- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Per Jake Fisher our offer to Ingram was 4/140
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:46 am to Soggymoss
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:46 am to Soggymoss
I don't dislike Ingram like I did Boogie when Boogie left but man I hope that doesn't turn around and bite him in the arse like it did Boogie. I don't think Boogie made the amount of money we offered him the rest of his career in total than what we offered him with a torn achilles. Seemed like a pretty fair offer imo. Hope he ends up earning a better deal though, I'd be happy for him. But that's a lot of money to turn down.
0
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:52 am to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
I don't recall the Bulls or Toronto making out like bandits on those deals.
I was by far the biggest proponent on here pushing for us to trade him when the bulls were trading him. That’s when he had little to no value.
I’m talking about when Ainge made him available this past summer. Numerous teams wanted him, us included.
https://www.si.com/nba/thunder/news/utah-s-high-asking-price-for-lauri-markkanen-shows-okc-thunder-trade-was-never-realistic-01j2w36jg497
As for OG, they got two young starters for him. We got zero starters and maybe a middling first round pick.
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 8:58 am
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:54 am to Townedrunkard
quote:
I’m talking about when Ainge made him available this past summer. Numerous teams wanted him, us included.
And they got exactly nothing for him. The only "interest" came from the NBA trade rumor mill.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:59 am to Galactic Inquisitor
They didn’t have to trade him. They have zero stars on that team, Ainge wanted multiple firsts and young players. If he didn’t get it, he wasn’t trading him. It’s laughable you comparing Lauri’s value to BI. They not even in the same ballpark.
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 9:00 am
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:02 am to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
And they got exactly nothing for him. The only "interest" came from the NBA trade rumor mill.
quote:
The Golden State Warriors are offering Moses Moody, multiple first-round picks, multiple pick swaps and multiple second-round picks to the Utah Jazz in exchange for Lauri Lauri Markkanen, per @ShamsCharania
Compare this to the teeth Griffin had to pull just to get one first for BI….
And Ainge still told them no.
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 9:03 am
Posted on 2/12/25 at 9:30 am to Pistol44
quote:We could’ve had Jrue, Josh Hart, BI and Zion and you’re acting like we did something good. We’ve had a ton of talent and Griff somehow ended up with no Jrue, no Josh Hart, no BI, hurt and average when he was healthy Murray. That’s not good management, that’s terrible management and why our best hope is to maybe win 1 playoff series every 10 years. Really sad that we’re more concerned with not paying the luxury tax than winning.
Griff sure saved the organization a bunch of $$ on Jrue (doesn't fit the timeline), Josh (spacing issues), and now BI (game doesn't fit). Go ahead, not my dime, and believe what you want, but look at the team now and the next few years. A severe talent deficit, but dodged that tax though.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 10:10 am to Townedrunkard
quote:
I’m talking about when Ainge made him available this past summer. Numerous teams wanted him, us included.
And Ainge wasn't really interested in trading considering his overvalueing of him and what he wanted in return.
quote:
As for OG, they got two young starters for him. We got zero starters and maybe a middling first round pick.
He was traded before the deadline last year. Don't you think BI would have gotten at least that had he been available with 1.5 years left on his contract, while having a great start to the year averaging 23/5/6?
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:01 am to Townedrunkard
quote:
And they got exactly nothing for him. The only "interest" came from the NBA trade rumor mill.
Which you, I presume, tried to refute with:
quote:
per @ShamsCharania
Posted on 2/12/25 at 11:27 am to Townedrunkard
quote:
Moses Moody, multiple first-round picks, multiple pick swaps and multiple second-round picks to the Utah Jazz in exchange for Lauri Lauri Markkanen
No fight in this argument BUT Ainge is a smart GM. You pair a healthy Lauri with Steph and that team can win a championship.
If they do that trade Utah could be looking at (2) 1sts #26-30, (1-2) swaps #20-30, (1) 2nd, and a mediocre Moody. That's a dog shite return > keeping your only star and building around him.
BI is a different situation because we weren't keeping him for the price and already have other stars to build around.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 12:28 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
No fight in this argument BUT Ainge is a smart GM.
Not too smart apparently, he passed that deal up and now Lauri is looking like the worst deal in the NBA as Collins is outplaying him.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 1:12 pm to Soggymoss
quote:This article says Fischer claimed it was 4 years/$160 million.
Jake was on SXM this morning and when asked about it he said in the offseason our offer to BI was a 4/140 deal (35 million a year).
Everyone said that was a fair offer and he probably won’t get much more than that from Toronto either
LINK
Posted on 2/12/25 at 1:38 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
Not too smart apparently, he passed that deal up and now Lauri is looking like the worst deal in the NBA as Collins is outplaying him.
Hasn't he been dealing with injuries this year? If he gets back close to 25pts/ 8reb he will be fine.
Also Ainge wants to pair another star with him so yeah they will probably look like shite until he gets help.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 1:46 pm to Dantheman504
Posted on 2/12/25 at 1:51 pm to Soggymoss
I mean I'd also rather be the #1 option > sharing it with Zion and CJ (who shouldn't even be in that conversation but is)
If we traded CJ before the deadline I'd prob give it a 50/50 chance he re-signs.
We chose CJ > BI which IMO is worse than choosing neither.
If we traded CJ before the deadline I'd prob give it a 50/50 chance he re-signs.
We chose CJ > BI which IMO is worse than choosing neither.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 2:32 pm to Dantheman504
quote:Not sure we can conclude that. Remember that CJ only has one year left on his deal. His contract and an extension for BI are not one and the same.
We chose CJ > BI which IMO is worse than choosing neither.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 2:56 pm to NOSHAU
quote:
Not sure we can conclude that. Remember that CJ only has one year left on his deal.
Yeah and that's 1 year completely wasted. I'd rather have a plan for the future even if that included keeping BI. I almost put "for now" because best case scenario would be an offeason trade. Worst case scenario is an extension. Which has already been rumored soo yes we did kinda choose CJ > BI and that gives me a bad gut feeling.
As much as we love CJ he is a soft arse leader and not the guy for the future.
Keeping him another year and people cheering it just proves Griff and company how soft and compliant our fan base is.
Keeping CJ cause he's a good dude, keeping Jose because he's a fan favorite, etccc. Just more excuses for our FO to not do shite and then laugh at us.
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 2/12/25 at 4:27 pm to Dantheman504
quote:You are looking at one point in time. They have to look at how contracts affect future years as well. With Trey's contract, they have to decide whether a multi-year BI extension at X value makes sense given the contracts of Z, Trey and Murray as those extend multiple years.
Yeah and that's 1 year completely wasted. I'd rather have a plan for the future even if that included keeping BI. I almost put "for now" because best case scenario would be an offeason trade. Worst case scenario is an extension. Which has already been rumored soo yes we did kinda choose CJ > BI and that gives me a bad gut feeling.
As much as we love CJ he is a soft arse leader and not the guy for the future.
Keeping him another year and people cheering it just proves Griff and company how soft and compliant our fan base is.
Keeping CJ cause he's a good dude, keeping Jose because he's a fan favorite, etccc. Just more excuses for our FO to not do shite and then laugh at us.
Posted on 2/13/25 at 9:07 am to NOSHAU
quote:
You are looking at one point in time.
No. Exact opposite actually. Y'all are looking at one point in time... That's the only excuse people have to keep CJ. Is BI or CJ a better asset in 2-3 years? I don't understand how y'all keep trying to make a point with this.
quote:
They have to look at how contracts affect future years as well
This is assuming we don't extend CJ or keep him next year. Y'all do realize having BI on a 3 year deal is better for our future than an expiring/ extended CJ from an asset standpoint? No viable free agents are coming here and we are slowly losing all tradeable assets unless we trade core pieces. Trading BI for matching salaries and letting them walk hurts us for the future.
Fans praise moves like the BI trade but then will get upset when we have to attach 1sts with CJ/ Murray/ Herb to get actual upgrades because we have no other player assets.
quote:
With Trey's contract, they have to decide whether a multi-year BI extension at X value makes sense given the contracts of Z, Trey and Murray as those extend multiple years.
Yeah I understand, and IMO the answer is that you keep your most valued future assets unless you trade them for something that makes more sense.
Trading BI for no future players and keeping CJ makes absolutely no sense and actually worries me for what future decisions could be made. We would legit be better off attaching 1sts with BI to get actual future players > the current situation of losing assets for no guarantees.
Atleast at that point it wouldn't matter what we do with CJ. Now we are forced to turn CJ into something or except that our FO doesn't give a frick about winning if we extend him.
This post was edited on 2/13/25 at 9:55 am
Posted on 2/13/25 at 9:57 am to Dantheman504
Having CJ next year = net 0 for the future.
Giving CJ an extension = net negative for the future
Giving BI an extension = future value
It really isn't complicated. We are already "losing" future value and keeping CJ any longer will just make that even worse.
I was essentially attacked for saying "I don't like the CJ extension" the first time we extended him. Where could we be right now if we didn't extend him? We would already be in a better future position..... In hindsight I was correct.
Giving CJ an extension = net negative for the future
Giving BI an extension = future value
It really isn't complicated. We are already "losing" future value and keeping CJ any longer will just make that even worse.
I was essentially attacked for saying "I don't like the CJ extension" the first time we extended him. Where could we be right now if we didn't extend him? We would already be in a better future position..... In hindsight I was correct.
This post was edited on 2/13/25 at 10:07 am
Posted on 2/13/25 at 10:01 am to Dantheman504
quote:
or accept that our FO doesn't give a frick about winning if we extend him.
They may say they care, but they care more about not paying the tax more than winning, which has been made clearly evident with this stupid trade.
If the offer was 4/$160 with 5% raises, then he's making slightly more in year 1 than he is this year, which is a reasonable offer.
4/$171 with 8% raises, which is what his current contract raises are, and the same year 1 salary as his new contract he just signed, would likely have been more attractive to him, and should have been the offer.
But I think he did the right thing signing the deal he did.
You have to also consider age here. If BI signs a 4 year deal, that means he'll be 32 when that contract is up, and you're unlikely to get a big multi year deal at 32. The contract he just signs allows him to improve his health (which i'd bet money he plays over 70 games next year) and prove he's worth one last big contract at age 30.
I think it's obvious he didn't want to be here anymore, or be coached by WIllie or another dumbass that our dumbass GM will hire this offseason.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News