monsterpile wrote:Cool what is the move/s that keeps the Wolves from being a Lux tax worry team?
Jake Layman? No
Beasley? No I don't think so
Russell? No he actually makes less than Wiggins
Juancho? Sure
Trading Rubio for James Johnson? Yes
Still if we erase those moves the Wolves would still mean the Wolves would be over the cap. I think it's pretty likely that the Wolves would have spent at least Juancho money for some sort of free agent last year. Maybe they spend that kind of money this offseason on another FA this year and...then you are pretty much where we are now. Of course those guys might have more potential than prince and Beverly or they could have done some other things with that ability to add players. But really the Wolves wouldn't have been meaningfully under the Lux tax until this season if they didn't do anything on the trade front.
I assume the thing you want is being able to add young talent though right?
The Wolves currently have every player on the roster is 25 or younger besides Layman Prince (both 27) and Beverly who are expiring contracts that equal over 30 million coming off the books this offseason. That's a lot of young talent. I assume you aren't sad to see Culver and Juancho gone for Beverly.
Monster, it's not my job to determine how we shed salary, or even if we should shed salary. But I know as an owner I'm not going to be content being near the tax line when we are a perennial loser. Nothing I'm saying is outrageous. If it was your money you would feel the same way. If your big salary players can't win enough to justify your payroll, something has to change.
Cool, what you're saying isn't outrageous. It just wasn't realistic considering the roster Gersson Rosas inherited. He could have allowed all expiring contracts to clear the books, but then he'd have less avenues of improving the team and acquiring assets. He could have attached first-round picks to Andrew Wiggins in order to dump him for an expiring contract or directly into a team's cap space, but Minnesota would have even less draft capital at their disposal. He could have allowed Malik Beasley to walk as a restricted free agent and intend to yield another asset in a sign-and-trade, but would that have made the team any better? He could have traded the top overall pick that became Anthony Edwards for lower picks -- lower rookie-scale contracts -- or future picks, but Minnesota wouldn't have their 20-year old potential cornerstone. He could have initiated a full rebuild by trading Karl-Anthony Towns, which you actually were in favor of, but what are the chances that the assets acquired ever wind up being as good as Towns himself? Obviously, if you're shedding salary you wouldn't be taking those assets and rerouting them for a different star player on a max salary.
So to summarize, I'm just not sure what you're going on about. The Wolves haven't been under the soft cap in years dating back to before Rosas was hired. What should he have done to appease you as an owner? Please, do answer the question.
monsterpile wrote:Cool what is the move/s that keeps the Wolves from being a Lux tax worry team?
Jake Layman? No
Beasley? No I don't think so
Russell? No he actually makes less than Wiggins
Juancho? Sure
Trading Rubio for James Johnson? Yes
Still if we erase those moves the Wolves would still mean the Wolves would be over the cap. I think it's pretty likely that the Wolves would have spent at least Juancho money for some sort of free agent last year. Maybe they spend that kind of money this offseason on another FA this year and...then you are pretty much where we are now. Of course those guys might have more potential than prince and Beverly or they could have done some other things with that ability to add players. But really the Wolves wouldn't have been meaningfully under the Lux tax until this season if they didn't do anything on the trade front.
I assume the thing you want is being able to add young talent though right?
The Wolves currently have every player on the roster is 25 or younger besides Layman Prince (both 27) and Beverly who are expiring contracts that equal over 30 million coming off the books this offseason. That's a lot of young talent. I assume you aren't sad to see Culver and Juancho gone for Beverly.
Monster, it's not my job to determine how we shed salary, or even if we should shed salary. But I know as an owner I'm not going to be content being near the tax line when we are a perennial loser. Nothing I'm saying is outrageous. If it was your money you would feel the same way. If your big salary players can't win enough to justify your payroll, something has to change.
Cool, what you're saying isn't outrageous. It just wasn't realistic considering the roster Gersson Rosas inherited. He could have allowed all expiring contracts to clear the books, but then he'd have less avenues of improving the team and acquiring assets. He could have attached first-round picks to Andrew Wiggins in order to dump him for an expiring contract or directly into a team's cap space, but Minnesota would have even less draft capital at their disposal. He could have allowed Malik Beasley to walk as a restricted free agent and intend to yield another asset in a sign-and-trade, but would that have made the team any better? He could have traded the top overall pick that became Anthony Edwards for lower picks -- lower rookie-scale contracts -- or future picks, but Minnesota wouldn't have their 20-year old potential cornerstone. He could have initiated a full rebuild by trading Karl-Anthony Towns, which you actually were in favor of, but what are the chances that the assets acquired ever wind up being as good as Towns himself? Obviously, if you're shedding salary you wouldn't be taking those assets and rerouting them for a different star player on a max salary.
So to summarize, I'm just not sure what you're going on about. The Wolves haven't been under the soft cap in years dating back to before Rosas was hired. What should he have done to appease you as an owner? Please, do answer the question.
I'm an owner of a freaking NBA team I don't really give a shit about barely being under the luxury tax if you are actually bringing in talent. Rosas screwed up trading up and drafting Culver but then he did need up with Naz Reiff that he got undrafted QBs signed for basically the cheapest contract possible. Nowell is still at least intriguing from that same draft. Since then Rosas ended up with 3 legitimately promising rookies on of last year's draft and many folks on this board were quite unhappy with all 3 picks at the time. Beasley is a flawed player but I think most would agree his contract and talent is promising. Vanderbilt is a guy that has promise to at least be a nice rotation player and nobody was like damn we gotta fter Jarred Vanderbilt from Denver in the Covington trade.
This offseason Rosas was able to cut salary and add 2 players that for the roster better in Beverley and Prince while even adding a 2nd round pick AND getting me some cash. I'm supposed to be upset with him turning 2 guys Culver and Juancho into a fringe starting guard that plays defense and can shoot threes and plays like his life depends on it?
As an owner I'm not in love with Rosas but I'm not hating what he has done with this roster. Was the Russell trade a slam dunk? No. Would I be posted at him making that type of move when I look back at the context? No. If I'm the owner of this team I'd feel better about Rosas than a lot of GMs that came before him and while that's a low bar there are a lot of GMs that don't continue past year 3 or 4 etc. Like Cam said the Wolves had a somewhat expensive roster to begin with (Wiggins Towns and Dieng took up what 75+ million? Teague was making a bunch of money that first year and quite frankly the 2-way player Rosas and the Wolves found McLaughlin was better than he was. Guys like Teague not being good and costing a bunch of money and hanging the roster is not on Rosas. Rubio disappointing last year is on Rosas.
One last thing I'm not all in on magic mentoring or whatever but I think a young team needs someone around that's a legit vet that's done that. I'm still a little shocked that Rosas was able to basically Juancho and Culver into Beverly. If the Wolves were somehow able to get Millsap as an owner I would be super pumped. You know what? Owners want to freaking win basketball games. A lot of them are very competitive. It's also very good for business to be a winning team. A lot of owners are more interested in winning now than staying well below the lux tax.
Let's remember what we were originally discussing. Should we go over the tax line to sign Milsap. As a fan I say yes. As an owner I would say no. And I've made those reasons abundantly clear.
As an owner, it's not my job to tell the GM what moves to make to either win, or set ourselves up for a quick rebuild. But I can tell him I don't want to be at the tax line if we're only going to win 34 games. If that's the case, there is no reason to have an inflated payroll. There are currently 24 teams with lower cap hits than we have, and we haven't filled out our roster yet. Our situation should be a lot more like the Knicks, and a lot less like the Clippers who win a lot more.
monsterpile wrote:Cool what is the move/s that keeps the Wolves from being a Lux tax worry team?
Jake Layman? No
Beasley? No I don't think so
Russell? No he actually makes less than Wiggins
Juancho? Sure
Trading Rubio for James Johnson? Yes
Still if we erase those moves the Wolves would still mean the Wolves would be over the cap. I think it's pretty likely that the Wolves would have spent at least Juancho money for some sort of free agent last year. Maybe they spend that kind of money this offseason on another FA this year and...then you are pretty much where we are now. Of course those guys might have more potential than prince and Beverly or they could have done some other things with that ability to add players. But really the Wolves wouldn't have been meaningfully under the Lux tax until this season if they didn't do anything on the trade front.
I assume the thing you want is being able to add young talent though right?
The Wolves currently have every player on the roster is 25 or younger besides Layman Prince (both 27) and Beverly who are expiring contracts that equal over 30 million coming off the books this offseason. That's a lot of young talent. I assume you aren't sad to see Culver and Juancho gone for Beverly.
Monster, it's not my job to determine how we shed salary, or even if we should shed salary. But I know as an owner I'm not going to be content being near the tax line when we are a perennial loser. Nothing I'm saying is outrageous. If it was your money you would feel the same way. If your big salary players can't win enough to justify your payroll, something has to change.
Cool, what you're saying isn't outrageous. It just wasn't realistic considering the roster Gersson Rosas inherited. He could have allowed all expiring contracts to clear the books, but then he'd have less avenues of improving the team and acquiring assets. He could have attached first-round picks to Andrew Wiggins in order to dump him for an expiring contract or directly into a team's cap space, but Minnesota would have even less draft capital at their disposal. He could have allowed Malik Beasley to walk as a restricted free agent and intend to yield another asset in a sign-and-trade, but would that have made the team any better? He could have traded the top overall pick that became Anthony Edwards for lower picks -- lower rookie-scale contracts -- or future picks, but Minnesota wouldn't have their 20-year old potential cornerstone. He could have initiated a full rebuild by trading Karl-Anthony Towns, which you actually were in favor of, but what are the chances that the assets acquired ever wind up being as good as Towns himself? Obviously, if you're shedding salary you wouldn't be taking those assets and rerouting them for a different star player on a max salary.
So to summarize, I'm just not sure what you're going on about. The Wolves haven't been under the soft cap in years dating back to before Rosas was hired. What should he have done to appease you as an owner? Please, do answer the question.
I'm an owner of a freaking NBA team I don't really give a shit about barely being under the luxury tax if you are actually bringing in talent. Rosas screwed up trading up and drafting Culver but then he did need up with Naz Reiff that he got undrafted QBs signed for basically the cheapest contract possible. Nowell is still at least intriguing from that same draft. Since then Rosas ended up with 3 legitimately promising rookies on of last year's draft and many folks on this board were quite unhappy with all 3 picks at the time. Beasley is a flawed player but I think most would agree his contract and talent is promising. Vanderbilt is a guy that has promise to at least be a nice rotation player and nobody was like damn we gotta fter Jarred Vanderbilt from Denver in the Covington trade.
This offseason Rosas was able to cut salary and add 2 players that for the roster better in Beverley and Prince while even adding a 2nd round pick AND getting me some cash. I'm supposed to be upset with him turning 2 guys Culver and Juancho into a fringe starting guard that plays defense and can shoot threes and plays like his life depends on it?
As an owner I'm not in love with Rosas but I'm not hating what he has done with this roster. Was the Russell trade a slam dunk? No. Would I be posted at him making that type of move when I look back at the context? No. If I'm the owner of this team I'd feel better about Rosas than a lot of GMs that came before him and while that's a low bar there are a lot of GMs that don't continue past year 3 or 4 etc. Like Cam said the Wolves had a somewhat expensive roster to begin with (Wiggins Towns and Dieng took up what 75+ million? Teague was making a bunch of money that first year and quite frankly the 2-way player Rosas and the Wolves found McLaughlin was better than he was. Guys like Teague not being good and costing a bunch of money and hanging the roster is not on Rosas. Rubio disappointing last year is on Rosas.
One last thing I'm not all in on magic mentoring or whatever but I think a young team needs someone around that's a legit vet that's done that. I'm still a little shocked that Rosas was able to basically Juancho and Culver into Beverly. If the Wolves were somehow able to get Millsap as an owner I would be super pumped. You know what? Owners want to freaking win basketball games. A lot of them are very competitive. It's also very good for business to be a winning team. A lot of owners are more interested in winning now than staying well below the lux tax.
This really isn't a discussion about how well Rosas has done. We've all seen some good and bad moves he's made, and we have had at least a dozen threads discussing it. This is more about the ratio between cap obligations and wins. We're simply not getting enough wins to justify our spending. If you think Milsap means an extra 6-8 wins this season, by all means sign him for $6 million. I'm on board. But we all know that isn't the case.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Let's remember what we were originally discussing. Should we go over the tax line to sign Milsap. As a fan I say yes. As an owner I would say no. And I've made those reasons abundantly clear.
As an owner, it's not my job to tell the GM what moves to make to either win, or set ourselves up for a quick rebuild. But I can tell him I don't want to be at the tax line if we're only going to win 34 games. If that's the case, there is no reason to have an inflated payroll. There are currently 24 teams with lower cap hits than we have, and we haven't filled out our roster yet. Our situation should be a lot more like the Knicks, and a lot less like the Clippers who win a lot more.
My original post that prompted your prattle was about potentially surpassing the luxury tax threshold now and then diving below it by the end of the regular season. In doing so the Wolves would add a meaningful player now and incur no luxury tax payment later. I even mentioned a couple simple ways in which that could be possible.
This whole time you've repeatedly talked about telling your GM not to be at the luxury threshold, but yet you won't explain how that would be done considering the situation Gersson Rosas inherited. You're saying the same things without providing your avenue of how that could have been accomplished. We're just going around in circles at this point with no real understanding being made.
monsterpile wrote:Cool what is the move/s that keeps the Wolves from being a Lux tax worry team?
Jake Layman? No
Beasley? No I don't think so
Russell? No he actually makes less than Wiggins
Juancho? Sure
Trading Rubio for James Johnson? Yes
Still if we erase those moves the Wolves would still mean the Wolves would be over the cap. I think it's pretty likely that the Wolves would have spent at least Juancho money for some sort of free agent last year. Maybe they spend that kind of money this offseason on another FA this year and...then you are pretty much where we are now. Of course those guys might have more potential than prince and Beverly or they could have done some other things with that ability to add players. But really the Wolves wouldn't have been meaningfully under the Lux tax until this season if they didn't do anything on the trade front.
I assume the thing you want is being able to add young talent though right?
The Wolves currently have every player on the roster is 25 or younger besides Layman Prince (both 27) and Beverly who are expiring contracts that equal over 30 million coming off the books this offseason. That's a lot of young talent. I assume you aren't sad to see Culver and Juancho gone for Beverly.
Monster, it's not my job to determine how we shed salary, or even if we should shed salary. But I know as an owner I'm not going to be content being near the tax line when we are a perennial loser. Nothing I'm saying is outrageous. If it was your money you would feel the same way. If your big salary players can't win enough to justify your payroll, something has to change.
Cool, what you're saying isn't outrageous. It just wasn't realistic considering the roster Gersson Rosas inherited. He could have allowed all expiring contracts to clear the books, but then he'd have less avenues of improving the team and acquiring assets. He could have attached first-round picks to Andrew Wiggins in order to dump him for an expiring contract or directly into a team's cap space, but Minnesota would have even less draft capital at their disposal. He could have allowed Malik Beasley to walk as a restricted free agent and intend to yield another asset in a sign-and-trade, but would that have made the team any better? He could have traded the top overall pick that became Anthony Edwards for lower picks -- lower rookie-scale contracts -- or future picks, but Minnesota wouldn't have their 20-year old potential cornerstone. He could have initiated a full rebuild by trading Karl-Anthony Towns, which you actually were in favor of, but what are the chances that the assets acquired ever wind up being as good as Towns himself? Obviously, if you're shedding salary you wouldn't be taking those assets and rerouting them for a different star player on a max salary.
So to summarize, I'm just not sure what you're going on about. The Wolves haven't been under the soft cap in years dating back to before Rosas was hired. What should he have done to appease you as an owner? Please, do answer the question.
I'm an owner of a freaking NBA team I don't really give a shit about barely being under the luxury tax if you are actually bringing in talent. Rosas screwed up trading up and drafting Culver but then he did need up with Naz Reiff that he got undrafted QBs signed for basically the cheapest contract possible. Nowell is still at least intriguing from that same draft. Since then Rosas ended up with 3 legitimately promising rookies on of last year's draft and many folks on this board were quite unhappy with all 3 picks at the time. Beasley is a flawed player but I think most would agree his contract and talent is promising. Vanderbilt is a guy that has promise to at least be a nice rotation player and nobody was like damn we gotta fter Jarred Vanderbilt from Denver in the Covington trade.
This offseason Rosas was able to cut salary and add 2 players that for the roster better in Beverley and Prince while even adding a 2nd round pick AND getting me some cash. I'm supposed to be upset with him turning 2 guys Culver and Juancho into a fringe starting guard that plays defense and can shoot threes and plays like his life depends on it?
As an owner I'm not in love with Rosas but I'm not hating what he has done with this roster. Was the Russell trade a slam dunk? No. Would I be posted at him making that type of move when I look back at the context? No. If I'm the owner of this team I'd feel better about Rosas than a lot of GMs that came before him and while that's a low bar there are a lot of GMs that don't continue past year 3 or 4 etc. Like Cam said the Wolves had a somewhat expensive roster to begin with (Wiggins Towns and Dieng took up what 75+ million? Teague was making a bunch of money that first year and quite frankly the 2-way player Rosas and the Wolves found McLaughlin was better than he was. Guys like Teague not being good and costing a bunch of money and hanging the roster is not on Rosas. Rubio disappointing last year is on Rosas.
One last thing I'm not all in on magic mentoring or whatever but I think a young team needs someone around that's a legit vet that's done that. I'm still a little shocked that Rosas was able to basically Juancho and Culver into Beverly. If the Wolves were somehow able to get Millsap as an owner I would be super pumped. You know what? Owners want to freaking win basketball games. A lot of them are very competitive. It's also very good for business to be a winning team. A lot of owners are more interested in winning now than staying well below the lux tax.
This really isn't a discussion about how well Rosas has done. We've all seen some good and bad moves he's made, and we have had at least a dozen threads discussing it. This is more about the ratio between cap obligations and wins. We're simply not getting enough wins to justify our spending. If you think Milsap means an extra 6-8 wins this season, by all means sign him for $6 million. I'm on board. But we all know that isn't the case.
It's not as simple and wins and cash is it? Why is that the simple math you have arrived at? It makes no sense to JUST boil it down to that and not consider for example how Rosas has a guy like McDaniels on the roster (on a cheap contract) who we are both VERY excited about.
Edit:
Also I think Glen Taylor can look himself in the Mirror and say "Some of this wins to spending is on me" He looked into Wiggins eyes and signed off on that deal. He was the closer on the Dieng deal that ended up being an overpay. He likely had some other influence on some other moves this team has made. I still believe Rosas was able to choose his own coach but I am sure Glen put in a good word for Ryan that had some sort of influence on Rosas decision to hire him. We all know Glen loves Rubio and this is pure speculation but he may have ultimately signed off on adding his salary to this season for that trade to be completed. Cool I think we can both look ourselves in the mirror and say we would have signed Wiggins to that Max deal. We believed in him as much as anyone on this message board. Would we have liked to squeeze him for less? Sure but I thought if we are honest we know someone would have made him a Max offer and we would have reasonably happily matched. That contract is a big reason the Wolves are not matching their wins...in addition to all the injuries. Why not at least give Finch a shot at making a difference. I think you were willing to do that for other guys in the past.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Let's remember what we were originally discussing. Should we go over the tax line to sign Milsap. As a fan I say yes. As an owner I would say no. And I've made those reasons abundantly clear.
As an owner, it's not my job to tell the GM what moves to make to either win, or set ourselves up for a quick rebuild. But I can tell him I don't want to be at the tax line if we're only going to win 34 games. If that's the case, there is no reason to have an inflated payroll. There are currently 24 teams with lower cap hits than we have, and we haven't filled out our roster yet. Our situation should be a lot more like the Knicks, and a lot less like the Clippers who win a lot more.
My original post that prompted your prattle was about potentially surpassing the luxury tax threshold now and then diving below it by the end of the regular season. In doing so the Wolves would add a meaningful player now and incur no luxury tax payment later. I even mentioned a couple simple ways in which that could be possible.
This whole time you've repeatedly talked about telling your GM not to be at the luxury threshold, but yet you won't explain how that would be done considering the situation Gersson Rosas inherited. You're saying the same things without providing your avenue of how that could have been accomplished. We're just going around in circles at this point with no real understanding being made.
To me it's not important what avenue is taken. As a GM there are many ways to do it. Again it's not my job as a fan to come up with a way to manage the team resources. I don't understand why you continue to make a big deal out of this. As an owner, I wouldn't want Rosas to sign Milsap putting us up against the tax line. Can't we just leave it at that? Why should I come up with some sequence of moves that would provide a pathway to reducing payroll? Do you not believe it's possible? Any plan that I come up with, you would immediately argue why it's not a good plan. The ROI on a Milsap signing isn't worth it in my opinion. No need to beat this thing anymore than it already has.
Player A is 6'7", 36-year-old Paul Millsap over the last two seasons (unsigned).
Player B is 6'5", 36-year-old P.J. Tucker over the last two seasons (two years, $15 million from the Heat).
Like many of us here believe, Paul Millsap could wind up being a meaningful addition to this team, or any other for that matter. For those of you that are P.J. Tucker fans, you probably feel like his impact made a difference for the NBA championship-winning Milwaukee Bucks. I feel similarly about Millsap and what he brings even at this stage of his career. It's surprising that he's even still available at this point.
Player A is 6'7", 36-year-old Paul Millsap over the last two seasons (unsigned).
Player B is 6'5", 36-year-old P.J. Tucker over the last two seasons (two years, $15 million from the Heat).
Like many of us here believe, Paul Millsap could wind up being a meaningful addition to this team, or any other for that matter. For those of you that are P.J. Tucker fans, you probably feel like his impact made a difference for the NBA championship-winning Milwaukee Bucks. I feel similarly about Millsap and what he brings even at this stage of his career. It's surprising that he's even still available at this point.
Cam, why can't I have my own opinion on this? As you know the Wolves are a long ways from being the Milwaukee Bucks. Did Tucker make a lot of sense for Milwaukee? Of course he did. As a Bucks fan I am very aware of his impact on the team. But did you notice he was the one guy they didn't work to bring back this summer? I don't know, comparing the Bucks and Wolves situations is a stretch in my opinion.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Let's remember what we were originally discussing. Should we go over the tax line to sign Milsap. As a fan I say yes. As an owner I would say no. And I've made those reasons abundantly clear.
As an owner, it's not my job to tell the GM what moves to make to either win, or set ourselves up for a quick rebuild. But I can tell him I don't want to be at the tax line if we're only going to win 34 games. If that's the case, there is no reason to have an inflated payroll. There are currently 24 teams with lower cap hits than we have, and we haven't filled out our roster yet. Our situation should be a lot more like the Knicks, and a lot less like the Clippers who win a lot more.
My original post that prompted your prattle was about potentially surpassing the luxury tax threshold now and then diving below it by the end of the regular season. In doing so the Wolves would add a meaningful player now and incur no luxury tax payment later. I even mentioned a couple simple ways in which that could be possible.
This whole time you've repeatedly talked about telling your GM not to be at the luxury threshold, but yet you won't explain how that would be done considering the situation Gersson Rosas inherited. You're saying the same things without providing your avenue of how that could have been accomplished. We're just going around in circles at this point with no real understanding being made.
To me it's not important what avenue is taken. As a GM there are many ways to do it. Again it's not my job as a fan to come up with a way to manage the team resources. I don't understand why you continue to make a big deal out of this. As an owner, I wouldn't want Rosas to sign Milsap putting us up against the tax line. Can't we just leave it at that? Why should I come up with some sequence of moves that would provide a pathway to reducing payroll? Do you not believe it's possible? Any plan that I come up with, you would immediately argue why it's not a good plan. The ROI on a Milsap signing isn't worth it in my opinion. No need to beat this thing anymore than it already has.
I've already laid out various possibilities of how Gersson Rosas could have gone about reducing payroll. All of them included reducing assets or lowering the talent level that they have now. If you're going to bring up a problem, such as Minnesota's payroll being next to the luxury tax threshold, then I'd like to know your solution, or at least something -- anything -- specific that you would have done differently. If not, then it's an unproductive conversation and we're wasting our time here. What I believe you're suggesting of an NBA owner just isn't a realistic way to behave given the situation they hired Rosas into. That's the end of it. We can move on.
