- 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
1
Posted on 5/28/24 at 11:30 am to shel311
Lavine is gonna be a no from me dawg
Posted on 5/28/24 at 11:32 am to Epic Cajun
Lavine is like the CJ replacement, but is he better than CJ? Don't think so.
He should not be discussed with BI. Lavine is (or is close to) a negative asset.
He should not be discussed with BI. Lavine is (or is close to) a negative asset.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Lavine is (or is close to) a negative asset.
Yup with his injury history and contract- complete negative asset. Getting back Lavine in any trade is an absolute failure.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 11:48 am to Soggymoss
quote:
If other targets aren’t available like Mitchell, Trae etc, then Lavine very well maybe the next best trade, especially with Chicago having to give up picks and Caruso like in the trade I outlined.
Maybe we could entice Chicago into also giving us Lonzo Ball in that trade.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 12:38 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
Maybe we could entice Chicago into also giving us Lonzo Ball in that trade.
I was listening to a show he was on. The guy has a cadaver mcl and says hes 70 percent. Unfortunately, I don’t remember any players returning to past level of play with that kind of surgery. Feel bad for lonzo- he was easily the most likeable Ball in the family.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 12:49 pm to Pels_Yaz
He is back dunking already, but I don’t see him being able to make a worthwhile comeback
Posted on 5/28/24 at 1:53 pm to Soggymoss
Wouldn't mind signing Malik Monk and doing a sign and trade B.I. for Nic Claxton and include another team to get a PG that can compete for the starting job. I would then think long and hard as to whether CJ needs to be traded or come off the bench.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 4:14 pm to Ijuschill1
quote:
B.I. for Nic Claxton
This would be horrible
Posted on 5/28/24 at 4:20 pm to Ijuschill1
quote:
Wouldn't mind signing Malik Monk
Me neither, but where you shitting 25 million to match his other offers?
quote:
doing a sign and trade B.I. for Nic Claxton and include another team to get a PG that can compete for the starting job
Horrible trade, unless Nets are getting us Trae with a combination of their picks and ours why would we do this?
This post was edited on 5/28/24 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 5/28/24 at 5:04 pm to Pels_Yaz
quote:
he was easily the most likeable Ball in the family.
And it's not even close.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 5:09 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
In fact he’s played the same exact amount of games the past 5 seasons as Ingram, and thats including this season where Lavine only played 25 games, so he really averages more games played a year than Ingram.
I don't know how you calculate averages, but it's wrong.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 5:58 pm to Jester
quote:
I don't know how you calculate averages, but it's wrong.
Would you rather a guy who misses 5-10 games a year for 4 years straight and almost all of one season,
Or would you rather a guy that misses 20-40 games every year for 5 years.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 7:08 pm to TeddyPadillac
That's a fair argument, but it doesn't change the average
Posted on 5/28/24 at 7:43 pm to Jester
Lavine is someone you trade for if you have a star and nothing else and he’s about to leave so you cobble a shite platter together out of desperation, like Mavs before Kyrie, and pray that 20% chance hits and works out.
You don’t trade BI for that lol.
You don’t trade BI for that lol.
This post was edited on 5/28/24 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 5/28/24 at 8:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
I brought up lavine a month or so ago and got the same responses . I think yall miss the point on the lavine trade …
You buy low so you have a chance to sell high and reap the rewards . Everyone wants nvidia now but not everyone can afford it .
It’s not just about Lavine , it’s about the pieces and future capital you get for taking him on that help you eventually find the #1 or #2 guy.
You arent selling BI or CJ for a true #2 guy currently . So Lavine allows you a guy that fits better offensively and a slight chance that he hits and future opportunities to draft/ trade for #2.
You buy low so you have a chance to sell high and reap the rewards . Everyone wants nvidia now but not everyone can afford it .
It’s not just about Lavine , it’s about the pieces and future capital you get for taking him on that help you eventually find the #1 or #2 guy.
You arent selling BI or CJ for a true #2 guy currently . So Lavine allows you a guy that fits better offensively and a slight chance that he hits and future opportunities to draft/ trade for #2.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 9:00 pm to AboveTheRim
quote:
It’s not just about Lavine , it’s about the pieces and future capital you get for taking him on that help you eventually find the #1 or #2 guy.
No one is missing the point. It’s not about collecting assets. We’re at the stage where we need to cash in our assets and be competitive quickly. Enough of the adding to the treasure chest. Cash in that treasure to upgrade your team.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 9:23 pm to Pels_Yaz
The problem lies in is that player available right now? What if that perfect fit player doesn’t shake loose until next offseason? Now you have Ingram on the roster who you basically were forced to pay a max deal to even though he doesn’t fit the team, and now you have a guy on a 5 year deal that will likely hinder your trade options for him, wheras with a guy like Lavine he has 2 years left on his contract and you can get pretty much anyone to take that.
In the short term you have a guy that fits great with Zion, you just have the knee concerns, but you have to trust your medical staff to take care of that, along with him basically having a year of rest.
There’s usually never a perfect trade available when you’re ready or need to trade, you just have to bide time until that trade opportunity comes available, I would rather bide that time taking a swing on a guy we will get assets to take but he fits perfectly, rather than a guy we know doesn’t fit and will have to paid.
If it works out and Lavine stays healthy then great, we can flip him to another team for a star without giving up extra assets, if it doesn’t work out then the only thing it will cost you to move him for a star besides our picks is the two first rounders Chicago gave you, plus you still have Caruso. It’s a risk, but one worth taking before signing Ingram back imo
In the short term you have a guy that fits great with Zion, you just have the knee concerns, but you have to trust your medical staff to take care of that, along with him basically having a year of rest.
There’s usually never a perfect trade available when you’re ready or need to trade, you just have to bide time until that trade opportunity comes available, I would rather bide that time taking a swing on a guy we will get assets to take but he fits perfectly, rather than a guy we know doesn’t fit and will have to paid.
If it works out and Lavine stays healthy then great, we can flip him to another team for a star without giving up extra assets, if it doesn’t work out then the only thing it will cost you to move him for a star besides our picks is the two first rounders Chicago gave you, plus you still have Caruso. It’s a risk, but one worth taking before signing Ingram back imo
This post was edited on 5/28/24 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 5/28/24 at 10:34 pm to AboveTheRim
quote:
I brought up lavine a month or so ago and got the same responses . I think yall miss the point on the lavine trade …
You buy low so you have a chance to sell high and reap the rewards . Everyone wants nvidia now but not everyone can afford it .
The Mavericks moved Spencer Dinwiddie, Dorian Finney-Smith, and a first rounder (among other things) for Kyrie. That’s buying low.
Acquiring Lavine in a deal in which you also move BI isn’t buying low.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 10:48 pm to AboveTheRim
quote:
You arent selling BI or CJ for a true #2 guy currently . So Lavine allows you a guy that fits better offensively and a slight chance that he hits and future opportunities to draft/ trade for #2.
Umm, that’s exactly what we’re doing. If Griff doesn’t end up with at least a minimum of Trae, Murray or Garland in a BI trade, or someone in that tier, he failed miserably at his job.
If you want to use the example of buying low on someone, like a stock, Trae is the only real answer.
Page 34 of 86
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News