Congratulations, everyone. Since putting out my mailbag call, I have received just one question expressing angst over the December 2023 trade of OG Anunoby. I expected more. Remarkable discipline, I’d say.

While our favourite scarf enthusiast balls out in the NBA Finals, the Toronto Raptors are peering into the offseason. It’s coming sooner than you might think. The NBA Draft is within three weeks.

As usual, you have supplied enough questions for me to break the mailbag into two parts. (I’ll get to the Anunoby query in the next mailbag.) Given that, feel free to submit more questions here.

Enough stalling. Let’s get going.

Questions have been edited for length and clarity.

I‘m not so interested in relitigating the Pascal Siakam trade return, which seems awfully light in retrospect. I’m just a big Siakam fan, and think he’s always been a bit underrated, maybe even by the Raptors themselves. Am I wrong to think someone like Siakam (in place of Brandon Ingram) would raise the ceiling of this team even further? And should I let the past go, and focus on who we have now? (Probably!) — Joshua B.

This came from a much longer hypothetical question, which I am glad to answer. While it is fair to say the Raptors mishandled the Siakam situation, I don’t think there is an alternative universe in which keeping Siakam — even if he had been happy to stay — would have worked.

Siakam is better than Brandon Ingram, and provides more overall value than Ingram and Ja’Kobe Walter, who was taken with one of the picks the Raptors got from Indiana, combined, at least when not considering Walter’s rookie-scale deal. But unless the Raptors got an excellent lead creator, probably a guard, Barnes and Siakam were a bit too similar offensively to make it work.

You might remember Siakam struggling from 3 in Toronto. Well, he shot 38.8 percent in his first season and a half with the Pacers, which was when Tyrese Haliburton was healthy. This past year, with Haliburton out, he went down to 35.8 percent. Siakam brings much more to the table than just a shot, but that shooting is essential around Barnes, and he would not have had the clean reps to make things work with the Raptors, at least as they were constructed at the time of the trade.

Ultimately, Siakam’s age didn’t mesh with Barnes’ window, while their skills were a little too similar. If they had given Siakam a maximum-level extension, the Raptors would be in just about the same situation as they are now, and it’s fair to wonder whether Barnes would have blossomed in the same way if Siakam had been in Toronto the whole time.

Hi Eric. Would you agree that it is time to transition to a younger core around Barnes and Collin Murray-Boyles? It was a great year, but for me, the Cavs series laid bare the issues that need addressing. Keep up the great work. — Trevor B.

I would agree, but I also think that’s way easier said than done. Jakob Poeltl, the oldest core player, is on something close to an unmovable deal. I wouldn’t be against moving Ingram, but I don’t think the value is there. After that, Immanuel Quickley is the oldest player the Raptors have committed to long-term. He’ll be 27 on opening night, and he is also on a deal most teams won’t want.

If they can get slightly younger with a trade of any of those players or RJ Barrett, that would be great. But given Barnes should be entering his prime, I think you focus more on skill and fit rather than age, and hope Murray-Boyles can avoid the sophomore slump.

Are the Raptors better if they try to push a true rebuild? Or do you think that by changing a couple of starters, the Raptors can be contenders? I feel the seven games against Cleveland might not be repeated next year. The Knicks or Celtics would have sent the Raptors home sooner. — Alvaro C.

To me, trading Barnes would be the only thing that constitutes a true rebuild for the Raptors. I would not do that. He is too good, too young and under contract for too long for me to consider that.

That does not mean the path forward is simple — it rarely is. But I don’t think Raptors fans should get too hung up on improving this past year’s results. Maybe they will, but if Barnes and Murray-Boyles are generally becoming better players, I’m fine with hanging out in the middle for a while. (Maybe they get some lottery luck, given that there is more on the table than there used to be — see below.) Bobby Webster then needs to stockpile roster wins, raise the talent level and improve the on-court fit. It could be a relatively long process, and there are no guarantees. There never are.

If I were Webster, I would avoid handing out any more long-term contracts to players on my roster over the next year and see what is out there for the veteran starters. Be opportunistic.

How do you see CMB and Walter developing over the next year or two? Is there a scenario where CMB and Walter can both make a significant leap to enable the Raptors to properly compete with the Knicks, Celtics and Pistons without significantly changing the current roster? — David J.

Draymond Green and Anunoby are reasonable high-end comparisons for Murray-Boyles. (Please focus on the term “high end,” which indicates a player is not likely to reach that level.) Walter’s likely destiny is as a 3-and-D wing who could either be a low-usage starter or come off the bench. He will need to improve his on-ball skills to up that prognostication because he isn’t working with the same physical tools as CMB or Barnes, nor does he have the same feel as either of them.

Could the Raptors end up being better than one of those teams next year? Sure. But without roster changes, this team won’t be a realistic threat to win the conference.

Regarding contracts like Quickley’s or Poeltl’s, is any price too expensive to move off of them? Or do you believe the Raptors would be comfortable giving up one or more picks to move those contracts? Perhaps more importantly, should the Raps prioritize offloading those deals, regardless of cost? — Jack M.

No! The Raptors should not move those guys regardless of cost. Furthermore, it should not be a priority. Both are good NBA players (at least if Poeltl is healthy) who get paid too much money. The Raptors aren’t one slick move away from being able to pounce on a superstar at the top of the market.

With that in mind, I’m keeping my picks unless an actual on-court improvement is available. Financial concerns, which come with deal-making restrictions, are secondary, at least for this next transaction cycle.

How much will teams like the Raptors likely sit on their picks and hope for good lottery luck in the future? Are teams no longer allowed to protect top four or eight on their picks? The new draft rules must be music to the ears of organizations that want to compete and find ways to improve through the draft. — Ed J.

This has been an ongoing question with the new lottery rules. As far as I’ve seen, the only protections that are no longer available are those covering picks 12 through 15. Other than that, fair game.

I don’t think there will be radical changes to how teams covet their picks, but I would expect teams in the middle of the league to be slightly more conservative in moving picks. If you’re in or around the Play-In range, the odds that you’ll have a slightly off year, giving you a better chance to move up in the lottery than previously, seem more valuable than, say, trading for a quality starter who is paid like it. Perhaps with the new rules in place, the Raptors wouldn’t have traded for Ingram, for example. (Although the only pick they gave up in that one was Indiana’s 2026 first-rounder, which didn’t look all that special until the New Orleans Pelicans got involved.)

Keep in mind, however, no single team will have great odds of winning the lottery. The teams that finish between fourth and 10th in the reverse standings will have an 8.1 percent chance of getting the first pick. This past year, Milwaukee (10th) had a three percent chance, while Utah (fourth) had an 11.5 percent chance. No single team’s chances have been dramatically raised. Instead, the top teams’ advantages have been redistributed to those who are slightly better than them. Given that, I’m guessing teams will be very hesitant to trade picks in drafts that have “can’t miss” prospects.

I know we’re three weeks away (and lots can happen in that time), but are there any players that you think might be available at the 19th spot that intrigue you for the Raps? — Anthony D.

Bad news: Due to my editing duties, I haven’t been able to do a deep dive on draft prospects. Good news: Some of those editing duties have involved looking through Sam Vecenie’s mammoth, essential draft guide, which is forthcoming. As such, here are four players who might be available for the Raptors and might fit both what the team lacks and its general ethos.

• Jayden Quaintance, big, Kentucky: He comes with injury concerns and doesn’t address the Raptors’ offensive shortcomings. But he has All-Defense potential, is a savvy passer and those injury concerns could cause him to fall. This would be basically doubling down on Barnes’ and Murray-Boyles’ skills, but there are sillier things to do.

• Hannes Steinbach, big, Washington: The German could be a future starting big man, or he could be a third big. But he’s flashed as a shooter and has shown the necessary skills to excel in Darko Rajaković’s offensive system. There are more questions defensively, but the Raptors need to take some bets on offence.

• Cameron Carr, wing, Baylor: Why have one Ja’Kobe Walter when you can have two? He’s not ready to play in the NBA physically, but if he gets stronger, as Walter is in the process of doing, he seems destined to find a role. He shot 37.4 percent on 6.1 3s per game as a junior.

• Bennett Stirtz, guard, Iowa: As a throwback, let’s go with a floor general who went to college for four years. Stirtz has obvious point guard skills and is a good catch-and-shoot option. Given the Raptors’ weaknesses, that is a valuable combination of skills to get on the roster, even if they will have to coach him up defensively.