2024 Offseason Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

On paper, purely going on the numbers, Trae is both the better player and the better fit. His three point shooting is more voluminous, he takes them from further out, he's a bigger pullup threat, and as a playmaker while he's limited somewhat by his height, there are only a handful of better pure passers in the NBA.

The only issues I think exist with Trae are in terms of personality. He is reportedly not very popular among other players and other players such as John Collins have reportedly been very unhappy with how much of a ball hog he can be.

Whether those are fair ways to characterise him, I'm not sure. His usage rate has gone down somewhat since they acquired Dejounte, so maybe he's more willing to play off ball if there's another person who can shoulder that task and he just didn't believe in John Collins. I don't know. My concern would be that he would be on ball so much he would prevent Zion from ever being on ball, which is necessary if you want to max out Zion's impact and because Zion is a much taller player and a much more dangerous finisher at the rim, he's probably got the more impactful gravity.

If you're convinced you can get Trae Young to buy into playing off ball at least a little bit (Drop his usage from 30% to 25%, for example) then I probably take him over Dejounte and just deal with the defensive problem.

---

CJ would also have to go out if bringing in Young. That backcourt would be a dumpster fire defensively. Basically a poor man's Portland backcourt without the high end play of Dame. Willie would probably lose his mind with those 2 in at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

CJ would also have to go out if bringing in Young. That backcourt would be a dumpster fire defensively. Basically a poor man's Portland backcourt without the high end play of Dame. Willie would probably lose his mind with those 2 in at the same time.

---

I actually find it difficult to care less about what Willie would want or like at this point. He's had his way for 3 years and we've got nothing to show for it.

In any case, since we're playing fantasy GM in this case I'd have CJ coming off the bench to start the season and I'd be searching for possibilities of moving him by the all-star break.

But at this point we've tried WG's ''all defense all the time'' strategy and it's won us absolutely nothing tangible. More wins each season is fine, but we've won zero playoff series in the last 5 years, and been in the play-in consistently. Top 10 defense season after season and it's done nothing.

Well done, we held the Thunder to 10 points below their regular season ORtg. We also had the worst playoff offense of any team in the last 8 years, couldn't even average 90 points a game, and got swept. Fat lot of good that defense did us: turns out, even if you can hold your opponent to 10 points a game that doesn't mean anything if you can't hit 11.

As I said before a lot of interesting opportunities will arise this off-season. It has just been reported that Paul George has declined multiple below max extension offers from the Clipps.

Nor would I argue Young is better than Ingram.. There's a reason why Murray seems annoyed being on the court with him. He has a high turnover ratio, and a low FG%. Couple that with bad defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichols

Nor would I argue Young is better than Ingram.. There's a reason why Murray seems annoyed being on the court with him. He has a high turnover ratio, and a low FG%. Couple that with bad defense.

---

Trae Young has posted a higher TS% than Brandon Ingram in 4 of the last 5 seasons.
Trae Young has posted a higher BPM than Brandon Ingram's career high BPM in every year of his career other than his rookie season.
Trae Young has posted a higher STL% than Brandon Ingram in 4 of the last 5 seasons.
Trae Young has posted a higher EPM than BI this year (numbers are not publicly available for past seasons).
Trae Young has made 3 allstar teams and an All NBA team in 5 seasons. BI has made one allstar team in 8.

Trae Young has led a team to the conference finals, BI has never won a single playoff series in his career.

Trae is also younger and, somehow despite having a huge contract, will be cheaper than BI through the rest of his contract.

And it's not just about the numbers on paper, though the numbers on paper would tend to imply that Trae is the better player than Ingram. It's also about the fit. BI doesn't take 3s and has to be forced into it, Trae does. BI is not a real primary creator, Trae is. BI cannot create advantages against set defenses with any consistency, Trae can. BI's skillset doesn't fit well with Zion's, Trae's does.

Trae's turnover ratio isn't actually even that bad either when you consider his assist numbers. He averages 5.8 turnovers per 100 over his career. BI averages 3.7. But Trae also averages 13.3 assists per 100 over his career, and BI only gets to 6.2.

So that's a 2.29 A/TO for Trae, 1.68 A/TO for BI. Trae's is actually much better and he does it on a far higher creation burden.

I'm not claiming that Trae is a flawless player. His defense is bad, and I even agree with you that there are at least rumours of some locker room issues. Maybe those are true, maybe they're not - maybe they'd change with a change in scenery, maybe not. Maybe Willie Green's buddy-buddy coaching style would help there, maybe it wouldn't. There are risks in acquiring Trae. But let's not act like he and BI are the same tier of player. They're not. Trae's a level up from him.

