Official Brandon Ingram Thread

[Scase]

I'm confused bc your initial post said, even if he doesn't play a single minute, you're hinging the grade of the trade on our draft pick... but if he doesn't play a minute we're objectively a worse team without Brown/Mitchell/Olynyk, so we would have had an even WORSE pick if we don't make the trade.

That's also assuming the literal only option was to trade those vets for BI and only BI. And conveniently ignores, A) not trading them at all and just sitting them, or B) trading them for SRPs and not having either BI or them on the roster.

Stop looking at it so myopically.

But you've narrowed your focus on specifically the value of the trade vs the value of the pick we get. Optimally, if we're trying to go for playing the odds on a high pick, the vets needed to go. Anything other than shipping them out would have decreased the chances of us getting a higher pick, and sitting them out would have led to bad asset management with Bruce Brown being able to leave this off season.

Trading for BI or someone else is moot at this point. Again, I'm only really having issues with the notion of the draft pick status having an impact on the trade grade if we're assuming BI doesn't impact our ability to tank (your words, not mine). Outside of trading Scottie and everyone else, we wouldn't get worse next year. It was always going to be a one year tank job unless you completely gut the team and go Washington Wizards status.

I can get not liking the direction of the front office, or not liking BI as a player and judging the trade accordingly, but that was just a really weird statement in an otherwise fine post.

I explained my rationale better in my response to tsherkin, the TLDR is that the BI acquisition limits our options (whether people like those options is a different story) moving forward.

Say we move the vets, or even let them expire, so no impact to this years draft positioning, we botch that pick, get bad luck, whatever happens, it just doesn't go well. You still have a largely unchanged team (minus those vets) going into that next season, a roster that still isn't particularly good, say a mid 30's win team. You can pivot to move Jak who at that point has 1 year left, or he exercises his PO but overall is still a valuable contract. Or you can move RJ who has 1 more year on his contract and is also showing more value + low cost contract relative. You now have made your team worse the following year and can take another stab at a high draft pick, in what is looking to be another good draft.

But with BI on the team, assuming he doesn't impact this year, and the same scenario of it going tits up occurs. The next year you have basically locked yourself into trying to compete, you've just re-signed BI to a (likely) 4 year contract extension with an AAV between 35-40mil, which would be largely unmovable as no one wanted to pick him up for that other than us, and he hasn't had the time to improve and make it a more desirable contract. You limit your options to pivot, you now have Scottie on a max contract, a perpetually injured guy on his 3rd and near max contract, IQ who is probably a negative value asset right now due to his contract and being injured all year, and you have RJ/Jak who no longer make sense to move because of the BI contract.

It just results in fewer potential ways to pivot the team, and I am not keen on that. I view the BI trade very much like the Jak one, nothing wrong (mostly) with the player, but I hate the timing of it. At least with the Jak one you had guys expiring and not being re-signed to a big contract, but still largely the same.

[ArthurVandelay]

That's also assuming the literal only option was to trade those vets for BI and only BI. And conveniently ignores, A) not trading them at all and just sitting them, or B) trading them for SRPs and not having either BI or them on the roster.

Stop looking at it so myopically.

But you've narrowed your focus on specifically the value of the trade vs the value of the pick we get. Optimally, if we're trying to go for playing the odds on a high pick, the vets needed to go. Anything other than shipping them out would have decreased the chances of us getting a higher pick, and sitting them out would have led to bad asset management with Bruce Brown being able to leave this off season.

Trading for BI or someone else is moot at this point. Again, I'm only really having issues with the notion of the draft pick status having an impact on the trade grade if we're assuming BI doesn't impact our ability to tank (your words, not mine). Outside of trading Scottie and everyone else, we wouldn't get worse next year. It was always going to be a one year tank job unless you completely gut the team and go Washington Wizards status.

I can get not liking the direction of the front office, or not liking BI as a player and judging the trade accordingly, but that was just a really weird statement in an otherwise fine post.

I explained my rationale better in my response to tsherkin, the TLDR is that the BI acquisition limits our options (whether people like those options is a different story) moving forward.

Say we move the vets, or even let them expire, so no impact to this years draft positioning, we botch that pick, get bad luck, whatever happens, it just doesn't go well. You still have a largely unchanged team (minus those vets) going into that next season, a roster that still isn't particularly good, say a mid 30's win team. You can pivot to move Jak who at that point has 1 year left, or he exercises his PO but overall is still a valuable contract. Or you can move RJ who has 1 more year on his contract and is also showing more value + low cost contract relative. You now have made your team worse the following year and can take another stab at a high draft pick, in what is looking to be another good draft.

But with BI on the team, assuming he doesn't impact this year, and the same scenario of it going tits up occurs. The next year you have basically locked yourself into trying to compete, you've just re-signed BI to a (likely) 4 year contract extension with an AAV between 35-40mil, which would be largely unmovable as no one wanted to pick him up for that other than us, and he hasn't had the time to improve and make it a more desirable contract. You limit your options to pivot, you now have Scottie on a max contract, a perpetually injured guy on his 3rd and near max contract, IQ who is probably a negative value asset right now due to his contract and being injured all year, and you have RJ/Jak who no longer make sense to move because of the BI contract.

It just results in fewer potential ways to pivot the team, and I am not keen on that. I view the BI trade very much like the Jak one, nothing wrong (mostly) with the player, but I hate the timing of it. At least with the Jak one you had guys expiring and not being re-signed to a big contract, but still largely the same.

I think the big difference between the Poeltl and BI trade is the immediate intention. The Poeltl trade was made with the goal to be as good as possible immediately and push for a play in thereby destroying their lottery odds (in a generational draft no less). The BI trade was made to be good next year and from everything being said the front office wants to tank this year harder than you or me

[Duffman100]

That's also assuming the literal only option was to trade those vets for BI and only BI. And conveniently ignores, A) not trading them at all and just sitting them, or B) trading them for SRPs and not having either BI or them on the roster.

Stop looking at it so myopically.

But you've narrowed your focus on specifically the value of the trade vs the value of the pick we get. Optimally, if we're trying to go for playing the odds on a high pick, the vets needed to go. Anything other than shipping them out would have decreased the chances of us getting a higher pick, and sitting them out would have led to bad asset management with Bruce Brown being able to leave this off season.

Trading for BI or someone else is moot at this point. Again, I'm only really having issues with the notion of the draft pick status having an impact on the trade grade if we're assuming BI doesn't impact our ability to tank (your words, not mine). Outside of trading Scottie and everyone else, we wouldn't get worse next year. It was always going to be a one year tank job unless you completely gut the team and go Washington Wizards status.

I can get not liking the direction of the front office, or not liking BI as a player and judging the trade accordingly, but that was just a really weird statement in an otherwise fine post.

I explained my rationale better in my response to tsherkin, the TLDR is that the BI acquisition limits our options (whether people like those options is a different story) moving forward.

Say we move the vets, or even let them expire, so no impact to this years draft positioning, we botch that pick, get bad luck, whatever happens, it just doesn't go well. You still have a largely unchanged team (minus those vets) going into that next season, a roster that still isn't particularly good, say a mid 30's win team. You can pivot to move Jak who at that point has 1 year left, or he exercises his PO but overall is still a valuable contract. Or you can move RJ who has 1 more year on his contract and is also showing more value + low cost contract relative. You now have made your team worse the following year and can take another stab at a high draft pick, in what is looking to be another good draft.

But with BI on the team, assuming he doesn't impact this year, and the same scenario of it going tits up occurs. The next year you have basically locked yourself into trying to compete, you've just re-signed BI to a (likely) 4 year contract extension with an AAV between 35-40mil, which would be largely unmovable as no one wanted to pick him up for that other than us, and he hasn't had the time to improve and make it a more desirable contract. You limit your options to pivot, you now have Scottie on a max contract, a perpetually injured guy on his 3rd and near max contract, IQ who is probably a negative value asset right now due to his contract and being injured all year, and you have RJ/Jak who no longer make sense to move because of the BI contract.

It just results in fewer potential ways to pivot the team, and I am not keen on that. I view the BI trade very much like the Jak one, nothing wrong (mostly) with the player, but I hate the timing of it. At least with the Jak one you had guys expiring and not being re-signed to a big contract, but still largely the same.

Except they may be locked in to compete no matter what, based on Organizational and Ownership pressures. That's a factor you have to consider. It's possible Masai got buy in from the board and ownership to be BAD this season but with the promise to start winning the season after.

