Rudy Gobert to the Timberwolves

[Monster]

It will always be considered an overpay, not only because of the number of picks, but also how far out some of those picks go -- long after Gobert's current contract expires.

But the Wolves had an opportunity to acquire a single player that massively changes the outlook of their team for the better for multiple years. Time will tell if it was worth it.

On the flip side of the overpay, it is a bit unusual for a team to trade a star and not get back a "star" or "potential star" in return. I suppose that was a contributing factor on the overpay in picks.

And something that is seemingly overlooked: we still have a first round pick every other year through 2029. And Connelly has a track record of making do with what he has to work with. And assuming we are a "contender", that tends to make it easier to find cheap FA help. So we will see how it all plays out.

Good points. I think it's fair to say that when teams acquire a true star player most of the time teams pay a lot and it may seem like an overpay but again there is a reason those players cost so much to acquire.

Q asked what would be considered not an overpay for this deal. I'm gonna keep the deal pretty much as it is but take away assets. Kessler going back to Utah makes sense so that's basically 1 first round pick. In all honestly I think for this Gobert trade to feel more like it wasn't an big overpay maybe I subtract a couple first round picks and keep everything the same. Would I be like "YES!!! Do that deal!!!"? No but I think that's probably more in the neighborhood of the assets it would require to get Gobert. Chicago was legitimately interested and I'm guessing Utah who may not have been excited about completely rebuilding would have valued getting Vuc back from Chicago along with other assets and go from there. The Wolves didn't send a player that slots in that easily to helping Utah this season. Will Utah be able to move a player or 2 like Beverly they got from MN to help them now or even get more assets? It would not be surprised but it probably wasn't completely certain when the deal was made. Beverly seems to have value but we basically got him for some junk expiring contract players last year. It will be interesting to see what Utah does. They are certainly a landing spot for any reasonably good player with size and if a team has a player like that they want to move and wants a guard Utah has a number of them!

[Lipoli390]

I'm a defense-first guy, and I've long thought that the typical NBA fan (even smarter than average fans like we have here) tend to favor offense over defense...and often significantly. In my opinion we just completed a trade for a Steph Curry, because I see Gobert impacting the game defensively in a way a guy like Curry impacts a game on offense.

We gave up players who we liked but would never be starters on a championship team, plus a handful of picks most likely to be in the mid to late 20s...for the most dominant defensive player of our era. It's an old adage that the team that ends up with the best player in a trade won the trade. Maybe I'll be proved wrong in the end, but I just can't see this as an overpay.

What you'll read (not sure if it's entirely verifiable or not, but I believe it) is that Utah demanded Jaden McDaniels. TC countered with more draft compensation instead. So let's say Jaden was added to the pool of players given up in addition to two firsts instead of the four firsts. You better believe all the naysayers would be going nuts on how stupid and idiotic TC was for giving up Jaden! How could he!?

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.

I wouldn't have done this Gobert deal. Think it was a ton to give up. Meanwhile let's revisit a few deals in the past few years I wouldn't have done either.

Jrue Holiday it was an overpay still in my opinion. It was absolutely worth it though as the Bucks won a championship and we're a very good team again this season but had Middleton hurt in the playoffs.

GS has given up more than I would have a few times. First let's look back quickly at their decision to move Monte Ellis for Bogut coming off an injury. I was confused for a few minutes but then it actually made sense to me but many ripped the deal at the time. Next we have GS after finally not being a joke of a team winning 47 games after losing 23 the year before gave up 2 first round picks and multiple 2nds to move Andres Biedrens, Richard Jefferson and Brandon Rush to then pay Iggy who was a few months from turning 30. Jefferson had a down year but as I predicted bounced back and was a worthwhile player including being an important rotation player when the scabs won a championship in 2016. Rush who was injured but had been a pretty productive player in his career ended up resigning with the Warriors later. Ultimately he ended up being - decent depth guy at best and the Warriors were right to deal him. He never played again after he played for the Wolves. Biedrins who had seemed far from a worthless player just a year earlier played 6 games for Utah and never played in the NBA again. Meanwhile that move for Iggy was a key to the Warriors winning their first championship and a key player for them for years. Then let's not forget what the Warriors gave up to get the Cap space to sign Russell and that included a 1st round pick to get off Iggy. Ultimately that worked out well for them but they paid somewhat of a high price to be able to get Russelli initially.

I'm not saying the Gobert trade was a good one and will bring us a championship but it might be worth taking a step back and think...maybe this could work out. Maybe the price will be worth it. I was very wrong on the Jrue trade even though I did like the fit with the Bucks a lot I just thought they gave up too much at the time. Like you brought up Q the Wolves kept a lot of their team intact and the Wolves may still have a lot of talent plus Tim Connelly has a legit track record of evaluating talent. This isn't some guy sitting in the POBO chair for the first time making this big move it's a guy that's got a pretty good resume. The hardest players to acquire are the guys making first all NBA teams. Connelly got one of those guys and while Gobert is signed for a lot of money he is locked in which is different than some other deals we have seen for very high impact players. He won't be walking in FA for at least 3 years.

The Jrue Holiday was a move the Bucks had to make, The team's progress was stalled and Giannis was on the threshold of testing the free-agent waters. Moreover, Giannis and Middleton were both at a point in their careers where it made sense to take a risk on a big leap transaction.

As for the Wolves, they were on the rise after just taking a big leap forward the prior season. We were bound to improve simply through the natural maturation of Edwards, McDaniels and Nowell. And we had the assets to upgrade our startign big position next to KAT via free agency or a more minor trade for a high-caliber defensive big like Myles Turner without gutting our draft assets and future financial flexibility. Moreover, KAT had just signed an extension before the Gobert deal. KAT wasn't going anywhere. Finally, the Wolves most important player, Ant, is only 20 years old. And so is McDaniels. The timing of bringing in the 30-year old Gobert is problematic. This deal was a short cut and short cuts rarely work.

If the Wolves were intent on making a big Jrue Holiday type move, they should have traded for Dejounte Murray. In that case, they would have given up three rather than four first-round picks and the 2023 pick would have had some protection. Moreover, the Wolves would still have Beverley, Kessler, Bolmaro and either Beasley or DLO, depending on which one was traded.

Regarding Connelly, he doesn't have an impressive record when it comes to trades and transactions. The track record that got him his big contract here relates to draft prowess. This trade cuts in half the opportunities he'll have to use that prowess.

Nevertheless, while I don't like this trade, it's not a disaster and it could work out really well for the Wolves over the next few years. Unfortunately, the deal will compromise the organization's ability to adjust on the fly easily and quickly retool of things don't work out. No team is going to give us anything close to what we just gave Utah if we decide to move on from Gobert. So Connelly will have to make sure this works within a three to four year window.

I've reconciled myself to this deal because I can't do anything about it. That's why I started the Gobert era thread. The question for the Wolves is how they fill in the gaps or better align the roster for a team built around KAT, Ant and now Gobert. DLO should fit well with Gobert offensively, but he's still a question mark on defense. How much will it cost to re-sign DLO? Can we afford the price he'll likely demand? Do we want to commit to him long term, given that he typically performs best in contract years and has a history of durability issues? Will McDaniels become the player many of us, including the Wolves front office think he'll become? If not, that's a serious problem. What's the backup plan if he doesn't? These are just a few of the key questions Connelly and his cohorts will need to answer. He now has far fewer assets and far less financial flexibility at his disposal the effectively address those questions.

[60WinTim]

It probably makes sense to extend DLo one year, unless TC has other plans in the works. Extending DLo will not put the Wolves in the luxury tax next year, and actually make his contract a worthwhile piece in a trade if they decide to move on from DLo after this year.

[SameOldNudityDrew]

It probably makes sense to extend DLo one year, unless TC has other plans in the works. Extending DLo will not put the Wolves in the luxury tax next year, and actually make his contract a worthwhile piece in a trade if they decide to move on from DLo after this year.

Yeah, I can see that at this point too. There are some questions there, like, would you extend him for longer? Given the financial costs of KAT, Rudy, and eventually Ant, paying him is going to cost a lot of tax dollars. And hopefully the new ownership is willing to go into the tax for a contender. But if we don't pay him, can we get another good PG in that salary slot without getting him on a rookie contract (which is almost only possible if we draft him)? I think at this point, we might just have to roll with DLO, at the very least to have the contract to move for another PG who is worth at least some decent money down the line.

[Lipoli390]

It probably makes sense to extend DLo one year, unless TC has other plans in the works. Extending DLo will not put the Wolves in the luxury tax next year, and actually make his contract a worthwhile piece in a trade if they decide to move on from DLo after this year.

Yeah, I can see that at this point too. There are some questions there, like, would you extend him for longer? Given the financial costs of KAT, Rudy, and eventually Ant, paying him is going to cost a lot of tax dollars. And hopefully the new ownership is willing to go into the tax for a contender. But if we don't pay him, can we get another good PG in that salary slot without getting him on a rookie contract (which is almost only possible if we draft him)? I think at this point, we might just have to roll with DLO, at the very least to have the contract to move for another PG who is worth at least some decent money down the line.

I'm not sure we can count on moving DLO for value under any circumstances. I get the sense there wasn't much, if any, interest in DLO around the League in spite of his expiring contract. It's kind of like John Collins; DLO's trade value around the League seems less than it should be to those of us on the outside.

[Monster]

It probably makes sense to extend DLo one year, unless TC has other plans in the works. Extending DLo will not put the Wolves in the luxury tax next year, and actually make his contract a worthwhile piece in a trade if they decide to move on from DLo after this year.

Yeah, I can see that at this point too. There are some questions there, like, would you extend him for longer? Given the financial costs of KAT, Rudy, and eventually Ant, paying him is going to cost a lot of tax dollars. And hopefully the new ownership is willing to go into the tax for a contender. But if we don't pay him, can we get another good PG in that salary slot without getting him on a rookie contract (which is almost only possible if we draft him)? I think at this point, we might just have to roll with DLO, at the very least to have the contract to move for another PG who is worth at least some decent money down the line.

I'm not sure we can count on moving DLO for value under any circumstances. I get the sense there wasn't much, if any, interest in DLO around the League in spite of his expiring contract. It's kind of like John Collins; DLO's trade value around the League seems less than it should be to those of us on the outside.

I think Tim has an interesting idea for the 1 year extension for Russell. It's not exactly meaning Russell will be moveable because he has value but because he would be salary to be moved in a trade. If Russell leaves in FA after this season (which might be just fine) they will have little chance to replace him with anyone other than using the mid-level or some sort of trade. They will have Prince and Anderson as salaries they could move in a deal but that would also hurt their depth. I'm not saying Tim's 1 year extension for Russell should be done or has a great chance of happening but it's an interesting idea that hasn't been discussed here before. Russell probably isn't going to accept something lower since it's just a 1 year deal so yeah. It seems reasonable at this point that the Wolves and Russell wait and figure out where they stand after they see what things actually look like on the floor this season. They could also do an extension in season like they did with Beverly.

[D-Mac [enjin:19736340]]

I'm a defense-first guy, and I've long thought that the typical NBA fan (even smarter than average fans like we have here) tend to favor offense over defense...and often significantly. In my opinion we just completed a trade for a Steph Curry, because I see Gobert impacting the game defensively in a way a guy like Curry impacts a game on offense.

We gave up players who we liked but would never be starters on a championship team, plus a handful of picks most likely to be in the mid to late 20s...for the most dominant defensive player of our era. It's an old adage that the team that ends up with the best player in a trade won the trade. Maybe I'll be proved wrong in the end, but I just can't see this as an overpay.

What you'll read (not sure if it's entirely verifiable or not, but I believe it) is that Utah demanded Jaden McDaniels. TC countered with more draft compensation instead. So let's say Jaden was added to the pool of players given up in addition to two firsts instead of the four firsts. You better believe all the naysayers would be going nuts on how stupid and idiotic TC was for giving up Jaden! How could he!?

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.

I'm a naysayer and I'm glad we didn't give up jaden, but we should have just hung up the phone. My opinion is that we gave up way too much and I feel like the word idiotic fits perfectly here.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

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.

[D-Mac [enjin:19736340]]

It probably makes sense to extend DLo one year, unless TC has other plans in the works. Extending DLo will not put the Wolves in the luxury tax next year, and actually make his contract a worthwhile piece in a trade if they decide to move on from DLo after this year.

Yeah, I can see that at this point too. There are some questions there, like, would you extend him for longer? Given the financial costs of KAT, Rudy, and eventually Ant, paying him is going to cost a lot of tax dollars. And hopefully the new ownership is willing to go into the tax for a contender. But if we don't pay him, can we get another good PG in that salary slot without getting him on a rookie contract (which is almost only possible if we draft him)? I think at this point, we might just have to roll with DLO, at the very least to have the contract to move for another PG who is worth at least some decent money down the line.

I'm not sure we can count on moving DLO for value under any circumstances. I get the sense there wasn't much, if any, interest in DLO around the League in spite of his expiring contract. It's kind of like John Collins; DLO's trade value around the League seems less than it should be to those of us on the outside.

Yeah people on this board need to realize that Dlo's value around the league is just as an expiring contract. Everyone else seems to get that, not sure why this board doesn't.

[thedoper]

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 deal also loudly says that the team is committed to putting out a winning roster that will support the development of our young core at every step of their career. Most young players in Ant's (and to a lesser extant Jaden's) situation didn't get this kind of roster early in their career. If it doesn't work out on the court the trade chips of Kat and Gobert are not too shabby to retool or rebuild.