I mean, it’s a big ask but it’s also just where negotiations will start. Spurs either get some of that this year for Kuaui or they get nothing for him after next season and he leaves anyway.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I mean I don’t think any of those except Ingram are particularly good so why not ask
I don't even think Ingram is that good.
He'll be a good player in the league, but if he was going to be a superstar we'd have seen it by now. Every current superstar in the league showed their future potential by their second season.
Thanks for the explanation on cap smoothing, guys. On one hand, I can't fault the players for getting money when its available, on the other hand looking a bit into the future and have more players get money would have been good as well.
I love the absolute chaos of the Lakers deals. Lance, JaVale, and Rondo is peak crazy and it's great.
Also the Lakers need to learn the lesson of NY and not give up assets this year for Leonard, or at least nothing they're not trying to move out of the way for him to fit better. Unloading resources to get a guy who has told the entire world he's signing with you next year is absolute insanity to me.
I love the absolute chaos of the Lakers deals. Lance, JaVale, and Rondo is peak crazy and it's great.
Also the Lakers need to learn the lesson of NY and not give up assets this year for Leonard, or at least nothing they're not trying to move out of the way for him to fit better. Unloading resources to get a guy who has told the entire world he's signing with you next year is absolute insanity to me.
They might as well try and do the best they can this season with their eye towards next year. Give their young guys one more year to develop, either into good teammates or trade assets.
Wait a year and then hope that the salary situation in Golden State becomes impossible and they have to start shedding key players.
I love the absolute chaos of the Lakers deals. Lance, JaVale, and Rondo is peak crazy and it's great.
Also the Lakers need to learn the lesson of NY and not give up assets this year for Leonard, or at least nothing they're not trying to move out of the way for him to fit better. Unloading resources to get a guy who has told the entire world he's signing with you next year is absolute insanity to me.
Didn't Paul George say the same thing last year though? And he is not a Laker next season. So it might make sense to try and get the guy they want.
+4
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I love the absolute chaos of the Lakers deals. Lance, JaVale, and Rondo is peak crazy and it's great.
Also the Lakers need to learn the lesson of NY and not give up assets this year for Leonard, or at least nothing they're not trying to move out of the way for him to fit better. Unloading resources to get a guy who has told the entire world he's signing with you next year is absolute insanity to me.
Didn't Paul George say the same thing last year though? And he is not a Laker next season. So it might make sense to try and get the guy they want.
Yeah if there's a reasonable deal between the moon SA is asking for now and a sandwich they should make the move. It takes a while tweak a system for new players even ultra talented ones like Kawhi and a lot could happen in a year.
I am still not entirely clear what happened in SA, that Kawhi wants out of there so badly. SA is usually THE model franchise in the league, everyone wants to emulate that. So having a San Antonio star player this disgruntled is weird.
I am still not entirely clear what happened in SA, that Kawhi wants out of there so badly. SA is usually THE model franchise in the league, everyone wants to emulate that. So having a San Antonio star player this disgruntled is weird.
I mean I don’t think any of those except Ingram are particularly good so why not ask
I don't even think Ingram is that good.
He'll be a good player in the league, but if he was going to be a superstar we'd have seen it by now. Every current superstar in the league showed their future potential by their second season.
I am still not entirely clear what happened in SA, that Kawhi wants out of there so badly. SA is usually THE model franchise in the league, everyone wants to emulate that. So having a San Antonio star player this disgruntled is weird.
I am still not entirely clear what happened in SA, that Kawhi wants out of there so badly. SA is usually THE model franchise in the league, everyone wants to emulate that. So having a San Antonio star player this disgruntled is weird.
I am still not entirely clear what happened in SA, that Kawhi wants out of there so badly. SA is usually THE model franchise in the league, everyone wants to emulate that. So having a San Antonio star player this disgruntled is weird.
I am still not entirely clear what happened in SA, that Kawhi wants out of there so badly. SA is usually THE model franchise in the league, everyone wants to emulate that. So having a San Antonio star player this disgruntled is weird.
I mean I don’t think any of those except Ingram are particularly good so why not ask
I don't even think Ingram is that good.
He'll be a good player in the league, but if he was going to be a superstar we'd have seen it by now. Every current superstar in the league showed their future potential by their second season.
Oladipo? Lowry?
Oladipo had a better rookie and sophomore season than Ingram, by quite a bit. Lowry is a bit hard to judge since minutes were so low in the rookie year, but his sophomore was better than either of Ingram's seasons.
Also, would not really call either of those two a superstar.
Dhalphir on
0
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
I mean I don’t think any of those except Ingram are particularly good so why not ask
I don't even think Ingram is that good.
He'll be a good player in the league, but if he was going to be a superstar we'd have seen it by now. Every current superstar in the league showed their future potential by their second season.
Oladipo? Lowry?
Oladipo had a better rookie and sophomore season than Ingram, by quite a bit. Lowry is a bit hard to judge since minutes were so low in the rookie year, but his sophomore was better than either of Ingram's seasons.
Also, would not really call either of those two a superstar.
I wasn't really watching those guys then, but statistically, Ingram is clearly better than year 2 Lowry, and Lowry was playing 25 MPG, so i'ts not like 12th man duty. He's also better than Oladipo in year 2, statistically.
Sure, maybe not "Superstars" but the're players you'd like to have. I'm not saying Ingram will be great, just quibbling with your level of certainty about how good he can be.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I mean I don’t think any of those except Ingram are particularly good so why not ask
I don't even think Ingram is that good.
He'll be a good player in the league, but if he was going to be a superstar we'd have seen it by now. Every current superstar in the league showed their future potential by their second season.
Oladipo? Lowry?
Oladipo had a better rookie and sophomore season than Ingram, by quite a bit. Lowry is a bit hard to judge since minutes were so low in the rookie year, but his sophomore was better than either of Ingram's seasons.
Also, would not really call either of those two a superstar.
I wasn't really watching those guys then, but statistically, Ingram is clearly better than year 2 Lowry, and Lowry was playing 25 MPG, so i'ts not like 12th man duty. He's also better than Oladipo in year 2, statistically.
Sure, maybe not "Superstars" but the're players you'd like to have. I'm not saying Ingram will be great, just quibbling with your level of certainty about how good he can be.
How are you measuring that? Because box score is not useful for that purpose. They are different players in different situations so comparing their REB/AST/PTS numbers is pretty pointless.
Across the board, Ingram has worse stats than year 1/2 of Oladipo and year 2 of Lowry in defensive win shares, offensive win shares, overall WS, PER, VORP, +/-, TS%. Lots of those stats are flawed by themselves but when you look at everything together they are perfectly useful.
I mean I don’t think any of those except Ingram are particularly good so why not ask
I don't even think Ingram is that good.
He'll be a good player in the league, but if he was going to be a superstar we'd have seen it by now. Every current superstar in the league showed their future potential by their second season.
Oladipo? Lowry?
Oladipo had a better rookie and sophomore season than Ingram, by quite a bit. Lowry is a bit hard to judge since minutes were so low in the rookie year, but his sophomore was better than either of Ingram's seasons.
Also, would not really call either of those two a superstar.
I wasn't really watching those guys then, but statistically, Ingram is clearly better than year 2 Lowry, and Lowry was playing 25 MPG, so i'ts not like 12th man duty. He's also better than Oladipo in year 2, statistically.
Sure, maybe not "Superstars" but the're players you'd like to have. I'm not saying Ingram will be great, just quibbling with your level of certainty about how good he can be.
How are you measuring that? Because box score is not useful for that purpose. They are different players in different situations so comparing their REB/AST/PTS numbers is pretty pointless.
Across the board, Ingram has worse stats than year 1/2 of Oladipo and year 2 of Lowry in defensive win shares, offensive win shares, overall WS, PER, VORP, +/-, TS%. Lots of those stats are flawed by themselves but when you look at everything together they are perfectly useful.
Sure, box scores are misleading, of course. I'm not really trying to devolve this into a debate about who is better based on stats. I don't know man, and I reall don't care. My only point is that no one was considering that Oladipo and Lowry would be All-NBA players, in year 2, and they both became that, over time.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Sure, box scores are misleading, of course. I'm not really trying to devolve this into a debate about who is better based on stats. I don't know man, and I reall don't care. My only point is that no one was considering that Oladipo and Lowry would be All-NBA players, in year 2, and they both became that, over time.
Right, and they both started much stronger than Ingram, which is exactly my point.
When someone has potential, you can usually see it in their early seasons even if they then fail to live up to it. I've looked at quite a lot of our current superstars, and none of them started their careers with PERs of 8.5 and 13.8 (league average is 15). None of them started their careers with two straight years of negative +/-. They all contributed at league average or better, immediately, while Ingram has not even hit average yet.
Take a look at someone like Kemba, who is the definition of "very good player who is not a superstar", and even he came into the league with league average PER in his first season, a positive +/- by year 2, double the winshares in Year 2 as Ingram's Year 2, and a higher TS% despite higher volume. While playing on a much worse team, to boot.
D'Angelo Russell had two better years than Ingram and yet everyone seems to have collectively written him off as a non-starter while remaining high on Ingram.
Sure, box scores are misleading, of course. I'm not really trying to devolve this into a debate about who is better based on stats. I don't know man, and I reall don't care. My only point is that no one was considering that Oladipo and Lowry would be All-NBA players, in year 2, and they both became that, over time.
Right, and they both started much stronger than Ingram, which is exactly my point.
When someone has potential, you can usually see it in their early seasons even if they then fail to live up to it. I've looked at quite a lot of our current superstars, and none of them started their careers with PERs of 8.5 and 13.8 (league average is 15). None of them started their careers with two straight years of negative +/-. They all contributed at league average or better, immediately, while Ingram has not even hit average yet.
Take a look at someone like Kemba, who is the definition of "very good player who is not a superstar", and even he came into the league with league average PER in his first season, a positive +/- by year 2, double the winshares in Year 2 as Ingram's Year 2, and a higher TS% despite higher volume. While playing on a much worse team, to boot.
D'Angelo Russell had two better years than Ingram and yet everyone seems to have collectively written him off as a non-starter while remaining high on Ingram.
I don't know how to look up historic advanced stats, so I'll take your word on it. I agree that Ingram is unlikely to be a "superstar", probably even unlikely to be all-NBA. Based on your arguments, I feel he like he is more unlikely to become that then when this discussion started. My only quibble is your level of uncertainty, but clearly you have and are willing to do more research on the subject, so I will defer.
Posts
Or at least a blue turtle shell.
I’m sure that ask is going to work out well for them.
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
I don't even think Ingram is that good.
He'll be a good player in the league, but if he was going to be a superstar we'd have seen it by now. Every current superstar in the league showed their future potential by their second season.
I guess he wasn’t THAT good friends with Tyler ulis
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Jesus that’s so much money for a dude who probably is bad and people think is good because they get to compare him to the rest of that roster.
"Look, see? We HAVE money! We can give it to someone, ANYone! It could be you! Just come here!"
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
1. Lakers believe Lonzo's camp leaked knee injury to deter trade
2.
Also the Lakers need to learn the lesson of NY and not give up assets this year for Leonard, or at least nothing they're not trying to move out of the way for him to fit better. Unloading resources to get a guy who has told the entire world he's signing with you next year is absolute insanity to me.
They might as well try and do the best they can this season with their eye towards next year. Give their young guys one more year to develop, either into good teammates or trade assets.
Wait a year and then hope that the salary situation in Golden State becomes impossible and they have to start shedding key players.
Didn't Paul George say the same thing last year though? And he is not a Laker next season. So it might make sense to try and get the guy they want.
Yeah if there's a reasonable deal between the moon SA is asking for now and a sandwich they should make the move. It takes a while tweak a system for new players even ultra talented ones like Kawhi and a lot could happen in a year.
That’s what i said!!
Lonzo stinks anyway though
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
...obviously
Oladipo? Lowry?
Oh my God. Could that possibly be true?
Man if he hates Gregg he'll really hate Lebron who also thinks Trump sucks dick.
pleasepaypreacher.net
that Twitter account is a really bad troll.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
I swear I've heard Kawaii has an uncle that is a trump supporter that was poisoning him to the spurs.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Teach your phones, people
would you talk to stephen a smith about anything if you could avoid it?
Oladipo had a better rookie and sophomore season than Ingram, by quite a bit. Lowry is a bit hard to judge since minutes were so low in the rookie year, but his sophomore was better than either of Ingram's seasons.
Also, would not really call either of those two a superstar.
No. No he doesn't get that name anymore.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
I wasn't really watching those guys then, but statistically, Ingram is clearly better than year 2 Lowry, and Lowry was playing 25 MPG, so i'ts not like 12th man duty. He's also better than Oladipo in year 2, statistically.
Sure, maybe not "Superstars" but the're players you'd like to have. I'm not saying Ingram will be great, just quibbling with your level of certainty about how good he can be.
How are you measuring that? Because box score is not useful for that purpose. They are different players in different situations so comparing their REB/AST/PTS numbers is pretty pointless.
Across the board, Ingram has worse stats than year 1/2 of Oladipo and year 2 of Lowry in defensive win shares, offensive win shares, overall WS, PER, VORP, +/-, TS%. Lots of those stats are flawed by themselves but when you look at everything together they are perfectly useful.
Sure, box scores are misleading, of course. I'm not really trying to devolve this into a debate about who is better based on stats. I don't know man, and I reall don't care. My only point is that no one was considering that Oladipo and Lowry would be All-NBA players, in year 2, and they both became that, over time.
Right, and they both started much stronger than Ingram, which is exactly my point.
When someone has potential, you can usually see it in their early seasons even if they then fail to live up to it. I've looked at quite a lot of our current superstars, and none of them started their careers with PERs of 8.5 and 13.8 (league average is 15). None of them started their careers with two straight years of negative +/-. They all contributed at league average or better, immediately, while Ingram has not even hit average yet.
Take a look at someone like Kemba, who is the definition of "very good player who is not a superstar", and even he came into the league with league average PER in his first season, a positive +/- by year 2, double the winshares in Year 2 as Ingram's Year 2, and a higher TS% despite higher volume. While playing on a much worse team, to boot.
D'Angelo Russell had two better years than Ingram and yet everyone seems to have collectively written him off as a non-starter while remaining high on Ingram.
I don't know how to look up historic advanced stats, so I'll take your word on it. I agree that Ingram is unlikely to be a "superstar", probably even unlikely to be all-NBA. Based on your arguments, I feel he like he is more unlikely to become that then when this discussion started. My only quibble is your level of uncertainty, but clearly you have and are willing to do more research on the subject, so I will defer.