RealGM

Just thought this would be an interesting discussion.

I think Ingram is clearly 3rd here. While I have Lauri > Garland simply because I think Lauri is a better and more valuable player, I did think about saying they were equal because of contract.

I guess my take is that Garland is under contract for 4 years regardless, as to where Lauri and Ingram are on expiring deals. So there's a pretty wide variance as to Ingram and Lauri depending on whether they're willing to restructure, in Lauri's case, or extend, and at what price in Ingram's case.

jbk1234 wrote:I guess my take is that Garland is under contract for 4 years regardless, as to where Lauri and Ingram are on expiring deals. So there's a pretty wide variance as to Ingram and Lauri depending on whether they're willing to restructure, in Lauri's case, or extend, and at what price in Ingram's case.

Yah, it looks like I f'd up and did not put that as an option with the 10. I'll edit the poll b/c I think that's one of the two most likely outcomes (can't quite get every permutation here, so apologies to anyone who doesn't see the option they'd pick).

I think any team could use a 7' finisher such as Lauri so he likely has the most value of the 3.

Only teams lacking a PG would value Garland as the highest. Ingram is a bit too ball oriented and probably takes too many mid range shots to fit into some offenses. There are probably some teams that would value a big wing like him over Garland though.

I think Markkanen's the easiest player to work well with other talent. So he's the most valuable on-court. Garland's probably second in that respect. He's always going to have some defensive limitations with his size and he isn't in the truly elite level of offense-creator. Garland has the best contract situation though which gets his value roughly to Lauri.

I have Ingram as the least valuable on-court (on a bad team he's got value but who wants to value guys based on what they bring to bad teams?) and the worst contract (Lauri at least has one cheap year up front).

Contract-wise I'm assuming that both Lauri and Ingram will resign with the team that has them if given a full 30% max deal, but may walk if given less. Lauri may sign a raise and extend deal if he's with a team that has cap space where he makes a bit less going forward in exchange for the extra money next season.

Depends on the fit of the team each player goes to.

Ingram talent wise is the best of these players. This guy was a top 10 scorer just a few years ago.

I would love to see Ingram with GSW. He can be that 2nd option for Curry. Playing in that kind of system would do wonders for his game.

Markannen


Ingram


Garland

Garland is — by far — the worst player of the three on the floor. I view his contract as an overpay, so a team being locked in to pay him $163 MM over the next four years isn't a positive.

I have Garland > Ingram > Lauri

Garland is on a good contract while the other two will be free agents nezt season. Lauri will want a max (and will likely get it) and its difficult to see a contender with him as a max player.

While its pretty easy to to envision a role for a 20-8 good shooting, passing point gaurd on a championship team.

Ingram, is in the middle. I have no idea what his contract expectations will be…

Fun thread. Now do Lauri, Towns, and Young.

For me Lauri made his jump under a great young coach where I think his value is system based. I think something crazy like 90% of his made buckets, are assisted. He has no where the creation ability or playmaking of Garland & BI but has a desirable skillset for his size. Believe the minute he's traded he will lose his current perceived value if he goes somewhere less structured, defined role.

Not going to rate BI as I don't want any bias in his assessment. I will say this. The talk of BI taking to many long 2's. He's a 3 level scorer but teams wall off Zion so there's 3-4 players in the paint where it's nearly impossible for Zion more less BI to get to the rim. Yes, he should be taking more 3's & is reluctant on contested looks but I think with better spacing the long 2's wouldn't be as big an issue. You can see it in the games ZIon is injured in. It's part reason why NO's fans think they can't coexist. In the games ZIon doesn't play, like the year he missed an entire season. BI was more effective but not a true #1. Problem with ZIon being the #1, there's no spacing because his game is predictable & teams live with NO's being hit or miss to stop Zion. Reason Daniels defense & no offense was more effective. NO's got more stops & played more in transition off the increased steals & blocks. I think the team that trades for him will get a better player than currently perceived.

As someone stated I think I would value these players accordingly.

If I wanted a big man to help space the floor - Lauri
If I wanted a versatile scoring & playmaking wing - BI
If I wanted a dynamic PG - Garland

I asked this in another thread but how much does Lauri's perceived value benefit from simply having never played in the playoffs? For so many other players their value seems to take a huge hit on this board once teams consistently gameplan to minimize their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. Is it fair that guys like Lauri that have never been exposed to the playoffs get to be judged without being fully tested in similar situations?

babyjax13 wrote:Just thought this would be an interesting discussion.

First of all, not a single star on that list. Anyway the order as it should be is Garland #1 because he's got the most cost control, Lauri #2 because he's half the price and less injury prone than Ingram.

JayTWill wrote:I asked this in another thread but how much does Lauri's perceived value benefit from simply having never played in the playoffs? For so many other players their value seems to take a huge hit on this board once teams consistently gameplan to minimize their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. Is it fair that guys like Lauri that have never been exposed to the playoffs get to be judged without being fully tested in similar situations?

Lauri did play in two play-in games when he was with the Cavs and he acquitted himself pretty well. He got picked on a bit by Trae Young on some 1-3 ball screens, but I feel like a different coach maybe adjusts more quickly to that.

JayTWill wrote:I asked this in another thread but how much does Lauri's perceived value benefit from simply having never played in the playoffs? For so many other players their value seems to take a huge hit on this board once teams consistently gameplan to minimize their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. Is it fair that guys like Lauri that have never been exposed to the playoffs get to be judged without being fully tested in similar situations?

Its easier to shine on a lotto team in a flyover state than a playoff team in a premium city.

Knickfan1982 wrote:

JayTWill wrote:I asked this in another thread but how much does Lauri's perceived value benefit from simply having never played in the playoffs? For so many other players their value seems to take a huge hit on this board once teams consistently gameplan to minimize their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. Is it fair that guys like Lauri that have never been exposed to the playoffs get to be judged without being fully tested in similar situations?

Its easier to shine on a lotto team in a flyover state than a playoff team in a premium city.

As bad as the Knicks have been over the last 25 years I think they are relegated to a basketball flyover state.

JayTWill wrote:I asked this in another thread but how much does Lauri's perceived value benefit from simply having never played in the playoffs? For so many other players their value seems to take a huge hit on this board once teams consistently gameplan to minimize their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. Is it fair that guys like Lauri that have never been exposed to the playoffs get to be judged without being fully tested in similar situations?

I don't think anyone is mistaking him for a first option, so I don't think so.

I'd much rather have Lauri than the other 2, but his overall value takes a big hit because of his expiring status. Garland is overrated and overpaid, but still above Ingram because he's expiring and expecting a max deal, which given his actual level and availability would make him a prime candidate to become the new Lavine / Bradley Beal. So Lauri > Garland > Ingram

babyjax13 wrote:

JayTWill wrote:I asked this in another thread but how much does Lauri's perceived value benefit from simply having never played in the playoffs? For so many other players their value seems to take a huge hit on this board once teams consistently gameplan to minimize their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. Is it fair that guys like Lauri that have never been exposed to the playoffs get to be judged without being fully tested in similar situations?

I don't think anyone is mistaking him for a first option, so I don't think so.

I understand that but lets just say the Jazz had made the playoffs this year and they put some smaller wing defender like Herb Jones on him and for whatever reason Lauri was struggling to get separation and good looks off-ball. Lets say his shooting numbers were down 10 points across the board and when he was asked to create for himself he struggled while playing below average defense.

All it takes is one bad series from Lauri to change the perception of him completely despite what he accomplished in the regular season. Someone like KAT has been one the best offensive bigs in the league year after year but his value always seems to take a hit for lack of postseason success even after reaching the WCF this year. It is a bit of an unfair advantage for Lauri to not have to perform under the same scrutiny in a more difficult environment.

No one is assuming he would work as a first option but he hasn't even had to prove he can be a second option on a contender like others have had to.

JayTWill wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

JayTWill wrote:I asked this in another thread but how much does Lauri's perceived value benefit from simply having never played in the playoffs? For so many other players their value seems to take a huge hit on this board once teams consistently gameplan to minimize their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. Is it fair that guys like Lauri that have never been exposed to the playoffs get to be judged without being fully tested in similar situations?

I don't think anyone is mistaking him for a first option, so I don't think so.

I understand that but lets just say the Jazz had made the playoffs this year and they put some smaller wing defender like Herb Jones on him and for whatever reason Lauri was struggling to get separation and good looks off-ball. Lets say his shooting numbers were down 10 points across the board and when he was asked to create for himself he struggled while playing below average defense.

All it takes is one bad series from Lauri to change the perception of him completely despite what he accomplished in the regular season. Someone like KAT has been one the best offensive bigs in the league year after year but his value always seems to take a hit for lack of postseason success even after reaching the WCF this year. It is a bit of an unfair advantage for Lauri to not have to perform under the same scrutiny in a more difficult environment.

No one is assuming he would work as a first option but he hasn't even had to prove he can be a second option on a contender like others have had to.

See, I don't think it really would because he has never been regarded in the same way that ... KAT was. The thought was that KAT could be an elite first option and he can't be, but he is a good second option. Lauri having a bad playoff series because teams were able to gameplan specifically for him really wouldn't affect his value, IMO, because no one is expecting him to average 30/10 in a playoff series - granted he may be able to do that, but it would probably be a result of playing off someone he fit with perfectly (e.g., could you imagine him in Dallas?).