|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LakerSD
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2016
Posts: 23785
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2019 wrote: | | MJST wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | | should've pulled the trigger on Cousins... nobody in the current squad will be as dominant... heck, some actually think Cousins may be the most dominant in the league right now. |
Why? What if our kids start coming into their own 2 seasons from now when Cousins is a free agent who actually WILL test the market.
Wouldn't it be sweeter to steal him from New Orleans if they can't contend in the 25 games this season and the 82 games next season they have before he tests the free agency market?
Best way to get Cousins is to get him to commit to you in free agency, because then it starts him off on the right foot.
As opposed to acquiring him in a place he had no say in going to and then having to convince him to stay with you if you aren't a championship contender in the year and a half you have him for.
Honestly ask yourself..
If we got Cousins, and traded away let's say, Ingram, Lou Williams and Jordan Clarkson for him.
Within the next 25 games of this season, and all of next season, are we going to be a team that can beat the Warriors? Cause if we aren't, he's leaving in free agency...
Yeah, glad our FO didn't risk that. |
or what if our kids don't become half of what we hope they will become and along with the contracts of Mozzy and Deng, we start having to pay them big money to stay and subsequently have no great pieces, no cap flexibility, etc.?
Moving Ingram for Cousins, if it didn't include DLO or Randle or even Clarkson, should have been a no brainer.
Ingram may be Prince or Wesley or Iguodala or Kirilinko or George or Kwahi.
Cousins is the best center in the NBA and could have been had for without giving up too much (judging by what they got).
Many people are arguing that acquiring Boogie would have meant losing our pick for sure-- again, how far has having lotto picks really got us? Is there any sure pick in the top 3 that is the next Towns or Embiid? Hell, there is no assurance we keep our pick even if we end up with the worst record (outside Brk).
Even with Boogie, might not have ended up with more than 30 wins which seems to be the target without him. So the pick would still be in play even if that meant going from 2nd or 3rd best odds to 5th best odds. A few extra lotto percentage points makes a difference in getting a superstar or not?
Besides all that, even if we got Boogie and we end up losing the pick, at least we can approach FA with a terrific young coach, a superstar C, a potentially great young PG in DLO, and a well rounded collection of other young guys + some vets.
Boogie would have done SO much for DLO's game.
I'm with iceberg and a few others that think this was a colossal failure by Mitch and Jim. If Ingram had shown more, I understand but he hasn't. Worst case, we lost a guy who's a top 10-20 player in 3-5 years. The offset, we get a top 10 player today who fits well what Luke wants to do.
Would he leave that team if DLO was showing signs of stardom, Randle is a great fit at PF next to him, Luke is the coach, and we were able to add others in FA... any maybe even still have our pick this summer? I don't think so.
To quote Shaq, "any idiot can see the future is now". |
I wanted boogie but I have a hard time giving them ingram when all it took is hield and scraps. If this was just to spite the lakers just because of hate then joke is on kings. F them.
From the reported deals, it seems like the lakers said no Russell and no Ingram. It seems like they stil beat that crap pelicans offer. The kings just hurt themselves if they just wanted to spite lakers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26382
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2019 wrote: | | MJST wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | | should've pulled the trigger on Cousins... nobody in the current squad will be as dominant... heck, some actually think Cousins may be the most dominant in the league right now. |
Why? What if our kids start coming into their own 2 seasons from now when Cousins is a free agent who actually WILL test the market.
Wouldn't it be sweeter to steal him from New Orleans if they can't contend in the 25 games this season and the 82 games next season they have before he tests the free agency market?
Best way to get Cousins is to get him to commit to you in free agency, because then it starts him off on the right foot.
As opposed to acquiring him in a place he had no say in going to and then having to convince him to stay with you if you aren't a championship contender in the year and a half you have him for.
Honestly ask yourself..
If we got Cousins, and traded away let's say, Ingram, Lou Williams and Jordan Clarkson for him.
Within the next 25 games of this season, and all of next season, are we going to be a team that can beat the Warriors? Cause if we aren't, he's leaving in free agency...
Yeah, glad our FO didn't risk that. |
or what if our kids don't become half of what we hope they will become and along with the contracts of Mozzy and Deng, we start having to pay them big money to stay and subsequently have no great pieces, no cap flexibility, etc.?
|
How would the kids not become half of what we hope but we'd also have to wind up paying them 'big money' to stay? Um.....
If they didn't become half of what we hope, they wouldn't be getting 'big money' and if another team offered them 'big money' we'd just match.
Didn't think this was actually a worry. Randle, Ingram and Russell are locked up for quite some time and if they didn't become superstars by their 4th years then they wouldn't be getting offered "big money" in free agency. If they were, the Lakers would match and that's essentially it.
And also to answer your question.
Let's assume that the deal had to include more than Ingram ..
Because it would HAVE to , in order for Salaries to match and as we don't have a pick to give, we'd need to give value, ie our players.
So let's take Clarkson, Ingram and Lou Williams off this team and add Boogie Cousins.
You have 25 games left this season, and a single off-season to become a team that can beat the Warriors or Cousins walks in free agency.
Can you do it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2019
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Dec 2014
Posts: 10809
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MJST wrote: | | 2019 wrote: | | MJST wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | | should've pulled the trigger on Cousins... nobody in the current squad will be as dominant... heck, some actually think Cousins may be the most dominant in the league right now. |
Why? What if our kids start coming into their own 2 seasons from now when Cousins is a free agent who actually WILL test the market.
Wouldn't it be sweeter to steal him from New Orleans if they can't contend in the 25 games this season and the 82 games next season they have before he tests the free agency market?
Best way to get Cousins is to get him to commit to you in free agency, because then it starts him off on the right foot.
As opposed to acquiring him in a place he had no say in going to and then having to convince him to stay with you if you aren't a championship contender in the year and a half you have him for.
Honestly ask yourself..
If we got Cousins, and traded away let's say, Ingram, Lou Williams and Jordan Clarkson for him.
Within the next 25 games of this season, and all of next season, are we going to be a team that can beat the Warriors? Cause if we aren't, he's leaving in free agency...
Yeah, glad our FO didn't risk that. |
or what if our kids don't become half of what we hope they will become and along with the contracts of Mozzy and Deng, we start having to pay them big money to stay and subsequently have no great pieces, no cap flexibility, etc.?
|
How would the kids not become half of what we hope but we'd also have to wind up paying them 'big money' to stay? Um.....
If they didn't become half of what we hope, they wouldn't be getting 'big money' and if another team offered them 'big money' we'd just match.
Didn't think this was actually a worry. Randle, Ingram and Russell are locked up for quite some time and if they didn't become superstars by their 4th years then they wouldn't be getting offered "big money" in free agency. If they were, the Lakers would match and that's essentially it.
And also to answer your question.
Let's assume that the deal had to include more than Ingram ..
Because it would HAVE to , in order for Salaries to match.
So let's take Clarkson, Ingram and Lou Williams off this team and add Boogie Cousins.
You have 25 games left this season, and a single off-season to become a team that can beat the Warriors or Cousins walks in free agency.
Can you do it? |
Randle is 4th year next season and extension talks will be here sooner than you think. Regardless, unless you're going to let your young guys walk, you're going to pay to keep them even if they "still have room to grow". I'm not talking about busts, but just not where you'd want them to be. The choice is not pay them and let them walk or match but either way all that would add up (in conjunction with mozzy and Deng) to having little to no cap space.
Why does the team have to beat GS in a year? Nobody is beating them for the next 5.
So let's say that scenario were agreeable by Sac (though I think it would have taken less) and the package was Ingram, JC, Lou for Cousins, Casspi.
Cousins/Zu/Mozzy
Randle/Nance
Deng/Casspi
Russell
going into this summer with the money we have, I'd venture to say we could put together a strong playoff team. Would Hayward consider that? I don't know. But what about Jrue? Again, it hinges on DLO and Randle developing, but some times you gotta role the dice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21078
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MJST wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | | should've pulled the trigger on Cousins... nobody in the current squad will be as dominant... heck, some actually think Cousins may be the most dominant in the league right now. |
Why? What if our kids start coming into their own 2 seasons from now when Cousins is a free agent who actually WILL test the market.
Wouldn't it be sweeter to steal him from New Orleans if they can't contend in the 25 games this season and the 82 games next season they have before he tests the free agency market?
Best way to get Cousins is to get him to commit to you in free agency, because then it starts him off on the right foot.
As opposed to acquiring him in a place he had no say in going to and then having to convince him to stay with you if you aren't a championship contender in the year and a half you have him for.
Honestly ask yourself..
If we got Cousins, and traded away let's say, Ingram, Lou Williams and Jordan Clarkson for him.
Within the next 25 games of this season, and all of next season, are we going to be a team that can beat the Warriors? Cause if we aren't, he's leaving in free agency...
Yeah, glad our FO didn't risk that. |
Yep. I think giving away Ingram for Cousins would have been absolutely stupid, considering we could pick him up in free agency mid-summer next year. And if Cousins were to walk away after costing the Lakers Ingram? Now we're talking immensely stupid. Smart move by Mitch to say no to that (bleep).
Funny thing is - DeMarcus wanted to stay in Sacramento, his agent wanted him to stay in Sacramento, yet Sacramento was intent on moving him. I wonder if any 'experts' can say why this happened? If he's such a net positive to any team lucky enough to have him like some people on this thread claim, then - why did this happen??? And why didn't any other GM show more interest and a better offer than Buddy/mid-1st? Buddy's good, but that's not franchise player value at this stage of his career, might never be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nash
Star Player
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 8194
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: | | MJST wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | | should've pulled the trigger on Cousins... nobody in the current squad will be as dominant... heck, some actually think Cousins may be the most dominant in the league right now. |
Why? What if our kids start coming into their own 2 seasons from now when Cousins is a free agent who actually WILL test the market.
Wouldn't it be sweeter to steal him from New Orleans if they can't contend in the 25 games this season and the 82 games next season they have before he tests the free agency market?
Best way to get Cousins is to get him to commit to you in free agency, because then it starts him off on the right foot.
As opposed to acquiring him in a place he had no say in going to and then having to convince him to stay with you if you aren't a championship contender in the year and a half you have him for.
Honestly ask yourself..
If we got Cousins, and traded away let's say, Ingram, Lou Williams and Jordan Clarkson for him.
Within the next 25 games of this season, and all of next season, are we going to be a team that can beat the Warriors? Cause if we aren't, he's leaving in free agency...
Yeah, glad our FO didn't risk that. |
Yep. I think giving away Ingram for Cousins would have been absolutely stupid, considering we could pick him up in free agency mid-summer next year. And if Cousins were to walk away after costing the Lakers Ingram? Now we're talking immensely stupid. Smart move by Mitch to say no to that (bleep).
Funny thing is - DeMarcus wanted to stay in Sacramento, his agent wanted him to stay in Sacramento, yet Sacramento was intent on moving him. I wonder if any 'experts' can say why this happened? If he's such a net positive to any team lucky enough to have him like some people on this thread claim, then - why did this happen??? And why didn't any other GM show more interest and a better offer than Buddy/mid-1st? Buddy's good, but that's not franchise player value at this stage of his career, might never be. |
Not just Cousins, but trading for any player that can walk for nothing like D12 is not a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anth2000
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 12190
Location: Pasadena, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cousins would have been a bad idea. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryan_c
Star Player
Joined: 08 Dec 2007
Posts: 1371
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wrong move by the Lakers. They should have traded Ingram for Cousins. Ingram is a question mark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noahp45
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 6572
Location: Oceanside Ca
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ryan_c wrote: | | Wrong move by the Lakers. They should have traded Ingram for Cousins. Ingram is a question mark. |
No way Bro
Cousins is a Head case and will be a free agent
Ingram has great upside and bye saying no to Sac for cousins he is worth more now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.K.
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Jul 2003
Posts: 29726
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ryan_c wrote: | | Wrong move by the Lakers. They should have traded Ingram for Cousins. Ingram is a question mark. |
There's no question about Cousins
he's a headcase.
Which is why so few teams were interested in him.
_________________
LBJ + AD = More rings
Never argue with a fool - listeners can't tell you apart
Wilt's unstoppable fadeaway: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O9MgNfcGJA
NPZ's Magic Johnson mix: www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Qbo0WqvOI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
som3on3_10
Star Player
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 2482
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2019 wrote: |
or what if our kids don't become half of what we hope they will become and along with the contracts of Mozzy and Deng, we start having to pay them big money to stay and subsequently have no great pieces, no cap flexibility, etc.?
Moving Ingram for Cousins, if it didn't include DLO or Randle or even Clarkson, should have been a no brainer.
Ingram may be Prince or Wesley or Iguodala or Kirilinko or George or Kwahi.
Cousins is the best center in the NBA and could have been had for without giving up too much (judging by what they got).
Many people are arguing that acquiring Boogie would have meant losing our pick for sure-- again, how far has having lotto picks really got us? Is there any sure pick in the top 3 that is the next Towns or Embiid? Hell, there is no assurance we keep our pick even if we end up with the worst record (outside Brk).
Even with Boogie, might not have ended up with more than 30 wins which seems to be the target without him. So the pick would still be in play even if that meant going from 2nd or 3rd best odds to 5th best odds. A few extra lotto percentage points makes a difference in getting a superstar or not?
Besides all that, even if we got Boogie and we end up losing the pick, at least we can approach FA with a terrific young coach, a superstar C, a potentially great young PG in DLO, and a well rounded collection of other young guys + some vets.
Boogie would have done SO much for DLO's game.
I'm with iceberg and a few others that think this was a colossal failure by Mitch and Jim. If Ingram had shown more, I understand but he hasn't. Worst case, we lost a guy who's a top 10-20 player in 3-5 years. The offset, we get a top 10 player today who fits well what Luke wants to do.
Would he leave that team if DLO was showing signs of stardom, Randle is a great fit at PF next to him, Luke is the coach, and we were able to add others in FA... any maybe even still have our pick this summer? I don't think so.
To quote Shaq, "any idiot can see the future is now". |
So on one hand you are willing to trade one of our young players because he hasn't "shown more" despite being a rookie, but on the other hand you are expecting DLO to all of a sudden show "signs of stardom" despite not showing signs of stardom thus far while being in the league longer? 
Glad you aren't the GM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok, serious question. If the kings wanted Ingram for Cousins and he wasnt a headcase, do you do it then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakersRGolden
Star Player
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 7922
Location: Lake Forest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: |
Funny thing is - DeMarcus wanted to stay in Sacramento, his agent wanted him to stay in Sacramento, yet Sacramento was intent on moving him. I wonder if any 'experts' can say why this happened? If he's such a net positive to any team lucky enough to have him like some people on this thread claim, then - why did this happen??? And why didn't any other GM show more interest and a better offer than Buddy/mid-1st? Buddy's good, but that's not franchise player value at this stage of his career, might never be. |
Cousin's max extension plummeted by over $30M the second he was traded. That's why he was so committed to Sacramento, and they knew it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Ok, serious question. If the kings wanted Ingram for Cousins and he wasnt a headcase, do you do it then? |
Sure. But Boogie wouldn't b on the trade block if he wasn't a major head case.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26382
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Ok, serious question. If the kings wanted Ingram for Cousins and he wasnt a headcase, do you do it then? |
Then we'd have to give up even more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Artesties
Star Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Posts: 1115
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ingram is a long shot to be half the player Cousins is. Cousins is a head case because he was in the dumpster fire that Sac is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144464
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ryan_c wrote: | | Wrong move by the Lakers. They should have traded Ingram for Cousins. Ingram is a question mark. |
And Cousins is a known high usage, low efficiency headache of a player. Pretty much the opposite of what a young team needs.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Ok, serious question. If the kings wanted Ingram for Cousins and he wasnt a headcase, do you do it then? |
Sure. But Boogie wouldn't b on the trade block if he wasn't a major head case. |
Not entirely sure that's true. Kings are saving like a lot of money being tied up in one player by moving him. A Kings kind of thing to do too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YSong
Star Player
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 2329
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Did the Lakers offer get reported as in which players Lakers would trade? I heard Deangelo and Julius, I am surprise Lakers not high on them anymore or Kings rejecting offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annihilator
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 4035
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nash wrote: | | Not just Cousins, but trading for any player that can walk for nothing like D12 is not a good idea. |
 Trading for a player who will leave quickly does not help.
_________________
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
--Anonymous |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Starting Rotation
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 828
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the Lakers offered Lou and Mozgov/and or Deng, Sac was insane not to take it.
That said, I wouldn't do that deal because of Cousins' upcoming free agency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boldarblood
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2019 wrote: |
Cousins is the best center in the NBA and could have been had for without giving up too much (judging by what they got).
|
I don't agree with this at all.
Davis and Towns are both better players than him. I also would even be tempted to put Jokic above him, but he needs to have more games played.
I am OK with us not getting him. If Cousins would have guaranteed that he would sign a new contract with us, absolutely take him. But I wouldn't take the chance of losing Ingram for just a small rental. It would be even more devastating losing both players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2019
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Dec 2014
Posts: 10809
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| som3on3_10 wrote: | | 2019 wrote: |
or what if our kids don't become half of what we hope they will become and along with the contracts of Mozzy and Deng, we start having to pay them big money to stay and subsequently have no great pieces, no cap flexibility, etc.?
Moving Ingram for Cousins, if it didn't include DLO or Randle or even Clarkson, should have been a no brainer.
Ingram may be Prince or Wesley or Iguodala or Kirilinko or George or Kwahi.
Cousins is the best center in the NBA and could have been had for without giving up too much (judging by what they got).
Many people are arguing that acquiring Boogie would have meant losing our pick for sure-- again, how far has having lotto picks really got us? Is there any sure pick in the top 3 that is the next Towns or Embiid? Hell, there is no assurance we keep our pick even if we end up with the worst record (outside Brk).
Even with Boogie, might not have ended up with more than 30 wins which seems to be the target without him. So the pick would still be in play even if that meant going from 2nd or 3rd best odds to 5th best odds. A few extra lotto percentage points makes a difference in getting a superstar or not?
Besides all that, even if we got Boogie and we end up losing the pick, at least we can approach FA with a terrific young coach, a superstar C, a potentially great young PG in DLO, and a well rounded collection of other young guys + some vets.
Boogie would have done SO much for DLO's game.
I'm with iceberg and a few others that think this was a colossal failure by Mitch and Jim. If Ingram had shown more, I understand but he hasn't. Worst case, we lost a guy who's a top 10-20 player in 3-5 years. The offset, we get a top 10 player today who fits well what Luke wants to do.
Would he leave that team if DLO was showing signs of stardom, Randle is a great fit at PF next to him, Luke is the coach, and we were able to add others in FA... any maybe even still have our pick this summer? I don't think so.
To quote Shaq, "any idiot can see the future is now". |
So on one hand you are willing to trade one of our young players because he hasn't "shown more" despite being a rookie, but on the other hand you are expecting DLO to all of a sudden show "signs of stardom" despite not showing signs of stardom thus far while being in the league longer?
Glad you aren't the GM. |
face palm away but DLO showed far more in his rookie year than Ingram showed in his... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26382
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2019 wrote: | | som3on3_10 wrote: | | 2019 wrote: |
or what if our kids don't become half of what we hope they will become and along with the contracts of Mozzy and Deng, we start having to pay them big money to stay and subsequently have no great pieces, no cap flexibility, etc.?
Moving Ingram for Cousins, if it didn't include DLO or Randle or even Clarkson, should have been a no brainer.
Ingram may be Prince or Wesley or Iguodala or Kirilinko or George or Kwahi.
Cousins is the best center in the NBA and could have been had for without giving up too much (judging by what they got).
Many people are arguing that acquiring Boogie would have meant losing our pick for sure-- again, how far has having lotto picks really got us? Is there any sure pick in the top 3 that is the next Towns or Embiid? Hell, there is no assurance we keep our pick even if we end up with the worst record (outside Brk).
Even with Boogie, might not have ended up with more than 30 wins which seems to be the target without him. So the pick would still be in play even if that meant going from 2nd or 3rd best odds to 5th best odds. A few extra lotto percentage points makes a difference in getting a superstar or not?
Besides all that, even if we got Boogie and we end up losing the pick, at least we can approach FA with a terrific young coach, a superstar C, a potentially great young PG in DLO, and a well rounded collection of other young guys + some vets.
Boogie would have done SO much for DLO's game.
I'm with iceberg and a few others that think this was a colossal failure by Mitch and Jim. If Ingram had shown more, I understand but he hasn't. Worst case, we lost a guy who's a top 10-20 player in 3-5 years. The offset, we get a top 10 player today who fits well what Luke wants to do.
Would he leave that team if DLO was showing signs of stardom, Randle is a great fit at PF next to him, Luke is the coach, and we were able to add others in FA... any maybe even still have our pick this summer? I don't think so.
To quote Shaq, "any idiot can see the future is now". |
So on one hand you are willing to trade one of our young players because he hasn't "shown more" despite being a rookie, but on the other hand you are expecting DLO to all of a sudden show "signs of stardom" despite not showing signs of stardom thus far while being in the league longer?
Glad you aren't the GM. |
face palm away but DLO showed far more in his rookie year than Ingram showed in his... |
That really doesn't mean too much in terms of progression it just means how NBA ready they were when they came into the league. It's about who they'll be once they catch up to NBA speed, could take a season could take 3.
Upside wise, Ingram is worth the gamble. As are Russell and Randle.
If it pays off, we're a playoff team and have a chance at Cousins. if it doesn't, then Cousins would have left anyway.
So smart move on our part either way.
Last edited by MJST on Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saetarubia
Star Player
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 6208
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Ok, serious question. If the kings wanted Ingram for Cousins and he wasnt a headcase, do you do it then? |
I doubt Sac would even considering trading him then. There'd have been way less coaching drama at Sac and Cousins would have the same value as AD in the league.
_________________
Showtime 2.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRLakeShow
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Posts: 10460
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knowing our luck, Ingram turns into a bust and Cousins leads NOP to a title. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
