CHA-BOS

[Kevin Hollis]

Ingram just doesn't have the body type and you will never know what he can be until he gets that.

[Spike Lee]

I don't understand how this trade is passing when we all seem to be in agreement that JJ is worth more than Ingram.

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 17, 2017 12:08:32 GMT Spike Lee said:

I don't understand how this trade is passing when we all seem to be in agreement that JJ is worth more than Ingram.

#1 - "we" are not all in agreement on that.
#2 - the other pieces here are not really that valuable right now.

There's simply not nearly enough here to reject anything. Trades do not need to be 100% even. We all have different values, otherwise no one would really trade, ever.

I can't believe how much shit we usually get when we do reject a trade and now we're getting shit for what's probably a 47/53 type of trade, at worst.

Lol

[Kevin Hollis]

Jul 17, 2017 12:44:23 GMT Walt Frazier said:

Jul 17, 2017 12:08:32 GMT Spike Lee said:

I don't understand how this trade is passing when we all seem to be in agreement that JJ is worth more than Ingram.

#1 - "we" are not all in agreement on that.
#2 - the other pieces here are not really that valuable right now.

There's simply not nearly enough here to reject anything. Trades do not need to be 100% even. We all have different values, otherwise no one would really trade, ever.

I can't believe how much shit we usually get when we do reject a trade and now we're getting shit for what's probably a 47/53 type of trade, at worst.

Lol

I think people are looking it as this... Ian is getting the short end of the deal to begin with by giving up JJ and a first for a player most see as more valuable then Ingram in a one for one deal. On top of that, this gives Hornets a key edge in the PG13 sweepstakes. So the trade is really, JJ, SAC 1st, and PG13 for Ingram. Anyone who is trading with the Hornets at this moment in time should be winning the trade by a large margin considering what is attached to the trade at hand. Even if PG13 isn't a guaranteed win for CHA, teams should be making him take on the risk of doing so as all teams have leverage on CHA at this current moment - Ian simply failed to recognize this leverage. 

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

how about putting some value on all the pieces involve and see it for yourself?

[Vlade Divac]

Jul 17, 2017 14:14:27 GMT Kevin Hollis said:

Jul 17, 2017 12:44:23 GMT Walt Frazier said:

#1 - "we" are not all in agreement on that.
#2 - the other pieces here are not really that valuable right now.

There's simply not nearly enough here to reject anything. Trades do not need to be 100% even. We all have different values, otherwise no one would really trade, ever.

I can't believe how much shit we usually get when we do reject a trade and now we're getting shit for what's probably a 47/53 type of trade, at worst.

Lol

I think people are looking it as this... Ian is getting the short end of the deal to begin with by giving up JJ and a first for a player most see as more valuable then Ingram in a one for one deal. On top of that, this gives Hornets a key edge in the PG13 sweepstakes. So the trade is really, JJ, SAC 1st, and PG13 for Ingram. Anyone who is trading with the Hornets at this moment in time should be winning the trade by a large margin considering what is attached to the trade at hand. Even if PG13 isn't a guaranteed win for CHA, teams should be making him take on the risk of doing so as all teams have leverage on CHA at this current moment - Ian simply failed to recognize this leverage.

I don't think we can say PG is "in this deal' as Charlotte already possesses the other 27 M of his potential contract. Your point is valid, though, and I guess Ian thinks Ingram's potential is better than Jackson's? It seems like Ingram is sort of like Donald Trump in the sense you either love him or hate him.

[Kevin Hollis]

Jul 17, 2017 14:27:07 GMT Vlade Divac said:

Jul 17, 2017 14:14:27 GMT Kevin Hollis said:

I think people are looking it as this... Ian is getting the short end of the deal to begin with by giving up JJ and a first for a player most see as more valuable then Ingram in a one for one deal. On top of that, this gives Hornets a key edge in the PG13 sweepstakes. So the trade is really, JJ, SAC 1st, and PG13 for Ingram. Anyone who is trading with the Hornets at this moment in time should be winning the trade by a large margin considering what is attached to the trade at hand. Even if PG13 isn't a guaranteed win for CHA, teams should be making him take on the risk of doing so as all teams have leverage on CHA at this current moment - Ian simply failed to recognize this leverage.

I don't think we can say PG is "in this deal' as Charlotte already possesses the other 27 M of his potential contract. Your point is valid, though, and I guess Ian thinks Ingram's potential is better than Jackson's? It seems like Ingram is sort of like Donald Trump in the sense you either love him or hate him.

Agree that he isn't in this deal, but Ian should know that this gives CHA a lot better shot. Which in return, means that Ian should no matter what be winning this deal. My argument is mostly that Ian muffed this trade leverage opportunity big time.

[Vlade Divac]

Jul 17, 2017 14:34:16 GMT Kevin Hollis said:

Jul 17, 2017 14:27:07 GMT Vlade Divac said:

Agree that he isn't in this deal, but Ian should know that this gives CHA a lot better shot. Which in return, means that Ian should no matter what be winning this deal. My argument is mostly that Ian muffed this trade leverage opportunity big time.

I agree with you, but he must think that Ingram possesses more potential than Jackson. NBADraft.net agrees with Ian as it lists Jackson as the better overall player yet gives Ingram the overall edge.

www.nbadraft.net/players/josh-jackson

www.nbadraft.net/players/brandon-ingram

Ingram's "7" in athleticism really worries me as it is hard to be a dominate NBA Player without adequate athleticism. Could be a 6'11 Tayshaun Prince that can shoot? Maybe, but he is sooooo skinny! 

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 17, 2017 14:34:16 GMT Kevin Hollis said:

Jul 17, 2017 14:27:07 GMT Vlade Divac said:

Agree that he isn't in this deal, but Ian should know that this gives CHA a lot better shot. Which in return, means that Ian should no matter what be winning this deal. My argument is mostly that Ian muffed this trade leverage opportunity big time.

The other side of this is, perhaps, James was willing to lose out on the chance to get PG the Max of he didn't get a deal he liked. If so, leverage: gone.

[Kevin Hollis]

Jul 17, 2017 14:44:13 GMT Walt Frazier said:

Jul 17, 2017 14:34:16 GMT Kevin Hollis said:

Agree that he isn't in this deal, but Ian should know that this gives CHA a lot better shot. Which in return, means that Ian should no matter what be winning this deal. My argument is mostly that Ian muffed this trade leverage opportunity big time.

The other side of this is, perhaps, James was willing to lose out on the chance to get PG the Max of he didn't get a deal he liked. If so, leverage: gone.

If that is the case, then I think the PG13 decision is easy - Houston. Who wouldn't trade Ingram for PG13? I don't see the argument at all really. And there is a difference in the rl situation because the Lakers know they can get him next year.

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 17, 2017 15:31:42 GMT Kevin Hollis said:

Jul 17, 2017 14:44:13 GMT Walt Frazier said:

The other side of this is, perhaps, James was willing to lose out on the chance to get PG the Max of he didn't get a deal he liked. If so, leverage: gone.

If that is the case, then I think the PG13 decision is easy - Houston. Who wouldn't trade Ingram for PG13? I don't see the argument at all really. And there is a difference in the rl situation because the Lakers know they can get him next year.

Well, I don't know, I was just arguing theoreticals with you.

Also, as far as a TC member judging this trade, all I can look at is the trade itself, which is fine. I understand your larger point of holding leverage over James for other reasons while trading with him, but as for Accept/Reject this is an easy Accept.

[James Kay]

Ingram is younger, taller, has a longer wingspan, is more promising as a shooter, and plays for the Lakers.

Again, he's younger - AND he improved every month in the league. It's perfectly reasonable to be higher on Ingram than Jackson.

Sorry, but a trade isn't rejectable just because people have different opinions on 19 and 20 year old prospects. Nothing about this trade permanently damages either team.

In regards to leverage, I had already traded KCP for picks. I also know what it's like to trade to make room for a player and then have that player not select your team. I wasn't going to move Ingram unless I was ok with the deal, because it doesn't guarantee me PG. I wasn't going to make a deal that I wasn't happy with if PG doesn't join my team.

[James Kay]

AND - I also had another offer for Ingram that was comparable/arguably better than this trade.

[Kevin Hollis]

Jul 17, 2017 16:25:51 GMT James Kay said:

AND - I also had another offer for Ingram that was comparable/arguably better than this trade.

Well, that person too doesn't understand leverage. My argument was not that this is trade shouldn't be passed, but rather people should've held your feet to the fire and make you show your dedication/direction. This is just my opinion like always.

[James Kay]

still waiting on Danny Longley Alex English

[Kevin Hollis]

Jul 17, 2017 16:23:05 GMT James Kay said:

Ingram is younger, taller, has a longer wingspan, is more promising as a shooter, and plays for the Lakers.

Again, he's younger - AND he improved every month in the league. It's perfectly reasonable to be higher on Ingram than Jackson.

Sorry, but a trade isn't rejectable just because people have different opinions on 19 and 20 year old prospects. Nothing about this trade permanently damages either team.

In regards to leverage, I had already traded KCP for picks. I also know what it's like to trade to make room for a player and then have that player not select your team. I wasn't going to move Ingram unless I was ok with the deal, because it doesn't guarantee me PG. I wasn't going to make a deal that I wasn't happy with if PG doesn't join my team.

Also is worse at defense. JJ offers more if he has a bad offensive night where Ingram is going to offer little if he doesn't score 20 pts a game. Not to mention like Vlade said, Ingram isn't athletic when comparing him to JJ.

[Charles Barkley]

Jul 17, 2017 16:23:05 GMT James Kay said:

Ingram is younger, taller, has a longer wingspan, is more promising as a shooter, and plays for the Lakers.

Again, he's younger - AND he improved every month in the league. It's perfectly reasonable to be higher on Ingram than Jackson.

Sorry, but a trade isn't rejectable just because people have different opinions on 19 and 20 year old prospects. Nothing about this trade permanently damages either team.

In regards to leverage, I had already traded KCP for picks. I also know what it's like to trade to make room for a player and then have that player not select your team. I wasn't going to move Ingram unless I was ok with the deal, because it doesn't guarantee me PG. I wasn't going to make a deal that I wasn't happy with if PG doesn't join my team.

my dick grew every month in puberty but it still aint that big

[Charles Barkley]

Jul 17, 2017 15:39:12 GMT Walt Frazier said:

Jul 17, 2017 15:31:42 GMT Kevin Hollis said:

If that is the case, then I think the PG13 decision is easy - Houston. Who wouldn't trade Ingram for PG13? I don't see the argument at all really. And there is a difference in the rl situation because the Lakers know they can get him next year.

Well, I don't know, I was just arguing theoreticals with you.

Also, as far as a TC member judging this trade, all I can look at is the trade itself, which is fine. I understand your larger point of holding leverage over James for other reasons while trading with him, but as for Accept/Reject this is an easy Accept.

You're judging it in a vacuum, which is thought of to be ok, but it really isn't, imo. 

Things don't happen in vacuums, nothing happens without repercussions. We analyze things all the time in trades about what something does to someone's pick here or there. 

But let's go ahead and look at things in a vacuum now, when of all times I think we shouldn't. 

Sigh.

[Chauncey Billups]

Jul 17, 2017 19:02:45 GMT Charles Barkley said:

Jul 17, 2017 16:23:05 GMT James Kay said:

Ingram is younger, taller, has a longer wingspan, is more promising as a shooter, and plays for the Lakers.

Again, he's younger - AND he improved every month in the league. It's perfectly reasonable to be higher on Ingram than Jackson.

Sorry, but a trade isn't rejectable just because people have different opinions on 19 and 20 year old prospects. Nothing about this trade permanently damages either team.

In regards to leverage, I had already traded KCP for picks. I also know what it's like to trade to make room for a player and then have that player not select your team. I wasn't going to move Ingram unless I was ok with the deal, because it doesn't guarantee me PG. I wasn't going to make a deal that I wasn't happy with if PG doesn't join my team.

my dick grew every month in puberty but it still aint that big

You're on the wrong forum. I think you meant to post that on your therapy forum. 

[Charles Barkley]

Jul 17, 2017 19:06:41 GMT Chauncey Billups said:

Jul 17, 2017 19:02:45 GMT Charles Barkley said:

my dick grew every month in puberty but it still aint that big

You're on the wrong forum. I think you meant to post that on your therapy forum. 

I hope you realize that no one likes you here

[Ian Noble]

Jul 17, 2017 19:14:42 GMT Charles Barkley said:

Jul 17, 2017 19:06:41 GMT Chauncey Billups said:

You're on the wrong forum. I think you meant to post that on your therapy forum. 

I hope you realize that no one likes you here

I feel bad for Chauncey Billups, he's come here and been shat upon constantly. It's not normally like this Chauncey I promise.

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 17, 2017 19:04:42 GMT Charles Barkley said:

Jul 17, 2017 15:39:12 GMT Walt Frazier said:

Well, I don't know, I was just arguing theoreticals with you.

Also, as far as a TC member judging this trade, all I can look at is the trade itself, which is fine. I understand your larger point of holding leverage over James for other reasons while trading with him, but as for Accept/Reject this is an easy Accept.

You're judging it in a vacuum, which is thought of to be ok, but it really isn't, imo. 

Things don't happen in vacuums, nothing happens without repercussions. We analyze things all the time in trades about what something does to someone's pick here or there. 

But let's go ahead and look at things in a vacuum now, when of all times I think we shouldn't. 

Sigh.

While I understand what you're saying, I disagree. I'm on Kevin's side that perhaps there was leverage to be had in the negotiating process. And everyone in the league understands the 2-3 million he saves here could POTENTIALLY be a very important 2-3 million.

However, the more we get into the hypothetical and general land of "ifs", the worse it is for all involved. That's where we run into TC members saying "I wouldn't do this because...." situation. That already happens too much. We need to do our best to be objective. Being objective and judging in a vacuum are not the same thing but I believe they are branches from the same tree as far as this league and voting on trades is concerned.

Yes, due to the nature of draft picks, we need to project and speculate on their future value but that's more tangible. Cap space could be used now, could be used later, could be 7% of a max contract, or could be 3 minimum contracts. Our, could be used to bid and then lose on a player, thus becoming worthless. We at least know that a draft pick will result in a player, so that's when we say "this is a team that, the way things look now, is probably late lotto or low seed playoffs. That means the pick has around this much value."

There's just not enough here to reject no matter how you guys look at it. Payne is a nothing here,for the purpose of evaluating the trade. The pick is generally low value and isn't close to enough to reject based on the two players and what they've proven (or not) in the actual NBA.

[Chauncey Billups]

Jul 17, 2017 19:19:35 GMT Ian Noble said:

Jul 17, 2017 19:14:42 GMT Charles Barkley said:

I hope you realize that no one likes you here

I feel bad for Chauncey Billups , he's come here and been shat upon constantly. It's not normally like this Chauncey I promise.

Don't worry about it lol. I think I've done pretty well holding my own. 

Don't pity me, pity the fools who have to shit on other people to make themselves feel better. They know who they are. I'm just trying to have fun.

[Chauncey Billups]

Jul 17, 2017 19:14:42 GMT Charles Barkley said:

Jul 17, 2017 19:06:41 GMT Chauncey Billups said:

You're on the wrong forum. I think you meant to post that on your therapy forum. 

I hope you realize that no one likes you here

[Vlade Divac]

Walt, I agree with you mostly. Could you argue, however, that the draft pick is unnecessary? You used to say that quite a bit, although not as much recently, and to me Jackson for Ingram is fair as they are both blue chip prospects regardless of anyone's preference.

The only part i disagree with is SAC pick "not being much" as the Kings could end up in the lottery. To me, a potential lottery pick IS something. Chauncey, please do not kill me as my statement on this is more about the depth of the West than a knock on your team.

[Chauncey Billups]

Jul 17, 2017 20:37:13 GMT Vlade Divac said:

Walt, I agree with you mostly. Could you argue, however, that the draft pick is unnecessary? You used to say that quite a bit, although not as much recently, and to me Jackson for Ingram is fair as they are both blue chip prospects regardless of anyone's preference.

The only part i disagree with is SAC pick "not being much" as the Kings could end up in the lottery. To me, a potential lottery pick IS something. Chauncey, please do not kill me as my statement on this is more about the depth of the West than a knock on your team.

Lol I get what you're saying.. but I disagree that I'm a lottery team. REGARDLESS, I think I'll end up in the low 20s which is still a good pick. 

[Vlade Divac]

Jul 17, 2017 20:39:47 GMT Chauncey Billups said:

Jul 17, 2017 20:37:13 GMT Vlade Divac said:

Walt, I agree with you mostly. Could you argue, however, that the draft pick is unnecessary? You used to say that quite a bit, although not as much recently, and to me Jackson for Ingram is fair as they are both blue chip prospects regardless of anyone's preference.

The only part i disagree with is SAC pick "not being much" as the Kings could end up in the lottery. To me, a potential lottery pick IS something. Chauncey, please do not kill me as my statement on this is more about the depth of the West than a knock on your team.

Lol I get what you're saying.. but I disagree that I'm a lottery team. REGARDLESS, I think I'll end up in the low 20s which is still a good pick. 

I would agree if you were in the East. Those 4 teams in the west, OKC, MIN, DEN, and especially GSW are insane.

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 17, 2017 20:37:13 GMT Vlade Divac said:

Walt, I agree with you mostly. Could you argue, however, that the draft pick is unnecessary? You used to say that quite a bit, although not as much recently, and to me Jackson for Ingram is fair as they are both blue chip prospects regardless of anyone's preference.

The only part i disagree with is SAC pick "not being much" as the Kings could end up in the lottery. To me, a potential lottery pick IS something. Chauncey, please do not kill me as my statement on this is more about the depth of the West than a knock on your team.

I think the trade would also pass w/o that pick in it. But, if these two agreed that it needed to be there for them to both agree to the trade, then I think it's a middling-value-enough pick that I won't reject the trade over it. Maybe some other TC people will though. If they objectively think it's that bad, that's what they'll do.

[Jeremiah Hill]

IDK, some people are REALLY #teamIngram. Those people would think that Charlotte is getting the short end in this deal.

[Alex English]

I accept. I can see how this is a large price for Ingram, but, is everyone is so eager to give up on him? Player development is a thing guys, and Ingram hasn't even turned 20 yet. He's going to be really good. Also Josh Jackson has never played a game. If he even has a mediocre rookie season everyone here would significantly change their opinion. I can't put enough value on a player that's never played, and a pick that has no position yet (I assume late lottery) in order to reject this.