re: Darius garland or Trae young

I don't know, the fit is actually really good.

Its just some of the other stuff IMO.

Yeah I am kinda perplexed here and i LIKE Garland. I think he is good.

But I'm not sure I have ever seen anything from him that puts him in the same category as things I have seen from Trae

quote:

---

I get this, but if it doesn't work, his value goes negative and we basically have to blow it all up and start over.

You could say the same with all of these guys, but Trae has the biggest volatility and the most likely chance to have his value completely tank.

---

I think Garland has just as much volatility because a lot of his value is tied to 'potential' based on one season where he was the primary ballhandler. It's wild to me that Garland fans so casually claim having Donovan Mitchell as a teammate holds him back. Defensively I would understand, but how can you not make it work offensively with a player of Mitchell's caliber? Makes me think Garland doesn't want to be the Robin, but he's no Batman.

What's Garland's value if he can't make it work with Zion and his defense regresses closer to Trae without Allen/Mobley protecting him?

For reference, I do not want Garland or Trae because roster construction is already difficult enough with Zion.

quote:

---

This is kinda where I'm at rn Trae for ingram straight up. I'd consider a first but dyson/herb/hawk/trey/etc all off the table. Garland and Allen and a first for Ingram and CJ and we figure out the money with other players and a third team Murray okungwu and the Hawks first for Ingram and our first and dyson

---

I do wonder if its possible we can pull Trae and Allen?

BI would go to ATL but maybe larry dyson and draft picks for JA?

If Griffin can pull that off he deserves props.

quote:

---

The only thing that bothers me about Trae is the potential for off court locker room bs, but honestly I think winning solves that sort of stuff.

---

He is also a very bad defender (Herb can make up for that somewhat), he is not that efficient a shooter (his 3p% really isn't what you expect), and he can be a bit ball dominant.

But he has some really great moments and highs too.

Garland's USG% is 26%
Young's USG% is 33%

Just to point out a comparison to Ingram's NOLA tenure: 29%

Young being able to put up "27/10" is nice and all, but his usage rate goes up and his efficiency goes down in shooting. His ability to facilitate is VERY good, just not elite like Haliburton is. Better than Garland's

Garland is a tier 2 to tier 3 player, which is good enough for the cost, and additional things you can get out of him.
Young is a tier 2 player, who has a ceiling of a tier 1 player.

I just really worry defensively in the playoffs. You can't hide him against good teams.

quote:

---

Young being able to put up "27/10" is nice and all, but his usage rate goes up and his efficiency goes down in shooting.

---

The thought process here is less usage and thus higher efficiency.

Some folks say he refuses less usage, but I'm not sure the facts agree. The previous 4 seasons before this one, Trae's usage rate was 33.7 with his lowest usage at 32.6. But this season, with Murray to share duties with, his usage dropped to 30.5, which is not outlandish. That's 12th best in the league. THat's the same usage that BI had for all of last season, it's fine. But the thought is if he can his usage by 10% like he did playing with Murray, why can't he drop it another 10% playing with an even more dominant dude like Zion?

quote:

---

I don't know, the fit is actually really good.

---

You're right. I totally forgot about the transition to 2 balls.

quote:

---

You're right. I totally forgot about the transition to 2 balls.

---

No you just forgot you can pass the ball in basketball and Trae averages over 10 assists a game.