RealGM

No team has met the asking price of NOP. Not even sure what the ask is.

So who would be a fair swap with NOP?

Ingram as a 1 year rental price? Maybe a mid level 1st and a rotation player to match contracts. If you think you have a shot at resigning him at a reasonable price level then his value goes up but he's made it clear he's not looking to resign at what I would consider reasonable. Then you look and this is a guy who is a good but not dominant offensive player, a meh defender, and one that plays only 3/4 of the season even in his good years.

I feel like the bigger question is what's the FA market for Ingram next summer. It's possible that he gets a full 30% max deal but that's far from certain. Another season where he misses a bunch of games and/or where NO is generally disappointing and feels like much less than the sum of it's parts and I can't see anyone going there. I could even see a scenario where his initial ask is so high that he gets ignored, cap space dries up and he has to settle for something much less.

In December, I’m still offering Klay, Maxi, Gafford, 2025 first for Ingram and any two vet mins if he extends and if the new ownership partners are willing to throw in to keep Kyrie, Luka, Ingram, PJ, Lively together for as long as it lasts. Unless Klay plays at a level no one should expect him to or Luka gets hurt and the team is sneak tanking..

That starting lineup with Dinwiddie/Grimes/Naji and hopefully some development from Hardy/Prosper.. really could use another center obviously, but maybe Theis? Eh.

Would a trade of Cleveland - Strus/LeVert for Ingram work?

NOP gets under the tax. Ingram has to look at the situation and see no one is going to pay him the money he wants. Sees Mitchell at max, Garland at $37, Mobley at $38 and Ingram knows he will be in that range at Cleveland, but doubtful elsewhere.
NOP gets 2 good backups that allow Murphy to start and add insurance for when Williamson gets hurt.

When/if he hits free agency, he's looking for a max contract. I think there are teams that will offer close to that. I'm not sure there are any/many teams willing to offer both the big contract and give up significant assets in a trade though.

louc1970 wrote:Would a trade of Cleveland - Strus/LeVert for Ingram work?

NOP gets under the tax. Ingram has to look at the situation and see no one is going to pay him the money he wants. Sees Mitchell at max, Garland at $37, Mobley at $38 and Ingram knows he will be in that range at Cleveland, but doubtful elsewhere.
NOP gets 2 good backups that allow Murphy to start and add insurance for when Williamson gets hurt.

where's the picks from clevelnad

A starter level player that NO wants, salary ballast and 2 non lotto firsts.
He is a good player, fringe all star in his early prime.
What the Knicks paid for Bridges really messed up the Market .

Godaddycurse wrote:

louc1970 wrote:Would a trade of Cleveland - Strus/LeVert for Ingram work?

NOP gets under the tax. Ingram has to look at the situation and see no one is going to pay him the money he wants. Sees Mitchell at max, Garland at $37, Mobley at $38 and Ingram knows he will be in that range at Cleveland, but doubtful elsewhere.
NOP gets 2 good backups that allow Murphy to start and add insurance for when Williamson gets hurt.

where's the picks from clevelnad

NOP looking for a big anyway right? Agree some picks need to be involved

penbeast0 wrote:Ingram as a 1 year rental price? Maybe a mid level 1st and a rotation player to match contracts. If you think you have a shot at resigning him at a reasonable price level then his value goes up but he's made it clear he's not looking to resign at what I would consider reasonable. Then you look and this is a guy who is a good but not dominant offensive player, a meh defender, and one that plays only 3/4 of the season even in his good years.

And here you have it as fact and reality.

Ingram is not a max level player. He’s an at best number three but really because he doesn’t create or make anyone else around him better a nice number four or five starter. Herself centered and of course the best talent is availability and he doesn’t show up there.

brackdan70 wrote:A starter level player that NO wants, salary ballast and 2 non lotto firsts.
He is a good player, fringe all star in his early prime.
What the Knicks paid for Bridges really messed up the Market .

On an expiring contract?

Billl wrote:When/if he hits free agency, he's looking for a max contract. I think there are teams that will offer close to that. I'm not sure there are any/many teams willing to offer both the big contract and give up significant assets in a trade though.

I disagree.

I feel that the very fact that nobody has stepped it up to the level NOP is seeking in trade says that they also aren’t looking for Ingram as a max contract that he isn’t worth in any universe.

JRoy wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:A starter level player that NO wants, salary ballast and 2 non lotto firsts.
He is a good player, fringe all star in his early prime.
What the Knicks paid for Bridges really messed up the Market .

On an expiring contract?

People make to much of that. If you trade for him your going to pay him.

JRoy wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:A starter level player that NO wants, salary ballast and 2 non lotto firsts.
He is a good player, fringe all star in his early prime.
What the Knicks paid for Bridges really messed up the Market .

On an expiring contract?

This here.

If someone was willing to pony up a max and know they had him locked down when they sent assets, it would have already happened.

GM’s are getting much tighter with the new rules. They realize that committing 30% of their cap to a non all star/top two in their roster player that plays a little more than half the games is a job killer move. He’s just not worth it.

OGSactownballer wrote:

Billl wrote:When/if he hits free agency, he's looking for a max contract. I think there are teams that will offer close to that. I'm not sure there are any/many teams willing to offer both the big contract and give up significant assets in a trade though.

I disagree.

I feel that the very fact that nobody has stepped it up to the level NOP is seeking in trade says that they also aren’t looking for Ingram as a max contract that he isn’t worth in any universe.

nah, there are teams that would max him or at least come close. There are some young teams where almost everyone is on a rookie scale and could afford to overpay him for a while. They are mostly rebuilding teams I think though and not in position to trade many/any assets for him. eg detroit probably would have taken him into cap space this summer if NOP were just dumping him.

louc1970 wrote:Would a trade of Cleveland - Strus/LeVert for Ingram work?

NOP gets under the tax. Ingram has to look at the situation and see no one is going to pay him the money he wants. Sees Mitchell at max, Garland at $37, Mobley at $38 and Ingram knows he will be in that range at Cleveland, but doubtful elsewhere.
NOP gets 2 good backups that allow Murphy to start and add insurance for when Williamson gets hurt.

I hate to lose Strus on that contract. I've also really soured on Ingram's agent. He did this with Drummond and Drummond end up signing with Philly for peanuts. I get that it's the agent's job to get his client paid, but it's also an agent's job not to drive his client off the cliff.

Anyway, the Pelicans want Allen. The Cavs want Murphy. That would complicate rental discussions for Ingram.

brackdan70 wrote:

JRoy wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:A starter level player that NO wants, salary ballast and 2 non lotto firsts.
He is a good player, fringe all star in his early prime.
What the Knicks paid for Bridges really messed up the Market .

On an expiring contract?

People make to much of that. If you trade for him your going to pay him.

Not always. And lets say you do, now you have an overpaid guy. Maybe a badly overpaid guy.

Expiring contracts definitely impact value. Its one thing if its a star and you pay whatever you have to and hope you can retain him--you aren't worried about the amount of the next contract. This is BI. Paying him anything close to his demands is a big yikes.

The reality is the market has spoken. If he was super valuable he would have been dealt.

brackdan70 wrote:

JRoy wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:A starter level player that NO wants, salary ballast and 2 non lotto firsts.
He is a good player, fringe all star in his early prime.
What the Knicks paid for Bridges really messed up the Market .

On an expiring contract?

People make to much of that. If you trade for him your going to pay him.

The issue is that no one wants to pay assets to obtain a player you'd have to overpay to keep.

Seems like Pelicans would want a starting big, a wing prospect and ideally a 1st added. I don’t see think they’re getting all 3. I like 2 of following deals as only viable options

Isaiah Stewart + Tim Hardaway Jr. + Distant protected 1st
Or
Chris Boucher + Bruce Brown + 2026 Pacers 1st

Now it’s doubtful on both fronts based on:
-Pistons drafted Holland and have Thompson but ingram could be re-signed on a 3+1 deal totaling with Holland rookie contract expiring

Raptors have hefty extensions to Quickley and Barnes and if they intend to resign Ingram they would be over spending and adding Ingram would have to justify confidence they can be a top 6 seed in EC in ‘24-25.

Lakers should really go for Ingram. He fits their squad now and would be the prime offensive option when LeBron retires.

DLo, Vando, Vincent, LAL29FRP

Involve a 3rd team to get Pels their Centre.