Siakam trade for basically nothing is now showing its effect

[Scase]

I’ve been complaining to trade Siakam and FVV years ago due to cap restrictions and fit. I can clearly see the future wasn’t so bright, I can’t believe ppl are coming to this conclusion now. They should’ve trade both of them a lot earlier to gain the most value but this management are too late to figure things out and are mostly reactionary.

The biggest issue is timing and the value of each player. Having 3 key free agents all expire within a year of each other was, imo, too risky to let play out. Especially with players who were primed to be overpaid (FVV and OG). The upside just wasn’t there.

FVV: good player who fits everywhere but not a player you’d want to max. All it takes is one team to outbid you and then you’re screwed because a) you have to match and you’re stuck with a bad contract or b) you lose him for nothing. We saw that play out with HOU

OG: similar to FVV. Don’t want to max him but someone could and then you’re stuck with a bad deal if you match. Also wasn’t extendable so it had to go to free agency

Siakam: don’t want to supermax him so then you open yourself up to all bidders. So now instead of having an incumbent advantage everyone with cap space is on equal footing and Siakam might be mad at you for not maxing him.

The odds on keeping all 3 guys as free agent signings must have been very low. And to do so with all on fair value deals? Even lower. If you have 3 good players go to free agency the odds have to be in favor of losing at least 1. The odds of overpaying 1-2 of them also have to be high. There was no path to retaining all 3 on positive value contracts and total salary would have become an issue once Barnes extension kicked in. The front office should have realized that retaining all 3 was going to be incredibly difficult given all could have commanded huge salaries and the general league sentiment of “it only takes one a**hole” (in our case Houston).

IMO it wasn't even just the odds of retaining all 3, but rather what does your team look like with them. It's been pretty evident that it results in an ok to above average team at most, sometimes the issue isn't the players themselves, but rather the cost, fit, flexibility, and timelines.

Our FO grossly mismanaged those aspects and moved forward with the assumption that we could make due with those 3 players eating up massive chunks of the cap. There was no world where you could pay market rates for all 3 of them, and still field a team that would end up with any real accomplishments.

Treadmill doesn't always have to mean a .500 team, you can be a treadmill team in the 2nd round. The Joe Johnson/Josh Smith Hawks are a perfect example, a couple peaks but never a real threat. Good for business since the fans always have that twinkle of hope, but realistically they go nowhere.

[ConSarnit]

I’ve been complaining to trade Siakam and FVV years ago due to cap restrictions and fit. I can clearly see the future wasn’t so bright, I can’t believe ppl are coming to this conclusion now. They should’ve trade both of them a lot earlier to gain the most value but this management are too late to figure things out and are mostly reactionary.

The biggest issue is timing and the value of each player. Having 3 key free agents all expire within a year of each other was, imo, too risky to let play out. Especially with players who were primed to be overpaid (FVV and OG). The upside just wasn’t there.

FVV: good player who fits everywhere but not a player you’d want to max. All it takes is one team to outbid you and then you’re screwed because a) you have to match and you’re stuck with a bad contract or b) you lose him for nothing. We saw that play out with HOU

OG: similar to FVV. Don’t want to max him but someone could and then you’re stuck with a bad deal if you match. Also wasn’t extendable so it had to go to free agency

Siakam: don’t want to supermax him so then you open yourself up to all bidders. So now instead of having an incumbent advantage everyone with cap space is on equal footing and Siakam might be mad at you for not maxing him.

The odds on keeping all 3 guys as free agent signings must have been very low. And to do so with all on fair value deals? Even lower. If you have 3 good players go to free agency the odds have to be in favor of losing at least 1. The odds of overpaying 1-2 of them also have to be high. There was no path to retaining all 3 on positive value contracts and total salary would have become an issue once Barnes extension kicked in. The front office should have realized that retaining all 3 was going to be incredibly difficult given all could have commanded huge salaries and the general league sentiment of “it only takes one a**hole” (in our case Houston).

IMO it wasn't even just the odds of retaining all 3, but rather what does your team look like with them. It's been pretty evident that it results in an ok to above average team at most, sometimes the issue isn't the players themselves, but rather the cost, fit, flexibility, and timelines.

Our FO grossly mismanaged those aspects and moved forward with the assumption that we could make due with those 3 players eating up massive chunks of the cap. There was no world where you could pay market rates for all 3 of them, and still field a team that would end up with any real accomplishments.

Treadmill doesn't always have to mean a .500 team, you can be a treadmill team in the 2nd round. The Joe Johnson/Josh Smith Hawks are a perfect example, a couple peaks but never a real threat. Good for business since the fans always have that twinkle of hope, but realistically they go nowhere.

You have to assume that they thought/think Barnes could have grown into a #1 option. I think when he didn't really develop in year 2 that put a wrench in things.

Siakam/OG/FVV is a good trio to put around a real "star". The salaries also wouldn't have been untenable had FVV been paid a reasonable amount. When Barnes extension kicks in 2025/26 they could have had:

Siakam: $50m
FVV: $35m
OG: $35m
Poeltl: $20m
Barnes: $42m

They could have retained everyone and hovered around the tax. We also would have been fine this year and in '24/25 as far as salaries go as Barnes would still be on his rookie deal. They really wouldn't have had to deal with the financial implications until '25/26. Barnes rookie deal and the cap spike in '25/26 would have given us some breathing room.

So the team could have stayed well under the tax in Barnes 3rd/4th years and then pivoted in his 5th season depending on if we were contending (ie a team worthy of paying the tax for). It was doable (and probably somewhat reasonable) as long as Barnes developed into a #1 option.

If you remove Barnes from the equation it makes little sense but the whole thing probably revolved around having a future star who would still be on a cheap deal for 2 more years. And if Barnes became a true star then this team is probably contending and maybe MLSE is willing to pay the tax for a year or two.

[Dr Positivity]

Siakam is best with a 3pt shooting C, we just didn't have the fit after Poeltl trade. Barnes and Siakam with Turner would work I think.

[Merit]

Obviously it's a better team with FVV instead of Schroder. But unless you actually think the correct decision was to max out FVV for a 40-ish win team and still be in the same situation with Siakam/OG hitting free agency, what are we even talking about?

I think the front office did the right thing. They chose not to max Fred. You keep acting like the front office wanted Fred back if he was maxed. Clearly they didn’t. They would’ve wanted him back on their terms. Likely 100 mil over 4.

No, I'm refuting the position that FVV leaving was this curveball that derailed an otherwise good path.

The only thing worse than him leaving for nothing would've been maxing him. It would have solved none of their key problems with Siakam/OG and introduced an albatross contract into the mix for a guy that didn't mesh well with their young star.

You’re conflating two issues. A) Fred leaving. B) maxing Fred.

Fred leaving derailed the team. Maxing Fred would also have derailed the team. On that we agree.

The path I’m suggesting was bringing him back at the rumoured 100ish mil over 4 year price point. Aka, not a max contract. Fred chose to grab the cash with Houston and have one more contract after it.

[Merit]

Ochai's problem is that I am not sure he made a single shot post trade.

Cmon now, I can remember SOME shots being made.

But yeah, his shot is the problem not his defense.

Outside of the paint, he actually only made 19 shots in 638min
Man, I didn't think it was that bad.

Ochai needs to take some massive steps forward offensively. Fortunately he’s on a rookie scale contract and is young enough to project upside. If he turns into a 3&D guy that’s all we’re looking for. IMO the trade was for Kelly, not Ochai.

[Tha Cynic]

Lol looking at our media's depressed tweets about Siakam because of two great games is hilarious. Siakam was a great Raptor and a very good player but this team was going nowhere even with Siakam and OG. These guys need to move on and maybe become a bit more social try to connect with these younger guys.

They're clearly having a hard time connecting with anyone on this team so they keep living in the past.

[TheAlchemist23]

Siakam is best with a 3pt shooting C, we just didn't have the fit after Poeltl trade. Barnes and Siakam with Turner would work I think.

Many of us were calling for Myles Turner too

[StopitLeo]

You have to assume that they thought/think Barnes could have grown into a #1 option. I think when he didn't really develop in year 2 that put a wrench in things.

Masai basically said this was a part of why Pascal wasn’t traded sooner. Scottie’s year 2 plateau/regression was a big factor in my opinion. You want to transition team eras with a new player you can build around already on the roster. Blowing it up and hoping to draft that level of player is a much riskier approach. Scottie didn’t show he could be a guy you build around until this past year.

[Pointgod]

Siakam is best with a 3pt shooting C, we just didn't have the fit after Poeltl trade. Barnes and Siakam with Turner would work I think.

Many of us were calling for Myles Turner too

A center that shoots 3’s to support your forwards that go to the rim and can pass out to perimeter shooters? That doesn’t make any sense!

[Pointgod]

I’ve been complaining to trade Siakam and FVV years ago due to cap restrictions and fit. I can clearly see the future wasn’t so bright, I can’t believe ppl are coming to this conclusion now. They should’ve trade both of them a lot earlier to gain the most value but this management are too late to figure things out and are mostly reactionary.

The biggest issue is timing and the value of each player. Having 3 key free agents all expire within a year of each other was, imo, too risky to let play out. Especially with players who were primed to be overpaid (FVV and OG). The upside just wasn’t there.

FVV: good player who fits everywhere but not a player you’d want to max. All it takes is one team to outbid you and then you’re screwed because a) you have to match and you’re stuck with a bad contract or b) you lose him for nothing. We saw that play out with HOU

OG: similar to FVV. Don’t want to max him but someone could and then you’re stuck with a bad deal if you match. Also wasn’t extendable so it had to go to free agency

Siakam: don’t want to supermax him so then you open yourself up to all bidders. So now instead of having an incumbent advantage everyone with cap space is on equal footing and Siakam might be mad at you for not maxing him.

The odds on keeping all 3 guys as free agent signings must have been very low. And to do so with all on fair value deals? Even lower. If you have 3 good players go to free agency the odds have to be in favor of losing at least 1. The odds of overpaying 1-2 of them also have to be high. There was no path to retaining all 3 on positive value contracts and total salary would have become an issue once Barnes extension kicked in. The front office should have realized that retaining all 3 was going to be incredibly difficult given all could have commanded huge salaries and the general league sentiment of “it only takes one a**hole” (in our case Houston).

IMO it wasn't even just the odds of retaining all 3, but rather what does your team look like with them. It's been pretty evident that it results in an ok to above average team at most, sometimes the issue isn't the players themselves, but rather the cost, fit, flexibility, and timelines.

Our FO grossly mismanaged those aspects and moved forward with the assumption that we could make due with those 3 players eating up massive chunks of the cap. There was no world where you could pay market rates for all 3 of them, and still field a team that would end up with any real accomplishments.

Treadmill doesn't always have to mean a .500 team, you can be a treadmill team in the 2nd round. The Joe Johnson/Josh Smith Hawks are a perfect example, a couple peaks but never a real threat. Good for business since the fans always have that twinkle of hope, but realistically they go nowhere.

Spot on post as always.

[tdotrep2]

Siakam is best with a 3pt shooting C, we just didn't have the fit after Poeltl trade. Barnes and Siakam with Turner would work I think.

Many of us were calling for Myles Turner too

A center that shoots 3’s to support your forwards that go to the rim and can pass out to perimeter shooters? That doesn’t make any sense!

this was another compounding reason why many hated the jak trade. the fit was atrocious.

[Pointgod]

Many of us were calling for Myles Turner too

A center that shoots 3’s to support your forwards that go to the rim and can pass out to perimeter shooters? That doesn’t make any sense!

this was another compounding reason why many hated the jak trade. the fit was atrocious.

Not only was the fit atrocious, what we gave up to make our offence worse was borderline criminal. I literally don’t understand how fans correctly called it as a bad move the instant it was announced but no one in our front office stopped to think that this was a bad trade.

[Fairview4Life]

A center that shoots 3’s to support your forwards that go to the rim and can pass out to perimeter shooters? That doesn’t make any sense!

this was another compounding reason why many hated the jak trade. the fit was atrocious.

Not only was the fit atrocious, what we gave up to make our offence worse was borderline criminal. I literally don’t understand how fans correctly called it as a bad move the instant it was announced but no one in our front office stopped to think that this was a bad trade.

“Borderline criminal” is silly. And someone posted a poll from the time of the trade that showed the fans were pretty evenly split between good vs bad + atrocious. The team was decent with bad fitting Jak at C, and I am willing to bet that if the Raps traded picks for Myles Turner instead of trading Pascal and tanking, for example, you wouldn’t be reacting positively to that either.

[Pointgod]

this was another compounding reason why many hated the jak trade. the fit was atrocious.

Not only was the fit atrocious, what we gave up to make our offence worse was borderline criminal. I literally don’t understand how fans correctly called it as a bad move the instant it was announced but no one in our front office stopped to think that this was a bad trade.

“Borderline criminal” is silly. And someone posted a poll from the time of the trade that showed the fans were pretty evenly split between good vs bad + atrocious. The team was decent with bad fitting Jak at C, and I am willing to bet that if the Raps traded picks for Myles Turner instead of trading Pascal and tanking, for example, you wouldn’t be reacting positively to that either.

This board is full of homers that defend every bad move the front office makes, I’m not surprised that a poll would have a lot of support. Trading a pick for Myles Turner makes more sense than trading a pick for Poeltl even if I don’t necessarily agree with the direction. Like that move actually makes us better. I’m convinced the team played better with Poeltl more due to our competition post deadline than any type of roster improvement, or else we would have played better with Poeltl to start the season.

[Scase]

The biggest issue is timing and the value of each player. Having 3 key free agents all expire within a year of each other was, imo, too risky to let play out. Especially with players who were primed to be overpaid (FVV and OG). The upside just wasn’t there.

FVV: good player who fits everywhere but not a player you’d want to max. All it takes is one team to outbid you and then you’re screwed because a) you have to match and you’re stuck with a bad contract or b) you lose him for nothing. We saw that play out with HOU

OG: similar to FVV. Don’t want to max him but someone could and then you’re stuck with a bad deal if you match. Also wasn’t extendable so it had to go to free agency

Siakam: don’t want to supermax him so then you open yourself up to all bidders. So now instead of having an incumbent advantage everyone with cap space is on equal footing and Siakam might be mad at you for not maxing him.

The odds on keeping all 3 guys as free agent signings must have been very low. And to do so with all on fair value deals? Even lower. If you have 3 good players go to free agency the odds have to be in favor of losing at least 1. The odds of overpaying 1-2 of them also have to be high. There was no path to retaining all 3 on positive value contracts and total salary would have become an issue once Barnes extension kicked in. The front office should have realized that retaining all 3 was going to be incredibly difficult given all could have commanded huge salaries and the general league sentiment of “it only takes one a**hole” (in our case Houston).

IMO it wasn't even just the odds of retaining all 3, but rather what does your team look like with them. It's been pretty evident that it results in an ok to above average team at most, sometimes the issue isn't the players themselves, but rather the cost, fit, flexibility, and timelines.

Our FO grossly mismanaged those aspects and moved forward with the assumption that we could make due with those 3 players eating up massive chunks of the cap. There was no world where you could pay market rates for all 3 of them, and still field a team that would end up with any real accomplishments.

Treadmill doesn't always have to mean a .500 team, you can be a treadmill team in the 2nd round. The Joe Johnson/Josh Smith Hawks are a perfect example, a couple peaks but never a real threat. Good for business since the fans always have that twinkle of hope, but realistically they go nowhere.

You have to assume that they thought/think Barnes could have grown into a #1 option. I think when he didn't really develop in year 2 that put a wrench in things.

Siakam/OG/FVV is a good trio to put around a real "star". The salaries also wouldn't have been untenable had FVV been paid a reasonable amount. When Barnes extension kicks in 2025/26 they could have had:

Siakam: $50m
FVV: $35m
OG: $35m
Poeltl: $20m
Barnes: $42m

They could have retained everyone and hovered around the tax. We also would have been fine this year and in '24/25 as far as salaries go as Barnes would still be on his rookie deal. They really wouldn't have had to deal with the financial implications until '25/26. Barnes rookie deal and the cap spike in '25/26 would have given us some breathing room.

So the team could have stayed well under the tax in Barnes 3rd/4th years and then pivoted in his 5th season depending on if we were contending (ie a team worthy of paying the tax for). It was doable (and probably somewhat reasonable) as long as Barnes developed into a #1 option.

If you remove Barnes from the equation it makes little sense but the whole thing probably revolved around having a future star who would still be on a cheap deal for 2 more years. And if Barnes became a true star then this team is probably contending and maybe MLSE is willing to pay the tax for a year or two.

I think expecting Scottie to blow up as a star in his second year was a ridiculous thought, if that was their line of thinking. Nothing indicated he would be a first option even with the stellar rookie campaign.

An paying the 5 of them having us right around the tax, is still pretty bad, considering we need 10 more roster spots lol.

[Fairview4Life]

Not only was the fit atrocious, what we gave up to make our offence worse was borderline criminal. I literally don’t understand how fans correctly called it as a bad move the instant it was announced but no one in our front office stopped to think that this was a bad trade.

“Borderline criminal” is silly. And someone posted a poll from the time of the trade that showed the fans were pretty evenly split between good vs bad + atrocious. The team was decent with bad fitting Jak at C, and I am willing to bet that if the Raps traded picks for Myles Turner instead of trading Pascal and tanking, for example, you wouldn’t be reacting positively to that either.

This board is full of homers that defend every bad move the front office makes, I’m not surprised that a poll would have a lot of support. Trading a pick for Myles Turner makes more sense than trading a pick for Poeltl even if I don’t necessarily agree with the direction. Like that move actually makes us better. I’m convinced the team played better with Poeltl more due to our competition post deadline than any type of roster improvement, or else we would have played better with Poeltl to start the season.

We were very famously missing Fred to start the year compared to last season and shopping Pascal and OG.

[JB7]

I’ve been complaining to trade Siakam and FVV years ago due to cap restrictions and fit. I can clearly see the future wasn’t so bright, I can’t believe ppl are coming to this conclusion now. They should’ve trade both of them a lot earlier to gain the most value but this management are too late to figure things out and are mostly reactionary.

The biggest issue is timing and the value of each player. Having 3 key free agents all expire within a year of each other was, imo, too risky to let play out. Especially with players who were primed to be overpaid (FVV and OG). The upside just wasn’t there.

FVV: good player who fits everywhere but not a player you’d want to max. All it takes is one team to outbid you and then you’re screwed because a) you have to match and you’re stuck with a bad contract or b) you lose him for nothing. We saw that play out with HOU

OG: similar to FVV. Don’t want to max him but someone could and then you’re stuck with a bad deal if you match. Also wasn’t extendable so it had to go to free agency

Siakam: don’t want to supermax him so then you open yourself up to all bidders. So now instead of having an incumbent advantage everyone with cap space is on equal footing and Siakam might be mad at you for not maxing him.

The odds on keeping all 3 guys as free agent signings must have been very low. And to do so with all on fair value deals? Even lower. If you have 3 good players go to free agency the odds have to be in favor of losing at least 1. The odds of overpaying 1-2 of them also have to be high. There was no path to retaining all 3 on positive value contracts and total salary would have become an issue once Barnes extension kicked in. The front office should have realized that retaining all 3 was going to be incredibly difficult given all could have commanded huge salaries and the general league sentiment of “it only takes one a**hole” (in our case Houston).

IMO it wasn't even just the odds of retaining all 3, but rather what does your team look like with them. It's been pretty evident that it results in an ok to above average team at most, sometimes the issue isn't the players themselves, but rather the cost, fit, flexibility, and timelines.

Our FO grossly mismanaged those aspects and moved forward with the assumption that we could make due with those 3 players eating up massive chunks of the cap. There was no world where you could pay market rates for all 3 of them, and still field a team that would end up with any real accomplishments.

Treadmill doesn't always have to mean a .500 team, you can be a treadmill team in the 2nd round. The Joe Johnson/Josh Smith Hawks are a perfect example, a couple peaks but never a real threat. Good for business since the fans always have that twinkle of hope, but realistically they go nowhere.

How is the statement above true?

They drafted Barnes 3 years ago, and then traded Pascal and OG halfway through this season before their contracts expired. They only spent 2 1/2 seasons together, and never had to pay all 3 near max salaries all at the same time.

Are you suggesting that the moment they drafted Scottie, they should have dumped Pascal immediately, even if the return was similar to what they just received?

Or are you suggesting they should have drafted Suggs to avoid overlap with Pascal?

[Scase]

Cmon now, I can remember SOME shots being made.

But yeah, his shot is the problem not his defense.

Outside of the paint, he actually only made 19 shots in 638min
Man, I didn't think it was that bad.

Ochai needs to take some massive steps forward offensively. Fortunately he’s on a rookie scale contract and is young enough to project upside. If he turns into a 3&D guy that’s all we’re looking for. IMO the trade was for Kelly, not Ochai.

If the trade was for Kelly, we wasted a pick. Unless Utah planned on S&Ting him, we could have approached him in FA. I don't foresee a 33 year old olynyk, pulling in a 13mil/yr contract on the free market.

[Scase]

The biggest issue is timing and the value of each player. Having 3 key free agents all expire within a year of each other was, imo, too risky to let play out. Especially with players who were primed to be overpaid (FVV and OG). The upside just wasn’t there.

FVV: good player who fits everywhere but not a player you’d want to max. All it takes is one team to outbid you and then you’re screwed because a) you have to match and you’re stuck with a bad contract or b) you lose him for nothing. We saw that play out with HOU

OG: similar to FVV. Don’t want to max him but someone could and then you’re stuck with a bad deal if you match. Also wasn’t extendable so it had to go to free agency

Siakam: don’t want to supermax him so then you open yourself up to all bidders. So now instead of having an incumbent advantage everyone with cap space is on equal footing and Siakam might be mad at you for not maxing him.

The odds on keeping all 3 guys as free agent signings must have been very low. And to do so with all on fair value deals? Even lower. If you have 3 good players go to free agency the odds have to be in favor of losing at least 1. The odds of overpaying 1-2 of them also have to be high. There was no path to retaining all 3 on positive value contracts and total salary would have become an issue once Barnes extension kicked in. The front office should have realized that retaining all 3 was going to be incredibly difficult given all could have commanded huge salaries and the general league sentiment of “it only takes one a**hole” (in our case Houston).

IMO it wasn't even just the odds of retaining all 3, but rather what does your team look like with them. It's been pretty evident that it results in an ok to above average team at most, sometimes the issue isn't the players themselves, but rather the cost, fit, flexibility, and timelines.

Our FO grossly mismanaged those aspects and moved forward with the assumption that we could make due with those 3 players eating up massive chunks of the cap. There was no world where you could pay market rates for all 3 of them, and still field a team that would end up with any real accomplishments.

Treadmill doesn't always have to mean a .500 team, you can be a treadmill team in the 2nd round. The Joe Johnson/Josh Smith Hawks are a perfect example, a couple peaks but never a real threat. Good for business since the fans always have that twinkle of hope, but realistically they go nowhere.

How is the statement above true?

They drafted Barnes 3 years ago, and then traded Pascal and OG halfway through this season before their contracts expired. They only spent 2 1/2 seasons together, and never had to pay all 3 near max salaries all at the same time.

Are you suggesting that the moment they drafted Scottie, they should have dumped Pascal immediately, even if the return was similar to what they just received?

Or are you suggesting they should have drafted Suggs to avoid overlap with Pascal?

Ideally after the ROTY campaign, we should've moved Siakam. But they fell for the fools gold that was that season, and the covid travel benefits we capitalized on.

The plan was to keep OG/FVV/Siakam, and slot Scottie in. One walked in FA, one got a good return most likely due to his connection to the knicks, and one got traded for peanuts.

Unless you think the above was part of their initial plan? Cause there have been no rumours I have seen or heard to indicate otherwise. If it wasn't for the Rockets and their absurd offer, FVV would still be a raptor.

[JB7]

IMO it wasn't even just the odds of retaining all 3, but rather what does your team look like with them. It's been pretty evident that it results in an ok to above average team at most, sometimes the issue isn't the players themselves, but rather the cost, fit, flexibility, and timelines.

Our FO grossly mismanaged those aspects and moved forward with the assumption that we could make due with those 3 players eating up massive chunks of the cap. There was no world where you could pay market rates for all 3 of them, and still field a team that would end up with any real accomplishments.

Treadmill doesn't always have to mean a .500 team, you can be a treadmill team in the 2nd round. The Joe Johnson/Josh Smith Hawks are a perfect example, a couple peaks but never a real threat. Good for business since the fans always have that twinkle of hope, but realistically they go nowhere.

How is the statement above true?

They drafted Barnes 3 years ago, and then traded Pascal and OG halfway through this season before their contracts expired. They only spent 2 1/2 seasons together, and never had to pay all 3 near max salaries all at the same time.

Are you suggesting that the moment they drafted Scottie, they should have dumped Pascal immediately, even if the return was similar to what they just received?

Or are you suggesting they should have drafted Suggs to avoid overlap with Pascal?

Ideally after the ROTY campaign, we should've moved Siakam. But they fell for the fools gold that was that season, and the covid travel benefits we capitalized on.

The plan was to keep OG/FVV/Siakam, and slot Scottie in. One walked in FA, one got a good return most likely due to his connection to the knicks, and one got traded for peanuts.

Unless you think the above was part of their initial plan? Cause there have been no rumours I have seen or heard to indicate otherwise. If it wasn't for the Rockets and their absurd offer, FVV would still be a raptor.

They tried to trade for Durant two summers ago. It was probably Siakam that was offered in that deal. They then tried to trade for Dame last summer. Again, probably Pascal that was being offered.

The one name that was clearly rumored to not be offered in any of those deals was Barnes.