.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 281

Thread: Trade thread for all the insane trades y?all got

  1. #251
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Taker597's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by 13 - 3 View Post
    Beal?
    Realistic isn't what I think of Beal.

  2. #252
    JJ reddick for Dinwiddie and TLC ?

    Read this JJ/iDinwiddie idea somewhere.

    JJ wants to go to Brooklyn. If he gets his shot back in Nets system would seem to be a good fit, could help them win now. Dinwiddie out for the season.

    We would get the possibility of a decent point guard next year if Dinwiddie rehabs ok. Plus a cheap bench piece in TLC with length and can shoot ok.
    Last edited by KoMikaera; 02-23-2021 at 01:04 AM.
    Just another Kiwi basking in the reflected glory of Steven Adams....bask bask...

  3. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by As I See It View Post
    You mustn't agree that his defense is historically awe-inspiring!!!

    I thought I was only agreeing with you.

    HMMM
    I know that, I was complimenting you of course

  4. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by HornetGuru View Post
    I know that, I was complimenting you of course
    I'm sorry, pal: I misunderstood!! LOL
    Say Cannon Hinnant's Name.

  5. #255
    I'd rather LaVine over Beal, but I don't see how we get him without giving up Ingram

    What about, LaVine and Williams for Ingram

    Nah, still dreemin

  6. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsters60 View Post
    I had heard he had butted heads somewhat with Trae Young, but I really like John Collins the basketball player.....
    He was annoyed that Young was basically a chucker and that he very rarely got any actual time with the ball early this season. While I do think it was unprofessional for him to say that openly, I also can't say he was wrong: last season he was averaging about 15 shots a game, and over the first 12 games of this season he was averaging 11 while Trae (who was taking nearly 21 shots a game last year) was still taking about 18, and whose on-ball usage had actually increased somewhat.

    That's changed a bit over the last dozen games or so (Collins is up to about 14 shots a game now, I think) but yeah, unprofessional but understandable.

    He is rumored to be on the block for not-as-much-as-people-might-think and he's actually not been quite as bad on defense as he has been in previous years. Still far from a star, of course, but he's only 23 and the improvement is encouraging. Obviously he shoots, which is something a lot of people want from a Zion partner: 38% on 3.4 a game this year, 40% on 3.6 a game last year: 85.4% and 80% from the line in those years also.
    Cade Cunningham/Usman Garuba/Scottie Barnes/Moses Moody/Brandon Boston Jr endorser.

    Eye test people: analytics people watch more basketball than you do.

  7. #257
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Taker597's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by AusPel View Post
    I'd rather LaVine over Beal, but I don't see how we get him without giving up Ingram

    What about, LaVine and Williams for Ingram

    Nah, still dreemin
    Lavine is the shooter you want with Zion, but Ingram if he continues to improve and fill out that frame(unlikely at this point). Ingram and Zion in their prime just seem to complement each other better to get you a chip. We got plenty of picks to really get Lavine without giving out Ingram , but nothing I've seen of him wanting out. Adding a 20 FGA player really gonna disrupt offensive touches.

    Kira, Lavine, Ingram, Zion, Adams, Hart.

    Still need a bench and a hot minute away from being a real contender.

  8. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    Lavine is the shooter you want with Zion, but Ingram if he continues to improve and fill out that frame(unlikely at this point). Ingram and Zion in their prime just seem to complement each other better to get you a chip. We got plenty of picks to really get Lavine without giving out Ingram , but nothing I've seen of him wanting out. Adding a 20 FGA player really gonna disrupt offensive touches.

    Kira, Lavine, Ingram, Zion, Adams, Hart.

    Still need a bench and a hot minute away from being a real contender.
    I think one of the things that is encouraging about Lavine, were you to acquire him, is that he's not the kind of guy who needs to be on ball. Like, yes, he's taking 20 shots a game and being lead ballhandler for Chicago now because who else do they have, really?

    But in terms of off-ball game, he's shooting about 48% on C&S 3s, which make up about 52% of his 3pt volume, so it's not entirely self-created pullups (he's at 41.1% on those), and he actually averages fewer touches per game than Lonzo Ball, Coby White, Ja Morant, Colin Sexton, Devonte' Graham, et cetera. Of course, he takes more shots than those guys so his usage rate is comparatively high, but he's actually been pretty outstanding in off-ball actions this year.

    In fact, if you look at what you might call ''off-ball'' offensive actions and where he ranks in terms of volume and efficiency, this is what you get:

    Cuts: 4.4% of his offense, 1.58 points per possession, 97th percentile.
    Off-screen: 5.3% of his offense, 1.25 ppp, 86th percentile.
    Spot-ups: 11.2% of his offense, 1.3ppp, 92nd percentile
    Hand-offs: 6.9% of his offense, 1.14ppp, 80th percentile
    Putbacks: 2% of offense, 1.07ppp, 39th percentile.

    So about 30% of his offense comes off-ball already, and he's generally really effective in those positions. The question is whether you think he could maintain most of that efficiency on increased volume: so, if he's coming off screens and cutting 20% of the time instead of a combined 9.7% of the time, is he still an 85th %ile guy or more? I think probably, though I don't buy that ''lower volume, higher efficiency'' thing people often talk about - that usually isn't the case, actually.

    None of this, by the way, is me trying to claim he's not ball dominant in Chicago. He obviously is. It's just that there are signs there that he has the skills to play in a more off-ball role as well, and it's not like he'd never get ballhandler minutes here. Of course he would.

  9. #259
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! JunkHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,945
    I'm late to the party maybe, but I saw that DeMarcus Cousins is on the move. Anyone think he might consider coming back here now that we have basically a whole new organization? Or is that bridge too far burned? Admittedly he'd be a big help. (But obviously he's going to go to a contender. We all know this.)

  10. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by JunkHead View Post
    I'm late to the party maybe, but I saw that DeMarcus Cousins is on the move. Anyone think he might consider coming back here now that we have basically a whole new organization? Or is that bridge too far burned? Admittedly he'd be a big help. (But obviously he's going to go to a contender. We all know this.)
    I say this in the absolute nicest way possible

    Have you seen him play this year?

  11. #261

  12. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    Realistic isn't what I think of Beal.
    Bealistic?

  13. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedupfan View Post
    https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/s...581785089?s=20

    Porzingis for Bledsoe and Redick? Who says no?
    In terms of play, Porzingis would be a clear fit and is the right age and whatnot.

    In reality, he's extremely injury prone, on a mammoth contract, and has a plethora of off-court issues including but not limited to getting into bar fights in Latvia and his (I think) still under investigation rape allegations.

  14. #264
    Sad part is didn’t Chicago just give up a lot to get Lavine? I get the wizards dealing Beal because it’s his last year but what is Chicago’s incentive unless we blow them away with a deal?

  15. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by HornetGuru View Post
    Sad part is didn’t Chicago just give up a lot to get Lavine? I get the wizards dealing Beal because it’s his last year but what is Chicago’s incentive unless we blow them away with a deal?
    They don't really have one. He's under contract going forward for a reasonable amount of money, he's young enough to fit their rebuild, and he's great. Hence why if you want him, you're paying through the nose.

  16. #266
    Band of Skulls & Neon Trees ramsters60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Westbank
    Posts
    3,214
    Quote Originally Posted by HornetGuru View Post
    Sad part is didn’t Chicago just give up a lot to get Lavine? I get the wizards dealing Beal because it’s his last year but what is Chicago’s incentive unless we blow them away with a deal?
    I am pretty sure that is the only way....
    "we might make dollars, but we don't necessarily make sense"

    "always be sincere....whether you mean it or not"

  17. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by HornetGuru View Post
    Sad part is didn’t Chicago just give up a lot to get Lavine? I get the wizards dealing Beal because it’s his last year but what is Chicago’s incentive unless we blow them away with a deal?
    I know there was internal frustration over Lavine's lack of development as a defender, but, at a certain point, elite offense outweighs poor defense. I'd say 29 a game on 52/43/86 exceeds that point. Sustainability is now the major question. He's shooting 42% on 5 pull up 3s per game, and 48% on 3 catch and shoot 3s. Those numbers are basically identical to Steph Curry's MVP seasons.

