- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Darius garland or Trae young
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:10 pm to CP3forMVP
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:10 pm to CP3forMVP
quote:
Are you ok with paying BI as well?
Ingram is not worth a 30% max, Trae is
I don’t understand what your motive behind this is? One is a top 25 player, the other is a top 40-60 player, they are not comparable
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 12:11 pm
2
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:18 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
Ingram is not worth a 30% max, Trae is
I don’t understand what your motive behind this is? One is a top 25 player, the other is a top 40-60 player, they are not comparable
I think this is the disconnect. Given everything involved, on and off the court, I don't think Trae is a top 25 player. I think he's closer to 40 than he is 25, to be honest. I would have him somewhere between 32-36ish. I would have BI pretty close to that as well. I think everyone we're talking about here, Trae, BI, Garland, Murray, are all hovering around the same area. Same tier sort of deal, give or take.
So back to the motive, why I ask, you can't be against BI's max but be for Trae's. That doesn't make much sense.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:19 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
One is a top 25 player,
None of Garland, Bi, or Trae are top-25 players
They're all int he 40-60 range (as nice as I can be to Trae)
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:20 pm to CP3forMVP
quote:
I think he's closer to 40 than he is 25, to be honest. I would have him somewhere between 32-36ish. I would have BI pretty close to that as well.
Correct, with BI being better
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:20 pm to Pels_Yaz
quote:
2. Trae is more of an impact shooter- defenses will shift their coverage because of Trae most wont do with Garland
Not to mention he had an all nba player to share the back court with defenses gravitating towards that.
Trae not so much.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:24 pm to CP3forMVP
quote:But that doesn't make sense because BI is nowhere near as good as Trae Young. That's really, really not close.
I think this is the disconnect. Given everything involved, on and off the court, I don't think Trae is a top 25 player. I think he's closer to 40 than he is 25, to be honest. I would have him somewhere between 32-36ish. I would have BI pretty close to that as well.
quote:1 guy is the clearcut best player in that group.
I think everyone we're talking about here, Trae, BI, Garland, Murray, are all hovering around the same area. Same tier sort of deal, give or take.
quote:Becuase Trae is clearly better.
So back to the motive, why I ask, you can't be against BI's max but be for Trae's. That doesn't make much sense.
He's averaged 27 & 10 over the past 5 seasons. At some point, we have to ask what are we doing here wondering if guys like BI/Garland/Murray are better...they're not, and it's not close.
Now if you want to argue culture and locker room reasons, I get that. But best player, it's Trae.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct, with BI being better
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:24 pm to CP3forMVP
quote:
off the court,
Name me one thing Trae has done off the court besides unsubstantiated rumors he’s a bad locker room player.
Unless it’s something factual and not substantiated rumors, I look at on the court play, and Trae is definitely top 20-25 when it comes to on court play. Ingram has already shown he cannot be a #1 and do anything but be a play in leader, Trae has shown FAR more and shown he can be a legitimate #1 when needed.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct, with BI being better
Possibly. The BI hate is getting a little extreme. He's a damn good player, I just think we need to go in a different direction. Change it up.
Looking at some "top player rankings" from this season, BI was:
32nd
29th
34th
22nd
30th
The masses clearly think more of BI than we do.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:25 pm to shel311
Yeah, I’m not even gonna entertain that dumbass troll anymore
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:26 pm to CP3forMVP
quote:For some folks, yes.
Possibly. The BI hate is getting a little extreme.
But saying Trae is better than BI is the literal opposite of extreme lol.
There's no realistic world where any argument can be made that BI is better than Trae. SFP will fail at that, 100% of the time.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:29 pm to shel311
quote:
There's no realistic world where any argument can be made that BI is better than Trae. SFP will fail at that, 100% of the time.
yeah only me...other than that informal poll that was just reported on, and Bill Simmons, among others. ONLY me, though.
Trade Value rankings
51. Trae Young
35. Garland
36. Brandon Ingram
Top 100
51. Garland
35. Trae
29. Ingram
*ETA: I was using numbers from different lists. I have it corrected now
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:30 pm to CP3forMVP
Correct, but with the elevation of some players this season like Brunson who has elevated themselves above Ingram, I feel like he will be ranked or should be ranked in the 40-60 range, probably closer to 40 than 60
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:32 pm to shel311
quote:
He's averaged 27 & 10 over the past 5 seasons. At some point, we have to ask what are we doing here wondering if guys like BI/Garland/Murray are better...they're not, and it's not close.
Now if you want to argue culture and locker room reasons, I get that. But best player, it's Trae.
I'm not disagreeing that Trae is the best of that group, but there's lot more to the game than just box score numbers. If you look at on/off percentile for the last five seasons Trae is in the 92nd percentile in terms of offensive impact, he's in the 28th percentile in terms of defensive impact.
BI 76th and 49th
Garland 78th and 69th
Murray 49th and 53rd
Not saying those numbers are the end all be all, but they tell part of the story, even if a small part. Some of it is preference. For the things Trae does solve with the roster he opens up even more questions in other areas.
But none of this is even about that, it's about paying Trae in two years. I can't sit here and say I would be overcome with joy to do that.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:34 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
Correct, but with the elevation of some players this season like Brunson who has elevated themselves above Ingram,
Who didn't have Brunson above BI?
He was closer to top-10 than top-30
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:42 pm to Soggymoss
I had seen some preseason rankings that had Brunson below BI, but going off CBS
Other players below BI that are above him now, BI was at 32
Lauri
Bane
VanVleet
Paolo
Gobert
Wemby
Maxey
Chet
Just those push BI down to 40
I’m sure there’s more
Other players below BI that are above him now, BI was at 32
Lauri
Bane
VanVleet
Paolo
Gobert
Wemby
Maxey
Chet
Just those push BI down to 40
I’m sure there’s more
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Garland can't hear this discussion b/c he's in the 2nd round of the playoffs. Why isn't Trae? When was the last year Trae made the 2nd round?
This is laughable. You really think Garland can carry a team to the conference finals as the best player? Trae did. He can’t get out of the second round and he’s not even the best player on his own team. What kinda argument is this lol?
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:53 pm to Jnola
I think that this is a really tough choice, and I am surprised at how confident most of y'all are.
Trae has more talent, but he's more of a knucklehead, and he's more of a ball hog than Garland. Willie wants an offense based on ball movement, and Trae doesn't want to pass. He's also a worse defender.
Garland looks like a better match for the offense we want to run and for team chemistry, but the Klutch representation is a big red flag. Garland is less talented than Trae, but he's still young enough that he might have another level.
I think that I would pick Garland, but I am not very confident at all in that choice.
Trae has more talent, but he's more of a knucklehead, and he's more of a ball hog than Garland. Willie wants an offense based on ball movement, and Trae doesn't want to pass. He's also a worse defender.
Garland looks like a better match for the offense we want to run and for team chemistry, but the Klutch representation is a big red flag. Garland is less talented than Trae, but he's still young enough that he might have another level.
I think that I would pick Garland, but I am not very confident at all in that choice.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:55 pm to Townedrunkard
And BI has had two chances to be the man in the playoffs. Zero success. He clearly is not a number one or ever will be. But we ranking him and Garland over Trae??
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:06 pm to GOP_Tiger
You always go with the guy opposing teams scheme and game plan to stop.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News