Keeping Brandon Ingram Is A Recipe For Disaster

The risk of running it back with Brandon Ingram is far greater than the reward

The NBA off-season activity has slowed and the Pelicans find themselves “stuck”. After a blockbuster trade for Dejounte Murray, the only transaction the Pelicans have been able to complete is the signing of Daniel Theis at the league minimum contract. The team is now a few hundred thousand over the dreaded luxury tax line and still have a roster spot to fill. Despite their committed salary, the Pelicans are projected to be 30th in the NBA when it comes to money invested in the center position. Their biggest obstacle in fielding a balanced team is the Brandon Ingram situation. The Pelicans are projecting a desire to let the Ingram situation play out over the season. Choosing to do so is a recipe for disaster. The risk assessment on this decision paints a picture of significant financial and asset risk, with not enough wins to counterbalance the costs.

Financial Risk

Brandon Ingram is entering the final year of his contract. He has been eligible for extension since last summer and by all accounts is searching for a 4 year, $208 million extension. At this stage in the game, the Pelicans have been unwilling to commit to this extension. Moreover, the great

Marc Stein

reported recently that Ingram’s camp as also joined the search for a team that would be willing to hand Ingram this money.

Thus far, the market has not materialized and therein lies the issue. The Pelicans, despite publicly holding the position of wanting to retain Ingram, have been unable to find a suitable trade because absolutely no one wants to pay him. The offers have been cool or nonexistent, and the Pelicans have no desire to move Ingram while his value is at it’s lowest point. Yet the alternative in bringing him back is far worse.

As mentioned above, the Pelicans are roughly $900K under the luxury tax line. The two roster spots they have to fill will push them over, even if they sign 2nd round draft picks Antonio Reeves and Karlo Matkovic to the 2nd round pick exception (Matkovic was signed while this article was being written and the Pelicans are now roughly 200K over the tax line). The Pelicans can do additional cap gymnastics with Matt Ryan’s non-guaranteed contract by waiving him and bringing him back at the league minimum. None of this will drive the salary total below the tax line.

By returning Ingram, extension or no extension, the Pelicans will once again have to wiggle their way out from underneath the tax. The issue here is a lack of tradeable salaries that allow for easy maneuvering. Surely it is not going to be Zion, Trey, or Herb as the pieces that will get them under the tax. CJ McCollum is owed $64 million at this juncture. League experts estimate the cost of moving McCollum to be at least one first round pick. Is that a cost the Pelicans are willing pay for the right to move an elite shooter just so they can run it back with Ingram?

Other salaries such as Hawkins and Missi are so small, they do not leave appetizing moves on the table. Hawkins for Kessler makes a lot of sense for the Pelicans and would take them out of the tax, but there is no indication either side has a desire to make such a move. The options are limited and unattractive.

The matters grow more complicated if he inks an extension or the Pelicans attempt to re-sign him next summer. Trey Murphy III is also extension eligible and it would be prudent for the Pelicans to secure a long term deal with the young forward. The market on wings his caliber has never been cheap, and the rising cap numbers will only raise the price tag. If Murphy comes in with an average starting salary between $25-35 million, the team would be facing nearly $160 million committed to just 7 players. Ingram at a modest $40 million price tag would propel them past the first apron unless the Pelicans were able to shed major money in the form of CJ. Remember - neither of these scenarios has allocated ANY money towards the center position outside of Missi, Matkovic and other minimums.

The Center Position

The risk in returning Ingram also presents itself on the court and in the locker. With Matkovic on the books, the Pelicans will have roughly $6.3M invested in the center position this season, which would rank 30th. The last time a team made the playoffs ranking last in spending at the center position was the 2018-19 Milwaukee Bucks, led by league MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo. The Bucks, though, had a hilariously undervalued Brook Lopez at a time where the league was overthinking the concept of bigs.

There are two other precedents that the Pelicans can lean on when it comes to a lack of a center. The 2020-21 Toronto Raptors and the second half 2019-20 Houston Rockets. The Raptors won 48 games and their most used lineup was Fred Van Vleet, Gary Trent, Jr., Scottie Barnes, OG Anunoby, and Pascal Siakam. This no center unit actually had a negative net rating. In fact, the Raptors three most positive units that played over 100 minutes actually featured a big - in either Precious Achiuwa or Chris Boucher. The Raptors would fizzle out in the first round and attempt to replicate their success the next season. Unfortunately, the Raptors would continue to struggle without a center before caving on Jakob Poetl.

The Rockets were the other example. They leaned fully into small ball behind PJ Tucker and Robert Covington after trading Clint Capela. However, in the 21 games after Capela was moved, the Rockets would only go 11-10, and get worked by the much larger Lakers team in the playoffs. The Rockets, like the Bucks earlier, did have an MVP candidate to drive winning, however, like the Raptors - two of their top three lineups featured Capela.

The historical precedent for success without investment at the center position is extremely weak. Two of three more prominent teams featured MVP level players. It’s for this reason Golden State can’t be used as a precedent either. What Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green make possible is not a reproduceable formula.

Other Considerations

I personally feel the idea that Ingram can increase his value is bunk. The challenge Ingram and the Pelicans face is that his value not that of a max contract. The chances he plays well enough over the course of the season to convince a team by the deadline seem slim.

Let us game this out. A 30% max player is typically one who can swing the needle towards championship contention as a primary or secondary. For Ingram to display this worth, he would have to put up considerably better numbers than past seasons AND change his playstyle to be more impactful. He would have to accomplish this all while splitting touches with Zion, Murray, CJ, and Trey. We can safely assume Ingram will be a starter, but what happens when Green decides to bench him at the end of certain games? What happens if Ingram gets hurt and misses his annual 20 games? Is some team at the deadline going to jump at the chance to pay him 30%?

We saw Ingram’s production take a sharp decline past the new year once the team started to shift towards Zion. From January 1st until his injury on March 21st, Ingram averaged 18.8 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 6.0 apg on below league average efficiency. The three point volume remained a paltry 3.6 per game. Mind you, this was the time he was described as buying into the '“little things”. This “fitting in” version is not a max player and it is not reasonable to expect better production next where when Murray will command the ball more.

Ironically, relegation to a “do it all” forward in the style of super Nic Batum is an extremely valuable player and would likely move the needle towards winning. It is still not a max player. And remember - this is best case scenario. There exists a possibility that Ingram struggles to buy in effectively at all and this festers in the locker room. Or worse, what if he actually tries to buy in and is ineffective at it?

The natural response maybe “so what, let him walk if things go wrong”. This may certainly be the most prudent approach. Nevertheless, I would try to exhaust all opportunity for positive value, even the mildest of first round picks, or most average intriguing young prospects - shoot I’d do it for immediate cap flexibility and some tradeable salary.

Remember - the cost to move money and duck the tax needs to be factored into any Ingram return. The decision does not exist in a vacuum. If it costs the org two firsts to move money and balance the roster, then that cost needs to be juxtaposed with the return that is presently on the table and path forward. Maybe Ingram recoups some value by the deadline - I doubt it will be enough to cover the costs in the meantime.

The Pelicans need to let the Lauri situation playout. August 6th is an important date. It is the date when Lauri becomes eligible for his extension and the absolute last day for the Pelicans to ink Ingram to an extension if they want to trade him by the deadline. Maybe after this date, the market for Ingram is a little friendlier. But under no circumstances should the team entertain taking Ingram into the season without a contract and the current center rotation.