.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 79

Thread: Brandon Ingram Contract Extension

  1. #26
    Charter Member PELICANSFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kenner, LA
    Posts
    20,854
    When he was coming out in the draft, I seem to recall a lot of analysts raving about his BB IQ.

  2. #27
    If Andrew Wiggins got 5/147, there is no way in hell BI would resign now for anything I would be willing to pay him. The highest I would go is around what Bojan got from the Jazz, I think it was 4/73.

  3. #28
    It seems NBA GM’s are habitual offenders of the sunk cost fallacy.

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Nichols View Post
    Some members of Lakersground.net of which I am a member tried to make the same argument about AD that Pelicandae made of Ingram.. I don't agree with relying heavily on win outcomes when assessing individual talent. Effecting the outcome of a game on an individual level involves a lot of variables that are out of your control as an individual.
    There are a bunch of differences between AD and Ingram that mean that this kind of speculation isn't at all equivalent.

    For a start, AD has been to the playoffs. He's even been to the second round. Ingram has never sniffed the playoffs. Now, it's true that Ingram has only been in the NBA for 3 years, and that it took AD a little while to make his first playoffs too, so that's an unfair judgement. I'd disagree, but why would I disagree?

    It's simple. The individual impact metrics are far more kind to AD than they are to Ingram. And yes, individual impact metrics are quite good at this point.

    Here's an example. All-in-one metrics are never perfect, and each different one has a different flaw, but they are generally not too bad. This is particularly true if you use several: if you check PIPM, RPM, BPM, and PER, and they all tell you the same thing, it's not very likely that they're all wrong, especially because they cover different aspects of the game slightly differently. PIPM isn't publically available as far back as AD's third year, so that won't be listed below. So how does Ingram's third year compare to AD's in terms of the advanced statistics?

    AD's 3rd season (age 21): +22 net rating, .274 WS/48, 7.1 BPM, 5.7 VORP, 30.8 PER, 59.1 TS%, 8.18 RPM (4th in NBA)
    Ingram's 3rd (aged 21): -8 net rating, 0.055 WS/48, -2.8 BPM, -0.3 VORP, 13.4 PER, 55.5 TS%, -1.77 RPM (317th in NBA)

    So you see why it might be natural to question Ingram, while it's much more contrived to question AD's ability? At Ingram's age, even on a relatively poor team (we made the playoffs that year, but it was literally a tie-breaker situation, we were not comfortably in there) AD was vastly outperforming him in every advanced metric we have. Just smoking him. Turning Ingram into sludge on the concrete. So if you look at AD's performance in that year, you can question small things, sure, no player is perfect, but it's obvious that you're actively striving to stir up dissent if you actually argue that he was bad, or ineffective, or dumb, or whatever.

    Ingram has no such safety net. His advanced metrics are trash. All he has is his raw box score stats (which aren't that great anyway), a few flashes of higher level play, and a whole lot of hope. There's no contrivance here: you had better be asking questions about what you can and can't expect from him, because it's not like he's set out a track record of excellence.

    TL;DR
    1) Questioning AD is fair, but they can't really be huge questions because his output is All-NBA, regardless of how much he's winning
    2) Questioning Ingram is fair too, and those really can be huge questions because his output is All-Garbage, and his win/loss ratio isn't really the point.
    3) Ingram's tall, has a good wingspan, has good isolation scoring, has solid one on one defense. Therefore those questions that we have about him have to address other things: team defense, playing within a system, versatility on offense, and yes, IQ.
    Paying attention to the next draft too early.

    Tyrese Maxey/Isaac Okoro/Oscar Tshiebwe endorser.

  5. #30
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    Questioning AD's ability to win is simply absurd. Some tried to make the argument because of the Pel's inability to do anything significant for the greater part of his career. (Even BSPN pundits eluded to this). Crappy team, incompetent coaching staff, coupled with sub-par development from leadership positions.. coupled with playing out of position, and learning how to do so on the fly is why the analytics paint a not so rosy narrative on Ingram. I do appreciate the effort you put into your response but I don't see why anyone would compare Ingram to AD, and draw any sort of conclusions based on those comparisons. There aren't too many guys you can compare to him that would measure up. AD is generational, we're hoping Ingram is a perennial All-Star. I would go so far as to say AD might possibly prove he's the best player in the league if he can stay healthy. Comparing these two is simply not fair.

