Camden wrote:Q-was-here wrote:I'd like to hear what some of the naysayers believe would have been a fair deal for Gobert and then those same naysayers need to ask themselves if that was a fair deal from Utah's perspective. Is it only a good trade if we totally fleece the other team, as if that's possible today with the caliber of modern day GMs? We literally didn't have to give up any of our most prized existing assets in KAT, Ant, and Jaden to get what some would argue is a top 10-15 NBA player in terms of his impact on a game.
Exactly, Q. There's little value in suggesting or mentioning trade ideas that have little plausibility. Trades have to appeal to all parties. So, while it would have been nice to acquire Rudy Gobert for peanuts that just wasn't realistic. You have to give to get. That's the truth of it.
I wouldn't have made the trade that Tim Connelly did and haven't wavered from that position. I'm also not necessarily a naysayer, or hater, either because I respect and understand what the acquisition of Gobert does for this organization in the short-term. The Minnesota Timberwolves have entered the conversation as a championship contender, in my opinion. We obviously still have to round out the rest of the roster and see what the on-court product looks like, but the collection of top talent is impressive and the depth remains solid even after dealing four players.
I think the price for Gobert was an overpay, but not by an insane amount. You also have to consider that Minnesota did not part with Jaden McDaniels, Jaylen Nowell, or Wendell Moore Jr. in the trade. They retained their high-upside youth already on the roster in exchange for additional draft capital, which was a calculated risk from this front office. Essentially, the Timberwolves are gambling that those three young players are more talented than whatever prospects they would have drafted in the future. It's not a bad bet from Minnesota, and Utah obliged by demanding additional picks. There was the compromise.
I compared this trade in detail to the Los Angeles Lakers trade for Anthony Davis pages ago in this thread. Noticeably, the Lakers gave up two high-end prospects on their rookie deals -- Brandon Ingram and Lonzo Ball -- in addition to the fourth-overall pick in 2019, as well as two future first-round picks and a pick swap.
While Gobert is four years older than Davis was at the time of their respective trades, Minnesota didn't have to surrender the top-end prospects that Los Angeles did and only gave up one more pick in their trade. It's a risk, but it's a calculated one that has a high-reward. I can't blame the front office or ownership for wanting to go for it while they can.
This is a good post I'll add that AD had some injury concerns which have played out as an issue in his time with the Lakers.