RealGM

Yenrallik1111 wrote:

jimmy keys wrote:

Troubadour wrote:I would not do Siakam for Ingram personally. Raptors get much worse defensively and there is no evidence suggesting Ingram is any better suited as a first option than Siakam.

If Ingram is your 1st option then that team is going nowhere. I'm fine with keeping Siakam knowing he isn't suited for that role either. Toronto needs to either draft a guy who becomes the first option or use Siakam as part of a deal for a clear upgrade. I don't this is a clear upgrade.

this is a no brainer, you take ingram for pascal without a second thought. Ingram does not come to tamponto with the assumption of becoming the first option. he simply comes with the expectation of being an impact player given his development, contract, and skill set. i personally like a 2-3 duo of ingram/OG. one more offensive and the other more defensive. boucher can step into the starting 4 position. i have been back and forth on Pascal, but ya gotta take this deal if it is on the table

no.

jimmy keys wrote:

Yenrallik1111 wrote:

jimmy keys wrote:
If Ingram is your 1st option then that team is going nowhere. I'm fine with keeping Siakam knowing he isn't suited for that role either. Toronto needs to either draft a guy who becomes the first option or use Siakam as part of a deal for a clear upgrade. I don't this is a clear upgrade.

this is a no brainer, you take ingram for pascal without a second thought. Ingram does not come to tamponto with the assumption of becoming the first option. he simply comes with the expectation of being an impact player given his development, contract, and skill set. i personally like a 2-3 duo of ingram/OG. one more offensive and the other more defensive. boucher can step into the starting 4 position. i have been back and forth on Pascal, but ya gotta take this deal if it is on the table

no.

gotta love a stimulating debate

Why would NOP trade a younger, more efficient scorer for McCollum, If the idea is build around your 20y old FP? Lets say Zion takes four years to reach his prime, who do you think will be a better seccond option? 27y Ingram or 33y McCollum?

NOP has a bright future, Zion will be a perenial mvp contender, an efficient 24ppg player (If Ingram doesnt get better) is a great second option. If NOP keep a core of Ball, Ingram and Zion, use their draft capital to exchange Bledsoe and Adams for competent 3&D players and get some help for the bench, this NOP team would be a lock to playoffs maybe even get HCA.

Texas Chuck wrote:

ADMVP wrote:We're asking for Dame for BI. Not CJ. This is WAY off base.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

We have a rule against this type of counter. If you think CJ for BI is a non-starter, cool talk about that. Moving to demand Dame whom you know is off the table for BI doesn't move discussion meaningfully forward.

Thanks!

There should be a rule for this type of trade. It makes no sense for an allstar wing to be moved for a 29 year old when a team is rebuilding. Ingram (who is also off the table) plus picks and filler is a solid base for Lillard. I wasn't posting in bad faith.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

ADMVP wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

ADMVP wrote:We're asking for Dame for BI. Not CJ. This is WAY off base.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

We have a rule against this type of counter. If you think CJ for BI is a non-starter, cool talk about that. Moving to demand Dame whom you know is off the table for BI doesn't move discussion meaningfully forward.

Thanks!

There should be a rule for this type of trade. It makes no sense for an allstar wing to be moved for a 29 year old when a team is rebuilding. Ingram (who is also off the table) plus picks and filler is a solid base for Lillard. I wasn't posting in bad faith.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

No it isn’t.

A fringe all star and handful of picks doesn’t land Lillard.

ADMVP wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

ADMVP wrote:We're asking for Dame for BI. Not CJ. This is WAY off base.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

We have a rule against this type of counter. If you think CJ for BI is a non-starter, cool talk about that. Moving to demand Dame whom you know is off the table for BI doesn't move discussion meaningfully forward.

Thanks!

There should be a rule for this type of trade. It makes no sense for an allstar wing to be moved for a 29 year old when a team is rebuilding. Ingram (who is also off the table) plus picks and filler is a solid base for Lillard. I wasn't posting in bad faith.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

You are missing the point. Sometimes you might think an OP is a miss, but if its made in good faith well we aren't going to police that. People have disagreements all the time.

But when you intentionally make a counter proposal you know isn't a good one because you are insulted by the original, that's not a simple miss--that's an intentional derailment--hence us having a policy.

So again in the future, simple tell us why you like or don't like the original deal without resorting to this.

Mrakar wrote:CJ is probably best player in the deal but Ingram ist most valuable.
The fit with pels is bad because of age and he is also bad defensively.
Easy pass for Pelicans...

I’d say siakum is the most valuable asset here honestly at this point. I think cj is the least valuable here

Oden2 wrote:

Mrakar wrote:CJ is probably best player in the deal but Ingram ist most valuable.
The fit with pels is bad because of age and he is also bad defensively.
Easy pass for Pelicans...

I’d say siakum is the most valuable asset here honestly at this point. I think cj is the least valuable here

Both players underachieved this season with their teams and didn't improve individual play from last season.
Ingram is better offensively, Siakam much better defensively and both were awfull in clutch this season.
However Ingram is 3.5 years younger and has 1 year longer contract.
Also he has higher upside for sure.

As players they are very close, i would maybe even take Siakam for his defense.
However value vise u have to go with Ingram because of age and upside... at age 23 he still has a lot of room to grow which u cant say for Siakam...

Texas Chuck wrote:

ADMVP wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
We have a rule against this type of counter. If you think CJ for BI is a non-starter, cool talk about that. Moving to demand Dame whom you know is off the table for BI doesn't move discussion meaningfully forward.

Thanks!

There should be a rule for this type of trade. It makes no sense for an allstar wing to be moved for a 29 year old when a team is rebuilding. Ingram (who is also off the table) plus picks and filler is a solid base for Lillard. I wasn't posting in bad faith.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

You are missing the point. Sometimes you might think an OP is a miss, but if its made in good faith well we aren't going to police that. People have disagreements all the time.

But when you intentionally make a counter proposal you know isn't a good one because you are insulted by the original, that's not a simple miss--that's an intentional derailment--hence us having a policy.

So again in the future, simple tell us why you like or don't like the original deal without resorting to this.

I don't think an offer of BI plus picks is in bad faith in any way shape or form. We received less for AD.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk