Player you would be happy or mad about coming back in an Ingram trade

seems likely Ingram is gone since he wants the Max

Jarrett Allen

Hawks guards

Garland

And more may emerge

What is your list for players you would be ok trading Ingram for and your list you wouldn't be happy to get back in a trade

Matas Bezelli

Isn't there a thread for this already? Like two..

I view BI has a bottom tier all-star who would be mid tier in the Eastern conference. I think the team is contending with him next year IF everyone stays healthy so I'd be avoid with taking someone less than All-Star level, anyone very young who would take years to reach their prime, or a package revolving around picks.

So I'm good with Young, Mitchell, or Murray. Would be sad if we got JUST Garland or Allen. Happy with both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichols

Isn't there a thread for this already? Like two..

---

Time for a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

So I'm good with Young, Mitchell, or Murray. Would be sad if we got JUST Garland or Allen. Happy with both.

---

Garland at his peak has already been better than BI and Allen is very arguably on the same level (just in a very different player archetype which is potentially less useful in the modern game).

Getting both for BI flat would be a swindle. Getting either individually would be a solid centrepiece for a return package. If you're getting Young or Mitchell, you're the one sending out more because both of them lap BI in terms of accomplishments and talent.

Murray is a fairly lateral move. If we ended up doing it, it would be fine because the shot profile is slightly better and he's cheaper, but it wouldn't have the impact we actually need imo.

I'm in the boat of people who thinks it's absurd to believe we're contending if we just run it back. We were a play-in team, again this year with outlier health seasons from Zion and BI compared to past years, in a season other teams were taking their feet off the pedals. Run things back next year, we might win an extra two or three games (doubt it, losing JV and Naji is going to hurt unless we can replace them and if we're keeping BI then we can't) but the idea we go from the play-in to real contention when everyone else is going to be stepping up a notch as well is wishful thinking.

Allen seems to be overrated by some or BI underrated. He is not on BI's level and never has been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I'm in the boat of people who thinks it's absurd to believe we're contending if we just run it back. We were a play-in team, again this year with outlier health seasons from Zion and BI compared to past years, in a season other teams were taking their feet off the pedals. Run things back next year, we might win an extra two or three games (doubt it, losing JV and Naji is going to hurt unless we can replace them and if we're keeping BI then we can't) but the idea we go from the play-in to real contention when everyone else is going to be stepping up a notch as well is wishful thinking.

---

Pretty much agree with the rest of your assessment but I put Garland and Allen slightly below BI. But this quoted part is semantics I don't agree with. It IS true to say we were a play in team. It is also true that we lost a tie breaker for 6th, were two games out of 4th, and were a top 3 team before injuries set us back. So I could use that same "win/standings" argument and say 'I'm in the boat we are a contending team because all of our players except CJ, Jonas, and maybe Nance are still ascending talent-wise....we were a top three team before injuries and only two games out of 1st and only one game behind the Western Conference Champions so logically we could run it back and be contenders'. That actually even makes more sense to me than saying we wouldn't.

Like. If we're using regular season standings as a measure of if we could be contenders or not, even with the late season injury drop off we finished one game behind the conference champs. We can't really use play in tournament or playoff performance as a measurement because we were missing our centerpiece in Zion.....it takes a lot of stretching to say we're not contending if healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Allen seems to be overrated by some or BI underrated. He is not on BI's level and never has been.

---

He's a less valuable archetype of player, but in terms of pure impact on the court, he is at or above BI's level. For context, this year he was 63rd in the NBA in EPM and BI was 60th. He had a BPM of +3.0 and BI had a BPM of +1.2.

Obviously a shot creating wing is the better star archetype in 2024 than the rim runner/paint protector big man, everyone knows that, but JA is better at his job than BI is at his. Obviously BI's job is more valuable in a vacuum and if you were starting a franchise from scratch, it's more important to have the guy who can just score and pass, but that's not the situation we're in.

I'll put it this way: they're both 1x all-stars, and JA has finished top 10 in DPOY voting twice. With all the respect in the world, acting like BI is on a higher level and as though JA has never come close to his level of impact and contribution to winning is just alien to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

We can't really use play in tournament or playoff performance as a measurement because we were missing our centerpiece in Zion.....it takes a lot of stretching to say we're not contending if healthy.

---

This is the bit I take major issue with.

We WERE healthy. We were the healthiest we have ever been. By a mile. Assuming that we're going to see that again is a wild thing to base your decision making on, and even if we did, the idea that we're just destined to improve rather than regress despite losing the only real C on the roster and one of our most importance bench players (when good bench play was one of the only reasons we were good this year) is just hugely presumptive.

Sure, if Herb makes another big offensive leap, and Trey makes another big leap, and BI and Zion both stay healthy, and someone on the bench (Dyson, maybe?) makes a leap big enough to replace Naji (massively doubtful) and Jose sticks around because he's a free agent, then maybe we might win more games than last year despite the West in general almost certainly being much tougher.

It takes a lot of stretching to say we're contending if healthy, because it makes all of those assumptions, and then even assuming health is a giant stretch on top of it. It's assumption on top of assumption, yet the idea that we can't just stand pat is what takes stretching?

I'm all for improving. I was just poking a little at the statement that a play in team is not contenders when we were only one regular season win from the conference champs. I also can't recall the EXACT records when our first star got injured but we were WELL ahead of the Mavs.

I'm tired of the health issues. Honestly, there's a part of me that wants to trade BOTH BI and Zion because no matter what moves we make this off-season, we all know that people staying healthy is our biggest threat from chasing the title.

Garland is interesting. It seems like the consensus on him is that he peaked and what we saw this last season is what he will be for the rest of his career. But he's only 24.....and playing with Zion. I really think he could he an All-Star here. But BI should be worth more in a trade. They have the same all star clout but BI did it in a much more crowded conference and he plays a much more coveted position. We would have to throw in some picks and filler but, yeah, I only make that move with Allen included.....unless we have a sure fire lead on an equal level center. Murray being an even swap is legit. I agree with you that we'd have to throw in a good bit more than BI to land Mitchell or Young.

But I think we are contenders. So I would only make moves that are sideways or upgrades. If all I'm getting offers for is Garland by himself, Allen by himself, draft picks, or other chum I would just roll it back and roll the injury dice, again.

The one thing I'm not rolling the dice on is letting BI walk or trading him for less hoping we could draw a FA later. I've seen that Pelicans free agency dice fail more than the injury ones, believe it or not. I'm also not doing it for young assets or draft picks because Zion would demand a trade eventually if we go that route. So I would resign BI. Hold on to the assets we have for a future move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

He's a less valuable archetype of player, but in terms of pure impact on the court, he is at or above BI's level. For context, this year he was 63rd in the NBA in EPM and BI was 60th. He had a BPM of +3.0 and BI had a BPM of +1.2.

Obviously a shot creating wing is the better star archetype in 2024 than the rim runner/paint protector big man, everyone knows that, but JA is better at his job than BI is at his. Obviously BI's job is more valuable in a vacuum and if you were starting a franchise from scratch, it's more important to have the guy who can just score and pass, but that's not the situation we're in.

I'll put it this way: they're both 1x all-stars, and JA has finished top 10 in DPOY voting twice. With all the respect in the world, acting like BI is on a higher level and as though JA has never come close to his level of impact and contribution to winning is just alien to reality.

---

It is just a basic fact that a long athletic wing in today's NBA is much more valuable than an old school 5. It is really not close unless the 5 is a superstar.

Hearing that the Heat want to trade Jimmy Butler... that is interesting to me because he has the attitude and mentality that I think is missing from BI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornetsrebirth

Hearing that the Heat want to trade Jimmy Butler... that is interesting to me because he has the attitude and mentality that I think is missing from BI.

---

They want to trade him because they're tired of him always missing games.

Imagine the amount if privilege a franchise has to have to trade a player because they're tired of them missing games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

Imagine the amount if privilege a franchise has to have to trade a player because they're tired of them missing games.

---

If there’s one thing about Pat Riley, is that he doesn’t tolerate divas or me first players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

It is just a basic fact that a long athletic wing in today's NBA is much more valuable than an old school 5. It is really not close unless the 5 is a superstar.

---

Which is something I addressed in the same post you're responding to.

Yes, it's true that a shot creating wing is a more valuable player, in general terms, than a rim runner/paint protector big man. If you have a 5 star shot creating wing and a 5 star classic big, and you're starting a franchise, you take the shot creating wing every single time and never look back.

But we aren't starting a franchise, and BI is not a 5 star wing.

We have a context to fit, and the context we have needs someone with JA's skillset far more than it needs someone with BI's specific toolbox, and we know that because we have years of data of BI's precise toolbox being deployed on this team to extremely mixed results.

Plus, there's an argument that JA is better at being a classic big than BI is at being a shot creating wing. After all, JA has made top 10 in DPOY voting twice, so in his own field he's up there. BI has never even sniffed an all-NBA team or MVP voting. Both of them are 1x all-stars.

If you want to say that wings are just so much more valuable than bigs that you still prioritise BI then that's fine, it's personal valuation there, but that's a very different thing from saying that JA is ''not on BI's level and never has been'', isn't it?

There isn't a single exec that would value Ingram and JA at the same level. Let's not be ridiculous. smh. These exchanges really do go off the rails at times lol..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichols

There isn't a single exec that would value Ingram and JA at the same level. Let's not be ridiculous. smh. These exchanges really do go off the rails at times lol..

---

I've explained my basis a bunch of times, not sure why the ''single exec'' nonsense is being brought up. I've said a bunch of times that in an isolated context, of course BI would be valued higher because of his archetype being generally more valuable.

Constantly resorting to that rather than actually discussing the point at hand (that is, whether BI or JA maximises this team even if one archetype is generally considered better) is just annoying to be quite honest.

i was reading a houston article about a ingram - sengun swap....the article said that talks didnt last long because houston werent interested in the framework of the pels offer....saying it was a wise move on the rockets part as ingram is due a new contract that would pay him up to $208 million...$52mil annually...

Zion is 23
BI 26
Herb 25
Trey 24
Jose 26
Hawkins 22
Dyson 21

The only core guys past their prime are CJ and Nance. Every other starter or potential role player on this team is not in their prime. The idea that running this team back and it not being vastly improved just from growth is whack. Injuries concern me but if healthy, this team IS already a contender. That's why I'm at the mindset where if you're not trading BI plus assets for a better player, it's best just to resign him and run it back.

Look at the ages of the above players. You could run that team back for four to six more seasons and it would improve just from experience alone every season because it is so freaking young.

EXCEPT we definitely are not running Jonas back. So we have to do something to make up for his loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

Zion is 23
Injuries concern me but if healthy, this team IS already a contender. That's why I'm at the mindset where if you're not trading BI plus assets for a better player, it's best just to resign him and run it back.

Look at the ages of the above players. You could run that team back for four to six more seasons and it would improve just from experience alone every season because it is so freaking young.

---

We've already run it back for 5 years and have won zero play-off series and only two total play-off games.

How many years does it take before you cut your losses? We gotta pay BI the kind of contract that will completely hamstring our future flexibility just to get another 65 game sample size of it not working? Then what, next year we say oh well, if Trey somehow took a leap despite coming off the bench yet again, we would have won more games so let's just run it back. Everyone's still young.

Then you hit year 8 of the Zion era, still having won absolutely nothing and he leaves and you're stuck with a BI mega-contract you can't move because he's not worth it, and zero flexibility to work with because you maxed him out and had to max extension Trey and you never moved anything when you had the chance to recoup value, and that's it.

No. I have had enough of waiting and running things back and just hoping we get star turns from nowhere, outlier health from nowhere. No more relying on outliers. David Griffin's job should be on the line right now - I understand it's probably not, but it should be. Next year we need to either take a significant step up in terms of team quality or we need to gain massive flexibility.

The only obvious route to either is trading BI. Move him.

Does it happen on draft night or does this stretch out to the week before the season?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I've explained my basis a bunch of times, not sure why the ''single exec'' nonsense is being brought up. I've said a bunch of times that in an isolated context, of course BI would be valued higher because of his archetype being generally more valuable.

Constantly resorting to that rather than actually discussing the point at hand (that is, whether BI or JA maximises this team even if one archetype is generally considered better) is just annoying to be quite honest.

---

You are quite clever. What you've done is constructed the basis for an invalid, ridiculous argument that only makes sense in the reality and parameters you've created. Outside of this bubble, you won't find a single entity on earth that would make the move you're proposing. Which is why you're getting push back in this thread. A back and forth regarding JA, for Ingram is absurd. You know better. I know you say you have a bias, that's fine, but still..... You know better. lol.