NFL vs. NBA which trade is worse?

[TAFKASP]

The Broncos trading for Wilson and paying a ton.
The Wolves trading for Gobert, and paying a ton.

Personally I'm thinking the Wolves given just how much draft capital they've lost.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I voted for the Wolves trade simply because I didn't feel like they needed to make it. They had a good thing going organically and could have continued to add incrementally through free agency, draft, and trades. I'm not sure where their desperation for a splash came from.

The Broncos, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing at the quarterback position after years of various free agent acquisitions and first-round draft pick burnouts. They saw the elite pieces on a very good defense and the intriguing weapons on offense, and thought they were a quarterback away from being a contender. It's hard to argue against their thinking. Russell Wilson just hasn't been that guy.

[WildWolf2813]

I voted for the Wolves trade simply because I didn't feel like they needed to make it. They had a good thing going organically and could have continued to add incrementally through free agency, draft, and trades. I'm not sure where their desperation for a splash came from.

The Broncos, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing at the quarterback position after years of various free agent acquisitions and first-round draft pick burnouts. They saw the elite pieces on a very good defense and the intriguing weapons on offense, and thought they were a quarterback away from being a contender. It's hard to argue against their thinking. Russell Wilson just hasn't been that guy.

I think it was a major reaction to how Brandon Clarke dominated the boards against the Wolves in the playoffs and them being the smallest team in the league. Also, simple logic to the Wolves: if the best big man defensive player can't cover for Towns then why is Towns here?


Also (and this is where I'd agree with management if they felt this way), if the Wolves simply ran it back, they might have missed the playoffs this year anyway.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I voted for the Wolves trade simply because I didn't feel like they needed to make it. They had a good thing going organically and could have continued to add incrementally through free agency, draft, and trades. I'm not sure where their desperation for a splash came from.

The Broncos, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing at the quarterback position after years of various free agent acquisitions and first-round draft pick burnouts. They saw the elite pieces on a very good defense and the intriguing weapons on offense, and thought they were a quarterback away from being a contender. It's hard to argue against their thinking. Russell Wilson just hasn't been that guy.

I think it was a major reaction to how Brandon Clarke dominated the boards against the Wolves in the playoffs and them being the smallest team in the league. Also, simple logic to the Wolves: if the best big man defensive player can't cover for Towns then why is Towns here?


Also (and this is where I'd agree with management if they felt this way), if the Wolves simply ran it back, they might have missed the playoffs this year anyway.

I keep seeing the bolded idea around here and on other platforms.

Firstly, we'll never know what would have happened had they ran it back (and added to it) because that group was dismantled immediately after they comfortably made the playoffs. They also outplayed the two-seed Grizzlies for much of their six-game series. It certainly seemed like they were taking necessary steps and progressing towards something legitimate.

Secondly, why is there a forgone conclusion that they would have missed the playoffs this year? Do young teams with young star(s) typically take a step backwards in their development? I actually think there's a stronger argument that they might have been better this year with further continuity and experience. Utah's certainly doing just fine with Minnesota's spare parts and they have no Karl-Anthony Towns, Anthony Edwards, or comparable talent to lead the way (although Lauri Markkanen has been fantastic).

[Q-is-here]

I voted for the Wolves trade simply because I didn't feel like they needed to make it. They had a good thing going organically and could have continued to add incrementally through free agency, draft, and trades. I'm not sure where their desperation for a splash came from.

The Broncos, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing at the quarterback position after years of various free agent acquisitions and first-round draft pick burnouts. They saw the elite pieces on a very good defense and the intriguing weapons on offense, and thought they were a quarterback away from being a contender. It's hard to argue against their thinking. Russell Wilson just hasn't been that guy.

I think it was a major reaction to how Brandon Clarke dominated the boards against the Wolves in the playoffs and them being the smallest team in the league. Also, simple logic to the Wolves: if the best big man defensive player can't cover for Towns then why is Towns here?


Also (and this is where I'd agree with management if they felt this way), if the Wolves simply ran it back, they might have missed the playoffs this year anyway.

I keep seeing the bolded idea around here and on other platforms.

Firstly, we'll never know what would have happened had they ran it back (and added to it) because that group was dismantled immediately after they comfortably made the playoffs. They also outplayed the two-seed Grizzlies for much of their six-game series. It certainly seemed like they were taking necessary steps and progressing towards something legitimate.

Secondly, why is there a forgone conclusion that they would have missed the playoffs this year? Do young teams with young star(s) typically take a step backwards in their development? I actually think there's a stronger argument that they might have been better this year with further continuity and experience. Utah's certainly doing just fine with Minnesota's spare parts and they have no Karl-Anthony Towns, Anthony Edwards, or comparable talent to lead the way (although Lauri Markkanen has been fantastic).

It's not a forgone conclusion we would have missed the playoffs nor is that something Wildwolf assumed (he used the term "might"). And there is no guarantee we would have made the playoffs.

We brought back 8 of our top 11 players in terms of minutes played from last year and the same head coach. I'd argue we have a ton of continuity from last season. It's on Finch to integrate Gobert, Anderson, and Rivers with the group that's already there. It's a work in progress, to be generous.

[Lipoli390]

I voted for the Wolves trade simply because I didn't feel like they needed to make it. They had a good thing going organically and could have continued to add incrementally through free agency, draft, and trades. I'm not sure where their desperation for a splash came from.

The Broncos, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing at the quarterback position after years of various free agent acquisitions and first-round draft pick burnouts. They saw the elite pieces on a very good defense and the intriguing weapons on offense, and thought they were a quarterback away from being a contender. It's hard to argue against their thinking. Russell Wilson just hasn't been that guy.

I think it was a major reaction to how Brandon Clarke dominated the boards against the Wolves in the playoffs and them being the smallest team in the league. Also, simple logic to the Wolves: if the best big man defensive player can't cover for Towns then why is Towns here?


Also (and this is where I'd agree with management if they felt this way), if the Wolves simply ran it back, they might have missed the playoffs this year anyway.

I keep seeing the bolded idea around here and on other platforms.

Firstly, we'll never know what would have happened had they ran it back (and added to it) because that group was dismantled immediately after they comfortably made the playoffs. They also outplayed the two-seed Grizzlies for much of their six-game series. It certainly seemed like they were taking necessary steps and progressing towards something legitimate.

Secondly, why is there a forgone conclusion that they would have missed the playoffs this year? Do young teams with young star(s) typically take a step backwards in their development? I actually think there's a stronger argument that they might have been better this year with further continuity and experience. Utah's certainly doing just fine with Minnesota's spare parts and they have no Karl-Anthony Towns, Anthony Edwards, or comparable talent to lead the way (although Lauri Markkanen has been fantastic).

It's not a forgone conclusion we would have missed the playoffs nor is that something Wildwolf assumed (he used the term "might"). And there is no guarantee we would have made the playoffs.

We brought back 8 of our top 11 players in terms of minutes played from last year and the same head coach. I'd argue we have a ton of continuity from last season. It's on Finch to integrate Gobert, Anderson, and Rivers with the group that's already there. It's a work in progress, to be generous.

Continuity doesn't come from a head count of who's still here and who's not. A rotation of KAT, Vando, Edwards, Beverley, DLO, McDaniels, Reid and Beasley is a lot different from a rotation of KAT, Gobert, McDaniels, Edwards, DLO, Nowell, Rivers, Anderson and Forbes. The Gobert deal substantially changed the team's style of play and identity on both ends of the court. Of course there's no guarantee the Wolves would have made the playoffs this season with the same roster as last season, but there's a much stronger case for projecting that team making the playoffs this season than there is for the reverse. That case is centered in the fact that the Wolves won 46 games, made the playoffs and seriously challenged the 2nd seed Grizzlies in the playoffs. Add the improvement of Edwards, McDaniels and Naz. The add Anderson and Kessler. Then add another tweak or two to the roster. The Wolves front office made a terrible roster move with the Gobert deal. Most NBA experts thought so at the time. TC's front office handed Finch a square peg and a round hole. It's not Finch's responsibility to pound that square peg into the round hole.

[Wolvesfan21]

I voted for the Wolves trade simply because I didn't feel like they needed to make it. They had a good thing going organically and could have continued to add incrementally through free agency, draft, and trades. I'm not sure where their desperation for a splash came from.

The Broncos, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing at the quarterback position after years of various free agent acquisitions and first-round draft pick burnouts. They saw the elite pieces on a very good defense and the intriguing weapons on offense, and thought they were a quarterback away from being a contender. It's hard to argue against their thinking. Russell Wilson just hasn't been that guy.

I think it was a major reaction to how Brandon Clarke dominated the boards against the Wolves in the playoffs and them being the smallest team in the league. Also, simple logic to the Wolves: if the best big man defensive player can't cover for Towns then why is Towns here?


Also (and this is where I'd agree with management if they felt this way), if the Wolves simply ran it back, they might have missed the playoffs this year anyway.

Vando as much as we liked him got dominated by Brandon Clarke. I also felt like the Wolves without a significant step from the young guys would probably struggle to take the next step.

Bease is a meh player and Bev is on his last leg.

As far as the picks, they will likely be like 4 3rd to 4th rounders when compared to the NFL (later non lottery 1sts). Meh, who cares. I will take the best defender in the NBA over some 3rd and 4th round picks.

Hopefully guys start to get healthy because we need some of them back like JMac and Prince. I still think if everyone gets healthy this can be a top 4 team in the West. I guess a lot depends on KAT and if his calf lingers.