thedoper wrote:If Booker is anywhere near reachable for us we empty the barrels to get him.
One of those "we'll figure out the rest later" situations.
Getting 3 potential stars that young would be unprecedented. You absolutely have to do it. Its not like we have any breakout stars waiting in the wings on this team. Every one of our role players is replacable.
No, it happens quite often. In fact, OKC had four young stars: KD, Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka.
We would have to politely agree to disagree on the entirety of this comment. Specifically, with the term "often" as pairing three All-Stars 25-or-younger has happened exactly zero times in my lifetime. I'd love for someone to fact check me on that, though. When is the last time that three age 25-or-younger All-Stars were on the same team?
It certainly wasn't the Oklahoma City team you're referring to. While they were obviously ridiculously talented, those Thunder teams didn't have All-Star James Harden. He was very good with the Thunder, but he took off in Houston. Serge Ibaka has never been a star.
I thought about the Miami Heat when their Big Three joined forces, but Dwyane Wade was already 29. LeBron James and Chris Bosh were 26.
The Golden State Warriors come very close in 2015-16. Klay Thompson and Draymond Green were 25 and Steph Curry was a baby-faced 27. That collection of talent was also an anomaly.
My conclusion is that no, it doesn't happen often. It would be unprecedented, or at least it hasn't happened in a very long time.
You say Ibaka is not a star and if you think that, I don't think DLO is a "star". I hate when people throw the term star around as if it has any real meaning. My other pet peeve is valuing a player by how many points he scores without any regard for how efficient they are, how good their defense is and what kind of on court impact they have (plus/minus).
thedoper wrote:If Booker is anywhere near reachable for us we empty the barrels to get him.
One of those "we'll figure out the rest later" situations.
Getting 3 potential stars that young would be unprecedented. You absolutely have to do it. Its not like we have any breakout stars waiting in the wings on this team. Every one of our role players is replacable.
No, it happens quite often. In fact, OKC had four young stars: KD, Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka.
We would have to politely agree to disagree on the entirety of this comment. Specifically, with the term "often" as pairing three All-Stars 25-or-younger has happened exactly zero times in my lifetime. I'd love for someone to fact check me on that, though. When is the last time that three age 25-or-younger All-Stars were on the same team?
It certainly wasn't the Oklahoma City team you're referring to. While they were obviously ridiculously talented, those Thunder teams didn't have All-Star James Harden. He was very good with the Thunder, but he took off in Houston. Serge Ibaka has never been a star.
I thought about the Miami Heat when their Big Three joined forces, but Dwyane Wade was already 29. LeBron James and Chris Bosh were 26.
The Golden State Warriors come very close in 2015-16. Klay Thompson and Draymond Green were 25 and Steph Curry was a baby-faced 27. That collection of talent was also an anomaly.
My conclusion is that no, it doesn't happen often. It would be unprecedented, or at least it hasn't happened in a very long time.
You say Ibaka is not a star and if you think that, I don't think DLO is a "star". I hate when people throw the term star around as if it has any real meaning. My other pet peeve is valuing a player by how many points he scores.
A star is an All-Star. We can debate what the definition of a "superstar" is because that's more subjective, but being named to an All-Star team equates to being a star player. You don't make that roster on accident or by random selection. You also don't have to agree with the nomination, but it still happened and that's the way it is.
Serge Ibaka has been a good player over the course of his career. Not once would I have ever considered him a serious choice for the All-Star team. He has been named to zero All-Star teams. He has made zero All-NBA teams. He does have three All-Defensive Team nods under his belt. Kudos to him, but it falls short of the criteria I was talking about.
We know you have angst for the D'Angelo Russell trade. You have made that quite clear. I'd ask that you still try to maintain some level objectivity, though.
Cam, I don't agree with you and I don't like your patronizing attitude. You think you are smarter than everyone here. You remind me of Trump that way. Its pointless to respond further.
KG4Ever wrote:Cam, I don't agree with you and I don't like your patronizing attitude. You think you are smarter than everyone here. You remind me of Trump that way. Its pointless to respond further.
I certainly don't think I'm smarter than everyone here. But...
Camden0916 wrote: We would have to politely agree to disagree on the entirety of this comment.
Camden0916 wrote:To be brutally honest... if I'm Gersson Rosas... I wouldn't be against putting anything on the table outside of Karl-Anthony Towns or D'Angelo Russell for either Ben Simmons or Devin Booker. The first overall pick, 17th overall pick, future firsts, Jarrett Culver, Malik Beasley, Josh Okogie, Naz Reid, etc. Any combination that can work, I would do. I'm all in, for my poker players out there.
Finding a supporting cast -- finding role players -- is so much easier and more feasible than acquiring star level talent, especially stars that fit together. That's common sense on this board and I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence by saying it. I have to imagine that Rosas has the same view considering he discovered some handy, cheap talent last off-season and at the deadline.
Also, I would imagine that a team that rosters Towns, Booker, and Russell would become an attractive free agent destination. Our odds of becoming anything legitimately close to a contender are just so much better with three stars in hand than relying on draft picks and development.
Just curious would you do Russell and #1 for Simmons?
I'd feel confident that I could get a deal done for Simmons without giving up Russell. The appeal of Simmons is lessened if Russell is headed out the door, in my opinion.
Simmons is quite clearly the better player between the two, but my initial reaction is that Russell and James Wiseman would be too much. I'm probably alone on that, but here I stand.
I would want something else in return to provide balance... or just remove Russell and compile more assets.
Your not alone on this one, Cam. I agree that Russell and #1 would be too much for Simmons. Russell and #17 seems fair. But Rosas wouldn't do it. Russell was his guy and I'm sure he's intent on adding someone to his current KAT/DLO combo.
Camden0916 wrote:To be brutally honest... if I'm Gersson Rosas... I wouldn't be against putting anything on the table outside of Karl-Anthony Towns or D'Angelo Russell for either Ben Simmons or Devin Booker. The first overall pick, 17th overall pick, future firsts, Jarrett Culver, Malik Beasley, Josh Okogie, Naz Reid, etc. Any combination that can work, I would do. I'm all in, for my poker players out there.
Finding a supporting cast -- finding role players -- is so much easier and more feasible than acquiring star level talent, especially stars that fit together. That's common sense on this board and I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence by saying it. I have to imagine that Rosas has the same view considering he discovered some handy, cheap talent last off-season and at the deadline.
Also, I would imagine that a team that rosters Towns, Booker, and Russell would become an attractive free agent destination. Our odds of becoming anything legitimately close to a contender are just so much better with three stars in hand than relying on draft picks and development.
Just curious would you do Russell and #1 for Simmons?
I'd feel confident that I could get a deal done for Simmons without giving up Russell. The appeal of Simmons is lessened if Russell is headed out the door, in my opinion.
Simmons is quite clearly the better player between the two, but my initial reaction is that Russell and James Wiseman would be too much. I'm probably alone on that, but here I stand.
I would want something else in return to provide balance... or just remove Russell and compile more assets.
I agree, as the main point in trading for Russell was not really about moving Andrew, but to help keep KAT in MN. I would not move Russell unless it was a complete king's ransom.
.
KAT is a helluva player, but I think you overrate him a bit. I'd go so far as to say KAT is worth more on the trade market than his value is on the team. I don't think anybody should be untouchable on this team. We could get a king's ransom for KAT, a nice return for DLO, and then you take those assets and build around Wiseman. I realize this won't be a popular scenario, but I'd consider it. I personally don't think we can win big with KAT and DLO unless we get lucky and find that third star either by trade or in the draft. If we can get Simmons, by all means add him and go for it. Let's see how dynamic Rosas can be. His time to shine is right now.
I hear you, Cool, and I'm sure khans is or will be typing something similar to what I'm about to say here (because he's made this point before, I believe), but the Wolves will be able to get pretty significant hauls for both Karl-Anthony Towns and even D'Angelo Russell two or three years from now if they decide to blow it all up and restart.
There's no real rush to sell parts right now m, though, so why not try to put together the best team that you can and go for it in the meantime? Either Gersson Rosas strikes it right and the Wolves become a really competitive team or the effort fails and he can rebuild. Towns and Russell will still be 26/27 by that time with substantial trade value still intact.
I agree. I have my doubts about the KAT/DLO duo because of how bad they are defensively. But I do see a path to building a contender around them although it won't be easy. In my view, this Wolves have to give it a shot. And as you noted, the Wolves can always trade them in 2 or 3 years of things aren't going well. Together, KAT and DLO will both bring a huge haul in return to begin another rebuild. I think it's important to consider that KAT and DLO are still 24 years old and likely not finished products. The development of those two of the next couple seasons, especially defensively, will be key. This month's draft will be another key. The continued development of Okogie along with the development of Culver, Nowell, Naz Reid and JMac will be important as well.
The Wolves were a terrible team last season, but KAT and DLO played only one game together. The Beasley situation is a set back, but this isn't the time to pull the plug on the plan to move forward with KAT and DLO. This next season will be telling. The we'll see where we go from there.
Camden wrote:
That Seattle 'big three' didn't shoot many threes, though. Why I bring that up is that in the case of a Towns, Booker, and Russell trio their three-point shooting -- with heavy volume -- would be almost unmatched in NBA history. Obviously, the Golden State Warriors with Curry, Thompson, and Durant bests them, but has any other trio shot the three better at comparable volume than a potential Towns, Booker, and Russell trio? I'd say no.
If we consider the average amount of three point attempts in that season, Seattle 'big three' had a plenty of three point shooting. Dale Ellis lead the whole league in three point attempts and Chambers ranked 17th. In comparison to current NBA they shot together 385 three point attempts that is about 59% of the amount of three pointers that league leading three point shooting team Dallas shot. In current NBA it would be equal to 2193 three point attempts.
Tells a little how much game has changed since 1986-87.
Camden0916 wrote:To be brutally honest... if I'm Gersson Rosas... I wouldn't be against putting anything on the table outside of Karl-Anthony Towns or D'Angelo Russell for either Ben Simmons or Devin Booker. The first overall pick, 17th overall pick, future firsts, Jarrett Culver, Malik Beasley, Josh Okogie, Naz Reid, etc. Any combination that can work, I would do. I'm all in, for my poker players out there.
Finding a supporting cast -- finding role players -- is so much easier and more feasible than acquiring star level talent, especially stars that fit together. That's common sense on this board and I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence by saying it. I have to imagine that Rosas has the same view considering he discovered some handy, cheap talent last off-season and at the deadline.
Also, I would imagine that a team that rosters Towns, Booker, and Russell would become an attractive free agent destination. Our odds of becoming anything legitimately close to a contender are just so much better with three stars in hand than relying on draft picks and development.
Just curious would you do Russell and #1 for Simmons?
I'd feel confident that I could get a deal done for Simmons without giving up Russell. The appeal of Simmons is lessened if Russell is headed out the door, in my opinion.
Simmons is quite clearly the better player between the two, but my initial reaction is that Russell and James Wiseman would be too much. I'm probably alone on that, but here I stand.
I would want something else in return to provide balance... or just remove Russell and compile more assets.
Your not alone on this one, Cam. I agree that Russell and #1 would be too much for Simmons. Russell and #17 seems fair. But Rosas wouldn't do it. Russell was his guy and I'm sure he's intent on adding someone to his current KAT/DLO combo.
I think if Russell and #17 was the Sixers price for Simmons Rosas would seriously consider it especially depending on what he thought he could do at other perimeter positions especially in this draft with his #1 pick. I do agree he probably wouldn't do it but that would be a pretty attractive offer...which I don't think the Sixers would do although I do think it's in the realm of a fair value offer.
Side note...I think it's interesting that Morey is employed with the Sixers and D'Antoni is an assistant for Nash with the Nets. I like Stephen Silas I hope he does well there but I bet he will he making quite a bit less than D'Antoni would have...it just seems that owner is saving money over there. Maybe not and things will work out but a first time GM and a first time head coach with a guy like Harden...that seems like a bit of a gamble for a team trying to be a contender. Teams usually do something like that when they are building.
I have not been convinced that we can win with Towns at C - several of you just convinced me keeping this group together for a couple of years just to see what happens could be fun and their trade value actually goes up - sign me up if we can pull off a trade for Booker/Simmon/Gobert.
I am with Cam in trading pretty much anything else on the roster to make one of those three trades happen. Okogie is the only guy I would be hesitant about - I think he has the right character and is one of those guys that makes everyone around them feel like they are slacking - I want more of those.
My dream lineup would have been:
Gobert
Towns
Okogie
Beasley
DLO
Its too bad that Beasley had to ruin it with irresponsible gun use
WolvesFan21 wrote:That would be an elite offensive trio. Each player wouldn't have to carry the scoring load day in and out and would be able to play more defense too. I think defensively they would all improve if slightly.
Back to the offense, would be like the Cassel Spree and KG days. Each guy gives you 20+ a night. Not much for the role players to do but stand in the corners and hit open 3's. Play some defense. KAT brings the big out of the paint as he sits up top leaving the driving lanes open for Booker and DLo to score.
Spree and KG played defense though....
A better comparison may be those Seattle Supersonics teams of the late 80s with Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, and Xavier McDaniel. There was a couple years where all three averaged 20+ PPG. They never won more than 50 games though because their defense was mediocre. That would certainly pose a problem for us if we picked up Booker or Beal to go along with our two existing turnstiles.
That Seattle 'big three' didn't shoot many threes, though. Why I bring that up is that in the case of a Towns, Booker, and Russell trio their three-point shooting -- with heavy volume -- would be almost unmatched in NBA history. Obviously, the Golden State Warriors with Curry, Thompson, and Durant bests them, but has any other trio shot the three better at comparable volume than a potential Towns, Booker, and Russell trio? I'd say no.
Mikkeman wrote:
Camden wrote:
That Seattle 'big three' didn't shoot many threes, though. Why I bring that up is that in the case of a Towns, Booker, and Russell trio their three-point shooting -- with heavy volume -- would be almost unmatched in NBA history. Obviously, the Golden State Warriors with Curry, Thompson, and Durant bests them, but has any other trio shot the three better at comparable volume than a potential Towns, Booker, and Russell trio? I'd say no.
If we consider the average amount of three point attempts in that season, Seattle 'big three' had a plenty of three point shooting. Dale Ellis lead the whole league in three point attempts and Chambers ranked 17th. In comparison to current NBA they shot together 385 three point attempts that is about 59% of the amount of three pointers that league leading three point shooting team Dallas shot. In current NBA it would be equal to 2193 three point attempts.
Tells a little how much game has changed since 1986-87.
That's right Mikkeman, it's all relative. Seattle's Big Three helped them become a top 6 or 7 offense, but their defense prevented them from becoming a great team.
I haven't looked thoroughly, but my recollection is that basically you need to be a top 10 offense AND defense to even sniff a title. That simply will never happen if your three best players only play well on one side of the floor. But my standards are low these days. I just want to see the team be competitive and win some damn games!
