Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, fleet, AshyLarrysDiaper, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
- drosereturn
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,755
- And1: 1,495
- Joined: Oct 12, 2018
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
I think the Bulls should go all in even for a 1percent chance bc acquiring him wouldnt make me regret getting rid of Butler. He is just more talented than Butler ever was.
Lamelo will be a future superstar Bull. Book it. Lavar for president!
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,644
- And1: 1,920
- Joined: Jul 02, 2014
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
I think you have the conversation with his agent. He knows what the Bulls can offer and he knows what he'll accept. The question is, does he think Chicago is where he would want to position his client badly enough to force NOP to let him go or force a S&T without gutting the Bulls roster to make it not worthwhile. It's not how bad the Bulls want him or what NOP think he's worth, it's how do both teams end up if he moves. It's never going to be an even swap but if Chicago is where he would want to go is it worth it to NOP to have an unhappy highly paid player.
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,461
- And1: 2,560
- Joined: Dec 14, 2007
- Location: Chicago
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
MGB8 wrote:dice wrote:Hangtime84 wrote:I was for Bulter for Ingram and pick but yeah that ship sailed
isn't ingram just a modestly better version of lavine, though (less bad defensively)?
grass is always greener
I don't see the comp. LaVine assets are his superior foot speed, all-around athleticism, and handle combined with his natural shot, and his deficiencies are strength and defensive awareness (and sometimes offensive awareness).
Ingram's assets are his length / size and all around scoring ability and fairly good awareness on both ends - but lacks natural advantages in foot speed, athleticism, or a particularly advanced handle - just "good enough" in those facets.
I'm cool with Ingram or Lavine, but not both of them on the roster with the salary and pretty much being the same guy.
I think Zach is actually a slightly better defender and he wants to be here.
I'd rather stick with Zach I think.
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 42,990
- And1: 12,538
- Joined: Jun 30, 2003
- Location: chicago
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
MGB8 wrote:dice wrote:Hangtime84 wrote:I was for Bulter for Ingram and pick but yeah that ship sailed
isn't ingram just a modestly better version of lavine, though (less bad defensively)?
grass is always greener
I don't see the comp. LaVine assets are his superior foot speed, all-around athleticism, and handle combined with his natural shot, and his deficiencies are strength and defensive awareness (and sometimes offensive awareness).
Ingram's assets are his length / size and all around scoring ability and fairly good awareness on both ends - but lacks natural advantages in foot speed, athleticism, or a particularly advanced handle - just "good enough" in those facets.
i just mean that they're similar age and scoring prowess, w/ lavine a bit better as a passer and ingram better as a defender. similar caliber players
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 42,990
- And1: 12,538
- Joined: Jun 30, 2003
- Location: chicago
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
drosereturn wrote:I think the Bulls should go all in even for a 1percent chance bc acquiring him wouldnt make me regret getting rid of Butler. He is just more talented than Butler ever was.
you're severely overvaluing "talent." just like most of the teams that passed on jimmy in the draft were. and just like most people on this board were before jimmy started scoring 20 points a game
and signing ingram wouldn't erase the jimmy trade. it would just morph to a ingram/lauri/lavine vs ingram/butler conversation
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
-
- Forum Mod - Bulls
- Posts: 24,939
- And1: 13,590
- Joined: Apr 19, 2011
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
drosereturn wrote:I think the Bulls should go all in even for a 1percent chance bc acquiring him wouldnt make me regret getting rid of Butler. He is just more talented than Butler ever was.
So are a lot of players, for example Zach LaVine. Being more talented than Butler is common. Being better than him is a trickier proposition.
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
- SalmonsSuperfan
- Starter
- Posts: 2,206
- And1: 2,142
- Joined: Feb 14, 2019
Re: Should the Bulls be in on Brandon Ingram?
missed the opportunity, should have gone after him before he turned into an all-star.