The point that I'm making is that even though those alternatives seem like they're reliably going to be there, it tends not to work out during actual drafts. A team may not want to give them a future first for 28, and if we're talking about seconds and cash, it's not hard at all to see why they'd prefer the route they went. What do you mean "expedite"? Quickley is expiring and Barnes is in his swing year. This is an important stretch of games to set the groundwork for what the 2024-2025 Raptors will be.
They do have a fair bit of draft capital, and this year is a key example of that. I'm not Bod -- I get what you mean by a lotto pick, but you're overrating the importance of it. The Raptors will have their chances to get a middle-draft pick by taking on money this summer. So if they can trade a ticket for players they consider useful now while keeping the option open to buy a third or fourth pick from a team like SA later, where is the opportunity cost?
The point is that it's easy to rationalize it. I can't make you agree, but rather than trying to use the lack of criticism to point to some systemic bias toward Toronto, it might be a sign that the trade is not that strange. As I've pointed out, I haven't been against making low-cost moves for key vets at any point in this process. Maybe the Spurs have always had some special context. But you're much more likely to catch mean thinking they aren't being aggressive enough in adding talent than me wanting them to be more conservative.
Funnily enough, the Pistons did make a similar trade when they acquired Simone Fontecchio for the projected 34th-overall pick this year. It turns out that it's not really a big deal. Would Chicago get criticized for trading a pick they don't have for a win-now player in a season in which their best player is already out for the season? Yes. Because the context is different.
It might seem weird to some folks here, but the Spurs are fine. Basically every team that "waits too long" or "tries to stay on the treadmill" ends up being fine. The Sixers were a treadmill team before Hinkie. The Grizzlies couldn't let go of their old Grit 'n' Grind players. Dallas kept trying to get juice from the Dirk fruit long past when it became futile. If the Raptors are the DeRozan-era Spurs, then they'll be fine too. Maybe that means in three or four years they get a bunch of unprotected picks for Barnes and some more for Quickley and Barrett. Maybe they figure out how to make it work like Miami did around Bam. Even if they eventually have to tank, the only difference will be that fans with certain values will have felt like previous years were somehow wasted.
I'm actually not a huge fan of most of the moves Ujuri makes, so I will resist the accusation that I'm actually defending them. But I don't actually have any hard feelings concerning the Raptors, who at this point have given SA a decent haul in trades. Ujuri has huge blind spots for African or Africa-adjacent players which causes him to fetishize low-EROI prospects, with Agbaji potentially being just another such attempt. I didn't really have Quickley as a important player to get, so I think acquiring him for OG was a sub-optimal deal. I think Wright's been styling on him for a couple of years now too. But I will speak for moves that he makes that align with moves I wish the Spurs would make As I said, I would've liked the team to use the Charlotte pick to bring in a rotation player or have been in the O'Neal bidding. I can't fault a GM who uses a superfluous asset get two guys he thinks will be good for his team.
Reply With Quote
According to this board, they shouldn't spare a single asset on anything but the 1% of players that are perceived as not only good but "cultural" fits around here.