  18. #268
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Taker597's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    I think one of the things that is encouraging about Lavine, were you to acquire him, is that he's not the kind of guy who needs to be on ball. Like, yes, he's taking 20 shots a game and being lead ballhandler for Chicago now because who else do they have, really?

    But in terms of off-ball game, he's shooting about 48% on C&S 3s, which make up about 52% of his 3pt volume, so it's not entirely self-created pullups (he's at 41.1% on those), and he actually averages fewer touches per game than Lonzo Ball, Coby White, Ja Morant, Colin Sexton, Devonte' Graham, et cetera. Of course, he takes more shots than those guys so his usage rate is comparatively high, but he's actually been pretty outstanding in off-ball actions this year.

    In fact, if you look at what you might call ''off-ball'' offensive actions and where he ranks in terms of volume and efficiency, this is what you get:

    Cuts: 4.4% of his offense, 1.58 points per possession, 97th percentile.
    Off-screen: 5.3% of his offense, 1.25 ppp, 86th percentile.
    Spot-ups: 11.2% of his offense, 1.3ppp, 92nd percentile
    Hand-offs: 6.9% of his offense, 1.14ppp, 80th percentile
    Putbacks: 2% of offense, 1.07ppp, 39th percentile.

    So about 30% of his offense comes off-ball already, and he's generally really effective in those positions. The question is whether you think he could maintain most of that efficiency on increased volume: so, if he's coming off screens and cutting 20% of the time instead of a combined 9.7% of the time, is he still an 85th %ile guy or more? I think probably, though I don't buy that ''lower volume, higher efficiency'' thing people often talk about - that usually isn't the case, actually.

    None of this, by the way, is me trying to claim he's not ball dominant in Chicago. He obviously is. It's just that there are signs there that he has the skills to play in a more off-ball role as well, and it's not like he'd never get ballhandler minutes here. Of course he would.
    If they can make Harden/Irving/Durant work... Don't see how we couldn't make Ingram/Lavine/Zion work...

    Especially, when we pull out Point Zion in the 2nd half with two very good catch and shot guys.

  19. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by pelafanatic View Post
    I know there was internal frustration over Lavine's lack of development as a defender, but, at a certain point, elite offense outweighs poor defense. I'd say 29 a game on 52/43/86 exceeds that point. Sustainability is now the major question. He's shooting 42% on 5 pull up 3s per game, and 48% on 3 catch and shoot 3s. Those numbers are basically identical to Steph Curry's MVP seasons.
    He's also not an awful defender anymore.

    Lavine is now in the Jokic category where, as long as he's being put in a decent position, he's actually a perfect reasonable defender that even shows some signs of being actively good, but whose reputation is absolutely cratered to the point where everyone thinks he sucks on defense anyway.

    Not saying he's an all-D guy or anything, absolutely not, but the days of him being one of the league's worst defensive starters are long gone.

  20. #270
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Taker597's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    He's also not an awful defender anymore.

    Lavine is now in the Jokic category where, as long as he's being put in a decent position, he's actually a perfect reasonable defender that even shows some signs of being actively good, but whose reputation is absolutely cratered to the point where everyone thinks he sucks on defense anyway.

    Not saying he's an all-D guy or anything, absolutely not, but the days of him being one of the league's worst defensive starters are long gone.
    What would be the trade package?

    Lonzo is an obvious must. Do we opt to hoard the Bucks and Laker picks and just trade our own?

  21. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    What would be the trade package?

    Lonzo is an obvious must. Do we opt to hoard the Bucks and Laker picks and just trade our own?
    No idea. I'd be more in favour of trading the Bucks/Lakers picks than our own, particularly the closer ones. I'd much rather trade our 2021 LA pick than our own, for example.

  22. #272
    We won't have the Lakers 2021 pick, but you already know that since you know everything
    @mcnamara247

  23. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    We won't have the Lakers 2021 pick, but you already know that since you know everything
    We won't, but until draft positions are finalised and it's then turned into a 2022 FRP, it's still a 2021 FRP with protections.

    As you know.

  24. #274
    Did you guys know we won’t have the 2021 Lakers pick?

  25. #275
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedupfan View Post
    Did you guys know we won’t have the 2021 Lakers pick?
    I did! Niche knowledge.

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
  •