that bottom, I agree, obviously.

If it were one pick and gone, sure. But until it conveys it directly determines how the team can plan moving forward. If Masai thought that the best course of action for this team was to tank a couple years, get some good prospects from high picks, and go from there. He is handcuffed by the exact scenario we are currently dealing with, a potential 60 loss season with no pick to show for it. Now deal with that for 3 years hanging over your head, and every year it doesn't convey you are essentially held hostage.

You view it as a single pick, and I get that. The rest of the leagues GMs view it as leverage. The same way the Nets/Rockets have zero incentive to tank because they don't own their picks, that means that in any sort of trade negotiations any GM with half a brain will have some additional leverage, you can lowball, or raise your trade prices because you know that team cannot afford to be too bad. This is why I keep saying the trades biggest issues are the cascading effects.

Not trading Siakam let us into a position where the opposing teams and Siakam himself held the most leverage, which results in worse returns and less bargaining power. None of this stuff exists in a vacuum.

As for the time of the trade, yeah FVV was the only one immediately pending, but OG was 100% going to be a UFA as there was no way he was sacrificing potentially 50mil just to sign an extension with us, so he is a UFA for all intents and purposes. Siakam, there was clearly no efforts made to extend him, and he also wanted to push his luck going for a supermax, so again, for all intents and purposes, a UFA.

Trading a barely protected FRP when you are a lotto team, and have effectively 3 pending UFAs, for a mid tier centre is objectively bad management. Or at best, a terribly stupid gamble.

No one views a 28 year old mid tier centre as part of a "rebuild", you're being naive if you think so. Jak is going to be 29 years old at the start of next season, who in their right mind spends those kinds of assets to get a player that unequivocally provides no useful benefit for a rebuilding team? Jak belongs on a contender, not on a rebuilding team, at best all he contributes to is some empty wins that devalue our picks.

By the time our "rebuilding" core gets to a competitive age, Jak is most likely turning 31 and his contract his expiring. So we spent assets and money for what exactly? Empty wins?

A core of BBQ+P is unlikely to result in anything other than a first round playoff team. This team is starved for talent, trading away picks for win now players does not help the team long term.