Wolves Offseason Grade

[Monster]

To me this is fools math, basically we could add another 3x 1st round draft picks and 12x 2nd round draft picks to the deal and there chance of picking an all-star only goes up to 30% there for it's a win and we have an awesome 70% chance of them getting nothing......do you get my point? Fools math!

OR... it shows how truly difficult and hit or miss draft picks really are, specifically as it pertains to All-Star caliber talent. There aren't that many in supply to begin with and the list of those that were selected outside the lottery -- where Minnesota's traded picks are likely to wind up -- is even smaller.

It goes back to the simple-yet-true idea that whichever team acquires the All-Star player ends up satisfied with the trade most of the time. Additionally, it's not even a guarantee that Utah drafts players that end up sticking around as NBA rotation players let alone All-Stars. That's the nature of the draft and it happens to even the best organizations.

All of this cumulates into why every Timberwolves fan should feel rather good or positive about the current state of the franchise. They acquired the sure thing this time. They got significantly better this off-season without giving up any long-term, proven talent. Minnesota is trending up big time.

I don't disagree with how hard it is to hit in the draft, or with the roster construct and current state of the Wolves. I think fans can be the most excited they have been in franchise history for this well put together team. My point was you have to draw the line somewhere, and I actually understand why TC took this opportunity and can't argue with it all that much. However I can view it from more than one perspective and realistically say we paid too much. It's possible to win a championship and still overpay for an asset, that's what I hope happens.

I agree with you, TU. I gave the Wolves a B for their offseason because I see the value in the moves they made, including the Gobert deal. But the overpay and opportunity costs combined to keep me from giving them a higher grade.

The opportunity costs are what I think the Wolves could have gotten for the assets they gave up to get Gobert. I think they could have gotten both DeJounte Murray and either Myles Turner or Capela for the same assets or possibly less than what they gave up for Gobert. In my view, that would have been a better overall value for the Wolves - a 25 year old PG who almost averaged a triple double last season along with a terrific interior defender and rebounder in the 28-year old Capela or a terrific interior defender and shot-blocker with some offensive game in the 26-year old Turner. Their combined salaries are about the same as Gobert's. Combining Murray, Edwards and McDaniels along with either Turner or Capela would have given the Wolves tremendous defenders at every position. DLO would have been part of the Murray deal, so the Wolves would have solved the DLO uncertainty issue as well. I just don't like giving up so much for only one player.

But again, I still give the Wolves a B for their offseason and I see this team as a top-four finisher in the West as a result of the Gobert deal and the addition of Kyle Anderson - provided Edwards, McDaniels and Nowell all take steps forward in their development and that neither DLO nor Edwards takes a step back defensively. Gobert is a game-changer defensively, but we lost two really good defenders in Beverley and Vando.

When considering the Russell dilemma and then saying Murray solves that...it's worth considering that Murray is signed for just 1 more season than Russell is. In addition Murray is less than 7 months younger than Russell. Sure in this scenario the Wolves do have more financial flexibility to resign Murray but what if he is overpaid on a max deal? Is that a problem? What if Murray is just a top 15-20 PG?

Lip you and Dane Moore need to go somewhere to get over your obsession with Myles Turner. :)

[Tactical unit]

My biggest concern is that W. Kessler's rim protection translates from college to the pros and we should have kept him or given up less but we really don't know if he will translate or what other flaws Kessler might have. Sometimes we can agree to disagree and bring out the results oriented I told you so after see what this deal leads too :)

[Q-is-here]

My biggest concern is that W. Kessler's rim protection translates from college to the pros and we should have kept him or given up less but we really don't know if he will translate or what other flaws Kessler might have. Sometimes we can agree to disagree and bring out the results oriented I told you so after see what this deal leads too :)

I think your take on this is generally rational. I think the folks that give the Wolves a B or less tend to focus on what was given up and the folks that give a higher grade tend to focus more on what was not given up.

[kekgeek]

To me this is fools math, basically we could add another 3x 1st round draft picks and 12x 2nd round draft picks to the deal and there chance of picking an all-star only goes up to 30% there for it's a win and we have an awesome 70% chance of them getting nothing......do you get my point? Fools math!

OR... it shows how truly difficult and hit or miss draft picks really are, specifically as it pertains to All-Star caliber talent. There aren't that many in supply to begin with and the list of those that were selected outside the lottery -- where Minnesota's traded picks are likely to wind up -- is even smaller.

It goes back to the simple-yet-true idea that whichever team acquires the All-Star player ends up satisfied with the trade most of the time. Additionally, it's not even a guarantee that Utah drafts players that end up sticking around as NBA rotation players let alone All-Stars. That's the nature of the draft and it happens to even the best organizations.

All of this cumulates into why every Timberwolves fan should feel rather good or positive about the current state of the franchise. They acquired the sure thing this time. They got significantly better this off-season without giving up any long-term, proven talent. Minnesota is trending up big time.

I don't disagree with how hard it is to hit in the draft, or with the roster construct and current state of the Wolves. I think fans can be the most excited they have been in franchise history for this well put together team. My point was you have to draw the line somewhere, and I actually understand why TC took this opportunity and can't argue with it all that much. However I can view it from more than one perspective and realistically say we paid too much. It's possible to win a championship and still overpay for an asset, that's what I hope happens.

I agree with you, TU. I gave the Wolves a B for their offseason because I see the value in the moves they made, including the Gobert deal. But the overpay and opportunity costs combined to keep me from giving them a higher grade.

The opportunity costs are what I think the Wolves could have gotten for the assets they gave up to get Gobert. I think they could have gotten both DeJounte Murray and either Myles Turner or Capela for the same assets or possibly less than what they gave up for Gobert. In my view, that would have been a better overall value for the Wolves - a 25 year old PG who almost averaged a triple double last season along with a terrific interior defender and rebounder in the 28-year old Capela or a terrific interior defender and shot-blocker with some offensive game in the 26-year old Turner. Their combined salaries are about the same as Gobert's. Combining Murray, Edwards and McDaniels along with either Turner or Capela would have given the Wolves tremendous defenders at every position. DLO would have been part of the Murray deal, so the Wolves would have solved the DLO uncertainty issue as well. I just don't like giving up so much for only one player.

But again, I still give the Wolves a B for their offseason and I see this team as a top-four finisher in the West as a result of the Gobert deal and the addition of Kyle Anderson - provided Edwards, McDaniels and Nowell all take steps forward in their development and that neither DLO nor Edwards takes a step back defensively. Gobert is a game-changer defensively, but we lost two really good defenders in Beverley and Vando.

When considering the Russell dilemma and then saying Murray solves that...it's worth considering that Murray is signed for just 1 more season than Russell is. In addition Murray is less than 7 months younger than Russell. Sure in this scenario the Wolves do have more financial flexibility to resign Murray but what if he is overpaid on a max deal? Is that a problem? What if Murray is just a top 15-20 PG?

Lip you and Dane Moore need to go somewhere to get over your obsession with Myles Turner. :)

Also to go along with that Turner and Murray could have in FA after the 2023 and 24 season. The downside on that trade is so much higher than the gobert trade. I mean we could lose Murray and Turner and they could be off roster and wolves would have 3 unprotected picks going out

[Sundog]

David Aldridge thinks the Wolves had the 5th best off season in the league, behind Philly, Atlanta, Boston and Denver:

"The Skinny: Did the Wolves give up too much for the 30-year-old Gobert? Without question. Was it the right move for the Wolves to make, given their inability to attract impact free agents? Without question. Both things can be, and are, true at the same time. Gobert is a true needle-mover, who'll drastically improve Minnesota's interior D and take pressure off Karl-Anthony Towns, a notorious fouler, to have to guard elite opposing bigs. Incoming majority governors Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez were determined to make a big splash upon entry to the Twin Cities, and they did; this includes extracting Connelly from Denver, where he built a terrific core without needing a top-three pick. I low-key love bringing SloMo to town as well; his skills as a secondary ballhandler and playmaker should mesh perfectly with Anthony Edwards' and D'Angelo Russell's natures as scorers rather than distributors. The massive outlay of picks for Gobert, though, mortgages the franchise's immediate future. And we all know the troubles Utah had keeping Gobert on the floor in recent playoff series. It's a problem, though, that Minnesota, which went 13 straight years (2006-18) without a postseason berth, would love to deal with during the remainder of Gobert's prime."

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

David Aldridge thinks the Wolves had the 5th best off season in the league, behind Philly, Atlanta, Boston and Denver:

"The Skinny: Did the Wolves give up too much for the 30-year-old Gobert? Without question. Was it the right move for the Wolves to make, given their inability to attract impact free agents? Without question. Both things can be, and are, true at the same time. Gobert is a true needle-mover, who'll drastically improve Minnesota's interior D and take pressure off Karl-Anthony Towns, a notorious fouler, to have to guard elite opposing bigs. Incoming majority governors Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez were determined to make a big splash upon entry to the Twin Cities, and they did; this includes extracting Connelly from Denver, where he built a terrific core without needing a top-three pick. I low-key love bringing SloMo to town as well; his skills as a secondary ballhandler and playmaker should mesh perfectly with Anthony Edwards' and D'Angelo Russell's natures as scorers rather than distributors. The massive outlay of picks for Gobert, though, mortgages the franchise's immediate future. And we all know the troubles Utah had keeping Gobert on the floor in recent playoff series. It's a problem, though, that Minnesota, which went 13 straight years (2006-18) without a postseason berth, would love to deal with during the remainder of Gobert's prime."

Solid write-up from David Aldridge, and I agree with most of what he said to include the point about the trade being an overpay, though I would seriously question how Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston, and Denver all had better off-seasons by any measure.

I would argue that each of those teams got moderately better whereas the Timberwolves went from sitting at the kids' table to dining with the grown-ups. Minnesota went from contending for a play-in spot to possibly securing home-court advantage in the post-season. That's not an insignificant leap and one that I actually think is probable. That increase in ceiling is more than what those other organizations accomplished, in my opinion.

[AbeVigodaLive]

David Aldridge thinks the Wolves had the 5th best off season in the league, behind Philly, Atlanta, Boston and Denver:

"The Skinny: Did the Wolves give up too much for the 30-year-old Gobert? Without question. Was it the right move for the Wolves to make, given their inability to attract impact free agents? Without question. Both things can be, and are, true at the same time. Gobert is a true needle-mover, who'll drastically improve Minnesota's interior D and take pressure off Karl-Anthony Towns, a notorious fouler, to have to guard elite opposing bigs. Incoming majority governors Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez were determined to make a big splash upon entry to the Twin Cities, and they did; this includes extracting Connelly from Denver, where he built a terrific core without needing a top-three pick. I low-key love bringing SloMo to town as well; his skills as a secondary ballhandler and playmaker should mesh perfectly with Anthony Edwards' and D'Angelo Russell's natures as scorers rather than distributors. The massive outlay of picks for Gobert, though, mortgages the franchise's immediate future. And we all know the troubles Utah had keeping Gobert on the floor in recent playoff series. It's a problem, though, that Minnesota, which went 13 straight years (2006-18) without a postseason berth, would love to deal with during the remainder of Gobert's prime."

Solid write-up from David Aldridge, and I agree with most of what he said to include the point about the trade being an overpay, though I would seriously question how Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston, and Denver all had better off-seasons by any measure.

I would argue that each of those teams got moderately better whereas the Timberwolves went from sitting at the kids' table to dining with the grown-ups. Minnesota went from contending for a play-in spot to possibly securing home-court advantage in the post-season. That's not an insignificant leap and one that I actually think is probable. That increase in ceiling is more than what those other organizations accomplished, in my opinion.

Is it just about who's better the next season... or did he take long-term status into consideration?

Because (1) most agree it was an overpay and (2) there's no guarantee the two-man lineup is gonna work enough to justify (1).

It's just another list for clicks. But I don't see anything egregious in the placement or his write-up about it.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

David Aldridge thinks the Wolves had the 5th best off season in the league, behind Philly, Atlanta, Boston and Denver:

"The Skinny: Did the Wolves give up too much for the 30-year-old Gobert? Without question. Was it the right move for the Wolves to make, given their inability to attract impact free agents? Without question. Both things can be, and are, true at the same time. Gobert is a true needle-mover, who'll drastically improve Minnesota's interior D and take pressure off Karl-Anthony Towns, a notorious fouler, to have to guard elite opposing bigs. Incoming majority governors Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez were determined to make a big splash upon entry to the Twin Cities, and they did; this includes extracting Connelly from Denver, where he built a terrific core without needing a top-three pick. I low-key love bringing SloMo to town as well; his skills as a secondary ballhandler and playmaker should mesh perfectly with Anthony Edwards' and D'Angelo Russell's natures as scorers rather than distributors. The massive outlay of picks for Gobert, though, mortgages the franchise's immediate future. And we all know the troubles Utah had keeping Gobert on the floor in recent playoff series. It's a problem, though, that Minnesota, which went 13 straight years (2006-18) without a postseason berth, would love to deal with during the remainder of Gobert's prime."

Solid write-up from David Aldridge, and I agree with most of what he said to include the point about the trade being an overpay, though I would seriously question how Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston, and Denver all had better off-seasons by any measure.

I would argue that each of those teams got moderately better whereas the Timberwolves went from sitting at the kids' table to dining with the grown-ups. Minnesota went from contending for a play-in spot to possibly securing home-court advantage in the post-season. That's not an insignificant leap and one that I actually think is probable. That increase in ceiling is more than what those other organizations accomplished, in my opinion.

Is it just about who's better the next season... or did he take long-term status into consideration?

Because (1) most agree it was an overpay and (2) there's no guarantee the two-man lineup is gonna work enough to justify (1).

It's just another list for clicks. But I don't see anything egregious in the placement or his write-up about it.

I don't have the answer to your question, but as it pertains to the ranking -- does it even matter? Minnesota added a three-time DPOY and four-time All-NBA player in Rudy Gobert to their roster without losing any of their core pieces or long-term prospects. Gobert's also signed for the next three years with a player option for the fourth, which is longer team control than other significant additions such as Dejounte Murray or Malcolm Brogdon. None of those teams above the Timberwolves increased their ceiling more for next year OR the next few years like Minnesota did.

And sure, I don't see it as egregious, but I would strongly disagree with the four teams placed above Minnesota there.

[AbeVigodaLive]

David Aldridge thinks the Wolves had the 5th best off season in the league, behind Philly, Atlanta, Boston and Denver:

"The Skinny: Did the Wolves give up too much for the 30-year-old Gobert? Without question. Was it the right move for the Wolves to make, given their inability to attract impact free agents? Without question. Both things can be, and are, true at the same time. Gobert is a true needle-mover, who'll drastically improve Minnesota's interior D and take pressure off Karl-Anthony Towns, a notorious fouler, to have to guard elite opposing bigs. Incoming majority governors Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez were determined to make a big splash upon entry to the Twin Cities, and they did; this includes extracting Connelly from Denver, where he built a terrific core without needing a top-three pick. I low-key love bringing SloMo to town as well; his skills as a secondary ballhandler and playmaker should mesh perfectly with Anthony Edwards' and D'Angelo Russell's natures as scorers rather than distributors. The massive outlay of picks for Gobert, though, mortgages the franchise's immediate future. And we all know the troubles Utah had keeping Gobert on the floor in recent playoff series. It's a problem, though, that Minnesota, which went 13 straight years (2006-18) without a postseason berth, would love to deal with during the remainder of Gobert's prime."

Solid write-up from David Aldridge, and I agree with most of what he said to include the point about the trade being an overpay, though I would seriously question how Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston, and Denver all had better off-seasons by any measure.

I would argue that each of those teams got moderately better whereas the Timberwolves went from sitting at the kids' table to dining with the grown-ups. Minnesota went from contending for a play-in spot to possibly securing home-court advantage in the post-season. That's not an insignificant leap and one that I actually think is probable. That increase in ceiling is more than what those other organizations accomplished, in my opinion.

Is it just about who's better the next season... or did he take long-term status into consideration?

Because (1) most agree it was an overpay and (2) there's no guarantee the two-man lineup is gonna work enough to justify (1).

It's just another list for clicks. But I don't see anything egregious in the placement or his write-up about it.

I don't have the answer to your question, but as it pertains to the ranking -- does it even matter? Minnesota added a three-time DPOY and four-time All-NBA player in Rudy Gobert to their roster without losing any of their core pieces or long-term prospects. Gobert's also signed for the next three years with a player option for the fourth, which is longer team control than other significant additions such as Dejounte Murray or Malcolm Brogdon. None of those teams above the Timberwolves increased their ceiling more for next year OR the next few years like Minnesota did.

And sure, I don't see it as egregious, but I would strongly disagree with the four teams placed above Minnesota there.

It's not without risk. So I think a case can be made for some of those teams.

- Did Philly improve as much as Minnesota? Maybe not. BUT... it can be argued that there was simply less room for improvement. Getting Harden to resign for about a $15M discount and adding Melton and Tucker might put them back in the championship race.

- The Celtics were working with even less wiggle room. They were in the NBA Finals! Not only did they not lose any rotation players... the team upgraded from Payton Pritchard to Malcolm Brogdon. And they added Gallinari to help (at least during the regular season). And all it really cost them was a 1st rd pick this season which if we go by preseason Vegas win expectations will be #30. There's no risk on the back end at all unlike with MN or even Philly (Harden's shady deal).