Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

[SameOldNudityDrew]

For those highlighting the difference between Gobert in the regular season vs. the playoffs, two things.

First, take some comfort in the thought that getting a higher seed will increase our chances of facing a weaker first round opponent and having home-court advantage.

Second, help me brainstorm how to respond to the kinds of "5 out" perimeter-oriented lineups our likely opponents may try to throw at us. I listed what I think are the likely lineups on page 16. The Clippers look like they'll be a real problem. The Pelicans I actually feel like we'd match up pretty well against.

[Q-is-here]

Ok, I've got a minute, so I'll start brainstorming possible opponent "5 out" lineups.

Dallas
Luka
Dinwiddie
Bertans
Finney-Smith
Wood or Kleber

Golden State
Curry
Poole
Thompson
Wiggins
Porter Jr.

Denver
Murray
Bones Hyland
KCP
Porter Jr. or Gordon
Jokic

Clippers
Kennard or Norman Powell or Mann
Paul George
Kawhi
Covington
Batum or Marcus Morris

(man, the Clippers have a TON of outside shooters)

Portland
Dame
Simons
Gary Payton II or Shaedon Sharpe
Josh Hart or Nassir Little
Grant

(some question marks there, but you gotta imagine they'll add a stretch 4 at some point)

New Orleans
CJ
Troy Murphy III
Ingram (not a great outside shooter)
Zion (not a great outside shooter)
Valanciunas

(ok, that's a team that would have a really tough time going 5 out against us)

Memphis
Ja Morant
Tre Jones or Zaire Williams (he'll get better this next year)
Brooks
Bane
JJJ

(Brooks and Ja are just average from deep, but that's still a good 5 man lineup)



At any rate, looking at those outside-shooting focused "5 out" lineups, what do you guys think about how we would match up against them with Rudy and KAT on the floor defensively? And on offense, how would you try to maximize our size advantage to punish them?

Well, I think this is the real soft spot and what critics of the trade will point to. How do KAT and Gobert defend these kind of "lineups of death" in the playoffs?

First off, we can potentially field our own 5-out lineup that ain't too shabby:
KAT
SloMo
McDaniels
Ant
DLO or whoever our PG will be

I realize that lineup doesn't include Rudy, but that's the beauty of having KAT, SloMo, and McDaniels. That's still a lot of length and ranginess that can do a bunch of switching and shot contesting. And then if Edwards can keep himself mentally dialed in, he really has the chance to be an elite two-way wing that can be really, really good defensively guarding 1-4.

Similarly, if Memphis decides to throw JJJ and Clarke out there, now we CAN play KAT and Gobert at the same time and keep those dudes off the glass. We have the size to go up against JoVal, Zion, and Ingram as well.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Drew, I'd expect to see some creative zone defenses used from Chris Finch at times in the regular season and playoffs. Minnesota could cause some real havoc/problems in a 2-1-2 zone with their length and athleticism. Theoretically, they'd be capable of protecting the rim and the corners with both Karl-Anthony Towns and Rudy Gobert playing on either side of baseline. The real key is Jaden McDaniels ability to man the middle and take away entry passes to cutters with his length and anticipation, as well as providing help should Anthony Edwards or D'Angelo Russell get beat at the top. Finch will have a plethora of options schematically that he'll be able to tinker with and he's shown that he can pull the right strings when needed. He'll just have to do that in more pressure-intense spots as it pertains to the post-season.

[60WinTim]

Well, if you are only playing them 32 minutes a piece (conservative, I know), that means they are potentially only sharing the court for 16 minutes -- a third of the game.

[Q-is-here]

Well, if you are only playing them 32 minutes a piece (conservative, I know), that means they are potentially only sharing the court for 16 minutes -- a third of the game.

Very true. And I think in crunch time we may very well see Gobert on the bench at times. That's where I wince a bit at this trade. Gobert doesn't play a position that can impact games as much in crunch time.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Well, if you are only playing them 32 minutes a piece (conservative, I know), that means they are potentially only sharing the court for 16 minutes -- a third of the game.

Very true. And I think in crunch time we may very well see Gobert on the bench at times. That's where I wince a bit at this trade. Gobert doesn't play a position that can impact games as much in crunch time.

I think that particular aspect is entirely dependent on how Karl-Anthony Towns performs defensively at the four spot. However, you absolutely need and want Rudy Gobert on the floor late in games for the rim protection and rebounding alone. It makes no difference to have Towns and [fill in the blank] out there if they can't secure the rebound and effectively end the possession.

[FNG]

First let me toss some kudos to the naysayers here. Your take (that we got fleeced by Utah) is much more in line with the national media than perhaps the more biased positive take of an excited rube like me. So those like me who love this deal have to acknowledge there is a good chance your opinion will prove to be right.

But if you're in the naysayer group, take the time to answer two questions for me. The homers who love this deal like me are welcome to answer too.

1) What would have been your predicted win total for the Wolves prior to the Gobert deal, and what is it now? (For me, probably 45 before, and 55 after)

2) What percentage chance did you give the Wolves of winning an NBA championship in the next 4 years before the Gobert deal, and what percentage chance do you give it now? (For me, 1% before, 50% now).

I recognize these are difficult questions, because injuries, other deals, salary cap etc. have to be considered. But this is how I evaluate a deal. Does it make us significantly better for the upcoming season, and does it significantly increase our chances of being in the championship conversation in a short period of time. And I give a resounding yes to both questions.

[TheFuture]

First let me toss some kudos to the naysayers here. Your take (that we got fleeced by Utah) is much more in line with the national media than perhaps the more biased positive take of an excited rube like me. So those like me who love this deal have to acknowledge there is a good chance your opinion will prove to be right.

But if you're in the naysayer group, take the time to answer two questions for me. The homers who love this deal like me are welcome to answer too.

1) What would have been your predicted win total for the Wolves prior to the Gobert deal, and what is it now? (For me, probably 45 before, and 55 after)

2) What percentage chance did you give the Wolves of winning an NBA championship in the next 4 years before the Gobert deal, and what percentage chance do you give it now? (For me, 1% before, 50% now).

I recognize these are difficult questions, because injuries, other deals, salary cap etc. have to be considered. But this is how I evaluate a deal. Does it make us significantly better for the upcoming season, and does it significantly increase our chances of being in the championship conversation in a short period of time. And I give a resounding yes to both questions.

35 before, 45 now.

0% before, 10% now.

[FNG]

Trent Tucker loves this deal, and made a good point on In the Zone this morning. Rudy Gobert was part of a team 2 seasons ago that had the best record in the NBA. And the 4 players who played the most minutes that season for Utah (other than him) were Royce O'Neale, Bojan Bogdonavic, Joe Ingles, and Jordan Clarkson. Granted they also got minutes, albeit not top 5, from Conley and Mitchell, and the four players mentioned above are no slouches. But TT's point with which I agree is that Minnesota's supporting cast is superior to the Utah team that won a normalized 59 games that season. If TT is right, our Tim could finally have a nickname with some credibility!

[FNG]

First let me toss some kudos to the naysayers here. Your take (that we got fleeced by Utah) is much more in line with the national media than perhaps the more biased positive take of an excited rube like me. So those like me who love this deal have to acknowledge there is a good chance your opinion will prove to be right.

But if you're in the naysayer group, take the time to answer two questions for me. The homers who love this deal like me are welcome to answer too.

1) What would have been your predicted win total for the Wolves prior to the Gobert deal, and what is it now? (For me, probably 45 before, and 55 after)

2) What percentage chance did you give the Wolves of winning an NBA championship in the next 4 years before the Gobert deal, and what percentage chance do you give it now? (For me, 1% before, 50% now).

I recognize these are difficult questions, because injuries, other deals, salary cap etc. have to be considered. But this is how I evaluate a deal. Does it make us significantly better for the upcoming season, and does it significantly increase our chances of being in the championship conversation in a short period of time. And I give a resounding yes to both questions.

35 before, 45 now.

0% before, 10% now.

Pushback question, Future. Isn't a deal that adds 10 wins to a season and at least gives a team some chance of winning a championship when before there was none, a good deal?