| . |
 |
3 team trade with Chi and LA :
NoLa in -
MARKKANEN
HART
KUZMA
DUNN(or Valentine)
LA 4TH PICK (HUNTER)
Chi in - Ingram and Ball
LA IN - ANTHONY DAVIS
MAYBE we swap the 4th for Chi 7th(draft reddish) to germ to let go of Lauri. I like the idea of reddish with Zion. I think reddish will be better than Ingram anyways.
Brown has to be in there for me to do the Celtic tradeOriginally Posted by RodyTur10
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#3 > #4 > Robinson > Dallas Picks > Kuzma > Ball > Knox > Ingram
Lonzo has literally 0 offensive game and we already know he doesn't want to be here. That drops his value significantly.
Basketball.
That's true I wasn't thinking about that with Lonzo. They've already publicly stated they don't want to be here.
One of my biggest things moving forwards is that I don't want players if they don't want to be here.
We've had to deal with too many players who just don't want to be on the team for me to want more of them. As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't open to playing here, then I don't want you here. Have fun elsewhere.
You’re not necessarily wrong about Ingram. But if our medical team clears him, he could just as easily be the best asset in the bunch. Rumors are Ball could be flipped to Chicago for #7. Robinson would NOT fetch a top 10 lottery pick.
This comes down to how much you love a player that won’t be there at 4, and whether Ingram is cleared by our medical team. If he’s cleared, the Lakers potential offer is vastly superior to anything else that’s been speculated. Even if you’re not sold on him long term, if he’s cleared and healthy leading up to trade deadline you can trade him. And if our doctors don’t clear him, the Pels probably just take the Knicks deal or a Celtics deal.
Our new medical team get to prove their worth pretty early.
I didn't say Robinson would fetch a top 10 lottery pick. I said I value him more than the Dallas picks right now.
Ingram's medical problem is serious. I'd want him cleared by the Lakers medical team, our medical team, his own medical team, and an independent medical team appointed by the NBA. Even then I'd be sceptical. This is the kind of thing that took Bosh out of the league and he was a much better player than Ingram will probably ever be. I'm at the point where I wouldn't even risk it with him. If there's even a 1% chance that his issue has him at risk, I wouldn't trade a second round pick for him.
Why would I get him, cleared up and healthy, just to trade him? What would I get for him? Cause he's not getting a top pick either. He might get like, the 9th pick or something, but nothing special.
If you take the Lakers trade, what do you get? The 4th pick in a 3 man draft, Ball who doesn't want to be here and has 0 offense, Kuzma who plays no defense and is inefficient, Ingram who may be literally unplayable for the sake of his health and needs paying in a single year anyway, and maybe Hart who is a decent backup PG.
It's a bad deal imo. I've thought it was a bad deal since February and nothing I've seen has changed my mind. In fact, the emergence of Robinson as a legitimately talented prospect has made the LA deal even worse.
We can’t afford to give Ingram the contract he will ask for after this season. If we really are tying to pull a Dell Demps 2.0, it would be because we paid Ingram and he had reoccurring blood clots. The Knicks players are under contract longer and will help us tank naturally as well. It will also give us more time to build a core through free agency. Ingram is not really much of an asset at this point to me.
Agreeing btw. Really not keen on the Lakers deal
I don't even think we'd need to tank. Firstly, this draft showed that tanking is no longer a guarantee of a high pick (although it does increase chances, sure). Secondly, I think with a team like Payton/Jrue/RJ/Zion/Robinson, plus the Dallas picks in reserve, you don't need to keep tanking for your own pick. You can just play to win as many games as you win, probably still not win more than 35 games because everyone is so young, but get valuable experience playing hard and still end up with a top 10 pick in the draft.
No need to lose on purpose if you have a team early enough in development that they'll lose a bunch anyway. Just play them hard, if they win they win and get them valuable experience training to win, rather than to lose.
Totally agreed though. You get Ingram and pay him something like 4 years $60m next season and then he ends up being either a meh player or an injury liability... you just hurt yourself real bad for nothing.
When I say tank naturally, I mean bring in players that aren’t as far along as Ingram and Kuzma (both in their contract and their careers) and let them grow. We don’t have to lose games intentionally or whatever. Just bring in young guys on cheap deals and give yourself flexibility in free agency. We won’t have flexibility if we take in Ingram and Kuzma. Same if we take in Tatum and Brown to be fair.
Ah I see. Misunderstanding there. For me, I wouldn't call that tanking. I'd just call it being a young team that isn't very good yet.
I get being risk averse, but this is either silliness or hyperbole.
I wouldn’t want to lose intentionally after we lucked out with Zion. We need to build a winning culture ASAP. We have tanked (sucked but I’m trying to save Gentry the embarrassment) enough the last 7 years.
Maybe a bit hyperbolic, but I’d hesitate to give him a contract, and if that’s the case, I don’t really consider him an asset.
