Game #44 Memphis Grizzlies @ Toronto Raptors, Mon Jan 22 @ 7:30pm EST

[planetmars]

Trading Pascal was obviously going to happen...but not because they want to tank, because they want to hand the reins to Scottie. They brought back players that can contribute in the OG trade, it just didn't happen in the Pascal trade. Not because they want to tank, because they want decent value for their top vets that have no future here, and win now players were not available in the Pascal deal. Was there another trade that could have been made that they didn't that would have returned usable players rather than picks for Pascal? I am unaware of one. We all know you wanted to extend Pascal and possibly trade him later because, in theory, the return for Pascal with term would have been better. That didn't happen, but just because it didn't doesn't mean they are trying to tank. I haven't read a single piece of evidence you have provided which would suggest to me they are purposefully trying to retain their 2024 pick. I just can't see it the way you do.

I think what the Raptors are doing is smart. I'm not opposed to it. I think they should rebuild. And go younger. I think they made a mistake with Pascal because the return wasn't great.. yet we still have time on it since we got an intermediate piece in Brown.

But I think anytime a team values development and emphasizes that over winning games, it's tanking. It's not an outright expressive tank but it's still a tank. They are okay to lose games. But they won't try hard to win games. And by "they" I mean the front office. As players will try to win every game they play. As they should.

And when it comes to this draft pick.. I think they are trying to keep it. They can't control it since there is a lottery and the stupidly put a really soft protection on it. But I think they would prefer to hold on to that top 6 pick over trying to make the play-in or losing the pick outright. Again that's not in their control either as other teams are on the cusp of missing the play-in as well and could fall back. But they are not going to help the team try to make the play-in, nor should they. They should have done the same thing last season to be honest. But that's a bit of hindsight talking since we lost in the play-in and only got the 13th pick. However we still had all-star caliber players on that team.

And being so close to keeping the pick is a great thing for this franchise. It may not be a great draft.. but a top 6 pick in any draft should be super valuable if you know what you are doing as a franchise.

[LJ2]

you probably know what i think - we waited for too long to trade all of them but I think getting two starters for one in the knicks trade enabled them to take picks instead. Also part of it is no choice because it seems there weren’t many deals for an expiring

prior to last night im sure indy was sweating about giving pascal 50m/yr

If the OG trade didn't go down the way it did, Masai might very well be on the hot seat. He may still be if he can't convert on Brown and picks and the team continues to struggle on the back half of the season.

[golden]

Trading Pascal was obviously going to happen...but not because they want to tank, because they want to hand the reins to Scottie. They brought back players that can contribute in the OG trade, it just didn't happen in the Pascal trade. Not because they want to tank, because they want decent value for their top vets that have no future here, and win now players were not available in the Pascal deal. Was there another trade that could have been made that they didn't that would have returned usable players rather than picks for Pascal? I am unaware of one. We all know you wanted to extend Pascal and possibly trade him later because, in theory, the return for Pascal with term would have been better. That didn't happen, but just because it didn't doesn't mean they are trying to tank. I haven't read a single piece of evidence you have provided which would suggest to me they are purposefully trying to retain their 2024 pick. I just can't see it the way you do.

You forgot the money component: they did offer Pascal 3 years max, but Pascal wanted 5yrs. It wasn't all about Scottie. That's for public consumption.

MLSE ownership didn't want to be in position to pay the luxury tax 4-5 years out, with the inability to trade a potentially diminishing asset as Pascal ages and his athleticism fades. Like PM has pointed out many times & Bobby confirmed in the KP deal: MLSE avoids the luxury tax at all costs, and plans years in advance to make sure they never get too close.

[JawsGT]

You forgot the money component: they did offer Pascal 3 years max, but Pascal wanted 5yrs. It wasn't all about Scottie. That's for public consumption.

MLSE ownership didn't want to be in position to pay the luxury tax 4-5 years out, with the inability to trade a potentially diminishing asset as Pascal ages and his athleticism fades. Like PM has pointed out many times & Bobby confirmed in the KP deal: MLSE avoids the luxury tax at all costs, and plans years in advance to make sure they never get too close.

Is that something that came out? I mean, I'd have to read it to believe it. If they believed in the roster they would have paid the price. If they went into the tax for a middling team...well that would be worse. So they let Fred walk and traded Pascal and OG and likely more to come. It's about Scottie.

[JawsGT]

I think what the Raptors are doing is smart. I'm not opposed to it. I think they should rebuild. And go younger. I think they made a mistake with Pascal because the return wasn't great.. yet we still have time on it since we got an intermediate piece in Brown.

But I think anytime a team values development and emphasizes that over winning games, it's tanking. It's not an outright expressive tank but it's still a tank. They are okay to lose games. But they won't try hard to win games. And by "they" I mean the front office. As players will try to win every game they play. As they should.

And when it comes to this draft pick.. I think they are trying to keep it. They can't control it since there is a lottery and the stupidly put a really soft protection on it. But I think they would prefer to hold on to that top 6 pick over trying to make the play-in or losing the pick outright. Again that's not in their control either as other teams are on the cusp of missing the play-in as well and could fall back. But they are not going to help the team try to make the play-in, nor should they. They should have done the same thing last season to be honest. But that's a bit of hindsight talking since we lost in the play-in and only got the 13th pick. However we still had all-star caliber players on that team.

And being so close to keeping the pick is a great thing for this franchise. It may not be a great draft.. but a top 6 pick in any draft should be super valuable if you know what you are doing as a franchise.

Unless they think they can use that pick in a trade to beef up the roster, there is no logical reason to actively try and keep it. They are making moves for the future and will let the chips fall where they may. I feel like your basing your stance here mostly on the Pascal return.

[golden]

Is that something that came out? I mean, I'd have to read it to believe it. If they believed in the roster they would have paid the price. If they went into the tax for a middling team...well that would be worse. So they let Fred walk and traded Pascal and OG and likely more to come. It's about Scottie.

I don’t disagree at all with not loading the cap by overpaying Pascal/OG/Fred for a treadmill team… I started beating the drum on that years ago.

But I do believe they would’ve kept Pascal if he would’ve lowered his term or AAV demands. That wouldn’t be a decision solely based on building around Scottie… that would be money driven.

[JawsGT]

I don’t disagree at all with not loading the cap by overpaying Pascal/OG/Fred for a treadmill team… I started beating the drum on that years ago.

But I do believe they would’ve kept Pascal if he would’ve lowered his term or AAV demands. That wouldn’t be a decision solely based on building around Scottie… that would be money driven.

That may be possible, but certainly could be done with an eye for a future trade rather than a future of Pascal playing with Scottie, especially if they feel like you posted earlier. Money is always a factor of course, especially when there are tax implications, but it just feels like they decided to move on when they traded OG, maybe even when Fred walked.

[golden]

That may be possible, but certainly could be done with an eye for a future trade rather than a future of Pascal playing with Scottie, especially if they feel like you posted earlier. Money is always a factor of course, especially when there are tax implications, but it just feels like they decided to move on when they traded OG, maybe even when Fred walked.

If Pascal agreed to sign for $20M AAV, they would’ve locked him in a room and held the pen for him.

OG wasn’t a “move on” decision…. he’s the perfect fit next to Scottie. It was (a) price, but more importantly, (b) they weren’t confident they could resign him in FA, so couldn’t take the risk of losing him for nothing like Fred.

[planetmars]

Unless they think they can use that pick in a trade to beef up the roster, there is no logical reason to actively try and keep it. They are making moves for the future and will let the chips fall where they may. I feel like your basing your stance here mostly on the Pascal return.

Not so much in just that. Also taking account their record and their direction based on things they have said (in the press conference, and in the media). The flipping point for me was when Darko went to the media highlighting his expectations going forward.

[JawsGT]

If Pascal agreed to sign for $20M AAV, they would’ve locked him in a room and held the pen for him.

OG wasn’t a “move on” decision…. he’s the perfect fit next to Scottie. It was (a) price, but more importantly, (b) they weren’t confident they could resign him in FA, so couldn’t take the risk of losing him for nothing like Fred.

Well, I mean move on from Pascal. Trading OG signalled to me they were through with the old core and Pascal was all but guaranteed to be moved. And yes of course, if they could get them to resign at bargain contracts we'd still have them.