So, BI + Herb Jones + 4 1sts can't net Booker still? :hihi:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhyHornetsWhy

So, BI + Herb Jones + 4 1sts can't net Booker still? :hihi:

---

That probably could, if he was on the market. Question is, why would you want to do that?

Like, Booker's good but Herb and FOUR whole firsts? Jesus, that's approaching a top 10 player haul, once salaries are matched, and Booker isn't that level of guy.

You start putting together packages like that when Embiid or Giannis want out :hihi:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Trae Young has posted a higher TS% than Brandon Ingram in 4 of the last 5 seasons.
Trae Young has posted a higher BPM than Brandon Ingram's career high BPM in every year of his career other than his rookie season.
Trae Young has posted a higher STL% than Brandon Ingram in 4 of the last 5 seasons.
Trae Young has posted a higher EPM than BI this year (numbers are not publicly available for past seasons).
Trae Young has made 3 allstar teams and an All NBA team in 5 seasons. BI has made one allstar team in 8.

Trae Young has led a team to the conference finals, BI has never won a single playoff series in his career.

Trae is also younger and, somehow despite having a huge contract, will be cheaper than BI through the rest of his contract.

And it's not just about the numbers on paper, though the numbers on paper would tend to imply that Trae is the better player than Ingram. It's also about the fit. BI doesn't take 3s and has to be forced into it, Trae does. BI is not a real primary creator, Trae is. BI cannot create advantages against set defenses with any consistency, Trae can. BI's skillset doesn't fit well with Zion's, Trae's does.

Trae's turnover ratio isn't actually even that bad either when you consider his assist numbers. He averages 5.8 turnovers per 100 over his career. BI averages 3.7. But Trae also averages 13.3 assists per 100 over his career, and BI only gets to 6.2.

So that's a 2.29 A/TO for Trae, 1.68 A/TO for BI. Trae's is actually much better and he does it on a far higher creation burden.

I'm not claiming that Trae is a flawless player. His defense is bad, and I even agree with you that there are at least rumours of some locker room issues. Maybe those are true, maybe they're not - maybe they'd change with a change in scenery, maybe not. Maybe Willie Green's buddy-buddy coaching style would help there, maybe it wouldn't. There are risks in acquiring Trae. But let's not act like he and BI are the same tier of player. They're not. Trae's a level up from him.

---

Sometimes a very simple reality get's lost in your analysis. It happened when Ingram first got here, and you had to retract a lot of what you said about him because you were basing your critiques on analytics.

He averages a 43% FG rate.. Not good. You can muddle that by going to EFP. But 43% is bad. He's a point that averages a little over 4 turnovers a game. Also very bad. And again, you couple this with really bad defense. The only argument you have is "fit" possibly, since he does shoot pretty well from 3, and does a pretty good job of running picks with bigs.

No, he isn't in a higher tier than Ingram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichols

Sometimes a very simple reality get's lost in your analysis. It happened when Ingram first got here, and you had to retract a lot of what you said about him because you were basing your critiques on analytics.

He averages a 43% FG rate.. Not good. You can muddle that by going to EFP. But 43% is bad. He's a point that averages a little over 4 turnovers a game. Also very bad. And again, you couple this with really bad defense. The only argument you have is "fit" possibly, since he does shoot pretty well from 3, and does a pretty good job of running picks with bigs.

No, he isn't in a higher tier than Ingram.

---

FG% is such a terrible standalone measure of efficiency it's baffling, the fact that you have to rely on it rather than looking at any of the numbers that incorporate the value of threes or include FTs is pretty funny.

And YOU are the one who brought up AS/TO stuff. It's not my fault that you used it to bag on Trae when Trae's is much better than Brandon's, that's your fault for not checking before you used it to try and discredit him.

And I also like how you talk about 'fit' as though it's some bizarre fantasy concept rather than a baseline element of teambuilding.

My bad for forgetting why talking to you about Ingram is a waste of time. You'll claim no bias and then play defense for Ingram like you're his own personal Patrick Beverley - including the fouls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

And also, Murray is crippled and Denver lost half their bench in the last year.

Also, the Wolves have one of the best defenses of all time. Betting on developing a top 5 defense EVER as an excuse to avoid building even a semi-functioning offense is hilarious. Like going to a boxing coach and saying ''nah, I don't need to learn a jab, I'll just be Pernell Whittaker instead, seems easier''.

---

maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I don't think this team has a hope of having the kind of offense you want regardless of personnel or coach. Herb can be the cornerstone of a defense that good. i'm not convinced swapping out Ingram/McCollum for a lot of the names I've seen floating around gets this team to a contender level offense.

