Camden wrote:Ha! I empathize with the feelings you're having, Lip, and I wouldn't have made this trade either. That needs to be very clear and on the record.
While the future salary cap issues are extreme with Rudy Gobert on the payroll, and the war chest of assets is missing a handful of first-round picks, I truly believe that the upcoming season of Timberwolves basketball will be one of the best and most successful in franchise history -- a low bar to exceed, no doubt. The 2022-23 roster looks like the best and most talented that we've seen in a long time, and maybe ever. I can get excited about that even though I'm aware of what was given up.
In terms of value, I think Minnesota gave up too much for Gobert. Four first-round picks plus the rights to 2022 first-rounder, Walker Kessler, and more is a bitter pill to swallow. I mentioned that the quantity of firsts outgoing for Minnesota would likely have been lower had they been willing to include Jaden McDaniels in their package. That has essentially been confirmed by The Athletic. That's a mighty big detail in all of this and it places even more importance on his player development.
However, Gobert is an elite player in the NBA even though he's often cast aside in those conversations. He's undoubtedly a top-20 player in the league and a future Hall of Famer. The annual Defensive Player of the Year candidate (and three-time winner) is a legitimate team-changer, a ceiling-riser. We went from hoping for an average defense last year and being happy with middle of the ranks to now expecting a top-five defense next year. That's the Gobert effect. He just puts a lid on the basket whether he actually blocks shots, alters the attempt, or intimidates shooters from even challenging him. The impact I expect him to have on this team is insane.
Did Minnesota give up way too much? Yes, I believe they did. But if they make a couple of legitimate runs at the conference finals and beyond, will we look back and think fondly of this move? I tend to believe we will, especially because of how little winning we've experienced as fans of this organization. It's an all-in move with an aggressive front office supported by new ownership who appears to be results-driven and invested as fans of the product. They want to win as much as we do. When you take all of that into account I think you can talk yourself into enjoying the next couple of years. They might have to reshuffle some parts later on, but they likely went from a team that had a fifth-seed ceiling to a team that could be playing in the NBA Finals if things go their way. That has to mean something.
Good post, Cam. A thoughtful analysis that accurately captures the upside of this deal. I still dislike the deal, but I'll have to deal with it. :). Fingers crossed that our two bigs and Ant stay healthy. You and I agree that the Wolves gave up too much in this deal. I think we differ a bit on just how much better this deal made the Wolves. I'll have to ponder how much better this team is right now than it would have been with we Beverley, Kessler and Myles Turner, Capela or Richaun Holmes, all of them likely available for Beasley, Naz and maybe one future 1st. The Caesar's oddsmakers increased the Wolves championship odds from 80-1 to 50-1. That's a significant gain, but 50-1 doesn't seem anywhere close to the value the Wolves just gave up for Rudy. And note the beginning odds of 80-1 did not reflect any further acquisitions like Capela or Turner. One thing for sure is that the Wolves have less depth, a much higher risk profile and far less flexibility to adjust and recover from the trials and unforeseeable events that always come along.
I'm with you in questioning whether keeping McDaniels was worth giving up multiple additional picks. I guess we don't know how many additional picks were substituted for McDaniels, but I believe it was more than one of the four. And I'm a big McDaniels fan who's been preaching patience. On the other hand, he hasn't been more than a role player so far and he was the 28th pick in the draft. To keep him, we apparently gave up probably two if not three picks at 28 or better.
My final thought is that there's a rhythm to things and this deal just seems out of rhythm. I guess that's just another riff on my tone deaf theme. There was an edge to this team with Beverley and even Beasley. There was excitement building in the arrival of Kessler and the potential of Bolmaro. We had all our future first-round picks and some additional moves to make that would have been more measured but still exciting. Beverly gave this team a personality that was infectious among teammates. I don't know what our team's personality is now.
And one final question. If the Wolves suddenly decided they wanted to turn around and trade Gobert, is there another team that would give the Wolves anything close to what we just gave Utah? My answer is absolutely not. That in itself is telling.
The only thing I'll mention or disagree with a bit is this. There were numerous reports of the Wolves looking to acquire Rudy, Turner, Capela and others. So that 80-1 was at least reflecting that a decent chance of the Wolves getting a defensive Center was priced in.
Had they stood pat maybe the odds drop to 100-1 or 120-1 instead of increasing to 50-1.
I've seen numerous national media reports and many pundits are grossly undervaluing Rudys impact on winning games.
The Wolves got beat by Memphis because they couldn't rebound the damn ball. They just acquired the best one in the NBA. Defense is not only about making a shot tougher, you need to also rebound. The Wolves couldn't do that. I'm happy we got the best rebounder in the NBA.
You'll have to forgive me, because I used the super-secret internet that no one else has, but I have learned that MEM actually LEAD THE LEAGUE in rebounding differential in the regular season. And who is to say that Kessler doesn't help with that? So if MIN get bumped from the '23 playoffs by another good rebounding team and has a negative rebounding differential, are going to FINALLY admit that you're horrible at this, or are you going to try to change the subject to another sports (or god forbid non-sports) topic?
So because Memphis was a good rebounding team the Wolves cannot go forward and improve in that area with the best rebounder in the NBA? That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen written.
The Wolves did lose because Memphis simply rebounded and defended better. In the 4 wins Memphis averaged 8 more rebounds per game then the Wolves. They couldn't grab boards. As much as we loved Vando he was out hustled by Clarke. KAT wasn't getting it done either.
So again you get the best defender in the NBA and the best rebounder in the NBA in Gobert and all the best players are coming back. The Wolves got massively better with this trade.
And Kessler would have been lucky to play as a late 1st round pick.
1. No, I did not say the Wolves should not try to improve in that area. But it make ZERO sense to dismiss everything because MIN came up short in an area MEM was very good at. Giving up 4 1st's and a swap for a guy because of a shortfall in one area is the dumbest thing I've seen written.
2. Ok, so now you're adding defense to go with rebounding. Is there any way this can get better without trading 4 1st's and a pick swap. And if Kat's the problem, why aren't you talking about trading him for 4 1st's and a pick swap?
3. Again, Marcus Smart was DPOY, but you've decided it was Gobert, and I should listen...because of your incredible track covering several knowledge areas?
4. Yes, Kessler was a late first, just like Gobert. And you say he's not going to play, and I should listen....why again?
Kat isn't the problem but he's also not the solution, he's been an avg defender who fouls way too much on the defensive side. He's proven he can't be a good or even great defensive rim protector, never mind the best in the NBA like Rudy.
I also don't want 1st round picks. Didn't I already tell you they are pretty much worthless? A late round 1st rounder is like a 4th rounder in the NFL. You just won't find too many elite players after 20 teams pass on them. It's proven time and again throughout draft history.
A great pick late in the draft results in an avg starter, Extremely rarely someone like Gobert. Not to mention no superstar top talent FA is going to come sign with the Wolves. They either need to draft stars (can't do that outside of the top 10 realistically) or trade for them. They gave up some garbage picks. Don't care.
People are asking that I try to tone it down. This is the best I can do. Gobert was a #27 pick, so it makes zero sense for you to argue that MIN should trade a bunch of "garbage picks" that MAY VERY WELL BE HIGHER for a guy who was drafted with a pick that you said was garbage. And second, and with all due respect, you are the worst person on this board. Your sports opinions are very bad, and if that weren't enough, you make comments on other areas of knowledge ON A SPORTS MESSAGE BOARD that are so bad that there you either live in the most backward of area of Earth or you simply lack the courage (and maybe with good reason) to attach a name and face to those comments. I apologize, but that is simply the best I can do when it comes to you.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm not the bad guy here, simply trying to make the world a better place. You won't ever fix a problem until you know what the problem is.
I was simply call them garbage picks because the odds of getting a Gobert, Butler or Siakim is extremely low. Go and check the last 100 picks between 20 and 30 and tell me those are not actually garbage picks. Your odds of getting a star player is like 3%. The only chance those picks become valuable is if somehow bad injury luck happens, Ant gets a chronic issue and things go bad somehow. But even then, at least we are trying to win.
We as Wolves fans should know that even drafting 6 or 7 you are not at all guaranteed anything. Even Wiggins at 1st overall couldn't make an All Star game until he got to GSW and properly used as a role player.
I almost feel like some fans are scared of success. They probably are so use to losing that it is comfortable for them. This trade actually gives the Wolves a real chance to become NBA title contenders. I didn't see that path prior this season. We still needed another piece and now we got it.
SameOldNudityDrew wrote:Hey, let's keep it focused and useful.
Listen to this great podcast segment about Rudy. It's awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBukorULIgk
Yeah, been checking out quite a few things about him.
I do think there is some truth that his defensive effectiveness gets somewhat diluted in the playoffs. Folks that seem objective about it don't believe he's actually a liability or poor defender in the playoffs; just not quite as dominant as the regular season.
I think one of the things that happened to the Jazz over the years is that their perimeter defenders perhaps took Rudy a bit too much for granted and they became sloppy at the point of attack.
DLO, McLaughlin, and Nowell....I don't mind a couple guys that are mostly one-way offensive players, but that's one too many guys that struggle defensively for my tastes.
Wendell Moore, Jr. has an excellent opportunity to step up early in his career!
I think McLaughlin offers some ability on defense as a guy thats really good at getting steals and does some good things off the ball kind of in the Tyus mold but not that good. I'm not saying he is an asset but I think he does some positive things and his quickness is pretty good so he at least can pressure on the ball.
I think if Nowell brought something like McLaughlin to that side of the ball that would help.
Russell seemed better as a team defender too which many people seemed to say was part of the problem for Utah. It will be interesting to see if he can continue to offer some value on that end. He is lesser athlete than Mitchell but it's also worth noting that he is bigger as Mitchell is just 6'1.25" without shoes and a 6'10" wingspan. That's a pretty small backcourt combined with Conley.
Meanwhile Nowell and Beasley were about the same size although Nowell came into the he league weighting 10 more Lbs. One of the problems with Beasley is for a guy with his size and athletic ability he didn't really move all that well laterally. Beverly wasn't big but he was strong and just a very good defender. They will miss him this year on that end. Good thing they have that Gobert guy!
The high wall defense was perfect for DLO because he didn't have to bother fighting through ball screens knowing that the big would show aggressively. However, if we go to more of a drop coverage, DLO needs to fight over those screens as hard as he can so that Gobert isn't guarding two guys at once for too long. I don't think DLO has the dog in him to be that kind of defender. Not sure Mitchell did either by the way!
McLaughlin certainly can be a "pesky" defender, but you better believe that in a deep playoff or Finals series (something we can actually talk about with some realistic chance of it happening!) you better believe he will be targeted. He is NOT that quick laterally and obviously has a bit of a size disadvantage.
Nowell I have a bit more hope for. He doesn't have elite tools physically, but he has average size and athleticism for a 2-guard. He has just got to be better on defense. If Steph Curry could turn himself into an average defender, so can Nowell!
Monster, Q, what you guys are saying is why I really want to get another on-ball defensive hawk, especially now that we've lost PatBev and Okogie. I know Okogie didn't play much last year, but he was behind PatBev defensively and Beasley in general, so I think we could've used a guy like that, even just for insurance.
DLO, JMac, and Nowell all have some development to do on the defensive end as you write Q, because we need defenders who can also do stuff on the other side of the ball. If Nowell is going to be a decent 6th man, you're right, he has to be able to do more than score.
I'm hopeful for Moore, but let's see it first. He doesn't look super quick to me, but some of the reports sound good, especially about his mental focus on D. Minott looks really promising as a defender, but I don't think we can count on anything from him as a young rookie who hasn't shown a lot on offense (IMO).
So I really think we should prioritize getting a really good on-ball defender as a free agent. I like the idea of Shaq Harrison, but I'm not the most knowledgable guy about who is out there. I know we were discussing this in the Okogie thread yesterday too. Sorry to keep bringing it back to this, but I'm just worried about repeating the same mistakes Utah made with Gobert of neglecting perimeter D, especially on the ball.
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.
FNG wrote: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.
Q, of course we don't know what happened in the Gobert negotiations, but I believe that TC did hold the line on a much-wanted Jaden...and I'm happy he did. The reason we're already on page 35 in this thread is because it's such an interesting deal. It's not too difficult to make a solid argument on either side. Naysayers will come up with a list of stars who were drafted in the late 20s (heck, Gobert and Jaden for instance!), while supporters will subscribe to what I believe WolvesFan said...that there is about a 3% chance of getting a really good player in the late 20s. Jaden has proven himself at a young age to be a guy most of us here are comfortable starting at the 3, and he probably hasn't gotten close to his upside. He's the proverbial "bird in hand" because we know who he is now and salivate about what he could become. The draft picks are the "two in the bush", and I'm just not going to lose any sleep over them.
FNG wrote:Q, of course we don't know what happened in the Gobert negotiations, but I believe that TC did hold the line on a much-wanted Jaden...and I'm happy he did. The reason we're already on page 35 in this thread is because it's such an interesting deal. It's not too difficult to make a solid argument on either side. Naysayers will come up with a list of stars who were drafted in the late 20s (heck, Gobert and Jaden for instance!), while supporters will subscribe to what I believe WolvesFan said...that there is about a 3% chance of getting a really good player in the late 20s. Jaden has proven himself at a young age to be a guy most of us here are comfortable starting at the 3, and he probably hasn't gotten close to his upside. He's the proverbial "bird in hand" because we know who he is now and salivate about what he could become. The draft picks are the "two in the bush", and I'm just not going to lose any sleep over them.
I like Jaden a lot but I can't quite call him a star yet. He has potential though and the main reason every team could use him or wants him is he was a great pick. He is making late 1st rookie scale money and has the ability to start and be productive. In a semi-capped league finding players who outperform their contracts is vital. Not everyone is GSW for sure.
On the other side many of these later 1st rounders actually are non productive even net negative assets. They are costing teams money against the cap and the players are riding the bench.
Just finding a guy who can contribute to a winning team is a big win. Jaden is a win even if I can't at this point call him a star.
FNG wrote: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.
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.
60WinTim wrote: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.
Exactly Tim. The high price in draft compensation is because we didn't give up an up-and-coming potential star. So it was quantity over quality. No question Utah should feel pretty good about this too, so I'm not suggesting at all that the Wolves won the trade and Utah lost.
