Completely agree, it's not about disliking BI for me. His next contract, the team's timeline, etc are why I would move him over Zion.Originally Posted by NMThreeMVP
 |
| . |
|
Completely agree, it's not about disliking BI for me. His next contract, the team's timeline, etc are why I would move him over Zion.
What if deal was Zion or BI + Naji to Portland for:
#3 pick/#23 pick/Jerami Grant + Sharpe?
So possible post-trade line-up might be:
PG: Scoot Henderson
SG: C.J. McCollum
SF: Brandon Ingram
PF: Jerami Grant
C: Jonas Valanciunas
Bench: Sharpe/Herb/Dyson/Trey/Nance
Depth: Jose/Lively/Jett Howard (or some such shooter/scorer taken @23)/Liddell
Well, why would the TrailBlazers do that? Sharpe looks like he has great potential... and they are going to re-sign Jerami, since they want to compete now... and Zion is probably reaching a point where teams will question giving up the #3 pick for him, since they cannot depend on him losing weight (let alone staying healthy).
So the best I see is #3 + unimportant filler for Zion.
The package that you are proposing the TrailBlazers send back, will probably require the Pels to send out BOTH Zion and BI.
Last edited by LAL1947; 06-05-2023 at 05:26 PM.
I’d really like to get back Simons. He’s redundant with CJ, but younger and cheaper. Something built around Simons/Scoot/KAT/Conley coming to Pels, Ingram to Blazers, and CJ/JV/picks to wolves would be great. Could also do a version with CJ/JV picks going to Suns for CP3/Ayton.
In either scenario you’d be building around Zion/Scoot and Ayton or KAT, with an aging point guard as a vet leader expiring when Trey’s extension kicks in. You also get a great young scorer and volume 3pt shooter in Simons on a very good and moveable contract if you need to at any point before deciding whether he’s a core piece.
The KAT version is my preference. Give Zion and Scoot three bonafide shooters on the court with them in Simons/Trey/KAT and that’s fun. You still have Herb/Dyson/Jose/Conley/Larry to mix in for defense.
Valuation is two picks and two players for Zion or Brandon. That's a discount due to their injury histories. A healthy Zion is obviously worth more as he is a top 10 player who can lead you to the conference finals, especially if paired with an outside PG like Lillard.
Agree it probably wouldn't happen for Zion, because his value is too up in the air right now. Blazers GM doesn't want to be the one to give away young potential stars for an always-injured franchise player. Griff doesn't want to be the GM who dealt away a league-wrecking Zion for a couple of picks and non-All Star players if he gets his injuries behind him. Brandon is a more interesting question.
As always, it's about risk management and what risks are worth taking for both sides...
Speaking of BI (not starting a new thread)
https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/...-usa-world-cup
Two Western Conference All-Star forwards -- the New Orleans Pelicans' Brandon Ingram and the Memphis Grizzlies' Jaren Jackson Jr. -- are committed to playing for Team USA in the FIBA Basketball World Cup championships this summer in the Philippines, sources told ESPN on Monday.
That Jaren Jackson Jr is going to be a real problem. To tie it in with this thread, I have zero interest in trading BI or Zion for anything Portland has to offer but JJJ would make me change my mind, not that Memphis would consider trading him.
What if we were to not trade BI or Zion but give anything else let’s say to a 3rd team that has a player Portland wants. Then we can give up CJ/JV and 4-1st rounders to get the player they want. Let say they want Bridges. We send them CJ and JV plus 4-1sts. Portland gets Bridges and say Lewis and Naji and we get 3, Claxton, and whatever fillers Portland sends most likely Simons to make money match. Just an example but something like that.
If brooklyn is sending bridges and claxton, they sure are taking the 3rd pick and the rest of those 1st round picks.. in no way is cj a positive value with 3 more years of 30+ mil.
You know....I usually avoid these off-season "trade this star" threads but sending Zion out is growing on me. And looking at your trade....I know people won't like this but I think Zion is damaged goods in the eyes of the NBA.....I'd do pick 14 and Zion for Grant and pick 3 plus whatever fillers have to go in. That would set us up with immense talent plus great potential replacement at every position but C and we'd still have our future picks, Lakers picks, and Bucks picks to find. We would be outside contenders in year one and perennial contenders in year two but the contract structure of that team would be setup beautifully to allow us to keep it together for years to come.
It'd be weird if Charlotte went with Scoot and we then have a gluttony of forwards.....but.....meh.
And OK, Grant has had some injuries, too. But nothing like Z.
I'm ready to ride with Zion....hoping this is the year the stars finally align....but the stars might be aligning for that Portland trade and that excites me too.
BI, Zion, and CJ had a net rating of +3 when on the court together. BI and Zion had a +13.4, BI and CJ had a +13.2, Zion and CJ was just +5.4.
BI and Zion worked. BI and CJ worked. It was CJ and Zion and all three together that didn't work.
I'm loathe to break up the BI + Zion combo since we've never really had a chance to watch them together for a serious length of time, especially when you consider Trey and Herb and the introduction of CJ.
But while I'm no CBA expert, I'm hearing fairly grim tidings regarding going into the new one with 3 big-earners on the roster.
So in my mind I'm looking at the pros and cons of trading each of them.
Zion
Why you move him: Constantly injured. That's really it, but it's obviously no trivial thing. Injured so far in every season he's played, even if we accept that he could have played more if not for Nelson's strict guidelines.
Why you keep him: When healthy he's just flat out the best player on the team, and a healthy Zion is the fastest way to turn this team into a clear elite team in the West. He's a top 15 player in the league, top 20 at worst, he's still only 22 as of writing this, and he's under contract for another 5 years (and it's not even as big a contract as it could have been because of injuries this year).
Ingram
Why you move him: His contract is coming to an end right now so his trade value is probably at it's highest. He also has some injuries issues though obviously not as bad as Zion's, which also may make other teams more willing to pay for him; particularly because we know teams with high draft picks (Portland, Charlotte) are apparently huge fans of his.
Why you keep him: He's still young, an excellent player, he plays at a particularly important position in the league (SF), and he's shown a willingness to commit to the team multiple times. He also represents the success (?) of the Brow trade, so symbolically having him on the team when it's thriving is a positive.
CJ
Why you move him: He's the worst player of the three, fairly simply. Also, he's the oldest of the three, and his game is probably due the largest decline in the near future, so jettisoning him makes a lot of sense from a timeline perspective. His declining contract may also make him a more attractive piece for other teams.
Why you keep him: We acquired him for veteran leadership largely, and that appears to have been a success for the most part on the court. He's also been a big part in a general shift in public attitude to the team, in terms of media, and that declining contract also has value for us when it comes to the incoming CBA change. He's also likely to net you the smallest return of the three, which means the ultimate goals of a big move (trying to net Scoot or Thompson #1) is probably not going to happen.
Ultimately I'm having a really hard time deciding. I'm pretty sure of keeping Zion, just because while the risk is huge the reward is also the highest with him if he can get it together health-wise for a few years. Similarly, while I was sceptical of acquiring BI in the first place all those years ago, he's improved so much as a player and has been a part of big moments for the team, but I'm dreading his new contract hitting. Meanwhile, I'd be super happy to move CJ but I don't think he gets us that major piece that we would really want from moving a Big Three guy.
So it's either BI or CJ for me, and it's hard to pick. BI is the one you'd want to keep as a player but his contract situation is worse and he's the one most likely to net the good return. Meanwhile, CJ would be fine to go but he's not going to get the return and his contract is better for us long term.
Honestly really tough to pick where my thoughts lie. Hard to settle on one side.
Basketball.
I think ultimately it comes down to how much of a shakeup you think the team needs.
If you think the team is pretty much okay, you're not too concerned, you just wanna ride things out and see what happens, then you trade CJ. Get back maybe one interesting long-term player at a lower cost, and then either an expiring or a small salary dump or something to make up the cost.
If you think the team needs a serious new look, for whatever reason, then you trade BI. Hopefully to Charlotte for #2, but I'd consider Portland for #3 as a possibility as well - Charlotte is preferable because I think they're the team most likely to want him, plus 2 > 3, but I love Amen Thompson so I'd be very happy with #3 as well.
It's so difficult because it all hinges on health. It's hard to know if we need a huge shakeup or not because we haven't actually seen it in healthy operation - but maybe that in itself is a sign that we need to shake it up now, before the CBA changes and BI's new contract comes in to basically destroy any chance of change we have in future?
Lot to think about
My friend, it's only just begun. Forking up a max contract for a part-time talent will only lead to more...many more...contracts negotiations to dread. On the horizon, there's 3M3 and Herb we'll have to deal with, and even Jose'. Should we hope that DD doesn't merit such consideration in two years? Also, that part-timer's max contract, coupled with the flawed 30MM contract being paid to a guy who, in my opinion (and apparently yours) is declining, virtually shuts us out of the free agent market (unless we are willing to settle for bottom feeders).
