Poll: Zion or Ingram?

[BHF]

Not too long ago people were saying no to Donavan Mitchell, now they are saying no to Ingram or Zion. I am so excited about our next pick when we end up selecting another Grady Dick type of player yay

[Scase]

Neither of these statements are true…I don’t wanna date myself too much but I’ve been watching ball since MJ and loved the damn sport ever since then so no I’m not “unfamiliar” with BI’s game lol. I’ve seen plenty thanks, if you disagree on his fit that’s cool and your opinion. But come down off that pedestal, we don’t have to share the same opinion.

Nor am I impatient. I’ve stipulated many times that I’m only on board if they can get those guys to agree to sit out majority of the remaining season. If not, no I certainly don’t wanna make any move to for a stupid Play In push. I only see it as trading in contract fodder to take a flyer on what could potentially be a seriously depressed asset which would be a poormans Kawhi type of trade and likewise leaving to Alex to rehabilitate either guy enough to to start being more competitive or at bare minimum rehabilitate their trade value above what we paid….NEXT year.

I don’t think you’re being realistic if either of you believe that Masai is simply going to play out next season and just see where it takes him in a contract year (period). Whether it’s returning or going elsewhere, Masai will want to be able to negotiate a much better contract off the heels of a team on the incline vs one that sputtered and been in the lottery 5 out of the last 6 years. I just flat out do not see that happening. So we take on one of these guys, sit them out, get a good pick then come back firing in 26’. Even if I wanted to tank for AJ, I can’t even picture that happening at all.

I think jumping into a team next year with BI is being impatient, staying the course as is we be the longer term and likely more successful route. We've already seen a team for years with a non first option in Siakam, we don't need a lesser version of him again.

Ingram has consistently shot better than pascal from distance and has a better handle and passing. While not efficient from the midrange, Ingram has a #1 scorer’s mentality. Pascal is always healthy, has better size, plays more of an inside game and has more of a complementary game than a go to scorer.

This is strictly eye test though.

They’re rather equal players. If we get Ingram we are doubling down on ball iq/passing. It’s arguable that Ingram is a huge needle mover, but the price is right and we get the better player. If it’s Zion though? Yeah - alllllll day.

Best ability is availability, and that's one ability Ingram has never had.

Siakam is overall a better player, I'm not saying it's some massive gulf between them, but he's just basically a lesser Siakam. While Ingrams range would fit better with the team, it's not like he's the missing piece. I would rather us eat dirt this year, and then have some improvement next year while still being kinda bad to keep loading up on young players. Ingram would just be a path to getting to the play in a year early and hurting long term asset accumulation.

[johanliebert]

Reading numbers would have you comparing siakam and ingram. I doubt you watch games.

If a stat tells you something you cant see you need to be skeptical of the conclusion you made.

[Son Goku 25]

Id be open to either. We need talent.

If we can somehow get a top 5 pick and pick up another mid range draft pick this year I think we'd be cooking.

Come next year or year after we make a bigger trade for another player or two and we're right there. Just this potential trade and our draft pick(s) will get me and many other fans back on watching them more and be excited about the future of the team.

I think if we have a chance to get a borderline all star or even Zion who is motivated and hopefully healthier I don't think people realize how good we can be. This is all talk though but I like what FO is thinking.

[ontnut]

Not too long ago people were saying no to Donavan Mitchell, now they are saying no to Ingram or Zion. I am so excited about our next pick when we end up selecting another Grady Dick type of player yay

I'm one of those guys. I said no to Mitchell. Maybe I'll be proven wrong this playoffs, but...in my mental thought experiment, I have a hard time envisioning an undersized SG winning a chip. CLE's success is clearly based upon an all-around team effect. CLE has built a great team around Mitchell, so it's hard to go against them. The main detraction against Mitchell is that he's a 2nd tier scorer and a below average defender. It's really hard to win a championship with that kind of guy as your best player. CLE has done a great job surrounding him with 2-way guys, very similar to our chip team....but....Mitchell is not Kawhi. Weaknesses may be exposed in the playoffs. We will see.

Ingram and Zion...they have their clear flaws. In a vacuum, would you want them on your team? Sure. But. In a salary cap league where adv stats and games played matters, mathematically, they're both kind of a s&**** bet.

NGL, given what we know now, including salary, I'd rather have Dick than Zion. The burden of carrying Zion is not what I would want, as a business owner.

[ontnut]

I think if we have a chance to get a borderline all star or even Zion who is motivated and hopefully healthier I don't think people realize how good we can be. This is all talk though but I like what FO is thinking.

It's not just you...I'm not putting this on you.
But this is the hopium that eminates from the eternal tank crew.
It's the hopium of the mystery box, like Zion, or lotteries.

Even if you grant a 50/50 chance on all of "your" hopes....
"borderline", "motivated", "hopefully healthier".....the odds of all 3 clicking a the same time are 12.5% (1/8 chances, and at this point it's likely less). And that's still not considering team fit or the fact that we've already run the Charles Barkley experiment, and he didn't win a chip.

Neither of these guys are winners. Zion is closer to Simmons than he is to Barkley. He doesn't love the game. I'm a big proponent of "trading up" for borderline star type players, but the caveat would be...I want a borderline guy who's pissed about being borderline and wants to be more than that. You can't get that out of a #1 pick.

[Son Goku 25]

I think if we have a chance to get a borderline all star or even Zion who is motivated and hopefully healthier I don't think people realize how good we can be. This is all talk though but I like what FO is thinking.

It's not just you...I'm not putting this on you.
But this is the hopium that eminates from the eternal tank crew.
It's the hopium of the mystery box, like Zion, or lotteries.

Even if you grant a 50/50 chance on all of "your" hopes....
"borderline", "motivated", "hopefully healthier".....the odds of all 3 clicking a the same time are 12.5% (1/8 chances, and at this point it's likely less). And that's still not considering team fit or the fact that we've already run the Charles Barkley experiment, and he didn't win a chip.

Neither of these guys are winners. Zion is closer to Simmons than he is to Barkley. He doesn't love the game. I'm a big proponent of "trading up" for borderline star type players, but the caveat would be...I want a borderline guy who's pissed about being borderline and wants to be more than that. You can't get that out of a #1 pick.

I know what you mean. I think the idea is to get a high risk high reward player right now for cheap instead of giving away some first rounders and players part of our core. This is a risk I wouldn't mind the front office taking because it will put them ahead in the rebuilding process instead of just tanking the next two seasons.

Tanking next season likely isn't gonna happen so it's a way to get ahead by keeping the current players that are considered part of core and getting a potential all star this year. Then next season and beyond you can package some of these pieces for bigger deals, t's just how the FO works.

I'm not saying these are the only two players I'd go after but you gotta jump on these things esp if it doesn't cost you some of your main pieces which you can use later in a bigger deal.

[Merit]

I think jumping into a team next year with BI is being impatient, staying the course as is we be the longer term and likely more successful route. We've already seen a team for years with a non first option in Siakam, we don't need a lesser version of him again.

Ingram has consistently shot better than pascal from distance and has a better handle and passing. While not efficient from the midrange, Ingram has a #1 scorer’s mentality. Pascal is always healthy, has better size, plays more of an inside game and has more of a complementary game than a go to scorer.

This is strictly eye test though.

They’re rather equal players. If we get Ingram we are doubling down on ball iq/passing. It’s arguable that Ingram is a huge needle mover, but the price is right and we get the better player. If it’s Zion though? Yeah - alllllll day.

Best ability is availability, and that's one ability Ingram has never had.

Siakam is overall a better player, I'm not saying it's some massive gulf between them, but he's just basically a lesser Siakam. While Ingrams range would fit better with the team, it's not like he's the missing piece. I would rather us eat dirt this year, and then have some improvement next year while still being kinda bad to keep loading up on young players. Ingram would just be a path to getting to the play in a year early and hurting long term asset accumulation.

The logic is solid and makes a world of sense this season. I think the raps are back in the playoffs next year though, so I’m less worried about the long term asset value. We end up with the best player regardless of which of Ingram/Wiggins/Zion we get. To me that’s the most salient information.

[Merit]

I think if we have a chance to get a borderline all star or even Zion who is motivated and hopefully healthier I don't think people realize how good we can be. This is all talk though but I like what FO is thinking.

It's not just you...I'm not putting this on you.
But this is the hopium that eminates from the eternal tank crew.
It's the hopium of the mystery box, like Zion, or lotteries.

Even if you grant a 50/50 chance on all of "your" hopes....
"borderline", "motivated", "hopefully healthier".....the odds of all 3 clicking a the same time are 12.5% (1/8 chances, and at this point it's likely less). And that's still not considering team fit or the fact that we've already run the Charles Barkley experiment, and he didn't win a chip.

Neither of these guys are winners. Zion is closer to Simmons than he is to Barkley. He doesn't love the game. I'm a big proponent of "trading up" for borderline star type players, but the caveat would be...I want a borderline guy who's pissed about being borderline and wants to be more than that. You can't get that out of a #1 pick.

I know what you mean. I think the idea is to get a high risk high reward player right now for cheap instead of giving away some first rounders and players part of our core. This is a risk I wouldn't mind the front office taking because it will put them ahead in the rebuilding process instead of just tanking the next two seasons.

Tanking next season likely isn't gonna happen so it's a way to get ahead by keeping the current players that are considered part of core and getting a potential all star this year. Then next season and beyond you can package some of these pieces for bigger deals, t's just how the FO works.

I'm not saying these are the only two players I'd go after but you gotta jump on these things esp if it doesn't cost you some of your main pieces which you can use later in a bigger deal.

This is what I’ve been saying for a while. High risk/high reward but even if it goes to crap the worst outcome is (less) cap space.

[Merit]

Reading numbers would have you comparing siakam and ingram. I doubt you watch games.

If a stat tells you something you cant see you need to be skeptical of the conclusion you made.

Which of the two do you think is the better player. I acknowledge Ingram has been unhealthy, so there’s that. Removing health from the equation - who do you like?

I remember when Ingram wasn’t going to be traded for anyone in those early magic Johnson years.

[hype_2004]

It's not what you fools want it's what the shareholders and MLSE wants and it has nothing to do with wins and losses. If Zion is available Masai will trade everyone short of Scottie Barnes, if NO wants picks they will get it. Zion is an absolute superstar who puts bodies on Arenas, a rejuvenated Zion is as close you can get to Vince Carter when it comes to entertainment value and that's an undeniable fact that MLSE would not look over.

[Saul Goodman]

If you can thread the needle of somehow acquiring one of Zion or Ingram and keeping a top 5 pick together it’s a no brainer.


For example if you do


Zion

For

Bruce Brown
Olynk
2026 Indiana 1st
2027 top 10 protected


And if you can still somehow get Ace or Dylan


Harper/barrett/barnes/zion/poetl

Walter/Dick/abaji


You have something serious brewing there if you can make it happen

[Scase]

Ingram has consistently shot better than pascal from distance and has a better handle and passing. While not efficient from the midrange, Ingram has a #1 scorer’s mentality. Pascal is always healthy, has better size, plays more of an inside game and has more of a complementary game than a go to scorer.

This is strictly eye test though.

They’re rather equal players. If we get Ingram we are doubling down on ball iq/passing. It’s arguable that Ingram is a huge needle mover, but the price is right and we get the better player. If it’s Zion though? Yeah - alllllll day.

Best ability is availability, and that's one ability Ingram has never had.

Siakam is overall a better player, I'm not saying it's some massive gulf between them, but he's just basically a lesser Siakam. While Ingrams range would fit better with the team, it's not like he's the missing piece. I would rather us eat dirt this year, and then have some improvement next year while still being kinda bad to keep loading up on young players. Ingram would just be a path to getting to the play in a year early and hurting long term asset accumulation.

The logic is solid and makes a world of sense this season. I think the raps are back in the playoffs next year though, so I’m less worried about the long term asset value. We end up with the best player regardless of which of Ingram/Wiggins/Zion we get. To me that’s the most salient information.

I assume you mean with the addition of BI?

[Merit]

Best ability is availability, and that's one ability Ingram has never had.

Siakam is overall a better player, I'm not saying it's some massive gulf between them, but he's just basically a lesser Siakam. While Ingrams range would fit better with the team, it's not like he's the missing piece. I would rather us eat dirt this year, and then have some improvement next year while still being kinda bad to keep loading up on young players. Ingram would just be a path to getting to the play in a year early and hurting long term asset accumulation.

The logic is solid and makes a world of sense this season. I think the raps are back in the playoffs next year though, so I’m less worried about the long term asset value. We end up with the best player regardless of which of Ingram/Wiggins/Zion we get. To me that’s the most salient information.

I assume you mean with the addition of BI?

Actually I mean as they stand right now, plus their picks.

[Scase]

The logic is solid and makes a world of sense this season. I think the raps are back in the playoffs next year though, so I’m less worried about the long term asset value. We end up with the best player regardless of which of Ingram/Wiggins/Zion we get. To me that’s the most salient information.

I assume you mean with the addition of BI?

Actually I mean as they stand right now, plus their picks.

So your assumption is that we add BI at zero cost to the Raps? I mean yeah, I guess if we add him at no cost we'd be a better team lol. Play in would definitely be the minimum result of that team, no arguments about that, playoffs, I'd say probably.

But that's like saying if we added SGA to the team at no cost we'd be playoff bound

[ishoy123]

It's not what you fools want it's what the shareholders and MLSE wants and it has nothing to do with wins and losses. If Zion is available Masai will trade everyone short of Scottie Barnes, if NO wants picks they will get it. Zion is an absolute superstar who puts bodies on Arenas, a rejuvenated Zion is as close you can get to Vince Carter when it comes to entertainment value and that's an undeniable fact that MLSE would not look over.

That's just not accurate based on Masai's track record of making trades

[Merit]

I assume you mean with the addition of BI?

Actually I mean as they stand right now, plus their picks.

So your assumption is that we add BI at zero cost to the Raps? I mean yeah, I guess if we add him at no cost we'd be a better team lol. Play in would definitely be the minimum result of that team, no arguments about that, playoffs, I'd say probably.

But that's like saying if we added SGA to the team at no cost we'd be playoff bound

Not quite sure how you jumped to that conclusion…

BI > Brown + Kelly in value. Zion >>>>>> Brown + Kelly in value. Not saying that’s all we would trade, but the salaries work.

BI is lower risk. Zion is higher risk.

Given that it’s very difficult to aggregate top end talent in the NBA, both would be options I would strongly consider were I the gm of the Raptors. I for one would love to see a Seattle SuperSonics of the Kemp/Payton era with a plus bench on a daily basis if we get Zion or an early 2k Pistons with better shooting if we get BI.

[Scase]

Actually I mean as they stand right now, plus their picks.

So your assumption is that we add BI at zero cost to the Raps? I mean yeah, I guess if we add him at no cost we'd be a better team lol. Play in would definitely be the minimum result of that team, no arguments about that, playoffs, I'd say probably.

But that's like saying if we added SGA to the team at no cost we'd be playoff bound

Not quite sure how you jumped to that conclusion…

Well then give me some more to work with here. What is the result of us acquiring BI? What are we giving up to get him?

All I'm saying is that you can argue that adding any desirable player at no cost will improve the team, that's kind of a give in. What you are suggesting sounds like we get BI, we give up no core players, or picks. I'm asking you for clarification on what the structure of this suggested deal is.

[anotherhomer]

if you can get BI without giving too much, then you have to do it

[Merit]

So your assumption is that we add BI at zero cost to the Raps? I mean yeah, I guess if we add him at no cost we'd be a better team lol. Play in would definitely be the minimum result of that team, no arguments about that, playoffs, I'd say probably.

But that's like saying if we added SGA to the team at no cost we'd be playoff bound

Not quite sure how you jumped to that conclusion…

Well then give me some more to work with here. What is the result of us acquiring BI? What are we giving up to get him?

All I'm saying is that you can argue that adding any desirable player at no cost will improve the team, that's kind of a give in. What you are suggesting sounds like we get BI, we give up no core players, or picks. I'm asking you for clarification on what the structure of this suggested deal is.

Hey brother, check above. Posted mid-thought by accident.