Yeah, it was a little bit of hyperbole. But my point was that essentially he's going to be up for getting paid in a year's time. If the risk of his medical problems would be enough to make me afraid to pay him that money (which will probably be in the double digit millions), then I don't see the point in giving stuff up now to get him because he's not a positive asset.
Alternatively...
He could be like one of the millions of people for whom a blood clot is something that doesn’t recur. Just like how the fear around Curry’s ankle issues led to the Warriors having Curry on a great contract, we could sign Ingram to a 2nd contract that is a relative bargain if he remains healthy. His next contract is only going to be significant if he’s healthy, plays well, and another team’s doctors also have a lot of confidence that he will remain healthy. He’ll be a RESTRICTED free agent.
Completely disagree. We've seen enough players be given big contracts on little more than hope to assume that just cause someone will inevitably offer big money to Ingram he's totally fine. Joakim Noah got paid $72m by the Knicks who just assumed he'd be good like he used to be, and he was catastrophically bad. Teams give bad contracts. We shouldn't be eager to be one of them, not after the Solo Hill disaster.
The fear around Curry's ankle is different for two major reasons. The first is that it's an ankle injury, which is of course risky and could harm his career, but isn't at risk of him potentially dropping dead on the court like recurring blood clots would be - that's the risk that's kept Bosh out of the league.
The second reason it's different is that before getting that contract, Curry had actually been good. He wasn't the MVP calibre player he is today, but he had averaged basically 18 points and 6 assists per game in the three years leading up to that deal, on 47% from the floor and 44% from three. He had posted a positive net rating across that time period, had averaged a higher than league average PER in each season, and at least 1.0 VORP in each of those years too. He wasn't elite, but he was at least good. Ingram has not been good in his first three years: he's shooting 32.9% from deep so far in his career, averaging a little over 13 points per game, negative net ratings in every year, sub-league average PERs every year, is averaging a -1.0 VORP for his first three seasons and is also underperforming in terms of win shares to the point that in his rookie year, he averaged negative WS/48.
Curry had an issue which was worrying, but not life-threatening, and he was a good player. Ingram's medical issue poses a threat, however small, to his life, and he sucks anyway. It's not the same.
Not comparable at all. If a regular person gets another clot, they take thinners and go on with their life. His career would be over. I am thinking you are may be a closet Lakers fan with some of your comments. You argued hard at the deadline that the Pelicans should have taken the Lakers offer. Now, you are saying the Lakers have a much better offer. To say Wagner/Hart are the same as Robinson is shocking. Robinson has already shown more than those two combined. There also is a huge difference between #3 and #4 in this draft as the top talent drops off after #3.
This.
Plus he'll only be 1 year removed from the blood clot and either will have played well enough that someone offers him a big contract that we have to match or worry about losing an asset in the AD trade or he players bad / has another blood clot and we will have lost an asset from the AD trade.
This is of course completely ignoring the injury concerns with Lonzo, which should be considered extremely high at this point.
I just can't see the value there with the Lakers. The only pieces I like are the #4 and even if he's in efficient Kuzma. Ball and Ingram are huge red flags.
So, let's just be realistic.
Knicks assets: #3 pick, DSJ, Mitchell Robinson, Kevin Knox, 2x Dallas picks, extra Knicks picks
Celtics assets: #14, #20, #22, 2021 Memphis pick, Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown, Marcus Smart
Lakers assets: #4 pick, Ingram*, Lonzo Ball**, Kyle Kuzma***, Josh Hart
*Incredible injury risk, career could be over
** Repeated injury risk, has 0 offensive game, has already said he doesn't want to be here
*** Inefficient and doesn't play defense.
Lakers offer is garbage.
This, that Mavericks pick is gold, will be top 2 next year imo
Btw the people who keep saying the lakers deal is the best, it is literally a garbage deal. I want you to imagine like the spurs trying to trade Duncan and a team offered the lakers deal lolololol, I have a feeling a team comes out of NOWHERE and offers us a stud, something like a premier wing and a promising big man.
This is silly.
I was literally the 1st person here touting the Knicks deals because the Celtics deal could fall apart and I’d be happy if their pick was anywhere in the top 3. I was pumping up Knox and Robinson in January!!
All I’ve consistently said about the Lakers deal is that y’all seriously undervalue it. Given the information I know now, I’d still rank the Lakers deal 3rd. All I’m saying is that if David Griffin and his team think they can get the guy they want at 4 (maybe it’s Garland or Culver), Lonzo can be traded to Chicago for 7, and the medical staff clears Ingram... that’s the best deal on the board if they’re also throwing in Hart, Kuzma, Wagner AND possibly any future pick.
I think it’s a 2021 pick, not next years. And I don’t see that organization with a foundation of Luka and Porzingis being worse than they were this year and being anywhere near top 2.
Forgot about luka
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote