- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NBA Offseason officially kicks off, Ingram’s days in NOLA coming to an end per Stein
Posted on 8/13/24 at 6:05 am to shel311
Posted on 8/13/24 at 6:05 am to shel311
quote:
Seems like we're just stuck as there's no market for BI.
I get it, realistically BI won't come off the bench. But my fear is we're going to prioiritze 2 guys with no long term future and prioritize their feelings while 2 long term future Pels players will suffer. That's just not the right play IMO.
If I had to guess, it's Herb and Trey that will suffer the most. Herb may get his minutes and start, but with so many mouths to feed, I'd look for his offense and shot attempts to go down, when he's a guy I'd love to see take more shots and attack more. Trey, he just won't get starter minutes and most minutes matched with Zion or nearly enough shots up as a result of minutes and the aforementioned other mouths to feed.
It would probably only be for half the yr. They are going to have to make a decision by the deadline.
0
Posted on 8/13/24 at 6:23 am to brmark70816
quote:
don't care about PER, but if you want to hang your hat on a difference of .3 then there you go.
You said by any measure. I'm just playing by your rules.
quote:
They both suck on defense.
Ingram sucks less and you know it.
quote:
Lame excuse. I never see this used in any other player debate.
The frick? Yes you do. Other posters are talking about trading cj for ayton simply because their contracts are similar.
You're just salty man. And you got proven wrong about CJ being better "by any metric"
quote:
If you are obviously rooting for Ingram to get a deal that negatively impacts the team in the future and hamstrings them from making other moves, how are you supporting the team?
Who said this? Who said pay Ingram 50 per? Literally no one on this site. Maybe, just maybe, we want the one guy that wants to be here to be successful and for us to be successful. It's not like we have a winning record with Ingram or anything lol
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 6:26 am
Posted on 8/13/24 at 8:07 am to whatiknowsofar
quote:
Ingram sucks less and you know it.
Ok.
quote:
The frick? Yes you do. Other posters are talking about trading cj for ayton simply because their contracts are similar.
You're just salty man. And you got proven wrong about CJ being better "by any metric"
McCollum was better last year is what I said and he was. Given their reputations and level of talent, that shouldn't be the case. Ingram is supposed to be a max guy, which is by definition a franchise player. He shouldn't be barely edging out other starters.
I think you missed my point completely. Whenever you debate a player's greatness or if you would want him, how often do you factor in pay? I dont, cause the top 5-10 guys are all worth more than the max or supermax. You can't pay guys like Doncic, Jokic or Embiid enough. So it doesn't matter. If Ingram was that guy, then money wouldn't be a debate.
quote:
Who said this? Who said pay Ingram 50 per? Literally no one on this site. Maybe, just maybe, we want the one guy that wants to be here to be successful and for us to be successful. It's not like we have a winning record with Ingram or anything lol
We don't have a winning record with Ingram. We are over 10 games under. 500 since he's been with us.
Honestly, you want to keep him? How much are you going to pay him? What do you do with the rest of the team? What is the ceiling for the team, if he's still playing for us?
Posted on 8/13/24 at 8:27 am to brmark70816
quote:
think you missed my point completely. Whenever you debate a player's greatness or if you would want him, how often do you factor in pay? I dont, cause the top 5-10 guys are all worth more than the max or supermax. You can't pay guys like Doncic, Jokic or Embiid enough. So it doesn't matter. If Ingram was that guy, then money wouldn't be a debate.
Bro we weren't even talking about this. You said ingram was the 3rd or 4th best player on the team, then dared anyone to prove that he was better than CJ by any metric. All the supermax contract stuff you said, I do agree with. He ain't worth that. But you're just changing your talking point to be right about something.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 8:47 am to brmark70816
quote:
McCollum was better last year is what I said and he was. Given their reputations and level of talent, that shouldn't be the case. Ingram is supposed to be a max guy, which is by definition a franchise player. He shouldn't be barely edging out other starters.
I'll engage your dumbass since i'm bored and i like arguing with idiots.
BI was never considered a franchise guy. I don't know what you consider a franchise guy, but to me it's someone who is going to be a near MVP candidate and lead the team to 50+ wins easily.
BI is a #2, and that's been clear for quite some time. #2 can still get max contracts.
BI and CJ are two different types of players. One is expected to shoulder the load of creating and scoring. The other is a role player who shoots 3's, and is elite at it while also having the ability to be a 3rd scorer. CJ as the #2 gets you no where. CJ as a #3 is great. No different than BI. BI as a #1 gets you no where. BI as a #2 can be great.
Let me say this to you and make sure you remember this.
NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS SITE WANTS TO GIVE BI A MAX CONTRACT.
quote:
We don't have a winning record with Ingram. We are over 10 games under. 500 since he's been with us.
Hey dumbass, we are 144-143 all time with BI playing. We are 44-59 without him.
We were 38-26 with BI this past year. We were 11-7 without him.
23-22 with him in 2023. 19-18 without him.
29-26 with him in 2022. 7-20 without him.
29-32 with him in 2021. 2-9 without him.
25-37 with him in 2020. 5-5 without him.
Zion has played in 184 games, and missed 214 in 5 years.
Zion is the franchise player. Zion should be the one that gets the majority of the blame and praise on this team. You want to claim he's the #1 not BI, then start making him shoulder the weight of being the #1. He's the reason we are 10 games under .500 since he got here, not BI. He's been unprofessional for 4.5 of the 5 years he's been here. All BI has done since he got here is work harder than anyone else on the team and actually want to be here. And i don't say that like BI has no fault. Of course he does. But if Zion is the #1, then start blaming him more than anyone else, and that's not hard to do.
CJ was awful against OKC. I"m not going blame him for the loss. BI was awful as well, and hurt, and i'd put a lot more blame on him than CJ b/c i expect better, but not having your #1 is the #1 reason why we were uncompetitive against OKC.
quote:
Honestly, you want to keep him? How much are you going to pay him?
I'd be fine with moving him for the right package, but I do want to see him with Murray. Murray/BI/Zion are a much better core than removing BI and adding CJ or Trey. CJ and Trey are role players. They can be great role players, but that's what they are, no different than Herb. If it doesn't work out to start the season, then move him.
What I'd sted fast to giving him is the value that would pay him the exact same as Zion, just like what Indiana did with Siakam and Haliburton. That would give BI somewhere around 4/$174 or 3/$126. The 3/$126 would have him matched up with Zion and both would expire the same year. If there's a way to trigger more for him by making an All-NBA team, then i'd put that in the contract.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 8:49 am to whatiknowsofar
The question isn't "Can BI be a good player in the NBA?" The obvious answer to that is yes. The question is "Is BI worth having on this team moving forward at a salary near 40 million per year?" The answer to that question is much more complicated than can he be a good player.
For me, the answer to the second question is no. With Murray coming in we have a primary ball handler who is going to replace BI's stats of 20/5/5 with what should be improved efficiency. That allows us to fill the starting lineup and closing lineup with better fitting pieces around our best player. BI's salary does not allow this team to upgrade its most gaping hole at center. BI also does not fit with the best player on the team. He does very little to make Zion's game easier. Zion also doesn't do much to make BI's game easier. We can't run a pick and roll with them because neither want to shoot from distance and they are guarded by similar players. Zion's court gravity doesn't help Ingram as much because he refuses to shoot 3's consistently which leads to both of them wanting to operate in the same spots. We really should not continue to try to fit a square peg in a round hole, especially at 40 million per year.
It is just so obvious to me that the best path forward for this organization is to move on from BI. The hope would be to use BI to upgrade the center position from the league worst situation we currently have. Sign Murphy to an extension and move forward with the core of Z, Murray, Herb, and Murphy. CJ will be the next big decision the team has to make. If CJ would accept a sixth man role going forward he could still remain a valuable piece for us over the next 2-3 years.
For me, the answer to the second question is no. With Murray coming in we have a primary ball handler who is going to replace BI's stats of 20/5/5 with what should be improved efficiency. That allows us to fill the starting lineup and closing lineup with better fitting pieces around our best player. BI's salary does not allow this team to upgrade its most gaping hole at center. BI also does not fit with the best player on the team. He does very little to make Zion's game easier. Zion also doesn't do much to make BI's game easier. We can't run a pick and roll with them because neither want to shoot from distance and they are guarded by similar players. Zion's court gravity doesn't help Ingram as much because he refuses to shoot 3's consistently which leads to both of them wanting to operate in the same spots. We really should not continue to try to fit a square peg in a round hole, especially at 40 million per year.
It is just so obvious to me that the best path forward for this organization is to move on from BI. The hope would be to use BI to upgrade the center position from the league worst situation we currently have. Sign Murphy to an extension and move forward with the core of Z, Murray, Herb, and Murphy. CJ will be the next big decision the team has to make. If CJ would accept a sixth man role going forward he could still remain a valuable piece for us over the next 2-3 years.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 12:13 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
I'll engage your dumbass since i'm bored and i like arguing with idiots.
Be careful. The banhammer actually exists here, it seems.
quote:
NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS SITE WANTS TO GIVE BI A MAX CONTRACT.
Right? It's like a few people banded together, took an extreme view on all things BI, and created their own Boogeyman.
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 8/13/24 at 12:55 pm to TeddyPadillac
BI is better than CJ, that debate is the wrong way to frame it.
I think the actual issue is most think it's not very close and BI is wayyyyy better than CJ, when truthfully, he's incrementally better than CJ.
There is a valid discussion around if there usages were reversed, wouldn't CJ just have similarly slightly better stats than BI, like BI has slightly better stats than CJ. Again, the difference between the 2 are very slight, BI is not considerably better than CJ, or he wasn't last season.
Without looking, I believe CJ also beat BI in quite a few catch all metrics last season.
I think the actual issue is most think it's not very close and BI is wayyyyy better than CJ, when truthfully, he's incrementally better than CJ.
There is a valid discussion around if there usages were reversed, wouldn't CJ just have similarly slightly better stats than BI, like BI has slightly better stats than CJ. Again, the difference between the 2 are very slight, BI is not considerably better than CJ, or he wasn't last season.
Without looking, I believe CJ also beat BI in quite a few catch all metrics last season.
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 8/13/24 at 1:08 pm to shel311
quote:
There is a valid discussion around if there usages were reversed, wouldn't CJ just have similarly slightly better stats than BI, like BI has slightly better stats than CJ.
Not really. BI is a better player and can still get better.
Now if CJ was BI's size/ athleticism and still had his IQ + shot selection? Well yeah it would be "CJ" by a lot. But BI is the superior player.
If CJ is better than BI in a limited role then that pretty much means we don't have the minutes/role for BI on this team. It also means he's good enough to need a bigger role.. Which means that by default CJ being maximized in a lesser role = BI is better.
He's not +4 picks in a trade better (because of contract) but he is better.
If you have 1 team that "highly values BI" and one team that "highly values CJ" BI is going to get fairly more value in a trade.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 1:23 pm to Dantheman504
quote:Yes really
Not really.
quote:We're trying to trade BI for multiple reasons, THIS being one of them. He doesn't fit with this team.
If CJ is better than BI in a limited role then that pretty much means we don't have the minutes/role for BI on this team.
quote:No, it doesn't mean that.
It also means he's good enough to need a bigger role.
BI isn't good enough to be #2, that has no bearing on whether he is decidedly better than CJ. How would it?
quote:It doesn't because BI didn't need a bigger role.
It also means he's good enough to need a bigger role
quote:The part of the question you're missing is BI not fitting in his role.
Which means that by default CJ being maximized in a lesser role = BI is better.
quote:I've already said he's better, just slightly.
He's not +4 picks in a trade better (because of contract) but he is better.
quote:Age will do that. I never spoke about trade value, I said BI was barely better than CJ last season, because BI was barely better than CJ last season. There isn't much to point to that would show BI was THAT much better than CJ last season. And anything that can be shown, CJ can show metrics to his advantage as well to cancel it out, or like I said, show that BI was not decidedly better than CJ last season.
If you have 1 team that "highly values BI" and one team that "highly values CJ" BI is going to get fairly more value in a trade.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 1:46 pm to shel311
quote:
It also means he's good enough to need a bigger role.
No, it doesn't mean that.
BI isn't good enough to be #2, that has no bearing on whether he is decidedly better than CJ. How would it?
This is actually wrong IMO.. We already had the whole conversation about BI being a #2.
Now being a #2 next to Zion? On this team? No problably not. But neither is CJ...
MURRAY is our #2. BI would be an expensive #3 that doesn't fit our roster. CJ would be #4 with BI or a very good #3 without BI and with the addition of a PG in Murray.
Again you are saying "BI isn't ___" based off how he fits on this team.
Karlo being playable now "fits this team" he has more value than BI? Come on now.
"Better" and better for this team are 2 different things. CJ can play SG and only SG. BI is just entering his prime.
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 8/13/24 at 1:54 pm to Dantheman504
quote:No, BI isn't good enough to be a #2. You don't have to try to read too deep into, it's pretty obvious and clear as day he's just not THAT good.
This is actually wrong IMO
Again, he's barely better than CJ.
quote:Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying, same exact thing as Karlo has more value than BI.
Karlo being playable now "fits this team" he has more value than BI? Come on now.
Again, I never said anything about value. Told you that last post, but you're still talking about value for some reason.
quote:BI is incrementally better than CJ.
"Better" and better for this team are 2 different things
This post was edited on 8/13/24 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 8/13/24 at 1:57 pm to Dantheman504
And you are saying all of this as if CJ wasn't brought in to be our #3 after failing as a #2 with Dame.
CJ fit very well as a #3. (Considering PG duties)
BI did not fit great as a #2 (with our #1)
Murray replaced BI as our #2.
CJ is still #3.
None of this makes BI a #3 or starts a conversation about CJ being better or extremely close. If you consider age + the fact that 1 guy is clearly coming off a bad year then this is a bit much.
CJ fit very well as a #3. (Considering PG duties)
BI did not fit great as a #2 (with our #1)
Murray replaced BI as our #2.
CJ is still #3.
None of this makes BI a #3 or starts a conversation about CJ being better or extremely close. If you consider age + the fact that 1 guy is clearly coming off a bad year then this is a bit much.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 1:59 pm to Dantheman504
quote:Zion has not played in more than he has played in since we got CJ...
CJ fit very well as a #3. (Considering PG duties)
BI did not fit great as a #2 (with our #1)
quote:What does age have to do with who was better and by how much last season?
If you consider age + the fact that 1 guy is clearly coming off a bad year then this is a bit much.
Are you STILL doing the value thing?
Posted on 8/13/24 at 2:20 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
We already had the whole conversation about BI being a #2.
Where could BI go and make that team a contender as the #2?
Would he make the Warriors a top 6 seed in the West?
Posted on 8/13/24 at 2:20 pm to shel311
quote:
BI is incrementally better than CJ.
I think its funny how BI had injury issues among everything else last year and you have the audacity to say all this.
Meanwhile CJ shoots 0-20 5 seconds into the shot clock without acknowledging Zion:
"CJ could never do anything wrong" "He murdered that guy because his hand was injured" "he would have never murdered that guy if his hand wasn't hurt"
You made 1 unbiased comment about CJ a few weeks ago but I see you are back. Must mean the season is getting closer!
I joke but really bro CJ will do better in a limited/ controlled role. BI needs the ball and space. Its just a different situation. If it didn't happen to be this specific season with limited cap then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 2:27 pm to brmark70816
quote:
Where could BI go and make that team a contender as the #2?
I'm sorry did I miss where there aren't (30) teams in the NBA?
Where the frick did "#2 contender" come from?
So what a #2 on one of the top 4 teams? We don't even technically have 1 of those... You know since y'all want to make every point in reference to THIS specific team?
BI "not being the best #2 to win a championship" and BI not being a #2 are completely different.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 2:40 pm to Dantheman504
quote:Not following your logic here, because it's majorly flawed.
I think its funny how BI had injury issues among everything else last year and you have the audacity to say all this.
quote:You want to talk shot selection and shot efficiency between CJ and BI last season? You sure you wanna do that?
Meanwhile CJ shoots 0-20 5 seconds into the shot clock without acknowledging Zion:
We can do that, you will lose that argument badly, but just let me know if you want to.
quote:BI was incrementally better than CJ last season, any way you slice it.
You made 1 unbiased comment about CJ a few weeks ago but I see you are back. Must mean the season is getting closer!
quote:Certainly, I agree.
I joke but really bro CJ will do better in a limited/ controlled role.
quote:I don't fully agree. This season and Murray specifically exacerbates that issue, but it was absolutely still an issue last season. Trey just fits better. We need Trey's skill set more than BI's more than ever now, but we also needed that last season too.
BI needs the ball and space. Its just a different situation. If it didn't happen to be this specific season with limited cap then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 3:01 pm to shel311
If Murray can play second fiddle to Zion being a true #1, and do it as good or better than BI, then yes i'd much rather CJ's offense as the #3 than BI. It fits better b/c his skills are being maximized as a #3. BI's would be somewhat wasted as a #3.
CJ is what you want out of a #3 on offense. Elite shooter who can affect the defense even when he doesn't have the ball, while still being a guy that can create for himself when needed. CJ becomes less efficient as a #2, and i've shown those stats before showing how when BI or Zion was out this year and CJ was the #2 he reverts back to more mid range shots, but when the two play he has a beautiful shot chart and is an efficient scorer.
But b/c CJ is such a terrible defender, he's a big liability on this team in the playoffs as a starter. The only way he works in the playoffs is if he's going off offensively to make up for the terrible defense.
What CJ does for us can be replaced by Trey, and Trey is a much better defender.
We have no idea how Murray fits into all of this.
I've shown the stats before how BI could benefit from having a real PG. BI averaging 20ppg efficiently off the ball is better for the team than CJ doing it at 20ppg, and that's b/c of BI's defense.
If Murray is going to average near 20/10 regardless if it's with BI or CJ, and BI becomes more efficient off the ball, then it's a really simple decision to want BI over CJ.
CJ is what you want out of a #3 on offense. Elite shooter who can affect the defense even when he doesn't have the ball, while still being a guy that can create for himself when needed. CJ becomes less efficient as a #2, and i've shown those stats before showing how when BI or Zion was out this year and CJ was the #2 he reverts back to more mid range shots, but when the two play he has a beautiful shot chart and is an efficient scorer.
But b/c CJ is such a terrible defender, he's a big liability on this team in the playoffs as a starter. The only way he works in the playoffs is if he's going off offensively to make up for the terrible defense.
What CJ does for us can be replaced by Trey, and Trey is a much better defender.
We have no idea how Murray fits into all of this.
I've shown the stats before how BI could benefit from having a real PG. BI averaging 20ppg efficiently off the ball is better for the team than CJ doing it at 20ppg, and that's b/c of BI's defense.
If Murray is going to average near 20/10 regardless if it's with BI or CJ, and BI becomes more efficient off the ball, then it's a really simple decision to want BI over CJ.
Posted on 8/13/24 at 3:13 pm to shel311
quote:
You want to talk shot selection and shot efficiency between CJ and BI last season? You sure you wanna do that?
We can do that, you will lose that argument badly, but just let me know if you want to.
Comparing CJ and BI's shot chart is just as stupid as comparing Trey and BI's shot chart.
BI isn't in the same role as CJ. If you believe Murray can take BI's role and do better, then fine.
Do you think CJ is better for this team as the clear #3, as opposed to BI/Murray being 2a/2b?
Page 181 of 185
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News