Shams: Ingram extends 120/3

Post #1 » by **Mavrelous** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 7:54 pm

Read on Twitter

?t=Iz5v3o59Ik5q6tr8yybbYw&s=19

BlazersBroncos · Post #2 » by **BlazersBroncos** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 7:56 pm

Masai just hates the idea of a true rebuild.

babyjax13 · Post #3 » by **babyjax13** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 7:57 pm

That seems like the right number to me. Below the max by a substantial amount.

Post #4 » by **Snakebites** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 7:57 pm

If they were gonna do this why not just keep OG and/or Siakam?

So confusing.

I don't hate the contract in a vacuum but the fit just feels...weird.

Post #5 » by **jbk1234** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 7:57 pm

BlazersBroncos wrote:Masai just hates the idea of a true rebuild.

That ship sailed when the took back IQ and Barrett in the O.G. trade.

Post #6 » by **Mavrelous** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 7:59 pm

Yeah, I like the deal a lot for TOR, most likely it's 2+1.

Godaddycurse · Post #7 » by **Godaddycurse** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 7:59 pm

Snakebites wrote:If they were gonna do this why not just keep OG and/or Siakam?

So confusing.

1) wouldnt have a top pick this year if we kept them
2) wouldn't have the young depth for our bench we acquired this past draft
3) wanted to give the key to Scottie this year, who didnt do very well as the go to scorer so Masai went and got another one to partner with him i guess

giberish · Post #8 » by **giberish** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:02 pm

If he can stay healthy he can play up to this level. It's a lot of money but with the rising cap it's well under a 30% deal that he could have got. The main downside for Toronto is that it's short with a PO so there will be UFA issues again rather soon.

Post #9 » by **jazzfan1971** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:06 pm

How much was NO willing to pay??

SA37 · Post #10 » by **SA37** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:08 pm

An overpay, but Toronto had to be willing to do so if they traded for him. 3 years is manageable, so there is that.

babyjax13 · Post #11 » by **babyjax13** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:09 pm

I think something to think about here, is that Ingram is an asset on that contract, IMO. So it really doesn't matter if he is in their long-term plans or not. They can give him a shot next to Scottie and see if it looks good, but they can also move him later for some assets.

Post #12 » by **MoneyTalks41890** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:17 pm

The PO is bad here.

I like not letting him hit FA, and am otherwise ok with the deal.

Raps don’t have a clear direction though imo.

tmorgan · Post #13 » by **tmorgan** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:20 pm

We think Ingram is an asset at 40? I don’t see it.

He hasn’t changed much lately, except getting hurt more and getting his 3 attempts back up this year. He’s 47/36/82 type guy that gets you around 22ppg, which is solid but unspectacular production. Yes, he can pass, but not without turning it over consistently. His career TS+ since his horrid rookie year is right around 100. He’s never posted a non-negative DBPM, he doesn’t get many stocks, and his defense is generally uninspired despite his length.

So for 40 mil, assuming decent health and no regression, you get average efficiency 22pg, some erratic playmaking, and mediocre defense. What am I missing here? Why do so many people like Ingram?

PaKwAn · Post #14 » by **PaKwAn** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:26 pm

jazzfan1971 wrote:How much was NO willing to pay??

Word was they couldn't even afford giving him his current amount because of the Trey Murphy extension kicking in putting them further in the luxury tax next season.

jayjaysee · Post #15 » by **jayjaysee** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:28 pm

This is what I had hoped Dallas would do because I expected roughly this number… Would’ve felt so much better with the direction of the team with a big scorer in between Kai/AD (still would’ve hated it..)

But I like it for Toronto. Think they still need to get lucky in the lottery for it to be worth it. But this is about keeping Ingram once you have him, and this is a good number IMO.

Godaddycurse · Post #16 » by **Godaddycurse** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:28 pm

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:The PO is bad here.

I like not letting him hit FA, and am otherwise ok with the deal.

Raps don’t have a clear direction though imo.

PO was the compromise to keeping AAV low(ish) enough so we can maybe duck the tax next year... depending on how the lottery goes

LightTheBeam · Post #17 » by **LightTheBeam** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:34 pm

Mark me down as this not making sense. Not an Ingram fan at all, New Orleans clearly didn't want to hold onto him and has been trying to find value for a year. Nobody has cap space this summer. Been injured most of the year. Definitely not the guy I'd want to invest 120 into.I thought he'd get around 30/year just because, but even then I wouldn't want him.

meekrab · Post #18 » by **meekrab** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:37 pm

Didn't like the trade and don't like the extension but hey at least it's not the max.

UnbelievablyRAW · Post #19 » by **UnbelievablyRAW** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:37 pm

Toronto going all in on next year with the hope of adding a top 5 pick + BI as their off season additions. I think another consolidation trade with IQ+Poeltl or RJ+Poeltl is needed to bring in better depth so all the cap space isn't spent on 5 players

Post #20 » by **zimpy27** » Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:40 pm

babyjax13 wrote:I think something to think about here, is that Ingram is an asset on that contract, IMO. So it really doesn't matter if he is in their long-term plans or not. They can give him a shot next to Scottie and see if it looks good, but they can also move him later for some assets.

I don't agree. I think Ingram is worth closer to half that amount.

It's very risky to give this money before Ingram has shown he can play with Barnes and co.