You're looking at this like they aren't enacting a plan and a plan based on a multitude of factors. Based on our conversations, I know you're in a leadership position in tech / ux. You are often passed down KRs and have to deliver. It's not different here, everyone has a boss, even Masai.

I bet everyone is a little nervous that another seasons of tanking in 2025/26 would do massive damage to attendance, revenue etc.

[tsherkin]

Except they may be locked in to compete no matter what, based on Organizational and Ownership pressures. That's a factor you have to consider. It's possible Masai got buy in from the board and ownership to be BAD this season but with the promise to start winning the season after.

That is always the concern, yes.

I bet everyone is a little nervous that another seasons of tanking in 2025/26 would do massive damage to attendance, revenue etc.

I'd be really surprised if we were tanking next year. And to be honest, I get it. At some point, you have to get back on the horse and try to win games.

[billy_hoyle]

But you've narrowed your focus on specifically the value of the trade vs the value of the pick we get. Optimally, if we're trying to go for playing the odds on a high pick, the vets needed to go. Anything other than shipping them out would have decreased the chances of us getting a higher pick, and sitting them out would have led to bad asset management with Bruce Brown being able to leave this off season.

Trading for BI or someone else is moot at this point. Again, I'm only really having issues with the notion of the draft pick status having an impact on the trade grade if we're assuming BI doesn't impact our ability to tank (your words, not mine). Outside of trading Scottie and everyone else, we wouldn't get worse next year. It was always going to be a one year tank job unless you completely gut the team and go Washington Wizards status.

I can get not liking the direction of the front office, or not liking BI as a player and judging the trade accordingly, but that was just a really weird statement in an otherwise fine post.

I explained my rationale better in my response to tsherkin, the TLDR is that the BI acquisition limits our options (whether people like those options is a different story) moving forward.

Say we move the vets, or even let them expire, so no impact to this years draft positioning, we botch that pick, get bad luck, whatever happens, it just doesn't go well. You still have a largely unchanged team (minus those vets) going into that next season, a roster that still isn't particularly good, say a mid 30's win team. You can pivot to move Jak who at that point has 1 year left, or he exercises his PO but overall is still a valuable contract. Or you can move RJ who has 1 more year on his contract and is also showing more value + low cost contract relative. You now have made your team worse the following year and can take another stab at a high draft pick, in what is looking to be another good draft.

But with BI on the team, assuming he doesn't impact this year, and the same scenario of it going tits up occurs. The next year you have basically locked yourself into trying to compete, you've just re-signed BI to a (likely) 4 year contract extension with an AAV between 35-40mil, which would be largely unmovable as no one wanted to pick him up for that other than us, and he hasn't had the time to improve and make it a more desirable contract. You limit your options to pivot, you now have Scottie on a max contract, a perpetually injured guy on his 3rd and near max contract, IQ who is probably a negative value asset right now due to his contract and being injured all year, and you have RJ/Jak who no longer make sense to move because of the BI contract.

It just results in fewer potential ways to pivot the team, and I am not keen on that. I view the BI trade very much like the Jak one, nothing wrong (mostly) with the player, but I hate the timing of it. At least with the Jak one you had guys expiring and not being re-signed to a big contract, but still largely the same.

I think the big difference between the Poeltl and BI trade is the immediate intention. The Poeltl trade was made with the goal to be as good as possible immediately and push for a play in thereby destroying their lottery odds (in a generational draft no less). The BI trade was made to be good next year and from everything being said the front office wants to tank this year harder than you or me

Differences between BI vs Poeltl trade:

1. BI is younger, fits closer to new core timeline. Yak fit with old core timeline that was about to be blown up.

2. BI all star potential for likely late 1st pick (based on INDY record which is very likely not a lottery pick ). Yak was a solid starter for our own pick with poor protections that didn't cover a very likely outcome of 6-10 lottery protection in case we blew it up and lost FVV to free agency. If we are bad we don't even get the benefit of keeping a good pick.

Those are pretty massive differences

[Scase]

But you've narrowed your focus on specifically the value of the trade vs the value of the pick we get. Optimally, if we're trying to go for playing the odds on a high pick, the vets needed to go. Anything other than shipping them out would have decreased the chances of us getting a higher pick, and sitting them out would have led to bad asset management with Bruce Brown being able to leave this off season.

Trading for BI or someone else is moot at this point. Again, I'm only really having issues with the notion of the draft pick status having an impact on the trade grade if we're assuming BI doesn't impact our ability to tank (your words, not mine). Outside of trading Scottie and everyone else, we wouldn't get worse next year. It was always going to be a one year tank job unless you completely gut the team and go Washington Wizards status.

I can get not liking the direction of the front office, or not liking BI as a player and judging the trade accordingly, but that was just a really weird statement in an otherwise fine post.

I explained my rationale better in my response to tsherkin, the TLDR is that the BI acquisition limits our options (whether people like those options is a different story) moving forward.

Say we move the vets, or even let them expire, so no impact to this years draft positioning, we botch that pick, get bad luck, whatever happens, it just doesn't go well. You still have a largely unchanged team (minus those vets) going into that next season, a roster that still isn't particularly good, say a mid 30's win team. You can pivot to move Jak who at that point has 1 year left, or he exercises his PO but overall is still a valuable contract. Or you can move RJ who has 1 more year on his contract and is also showing more value + low cost contract relative. You now have made your team worse the following year and can take another stab at a high draft pick, in what is looking to be another good draft.

But with BI on the team, assuming he doesn't impact this year, and the same scenario of it going tits up occurs. The next year you have basically locked yourself into trying to compete, you've just re-signed BI to a (likely) 4 year contract extension with an AAV between 35-40mil, which would be largely unmovable as no one wanted to pick him up for that other than us, and he hasn't had the time to improve and make it a more desirable contract. You limit your options to pivot, you now have Scottie on a max contract, a perpetually injured guy on his 3rd and near max contract, IQ who is probably a negative value asset right now due to his contract and being injured all year, and you have RJ/Jak who no longer make sense to move because of the BI contract.

It just results in fewer potential ways to pivot the team, and I am not keen on that. I view the BI trade very much like the Jak one, nothing wrong (mostly) with the player, but I hate the timing of it. At least with the Jak one you had guys expiring and not being re-signed to a big contract, but still largely the same.

I think the big difference between the Poeltl and BI trade is the immediate intention. The Poeltl trade was made with the goal to be as good as possible immediately and push for a play in thereby destroying their lottery odds (in a generational draft no less). The BI trade was made to be good next year and from everything being said the front office wants to tank this year harder than you or me

I would say this is fairly accurate

But you've narrowed your focus on specifically the value of the trade vs the value of the pick we get. Optimally, if we're trying to go for playing the odds on a high pick, the vets needed to go. Anything other than shipping them out would have decreased the chances of us getting a higher pick, and sitting them out would have led to bad asset management with Bruce Brown being able to leave this off season.

Trading for BI or someone else is moot at this point. Again, I'm only really having issues with the notion of the draft pick status having an impact on the trade grade if we're assuming BI doesn't impact our ability to tank (your words, not mine). Outside of trading Scottie and everyone else, we wouldn't get worse next year. It was always going to be a one year tank job unless you completely gut the team and go Washington Wizards status.

I can get not liking the direction of the front office, or not liking BI as a player and judging the trade accordingly, but that was just a really weird statement in an otherwise fine post.

I explained my rationale better in my response to tsherkin, the TLDR is that the BI acquisition limits our options (whether people like those options is a different story) moving forward.

Say we move the vets, or even let them expire, so no impact to this years draft positioning, we botch that pick, get bad luck, whatever happens, it just doesn't go well. You still have a largely unchanged team (minus those vets) going into that next season, a roster that still isn't particularly good, say a mid 30's win team. You can pivot to move Jak who at that point has 1 year left, or he exercises his PO but overall is still a valuable contract. Or you can move RJ who has 1 more year on his contract and is also showing more value + low cost contract relative. You now have made your team worse the following year and can take another stab at a high draft pick, in what is looking to be another good draft.

But with BI on the team, assuming he doesn't impact this year, and the same scenario of it going tits up occurs. The next year you have basically locked yourself into trying to compete, you've just re-signed BI to a (likely) 4 year contract extension with an AAV between 35-40mil, which would be largely unmovable as no one wanted to pick him up for that other than us, and he hasn't had the time to improve and make it a more desirable contract. You limit your options to pivot, you now have Scottie on a max contract, a perpetually injured guy on his 3rd and near max contract, IQ who is probably a negative value asset right now due to his contract and being injured all year, and you have RJ/Jak who no longer make sense to move because of the BI contract.

It just results in fewer potential ways to pivot the team, and I am not keen on that. I view the BI trade very much like the Jak one, nothing wrong (mostly) with the player, but I hate the timing of it. At least with the Jak one you had guys expiring and not being re-signed to a big contract, but still largely the same.

Except they may be locked in to compete no matter what, based on Organizational and Ownership pressures. That's a factor you have to consider. It's possible Masai got buy in from the board and ownership to be BAD this season but with the promise to start winning the season after.

You're looking at this like they aren't enacting a plan and a plan based on a multitude of factors. Based on our conversations, I know you're in a leadership position in tech / ux. You are often passed down KRs and have to deliver. It's not different here, everyone has a boss, even Masai.

I bet everyone is a little nervous that another seasons of tanking in 2025/26 would do massive damage to attendance, revenue etc.

I intentionally don't take things like the bolded into account, simply because masai has been very public about him being the decision maker on all things basketball, and no outside influence. Now whether or not that is factual or accurate is a different story, but if I am to take him at his word for this being a rebuild or us focusing on the draft, then I can't pick and choose when to take him at his word. If his word means anything, then every single decision he makes in regards to rebuild, retool, tanking, competing, or anything in between, rests entirely on his shoulders. We may not agree on the things I criticize the FO for, but I do remain pretty consistent with things like this.

I agree that realistically everyone has someone they have to report to in most cases, but I also don't make it known to my reports that I make all the decisions lol. Towing the company line is one thing, saying you are where the buck stops is another.

I also agree that no one, including fans, leadership, or players wants to tank for a multitude of reasons. And I'm not even saying we should (but I do think we should for one more year ), but rather that this move removes that as an option, and it's definitely my interpretation of it, but I think it's got a pretty high chance of petering out to a "meh" team in the current state. I will gladly reassess if we make some big moves in the off season like moving anyone from the SL. But, until that happens I have to make my opinions based on the info we have at the time, and right now to me, this ain't it.

In leadership it's always important to have viable contingency plans, this one leaves us very few of those, and I'm not keen on that kind of planning. We're not at an "all in" juncture right now, but the move feels a lot more like that than the inverse. If we found a way to move RJ+IQ for some star/2way PG, that's a solid pivot, but it's also pretty unrealistic. So I really don't see very many avenues where this plan is successful unless a lot of things go perfectly right. That is my biggest criticism, for this stuff to not end up as a sideways move, or worse, virtually everything needs to go really well.

He needs to integrate well, the defence of the team needs to magically improve, Scottie needs to be better, RJ needs to be better, IQ needs to be alive, the contract can't be bad, we need a good pick, and so on. If anyone of those doesn't happen, we're on the back foot, by no ones hands but our own.

[Duffman100]

He needs to integrate well, the defence of the team needs to magically improve, Scottie needs to be better, RJ needs to be better, IQ needs to be alive, the contract can't be bad, we need a good pick, and so on. If anyone of those doesn't happen, we're on the back foot, by no ones hands but our own.

But let's go to the other scenario, we don't trade for him.

We still need to have lottery luck
We still need to hit on the pick
IQ needs to be healthy, Scottie needs to be better, RJ needs to be better

If that doesn't happen,
Rinse and repeat with the 2026 pick against other tanking team.

You're just transferring one risk to another.

Every team is dealing with the above factors you're listing. Washington, Utah, New Orleans, Nets, etc All at varying %s that aren't all that different.

[Wutang_CMB]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=0YpMScWXY2zRUqR8fH-usg

[Scase]

He needs to integrate well, the defence of the team needs to magically improve, Scottie needs to be better, RJ needs to be better, IQ needs to be alive, the contract can't be bad, we need a good pick, and so on. If anyone of those doesn't happen, we're on the back foot, by no ones hands but our own.

But let's go to the other scenario, we don't trade for him.

We still need to have lottery luck
We still need to hit on the pick
IQ needs to be healthy, Scottie needs to be better, RJ needs to be better

If that doesn't happen,
Rinse and repeat with the 2026 pick against other tanking team.

You're just transferring one risk to another.

Every team is dealing with the above factors you're listing. Washington, Utah, New Orleans, Nets, etc All at varying %s that aren't all that different.

Having BI locks us into competing though, since you just signed a guy to a max extension that kicks in that year, and you just traded for and extended a guy to what is probably like a 4yr 160mil-ish contract. You can't then turn around and easily trade an RJ or IQ to try and tank, you have too much talent in BI/SB to do that, and WAY too much money. But you sure as hell can if SB is the only major contract on the roster.

All the options have risks for sure, but now you whittle it down to less options overall. If the BI trade is a whiff and we just extended him for 40mil AAV, that contract isn't going anywhere without picks, and then it makes moving the other guys a pretty bad idea, since you will be shackled with a mid team and bad contracts only. Meaning you are too good to tank, but too bad to matter, treadmill hell, and no one wants that.

Without BI, if IQ isn't healthy, SB stays the same, you can still trade RJ and tank. Whether anyone wants that option or not doesn't matter, but it's an option. The BI trade renders that option impossible.

[Potential]

Read on Twitter

[Duffman100]

He needs to integrate well, the defence of the team needs to magically improve, Scottie needs to be better, RJ needs to be better, IQ needs to be alive, the contract can't be bad, we need a good pick, and so on. If anyone of those doesn't happen, we're on the back foot, by no ones hands but our own.

But let's go to the other scenario, we don't trade for him.

We still need to have lottery luck
We still need to hit on the pick
IQ needs to be healthy, Scottie needs to be better, RJ needs to be better

If that doesn't happen,
Rinse and repeat with the 2026 pick against other tanking team.

You're just transferring one risk to another.

Every team is dealing with the above factors you're listing. Washington, Utah, New Orleans, Nets, etc All at varying %s that aren't all that different.

Having BI locks us into competing though, since you just signed a guy to a max extension that kicks in that year, and you just traded for and extended a guy to what is probably like a 4yr 160mil-ish contract. You can't then turn around and easily trade an RJ or IQ to try and tank, you have too much talent in BI/SB to do that, and WAY too much money. But you sure as hell can if SB is the only major contract on the roster.

All the options have risks for sure, but now you whittle it down to less options overall. If the BI trade is a whiff and we just extended him for 40mil AAV, that contract isn't going anywhere without picks, and then it makes moving the other guys a pretty bad idea, since you will be shackled with a mid team and bad contracts only. Meaning you are too good to tank, but too bad to matter, treadmill hell, and no one wants that.

Without BI, if IQ isn't healthy, SB stays the same, you can still trade RJ and tank. Whether anyone wants that option or not doesn't matter, but it's an option. The BI trade renders that option impossible.

By this same logic, you can deal IQ and RJ and then not be competitive and tank? If Ingram doesn't play well or hurt, you deal the other two and lose.

I don't see him locking us into competing dealing IQ and RJ is an option in the other universe.

[mtcan]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=0YpMScWXY2zRUqR8fH-usg

They didn't capture the part when he said that he's going to enjoy playing with Scottie because he's a goofball and that he himself is a bit of a goofball as well. I particularly enjoyed when he said that he's a big fan of Jakob.

Jak haters...apologize now.

[Scase]

But let's go to the other scenario, we don't trade for him.

We still need to have lottery luck
We still need to hit on the pick
IQ needs to be healthy, Scottie needs to be better, RJ needs to be better

If that doesn't happen,
Rinse and repeat with the 2026 pick against other tanking team.

You're just transferring one risk to another.

Every team is dealing with the above factors you're listing. Washington, Utah, New Orleans, Nets, etc All at varying %s that aren't all that different.

Having BI locks us into competing though, since you just signed a guy to a max extension that kicks in that year, and you just traded for and extended a guy to what is probably like a 4yr 160mil-ish contract. You can't then turn around and easily trade an RJ or IQ to try and tank, you have too much talent in BI/SB to do that, and WAY too much money. But you sure as hell can if SB is the only major contract on the roster.

All the options have risks for sure, but now you whittle it down to less options overall. If the BI trade is a whiff and we just extended him for 40mil AAV, that contract isn't going anywhere without picks, and then it makes moving the other guys a pretty bad idea, since you will be shackled with a mid team and bad contracts only. Meaning you are too good to tank, but too bad to matter, treadmill hell, and no one wants that.

Without BI, if IQ isn't healthy, SB stays the same, you can still trade RJ and tank. Whether anyone wants that option or not doesn't matter, but it's an option. The BI trade renders that option impossible.

By this same logic, you can deal IQ and RJ and then not be competitive and tank? If Ingram doesn't play well or hurt, you deal the other two and lose.

I don't see him locking us into competing dealing IQ and RJ is an option in the other universe.

You absolutely can, but then you are still saddled with a really bad contract on a player that is good enough to keep you in that dreaded 30 win range when healthy, which is the worst place to be. Unless of course he's missing like 60 games a season, but even for him that's unlikely.,

[Badonkadonk]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=0YpMScWXY2zRUqR8fH-usg

They didn't capture the part when he said that he's going to enjoy playing with Scottie because he's a goofball and that he himself is a bit of a goofball as well. I particularly enjoyed when he said that he's a big fan of Jakob.

Jak haters...apologize now.

A competent big who can screen, switch and take the bulk of the rebounding load is a wing scorer's dream. Good on BI for recognizing the value of an unselfish big.

[Thaddy]

The Slim Reefer is going to enjoy Canada for sure. He's going to fit in well here, we just need RJ, IQ, and Barnes to be able to space the floor for him. He had a career year next to Ball, I see IQ having a similar effective on him. CJ and Ingram were a terrible fit together.

IQ | Barrett | Ingram | Barnes | Poeltl

All of those guys fit in very well with each other. We have an elite interior defense with Poeltl and Barnes, and 3 3-Level scorers with IQ, Barrett, and Ingram. Barnes and IQ will be better than Ball at setting up Ingram. Barrett has also come on strong as a passer. I can see this group getting a lot further than FVV | OG | Siakam | Barnes | Poeltl. We won't have scoring issues like we've had in the past.

The bench is also much better than what it was back then. GTJ was a fraud. We have Dick to replace GTJ and then we have Mogbo, Shead, top 5 lottery pick, Walter, Agbaji, and Boucher as well.

[tsherkin]

The Slim Reefer is going to enjoy Canada for sure. He's going to fit in well here, we just need RJ, IQ, and Barnes to be able to space the floor for him. He had a career year next to Ball, I see IQ having a similar effective on him. CJ and Ingram were a terrible fit together.

Barnes isn't going to be a spacer for him. BUt he should be able to cut around him and use Ingram's spacing to have an easier time on the block. That should help when BI is on the floor. And if Scottie does end up running some PnR and getting into the lane, they'll either be late helping off of BI or they're going to give up 3s to him all game long.

[Wutang_CMB]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[FrozenLeafz]

the BI interview is out on the Raptors website if yall want to watch it earlier

[bcv]

Say what now? That can’t be true. An NBA team didn’t have a PT before last season?! Amateur hour.

That's wild. I know you can easily contract an outside provider, but to not have at least one in-house physiotherapist when you're committing hundreds of millions to player contracts is some terrible risk management.

A quote from their GM:

“We didn’t have a (physical therapist) before, Langdon said. I think that was one thing that a lot of the players questioned at the end of the year, especially with the amount of injuries that we had.”Source

Thanks for the source. Not that I didn’t believe you, it just seemed to crazy to be.

[Wutang_CMB]

The Slim Reefer is going to enjoy Canada for sure. He's going to fit in well here, we just need RJ, IQ, and Barnes to be able to space the floor for him. He had a career year next to Ball, I see IQ having a similar effective on him. CJ and Ingram were a terrible fit together.

IQ | Barrett | Ingram | Barnes | Poeltl

All of those guys fit in very well with each other. We have an elite interior defense with Poeltl and Barnes, and 3 3-Level scorers with IQ, Barrett, and Ingram. Barnes and IQ will be better than Ball at setting up Ingram. Barrett has also come on strong as a passer. I can see this group getting a lot further than FVV | OG | Siakam | Barnes | Poeltl. We won't have scoring issues like we've had in the past.

The bench is also much better than what it was back then. GTJ was a fraud. We have Dick to replace GTJ and then we have Mogbo, Shead, top 5 lottery pick, Walter, Agbaji, and Boucher as well.

good point. I also think him and Zion weren't ideal fits either. NO fans also thought Green's system wasn't the best for him

I have my doubts with RJ and the fit .. now with BI , but if he can hold his own defensively for consistent minutes, it could work. At least in the regular season for success

Scottie and BI can both initiate the P and R and landscape. These are the top 2 options moving forward. Everyone else has a role to support them.