Official Brandon Ingram Thread

[Scase]

Dishonest in the sense that your motivations to argue the move aren't based in the actual move itself but rather the underlying implications of the move.

For instance, I wouldn't be surprised that if the stat in question proved your point, you'd be harping on and using it. But instead, you dismiss it. That's the level of dishonesty in conversation, I assume, they're speaking about.

Ingram is a huge risk for Toronto. He's been injured his whole career. The OPJ signing was supposed to be a lesson but we're at the same game. Ingram has a frail build that will get injured again.

Scase is right. Tanking especially at this point is the right move. We need more talent. In the past we used assets we tanked for and then developed to get all of our championship pieces whether it was Demar, JV, Davis, etc.

I disagree with the Ingram move but I can see the logic behind it. We bought low on an asset that's usually very expensive. If he's load managed, trained to be durable, or if there's hidden intel regarding NOPs training staff then I'm for the move.

It's a big risk, but a more short term one, at the most it's a 3 year signing.

Our issue is that it's going to be progressively harder to tank as we add pieces through the years.

We basically need Ingram to stay out of the lineup for this year, but next year, if we land on a great draft pick, Ingram should boost our ceiling as Ingram will likely be better than anyone we draft at that point.

Barnes
IQ - contract
BI - contract
Draft Pick (if it's a high end one)
Poetl is what our starting lineup is eventually going to be


Of course Ingram could also play a lot for the rest of this year and screw our lottery odds, we should pretty much tell him to take it easy this year, rest up.


Anyways as long as we land a game changer in the draft it's all good.

Is it though? The argument I see around here a lot is that it's a buy low type move, so the end result of it, is that we are expected to move him after recouping his value to a higher point. He's 120mil for 3 years, with most notably a player option. That's a significant chunk of the cap on something that is a decent risk.

The 2 outcomes are, either he gets healthy for a year or two and we can flip him, or he maintains his poor health status, and we are in the exact same boat as NOP, except now we get held hostage on that last year due to a player option.

Historically speaking, the latter is way more likely than the former based on 8 years of regular injures causing him to lose a significant amount of court time. It's not as risky as a 5 year contract for sure, but it's still a significant risk.

[earthtone]

Ingram is a huge risk for Toronto. He's been injured his whole career. The OPJ signing was supposed to be a lesson but we're at the same game. Ingram has a frail build that will get injured again.

Scase is right. Tanking especially at this point is the right move. We need more talent. In the past we used assets we tanked for and then developed to get all of our championship pieces whether it was Demar, JV, Davis, etc.

I disagree with the Ingram move but I can see the logic behind it. We bought low on an asset that's usually very expensive. If he's load managed, trained to be durable, or if there's hidden intel regarding NOPs training staff then I'm for the move.

It's a big risk, but a more short term one, at the most it's a 3 year signing.

Our issue is that it's going to be progressively harder to tank as we add pieces through the years.

We basically need Ingram to stay out of the lineup for this year, but next year, if we land on a great draft pick, Ingram should boost our ceiling as Ingram will likely be better than anyone we draft at that point.

Barnes
IQ - contract
BI - contract
Draft Pick (if it's a high end one)
Poetl is what our starting lineup is eventually going to be


Of course Ingram could also play a lot for the rest of this year and screw our lottery odds, we should pretty much tell him to take it easy this year, rest up.


Anyways as long as we land a game changer in the draft it's all good.

Is it though? The argument I see around here a lot is that it's a buy low type move, so the end result of it, is that we are expected to move him after recouping his value to a higher point. He's 120mil for 3 years, with most notably a player option. That's a significant chunk of the cap on something that is a decent risk.

The 2 outcomes are, either he gets healthy for a year or two and we can flip him, or he maintains his poor health status, and we are in the exact same boat as NOP, except now we get held hostage on that last year due to a player option.

Historically speaking, the latter is way more likely than the former based on 8 years of regular injures causing him to lose a significant amount of court time. It's not as risky as a 5 year contract for sure, but it's still a significant risk.

Why are those the only 2 outcomes? It's not at all out of the realm of possibility that Ingram becomes an all-star and establishes himself as part of the future core.

It's a buy-low move because his ceiling is way higher than the cost of acquisition would suggest, there's really not a lot of risk in this move IMO.

[LoveMyRaps]

Read on Twitter

[Duffman100]

Read on Twitter

Ha at the names on that list. I really hope it's more of a "Ingram doesn't have help and is asked to be to much" rather than "I chuck bad shots".

[YogurtProducer]

Read on Twitter

Ha at the names on that list. I really hope it's more of a "Ingram doesn't have help and is asked to be to much" rather than "I chuck bad shots".

The difference between a chucker and a star in the NBA is one makes his shots

[YogurtProducer]

Ingram is a huge risk for Toronto. He's been injured his whole career. The OPJ signing was supposed to be a lesson but we're at the same game. Ingram has a frail build that will get injured again.

Scase is right. Tanking especially at this point is the right move. We need more talent. In the past we used assets we tanked for and then developed to get all of our championship pieces whether it was Demar, JV, Davis, etc.

I disagree with the Ingram move but I can see the logic behind it. We bought low on an asset that's usually very expensive. If he's load managed, trained to be durable, or if there's hidden intel regarding NOPs training staff then I'm for the move.

Annnnd here it is. The Brandon Ingram thread is now a tanking thread

And you are right, we traded Demar JV and Davis to get our pieces.

However, I don't really see a huge difference in value between Demar, JV, and Special Ed and with Quickely, Barrett, or Poeltl. That is where the argument falls apart.

Realistically speaking, we have a more talented, younger, and more promising core right now heading into 2025/26 than we did in 2013/14 when we began our ascent last time.

There's no difference between fresh prospects from the draft and prospects other teams have dumped. Great post and opinion.

25+ year olds are younger than JV, Davis and DeRozan who we developed from the ground up. That's very accurate. Keep up the great posts.

2013-14 Raptors:
Lowry - 27
Amir - 26
Demar - 24
Patterson - 24
Ross - 22
JV - 21

That was it for the "core"

2024-25 Raptors
Poeltl - 29
Ingram - 27
Quickley - 25
Barrett - 24
Agbaji - 24
Barnes - 23
Mogbo - 23
Dick - 21
Walter - 20
2025 top 7ish 1st (somewhere between 19-22)

PLEASE, tell me how our old core we "tanked for" is any better than what we have now? I know 100/100 times which core I am choosing to move forward with.

[Thaddy]

Annnnd here it is. The Brandon Ingram thread is now a tanking thread

And you are right, we traded Demar JV and Davis to get our pieces.

However, I don't really see a huge difference in value between Demar, JV, and Special Ed and with Quickely, Barrett, or Poeltl. That is where the argument falls apart.

Realistically speaking, we have a more talented, younger, and more promising core right now heading into 2025/26 than we did in 2013/14 when we began our ascent last time.

There's no difference between fresh prospects from the draft and prospects other teams have dumped. Great post and opinion.

25+ year olds are younger than JV, Davis and DeRozan who we developed from the ground up. That's very accurate. Keep up the great posts.

2013-14 Raptors:
Lowry - 27
Amir - 26
Demar - 24
Patterson - 24
Ross - 22
JV - 21

That was it for the "core"

2024-25 Raptors
Poeltl - 29
Ingram - 27
Quickley - 25
Barrett - 24
Agbaji - 24
Barnes - 23
Mogbo - 23
Dick - 21
Walter - 20
2025 top 7ish 1st (somewhere between 19-22)

PLEASE, tell me how our old core we "tanked for" is any better than what we have now? I know 100/100 times which core I am choosing to move forward with.

It's more like

Ingram - 27
Quickley - 25
Barrett - 24
Barnes - 23

Vs.

Lowry - 27
Demar - 24
Ross - 22
JV - 21

It's pretty clear which one was younger. That core led us to multiple playoff runs while the current one has led us to the lottery?

[YogurtProducer]

There's no difference between fresh prospects from the draft and prospects other teams have dumped. Great post and opinion.

25+ year olds are younger than JV, Davis and DeRozan who we developed from the ground up. That's very accurate. Keep up the great posts.

2013-14 Raptors:
Lowry - 27
Amir - 26
Demar - 24
Patterson - 24
Ross - 22
JV - 21

That was it for the "core"

2024-25 Raptors
Poeltl - 29
Ingram - 27
Quickley - 25
Barrett - 24
Agbaji - 24
Barnes - 23
Mogbo - 23
Dick - 21
Walter - 20
2025 top 7ish 1st (somewhere between 19-22)

PLEASE, tell me how our old core we "tanked for" is any better than what we have now? I know 100/100 times which core I am choosing to move forward with.

It's more like

Ingram - 27
Quickley - 25
Barrett - 24
Barnes - 23

Vs.

Lowry - 27
Demar - 24
Ross - 22
JV - 21

It's pretty clear which one was younger. That core led us to multiple playoff runs while the current one has led us to the lottery?

The 2013-14 version of this team had led us to a 7-game 1st round loss. You cant compare the accolades of a core that played together for half a decade to a core that has literally played 0 minutes together.

- Why are you ignoring that our current team has significantly more young cost controlled assets?

- Why are we ignoring the incoming top whatever pick that arguably will be the most valuable piece between either core?

- Why are you putting a ceiling of a "lottery" team when again, you haven't seen the core play 1 second together?

- The core also is not "younger". It is only younger when you purposely ignore our two most recent first round picks. Convenient that you did that, hey?

If you could trade our entire right now for our 2013/14 roster, are you seriously doing it? Do you legitimately believe the 2013/14 roster is more valuable and has a better expected outcome?

[Thaddy]

2013-14 Raptors:
Lowry - 27
Amir - 26
Demar - 24
Patterson - 24
Ross - 22
JV - 21

That was it for the "core"

2024-25 Raptors
Poeltl - 29
Ingram - 27
Quickley - 25
Barrett - 24
Agbaji - 24
Barnes - 23
Mogbo - 23
Dick - 21
Walter - 20
2025 top 7ish 1st (somewhere between 19-22)

PLEASE, tell me how our old core we "tanked for" is any better than what we have now? I know 100/100 times which core I am choosing to move forward with.

It's more like

Ingram - 27
Quickley - 25
Barrett - 24
Barnes - 23

Vs.

Lowry - 27
Demar - 24
Ross - 22
JV - 21

It's pretty clear which one was younger. That core led us to multiple playoff runs while the current one has led us to the lottery?

The 2013-14 version of this team had led us to a 7-game 1st round loss. You cant compare the accolades of a core that played together for half a decade to a core that has literally played 0 minutes together.

- Why are you ignoring that our current team has significantly more young cost controlled assets?

- Why are we ignoring the incoming top whatever pick that arguably will be the most valuable piece between either core?

- Why are you putting a ceiling of a "lottery" team when again, you haven't seen the core play 1 second together?

- The core also is not "younger". It is only younger when you purposely ignore our two most recent first round picks. Convenient that you did that, hey?

If you could trade our entire right now for our 2013/14 roster, are you seriously doing it? Do you legitimately believe the 2013/14 roster is more valuable and has a better expected outcome?

First round and playoff exit in the first round with a 21 year old core piece is different than being a lottery bound team.

The young assets are pretty bad basketball players.

The incoming pick is going to be in the 5-8 range because we turned into buyers instead of sellers at the deadline. I understand the logic but we're being wishy washy with our direction and there are contract implications that are affecting the direction we're taking as a franchise.

Barnes, IQ, Barrett, Ingram, Poeltl, etc have been in the league for several years. Using your broken logic we should throw together a bunch of average players and hope they turn into something great because we've "never seen them together before". Obviously we can project where they will be.

Our first two recent draft picks are some of the worst players in the league at the moment. Maybe they develop into something more but the likely scenario is that they are bench players that don't impact winning a whole lot.

[Duffman100]

The incoming pick is going to be in the 5-8 range because we turned into buyers instead of sellers at the deadline.
.

This is a bit disingenuous.

We bought, but the bought player is almost certainly going to have little impact on our overall record at the end. As the FO indicated.
We sold off the majority of vets that were leading to wins.
We were likely going to be in the 5-8 range anyways.

[Thaddy]

The incoming pick is going to be in the 5-8 range because we turned into buyers instead of sellers at the deadline.
.

This is a bit disingenuous.

We bought, but the bought player is almost certainly going to have little impact on our overall record at the end. As the FO indicated.
We sold off the majority of vets that were leading to wins.
We were likely going to be in the 5-8 range anyways.

If we can add a top 8 pick and also add a healthy Ingram it'll be great. But the chance of us getting screwed in a similar manner OPJ screwed us is concerning. Is Ingram going to train harder than ever now that he's making 40M a year, which is the highest he's ever earned? Maybe but the most likely scenario is that he does what he's always done in his career.

The chances pick number 8 is as good as pick number 3-5 is there but it's lower. We have a good drafting front office but they are reluctant to get those top picks. We were in a prime position before and we lose our holding on that top 3 odds spot.

We can't hold out Ingram for the entire season. They will want to test him in different line ups and his ankle injury isnt' that severe. He won't be willing to sit out for the next 8 months as a baller.

[Duffman100]

The incoming pick is going to be in the 5-8 range because we turned into buyers instead of sellers at the deadline.
.

This is a bit disingenuous.

We bought, but the bought player is almost certainly going to have little impact on our overall record at the end. As the FO indicated.
We sold off the majority of vets that were leading to wins.
We were likely going to be in the 5-8 range anyways.

If we can add a top 8 pick and also add a healthy Ingram it'll be great. But the chance of us getting screwed in a similar manner OPJ screwed us is concerning. Is Ingram going to train harder than ever now that he's making 40M a year, which is the highest he's ever earned? Maybe but the most likely scenario is that he does what he's always done in his career.

The chances pick number 8 is as good as pick number 3-5 is there but it's lower. We have a good drafting front office but they are reluctant to get those top picks. We were in a prime position before and we lose our holding on that top 3 odds spot.

We can't hold out Ingram for the entire season. They will want to test him in different line ups and his ankle injury isnt' that severe. He won't be willing to sit out for the next 8 months as a baller.

None of what you said really addressed what was said.

[Thaddy]

This is a bit disingenuous.

We bought, but the bought player is almost certainly going to have little impact on our overall record at the end. As the FO indicated.
We sold off the majority of vets that were leading to wins.
We were likely going to be in the 5-8 range anyways.

If we can add a top 8 pick and also add a healthy Ingram it'll be great. But the chance of us getting screwed in a similar manner OPJ screwed us is concerning. Is Ingram going to train harder than ever now that he's making 40M a year, which is the highest he's ever earned? Maybe but the most likely scenario is that he does what he's always done in his career.

The chances pick number 8 is as good as pick number 3-5 is there but it's lower. We have a good drafting front office but they are reluctant to get those top picks. We were in a prime position before and we lose our holding on that top 3 odds spot.

We can't hold out Ingram for the entire season. They will want to test him in different line ups and his ankle injury isnt' that severe. He won't be willing to sit out for the next 8 months as a baller.

None of what you said really addressed what was said.

IQ, Barrett, Barnes, and Poeltl will be back. We have the easiest schedule in the league to finish off the season.

That will make us drop in the tankathon standings.

[Duffman100]

If we can add a top 8 pick and also add a healthy Ingram it'll be great. But the chance of us getting screwed in a similar manner OPJ screwed us is concerning. Is Ingram going to train harder than ever now that he's making 40M a year, which is the highest he's ever earned? Maybe but the most likely scenario is that he does what he's always done in his career.

The chances pick number 8 is as good as pick number 3-5 is there but it's lower. We have a good drafting front office but they are reluctant to get those top picks. We were in a prime position before and we lose our holding on that top 3 odds spot.

We can't hold out Ingram for the entire season. They will want to test him in different line ups and his ankle injury isnt' that severe. He won't be willing to sit out for the next 8 months as a baller.

None of what you said really addressed what was said.

IQ, Barrett, Barnes, and Poeltl will be back. We have the easiest schedule in the league to finish off the season.

That will make us drop in the tankathon standings.

So it's unrelated to being buyers at the deadline. And likely we would have been in the same spot anyways.

[youngRAPZ]

None of what you said really addressed what was said.

IQ, Barrett, Barnes, and Poeltl will be back. We have the easiest schedule in the league to finish off the season.

That will make us drop in the tankathon standings.

So it's unrelated to being buyers at the deadline. And likely we would have been in the same spot anyways.

lol this guy is just as disingenuous as scase. Says things purposefully then ignores you when you call them on it. How in the world is the pick going to be 5-8 because we bought at the deadline when we were already at 5 and the player we got hasn’t even played a min and likely won’t even play 10 games. Let me guess he’s going to respond by telling me Brandon Ingram is OPJ great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drakeem]

IQ, Barrett, Barnes, and Poeltl will be back. We have the easiest schedule in the league to finish off the season.

That will make us drop in the tankathon standings.

So it's unrelated to being buyers at the deadline. And likely we would have been in the same spot anyways.

lol this guy is just as disingenuous as scase. Says things purposefully then ignores you when you call them on it. How in the world is the pick going to be 5-8 because we bought at the deadline when we were already at 5 and the player we got hasn’t even played a min and likely won’t even play 10 games. Let me guess he’s going to respond by telling me Brandon Ingram is OPJ great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like, I can understand critiques for the deal. There are angles that you can come at this with where I can reasonably agree with someone on the risk behind this deal. But to try and paint the deal as a negative in every light, and blatantly ignoring the fact that they've all but confirmed that BI is going to miss the majority of games this year + the fact that the Raptors clearly are keeping people out for longer than they would be in a more competitive situation... idk.

It makes the valid points look less so because they're sandwiched in-between bait.

[Scase]

So again, this all boils down to a little subset of you that disagree with my opinion, and then deem it dishonest because it doesn't align with yours. But then I'm the one being called dishonest.

I think it boils down to you complaining about everything, all the time, endlessly and people getting frustrated and a little exhausted by it...

Again, group of you aren't happy someone has a differing opinion. In other news, water is wet.

[youngRAPZ]

So it's unrelated to being buyers at the deadline. And likely we would have been in the same spot anyways.

lol this guy is just as disingenuous as scase. Says things purposefully then ignores you when you call them on it. How in the world is the pick going to be 5-8 because we bought at the deadline when we were already at 5 and the player we got hasn’t even played a min and likely won’t even play 10 games. Let me guess he’s going to respond by telling me Brandon Ingram is OPJ great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like, I can understand critiques for the deal. There are angles that you can come at this with where I can reasonably agree with someone on the risk behind this deal. But to try and paint the deal as a negative in every light, and blatantly ignoring the fact that they've all but confirmed that BI is going to miss the majority of games this year + the fact that the Raptors clearly are keeping people out for longer than they would be in a more competitive situation... idk.

It makes the valid points look less so because they're sandwiched in-between bait.

They claim Brandon Ingram isn’t moving the needle yet they’re so scared of him just sitting on the bench adding wins lol can’t make this stuff up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scase]

It's a big risk, but a more short term one, at the most it's a 3 year signing.

Our issue is that it's going to be progressively harder to tank as we add pieces through the years.

We basically need Ingram to stay out of the lineup for this year, but next year, if we land on a great draft pick, Ingram should boost our ceiling as Ingram will likely be better than anyone we draft at that point.

Barnes
IQ - contract
BI - contract
Draft Pick (if it's a high end one)
Poetl is what our starting lineup is eventually going to be


Of course Ingram could also play a lot for the rest of this year and screw our lottery odds, we should pretty much tell him to take it easy this year, rest up.


Anyways as long as we land a game changer in the draft it's all good.

Is it though? The argument I see around here a lot is that it's a buy low type move, so the end result of it, is that we are expected to move him after recouping his value to a higher point. He's 120mil for 3 years, with most notably a player option. That's a significant chunk of the cap on something that is a decent risk.

The 2 outcomes are, either he gets healthy for a year or two and we can flip him, or he maintains his poor health status, and we are in the exact same boat as NOP, except now we get held hostage on that last year due to a player option.

Historically speaking, the latter is way more likely than the former based on 8 years of regular injures causing him to lose a significant amount of court time. It's not as risky as a 5 year contract for sure, but it's still a significant risk.

Why are those the only 2 outcomes? It's not at all out of the realm of possibility that Ingram becomes an all-star and establishes himself as part of the future core.

It's a buy-low move because his ceiling is way higher than the cost of acquisition would suggest, there's really not a lot of risk in this move IMO.

If you think signing a 28 year old who has been injured their entire career, is meant to be part of the core. I don't know what to say.

There is very evident risk, an extremely negative value 3 year contract that would require assets to move, all while running a high salary for a team that inevitably accomplishes nothing. Which then could obviously lead to bleeding further talent like Scottie who chooses to go elsewhere.

That's a pretty big risk, everyone who is in favour of trades like this just looks at the current state/cost of it. Yeah the acquisition cost isn't much, but the potential long term cost if it doesn't go well is not particularly low.

If you are of the mind that it will play out well, cool, more power to you, but that doesn't mean that the inverse is risk free, there are down stream costs to every move made. Acquiring Jak for a lotto pick in a weak draft isn't seen as particularly costly by those who are still in favour of it, but that's because people don't want to reconcile with the downstream cost of that trade, another 2 years of wasting time, getting less for our assets, delaying a rebuild, and hilariously incentivizing trades like the BI one because another 2 years of eating dirt is unacceptable.

When you drive a car, you don't watch the road 4ft in front of you.

[youngRAPZ]

So again, this all boils down to a little subset of you that disagree with my opinion, and then deem it dishonest because it doesn't align with yours. But then I'm the one being called dishonest.

I think it boils down to you complaining about everything, all the time, endlessly and people getting frustrated and a little exhausted by it...

Again, group of you aren't happy someone has a differing opinion. In other news, water is wet.

It’s not about a difference of opinion. There’s hundreds of people on here with differing opinions some with the very same opinions as you. But guess why those people don’t constantly come up on the list of most annoying posters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk