Interesting take on Ingram's future

Interesting comments in article from "executives":

Quote:

---

What's at stake: Only a few teams are currently projected to have significant cap space in July. And each of them -- the Atlanta Hawks, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Pistons, Charlotte Hornets and New York Knicks -- is either in an undesirable free-agent destination, a terrible team or both.

Combine that with a lackluster free-agent class and this summer should be dominated by sign-and-trade talk, key midlevel additions, player option decisions and possibly drawn-out restricted free agent negotiations.


What league insiders expect: Most expect Andre Drummond and DeMar DeRozan to opt into the final year of their respective deals, allowing them to enter a more lucrative market in 2021.

What happens with New Orleans Pelicans All-Star Brandon Ingram in restricted free agency is more divisive. Most executives believe Ingram isn't worth a max contract, which makes his future difficult to predict.

"I wonder if [Pelicans executive vice president of basketball operations David Griffin] will hardball [Ingram] and say, 'Get an offer,'" one executive asked. "Where is he getting it from?"

Another exec went the other way, suggesting Griffin could offer Ingram a full max to ensure he couldn't take a short-term deal elsewhere, cementing him as the No. 2 option alongside Zion Williamson.

"Securing the extra year and not allowing him to sign a two-plus-one with someone is worth it," the executive said. "Is the few million less you might save really worth the extra year?"

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...nly-stable-nba

---

"Most executives believe Ingram isn't worth a max contract"

I find it amusing when writers throw out a line like that. What exactly is that based on? Did someone poll these executives? My best guess is that these "executives" would love for us to ******** off Ingram to try and separate him from the Pelicans.

I think a max contract on Ingram is a safe bet, from what I've seen of him. He's been improving steadily, appears to be hyper competitive, and is willing to play through injuries that would have had our former star in the locker room for the rest of the game.

The fact that he's becoming a pretty good catch and shoot guy from the three point line should pair pretty nicely with Zion.

He has improved in slmost every area of his game (passing, 3pt. Percentage, free throw percentage, rebounding, playmaking ability) and he is putting up all star numbers. If you judge him on this season alone, it is VERY difficult to argue against a max extension. He will almost certainly get the max

Hes going to get the max.

Now, obviously, there are different types of max, and which one he gets will decide how well we evaluate it. Shamit wrote a good article a while ago for Bourbon Street Shots, but it boils down to this: if Ingram gets the 25% max with 5% increases, the total value of that contract will be $124.7m over 4 years, with the final year paying $33.5m. That's expensive, but I think probably worth it. By comparison, if he gets the 30% max with 8% increases, that's a $201.8m contract over 5 years, with the final year paying out at $45.9m. That might be worth it, but it's much less of a sure-value deal.

The issue is that Ingram has improved in a bunch of ways, but is he worth committing $200m to? That's a different issue.

I'm all for thought exercises, but count me among those that believe that you just do right by your players. Griffin has preached raising the organization as a family. Ingram has earned a max. Could we possibly play hardball and save some money? Perhaps. Is it worth the damage it'll do the the relationship with Ingram and the team, as well as the message it sends to the rest of the locker room and league? Not a chance. Give Ingram the max at the first opportunity you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Hes going to get the max.

Now, obviously, there are different types of max, and which one he gets will decide how well we evaluate it. Shamit wrote a good article a while ago for Bourbon Street Shots, but it boils down to this: if Ingram gets the 25% max with 5% increases, the total value of that contract will be $124.7m over 4 years, with the final year paying $33.5m. That's expensive, but I think probably worth it. By comparison, if he gets the 30% max with 8% increases, that's a $201.8m contract over 5 years, with the final year paying out at $45.9m. That might be worth it, but it's much less of a sure-value deal.

The issue is that Ingram has improved in a bunch of ways, but is he worth committing $200m to? That's a different issue.

---

I believe he will get the max, but we have to get a better picture of how he will complement Zion throughout the rest of this season. He did well as the lead dog on a poor team with out much help, but how is he going to use his new bag of tricks, now that Zion is on the floor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

I believe he will get the max, but we have to get a better picture of how he will complement Zion throughout the rest of this season. He did well as the lead dog on a poor team with out much help, but how is he going to use his new bag of tricks, now that Zion is on the floor?

---

It's kind of weird because on paper Ingram complements Zion really well. He can drive, he's a great C&S guy, a solid secondary playmaker, is a lengthy wing, etc. All of this makes sense to pair with Zion.

On the other hand, he's a notably bad defender, a reactive/slow decision maker at times (not always), and can't create his own 3 point shots (29.8% this year off the dribble from 3, which is just really awful).

So essentially the question is if you think his offense is good enough to offset his defense (PIPM says it is, but only by a little bit: overall PIPM is <1 this season), and if you think he's going to improve as a shooter off the bounce. Everyone's going to have a different take on that, obviously, so it's an interesting discussion. I don't think it's as clear-cut a good decision as Ingram's biggest fans will argue, but at the same time I don't think it's just an obvious mistake either.

Again, the exact value of the max matters as well; I can see him living up to $33m. It's a big ask, but I can see it happening. I have a much harder time imagining him to be creating $46m worth of value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

It's kind of weird because on paper Ingram complements Zion really well. He can drive, he's a great C&S guy, a solid secondary playmaker, is a lengthy wing, etc. All of this makes sense to pair with Zion.

On the other hand, he's a notably bad defender, a reactive/slow decision maker at times (not always), and can't create his own 3 point shots (29.8% this year off the dribble from 3, which is just really awful).

So essentially the question is if you think his offense is good enough to offset his defense (PIPM says it is, but only by a little bit: overall PIPM is <1 this season), and if you think he's going to improve as a shooter off the bounce. Everyone's going to have a different take on that, obviously, so it's an interesting discussion. I don't think it's as clear-cut a good decision as Ingram's biggest fans will argue, but at the same time I don't think it's just an obvious mistake either.

Again, the exact value of the max matters as well; I can see him living up to $33m. It's a big ask, but I can see it happening. I have a much harder time imagining him to be creating $46m worth of value.

---

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't he only eligible for the 25% max currently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't he only eligible for the 25% max currently?

---

I believe so, but if he makes an all-NBA team this year (possible, but not guaranteed) then I think it triggers the Rose Rule and he'd become eligible for the 30% max.

With Lebron, Kawhi, AD, Tatum, Giannis, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, etc, all in the running it's probably unlikely that he makes one of the teams, but it's not technically impossible.

Edit: I forgot that Khris Middleton exists and I think Bam Adebayo is technically a forward rather than a C as well. Do they list Luka as a forward? If so, Luka too.

I think LeBron, AD, Giannis, Siakam, Kawhi, Butler (is he a forward?) are no brainers over Ingram for the All-NBA team. I think Middleton, Paul George, and Tatum are arguable. I really don't see him getting one of those 6 forward slots unless he is unbelievable down the stretch.

Ingram won't make all NBA. He's worth a 25% max. If he's healthy he'll always be tradeable on that due to the position he plays. 30% though he isn't. So good for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biasvasospasm

I think LeBron, AD, Giannis, Siakam, Kawhi, Butler (is he a forward?) are no brainers over Ingram for the All-NBA team. I think Middleton, Paul George, and Tatum are arguable. I really don't see him getting one of those 6 forward slots unless he is unbelievable down the stretch.

---

Middleton and Tatum are clear picks over Ingram imo. Both clearly superior defenders. Middleton's bordering on a 50/40/90 season on the league's best team, and Tatum is the best player on a team that's gonna win 50.

Good shout for Siakam though, I forgot about him as well.

Basically, if the league has any real thought behind it, Ingram won't be all-NBA this year. Lebron, AD, Giannis, Siakam, Kawhi, Middleton, Tatum, Butler, Bam, and arguably Paul George all have arguments over him; that's 10 names for 6 spots.

Which is good for us, because as Pelifan says, Ingram might be worth a 25% max; he's not worth a 30% max.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I believe so, but if he makes an all-NBA team this year (possible, but not guaranteed) then I think it triggers the Rose Rule and he'd become eligible for the 30% max.

With Lebron, Kawhi, AD, Tatum, Giannis, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, etc, all in the running it's probably unlikely that he makes one of the teams, but it's not technically impossible.

Edit: I forgot that Khris Middleton exists and I think Bam Adebayo is technically a forward rather than a C as well. Do they list Luka as a forward? If so, Luka too.

---

I doubt Ingram makes All-NBA, but for some reason, I thought he would have to make it twice to trigger the 30%. Maybe not, but I think we are safe in saying his most likely contract is the 25% max.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I believe so, but if he makes an all-NBA team this year (possible, but not guaranteed) then I think it triggers the Rose Rule and he'd become eligible for the 30% max.

With Lebron, Kawhi, AD, Tatum, Giannis, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, etc, all in the running it's probably unlikely that he makes one of the teams, but it's not technically impossible.

Edit: I forgot that Khris Middleton exists and I think Bam Adebayo is technically a forward rather than a C as well. Do they list Luka as a forward? If so, Luka too.

---

If he makes All-NBA then our questions will have been answered and we will need to give him the Max. Even if he comes close, then he is a max player in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

If he makes All-NBA then our questions will have been answered and we will need to give him the Max. Even if he comes close, then he is a max player in my opinion.

---

Nah I don't buy that. LaMarcus Aldridge made an All-NBA team only 2 years ago. Is he worth anything like $33+m a year? Not even close. Last season, Blake Griffin made all-NBA third team; if that was a contract year, would giving him a 5 year 30% max be even close to reasonable? Nope.

There are extenuating circumstances. You can make all-NBA and not be a max player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Nah I don't buy that. LaMarcus Aldridge made an All-NBA team only 2 years ago. Is he worth anything like $33+m a year? Not even close. Last season, Blake Griffin made all-NBA third team; if that was a contract year, would giving him a 5 year 30% max be even close to reasonable? Nope.

There are extenuating circumstances. You can make all-NBA and not be a max player.

---

Right. But we aren't talking about a random person making an All-NBA team. We're talking about Ingram. The question is whether or not you've seen enough from him already to believe he's worth the max investment. The All-NBA classification is just another point of data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHornet

Right. But we aren't talking about a random person making an All-NBA team. We're talking about Ingram. The question is whether or not you've seen enough from him already to believe he's worth the max investment. The All-NBA classification is just another point of data.

---

Sure. But the All NBA data point adds a material difference to the potential contract cost. If he makes it, the price of retaining him on a max soars. I'm open to the max he'd be eligible for without all-NBA. I'm not so keen in the 30% max the nod would open up for him. So thats a huge contractual difference, even if it doesn't mean anything specifically regarding his play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

I believe he will get the max, but we have to get a better picture of how he will complement Zion throughout the rest of this season. He did well as the lead dog on a poor team with out much help, but how is he going to use his new bag of tricks, now that Zion is on the floor?

---

This is what I'm looking at as well How does BI look with Zion Do the two compliment each other? Is this the foundation on building a winning team for years to come.This a pretty important span of games to see what happens in the off season.I'm sure some teams are going to throw a lot of money at Ingram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wecandothis

This is what I'm looking at as well How does BI look with Zion Do the two compliment each other? Is this the foundation on building a winning team for years to come.This a pretty important span of games to see what happens in the off season.I'm sure some teams are going to throw a lot of money at Ingram.

---

That's part of the point really; who are the other teams who could conceivably offer Ingram big money? There aren't many. Unless there's some clever cap work going on, the only teams that will have the raw free cash to offer a max to anyone this summer will be Atlanta, Memphis, and the Knicks. Would any of those teams throw a max at Ingram? I'm not sure if they would. The Knicks maybe, but they're probably reluctant to spend their money because they may still think they have a shot at Giannis next summer. Atlanta perhaps; Ingram fits their timeline, but there's no guarantee.

If there's absolutely no market for Ingram to get a max anywhere else, going into contract negotiations with the assumption that Ingram's guaranteed a max is kind of bidding against yourself. Of course, it's possible that the team has enough faith in him that they think he'll get even better than he is now (which is possible, for sure). And maybe they do it because they worry that Ingram would be willing to take a smaller, shorter contract elsewhere for the chance to wait for free agency to open up next year or something, and they just want to lock him down. Also possible.

But the idea that we need to definitely throw all the money at him because other teams will is a weird one to me; which teams? What money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

That's part of the point really; who are the other teams who could conceivably offer Ingram big money? There aren't many. Unless there's some clever cap work going on, the only teams that will have the raw free cash to offer a max to anyone this summer will be Atlanta, Memphis, and the Knicks. Would any of those teams throw a max at Ingram? I'm not sure if they would. The Knicks maybe, but they're probably reluctant to spend their money because they may still think they have a shot at Giannis next summer. Atlanta perhaps; Ingram fits their timeline, but there's no guarantee.

If there's absolutely no market for Ingram to get a max anywhere else, going into contract negotiations with the assumption that Ingram's guaranteed a max is kind of bidding against yourself. Of course, it's possible that the team has enough faith in him that they think he'll get even better than he is now (which is possible, for sure). And maybe they do it because they worry that Ingram would be willing to take a smaller, shorter contract elsewhere for the chance to wait for free agency to open up next year or something, and they just want to lock him down. Also possible.

But the idea that we need to definitely throw all the money at him because other teams will is a weird one to me; which teams? What money?

---

I think the Knicks are looking at Ingram pretty hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wecandothis

I think the Knicks are looking at Ingram pretty hard.

---

Maybe. I'd expect that maybe the team has some internal expectation of what the market is and maybe has some idea of what other teams have in mind. If they think the Knicks are legitimately about to throw the max at Ingram, of course they should be willing to do the same. But if the Knicks do what they've spend the last several years doing (that is, hedging their bets on the mega star to the point of missing other, potentially better and more secure deals that become available) I wouldn't be so sure that they make that offer.

Maybe they do. Again, the FO should have a better idea of this than me. I just wouldn't put it past the Knicks to either completely lowball Ingram (as they apparently did KD this summer, iirc) or to ignore him completely with Giannis in mind.

Ingram is 22 years old, and putting up all-star numbers. Improves across the board every season, giving him a max is a no-brainer. And if you play around with him expect repercussions.

Max contracts are just stupid creations. With that said we are giving Ingram a max. Between his play and him being the centerpiece of the Davis trade he's getting that deal.

With the Morey/China revenue drop, we should be saving a few million over the course of his contract anyway...good timing for us, unfortunate for BI.