| . |
 |
It's amazing how people on here who watch the Pelicans play continue to over rate Lonzo. His shot is to inconsistent, he refuses to drive the ball and because of that never get to the line. Like Zo is good in transition but in the half court is pretty useless except for spotting up for 3 and in that case we better hope it's a game were his shot is falling. We can't just sign Lonzo for whatever price thinking he will be a positive asset down the line we end up like the Kings with Buddy.
This. However I'm cool with keeping Ball. But 17 mil a year is my cap. But all of this is supreme speculation. We have no idea what they have planned. We already tried to trade him during the deadline to the bulls. So my assumption stays the same that'll he'll end up in Chicago.Originally Posted by Pelicans_fan_504
I would expect this team will increase the pace this year. It made no sense last year to slow down our players. Ball fits a faster paced team IMO. However, there is a limit as to how much they can pay for a player like him and $20 million a year may exceed it.
I think getting a 1st for a player that the whole league knows we don?t want to overpay is a pipe dream. Aminu is literally just cap filler as he doesn?t stretch the floor and does nothing spectacular. A straight swap of Ball for a year of Thad Young as our backup PF is the best we probably could get from a Chicago S&T imo.
If we traded for Kennard, at least we would be getting a much needed shooter on a mildly inflated contract.
Last edited by Darkhorse985; 07-13-2021 at 02:07 PM.
I'd rather pay 20 mil for Lonzo than 14 for Kennard and its not even a question.
I agree with the notion that Lonzo will retain positive trade value for entirety of his next contract, even at 4/80, as long as he remains healthy. That's is what is most important at this point in time. Just don't go too far above 20.
Contributor
We are almost forced to do this given we didn't trade him at the deadline and won't match any price.
Last edited by RaisingTheBar; 07-13-2021 at 03:24 PM.
Huh... We been dumping on Lonzo for the better part for two years. At the same time... There aren't many options to replace him. Either we play the short game and dump him/immediately get worse... Or play the long game and move him for a Superstar.
because he's still ascending.
Does half court Lonzo give me PTSD nightmares? Yes
Is keeping Lonzo at a match able salary as he continues to improve a better move? Yes
Would I sign and trade him for a Star... Absolutely
Will that happen... No.
Would I sign and trade him for an aging Veteran. Probably not.
Lonzo still only 23 years old. You basically selling low and buying high.
Smh! It amazing how this organization continues to develop talent for other teams. The Pels would rather keep lesser talent like Eric Bledsoe and Steven Adams over up and coming player like Zo, make it make sense.
Exactly. He’s 23 and trending upwards. He improved from beyond the arc. He improved his midrange. He improved his free throw shooting. What makes everybody think he won’t improve in the half court and in his ability to drive? What’s the hurry to move these dudes under 25? Ain’t no superstars coming to New Orleans. We have to grow them ourselves or trade for them. We need to keep Lonzo, at the very least he could be a trade-able asset down the line.
"Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it."
- el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz
Lonzo's camp sees his market dwindling. Its no secret that NY has a few guards higher on their list than Lonzo. So that basically leaves only Chicago as a team with cap space that can elevate his price tag. So, they put out that a "significant offer" can get him in hopes that Chicago bites and if Pels match or if the Pels dont, Lonzo's camp is fine either way because he just got paid.
Its a smart strategy, but of course you guys get all worked up about it because you read into it way too simply. You guys really need to learn to think more broad and with greater depth
@mcnamara247
As I said before, I'm cool with keeping Zo. For no more than 17 a year. This roster doesn't need a MAJOR overhaul of players as some suggest. Turn those 14 blown leads around and we're in the playoffs. If we can off load Bled (has no trade value, so we'll have to attach assets). I think Adams has a bit more value than some of us seems to think and 17 a year from him is movable. To teams uncertain about the C position like the Kings, Hornets, Cavs, etc. So we can a decent role player.
I say two or three mediocre/good moves with veteran players/shooters and we're In a good position.
Cool - and the Bulls sign him for 4/74 - you telling me you would just let him walk?
Thats the hard part. Anyone can just throw out a number and pretend they would stick to it and sign and trade him if it went over that. But what if the other team didnt want to play ball? They sign Lonzo day 1 and you got three days to match. You sure you are sticking to that 17 number?
But Lonzo actually did get better with him. From 3 and vastly better at the stripe
Lonzo did better
Fred Vinson was a coach when he did better
These things are definitely corollary. Cant be sure they are causal. (And yes, I know Lonzo has said nice things about him)
But the objective fact remains that far more players have gone on to shoot better post being with Vinson than guys improving while on this team and with Vinson. And if you give the (poor) argument: "Well maybe Vinson teaches them and they take that with them and improve" - Whole 'plant a seed' logic. Well....if thats the case, then why not give the Lakers shooting coach credit for planting the seed with Ball and Ingram.
But of course, we wont do that, because that doesnt help the 'Vinson is god' narrative. Guy gets all this credit because 3 dudes in 10 years have had a fairly significant shooting bump (and times in their careers when guys often surge btw), but the objective data says far more guys get better with some other shooting coach. I have nothing against Vinson, and I dont think he is bad. But this idea that he is some outlier, fantastic shooting coach that can fix guys if we draft them or bring them in, is just objectively not a quality belief to have
Yeah, I don't get it either.
Right now, based on what he's shown, Lonzo's best games are games where he is lights out from 3. As you say, if that's not happening for him, he basically just doesn't impact games in the halfcourt whatsoever. At his worst he's a complete liability on both ends.
The argument that he's been improving every year is a sketchy one. He hasn't. He's improved as a shooter sure, and that's a very very valuable skill - nobody would deny that. But I would argue that his defense this year was actually pretty clearly worse than last year in some ways, and he actually got to the rim at his career lowest rate this year. He also shot the fewest self-created 3s of his career this year, and had the lowest REB% of his career this year.
Do those things mean he sucks? No, in some ways this was the most impactful year of his career. But the idea that he's just shown uniform growth everywhere is inaccurate. He's been at his most impactful this year purely because he's being asked to do less. You don't pay more for someone who is most valuable when they are being trusted with fewer responsibilities.
Can you pay $20m or more per year for a 4th or 5th option? Yeah, sure, if you're a really good team trying to keep a guy around because he's integral to a winning core. That's why the Warriors paid Iguodala so much; he wasn't objectively worth it but they had their core guys and just needed to pay whatever it took to keep a vital cog in their machine around.
We are not in that situation. We do not have a winning core. It's been said before but it needs to be re-iterated; how much are you willing to pay to keep a lottery team together? For me, I'm glad to hear that we're not likely to capitulate on a massive contract. Maybe one day Lonzo will be worth that, but I don't think that day is today and probably won't be next year either. You cannot sign a guy for his 5th-8th NBA years (assuming a 4 year deal) in the hopes that he'll figure things out by year 9.
Basketball.
Man... I'm sooo not looking forward to this offseason. Could be a success or another diaster. Griff makes me nervous. I keep trying to tell myself that Griff can't do worse than the past two offseason, but he might. I hope he lucks into a good situation. Just tired of this circus farm show.
Disaster offseason would have nothing to do with Lonzo IMO. Whether he stays or goes... I think it is a minor needle move either way. Disaster would be him making two Steven Adams-like trades. Giving up assets for meh guys. Either spend a lot of assets to get a major needle mover. Or dont spend any and make smaller upgrades, banking on internal growth, while you wait on the big move
Of course we do our due diligence with this. Always look for options. And by me saying I'm "cool" with resigning Ball for no more than 17 Mil isn't an end all be all if the bulls don't play ball. I'm not a novice. I'll always look for S&T possibilities since we lost a bit of leverage at the deadline. So let me clarify then, unless an ************** team offers an unreasonable amount of money in an offer sheet, 18.5M isn't terrible to match. The bulls aren't dumb enough to put themselves in Salary cap hell for Lonzo anyways. Knicks have plenty of options out here for a PG so Im sure they'll be iffy to do that, and the Clippers ain't got no cap space to offer unless Kawhi opts out (which I doubt he will).
But maybe I could be wrong. Maybe the Bulls get desperate. Maybe the Knicks like Zo that much. Who knows.
Last edited by hornetzplaya; 07-13-2021 at 10:49 PM.
So what is an "unreasonable amount of money" - be specific
For me, if the only two options were: match or let him walk, I think it would have to get to 22 mil a year plus a 15% trade kicker or 24 mil a year with no trade kicker. Those are other factors others dont talk about enough IMO - the things another team can put into a contract that makes matching less palatable. The trade kicker is the big one because I would match, with a plan of trading him down the line. The trade kicker makes that a little harder
As long we don't have any embarrassing drama blowing up at the end of the season... Between Zion family, SVG, Griff sad presser, Griff micro managing too much. and JJ podcast . I don't mind underperforming from Griff bizarre roster construction.
I wish we can chill on the dysfunctional drama for a minute.
Ben Simmons, anyone?
https://www.bballrumors.com/2021/07/...qmJYY4wBdAbgb0
Only if he develops a jumper this off season.
Always seems risky for small-market cellar dweller like the Pels to wait around for the missing piece to become available via trade, especially in the present day NBA where those players basically tell their teams exactly where they want to be traded to
Funny thing about Simmons he'll post videos of himself hitting jumpers while playing open run at LA Fitness or somewhere, then REFUSE to take jumpers in NBA games. He has it in him.. I've seen him hit pull-up jumpers and take them with confidence. But he just has it in his head that he won't make them in NBA games, so he just doesn't take them.
Should have traded Lonzo last year and avoided all this nonsense. It seems to be far better to be proactive in these situations. Demps got caught up in a very similar situation with Gordon. If you can't extend a player for a reasonable amount trade them. It's cold but ultimately the best thing for the team. Now you have to hope another team doesn't intentionally gives him a contract you don't want to give Lonzo yourself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote