Shams: BI extension (3 Years $120M) **Presser at 5:15pm** Link Pg. 24

[Scase]

Barnes is injury prone for getting elbowed in the eye/broken face to some people.

BI has played under the average games played if you include this year, but just slightly.

Barnes has played 84% of his eligible career games with both a season ending broken hand AND a broken orbital bone.
Ingram since his sophomore season has played in 68% of his eligible games. He has had 8 years of missing a significant portion of his games. He has had a single season out of nine where he played a significant amount of games.

Please don't be obtuse for no reason.

With the average games played being in played is 70-71%(average 23.9 missed games a season) for star players... He slightly below the average.

Considering the history and reputation of the pelicans medical team..



https://www.nba.com/news/nba-sends-data-load-management-study

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

[Appostis]

Barnes has played 84% of his eligible career games with both a season ending broken hand AND a broken orbital bone.
Ingram since his sophomore season has played in 68% of his eligible games. He has had 8 years of missing a significant portion of his games. He has had a single season out of nine where he played a significant amount of games.

Please don't be obtuse for no reason.

With the average games played being in played is 70-71%(average 23.9 missed games a season) for star players... He slightly below the average.

Considering the history and reputation of the pelicans medical team..



https://www.nba.com/news/nba-sends-data-load-management-study

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

Look I'll admit I'm wrong as soon as you can supply some evidence to support your point.

Somehow Bi's missed are injury related but every other stars is just rest....

The guy is not a iron man. He is injured far more then I'd prefer any player making his level of cash would be.

But going on with nonsense that his missed ganes are different then other stars missed games... He's missed slightly more then the average star. The reason why..how..whatever the f..does that matter?
Games played are games played.

[TGM]

I'm assuming an extra year? He really didn't want to be there anymore.

He has way more control over his future earnings this way. Being locked in at $40m a season for 4 years through your prime is selling yourself short.

Toronto giving three years and the last being a player option allows Ingram to bail early and pick his next landing spot. He also could cash in at age 30 on a better deal possibly with a contending team.

Or Toronto. He essentially has done what Brunson did in NY. Took less money and years to set himself up at 29.

I’m curious when this was offered. I could actually see this was offered a while back and that was when BI and his agent maybe felt they could still get more. The market shifted and BI realized that this ship had sale. I think if this was offered recently he would have taken the deal with Pels.

[RoteSchroder]

I have had to say this many times, so I'll say it again.

The purpose of the pick isn't just getting a high level player, it is getting a high level player that you have under strict contract control for the better part of a decade. It is having a high impact player on a contract making less than 15mil a year. That kind of contract gives you flexibility to add players like BI and get good teams built. But you don't go out and get the BI player before you have the other parts of the car as in the above analogy.

And so what if the opportunities don't appear when you want them to, whatever happened to Masai and his endless patience? You add a top 5 pick to the roster w/o BI and you still have a solid core to move forward with and grow. This is just another instance of putting the cart before the horse. I'm glad the cost for acquiring BI was low, but as I already stated, the issue is not the asset cost, or even the player, but rather the timing. The KD trade would've been bad cause we would have gutted our roster and not have enough players to field a competitive team. The BI trade is bad because we don't have a good enough team to add him to, adding BI is supposed to be the cherry on the sundae move, not the first 2 scoops of vanilla.

A lot of it seems circumstantial, we have contract control for almost a decade, but also a lot of players need to be developed for almost a decade. We could be just developing players for other teams. Powell, Siakam and Derozan all weren’t at their peaks in Toronto. RJ didn’t work out for the Knicks, Ingram didn’t work out for the Lakers.

Also, if BI gets healthy, he’s our best player. He’s a part of the sundae, not the cherry. The risk is essentially his health. This would be the equivalent of trading for Lowry.

Lowry was 26, not an established player and supposedly a headcase. Ingram is 27, an established player, but injury prone.

Both were traded for mid-level picks.

Yeah they weren't at their peaks on their respective teams because they were traded, that's a pretty weird argument to make. Norm was traded for us to get younger, Siakam was traded cause he wasn't good enough, Derozan was the same reason + for an upgrade, RJ was traded for a better player + asset consolidation, Ingram was traded for a better player. These are all really bad examples. They also prove my point, the fact that all of them were under salary control by their team is what allowed them to be traded and return what they did. They kept the players for years (only a couple with BI), they got better, then they were traded, this is literally what I'm advocating for. None of these players aside from BI were moved on their 1st contracts, they were drafted, improved, and moved for better or different situations. Guess what you can't do that with, yeah, I'll let you figure that one out.

And if your whole argument is based off "if" BI gets healthy, it has already failed. He hasn't been healthy for 8 years straight, this isn't just a "well maybe he won't" it's practically guaranteed. This isn't at all like the Lowry situation, a headcase can usually be remedied with a different situation/leadership, injuries don't just magically go away.

He’s been relatively healthy in 3 seasons. Two seasons were shortened due to COVID

Nothing is guaranteed. Half his injuries were due to freak accidents and he’s had some minor injuries that can possibly recur or become chronic, likely due to muscle imbalance. And reports are that he may not play for the rest of the season, which gives time for physiotherapists/trainers to strengthen his body.

His injury concerns are why we can get him on such a cheap trade in the first place. It’s low-medium risk, high reward.

Salary control of a mediocre or bench player for 7 years isn’t better than short term salary control of a high level starter. And there’s no reason a player wouldn’t re-sign if things are going well, while players on rookie deals can also demand trades. When things aren’t going well, it doesn’t matter what type of salary control you have.

You think selling Powell for a younger GTJr is better if we have better salary control?

A third point I’d make is that by trading for IQ/RJ and with Poeltl on the team, we weren’t in an all-out tank position in the first place. TWO got incredibly “lucky” with injuries. This is not a “bottom out” team. If we were a team starting from zero like the Wizards, then yeah, Ingram makes no sense.

[Mak]

Barnes has played 84% of his eligible career games with both a season ending broken hand AND a broken orbital bone.
Ingram since his sophomore season has played in 68% of his eligible games. He has had 8 years of missing a significant portion of his games. He has had a single season out of nine where he played a significant amount of games.

Please don't be obtuse for no reason.

With the average games played being in played is 70-71%(average 23.9 missed games a season) for star players... He slightly below the average.

Considering the history and reputation of the pelicans medical team..



https://www.nba.com/news/nba-sends-data-load-management-study

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

This is not true. I wonder if you know it is not true and just saying it to make a point or just not aware of it not being true. Hard to tell these days.

[ArthurVandelay]

With the average games played being in played is 70-71%(average 23.9 missed games a season) for star players... He slightly below the average.

Considering the history and reputation of the pelicans medical team..



https://www.nba.com/news/nba-sends-data-load-management-study

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

This is not true. I wonder if you know it is not true and just saying it to make a point or just not aware of it not being true. Hard to tell these days.

Depending on what you consider load management, Scase is correct. It was big news last year:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39288379/nba-report-no-link-load-management-less-injury-risk

There is no link between load management and preventing injuries.

[YogurtProducer]

It’s closer than you wanna admit, that’s for sure. 2025 is younger, cheaper, and has more depth and future assets associated with it.

We saw the bottom team play… 25 games together? So I don’t know what you’re trying to even prove. That bottom team was an improvement over that same core that won 48 games without a center, so who knows what it would’ve won with a full year of Jak.

It's not meant to be rhetorical or a gotcha question. The point is that the 2023 core was at least as good but still not good enough to keep together as a tax team. That was the FO's assessment, not mine. If they really thought that was a 50-win core, then they should have kept it together and/or found a way to dump Flynn/OPJ.

That was not the FOs assessment. The FO wanted to keep it together, but they couldn't justify paying FVV $40+M a year.

[YogurtProducer]

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

This is not true. I wonder if you know it is not true and just saying it to make a point or just not aware of it not being true. Hard to tell these days.

Depending on what you consider load management, Scase is correct. It was big news last year:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39288379/nba-report-no-link-load-management-less-injury-risk

There is no link between load management and preventing injuries.

Common sense shows this is BS. A study by the NBA says load managing is no good. I wonder what bias the NBA has in this matter?

It is really just an unarguable fact that the body is more susceptible to injury when it is tired. Playing B2B's means your body is already tired and you are putting yourself at greater injury risk.

[ArthurVandelay]

This is not true. I wonder if you know it is not true and just saying it to make a point or just not aware of it not being true. Hard to tell these days.

Depending on what you consider load management, Scase is correct. It was big news last year:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39288379/nba-report-no-link-load-management-less-injury-risk

There is no link between load management and preventing injuries.

Common sense shows this is BS. A study by the NBA says load managing is no good. I wonder what bias the NBA has in this matter?

It is really just an unarguable fact that the body is more susceptible to injury when it is tired. Playing B2B's means your body is already tired and you are putting yourself at greater injury risk.

Hilarious. The data doesn't confirm my opinion so this is horse ****.

These are some of the best athletes in the world, with access to the best medical and training personnel (outside NO lol). The NBA has been around for decades and decades.

The incentive the NBA has is money but half the income goes to the players so it is in their best interest as well. The contracts they sign are for 82 games. If they are healthy, they should be playing. If they are legitimately injured, then they should not be playing. Pretty simple concept.

[Thaddy]

LMAO. A "study".

Man that phrase has lost all meaning in the last little while.

I hope we load manage everyone on this team and continue playing our young guys. Barrett and Dick need to continue leading the tanking charge.

BI shouldn't play for the rest of the year. We should be making up every excuse we can think of. He is going to fill our biggest weakness and we are gonna play weak competitive.

[RoteSchroder]

This is not true. I wonder if you know it is not true and just saying it to make a point or just not aware of it not being true. Hard to tell these days.

Depending on what you consider load management, Scase is correct. It was big news last year:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39288379/nba-report-no-link-load-management-less-injury-risk

There is no link between load management and preventing injuries.

Common sense shows this is BS. A study by the NBA says load managing is no good. I wonder what bias the NBA has in this matter?

It is really just an unarguable fact that the body is more susceptible to injury when it is tired. Playing B2B's means your body is already tired and you are putting yourself at greater injury risk.

Wear and tear during training and practice probably takes a larger toll than games. NBA games are more intense, but in practice/training, they can be excessively repeating the same motions for hours. A ton of injuries come from repetitive stress across all sports.

So I would say load management just for games isn’t as big of a factor.

A Kawhi style management where he limits intense practices AND games can work. It was effective for us cause we only needed him for playoffs..and even then, he was already hobbled up by the time we faced Milwaukee.

I don’t think this is the same situation though. Ingram needs to strengthen his muscles, ligaments and tendons to support his joints, along with improving core stability to prevent lower back problems, and increase his flexibility/mobility. If we have a good staff, they can go beyond that, like improve upon his biomechanics, balance training, reducing inflammation, etc.

[Dennis 37]

What I was trying to illustrate is how discrete your situation is vs the continuous nature of team building.

If you're starting a rebuild with nothing, your risk tolerance is much higher and you're more likely to bet on the upside. As you gain more conviction in what you currently have, your risk tolerance goes down. It's partly why contending teams are much more likely to trade a pick. In our situation, the FO believes they have a star in Barnes. In that scenario, taking the slightly better than average yields more than the mystery box. Also, let's be clear that they didn't trade all their mystery boxes, they had 3 over the next 2 years and traded 1 of them for a more known return.

I'm currently on the side of Barnes never becoming a star, so I obviously wanted to keep the pick. But if the FO believes Barnes is going to become a star (as they keep saying), then it's completely logical to me why they would make this trade. That's all I was trying to say. Not that I would do it but rather why it's totally reasonable why some would.

This is the rub. Look, if we had Wemby then this would all be moot and I wouldn't waste any time on discussing relative value of picks vs. useful productive players. But I look at this roster and I don't see very good reasons for that optimism. I think Barnes will be very solid, might even make another All Star team, but I don't think he can be the best player on a perennial 50+ win squad unless the rest of that roster was stacked.

Which team has more talent?

2025:Ingram/IQ/RJ/Barnes/Poeltl
OR
2023:Siakam/FVV/OG/Barnes/Poeltl

You are not listing all of the players on the team. You are only asking which team has more talent on the starting lineup.

When we traded Rudy Gay we gained a ton of depth and it paid off almost right away. We have depth now. Our rookies helped beat the Sixers without Jakob.

Watch on YouTube

[Dexjackson]

Depending on what you consider load management, Scase is correct. It was big news last year:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39288379/nba-report-no-link-load-management-less-injury-risk

There is no link between load management and preventing injuries.

Common sense shows this is BS. A study by the NBA says load managing is no good. I wonder what bias the NBA has in this matter?

It is really just an unarguable fact that the body is more susceptible to injury when it is tired. Playing B2B's means your body is already tired and you are putting yourself at greater injury risk.

Hilarious. The data doesn't confirm my opinion so this is horse ****.

These are some of the best athletes in the world, with access to the best medical and training personnel (outside NO lol). The NBA has been around for decades and decades.

The incentive the NBA has is money but half the income goes to the players so it is in their best interest as well. The contracts they sign are for 82 games. If they are healthy, they should be playing. If they are legitimately injured, then they should not be playing. Pretty simple concept.

As a medical practitioner I will remain skeptical until I could see the research methodology for myself. As it has been previously mentioned the NBA is incentivized for the research to show what they want it to show. Which is similar to the research conducted by the large pharmaceutical companies.

A large portion of injuries in the league are repetitive strain injuries (RSI's) which are musculoskeletal (bones, joints, ligaments, tendons, etc) in nature. RSI's happen as a result of overuse from repetitive motions/movement and sustained use. This has been well documented in the medical field. Until multiple researches of sound methodology prove others, I won't believe that increased use (increased minutes and games) is not correlated to increased injuries.

[YogurtProducer]

Common sense shows this is BS. A study by the NBA says load managing is no good. I wonder what bias the NBA has in this matter?

It is really just an unarguable fact that the body is more susceptible to injury when it is tired. Playing B2B's means your body is already tired and you are putting yourself at greater injury risk.

Hilarious. The data doesn't confirm my opinion so this is horse ****.

These are some of the best athletes in the world, with access to the best medical and training personnel (outside NO lol). The NBA has been around for decades and decades.

As a medical practitioner I will remain skeptical until I could see the research methodology for myself. As it has been previously mentioned the NBA is incentivized for the research to show what they want it to show. Which is similar to the research conducted by the large pharmaceutical companies.

A large portion of injuries in the league are repetitive strain injuries (RSI's) which are musculoskeletal (bones, joints, ligaments, tendons, etc) in nature. RSI's happen as a result of overuse from repetitive motions/movement and sustained use. This has been well documented in the medical field. Until multiple researches of sound methodology prove others, I won't believe that increased use (increased minutes and games) is not correlated to increased injuries.

The NFL also says that concussions don't really matter, I am sure we should just listen to them to, am i right?

The incentive the NBA has is money but half the income goes to the players so it is in their best interest as well. The contracts they sign are for 82 games. If they are healthy, they should be playing. If they are legitimately injured, then they should not be playing. Pretty simple concept.

Sure, but this is an opinion. Your opinion is players should play unless "legitimately injured". That is an entirely different conversation than whether or not load management decrease injuries.

It is entirely **** obvious that players who play more minutes, play more games, etc. get injured at a higher rate. It is literally common sense that the rest of the world understands, but the NBA and some fans think it has no impact? LOL. Okay.

[Scase]

With the average games played being in played is 70-71%(average 23.9 missed games a season) for star players... He slightly below the average.

Considering the history and reputation of the pelicans medical team..



https://www.nba.com/news/nba-sends-data-load-management-study

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

Look I'll admit I'm wrong as soon as you can supply some evidence to support your point.

Somehow Bi's missed are injury related but every other stars is just rest....

The guy is not a iron man. He is injured far more then I'd prefer any player making his level of cash would be.

But going on with nonsense that his missed ganes are different then other stars missed games... He's missed slightly more then the average star. The reason why..how..whatever the f..does that matter?
Games played are games played.

Evidence of what, that load management is resting healthy players? Are you serious, that's literally why they created new rules for it.

With the average games played being in played is 70-71%(average 23.9 missed games a season) for star players... He slightly below the average.

Considering the history and reputation of the pelicans medical team..



https://www.nba.com/news/nba-sends-data-load-management-study

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

This is not true. I wonder if you know it is not true and just saying it to make a point or just not aware of it not being true. Hard to tell these days.

It's literally in the article HE posted, holy christ you guys will just argue anything that doesn't fit your views. Actual studies have shown this, but because it proves you drones to be wrong, you claim it to be untrue.

There are studies showing that it has no impact, how about YOU go find some studies showing that it DOES make a difference.

He’s been relatively healthy in 3 seasons. Two seasons were shortened due to COVID

Relatively healthy based on what, not being able to do basic arithmetic?

24-25 he has missed 67% of his eligible games, so far.
23-24 he missed 22% of his eligible games.
22-23 he missed 45% of his eligible games.
21-22 he missed 33% of his eligible games.
20-21 he missed 15% of his eligible games, Covid year.
19-20 he missed 14% of his eligible games, Covid year.
18-19 he missed 37% of his eligible games.
17-18 he missed 28% of his eligible games.
16-17 he missed 6% of his eligible games, rookie year.

Also who cares about covid, if you bothered to look, those are the two seasons where he played the MOST eligible games since his rookie year by a long shot. I wonder what could possibly have contributed to that, definitely couldn't be a shorter season with a long break mid way putting less strain on his body right? Nah, that would make too much sense and wouldn't allow you to come up with BS excuses.

These are not flat numbers, he has missed 32% of ALL ELIGIBLE games in the last 8 years. Not during covid, not some random year, all of them but his rookie campaign.

Nothing is guaranteed. Half his injuries were due to freak accidents and he’s had some minor injuries that can possibly recur or become chronic, likely due to muscle imbalance. And reports are that he may not play for the rest of the season, which gives time for physiotherapists/trainers to strengthen his body.

His injury concerns are why we can get him on such a cheap trade in the first place. It’s low-medium risk, high reward.

Yeah just like OG right? The same guy people lambasted for being injury prone. Who cares WHY he is missing games, it doesn't matter if it's chronic or freak accidents, it's the same result, he misses over a THIRD of the games he is eligible to play. But sure, year after year after year, of the same thing happening, and its all just bad luck and coincidence.

Salary control of a mediocre or bench player for 7 years isn’t better than short term salary control of a high level starter. And there’s no reason a player wouldn’t re-sign if things are going well, while players on rookie deals can also demand trades. When things aren’t going well, it doesn’t matter what type of salary control you have.

You think selling Powell for a younger GTJr is better if we have better salary control?

WTF are you even talking about a mediocre bench player? Having a player like Paolo, or Scottie, or Franz on a cost controlled 5 year contract, and then a team control extension isn't better than having a role player on one? What in gods name are you even trying to say?

A third point I’d make is that by trading for IQ/RJ and with Poeltl on the team, we weren’t in an all-out tank position in the first place. TWO got incredibly “lucky” with injuries. This is not a “bottom out” team. If we were a team starting from zero like the Wizards, then yeah, Ingram makes no sense.

Yeah we aren't as bad as the Wiz, thanks for the newsflash. Now we can be as good as the Bulls, that's definitely a better place to be.

All 3 of you are just saying the same dumb crap in the face of blatant evidence, it's all a conspiracy theory guys, BI is actually really quite healthy

[youngRAPZ]

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

Look I'll admit I'm wrong as soon as you can supply some evidence to support your point.

Somehow Bi's missed are injury related but every other stars is just rest....

The guy is not a iron man. He is injured far more then I'd prefer any player making his level of cash would be.

But going on with nonsense that his missed ganes are different then other stars missed games... He's missed slightly more then the average star. The reason why..how..whatever the f..does that matter?
Games played are games played.

Evidence of what, that load management is resting healthy players? Are you serious, that's literally why they created new rules for it.

Just wait until you discover there is a difference between load management, and players being outright injured. Load management has been shown to have no impact on preventing injuries. It's also teams preemptively sitting players to PREVENT injuries, whether right or wrong, those players are not injured and are fit to play, but are being intentionally rested.

BI was injured, but I'm sure you'll keep digging for another reason why it's ok to have key players missing 20-30 games a season, and any other excuse you can find to try and argue that he isn't chronically injured.

This is not true. I wonder if you know it is not true and just saying it to make a point or just not aware of it not being true. Hard to tell these days.

It's literally in the article HE posted, holy christ you guys will just argue anything that doesn't fit your views. Actual studies have shown this, but because it proves you drones to be wrong, you claim it to be untrue.

There are studies showing that it has no impact, how about YOU go find some studies showing that it DOES make a difference.

He’s been relatively healthy in 3 seasons. Two seasons were shortened due to COVID

Relatively healthy based on what, not being able to do basic arithmetic?

24-25 he has missed 67% of his eligible games, so far.
23-24 he missed 22% of his eligible games.
22-23 he missed 45% of his eligible games.
21-22 he missed 33% of his eligible games.
20-21 he missed 15% of his eligible games, Covid year.
19-20 he missed 14% of his eligible games, Covid year.
18-19 he missed 37% of his eligible games.
17-18 he missed 28% of his eligible games.
16-17 he missed 6% of his eligible games, rookie year.

Also who cares about covid, if you bothered to look, those are the two seasons where he played the MOST eligible games since his rookie year by a long shot. I wonder what could possibly have contributed to that, definitely couldn't be a shorter season with a long break mid way putting less strain on his body right? Nah, that would make too much sense and wouldn't allow you to come up with BS excuses.

These are not flat numbers, he has missed 32% of ALL ELIGIBLE games in the last 8 years. Not during covid, not some random year, all of them but his rookie campaign.

Nothing is guaranteed. Half his injuries were due to freak accidents and he’s had some minor injuries that can possibly recur or become chronic, likely due to muscle imbalance. And reports are that he may not play for the rest of the season, which gives time for physiotherapists/trainers to strengthen his body.

His injury concerns are why we can get him on such a cheap trade in the first place. It’s low-medium risk, high reward.

Yeah just like OG right? The same guy people lambasted for being injury prone. Who cares WHY he is missing games, it doesn't matter if it's chronic or freak accidents, it's the same result, he misses over a THIRD of the games he is eligible to play. But sure, year after year after year, of the same thing happening, and its all just bad luck and coincidence.

Salary control of a mediocre or bench player for 7 years isn’t better than short term salary control of a high level starter. And there’s no reason a player wouldn’t re-sign if things are going well, while players on rookie deals can also demand trades. When things aren’t going well, it doesn’t matter what type of salary control you have.

You think selling Powell for a younger GTJr is better if we have better salary control?

WTF are you even talking about a mediocre bench player? Having a player like Paolo, or Scottie, or Franz on a cost controlled 5 year contract, and then a team control extension isn't better than having a role player on one? What in gods name are you even trying to say?

A third point I’d make is that by trading for IQ/RJ and with Poeltl on the team, we weren’t in an all-out tank position in the first place. TWO got incredibly “lucky” with injuries. This is not a “bottom out” team. If we were a team starting from zero like the Wizards, then yeah, Ingram makes no sense.

Yeah we aren't as bad as the Wiz, thanks for the newsflash. Now we can be as good as the Bulls, that's definitely a better place to be.

All 3 of you are just saying the same dumb crap in the face of blatant evidence, it's all a conspiracy theory guys, BI is actually really quite healthy

Not that I want to be the bulls but they were the number 1 seed for a long time before Lonzo got injured and Lavine. If Lonzo stayed healthy who knows what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duffman100]

Also who cares about covid, if you bothered to look, those are the two seasons where he played the MOST eligible games since his rookie year by a long shot. I wonder what could possibly have contributed to that, definitely couldn't be a shorter season with a long break mid way putting less strain on his body right? Nah, that would make too much sense and wouldn't allow you to come up with BS excuses.

I may not have tracked the conversation properly, so excuse me if I didn't.

But didn't you say load management has no impact on injuries. But then here you're saying he was healthy during covid seasons because of less work load on his body which would, in essence, equate to load management?

[brownbobcat]

It’s closer than you wanna admit, that’s for sure. 2025 is younger, cheaper, and has more depth and future assets associated with it.

We saw the bottom team play… 25 games together? So I don’t know what you’re trying to even prove. That bottom team was an improvement over that same core that won 48 games without a center, so who knows what it would’ve won with a full year of Jak.

It's not meant to be rhetorical or a gotcha question. The point is that the 2023 core was at least as good but still not good enough to keep together as a tax team. That was the FO's assessment, not mine. If they really thought that was a 50-win core, then they should have kept it together and/or found a way to dump Flynn/OPJ.

That was not the FOs assessment. The FO wanted to keep it together, but they couldn't justify paying FVV $40+M a year.

I mean, that's the assessment - not worth it.

[brownbobcat]

You are not listing all of the players on the team. You are only asking which team has more talent on the starting lineup.

When we traded Rudy Gay we gained a ton of depth and it paid off almost right away. We have depth now. Our rookies helped beat the Sixers without Jakob.

I'm listing the most important players. If you're depending on the secondary unit to make or break team, then we have very different definitions of "secondary".

[Duffman100]

You are not listing all of the players on the team. You are only asking which team has more talent on the starting lineup.

When we traded Rudy Gay we gained a ton of depth and it paid off almost right away. We have depth now. Our rookies helped beat the Sixers without Jakob.

I'm listing the most important players. If you're depending on the secondary unit to make or break team, then we have very different definitions of "secondary".

Not make or break, but a terrible bench has significant repercussions. Plus your secondary unit being young with potential makes a decent difference in terms of the ceiling of the team re: trades.

The 2021-22 team is a perfect example of what a non-existent bench can do to your team.