- 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 1:06 pm to Townedrunkard
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:06 pm to Townedrunkard
quote:
You really think Garland can carry a team to the conference finals as the best player?
Garland can have a miracle-outlier 2nd round where Ben Simmons refuses to dunk a basketball, yes.
I don't think Trae has won a round since that outlier run.
4
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Garland can have a miracle-outlier 2nd round where Ben Simmons refuses to dunk a basketball, yes.
He couldn’t do that with Mitchell as the second best player. Not quite getting how you think he can do this as a primary guy? I’m just curious what has Garland done that makes you so high on him?
Trae has had playoff success, better offensive stats, more all star games- why is there this an inclination Garland is better? I can understand the reasoning why Garland being a better fit but I don’t understand what ground you’re standing on to say Garland is a better player?
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think Trae has won a round since that outlier run.
I know he didn't get swept and embarrassed last year as the 8 seed averaging 29 and 10 in the 6 games it took Boston to put them away.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:19 pm to Pels_Yaz
quote:
Trae has had playoff success
Once, and never came close to repeating it. We have a big enough sample at this point to determine it was an outlier.
quote:
but I don’t understand what ground you’re standing on to say Garland is a better player?
The fact that he can play within an offense and is a better shooter, without being a historically bad defender. Just that.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
Garland got bounced in the first round last year, took 7 games to get to round two with an early exit in that series. And got to round two probably from playing an inexperienced young team that had been in the lottery for years.
All this while playing with an all nba player in the backcourt and a center that a lot of posters want to trade BI straight up for.
Like I said, your argument is laughable.
All this while playing with an all nba player in the backcourt and a center that a lot of posters want to trade BI straight up for.
Like I said, your argument is laughable.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:22 pm to Jnola
Garland has 4 years, 163mil left
Entering this season at 25 years old.
In the last 4 years (removing his 1st: rookie season)
He's played 248 games (62 games a year)
19.9 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 7.4 APG, 3.2 TOV, 1.3 SPG, 0.1 BPG
Shooting: 45.7/39.0/86.3
Defensively, bad.
Trae Young has 3 years, 138mil left (last year being player option); Otherwise its 2 years, 89mil
Entering this season at 26 years old.
In his last 5 years (removing his 1st: rookie season)
He's played 326 games (65 games a year)
27.1 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 9.9 APG, 4.3 TOV, 1.0 SPG, 0.1 BPG
Shooting: 44.0/36.1/88.0
Defensively, even more atrocious.
TL:DR
The answer is Garland by a narrow margin.
Offensively Trae is better, defensively he's worse. Cost controlled and duration goes to garland. Fit probably even
Entering this season at 25 years old.
In the last 4 years (removing his 1st: rookie season)
He's played 248 games (62 games a year)
19.9 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 7.4 APG, 3.2 TOV, 1.3 SPG, 0.1 BPG
Shooting: 45.7/39.0/86.3
Defensively, bad.
Trae Young has 3 years, 138mil left (last year being player option); Otherwise its 2 years, 89mil
Entering this season at 26 years old.
In his last 5 years (removing his 1st: rookie season)
He's played 326 games (65 games a year)
27.1 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 9.9 APG, 4.3 TOV, 1.0 SPG, 0.1 BPG
Shooting: 44.0/36.1/88.0
Defensively, even more atrocious.
TL:DR
The answer is Garland by a narrow margin.
Offensively Trae is better, defensively he's worse. Cost controlled and duration goes to garland. Fit probably even
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The fact that he can play within an offense and is a better shooter, without being a historically bad defender. Just that.
Yet he didn’t do that successfully because he was pretty bad offensively in the playoffs this year and he doesn’t want to play in the offense in that role since he requested a trade. And hes a bad defender as well sure not historically bad but still pretty bad.
So basically you’re reasoning is based on nothing tangible other than your specific eye test? Got it.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:29 pm to Pels_Yaz
quote:
Yet he didn’t do that successfully because he was pretty bad offensively in the playoffs this year
It's not working with DMitch, hence the trade chatter.
Y'all are having a hard time not defining careers based off single playoffs runs, in this discussion
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:30 pm to Townedrunkard
quote:
Garland got bounced in the first round last year, took 7 games to get to round two with an early exit in that series. And got to round two probably from playing an inexperienced young team that had been in the lottery for years.
All this while playing with an all nba player in the backcourt and a center that a lot of posters want to trade BI straight up for.
Like I said, your argument is laughable.
Just so we're clear, I'm only responding to people who want to look at a single, clearly outlier postseason for Trae as some gotcha/influential point. Otherwise, I don't rely on team stats.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The fact that he can play within an offense and is a better shooter, without being a historically bad defender.
quote:
It's not working with DMitch, hence the trade chatter.
So just to be clear Garland can play within an offense and is a better shooter but we’re just going to disregard his last 2 years because its not working with DMitch? So can he technically play in an offense with another volume shooter?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth so tell me exactly what you’re stating because these last statements from you don’t make sense.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Only you what? I didn't say only you thought that. I'm aware of those player rankings, I post em probably more than anyone else on here.
yeah only me
I basically said no logical argument can be made that BI is better than Trae. So, whoever from the Ringer that votes on that, we can add them to the list along with SFP that will 100% fail at attempting to make the argument that Brandon Ingram is better at basketball than Trae Young.
It can't be done, not logically.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
I like the idea of Trae Young as you are really only committing two years to him to see if he fits. I think you can get him this offseason basically for a BI swap without having to include a ton of picks. You aren't committing to him for 5 years as you would with BI.
I know he sucks at D, but an elite pick and roll partner with Zion would literally wreck this league.
I know he sucks at D, but an elite pick and roll partner with Zion would literally wreck this league.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:IF Garland can average 27 and 11, why doesn't he?
Garland can have a miracle-outlier 2nd round where Ben Simmons refuses to dunk a basketball, yes.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:40 pm to shel311
quote:
So, whoever from the Ringer that votes on that, we can add them to the list along with SFP that will 100% fail at attempting to make the argument that Brandon Ingram is better at basketball than Trae Young.
To be clear those are TRADE VALUE rankings. That’s not the same as saying BI is better than Trae. Its stating that BI may be a better trade chip due to his contract than Trae. I think SFP confused that for meaning they think hes a better player.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:41 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:Garland didn't get swept, but otherwise, good point.
I know he didn't get swept and embarrassed last year as the 8 seed averaging 29 and 10 in the 6 games it took Boston to put them away.
Garland is better and can do all these things Trae can't, and yet he doesn't do them or come anywhere close to doing them.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:42 pm to Pels_Yaz
quote:
To be clear those are TRADE VALUE rankings.
There was a trade value ranking and a ranking ranking. BI was ahead in both.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The idea that you'r arguing that zero playoff runs is better than 1 playoff run is laughable.
Y'all are having a hard time not defining careers based off single playoffs runs, in this discussion
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:44 pm to saints5021
quote:
I like the idea of Trae Young as you are really only committing two years to him to see if he fits. I think you can get him this offseason basically for a BI swap without having to include a ton of picks. You aren't committing to him for 5 years as you would with BI.
I get this, but if it doesn't work, his value goes negative and we basically have to blow it all up and start over.
You could say the same with all of these guys, but Trae has the biggest volatility and the most likely chance to have his value completely tank.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There was a trade value ranking and a ranking ranking. BI was ahead in both.
Well no reason to bring up trade value because its irrelevant in the conversation.
Second those real ranking values were posted on April 10th before BI returned and played horrible down the stretch and the playoffs. And yes that will affect his ranking but go ahead- hold onto the April 10th ranking to argue your point.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:50 pm to shel311
quote:
IF Garland can average 27 and 11, why doesn't he?
I already said he can play within an offense.
I'm sure if Garland was allowed to just sit on the ball all game, he could. Lots of guys could. BI probably even could.
Garland's highest FGA is 17.3. Trae topped 20, the 2 years he had close to 30 ppg scoring. Look at the significant difference in Usage between the two.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News