Tactical unit wrote:Probably the hardest off season in Wolves history and the hardest off season grade to make in 2022 out of all the NBA teams. You can look at all the benefits and be super jacked up in a good way about this team and want to give a high grade or you can look at assets spent and what those assets could have landed and think we spent way to much and focus on that and give a low grade.
It's a trade I could have never made, the pick swap says it all for me "I got you by the balls and I know it!" Lack of protection on picks with all those assets being sent out in my eyes is slightly reckless. Players with value sent out in addition to all those picks seemed like a lack of maximizing value.
I'll hold true to my original thoughts, replace Kessler with N. Reid, add in two 2nds from the Jazz to MN in years we lose a 1st (Ainge can pick the years). Lastly take away the disrespectful pick swap and it would have been acceptable even with the lack of pick protection.
My grade B+
I see both sides here and because needs and weaknesses were addressed, lineup flexibility dramatically increased, and the overall end result puts a core in place I can have true excitement about.
That's an interesting statement ("what those assets could have landed"). We know what they landed - Rudy Gobert! And if we had kept the assets, Kekgeek does a really nice job laying out the odds of landing a similarly great player with those first rounders we gave up. Less than 2%!
It's clear I love the Gobert addition and my grade of B+ is still a very solid grade. My statement of "what those assets could have landed" has more than one side to it, what you could have landed could be K. Durant or the next disgruntled mega star intrigued by playing with KAT & ANT. The other side is in the draft and I look at it differently than you. You are giving odds for each individual pick landing a star, however all you have to do is land a McDaniels or higher quality draft pick with upside to grow into something special (player doesn't have to pan out or might be more role player than star long term but that upside and youth is the allure) and then you may be able to package that high upside player with much less draft capital to land a disgruntled star.
Regardless of result how can you not see this as an overpay? No contracts taken back were bad and are in fact assets to some degree. Then add in all the firsts, a swap and Kessler who's rim protection and rebounding....well we will see how he pans out.
PLEASE ADDRESS BELOW
I have no way of knowing the negotiation process that took place but I would have asked one simple question to Ainge. When MN traded you a HOF Big aka KG what did you have to pay to land him?
Again grade of B+, love Gobert and team construct, however it's still an overpay.
The problem with this approach is that a) you can't time when that opportunity might arise; b) you can't predict what kind of fit said disgruntled star will be; and c) you also can't predict what their contract situation might look like.
The Wolves looked at Gobert being made available as a golden opportunity to add a major piece that they believe compliments their current pieces and is locked in for the next four seasons. They decided to make their move thinking that an opportunity to acquire such a player may not present itself again in the Ant/KAT era. And I think they might be right.
(on the KG trade, one thing the Wolves got that the Jazz didn't get was an emerging young talent in Al Jefferson. In hindsight, Jefferson never became as good as hoped because of defensive shortcomings, but at the time the trade was made he was thought of as a potential pillar in Minnesota's effort to rebuild).
I'll also add that you don't know if the next star/really high impact player will want to come to the Wolves.
I think the assets given up for Gobert most people weren't really looking at using them on a star player anyway. I think most were thinking at most use them on a Jrue Holiday type deal and then maybe another smaller deal instead. That was still a lot for Jrue and quite frankly I thought it was an overpay at the time. It worked out pretty well for Milwaukee. Also if people wonder if the Wolves can make a deal to add an impactful vet even with limited assets look up what the Bucks really gave up to get PJ Tucker. It's a bit complicated but ultimately it wasn't a whole lot.
Or how about Bobby Portis? That didn't cost them much either!
Tactical unit wrote:Probably the hardest off season in Wolves history and the hardest off season grade to make in 2022 out of all the NBA teams. You can look at all the benefits and be super jacked up in a good way about this team and want to give a high grade or you can look at assets spent and what those assets could have landed and think we spent way to much and focus on that and give a low grade.
It's a trade I could have never made, the pick swap says it all for me "I got you by the balls and I know it!" Lack of protection on picks with all those assets being sent out in my eyes is slightly reckless. Players with value sent out in addition to all those picks seemed like a lack of maximizing value.
I'll hold true to my original thoughts, replace Kessler with N. Reid, add in two 2nds from the Jazz to MN in years we lose a 1st (Ainge can pick the years). Lastly take away the disrespectful pick swap and it would have been acceptable even with the lack of pick protection.
My grade B+
I see both sides here and because needs and weaknesses were addressed, lineup flexibility dramatically increased, and the overall end result puts a core in place I can have true excitement about.
That's an interesting statement ("what those assets could have landed"). We know what they landed - Rudy Gobert! And if we had kept the assets, Kekgeek does a really nice job laying out the odds of landing a similarly great player with those first rounders we gave up. Less than 2%!
It's clear I love the Gobert addition and my grade of B+ is still a very solid grade. My statement of "what those assets could have landed" has more than one side to it, what you could have landed could be K. Durant or the next disgruntled mega star intrigued by playing with KAT & ANT. The other side is in the draft and I look at it differently than you. You are giving odds for each individual pick landing a star, however all you have to do is land a McDaniels or higher quality draft pick with upside to grow into something special (player doesn't have to pan out or might be more role player than star long term but that upside and youth is the allure) and then you may be able to package that high upside player with much less draft capital to land a disgruntled star.
Regardless of result how can you not see this as an overpay? No contracts taken back were bad and are in fact assets to some degree. Then add in all the firsts, a swap and Kessler who's rim protection and rebounding....well we will see how he pans out.
PLEASE ADDRESS BELOW
I have no way of knowing the negotiation process that took place but I would have asked one simple question to Ainge. When MN traded you a HOF Big aka KG what did you have to pay to land him?
Again grade of B+, love Gobert and team construct, however it's still an overpay.
The problem with this approach is that a) you can't time when that opportunity might arise; b) you can't predict what kind of fit said disgruntled star will be; and c) you also can't predict what their contract situation might look like.
The Wolves looked at Gobert being made available as a golden opportunity to add a major piece that they believe compliments their current pieces and is locked in for the next four seasons. They decided to make their move thinking that an opportunity to acquire such a player may not present itself again in the Ant/KAT era. And I think they might be right.
(on the KG trade, one thing the Wolves got that the Jazz didn't get was an emerging young talent in Al Jefferson. In hindsight, Jefferson never became as good as hoped because of defensive shortcomings, but at the time the trade was made he was thought of as a potential pillar in Minnesota's effort to rebuild).
This is exactly why I love the trade, it is one of the 1st times a star was traded and a young core piece was not traded back. Wolves gave up a couple of bench rotation pieces with little to no potential. Then my buddy is a stat nerd and did 100,000 simulations based players who were all stars picked from 2000-2019. Here were the results of the Jazz selecting an all star player with one of the wolves picks.
77.12% chance they pick 0 all stars
20.44% chance they pick 1 all star
2.3% chance they pick 2 all stars
.08% chance they 3 pick all stars
1 out 100,000 scenarios they picked 4 all stars
Then for a 3 or more time all star. They gave a 6% chance of drafting one of the guys. Drafting multiple 3 time all stars was so small it was not significant.
Once again wolves in my opinion have 77.12% chance at 100% destroying the trade. Once again based on historical data the wolves only way the wolves lose the trade in my opinion if the Jazz draft multiple all stars or draft an all star that will play in 3 or more all star games and the odds that won't happen are 97.7% and 94% respectively.
I play a decent amount of poker in my free time and those high percentages don't mean it won't happen but I'll take that edge every time and live with the results.
Once again I don't think the wolves really over paid that much for a top 2 defender in the NBA, All NBA talent, who bleeds winning and is under team control for years who fits the wolves biggest weaknesses. As long as the wolves don't give up 2 top 10 picks or a top 5 pick in that 2027 year I have hard time seeing the wolves losing this trade
Great analysis Kek and those are very interesting numbers your buddy ran.
I think the one question we will never really know the answer to is whether the Wolves could have landed Gobert with a less generous offer. My guess is Ainge took a very hard "we want Jaden or no deal" stance and ultimately it cost TC a couple more first rounders to get a deal done.
Tactical unit wrote:Probably the hardest off season in Wolves history and the hardest off season grade to make in 2022 out of all the NBA teams. You can look at all the benefits and be super jacked up in a good way about this team and want to give a high grade or you can look at assets spent and what those assets could have landed and think we spent way to much and focus on that and give a low grade.
It's a trade I could have never made, the pick swap says it all for me "I got you by the balls and I know it!" Lack of protection on picks with all those assets being sent out in my eyes is slightly reckless. Players with value sent out in addition to all those picks seemed like a lack of maximizing value.
I'll hold true to my original thoughts, replace Kessler with N. Reid, add in two 2nds from the Jazz to MN in years we lose a 1st (Ainge can pick the years). Lastly take away the disrespectful pick swap and it would have been acceptable even with the lack of pick protection.
My grade B+
I see both sides here and because needs and weaknesses were addressed, lineup flexibility dramatically increased, and the overall end result puts a core in place I can have true excitement about.
That's an interesting statement ("what those assets could have landed"). We know what they landed - Rudy Gobert! And if we had kept the assets, Kekgeek does a really nice job laying out the odds of landing a similarly great player with those first rounders we gave up. Less than 2%!
It's clear I love the Gobert addition and my grade of B+ is still a very solid grade. My statement of "what those assets could have landed" has more than one side to it, what you could have landed could be K. Durant or the next disgruntled mega star intrigued by playing with KAT & ANT. The other side is in the draft and I look at it differently than you. You are giving odds for each individual pick landing a star, however all you have to do is land a McDaniels or higher quality draft pick with upside to grow into something special (player doesn't have to pan out or might be more role player than star long term but that upside and youth is the allure) and then you may be able to package that high upside player with much less draft capital to land a disgruntled star.
Regardless of result how can you not see this as an overpay? No contracts taken back were bad and are in fact assets to some degree. Then add in all the firsts, a swap and Kessler who's rim protection and rebounding....well we will see how he pans out.
PLEASE ADDRESS BELOW
I have no way of knowing the negotiation process that took place but I would have asked one simple question to Ainge. When MN traded you a HOF Big aka KG what did you have to pay to land him?
Again grade of B+, love Gobert and team construct, however it's still an overpay.
The problem with this approach is that a) you can't time when that opportunity might arise; b) you can't predict what kind of fit said disgruntled star will be; and c) you also can't predict what their contract situation might look like.
The Wolves looked at Gobert being made available as a golden opportunity to add a major piece that they believe compliments their current pieces and is locked in for the next four seasons. They decided to make their move thinking that an opportunity to acquire such a player may not present itself again in the Ant/KAT era. And I think they might be right.
(on the KG trade, one thing the Wolves got that the Jazz didn't get was an emerging young talent in Al Jefferson. In hindsight, Jefferson never became as good as hoped because of defensive shortcomings, but at the time the trade was made he was thought of as a potential pillar in Minnesota's effort to rebuild).
This is exactly why I love the trade, it is one of the 1st times a star was traded and a young core piece was not traded back. Wolves gave up a couple of bench rotation pieces with little to no potential. Then my buddy is a stat nerd and did 100,000 simulations based players who were all stars picked from 2000-2019. Here were the results of the Jazz selecting an all star player with one of the wolves picks.
77.12% chance they pick 0 all stars
20.44% chance they pick 1 all star
2.3% chance they pick 2 all stars
.08% chance they 3 pick all stars
1 out 100,000 scenarios they picked 4 all stars
Then for a 3 or more time all star. They gave a 6% chance of drafting one of the guys. Drafting multiple 3 time all stars was so small it was not significant.
Once again wolves in my opinion have 77.12% chance at 100% destroying the trade. Once again based on historical data the wolves only way the wolves lose the trade in my opinion if the Jazz draft multiple all stars or draft an all star that will play in 3 or more all star games and the odds that won't happen are 97.7% and 94% respectively.
I play a decent amount of poker in my free time and those high percentages don't mean it won't happen but I'll take that edge every time and live with the results.
Once again I don't think the wolves really over paid that much for a top 2 defender in the NBA, All NBA talent, who bleeds winning and is under team control for years who fits the wolves biggest weaknesses. As long as the wolves don't give up 2 top 10 picks or a top 5 pick in that 2027 year I have hard time seeing the wolves losing this trade
Great analysis Kek and those are very interesting numbers your buddy ran.
I think the one question we will never really know the answer to is whether the Wolves could have landed Gobert with a less generous offer. My guess is Ainge took a very hard "we want Jaden or no deal" stance and ultimately it cost TC a couple more first rounders to get a deal done.
I would have a different opinion if Mcdaniels was added to this trade but just don't think the wolves have up a ton. No player they really mattered long term and the picks could end up hurting but I trust that the wolves won't be bad because of Ant/Kat/Mcdaniels long term. Then I take my chances on the high percentage that the picks don't come back to haunt
Tactical unit wrote:Probably the hardest off season in Wolves history and the hardest off season grade to make in 2022 out of all the NBA teams. You can look at all the benefits and be super jacked up in a good way about this team and want to give a high grade or you can look at assets spent and what those assets could have landed and think we spent way to much and focus on that and give a low grade.
It's a trade I could have never made, the pick swap says it all for me "I got you by the balls and I know it!" Lack of protection on picks with all those assets being sent out in my eyes is slightly reckless. Players with value sent out in addition to all those picks seemed like a lack of maximizing value.
I'll hold true to my original thoughts, replace Kessler with N. Reid, add in two 2nds from the Jazz to MN in years we lose a 1st (Ainge can pick the years). Lastly take away the disrespectful pick swap and it would have been acceptable even with the lack of pick protection.
My grade B+
I see both sides here and because needs and weaknesses were addressed, lineup flexibility dramatically increased, and the overall end result puts a core in place I can have true excitement about.
That's an interesting statement ("what those assets could have landed"). We know what they landed - Rudy Gobert! And if we had kept the assets, Kekgeek does a really nice job laying out the odds of landing a similarly great player with those first rounders we gave up. Less than 2%!
It's clear I love the Gobert addition and my grade of B+ is still a very solid grade. My statement of "what those assets could have landed" has more than one side to it, what you could have landed could be K. Durant or the next disgruntled mega star intrigued by playing with KAT & ANT. The other side is in the draft and I look at it differently than you. You are giving odds for each individual pick landing a star, however all you have to do is land a McDaniels or higher quality draft pick with upside to grow into something special (player doesn't have to pan out or might be more role player than star long term but that upside and youth is the allure) and then you may be able to package that high upside player with much less draft capital to land a disgruntled star.
Regardless of result how can you not see this as an overpay? No contracts taken back were bad and are in fact assets to some degree. Then add in all the firsts, a swap and Kessler who's rim protection and rebounding....well we will see how he pans out.
PLEASE ADDRESS BELOW
I have no way of knowing the negotiation process that took place but I would have asked one simple question to Ainge. When MN traded you a HOF Big aka KG what did you have to pay to land him?
Again grade of B+, love Gobert and team construct, however it's still an overpay.
The problem with this approach is that a) you can't time when that opportunity might arise; b) you can't predict what kind of fit said disgruntled star will be; and c) you also can't predict what their contract situation might look like.
The Wolves looked at Gobert being made available as a golden opportunity to add a major piece that they believe compliments their current pieces and is locked in for the next four seasons. They decided to make their move thinking that an opportunity to acquire such a player may not present itself again in the Ant/KAT era. And I think they might be right.
(on the KG trade, one thing the Wolves got that the Jazz didn't get was an emerging young talent in Al Jefferson. In hindsight, Jefferson never became as good as hoped because of defensive shortcomings, but at the time the trade was made he was thought of as a potential pillar in Minnesota's effort to rebuild).
I'll also add that you don't know if the next star/really high impact player will want to come to the Wolves.
I think the assets given up for Gobert most people weren't really looking at using them on a star player anyway. I think most were thinking at most use them on a Jrue Holiday type deal and then maybe another smaller deal instead. That was still a lot for Jrue and quite frankly I thought it was an overpay at the time. It worked out pretty well for Milwaukee. Also if people wonder if the Wolves can make a deal to add an impactful vet even with limited assets look up what the Bucks really gave up to get PJ Tucker. It's a bit complicated but ultimately it wasn't a whole lot.
Or how about Bobby Portis? That didn't cost them much either!
Excellent point.
Another player that helped them that season and at least in the first round of the playoffs but certainly wasn't as good after that was Bryn Forbes. He was very cheap and played almost as many regular season minutes as Portis and had a TS% of 63%. Portis obviously ended up being more valuable in the playoffs once he was back healthy and playing well again but there is value in a cheap player helping even just in the regular season. The previous season Forbes started all but 1 game for the Spurs. I don't want to make out Forbes to me an amazing player or something but for a depth vet min guy? Sounds good to me.
Great point on Forbes Monster. Adding him and Rivers as 10/11th type guys is a very good sign for this team. It sort of raises our floor IMO because even if we get hit with some injuries, it feels like we have some solid vets that can keep the ship afloat. It's when you end up relying on rookies and 2nd year unproven types that things can start going downhill fast.
A lot of your points are why I gave a B+ and I too love the addition of Gobert. However it doesn't change my mind at all that the overall package was an overpay. TC saw his opportunity and took it due to inheriting a situation loaded with assets. I can't blame him but to me it was an overpay.
Tactical unit wrote:Probably the hardest off season in Wolves history and the hardest off season grade to make in 2022 out of all the NBA teams. You can look at all the benefits and be super jacked up in a good way about this team and want to give a high grade or you can look at assets spent and what those assets could have landed and think we spent way to much and focus on that and give a low grade.
It's a trade I could have never made, the pick swap says it all for me "I got you by the balls and I know it!" Lack of protection on picks with all those assets being sent out in my eyes is slightly reckless. Players with value sent out in addition to all those picks seemed like a lack of maximizing value.
I'll hold true to my original thoughts, replace Kessler with N. Reid, add in two 2nds from the Jazz to MN in years we lose a 1st (Ainge can pick the years). Lastly take away the disrespectful pick swap and it would have been acceptable even with the lack of pick protection.
My grade B+
I see both sides here and because needs and weaknesses were addressed, lineup flexibility dramatically increased, and the overall end result puts a core in place I can have true excitement about.
That's an interesting statement ("what those assets could have landed"). We know what they landed - Rudy Gobert! And if we had kept the assets, Kekgeek does a really nice job laying out the odds of landing a similarly great player with those first rounders we gave up. Less than 2%!
It's clear I love the Gobert addition and my grade of B+ is still a very solid grade. My statement of "what those assets could have landed" has more than one side to it, what you could have landed could be K. Durant or the next disgruntled mega star intrigued by playing with KAT & ANT. The other side is in the draft and I look at it differently than you. You are giving odds for each individual pick landing a star, however all you have to do is land a McDaniels or higher quality draft pick with upside to grow into something special (player doesn't have to pan out or might be more role player than star long term but that upside and youth is the allure) and then you may be able to package that high upside player with much less draft capital to land a disgruntled star.
Regardless of result how can you not see this as an overpay? No contracts taken back were bad and are in fact assets to some degree. Then add in all the firsts, a swap and Kessler who's rim protection and rebounding....well we will see how he pans out.
PLEASE ADDRESS BELOW
I have no way of knowing the negotiation process that took place but I would have asked one simple question to Ainge. When MN traded you a HOF Big aka KG what did you have to pay to land him?
Again grade of B+, love Gobert and team construct, however it's still an overpay.
The problem with this approach is that a) you can't time when that opportunity might arise; b) you can't predict what kind of fit said disgruntled star will be; and c) you also can't predict what their contract situation might look like.
The Wolves looked at Gobert being made available as a golden opportunity to add a major piece that they believe compliments their current pieces and is locked in for the next four seasons. They decided to make their move thinking that an opportunity to acquire such a player may not present itself again in the Ant/KAT era. And I think they might be right.
(on the KG trade, one thing the Wolves got that the Jazz didn't get was an emerging young talent in Al Jefferson. In hindsight, Jefferson never became as good as hoped because of defensive shortcomings, but at the time the trade was made he was thought of as a potential pillar in Minnesota's effort to rebuild).
This is exactly why I love the trade, it is one of the 1st times a star was traded and a young core piece was not traded back. Wolves gave up a couple of bench rotation pieces with little to no potential. Then my buddy is a stat nerd and did 100,000 simulations based players who were all stars picked from 2000-2019. Here were the results of the Jazz selecting an all star player with one of the wolves picks.
77.12% chance they pick 0 all stars
20.44% chance they pick 1 all star
2.3% chance they pick 2 all stars
.08% chance they 3 pick all stars
1 out 100,000 scenarios they picked 4 all stars
Then for a 3 or more time all star. They gave a 6% chance of drafting one of the guys. Drafting multiple 3 time all stars was so small it was not significant.
Once again wolves in my opinion have 77.12% chance at 100% destroying the trade. Once again based on historical data the wolves only way the wolves lose the trade in my opinion if the Jazz draft multiple all stars or draft an all star that will play in 3 or more all star games and the odds that won't happen are 97.7% and 94% respectively.
I play a decent amount of poker in my free time and those high percentages don't mean it won't happen but I'll take that edge every time and live with the results.
Once again I don't think the wolves really over paid that much for a top 2 defender in the NBA, All NBA talent, who bleeds winning and is under team control for years who fits the wolves biggest weaknesses. As long as the wolves don't give up 2 top 10 picks or a top 5 pick in that 2027 year I have hard time seeing the wolves losing this trade
Great analysis Kek and those are very interesting numbers your buddy ran.
I think the one question we will never really know the answer to is whether the Wolves could have landed Gobert with a less generous offer. My guess is Ainge took a very hard "we want Jaden or no deal" stance and ultimately it cost TC a couple more first rounders to get a deal done.
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!
Tactical unit wrote: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.
Tactical unit wrote: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.
Tactical unit wrote: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.
