The Cavs could do a lot worse than Brandon Ingram
The case for why the Cavs should go get Ingram.
Brandon Ingram checks all the boxes you want in an NBA player which makes the end product incredibly frustrating. Ingram is a 6’9”, an effective three-level scorer, and an exceptional playmaker. This is the archetype of the very best players in the league.
However, his inability to alter his shot diet and lack of effectiveness off-ball has caused him to be viewed as worse than he is. Who he is as a player is somewhere in the middle of both extremes.
The Cleveland Cavaliers have a hole at the wing. The New Orleans Pelicans need a traditional center to anchor their defense. The rumors of a swap between the two have been a constant given the familiarity between Pelicans’ David Griffin and the front office he used to work with and both team’s needs.
Ingram would be a massive upgrade on the wing while providing the team with a much-needed additional playmaker. He concluded last season with a 25.9% assist percentage (96th percentile for wings) which translated to 5.7 assists per game. This was the fifth season in a row Ingram finished with an assist percentage better than the 90th percentile.
Aside from using his gravity to make the simple passes, Ingram has shown incredible touch on passes to the interior in transition and in the half-court. Two of Ingram’s 5.7 assists per game went to Jonas Valanciunas and Zion Williamson. Ingram was able to do this in a variety of ways including alley-oops in transition, quick post entries, and just manipulating lanes in the half-court. A play finisher like Evan Mobley can’t have enough creators like that around him.
This is paired with being an effective three-level scorer. Ingram completed 71.9% of his attempts at the rim (85th percentile), 47.8% in the midrange (86th percentile), and a 36.2% three-point shooter (48th percentile). This is on top of being in the 88th percentile in generating free throws (11.6% of shot attempts). These factors should all add up to being one of the most efficient scorers in the league, but they don’t because of his shot profile.
An overwhelming majority of Ingram’s attempts come in the midrange (58.1%). These come at the expense of looks at the rim (33rd percentile) and from three (4th percentile). There’s no reason to expect that to change going into his ninth professional season.
The issue with midrange shots — besides it’s general ineffectiveness — is that nearly all of them come out of the flow of the offense. This isn’t the early 2000s where teams would run floppy actions for midrange jumpers. As a result, less than half of his field goals being assisted. Playing out of the flow of the offense and his inability to stay on the court — has only played 65 games or more once in eight seasons — is why the Pelicans are hesitant to give him the max and there isn’t a huge trade market for him.
Whether or not Ingram makes sense for Cleveland comes down to what it costs in the trade and the looming contract extension. Allen and Caris LeVert for Ingram works salary wise. Whether that is something the Pelicans, who just traded for Dejounte Murray, is an open question. The Cavs would also need to figure out how to handle Ingram’s extension that would come into effect in the 2025-26 season.
The Cavaliers will likely be in at least the luxury tax after next season due to the extension Mobley is expected to get. Allen has $40 million remaining on the last two years of his current deal. Scottie Barnes signed a rookie max extension for nearly $225 over five years. Mobley would be expected to sign a similar deal.
The question will become whether it’s worth paying $59 million for two players who essentially play the same position in 2025-26 and even more when Allen gets an extension that will likely be more than the $20 million he’s owed per season now. Ingram on or near a max would cost more than Allen, but at least the money would be spread around to multiple positions.
There’s also a question about how someone who doesn’t play well without the ball and is a ball-stopper fits with Donovan Mitchell and/or Darius Garland. Ingram or Garland would be reduced to the third option which would be a significant adjustment for both and likely not one that Garland would welcome. On the flip side, Mitchell and Mobley are the two that the Cavs should be prioritizing. A Ingram/Mitchell/Mobley trio could fit together decently well conceptually as Ingram is good at setting up bigs and could take some of the creation responsibilities off of Mitchell.
Ingram is far from an ideal fit for the Cavs. Ideal fits, like Mikal Bridges, just cost the New York Knicks five first-round draft picks. The Cavs won’t be able to make a trade like that for almost a decade just by using the picks they currently own. Getting an arguably better player at that position who isn’t a great fit, for the reasons mentioned above, is likely the best they will be able to do with this current core.
Ingram is worth getting if you can hold onto Garland. There will be a hole at power forward, but it’s easier to find a fit there then it is to find one at the wing. Despite his warts, Ingram is still a good player who fills a position that was and will continue to be exposed in the playoffs until it’s addressed.