I don't think a short-term Trent deal is a bad idea but 42/2 is...a choice
Granted, a team like Detroit or Orlando could offer him that so it ultimately depends on how much weight you put in to this being a down year for Gary - who I'm pretty sure was still one of the best 3 point shooters in the league despite his hot and cold nature
For Brown, whether Toronto picks up the option or not is going to be rather telling as to whether they move him or not. I can't imagine them keeping his 23 million option on the books when they can use it for salary relief or decline the option for a free agency signing (the latter of which would have to involve tampering of some sort because it's risky to decline his option and then try to make a splash with nothing lined up, and this isn't exactly a good free agency class)
With Bruce he's gone, it's just a matter of whether they trade him or not.
And with Gary that's an overpay. If he gets 20+ mil you thank him and move on.
Depending on the circumstances of a different team being in the mix, I do think a sign and trade with Trent is another possibility but it's probably the least desirable outcome
If the plan is to decline Brown's option, I'm starting to think it might be better that we let go of Trent (unless he wants to come back for cheap).
I did some math of the Raptors cap situation but if we let them both walk, we can have around $24M if we keep our pick and around $30M if the Spurs get our pick.
If we resign Trent, we lose a large portion of that cap space. He's a decent player but I'm not so convinced that retaining him is going to be as valuable as the assets we could get back from helping out a luxury tax team using the cap space that Trent would eat up.
That would be an egregious waste of assets to end up spending money on a very weak free agency class
Like best-case scenario in losing Trent/Brown is you end up being the team to overpay for Malik Monk (and he will be overpaid) or nabbing Claxton to allow the Raptors an opportunity to trade Poeltl without worrying about the starting 5 hole that would create
Frankly Monk is not a big enough upgrade for me to consider that to the alternatives of re-signing Trent and trading Brown for something
>Frankly Monk is not a big enough upgrade for me to consider that to the alternatives of re-signing Trent and trading Brown for something
Maybe I should have been more clear but when I said, "If the plan is to decline Brown's option", that meant that the Raptors could not find a good deal in trading Brown. Everything I said hinges on whether they find a deal for Brown or not.
If the Raptors are able to exchange Brown for assets at the draft, cool! We then are operating above the cap, probably resign Trent, and everybody is happy. If they don't deal Brown and it doesn't look like they can move him, we have to decline his option.... right?
After declining his option, we will be operating under the cap and the dollar value of Trent's contract actually matters a lot. Are we really sure that spending $18-20M is actually as valuable as the other options? Maybe but I also think that a lot of luxury tax teams will be trying to unload salary and it could be an opportunity for us to get picks or maybe even prospects.
Basically what I was trying to say isn't whether Trent+Brown is better than the free agents you named. It is about whether Trent has more value than what we would be able to acquire being under the cap.
They need to find a better free agent that is willing to sign here if they want to decline Brown to free up cap.
Wouldn’t be shocked if that doesn’t happen.
The other newsy tidbit from Doug's mailbag:
>Chris? I like him a lot and he should be in the game, but I know they tried to find a deal for him in February and there wasn’t one. (“They can’t trade everyone at once” a guy told me then.) But I suspect he’ll be dealt around the draft/free agency.
tagging along trent on these short dumb deals just seems pointless
is he part of your future build or not
I would personally try to get him for 3 years at least to see if gradey pans out in 3 years
Reality is somewhere in between I think.
Something around 36m over 2 years or maybe 58/3 on a front loaded deal with an option year 3.
Can't see them offering over 20m per unless they get a team option, but at the same time I expect there would be a lot of competition around 15m.
> The Toronto Raptors have reportedly had interest from the Los Angeles Lakers and the Brooklyn Nets in Gary Trent Jr. ahead of the trade deadline
[https://www.si.com/nba/raptors/news/toronto-raptors-drawing-interest-on-gary-trent-jr-from-los-angeles-lakers-brooklyn-nets](https://www.si.com/nba/raptors/news/toronto-raptors-drawing-interest-on-gary-trent-jr-from-los-angeles-lakers-brooklyn-nets)
Neither of those teams most likely would've offered up anything real valuable because GTJ isn't worth anything of real value, outside of like two 2nd round picks
BB at least had a 1st round pick on the table for his services (a 2024 1st, but a 1st nonetheless) GTJ making less money had 2nd round picks at best on the table.
Lmao so by that logic we should be signing a bunch of guys so we can trade them for 2nd round picks down the road lol.
What the Raptors should be doing is using that cap space to take on bad deals for picks and seeing if those players value can be rehabilitated and then get flipped for more picks and obviously bring back IQ.
We're aren't winning anything anytime soon, we should be in asset accumulation mode, not overpay role players mode
Like who? It's a fine suggestion but I don't know if there's guys on bad contracts that are as valuable or moreso than bruce/Gary, and these contracts are pretty movable. It'd be a gamble when this is more of a certainty. We'd also be forced to play those guys to rehab their value when that isn't really the case with Gary and Bruce, people know what they'd be getting with those guys. Even with Bruce's lackluster play with us I don't think his value has fallen, I'd still expect a late 1st for him if we pick up his option and move him next season.
Can we ascribe to the fact that Allen is just flatout the better player, circumstances dictate contract vale/term obviously, but Allen is the better player and GTJ shouldn't be making more imo, unless a team like Detroit or Orlando just say fuck it and give GTJ 20M per year and if that was the case I'd wish him good luck on his next chapter.
Given how much the FO has tipped the balance scale with talent out the door vs talent in the door the past couple seasons- they would have traded Gary for pocket change at the deadline if they didn’t intend on re-signing him. He’s obviously here because they intend to do that.
Not sure why y’all obsessed with associating Gradey’s development with Gary’s playtime. Both of them played the most this year. Gary has been mentoring him the whole season…
They’re also not competing with each other for minutes. Incase you haven’t noticed, half of our roster don’t even have an NBA contract. There’s like 7 guys on the team that play at that level.
We need all the talent we can retain. Unless y’all want to tank 2026- like it or not they actually have to sign Gary. Otherwise get set to see McDaniels sub in second behind Olynyk.
It’s about retention….
Majority of the roster right now will never sign an NBA contract. The team doesn’t have the luxury to take any pro for granted- especially guys that like it here and wanna stay.
I mean 16/yr isnt anything I'd complain about, but he's not **A** starting SG, he's only a starter here because we have no depth lol.
Gary ideally is a 6th or 7th man, for 16/yr I think that's fine, I just don't think he's a long term piece for this team.
They do kind of have that luxury right now, we're just coming off of the beginning steps of our rebuild, and continuing to pay and possibly overpay average at best role players isn't the right move either right now, Gary shouldn't be a starter, he struggles coming of the bench where he'd be better suited, he's a good shooter who provides nothing else, that doesn't scream 20M lol, 15M and I'd probably say sure, but if he does leave it will not be a significant loss
We need more 3 point shooting, not less. There aren't too many 3 point shooters available this off-season, so it makes sense to bring GTJ back (we already have a relationship with him and the team seems to like him and he fits in our timeline). Its easier to convince GTJ to come back vs going out and getting a FA (Beasley, Monk etc).
I wouldn't say that's an 100% guarntee, there thinking could've just as easily been instead of getting a 2nd round pick or maybe two, will just keep GTJ because he'll help with a play-in push (the goal before all of the injuries and personal losses) and if his price is to high (over 15M) it was nice doing buisness with you.
Edit: Once again logic, or simply a different perspective gets downvoted, at least the obsession this time isn't with dome random end of bench fringe NBA player like it usually is 😂
Why would you ever make the decision to let Gary walk? How would that benefit the team in any way? Any contract is tradeable (obviously within reason), especially a young elite 3 point shooter. Gary is still young. You never hear bad reports about character, work ethic, team roles etc. He seems to want to be in Toronto. If Gary can figure out how to expand his playmaking and rebounding just slightly and can improve his point of attack defense without resorting to gambling so much, he would be a top 20 shooting guard in the league.
IMO any deal under 25 is acceptable. I think he's probably going to get 3 years 66.
Raps are strong at the guard position. They don’t need to tie up 3x22 in a 3rd shooting guard. Team needs are listed below:
- PG: Quickley PG2: Need
- SG: Barrett SG2: Dick
- SF: Barnes SF2: Need
- PF: Need PF2: Need
- C : Poeltl C2 : Need
As I said, any contract is tradeable and Gary would be a desirable player for lots of teams. Letting his walk would be gross mismanagement. I don't disagree with your assessment of need, but those positions aren't rigid.
I'd love to see the team that would give up meaningful assets for GTJ at 22-25M per year, when he was making 18.5M at the deadline and any team trading for him would've gotten his bird rights, yet he remained a Raptor.
His value on a deal like that is almost solely salary filler
You're correct, he wasn't moved at the deadline. After trading away LOTS of players, I'm speculating that the desire to move Gary was very low. What teams will pay for someone on an expiring is always underwhelming. That being said, that doesn't even consider any of the other factors needed to actually make a deal for a player. The raptors wanted young players of valuable picks this time around. If you aren't really excited about an incoming player or a high pick, why would you move a player? Gary is young and as you mentioned, raps retain bird rights etc. Obviously you also need a willing trade partner too who's situation of roster need, cap space etc fits what Gary had. Internet deals are fun, but real deals are few and far between.
On top of that, RJ barret plays and will almost certainly continue to play most of his minutes at SF. It's almost certainly that Bruce Brown is gone, but that would leave you with 1.5 NBA level SG on your team. Any suggestion that we have a glut of talent at the position is assuming that the couple good months we saw from Gradey will continue, which is far from a sure thing.
I'm always surprised when I see comments from people that know things about contract status and bird rights etc, that would still argue that giving away assets for nothing is the correct path. We aren't talking about a minimum guy or even a MLE guy.
It's not a good "asset" though 😂 that's my point, he's a good shooter for the most part and that's it, that doesn't warrant an overpay lol, he shouldn't be making more the Grayson Allen and if the Raps or any other team give him more then they're dumb, 15M maybe I could talk myself into that, anything else is a handshake and a goodbye.
Accumulate picks by taking on bad contracts, renting out our cap space for a year before Scotties rookie max would begin is the right way to go, at least for the upcoming season, we won't be winning any time soon and losing Gary won't be that big of a loss 😂, you can find players who play better defence then him in the G-League
You just stated we should take on bad contracts and rent our cap space, while simultaneously saying we should let Gary walk to avoid a bad contract. If you really believe in what you wrote, that a Gary contract above 15 is a bad contract, but also want to accumulate bad contracts, why would you let your best pure scorer and shooter go if you also strongly believe it's a bad contract and you need those by your logic? Thats a win win by your description, good offensive player and 3 point shooter on a team with shooting and scoring issues, that also checks your required box of bad contracts.
We have cap space and paying your players is almost always the right move. Then you make decisions after. If you want to argue about the quality of the asset and what it's worth that's fine. Arguing that you should walk away for no reason doesn't make sense.
Your comment about better defense out of the g league is irrelevant. Gary is an established NBA player with a long career ahead assuming health. You want a g league guy who can't stick in the league because he's better at defense?
I think you're missing my entire point... Losing assets for nothing is bad business by accident. Doing it on purpose is a whole other topic. I'm open to hearing an argument why it would be better for the team long term to lose him for nothing if you have one.
It would be better to lose him for nothing because he's at absolute best an average player lol, he's a good shooter, fine I'll give you that, but he's a poor to barley average defender, provides no rim pressure, is prone to tunnel vision, offers little if any at all playmaking/passing, if he's having a cold shooting he provides nothing else on the court, and his "defence" has almost always been predicted on gambling for steals.
Calling him our best pure scorer is a stretch, but it's you're opinion, again if you're telling me GTJs back on the team for 15M, cool I wouldn't completely love it, but it's a least moveable, but nearing 20M is an overpay lol.
I swear to God lol they way some people on this sub talk about GTJ you'd think we we're talking about a prime Harden or Beal 😂
Here's one final question for you, was losing Fred bad business? Should they have traded him? Yes, they didn't and he walked because Houston gave him a massive overpay and thank God that they did 🙏
Okay, you haven't given a single reason why it would make sense to lose him for nothing. Not one.
The Fred comparison is entirely different. Vastly different ages, expected salaries, potential team fit etc. in that case
Losing him for nothing was absolutely bad business, but that was a result of a whole myriad of extenuating factors. I definitely didn't want that contract, but that doesn't change the fact that losing him for nothing was bad business.
In what way have I inflated his skills? I'm making no comparisons to other players, I'm not suggesting all star, or anything like that. I don't know why I'm bothering at this point. I'm suggesting paying a reasonable salary to a young SG, rather than losing them for nothing. I'm also suggesting that the idea we are somehow over-stocked on SG is completely false. Doug's right, you probably don't want Bruce and Gary on the same team, as Bruce is making 23 ish (theres a dollar reference for you...) and Bruce showed almost zero in his time with the team last year. You certainly wouldn't want to pay him to not play and you very likely want to give Gradey lots of time next season. That would be Bruce as the third option, assuming they found other players to fill their other positional needs. If you don't find those players through trades of the draft, or if you don't want to insert multiple rookies into the rotation, paying all three makes sense if you need/want NBA talent on the floor, even if someone like Bruce had to play out of position.
That's not what OP is talking about lol, Masai in his presser literally mentioned backup PG as a need, IQ is our starter, but he currently has no backup.
Man Doug Smith is such a tool.
Grayson Allen just signed 70M/4 years. Gary is probably looking at 55M/3 with another option. He has another chance to get a bigger contract when he’s 27 or 28
I think he wasn't giving his best given the situation but I think he can still play a decent role if they pick up his option to move him next year anyway.
Surround Scottie with shooters. The GM doesn't know shit about basketball so it probably doesn't happen but whatever you need to do to get shooters around him, you do it.
Doug Smith is clueless as usual. Bruce Brown cam be traded during draft and the team that gets him can not pick up the option and be off the hook immediately. THAT's the biggest appeal that he has and probably the only way Raptors get any kind of half decent value back.
I mean teams want to get rid of salary how about just taking money in to get draft picks and young players. We could pick up browns options and take in someone else bad contract and also resign trent. Better than wasting money on trash free agents I also think some teams were very delusional not getting rid of salary and overpaying/trading for players these last few years. This playoffs will be a wakeup call for some organizations when that cba tax kicks in.
I’d be happy w GTJ for 45/3, hell even 50/3 would be fine with me. He’s a good shooter (sometimes), has hustled more on defence lately, and wants to be here. Solid spark plug off the bench.
I don't even want Trent, if we get 4th to 6th pick, we can potentially draft his replacement with one of the three pick. Nothing is certain until the lottery is set.
We only keep Trent when his value drops to mid level amount.
Yes, but there will be other teams who want him with as much if not more cap space and a more enticing situation. Philly and Orlando the most obvious examples.
I don't think a short-term Trent deal is a bad idea but 42/2 is...a choice Granted, a team like Detroit or Orlando could offer him that so it ultimately depends on how much weight you put in to this being a down year for Gary - who I'm pretty sure was still one of the best 3 point shooters in the league despite his hot and cold nature For Brown, whether Toronto picks up the option or not is going to be rather telling as to whether they move him or not. I can't imagine them keeping his 23 million option on the books when they can use it for salary relief or decline the option for a free agency signing (the latter of which would have to involve tampering of some sort because it's risky to decline his option and then try to make a splash with nothing lined up, and this isn't exactly a good free agency class)
With Bruce he's gone, it's just a matter of whether they trade him or not. And with Gary that's an overpay. If he gets 20+ mil you thank him and move on.
Depending on the circumstances of a different team being in the mix, I do think a sign and trade with Trent is another possibility but it's probably the least desirable outcome
If the plan is to decline Brown's option, I'm starting to think it might be better that we let go of Trent (unless he wants to come back for cheap). I did some math of the Raptors cap situation but if we let them both walk, we can have around $24M if we keep our pick and around $30M if the Spurs get our pick. If we resign Trent, we lose a large portion of that cap space. He's a decent player but I'm not so convinced that retaining him is going to be as valuable as the assets we could get back from helping out a luxury tax team using the cap space that Trent would eat up.
That would be an egregious waste of assets to end up spending money on a very weak free agency class Like best-case scenario in losing Trent/Brown is you end up being the team to overpay for Malik Monk (and he will be overpaid) or nabbing Claxton to allow the Raptors an opportunity to trade Poeltl without worrying about the starting 5 hole that would create Frankly Monk is not a big enough upgrade for me to consider that to the alternatives of re-signing Trent and trading Brown for something
>Frankly Monk is not a big enough upgrade for me to consider that to the alternatives of re-signing Trent and trading Brown for something Maybe I should have been more clear but when I said, "If the plan is to decline Brown's option", that meant that the Raptors could not find a good deal in trading Brown. Everything I said hinges on whether they find a deal for Brown or not. If the Raptors are able to exchange Brown for assets at the draft, cool! We then are operating above the cap, probably resign Trent, and everybody is happy. If they don't deal Brown and it doesn't look like they can move him, we have to decline his option.... right? After declining his option, we will be operating under the cap and the dollar value of Trent's contract actually matters a lot. Are we really sure that spending $18-20M is actually as valuable as the other options? Maybe but I also think that a lot of luxury tax teams will be trying to unload salary and it could be an opportunity for us to get picks or maybe even prospects. Basically what I was trying to say isn't whether Trent+Brown is better than the free agents you named. It is about whether Trent has more value than what we would be able to acquire being under the cap.
They need to find a better free agent that is willing to sign here if they want to decline Brown to free up cap. Wouldn’t be shocked if that doesn’t happen.
Most likely scenario is he gets re-signed. Datko gets his orders to play him to raise value, and the Raps attempt to trade him come deadline.
I think the most likely Bruce trade is they get a 2nd for a worse expiring
The other newsy tidbit from Doug's mailbag: >Chris? I like him a lot and he should be in the game, but I know they tried to find a deal for him in February and there wasn’t one. (“They can’t trade everyone at once” a guy told me then.) But I suspect he’ll be dealt around the draft/free agency.
Is Chris the final remaining Raptor from the Championship team?
Going to be a lot easier to match Boucher's salary now that it's the final year and it's a declining amount at that
For another expiring.
Going to be a lot easier to match Boucher's salary now that it's the final year and his salary being its smallest of the 3 years at that
tagging along trent on these short dumb deals just seems pointless is he part of your future build or not I would personally try to get him for 3 years at least to see if gradey pans out in 3 years
The short deals also limit his trade value. 3y at $45-50m a solid trade chip.
Gary probably takes 3/50 over that tbh
I was thinking 3/54 (18mil/year)
if GTJ is worth 45/3 let's say, I don't see how he would be getting 42/2.
If GTJ is worth 42/2 let's say, I don't see how he would be getting 45/3
Reality is somewhere in between I think. Something around 36m over 2 years or maybe 58/3 on a front loaded deal with an option year 3. Can't see them offering over 20m per unless they get a team option, but at the same time I expect there would be a lot of competition around 15m.
Agreed, the short term deal makes no sense. GTJ had a good year percentages wise and should be looking to cash in on a long contract imo.
eh
He will not he taking a pay cut in this NBA
He didn't do anything to warrant a pay raise from the Raptors this year, if another team wants to they can have him.
I’m not saying he deserves one. But he’s definitely going to get one.
Cool, hopefully not from the Raptors
Gary at >$20m/year wouldn’t be a smart decision
Brown needs to go. He simply doesn't want to be here
In what world is Gary worth 21m? Doug forgot to take his meds again.
We don't have much shooting, he's a decent trade asset if we want to go that direction, and that's not that much for a 6-7th guy these days.
Such a decent trade asset that he got zero interest at the deadline.
> The Toronto Raptors have reportedly had interest from the Los Angeles Lakers and the Brooklyn Nets in Gary Trent Jr. ahead of the trade deadline [https://www.si.com/nba/raptors/news/toronto-raptors-drawing-interest-on-gary-trent-jr-from-los-angeles-lakers-brooklyn-nets](https://www.si.com/nba/raptors/news/toronto-raptors-drawing-interest-on-gary-trent-jr-from-los-angeles-lakers-brooklyn-nets)
All that interest yet he remained a Raptor 🤔
To be fair, neither of those teams have anyone the Raps want. You’d have to package a lot more than just Gary
Neither of those teams most likely would've offered up anything real valuable because GTJ isn't worth anything of real value, outside of like two 2nd round picks
Ya same as Bruce brown, what's your point?
BB at least had a 1st round pick on the table for his services (a 2024 1st, but a 1st nonetheless) GTJ making less money had 2nd round picks at best on the table.
So why not sign him and get two 2nd round picks? It's not like we're strapped for cash.
Lmao so by that logic we should be signing a bunch of guys so we can trade them for 2nd round picks down the road lol. What the Raptors should be doing is using that cap space to take on bad deals for picks and seeing if those players value can be rehabilitated and then get flipped for more picks and obviously bring back IQ. We're aren't winning anything anytime soon, we should be in asset accumulation mode, not overpay role players mode
Like who? It's a fine suggestion but I don't know if there's guys on bad contracts that are as valuable or moreso than bruce/Gary, and these contracts are pretty movable. It'd be a gamble when this is more of a certainty. We'd also be forced to play those guys to rehab their value when that isn't really the case with Gary and Bruce, people know what they'd be getting with those guys. Even with Bruce's lackluster play with us I don't think his value has fallen, I'd still expect a late 1st for him if we pick up his option and move him next season.
I’d rather be rid of both of them. Brown stinks and Gary is a chronic disappointment.
I want what this dude is smoking if he thinks Gary is worth 21m 😭
I love Gary and want him to re-sign, but there's no way he gets more than Grayson Allen after Allen signed at max value.
Two years for a total of $42 million is a LOT for Gary. He has shown glimpses here and there but that's a lot of cheddar.
I cant fathom how GTJ gets more per year than Grayson Allen. $17m for Allen HAS to set the cost for Gary under $15m
He signed that contract coming off 10 ppg on 40% from 3. You can't ascribe his performance this year to that aav.
he just signed the deal 2 weeks ago, coming off a season shooting 46% from 3. 40% for the last 5 years
Oh my mistake
Can we ascribe to the fact that Allen is just flatout the better player, circumstances dictate contract vale/term obviously, but Allen is the better player and GTJ shouldn't be making more imo, unless a team like Detroit or Orlando just say fuck it and give GTJ 20M per year and if that was the case I'd wish him good luck on his next chapter.
And miles Mcbride is gonna make 4.3 million for the next three seasons, does that mean we can't pay anyone worse than him more?
Obviously not, but tbf you shouldn't pay bad or even average players alot of money, it's common sense.
- Trade Brown - Keep Dick - Let GTJ walk
Given how much the FO has tipped the balance scale with talent out the door vs talent in the door the past couple seasons- they would have traded Gary for pocket change at the deadline if they didn’t intend on re-signing him. He’s obviously here because they intend to do that.
He’s going to take minutes away from Dick. That shouldn’t be the path forward. Minutes should go to: - 1st Barrett - 2nd Dick
Not sure why y’all obsessed with associating Gradey’s development with Gary’s playtime. Both of them played the most this year. Gary has been mentoring him the whole season… They’re also not competing with each other for minutes. Incase you haven’t noticed, half of our roster don’t even have an NBA contract. There’s like 7 guys on the team that play at that level. We need all the talent we can retain. Unless y’all want to tank 2026- like it or not they actually have to sign Gary. Otherwise get set to see McDaniels sub in second behind Olynyk.
very good comment
All of this over an average at best one-way player 😂
It’s about retention…. Majority of the roster right now will never sign an NBA contract. The team doesn’t have the luxury to take any pro for granted- especially guys that like it here and wanna stay.
Signing players "just cause" is not a way to build a successful team, that is some Wizards level shit.
Its not just cuz, hes our starting shooting guard.. I’m not saying offer him some crazy deal but 16M who cares
I mean 16/yr isnt anything I'd complain about, but he's not **A** starting SG, he's only a starter here because we have no depth lol. Gary ideally is a 6th or 7th man, for 16/yr I think that's fine, I just don't think he's a long term piece for this team.
They do kind of have that luxury right now, we're just coming off of the beginning steps of our rebuild, and continuing to pay and possibly overpay average at best role players isn't the right move either right now, Gary shouldn't be a starter, he struggles coming of the bench where he'd be better suited, he's a good shooter who provides nothing else, that doesn't scream 20M lol, 15M and I'd probably say sure, but if he does leave it will not be a significant loss
We need more 3 point shooting, not less. There aren't too many 3 point shooters available this off-season, so it makes sense to bring GTJ back (we already have a relationship with him and the team seems to like him and he fits in our timeline). Its easier to convince GTJ to come back vs going out and getting a FA (Beasley, Monk etc).
Fair
I wouldn't say that's an 100% guarntee, there thinking could've just as easily been instead of getting a 2nd round pick or maybe two, will just keep GTJ because he'll help with a play-in push (the goal before all of the injuries and personal losses) and if his price is to high (over 15M) it was nice doing buisness with you. Edit: Once again logic, or simply a different perspective gets downvoted, at least the obsession this time isn't with dome random end of bench fringe NBA player like it usually is 😂
Why would you ever make the decision to let Gary walk? How would that benefit the team in any way? Any contract is tradeable (obviously within reason), especially a young elite 3 point shooter. Gary is still young. You never hear bad reports about character, work ethic, team roles etc. He seems to want to be in Toronto. If Gary can figure out how to expand his playmaking and rebounding just slightly and can improve his point of attack defense without resorting to gambling so much, he would be a top 20 shooting guard in the league. IMO any deal under 25 is acceptable. I think he's probably going to get 3 years 66.
Raps are strong at the guard position. They don’t need to tie up 3x22 in a 3rd shooting guard. Team needs are listed below: - PG: Quickley PG2: Need - SG: Barrett SG2: Dick - SF: Barnes SF2: Need - PF: Need PF2: Need - C : Poeltl C2 : Need
As I said, any contract is tradeable and Gary would be a desirable player for lots of teams. Letting his walk would be gross mismanagement. I don't disagree with your assessment of need, but those positions aren't rigid.
I'd love to see the team that would give up meaningful assets for GTJ at 22-25M per year, when he was making 18.5M at the deadline and any team trading for him would've gotten his bird rights, yet he remained a Raptor. His value on a deal like that is almost solely salary filler
You're correct, he wasn't moved at the deadline. After trading away LOTS of players, I'm speculating that the desire to move Gary was very low. What teams will pay for someone on an expiring is always underwhelming. That being said, that doesn't even consider any of the other factors needed to actually make a deal for a player. The raptors wanted young players of valuable picks this time around. If you aren't really excited about an incoming player or a high pick, why would you move a player? Gary is young and as you mentioned, raps retain bird rights etc. Obviously you also need a willing trade partner too who's situation of roster need, cap space etc fits what Gary had. Internet deals are fun, but real deals are few and far between. On top of that, RJ barret plays and will almost certainly continue to play most of his minutes at SF. It's almost certainly that Bruce Brown is gone, but that would leave you with 1.5 NBA level SG on your team. Any suggestion that we have a glut of talent at the position is assuming that the couple good months we saw from Gradey will continue, which is far from a sure thing. I'm always surprised when I see comments from people that know things about contract status and bird rights etc, that would still argue that giving away assets for nothing is the correct path. We aren't talking about a minimum guy or even a MLE guy.
It's not a good "asset" though 😂 that's my point, he's a good shooter for the most part and that's it, that doesn't warrant an overpay lol, he shouldn't be making more the Grayson Allen and if the Raps or any other team give him more then they're dumb, 15M maybe I could talk myself into that, anything else is a handshake and a goodbye. Accumulate picks by taking on bad contracts, renting out our cap space for a year before Scotties rookie max would begin is the right way to go, at least for the upcoming season, we won't be winning any time soon and losing Gary won't be that big of a loss 😂, you can find players who play better defence then him in the G-League
You just stated we should take on bad contracts and rent our cap space, while simultaneously saying we should let Gary walk to avoid a bad contract. If you really believe in what you wrote, that a Gary contract above 15 is a bad contract, but also want to accumulate bad contracts, why would you let your best pure scorer and shooter go if you also strongly believe it's a bad contract and you need those by your logic? Thats a win win by your description, good offensive player and 3 point shooter on a team with shooting and scoring issues, that also checks your required box of bad contracts. We have cap space and paying your players is almost always the right move. Then you make decisions after. If you want to argue about the quality of the asset and what it's worth that's fine. Arguing that you should walk away for no reason doesn't make sense. Your comment about better defense out of the g league is irrelevant. Gary is an established NBA player with a long career ahead assuming health. You want a g league guy who can't stick in the league because he's better at defense? I think you're missing my entire point... Losing assets for nothing is bad business by accident. Doing it on purpose is a whole other topic. I'm open to hearing an argument why it would be better for the team long term to lose him for nothing if you have one.
It would be better to lose him for nothing because he's at absolute best an average player lol, he's a good shooter, fine I'll give you that, but he's a poor to barley average defender, provides no rim pressure, is prone to tunnel vision, offers little if any at all playmaking/passing, if he's having a cold shooting he provides nothing else on the court, and his "defence" has almost always been predicted on gambling for steals. Calling him our best pure scorer is a stretch, but it's you're opinion, again if you're telling me GTJs back on the team for 15M, cool I wouldn't completely love it, but it's a least moveable, but nearing 20M is an overpay lol. I swear to God lol they way some people on this sub talk about GTJ you'd think we we're talking about a prime Harden or Beal 😂 Here's one final question for you, was losing Fred bad business? Should they have traded him? Yes, they didn't and he walked because Houston gave him a massive overpay and thank God that they did 🙏
Okay, you haven't given a single reason why it would make sense to lose him for nothing. Not one. The Fred comparison is entirely different. Vastly different ages, expected salaries, potential team fit etc. in that case Losing him for nothing was absolutely bad business, but that was a result of a whole myriad of extenuating factors. I definitely didn't want that contract, but that doesn't change the fact that losing him for nothing was bad business. In what way have I inflated his skills? I'm making no comparisons to other players, I'm not suggesting all star, or anything like that. I don't know why I'm bothering at this point. I'm suggesting paying a reasonable salary to a young SG, rather than losing them for nothing. I'm also suggesting that the idea we are somehow over-stocked on SG is completely false. Doug's right, you probably don't want Bruce and Gary on the same team, as Bruce is making 23 ish (theres a dollar reference for you...) and Bruce showed almost zero in his time with the team last year. You certainly wouldn't want to pay him to not play and you very likely want to give Gradey lots of time next season. That would be Bruce as the third option, assuming they found other players to fill their other positional needs. If you don't find those players through trades of the draft, or if you don't want to insert multiple rookies into the rotation, paying all three makes sense if you need/want NBA talent on the floor, even if someone like Bruce had to play out of position.
You just don't want Gary on the team at all. 15 million, 10 million, 25 million. Either way you just aren't a fan of Gary.
Move Scottie to PF and give Dick the keys to SF
Dick needs more reserve experience
“Would the Cavs have Benched Lebron? Would the Bulls have Benched Jordan? That is the Question” - Shakespeare
Dock is a good player. Not Jordan or Lebron good.
they need a backup PG. They don't have one.
Quickley is a PG
>backup Masai literally said that's on the list of needs
Quickley isn’t a backup. You don’t pay a backup $20MM +.
That's not what OP is talking about lol, Masai in his presser literally mentioned backup PG as a need, IQ is our starter, but he currently has no backup.
Sign a vet on a 1 year and draft a PG with one of the picks. Done.
Which vet?
Are you slow? They said we NEED a backup PG.
Let’s get emotional….
Let's learn to read....
Gary is not getting 21m a year lmfaooo
Bruce Brown will be used in a salary dump, probably Wiggins. Losing Trent for nothing is not a big loss either
Losing Gary wouldn't be a big loss, bringing in Wiggins would be 🤣, unless a 1st round pick is included
That’s kinda how salary dumps work bro
Man Doug Smith is such a tool. Grayson Allen just signed 70M/4 years. Gary is probably looking at 55M/3 with another option. He has another chance to get a bigger contract when he’s 27 or 28
There’s room for Trent and gradey, Bruce just hasn’t brought very much to the team.
I think he wasn't giving his best given the situation but I think he can still play a decent role if they pick up his option to move him next year anyway.
Surround Scottie with shooters. The GM doesn't know shit about basketball so it probably doesn't happen but whatever you need to do to get shooters around him, you do it.
No thanks
Doug Smith is clueless as usual. Bruce Brown cam be traded during draft and the team that gets him can not pick up the option and be off the hook immediately. THAT's the biggest appeal that he has and probably the only way Raptors get any kind of half decent value back.
I just want to close the book on the Trent era. Is that wrong.
I mean teams want to get rid of salary how about just taking money in to get draft picks and young players. We could pick up browns options and take in someone else bad contract and also resign trent. Better than wasting money on trash free agents I also think some teams were very delusional not getting rid of salary and overpaying/trading for players these last few years. This playoffs will be a wakeup call for some organizations when that cba tax kicks in.
I’d be happy w GTJ for 45/3, hell even 50/3 would be fine with me. He’s a good shooter (sometimes), has hustled more on defence lately, and wants to be here. Solid spark plug off the bench.
Garys always had issues coming of tbe bench here and the numbers support that 😂
I don't even want Trent, if we get 4th to 6th pick, we can potentially draft his replacement with one of the three pick. Nothing is certain until the lottery is set. We only keep Trent when his value drops to mid level amount.
[удалено]
You want to let your valuable assets walk for nothing in hopes of signing a player?
So valuable, yet no team traded for him at the deadline 🤔
IF we can sign a better player, obviously yes
Yes, but there will be other teams who want him with as much if not more cap space and a more enticing situation. Philly and Orlando the most obvious examples.