Just throw defense and shooting at this team and hope it works. Hope for internal development and increased opportunity to make offensive creators. Don't throw picks at bandaids. I really think that's the only realistic path forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

He's progressed a bit, he's not an elite defender but as I outlined, you don't have to be an elite defender. We have managed a top 10 defense three years in a row with JV as our centre - he's not an elite defender either, he's barely passable (good in some schemes, awful in others) but because we have the wing talent to prevent massive dribble-penetration anyway, and we have good communication from the wings (Herb is the driving force here) it's fine. WG has so many problems but he has proven he can field a good defense pretty much regardless of who else is on the court.

Defense is not the problem. Defense has never been this team's problem. Every year under WG we put out a good defense. The defense is fine. We do not need to worry about the defense.

It's the offense and the rebounding which are the concerns. It's the offense that keeps failing us.

---

My point is that the reason defense is not the problem is that, as you allude to elsewhere in this thread, WG prioritizes defense over offense/rebounding in his rotations and as such won't give playing time to a rookie or poor defending big (Duren?). It's not that we have a great defense that can withstand the addition of a bad defender (though that may be true), it's that if he's given options, WG will always choose defense over offense. That's why I said a lot will rest on the front office not giving him decent alternatives.

So, after reading through this thread it looks like our only option is to get PG13 on this team. I don't have any idea how, since we would probably need to kidnap him. But, make it happen Griff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

So, after reading through this thread it looks like our only option is to get PG13 on this team. I don't have any idea how, since we would probably need to kidnap him. But, make it happen Griff.

---

How on earth is that the conclusion lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ml wave

My point is that the reason defense is not the problem is that, as you allude to elsewhere in this thread, WG prioritizes defense over offense/rebounding in his rotations and as such won't give playing time to a rookie or poor defending big (Duren?). It's not that we have a great defense that can withstand the addition of a bad defender (though that may be true), it's that if he's given options, WG will always choose defense over offense. That's why I said a lot will rest on the front office not giving him decent alternatives.

---

I quote myself from the last page of this thread

Quote:

---

Just don't give him any players who are only defense. Don't have the guys on the roster to allow him. Build an offensive roster and force him to play offensive guys and build a defense through it, rather than the reverse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

So, after reading through this thread it looks like our only option is to get PG13 on this team. I don't have any idea how, since we would probably need to kidnap him. But, make it happen Griff.

---

https://external-content.duckduckgo....452&ipo=images

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

FG% is such a terrible standalone measure of efficiency it's baffling, the fact that you have to rely on it rather than looking at any of the numbers that incorporate the value of threes or include FTs is pretty funny.

And YOU are the one who brought up AS/TO stuff. It's not my fault that you used it to bag on Trae when Trae's is much better than Brandon's, that's your fault for not checking before you used it to try and discredit him.

And I also like how you talk about 'fit' as though it's some bizarre fantasy concept rather than a baseline element of teambuilding.

My bad for forgetting why talking to you about Ingram is a waste of time. You'll claim no bias and then play defense for Ingram like you're his own personal Patrick Beverley - including the fouls.

---

Did you not see the part where I emphasized that Trae is a "point guard".. A point with a high turnover ratio.. Do you not get that that's an issue?? Surely you do. Yes, maybe it is a waste of time talking to you about anything that relates to Ingram. You're good at attempting to hide your bias behind cherry picked data. I checked the numbers buddy.. Try checking your bias.

Murray over Ingram.. fine. Debatable, I suppose. Trae however isn't. Your only argument for him over Ingram is "fit", on offense. The last thing I'd want on my team with Zion is a point that shoots 43% from the field, while having a high turnover ratio, while also being really bad on defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

So, after reading through this thread it looks like our only option is to get PG13 on this team. I don't have any idea how, since we would probably need to kidnap him. But, make it happen Griff.

---

To be clear, I wasn't advocating for PG, though he wouldn't be a bad option. I'm just saying there are going to be players of that type available because of how things are playing out in the playoffs. So maybe something presents itself that we can't anticipate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichols

Did you not see the part where I emphasized that Trae is a "point guard".. A point with a high turnover ratio.. Do you not get that that's an issue?? Surely you do. Yes, maybe it is a waste of time talking to you about anything that relates to Ingram. You're good at attempting to hide your bias behind cherry picked data. I checked the numbers buddy.. Try checking your bias.

Murray over Ingram.. fine. Debatable, I suppose. Trae however isn't. Your only argument for him over Ingram is "fit", on offense. The last thing I'd want on my team with Zion is a point that shoots 43% from the field, while having a high turnover ratio, while also being really bad on defense.

---

You cannot get mad at someone for ''cherry picking'' data, when they only bring that data up because YOU mentioned it. You were the only one who mentioned A/TO. Now you're throwing your toys out of the pram because BI's is worse than Trae's. Saying that Trae's is worse because of his position is ridiculous, A/TO is a ratio, it has nothing to do with position because it factors in quantity and responsibility. Trae's is better than BI's regardless of what position they play - and again, you can't get mad at it being used because you are the one who brought it up. If you didn't think it was relevant, why did you mention it?

Yes, Trae turns it over more than BI. He also assists FAR more than BI, and in the end, for every turnover he assists more than twice, which is better than the payoff for BI's turnovers. Sorry that isn't convenient for you, it's not my fault you chose to bring up a stat that doesn't help your point. 2:1 isn't even a particularly bad ratio, obviously it's not elite but prime CP3 isn't on the market unfortunately.

Again, you talk about fit like it's some nebulous concept that I just invented rather than a fundamental principle of teambuilding.

And again, don't really care too much about FG% in a vacuum because it ignores context. Trae takes a higher rate of 3s so his %age will trend lower, and he gets to the FT line far more often. That's why his TS% (a stat which actually takes those things into account) shows him up as consistently more efficient: that is to say, a scoring possession from Trae produces more points per attempt than for BI. I could hardly care less about the raw FG%.

You keep saying ''check your bias'' when I have pointed out multiple times that my opinions on BI are open, unconcealed, and known to all. You're the one who keeps claiming to just be a neutral observer while you cannot stop playing defense for BI as if he was your sibling or something. You have an enormous bias that you won't even acknowledge. It's ridiculous.

In fairness to you, I already figured this out discussing Ingram with you in the past so it's my fault replying to you. I should have known that it was a waste of my time, and learned my lesson. My bad for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichols

Did you not see the part where I emphasized that Trae is a "point guard".. A point with a high turnover ratio.. Do you not get that that's an issue?? Surely you do. Yes, maybe it is a waste of time talking to you about anything that relates to Ingram. You're good at attempting to hide your bias behind cherry picked data. I checked the numbers buddy.. Try checking your bias.

Murray over Ingram.. fine. Debatable, I suppose. Trae however isn't. Your only argument for him over Ingram is "fit", on offense. The last thing I'd want on my team with Zion is a point that shoots 43% from the field, while having a high turnover ratio, while also being really bad on defense.

---

It's quite obvious you both have strong opinions on BI . i think what you fail to take into consideration is BI's lack of willingness to alter his game 1st to fit the modern NBA. 2nd to change to fit better with Z ( taking more 3's ) 3, to conform to what WG says he wants in an offense even though WG is hypocritical at times.CJ , Herb and even Naji changed their game to fit better with Z, Why can't BI? All analytics aside it's more about BI's just wanting to do what he WANTS to do and almost refusal to alter his game that is the issue. Unless this season and especially the play-in /playoffs really humbled him into having an epiphany and some serious soul searching I don't see him changing. Rather than paying him the max ( which I'm sure he'll want to stay here ) and finding out all we have is that selfish BI that has been trending I think it's just better to move on and get the best possible trade to build around Z since his needle is moving forward

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrnno

It's quite obvious you both have strong opinions on BI . i think what you fail to take into consideration is BI's lack of willingness to alter his game 1st to fit the modern NBA. 2nd to change to fit better with Z ( taking more 3's ) 3, to conform to what WG says he wants in an offense even though WG is hypocritical at times.CJ , Herb and even Naji changed their game to fit better with Z, Why can't BI? All analytics aside it's more about BI's just wanting to do what he WANTS to do and almost refusal to alter his game that is the issue. Unless this season and especially the play-in /playoffs really humbled him into having an epiphany and some serious soul searching I don't see him changing. Rather than paying him the max ( which I'm sure he'll want to stay here ) and finding out all we have is that selfish BI that has been trending I think it's just better to move on and get the best possible trade to build around Z since his needle is moving forward

---

Nope.. I've considered his inability to adjust. I've talked about how terrible his shot profile is. I've talked about how he sulks and won't do anything to help his team win if his shot isn't falling. He has major flaws in the way he plays basketball. Which is why I totally get why so many in here want him gone. And if what's being rumored is true, there's even more reason to want him gone. If he's ignoring the coach, and others regarding changing his propensity to take highly contested mid-range shots.

I just think sometimes the commentary gets a bit silly at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichols

Nope.. I've considered his inability to adjust. I've talked about how terrible his shot profile is. I've talked about how he sulks and won't do anything to help his team win if his shot isn't falling. He has major flaws in the way he plays basketball. Which is why I totally get why so many in here want him gone. And if what's being rumored is true, there's even more reason to want him gone. If he's ignoring the coach, and others regarding changing his propensity to take highly contested mid-range shots.

I just think sometimes the commentary gets a bit silly at times.

---

Then I can see no real reason to advocate him remaining with the team. You just mentioned way more negatives than positive reasons to keep him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

You cannot get mad at someone for ''cherry picking'' data, when they only bring that data up because YOU mentioned it. You were the only one who mentioned A/TO. Now you're throwing your toys out of the pram because BI's is worse than Trae's. Saying that Trae's is worse because of his position is ridiculous, A/TO is a ratio, it has nothing to do with position because it factors in quantity and responsibility. Trae's is better than BI's regardless of what position they play - and again, you can't get mad at it being used because you are the one who brought it up. If you didn't think it was relevant, why did you mention it?

Yes, Trae turns it over more than BI. He also assists FAR more than BI, and in the end, for every turnover he assists more than twice, which is better than the payoff for BI's turnovers. Sorry that isn't convenient for you, it's not my fault you chose to bring up a stat that doesn't help your point. 2:1 isn't even a particularly bad ratio, obviously it's not elite but prime CP3 isn't on the market unfortunately.

Again, you talk about fit like it's some nebulous concept that I just invented rather than a fundamental principle of teambuilding.

And again, don't really care too much about FG% in a vacuum because it ignores context. Trae takes a higher rate of 3s so his %age will trend lower, and he gets to the FT line far more often. That's why his TS% (a stat which actually takes those things into account) shows him up as consistently more efficient: that is to say, a scoring possession from Trae produces more points per attempt than for BI. I could hardly care less about the raw FG%.

You keep saying ''check your bias'' when I have pointed out multiple times that my opinions on BI are open, unconcealed, and known to all. You're the one who keeps claiming to just be a neutral observer while you cannot stop playing defense for BI as if he was your sibling or something. You have an enormous bias that you won't even acknowledge. It's ridiculous.

In fairness to you, I already figured this out discussing Ingram with you in the past so it's my fault replying to you. I should have known that it was a waste of my time, and learned my lesson. My bad for that.

---

Okay in the future just ignore my comments and posts.. But I'll continue to post when I feel the need to.

In regards to the data.. I suppose we can agree to disagree. I brought up turnover ratio because he's a pointguard. I don't want a pointguard with a high turnover ratio. This isn't about his ratio vs Ingram's. It's about him being a point, with that ratio. I don't like his FG% because when his 3 isn't falling his game doesn't look so good.

Regarding fit. You may have misunderstood my sentiments. I stated that it's the only argument, because it might be a valid argument. I was conceding that point to you. Trae might work because of fit. There was nothing derogatory intended when I said that. Trae on the floor with Murphy, while Zion is collapsing the defense in the interior could present quite the dilemma for defenses.

Defense could be a major issue in the west, especially during the playoffs. It's not just about him not being able to defend the guy in front of him, it could possibly put our key players in foul trouble trying cover his man when he gets beat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrnno

Then I can see no real reason to advocate him remaining with the team. You just mentioned way more negatives than positive reasons to keep him

---

And I totally get why you'd feel that way. I wasn't aware that he's been encouraged, and implored to change his shot profile, and he's refusing to do so. I'm assuming that what's being said in this forum is true. So, if he can't be coached, you have to move him. I've just not known him to be uncoachable.

I wouldn't rule out a few guys teaming up, and deciding to come to NO. It happened with the Clipps, and the Nets.. Zion would be the draw, in addition to this team being on the brink of making a major breakthrough. The only impediment to that scenario is ownership. Pelicanidae has informed me that ownership most likely won't pay for a championship squad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichols

And I totally get why you'd feel that way. I wasn't aware that he's been encouraged, and implored to change his shot profile, and he's refusing to do so. I'm assuming that what's being said in this forum is true. So, if he can't be coached, you have to move him. I've just not known him to be uncoachable.

---

That's not obvious to you?? BI has said many times " I want someone to be hard on me, To push me to be the best I can be" But his actions say otherwise .He basically got SVG fired for doing just that. Kerr Benched him on team USA for doing just what he wanted to do. In WG's presser in the playoffs basically said " Man Up , this is the playoffs. How can you not see that he is just refusing to take 3's. UNCONTESTED 3's and dribbling closer to the defender to take a contested 2