    The reason why I took issue with the IQ commentary is because if you've watched him play, you would know there is no issue there. In many cases he was directing his teammates on the court, pointing where they should go, and orchestrating. You could make the argument that it took him a while to acclimate to doing so, but once he did he played some of his best basketball at point.

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Nichols View Post
    Questioning AD's ability to win is simply absurd. Some tried to make the argument because of the Pel's inability to do anything significant for the greater part of his career. (Even BSPN pundits eluded to this). Crappy team, incompetent coaching staff, coupled with sub-par development from leadership positions.. coupled with playing out of position, and learning how to do so on the fly is why the analytics paint a not so rosy narrative on Ingram. I do appreciate the effort you put into your response but I don't see why anyone would compare Ingram to AD, and draw any sort of conclusions based on those comparisons. There aren't too many guys you can compare to him that would measure up. AD is generational, we're hoping Ingram is a perennial All-Star. I would go so far as to say AD might possibly prove he's the best player in the league if he can stay healthy. Comparing these two is simply not fair.

    The reason why I took issue with the IQ commentary is because if you've watched him play, you would know there is no issue there. In many cases he was directing his teammates on the court, pointing where they should go, and orchestrating. You could make the argument that it took him a while to acclimate to doing so, but once he did he played some of his best basketball at point.
    I compared him to AD because in the comment I was responding to, you said that ''Some members of Lakersground.net of which I am a member tried to make the same argument about AD that Pelicandae made of Ingram.'', and it seemed to be that you were implying that the doubts around Ingram are as absurd as the doubts the Lakersground people had about AD. I was explaining why those doubts are silly when it comes to AD on the one hand, and very reasonable when it comes to Ingram on the other.

    Ingram has weaknesses that can be IQ related. This does not mean they are IQ related. Since we have yet to see him in a positive situation, we can't know whether those weaknesses are IQ related, effort related, or simply a product of coaching/team construction. So it's fair to look at those weaknesses, which can be the product of a poor/incomplete BBIQ, and ask ''is that what we are seeing here?''.

    I'd generally avoid questioning how much other people have seen any given player actually play when it comes to something so subjective. Obviously if someone said ''Ingram shoots 58% from 3'', then you can say that's nonsense and they don't know what they're talking about, but IQ isn't quantifiable in the same way. If someone makes a value-judgement with some confidence, I'd argue that it's better to just engage that statement rather than claim that they haven't done the pre-requisite research, at least until their claim crumbles into incoherence.

    It's kind of insulting to do otherwise, because it implies a kind of dishonesty; it says ''you are speaking as though you are qualified, when you aren't, which is deceptive; it's close to lying''. You don't know how much Ingram anyone has watched until they tell you. It's unfair to just assume that they're ignorant on the topic and that you have the Real Truth that they will inevitably reach too.

  7. #32
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    I can say that you haven't watched enough based on the fact that you've actually acknowledged as much in prior conversations. So to suggest that my statement could be construed as me intimating that someone is being dishonest doesn't add up. In addition, many of the posters I've read posts from in this forum also acknowledged that they weren't avid Laker game watchers. I wouldn't make any presumptions based on the mere fact that you're not a fan of whatever team we're discussing. I said what I said based on what has been communicated here on other occasions.

    You referenced his lack of rebounding, there are plenty of low IQ players that rebound well. There are a myriad of reasons as to why one may not rebound as well as it is perceived that they should. IQ would be way down the line of why, for me personally.

    Rational minds can differ, but I disagree that some of the doubts you have are reasonable. It would be apparent that he doesn't have any issues with his IQ if you watched enough of him. It's not something anyone questions who has followed him as a Laker.
    Last edited by Nichols; 09-17-2019 at 05:05 AM.

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Nichols View Post
    I can say that you haven't watched enough based on the fact that you've actually acknowledged as much in prior conversations. So to suggest that my statement could be construed as me intimating that someone is being dishonest doesn't add up. In addition, many of the posters I've read posts from in this forum also acknowledged that they weren't avid Laker game watchers. I wouldn't make any presumptions based on the mere fact that you're not a fan of whatever team we're discussing. I said what I said based on what has been communicated here on other occasions.

    You referenced his lack of rebounding, there are plenty of low IQ players that rebound well. There are a myriad of reasons as to why one may not rebound as well as it is perceived that they should. IQ would be way down the line of why, for me personally.

    Rational minds can differ, but I disagree that some of the doubts you have are reasonable. It would be apparent that he doesn't have any issues with his IQ if you watched enough of him. It's not something anyone questions who has followed him as a Laker.
    Yeah, I've acknowledged that I haven't watched tons and tons and tons of Lakers games, but the point is that not everyone on the forum has acknowledged that. And besides, how many games do you have to watch before your opinion becomes valid? People make judgements about college players after 30 or 35 games all the time, and if those judgements are carefully considered and take into account the advanced metrics, they're usually pretty accurate.

    Of course there are some misses, nobody is 100%, but good scouts are good scouts and they do it with much smaller sample sizes than even I have of Ingram. So if my experience with Ingram doesn't count, what does? He's played 190 career games. I've watched probably 85 or 90 of them, over his three years. If 90 games isn't a big enough sample size, is 110? 130? Do you have to watch every career minute of a player before you can judge them? Obviously not, that's absurd.

    I referenced his lack of rebounding, yeah, and that was one (read: 1) of the concerns I noted. It's worth noting that while yes, there are plenty of lower IQ players who are fine rebounders, are there any HIGH IQ players with Ingrams tools who are such bad rebounders? Ingram's RBD% this year was 7.8%.

    There were 187 players in the NBA this season who were 6'9 (Ingram's listed height) or taller. Out of those 187 players, Ingram's 7.8% total rebounding percentage ranked... 183rd. The only players who were Ingram's height or taller who were worse rebounders were Dzanan Musa, Thomas Welsh, Kostas Antetokoumnpo, and Zhou Qi. He's not just ''not very good'' at rebounding, he's one of the absolute worst rebounders in the NBA for his size, and given how little each of those other people played, Ingram is the absolute worst rebounder in the league among all players of his height who played at least 1000 minutes.

    If we're going to pretend that that's not something even slightly concerning, that's an issue.

  9. #34
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    At Age 20:

    Paul George: 7.8 ppg 3.7 rpg 1.1 apg 1.0 spg 45% from field 30% three 76% line 1.1 to

    Kawhi Leonard: 7.9 ppg 5.1 rpg 1.1 apg 1.3 spg 49% from field 38% three 77% line 0.7 to

    Brandon Ingram: 16.1 ppg 5.3 rpg 3.9 apg 0.8 spg 0.7 bpg 47% field 39% three 68% line 2.5 to

    Kobe Bryant: 19.9 ppg 5.3 rpg 3.8 apg 1.4 spg 1.0 bpg, 46.5% field 84% from line 3.1

    Post all-star break he was averaging 7.6 boards per game.. No, I'm not worried about his rebounding.. at all.

  10. #35
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    You also use this height qualifier to overstate his lack of rebounding, which I find odd. How does he rank as a 2 guard, which is what he played primarily??? Is he still ranked 183rd? I seriously doubt he is.

  11. #36
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    November: 15.4 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 46.2 FG%, 27.3 3P%
    December: 16.5 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 50 FG%, 33.3 3P%
    January: 19.1 PPG, 6 RPG, 51.1 FG%, 26.3 3P%
    February: 21.3 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 50.4 FG%, 38.9 3P%
    Post-All-Star Break: 27.8 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 57 FG%, 52.9 3P%

    Not bad for a guy with questionable IQ..

  12. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Nichols View Post
    At Age 20:

    Paul George: 7.8 ppg 3.7 rpg 1.1 apg 1.0 spg 45% from field 30% three 76% line 1.1 to

    Kawhi Leonard: 7.9 ppg 5.1 rpg 1.1 apg 1.3 spg 49% from field 38% three 77% line 0.7 to

    Brandon Ingram: 16.1 ppg 5.3 rpg 3.9 apg 0.8 spg 0.7 bpg 47% field 39% three 68% line 2.5 to

    Kobe Bryant: 19.9 ppg 5.3 rpg 3.8 apg 1.4 spg 1.0 bpg, 46.5% field 84% from line 3.1

    Post all-star break he was averaging 7.6 boards per game.. No, I'm not worried about his rebounding.. at all.
    I find it pretty interesting that you use age 20, which was multiple years into Kobe's and Ingram's careers, but was PG and Kawhi's rookie year, which means (for obvious reasons) that it's not quite comparable. It's also kind of odd that you use Ingram age 20, when he was in fact 21 last season: I'm tempted to say that the reason you do that is because his age 20 season is an outlier in terms of his three point shot and makes him look better than he's actually been overall, but maybe that's me being cynical.

    In any case, just using the raw box score stats from those years isn't very helpful. If you take those same years for those players, and use Ingram's most recent season (age 21), you find that firstly, you would expect Ingram's numbers to be inflated: he was playing far more minutes. Ingram played basically 34 minutes per game this year. Kawhi played 24 in his rookie year, and PG only 20. The fact that Kawhi averaged basically the same number of rebounds as a 6'7 rookie in only 24 minutes a game, as Ingram averaged as a 6'9 3rd year guy in 34 minutes, doesn't actually help his argument as a rebounder.

    And of course, it also doesn't account for pace: the pace of the NBA was slower in the 90s (when Kobe's rookie year was) and has been getting progressively faster over the last decade or so. If you use the per 100 possessions metric, which flattens out pace, you actually find that their per 100 rebounding stats look like this:

    Kawhi Leonard: 11 rebounds per 100
    Paul George: 9.0 rebounds per 100
    Kobe Bryant: 7.3 rebounds per 100
    Brandon Ingram: 7.1 rebounds per 100

    So again, Ingram's argument isn't really helped there either.

    And, to return to the more advanced metric of RBD%, Ingram ranks the lowest out of all them too. Rookie Kawhi posted a 12.2%, rookie PG13 posted 9.8%, 20 year old Kobe posted 8.1%, and Ingram last year posted (As we've already been over) 7.8%. So despite being the tallest, with the longest wingspan, and having the most NBA experience out of all the people you gave for comparison there, Ingram is still quite clearly the worst rebounder.

    You mention seeing what his stats were among SGs. That's an interesting stipulation, because of course, Ben Simmons plays point guard. If you asked for the best rebounding PG, and someone said Ben Simmons, you might say something like ''oh sure, but I meant like, actual point guards. Not ball handling forwards.'' At least, I would. It's a similar thing here: Ingram may have played a lot at SG, sure, but the reality is that he's an inside scoring 6'9+ guy. So his abilities as a rebounder should reflect that. If your argument is ''well he'd be a better rebounder as a shooting guard'', you're very possibly right: that's because most shooting guards are like 5 inches shorter than that, and it's a category error to compare them.

    But, sure, just to give you your credit. If you ignore the fact that he's 6'9 (probably taller), how does he do if you just ask this question: Of all the NBA players last season to play at least 1500 minutes (Ingram played 1700 something), where does he rank?

    The answer is, 98th out of 165 possible players.

    He is a better rebounder than DJ Augustin, Austin Rivers, Lou Williams, Trae Young, CJ McCollum, Ryan Arcidiacono, Kemba Walker, Damien Lillard, Jrue Holiday, and Danny Green.

    If that's impressive to you, then take it and run. But for me, I expect more from guys who are 6'9+ with 7'+ wingspans, especially if they aren't really shooters.

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Nichols View Post
    November: 15.4 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 46.2 FG%, 27.3 3P%
    December: 16.5 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 50 FG%, 33.3 3P%
    January: 19.1 PPG, 6 RPG, 51.1 FG%, 26.3 3P%
    February: 21.3 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 50.4 FG%, 38.9 3P%
    Post-All-Star Break: 27.8 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 57 FG%, 52.9 3P%

    Not bad for a guy with questionable IQ..
    Can you please stop posting raw box score stats to talk about IQ, as if the two things are at all linked? Thanks.

  14. #39
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Can you please stop posting raw box score stats to talk about IQ, as if the two things are at all linked? Thanks.
    How many low IQ players put up solid raw box score stats? I know it doesn't fit your narrative but numbers are numbers, just like analytic data is analytic data.

  15. #40
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    "I find it pretty interesting that you use age 20, which was multiple years into Kobe's and Ingram's careers, but was PG and Kawhi's rookie year, which means (for obvious reasons) that it's not quite comparable. It's also kind of odd that you use Ingram age 20, when he was in fact 21 last season: I'm tempted to say that the reason you do that is because his age 20 season is an outlier in terms of his three point shot and makes him look better than he's actually been overall, but maybe that's me being cynical."

    I factored in none of those variables, so yes I'd say you're being a bit cynical. There was no hidden motive in my post.

    You also failed to acknowledge that he averaged 7.5 RPG post all-star break. He's trending in the right direction. Which is what you want to see from a young prospect. Especially one who is barely strong enough to hold his position even against guards. Considering his slight built, and that he's yet to fill out, I'm okay with where he is. So long as he continues to improve.

  16. #41
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    "If that's impressive to you, then take it and run. But for me, I expect more from guys who are 6'9+ with 7'+ wingspans, especially if they aren't really shooters."

    It's not a matter of anyone being impressed, nor was that even communicated. Let's not move the goalpost. You have an issue with his rebounding rate. Could it be better? Sure.. Do I see it as a red flag, like you? Absolutely not.

  17. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Nichols View Post
    "I find it pretty interesting that you use age 20, which was multiple years into Kobe's and Ingram's careers, but was PG and Kawhi's rookie year, which means (for obvious reasons) that it's not quite comparable. It's also kind of odd that you use Ingram age 20, when he was in fact 21 last season: I'm tempted to say that the reason you do that is because his age 20 season is an outlier in terms of his three point shot and makes him look better than he's actually been overall, but maybe that's me being cynical."

    I factored in none of those variables, so yes I'd say you're being a bit cynical. There was no hidden motive in my post.

    You also failed to acknowledge that he averaged 7.5 RPG post all-star break. He's trending in the right direction. Which is what you want to see from a young prospect. Especially one who is barely strong enough to hold his position even against guards. Considering his slight built, and that he's yet to fill out, I'm okay with where he is. So long as he continues to improve.
    He played less than 10 games post all star break.

    Am I supposed to ignore the 40+ games before that and just say ''oh well, he had a good patch, so it's fine.'' ? Cause I'm not going to do that. Why am I supposed to take the less-than-ten-game sample size of 7.5 rpg more seriously than him averaging 6rpg in the 15 games he played in January? Especially when the Lakers lost most of those games, so it's not like you can say that it was the result of Ingram being unleashed and really showing that he can carry a team.

    As a further note, you say ''one who is barely strong enough to hold his position even against guards''. Wanna know something? That's a problem too. Not an IQ problem, of course, but it is a real issue.

    He's been in the NBA for three years now. Three years of NBA training, conditioning, nutrition management, etc, and he has failed to put on basically any serious mass since his rookie year. Some people just never gain weight. Is that going to be him? Because that limits him a lot, as a rebounder, as a defender, and as an offensive player: functional strength is one of the core things players need to have if they want to be (as you put it) perennial all-stars. You could argue that his slow physical development is a result of his multitude of injuries and lack of full healthy off-season to put in that extra work, but all that does is make the question into ''is he injury prone?''.

    There are real questions about Ingram. Some of them are about his game (inconsistent at best as a three point shooter, not a great FT shooter, turnover prone), some of them are about his physique (constantly injured, not very strong, extremely slim to the point of absurdity), and some of them are about his IQ (not a great team defender, dodgy shot selection at times, iso-ball heavy preferences). Those are real questions that people are allowed to speculate on.

  18. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Nichols View Post
    How many low IQ players put up solid raw box score stats?
    Let's go ask Mr 24ppg Andrew Wiggins, and maybe we'll find out.

  19. #44
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Let's go ask Mr 24ppg Andrew Wiggins, and maybe we'll find out.
    The question was how many?

  20. #45
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    "As a further note, you say ''one who is barely strong enough to hold his position even against guards''. Wanna know something? That's a problem too. Not an IQ problem, of course, but it is a real issue."

    Of course it's an issue, it's why I brought it up. Does it mean any of the things you said it could. I don't think so. He's already a solid to above average on Ball defender, who needs to improve his awareness. Being that he's a perimeter player who's demonstrated an ability to rebound at a moderate rate for a perimeter player it's not as big of an issue as you're making it out to be. And no he isn't injury prone lol smh.. He might be one of those guys who due to genetics won't put on a lot of weight. Like Reggie Miller, Prince, and a few others. Does it limit him? Sure.. Can he still be an all-star in spite of it? Sure..

    "Am I supposed to ignore the 40+ games before that and just say ''oh well, he had a good patch, so it's fine.'' ? Cause I'm not going to do that. Why am I supposed to take the less-than-ten-game sample size of 7.5 rpg more seriously than him averaging 6rpg in the 15 games he played in January?"

    The point is.. he's trending in the right direction. What he demonstrated is progression. I'll take 6 boards a game from a 2, who's improving..

    "There are real questions about Ingram. Some of them are about his game (inconsistent at best as a three point shooter, not a great FT shooter, turnover prone), some of them are about his physique (constantly injured, not very strong, extremely slim to the point of absurdity), and some of them are about his IQ (not a great team defender, dodgy shot selection at times, iso-ball heavy preferences). Those are real questions that people are allowed to speculate on."

    Speculate away, my post was specific. I was referencing speculating on his IQ. He was also shooting 75% from the FT line before he was sidelined, which indicates again.. that he's trending in the right direction.

  21. #46
    Exhibit C Nola3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,012

  22. #47
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Nola3 View Post
    Interesting.. Quotes from the article..

    "Ingram and Zion could also be great together: A one-two punch of high-level scorers and passers with high basketball IQs who can defend multiple positions well."

    "Ingram is the rare supersize wing who can also create shots for his teammates. He has a positive career ratio of assists (2.9 per game) to turnovers (2.1) and has shown the ability to run point with the Lakers. Ingram is a smart player who can pass out of the pick-and-roll and find the open man when the defense collapses on his drives."

    Thanks for the link..

  23. #48

  24. #49
    After reading what felt like essays I have one question... any of yall think Hart>Ingram for value and productivity?

  25. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by wnelson View Post
    After reading what felt like essays I have one question... any of yall think Hart>Ingram for value and productivity?
    I think they're about equal.

    As of right now, Hart is the superior team defender, superior shooter on higher volume, is much less ball dominant, and shows up as the superior player in basically all impact metrics (BPM, PIPM, RPM, etc). He is also on a smaller contract, and his rookie scale deal stretches longer into the future.

    On the other hand, Ingram is the superior one-on-one scorer and playmaker, and while his rookie scale deal ends after this season and he requires paying, he is several years younger than Hart. He also has superior physical metrics in terms of height, wingspan, etc.

    The real kicker is the contract extension for Ingram. If he's suddenly getting paid $25m+ per season, his production and impact will have to SOAR in order for it to be a positive value contract. If he signs a massive extension with us and then continues at this level, then Hart will be more valuable.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •