With Brandon Ingram's days in New Orleans looking like they are numbered, many people (including us) have discussed the possibility of the Sacramento Kings trading for the one-time All-Star and former 2019-20 Most Improved Player of the Year.
But what are the benefits of trading for Ingram? What are the downsides? In this article, we avoid talking about the specifics of what a potential Ingram trade would look like (although, as you can see below, I have floated some ideas before), and instead, we will focus on the pros and cons of bringing Ingram to Sacramento.
Who says no? pic.twitter.com/pZ23OiFyxd
— Mat Issa (@matissa15) June 14, 2024
Reason #1 For Trading For Ingram: Functional Size
Like with Kyle Kuzma, the main reason the Kings would want to trade for Ingram is that he offers them some much-needed functional size.
For those who aren't aware of what we mean when say "functional size," we are talking about large humans who can defend, offer secondary rim protection, put the ball on the floor, and shoot. Ingram isn't a great shooter (more on this in a bit), but he does all those other things pretty well.
Last season, Ingram was in the 70th percentile in Defensive Estimated Plus-Minus (DEF EPM), the 59th percentile in block rate, the 91st percentile in drives volume, and the 83rd percentile in drives true shooting. And remember, he does all this while being 6'9 (with a condor-like 7'3 wingspan).
Reason #1 Against Trading For Ingram: Spacing Concerns
Back to the comment we made about Ingram's shooting. Last year, he was in the 44th percentile in 3-point shooting (35.5%, per Dunks & Threes). On the surface, that seems like a solid mark. But with spacing, volume is more important than percentage. And Ingram's volume (measured by 3-point attempts per 75 possessions) was only in the 34th percentile last year.
Some teams can afford to have a below-average spacer at the power forward spot. For instance, Pascal Siakam was only in the 24th percentile in 3-point volume in 2023-24. But that wasn't a problem for the Indiana Pacers because they could field an above average shooting center (Myles Turner or Jalen Smith) next to him a majority of the time.
The Kings don't have that with Domantas Sabonis. Yes, he was a 37.9% 3-point shooter last year. But his volume was only in the ninth percentile, meaning he isn't really someone defenses think about as a threat from beyond the arc.
The Boston Celtics' recent title run showed us the value of spacing, and having a below-average spacer at power forward and center puts your team at a real disadvantage in that area.
Reason #2 For Trading For Ingram: Two-Man Game With Sabonis
While Ingram isn't a volume 3-point shooter, he is one of the best midrange shooters in the business. Last season, Ingram was in the 85th percentile in midrange efficiency and the 99th percentile in midrange volume (the third straight year he placed in the 99th percentile).
Why is this important? Well, for starters, having a midrange bucket-getter is usually pretty useful in the postseason when opponents are trying to take away shots from three and at the rim. But more importantly for this slide, Ingram's midrange prowess will make him a nice fit with Sabonis in the dribble handoff game.
You don't know what we are talking about? Look at all these handoff sequences between Sabonis and Keegan Murray:
The crazy thing is Murray is only in the 74th percentile in midrange accuracy and the 68th percentile in midrange volume. Now, imagine how dangerous those handoff actions would be with Sabonis if he was executing them with an elite midrange scorer instead of someone who was just a really good one.
Their synchronization on those dribble handoffs could become splendid enough that it compensates for any spacing concerns the Ingram/Sabonis duo may run into.
Reason #2 Against Trading For Ingram: It's Going To Cost Them
Next season, Ingram is set to make over 36 million dollars. After that, he is eligible for a four-year, 208-million dollar extension (an extension the Kings will probably have to offer Ingram if they plan on keeping him after 2024-25).
The average annual value of that extension is about 52 million dollars. That's a lot of money to tie to a flawed star player. As we've already established, Ingram is a subpar spacer. On top of that, he's an above average, but not great defender, and he has a tendency to be a bit of a ball-stopper. This last attribute could lead to some redundancy issues when he's paired next to the team's starting point guard, De'Aaron Fox (an individual who also excels when operating on-ball).
Between Ingram, Sabonis, and Fox (and Murray, too, once he signs his rookie extension), the Kings would be tying up a ton of money in a core that we aren't even sure is good enough to compete for a title in a loaded Western Conference. Is that gamble worth it?
Overall, I'm still unsure about how I feel about the Kings trading for Ingram. He's a great player, and adding great players typically tends to make your team better. Plus, I like the two-man game possibilities that his acquisition unlocks for him and Sabonis.
On the other hand, Ingram's spacing deficiencies, desire to play with the ball in his hands, and looming pricey extension have me worrying whether or not he pros outweigh the cons.
But I guess that's the tricky part about trying to project a trade that hasn't even happened yet.