Einstein is credited with: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is INSANITY.
I credit Griffin with: Mortgaging your team's future on a player who doesn't play is INSANITY. (or throwing good money after bad)
I see all of your logic, Dae, but my Pelslife PTSD has me being Louise to BI's Thelma. I'll ride off that cliff with him. We're not that far removed from being the NOLA that no one wants to play at and in my mind, BI is the linchpin to this new culture where people actually want to play here. He was the first player to buy in and his character strikes me as a very loyal person. I don't think Zion is really on the table but I think he's way more on that table than BI.
I know there are better players in the league than Ingram but I think BI means more to New Orleans and this renaissance than anyone else ever could. So to me he is untouchable.
I think my question here would be, 'what renaissance'?
BI has been in New Orleans for 4 years now and the best result we've had in that time has been the 9th seed. That's not a rebirth of the team, that's a downgrade from the Brow/Jrue era. I hope everyone can acknowledge that this team has been under-performing for at least the last few years (since you expect a year or two during a rebuild to get it together).
So it's like, do you just give up on the future completely just to repeat what we've already seen doesn't work? Something has to change, maybe you think that's CJ rather than BI and that's fine I get that but it's not like we can pretend that things have been going well as a result of BI's presence.
Edit: Just to clarify, I don't think things are going wrong due to BI's presence either. I just think that his presence alone isn't significant enough to either doom or save the team.
double Edit: also, meant 4 years not 5 years. Point stands.
Last edited by Pelicanidae; 06-08-2023 at 01:31 AM.
Ok. But the reason we are underperforming (Zion not being on the court) shouldn't be used in an argument against keeping BI. It's not a downgrade from the AD/Jrue era as this team without Zion is better than those teams without AD. You mentioned the renaissance yourself with the "general shift in public attitude", you just attributed it to CJ. I don't think that's fair to give to CJ because that shift was already evident before his trade happened and was clear in the way Hart and others reacted to being traded.
I really think that entire culture we're building collapses if BI is traded. I don't think it budges at all if Zion goes. I would even bet it grows if we got Scoot and Grant for him.
Last edited by msusousaphone; 06-08-2023 at 01:40 AM.
Point taken, but remind me. In those same four years, what exactly has the part time prodigal son provided this team?
Do you think that # 1's presence, alone, moves the needle? Four years says no. In fact, he's never been to the playoffs, has he?
This is the situation that has me really concerned, quoting here from Shamit, link: https://intheno.substack.com/p/the-crunch-is-coming
The consequences of the new CBA:
Basically, being significantly over the cap hurts, bad, and hurts more the longer you're over it. We're a team that has been historically hesitant to the tax as it stands now - can you imagine how little leeway we'd get with this kind of tax structure?The Second Apron is an entirely different beast. With the amount set to $17.5 million over the tax line beginning in the 2023-24 season, the introduction of the Second Apron and rules tied to it effectively create a hard cap by greatly limiting what teams are allowed to do. Here are some of the restrictions teams beyond the Second Apron face.
- Teams will be unable to use the taxpayer mid level exception to sign players
- Teams will be unable to aggregate players for salary matching purposes
- Teams will be unable to send cash in trades
- Teams will be unable to acquire players via outgoing sign and trades
- Starting in 2024-25, teams will be unable to trade draft picks that are 7 years out. These picks will be “frozen” and a team will be unable to trade it for at least four years, in which they have to be at or below the Second Apron for the three following years.
- Teams who enter the Second Apron in two out of four Salary Cap Years will see their “frozen” draft pick downgraded to the end of the first round
Then where we are with concerns of BI's contract:
Unfortunately for the Pelicans, none of Ingram’s new deal will be at the pre-media deal rate. Williamson and McCollum are locked in through the new media deal, with Williamson’s 8% raises calculated off the first year of his extension. Ingram’s potential 8% raises will be calculated off a much larger figure based off the projected cap in 2025-26 [...]
Likewise, as discussed previously, any potential Ingram contract that the Pelicans secure in the future (provided he doesn’t simply leave at the conclusion of his deal), will be slated at a larger max in a larger cap. It will also kick in at the same time Trey Murphy’s deal will. This amount of financial commitment in the 2025-26 season will present significant obstacles in team building and the Pelicans will almost assuredly have to add assets to shed salary. The Pelicans have to weigh very carefully the costs of committing to Ingram long term that go beyond cutting his paycheck.
Have you been reading Shamit's article? He is touting that as a reason to dump BI (which he calls for often). I do not think all teams are going to suddenly drop a 3rd star. Teams will figure out how to navigate.
I have been reading that article, but I've also been reading others, and Shamit's claims aren't exactly isolated to him - the new CBA seems very negative for top heavy teams.
Is that a sign everyone is going to drop a third star? No, and I never claimed it was. It will depend on the stars in question, the team in question, and the owners in question.
But does it mean that our specific circumstances might benefit from breaking up the 'Big Three'? Maybe, if the offer is right. I'm not saying that we should just move people solely for the sake of moving them, but I think it would be negligence not to consider it very seriously.
Shamit makes it seems like every team will not be able to keep a 3rd star. The bigger issues are the teams that are repeaters. With the cap rising each year, teams like the Pels can find ways to dip in and out of the tax if needed. We will not be in nearly as dire a situation as Shamit makes it sound (unless we somehow max out Trey and overpay Herb).
I don't really care how Shamit makes it sound, my concerns are for the listed consequences of the new CBA - if you prefer, I can quote them from some other source, but I don't really see what difference it makes.
Looking at the market over the last several years, Trey is getting $20m a year or more when his extension comes in. That's just reality, as far as I'm concerned; I would be shocked if it were cheaper. Similarly, Herb is probably going to be making between $15m and $20m a year himself as well, when that extension hits. He's an All-defense guy, and whether he gets the accolade from the voters or not, the league knows it; Paul George nominated him for dpoy himself and I expect he's not the only person in the league with similar thoughts.
So if you're assuming that Herb + Trey combined are going to cost you in the region of $38m a year, and we know CJ is going to cost about $30m a year from now until his contract ends, and we also know that Zion's deal is going to come in at about $38m a year on average from now until it ends, that tells you that between those 4 players we have over $105m tied up in four guys. Right now Ingram is being paid about $35m a year on this current contract - and his next one will be even higher.
Even as it stands, his current contract combined with the Trey/Herb extensions is going to drive us into the tax. His next contract, which will probably be closer to $40m a year, will be even worse. That's before we even get into the fact that we're going to have to have other players on the roster as well, obviously. Can't win a ring with 5 players.
If you want to maintain any roster flexibility at all, someone has got to go - and that someone can't be a small saving on the edge, it has to be someone making significant money. That's where my mindset is coming from. It's my evaluation of the facts - the facts themselves (such as the consequences of the new CBA) happened to come from Shamit but they're not actually dependent on him. You're welcome to disagree and we can discuss that disagreement, but just pointing out that Shamit might be slightly hyperbolic doesn't actually engage with my central concern.
Last edited by Pelicanidae; 06-08-2023 at 02:17 PM.
You get an expiring in Hayward and a very late first this year (how about a high-upside project on a cheap contract like James Nnaji for example). Naji Marshall is expiring and even at a modest salary may be more than we want to pay.
Charlotte gets vet leadership for a rebuilding team, and a much better player than Hayward. They also may be interested in resigning Naji Marshall.
This frees up a lot of $$$ for our guys to re-sign. It also forces Willie to play Dyson and Kira more.
Last edited by donato; 06-08-2023 at 02:57 PM.
I love Herb, but I don't think we should commit to a contract starting at $20 million a year to him (unless it decreases each year). I can see the tax being an issue somewhere down the road, but likely not until at least another 3-4 years. Not sure we need to get rid of a 25 year old semi-star this early just in case. We would have to be comfortable that a player like Scoot were the next SGA to make it worth it.
I used about $18m average for my Herb number there - that would be assuming it starts a little lower, ends up a little higher, but $18m works as a baseline. I think that's fairly plausible when you look at what other people in the league make: $18m a year is about what Evan Fournier, Keldon Johnson, and Luguentz dort make. I think it's not much of a stretch to say that Herb is worth as much money a Lu dort is, for example.
Maybe you get him to sign the extension this year rather than next and you can convince him to take a slightly better deal than that, I suppose that's always possible, but really I think a $15m baseline for Herb is a sensible place to imagine it starting.
You mention that you're not sure if we need to make a trade of BI now in case, and I get that - especially if you think this team is 90% of the way to championship contention right now, and the health will turn around. If you think that, then why would you shake things up? I get that. My point is just that if you're not 100% convinced of that, something has to give because the change has to be made in the next year or so. Trying to make changes of that scale in the summer of 2024 will be harder, and in the summer of 2025 they might be impossible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote