Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Any And All Things T-Wolves Related
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 23395
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by Monster »

lipoli390 wrote:
monsterpile wrote:
lipoli390 wrote:I was wondering what it would have taken for the Wolves to get Clint Capela. When I consider all the things I would have preferred to see the Wolves do instead of the Gobert deal, it would have been trading for Capela. It's impossible to know exactly what it would have taken, but I feel very safe in saying that it would have taken a lot less than it took to get Gobert. The Hawks were trying to shore up their defense and take a big step forward back into the playoffs. That's what prompted them to give up three picks for Murray - an excellent defender who could also relieve Trae Young of some of his playmaking and ball-handling responsibilities. I suspect that the Hawks would have loved to get some of those three picks back while also getting another player to upgrade their defense.

My guess is that the Wolves could have gotten Capela for Vando, two future firsts and either Beasley or Beverley. If I'm right, the Wolves would have substantially upgraded their rebounding and interior defense by adding Capela, but they'd also still have Kessler, Bolmaro, both their 2027 and 2029 first-round picks and ether Beasley or Beverley. Capela is two years younger than Gobert on a much more team-friendly contract. I would have felt much better about that deal.


It would have been a kick in the groin when the Wolves could have probably had Capela for one asset in the Covington trade if they had wanted him. I was an advocate of doing just that at the time although I thought the return they got from Covington was pretty good. I think if the Wolves would have given up that much for Capela people would have been more upset than maybe even this Gobert deal.


Well, I remember being unhappy the Wolves didn't simply swap Covington, Jordan Bell and a future 2nd-round pick for Covington. And that's in spite of the fact that I've always liked Beasley. But Rosas was obsessed with going small just as Finch seems obsessed now with going big.

I don't think fans or the League would have been nearly as hard on the Wolves for the Capela deal I suggested. In my scenario, the Wolves would have only given up two further 1st-round picks rather than four. They'd still have Kessler, Bolmaro and either Beasley or Beverley. Moreover, the Wolves would have a terrific rebounding defensive center who is two years younger than Gobert and on a MUCH cheaper contract.


At this point I don't really care much about either Beasley or Bolmaro. We essentially replaced Beasley with Forbes who is probably better a being a situational bench player than Beasley for less money. He could end up being a cheap option for more than 1 year as well. Beasley if he stayed here probably was gonna get a decent amount of money.

Bolmaro...I like him but at this point how much better of a prospect is he than who ever player we end up with on a 2-way deal or Moore or whoever else? He also will cost more money than a vet min guy. I'd rather have Beverly and Bolmaro but the difference between them and the guys that will take their roster spots isn't that significant when salary is considered.

Beverly? Yeah I'd like to keep him.

So let's be optimistic about your trade and assume we keep Beverly. We then have Kessler and 2 first round picks. I think we can agree that Gobert is worth at least 1 more first round pick than acquiring Capela even though he costs more money. The whole premise of not being happy with the Gobert trade is that we gave up too much or possibly overbid compared to what was or wasn't offered. IMO you did the same for Capela. I would have been pissed if we did that deal. That's more the kind of package that we would have been considering months ago when John Collins was the guy that looked like a good target. I'm a big fan of Capela but I don't think the market is that strong for him and if it was I'd pass. I'd rather overpay for Gobert than Capela.
User avatar
Lipoli390
Posts: 15295
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by Lipoli390 »

monsterpile wrote:
lipoli390 wrote:
monsterpile wrote:
lipoli390 wrote:I was wondering what it would have taken for the Wolves to get Clint Capela. When I consider all the things I would have preferred to see the Wolves do instead of the Gobert deal, it would have been trading for Capela. It's impossible to know exactly what it would have taken, but I feel very safe in saying that it would have taken a lot less than it took to get Gobert. The Hawks were trying to shore up their defense and take a big step forward back into the playoffs. That's what prompted them to give up three picks for Murray - an excellent defender who could also relieve Trae Young of some of his playmaking and ball-handling responsibilities. I suspect that the Hawks would have loved to get some of those three picks back while also getting another player to upgrade their defense.

My guess is that the Wolves could have gotten Capela for Vando, two future firsts and either Beasley or Beverley. If I'm right, the Wolves would have substantially upgraded their rebounding and interior defense by adding Capela, but they'd also still have Kessler, Bolmaro, both their 2027 and 2029 first-round picks and ether Beasley or Beverley. Capela is two years younger than Gobert on a much more team-friendly contract. I would have felt much better about that deal.


It would have been a kick in the groin when the Wolves could have probably had Capela for one asset in the Covington trade if they had wanted him. I was an advocate of doing just that at the time although I thought the return they got from Covington was pretty good. I think if the Wolves would have given up that much for Capela people would have been more upset than maybe even this Gobert deal.


Well, I remember being unhappy the Wolves didn't simply swap Covington, Jordan Bell and a future 2nd-round pick for Covington. And that's in spite of the fact that I've always liked Beasley. But Rosas was obsessed with going small just as Finch seems obsessed now with going big.

I don't think fans or the League would have been nearly as hard on the Wolves for the Capela deal I suggested. In my scenario, the Wolves would have only given up two further 1st-round picks rather than four. They'd still have Kessler, Bolmaro and either Beasley or Beverley. Moreover, the Wolves would have a terrific rebounding defensive center who is two years younger than Gobert and on a MUCH cheaper contract.


At this point I don't really care much about either Beasley or Bolmaro. We essentially replaced Beasley with Forbes who is probably better a being a situational bench player than Beasley for less money. He could end up being a cheap option for more than 1 year as well. Beasley if he stayed here probably was gonna get a decent amount of money.

Bolmaro...I like him but at this point how much better of a prospect is he than who ever player we end up with on a 2-way deal or Moore or whoever else? He also will cost more money than a vet min guy. I'd rather have Beverly and Bolmaro but the difference between them and the guys that will take their roster spots isn't that significant when salary is considered.

Beverly? Yeah I'd like to keep him.

So let's be optimistic about your trade and assume we keep Beverly. We then have Kessler and 2 first round picks. I think we can agree that Gobert is worth at least 1 more first round pick than acquiring Capela even though he costs more money. The whole premise of not being happy with the Gobert trade is that we gave up too much or possibly overbid compared to what was or wasn't offered. IMO you did the same for Capela. I would have been pissed if we did that deal. That's more the kind of package that we would have been considering months ago when John Collins was the guy that looked like a good target. I'm a big fan of Capela but I don't think the market is that strong for him and if it was I'd pass. I'd rather overpay for Gobert than Capela.


It's not just the value of Beasley or Bolmaro to the Wolves as players; it's their value as trade assets. You have to consider both. It's the opportunity cost I'm referring to.

Yes, Gobert is better than Capela. But it would have taken fewer assets to get Capela and those remaining assets would be available for other deals. Capela is also two years younger than Gobert and a lot cheaper. Poeltl would have been another talented defensive big who was likely obtainable for significantly less than the Wolves gave up for Gober. My issue isn't with Gobert. And I'm not pining for the return of Beasley or Bolmaro. My issue is putting too much into one player and taking on a contract that dramatically alters the team's financial flexibility going forward.

My other issue is the 10-year gap between Gobert and our most talented player, Edwards. In my view we should be building around Edwards. I think Connelly should have leveraged the team's assets and his acumen for identifying young talent to find a young Robin for our young Batman (Edwards) over the next couple years. And we already have a potential Robin in McDaniels. Meanwhile, we have a Batman in KAT who is still relatively young at age 26 and the team would have remained competitive with him and other the players we had from last season, supplemented by Kyle Anderson.

I've reconciled myself to the Gobert deal. I understand the thinking behind it and I see the potential payoff. But no matter what happens, I'll consider it a mistake - an unnecessary shortcut with too much risk. My main point is that to fully appreciate the case against the deal it's important to appreciate the opportunity costs associated with the deal. And that's far more than just the value of the players we gave up as contributors to the Wolves; it's also the transactional value they had as trade assets. Trading those four 1st-round picks also precludes trading the other three picks under League rules (unless traded on draft day). The impact on the Wolves financial flexibility is another concern.

The case for the Gobert deal is obvious - adding a great defensive big man without giving up our two best players, Edwards and KAT, or our other promising, potentially elite young player, McDaniels. I think the case against the deal is more complex and nuanced, but just as compelling.
User avatar
Camden [enjin:6601484]
Posts: 18065
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by Camden [enjin:6601484] »

Which defenders held opponents to the lowest field goal percentage within six-feet of the basket last season?

1. Jarrett Allen - 48.6%
2. Jaren Jackson Jr. - 49.6%
3. Rudy Gobert - 50.7%
4. Jaden McDaniels - 51.1%

5. JaVale McGee - 51.8%

Two members of the Minnesota Timberwolves here in the top-five. Uh oh.
User avatar
TheFuture
Posts: 2912
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by TheFuture »

Camden wrote:Which defenders held opponents to the lowest field goal percentage within six-feet of the basket last season?

1. Jarrett Allen - 48.6%
2. Jaren Jackson Jr. - 49.6%
3. Rudy Gobert - 50.7%
4. Jaden McDaniels - 51.1%

5. JaVale McGee - 51.8%

Two members of the Minnesota Timberwolves here in the top-five. Uh oh.


There is one player I am still upset about. Jarrett Allen. The Cavs essentially got him for nothing, and then got him signed for cheap.

Rudy Gobert was doing that with no defenders around him. Now he has 4 others decent or willing.

I still am concerned about KATs ability at the 4 defensively. But Gobert can help cover. If Jaden and Ant really buy in defensively and take another step, my God it will be threatening.
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 23395
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by Monster »

TheFuture wrote:
Camden wrote:Which defenders held opponents to the lowest field goal percentage within six-feet of the basket last season?

1. Jarrett Allen - 48.6%
2. Jaren Jackson Jr. - 49.6%
3. Rudy Gobert - 50.7%
4. Jaden McDaniels - 51.1%

5. JaVale McGee - 51.8%

Two members of the Minnesota Timberwolves here in the top-five. Uh oh.


There is one player I am still upset about. Jarrett Allen. The Cavs essentially got him for nothing, and then got him signed for cheap.

Rudy Gobert was doing that with no defenders around him. Now he has 4 others decent or willing.

I still am concerned about KATs ability at the 4 defensively. But Gobert can help cover. If Jaden and Ant really buy in defensively and take another step, my God it will be threatening.


Houston did some bizarre things in that trade. They gave up Jarrett Allen for a Bucks pick from the Cavs. They decided Dipo was a better player than Lavert who the Pacers ended up trading for good value to the Cavs last season. Lol the Rockets are on a total full rebuild so they will probably be fine but imagine if they had a guy like Jarrett Allen to deal?

Also looking back...they didn't get a whole lot for PJ Tucker. The Bucks had to be thrilled to get him for basically moving down a few spots in the draft in 2021. I like the talent the Rockets are putting together in Houston but they didn't maximize their assets IMO.
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 23395
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by Monster »

Part of the Gobert trade was the fact that it included 4 open roster spots. Before the trade the Wolves had no open NBA roster spots only one 2-way spot. Jon K said on his most recent podcast that Finch and the coaching staff really like Knight and some people in the organization actually were in favor of him getting that last roster spot over Monroe. If the trade doesn't happen and they aren't able to clear any roster spots the expectation was on this board and elsewhere that Knight and Minott would have been on a 2 way deal. Maybe they wouldn't have been able to retain Knight though. Let's assume they would. This is how I see the return for the Gobert trade for the 2022-2023 season.

Gobert
Forbes
Rivers (partially guaranteed)
Paschall
Lawson

Plus the positive of getting Minott on a Gupta special. If you like Knight then it's a positive he is signed for 2 years instead of a 2-way. If you don't he is on a partially guaranteed deal so they can move on from him at some point and sign someone else. In addition Rivers is partially guaranteed so if the Wolves decide to add a different vet player he is another option of someone they can't let go.

This group might not be super compelling (hard not to like Forbes for the price and role) but it also adds playoff experienced vets and a somewhat promising younger player in Lawson. It keeps some roster flexibility too for this year and obviously beyond this year. I personally think they did a pretty good job of getting value in one way or another out of the roster spots and flexibility that had after the Gobert trade. If Knight turns out to be a decent depth guy that signing could look like a really savvy move. At the end of his deal the Wolves would also have his bird rights so they could pay him a decent salary to keep him if they wanted. All these little things can matter especially for a team that's gonna be capped out and soon paying the Lux tax.
User avatar
Lipoli390
Posts: 15295
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by Lipoli390 »

Jon K gives Wolves a high off-season grade:

Minnesota Timberwolves: A-

The Timberwolves knew they had to get significantly better to avoid the kind of toe stub the Knicks and Hawks suffered last season. Their biggest areas that needed to be addressed were rim protection and rebounding, so new President of Basketball Operations Tim Connelly went out and got the very best rim protector and rebounder in the league in Rudy Gobert. Did they overpay for him? Yeah, probably. But from a strictly basketball perspective, Gobert covers up so many of the Wolves' weaknesses while the Wolves can cover up so many of Gobert's weaknesses. It's a strong match that should push them into contention for home-court advantage in the first round, hallowed ground for this long-suffering franchise. They signed Karl-Anthony Towns to a max contract extension, added versatile forward Kyle Anderson to the rotation and grabbed Austin Rivers and Bryn Forbes on veteran minimum deals for depth. Taurean Prince was also signed to a good value contract (two years, $16 million with a team option on the second season) to retain a versatile piece of the puzzle. All in all, a great first summer for Connelly on the job. -- Jon Krawczynski
User avatar
FNG
Posts: 4610
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by FNG »

J
lipoli390 wrote:Jon K gives Wolves a high off-season grade:

Minnesota Timberwolves: A-

The Timberwolves knew they had to get significantly better to avoid the kind of toe stub the Knicks and Hawks suffered last season. Their biggest areas that needed to be addressed were rim protection and rebounding, so new President of Basketball Operations Tim Connelly went out and got the very best rim protector and rebounder in the league in Rudy Gobert. Did they overpay for him? Yeah, probably. But from a strictly basketball perspective, Gobert covers up so many of the Wolves' weaknesses while the Wolves can cover up so many of Gobert's weaknesses. It's a strong match that should push them into contention for home-court advantage in the first round, hallowed ground for this long-suffering franchise. They signed Karl-Anthony Towns to a max contract extension, added versatile forward Kyle Anderson to the rotation and grabbed Austin Rivers and Bryn Forbes on veteran minimum deals for depth. Taurean Prince was also signed to a good value contract (two years, $16 million with a team option on the second season) to retain a versatile piece of the puzzle. All in all, a great first summer for Connelly on the job. -- Jon Krawczynski


The migration of opinions...both local and national...about the Gobert deal has been fun to watch. Most of the reports the first week after the deal gave high marks to the Jazz and low marks to the Wolves. But I think the media is coming to the realization that Gobert instantly transforms the Wolves into a contender. And while initially the price tag seemed too high to some, 3 players who would not start for a contending team plus an untested center drafted in the 20s plus 4 picks assumed to be in the late 20s is really not much of a ransom for the best defensive center (player?) in the game.
User avatar
JasonIsDaMan [enjin:7981157]
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by JasonIsDaMan [enjin:7981157] »

I bumped this so everybody can find their posts and delete them.
User avatar
Carlos Danger
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

Post by Carlos Danger »

I thought this was an interesting read:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nba-fact-or-fiction-the-minnesota-timberwolves-trade-for-rudy-gobert-is-an-abject-disaster-205647283.html
Post Reply