Pelicans vs Thunder (YHT) Game 2 Playoffs! GAMEDAY THREAD!

[AUSSIE_PELICAN]

That's fine if you feel that way.. But some of the commentary in here is silly. My response was to a contradictory statement that was made. If you don't like Ingram or want him on the squad, I'm sure it's because of basketball reasons. I get it. But as I said, let's not get silly with it.

I have followed this team on and off since 1993. When you have this little amount to be positive about in terms of winning then you'll understand.
You jumped on after the AD trade and the team has been ok since then, but if Griff hangs onto BI because he is too scared to lose a player with a known name with the casuals then the team will end up like it has for the past 30 year for me.

I would rather not hamstring this team with fat contracts because BI is known amogst the casuals, but instead get players who fit within the system and or Zion.

I have advocated many times that I would take D. Murray and Onyeka Okongwu or even Clint Capela (plus a pick) for BI and this team would be no worse off in the win column, but room for growth and the ability to add to the roster.

Give me that everytime.

[Nichols]

I have followed this team on and off since 1993. When you have this little amount to be positive about in terms of winning then you'll understand.
You jumped on after the AD trade and the team has been ok since then, but if Griff hangs onto BI because he is too scared to lose a player with a known name with the casuals then the team will end up like it has for the past 30 year for me.

I would rather not hamstring this team with fat contracts because BI is known amogst the casuals, but instead get players who fit within the system and or Zion.

I have advocated many times that I would take D. Murray and Onyeka Okongwu or even Clint Capela (plus a pick) for BI and this team would be no worse off in the win column, but room for growth and the ability to add to the roster.

Give me that everytime.

I don't understand the point of this response. Your position has already been communicated by others. And I get it. Secondly my join date has nothing to do with my point of contention with what was said.

[AUSSIE_PELICAN]

I don't understand the point of this response. Your position has already been communicated by others. And I get it. Secondly my join date has nothing to do with my point of contention with what was said.

Well it does, because you are more open to paying BI or see the reasons as to why the organistaion may take that approach because you haven't had to sit through this BS for as long.
That was my point.

It comes a time, when you get sick of the same bad decisons over and over.

[Pelicanidae]

Win or lose he's rarely there. So how is that ducking smoke??

Because you don't pay someone $50m to not take responsibility in the playoffs. If we'd won and he's had 40, he would have made an appearance. Because we lost and he sucked 90% of the game, it's a no show.

When Zion has a no-show vs the Lakers in the IST, he still had to face the music, and he did. That's someone taking ownership of their production, good or bad.

[Nichols]

Because you don't pay someone $50m to not take responsibility in the playoffs. If we'd won and he's had 40, he would have made an appearance. Because we lost and he sucked 90% of the game, it's a no show.

When Zion has a no-show vs the Lakers in the IST, he still had to face the music, and he did. That's someone taking ownership of their production, good or bad.

Again.. win or lose. He's hardly there. Which means whether the team wins or loses, he's rarely there. So how is he ducking smoke if he doesn't show up all that often to begin with?

Criticism of his game is justified and warranted. I'm just saying let's not get nitpicky and silly. Your post was contradictory.

[Nichols]

Well it does, because you are more open to paying BI or see the reasons as to why the organistaion may take that approach because you haven't had to sit through this BS for as long.
That was my point.

It comes a time, when you get sick of the same bad decisons over and over.

I'm thinking you meant to reply to a different post that I made. Because what you're saying has nothing to do with my response to Pelicanidae.

I'll respond to what you're communicating here, even though I've already done this a few times now.

I'm not interested in making lateral moves. I'm not interested in making moves that insure mediocrity. I'm not interested in making moves that don't edge the team closer to championship contention. The moves you're advocating for take this team nowhere. They are inconsequential. I made it clear, you need all-star talent, at least 2, with a superstar to win a title. We are only missing one piece to that puzzle. You want to get rid of one of those pieces to get non all-star talent that "fits" better. What this will do is eventually accelerate the departure of your superstar talent.

You say Ingram isn't the answer. I say, Ingram doesn't have to be the answer, he's simply 1 of 3 answers on a championship squad.

With all that said, this exchange is somewhat pointless, considering what I've been told about ownership. They aren't going to pay for a 3rd guy. And they aren't going to pay what's needed for a championship roster. Given that dynamic, what are we even discussing really?

[AUSSIE_PELICAN]

I'm thinking you meant to reply to a different post that I made. Because what you're saying has nothing to do with my response to Pelicanidae.

I'll respond to what you're communicating here, even though I've already done this a few times now.

I'm not interested in making lateral moves. I'm not interested in making moves that insure mediocrity. I'm not interested in making moves that don't edge the team closer to championship contention. The moves you're advocating for take this team nowhere. They are inconsequential. I made it clear, you need all-star talent, at least 2, with a superstar to win a title. We are only missing one piece to that puzzle. You want to get rid of one of those pieces to get non all-star talent that "fits" better. What this will do is eventually accelerate the departure of your superstar talent.

You say Ingram isn't the answer. I say, Ingram doesn't have to be the answer, he's simply 1 of 3 answers on a championship squad.

With all that said, this exchange is somewhat pointless, considering what I've been told about ownership. They aren't going to pay for a 3rd guy. And they aren't going to pay what's needed for a championship roster. Given that dynamic, what are we even discussing really?

If Griffin gets value for BI he will trade him or any player even Zion.
Griffin just needs to win the trade in his eyes to move BI.

If Zion becomes that superstar we all hope, are you saying that he still needs two more all-stars to be added to this roster?

Yeah you can get off CJ's contract as soon as next year, but not BI if you pay him 50M.
I don't think BI is an all-star.
1 out of 8 seasons says so.

This is why I think adding a full roster of B+ talent (which I mentioned previously) and Zion is better than having Zion, BI and another all-start talent and no depth.

[Nichols]

If Griffin gets value for BI he will trade him or any player even Zion.
Griffin just needs to win the trade in his eyes to move BI.

If Zion becomes that superstar we all hope, are you saying that he still needs two more all-stars to be added to this roster?

Yeah you can get off CJ's contract as soon as next year, but not BI if you pay him 50M.
I don't think BI is an all-star.
1 out of 8 seasons says so.

This is why I think adding a full roster of B+ talent (which I mentioned previously) and Zion is better than having Zion, BI and another all-start talent and no depth.

I have acknowledged that I might be a bit overly optimistic. But yes, I'm presuming Zion will become a superstar in terms of production. There's only a few things for him to shore up to get him there.

Ingram is an All-star level player. Him only making one appearance in the game doesn't change that. He plays in the west. Jamal Murray even has trouble getting in.

Zion, and B+ talent is a competitive team. Not a championship team. I'd prefer Zion, Ingram, and a Siakam/Lavine/Paul George tiered player, with supporting cast.

One thing to consider is, I've been a lifelong Lakers fan. I'm a bit spoiled I guess. Playing to be competitive is basically a losing season. I can't get up for that. But maybe a lifelong Pels fan can. If you're not playing for a championship I don't see the point.

[AUSSIE_PELICAN]

I have acknowledged that I might be a bit overly optimistic. But yes, I'm presuming Zion will become a superstar in terms of production. There's only a few things for him to shore up to get him there.

Ingram is an All-star level player. Him only making one appearance in the game doesn't change that. He plays in the west. Jamal Murray even has trouble getting in.

Zion, and B+ talent is a competitive team. Not a championship team. I'd prefer Zion, Ingram, and a Siakam/Lavine/Paul George tiered player, with supporting cast.

One thing to consider is, I've been a lifelong Lakers fan. I'm a bit spoiled I guess. Playing to be competitive is basically a losing season. I can't get up for that. But maybe a lifelong Pels fan can. If you're not paying for a championship I don't see the point.

Yep....thats how you win championships nowadays, you have to pay the tax, but smart teams do it on the right players.

[Nichols]

Yep....thats how you win championships nowadays, you have to pay the tax, but smart teams do it on the right players.

There is no "smart" way. You're either opening up the checkbook or you're not doing anything significant. Outside of some rare exceptions.

[pr1840]

There is no "smart" way. You're either opening up the checkbook or you're not doing anything significant. Outside of some rare exceptions.

And what has been expressed previously is that the Pelicans are a small market team. If they are going to win a championship, they are going to have to be one of the rare exceptions. They are not just going to throw money at the problem. And that includes throwing $50 million at BI when there are obvious questions about his fit with Zion and his overall ability to be a #1 star on the team. You seem to think they can pay BI that amount, also pay Zion, and then still have money left to pay a third star $30 - $40 million. Whereas those who have followed the team much longer realize the opposite is true. The team would be cash strapped and not even be able to retain key players like Trey Murphy.

Long story short, for what BI gives you, and realizing the spending limitations this team has, handing BI a $50 million contract would be a catastrophic decision. Much better to trade him for players that should be a better fit around Zion and/or draft picks that can be used to hopefully draft or trade for another star. And then pay Trey much less than BI and hope he continues to develop into another star next to Zion.