WolvesFan21 wrote:As a Wolves fan I'm not at all concerned about the picks we traded. We've had plenty of Kris Dunns, Culvers and Wesley Johnsons in our draft history to make me not care that we might miss on the rare superstar. Odds are very low any of those picks turn out to be a great player.
The Wolves have to have been the worst drafters in NBA history. That would be an interesting list to compile. Luckily our recent success of hitting on Ant and likely getting a starter at minimum out of Jaden has put us into a nice place to get Gobert and make us a potential contender.
That is what was funny for me when everyone seemingly was hammering the Gobert trade. Have you seen what our draft picks have gotten us in the last 20 years? lol
I think it's already been said here, but this situation is a bit different than the Wolves past. This team was very talented before the Gobert trade, certainly felt like a team on the rise. They already had two star players so you're looking to build around them and most of the time you do that through trades, not draft luck.
I understand where both sides are coming from in this debate, but personally I'm just excited to watch what should be a very competitiv
e team again!
FNG wrote:I think most of us can agree that the picks that we will be giving up as part of the Gobert deal are most likely not going to be lottery picks. With that in mind, let's review the Wolves history of non-lottery first round draft picks:
1990: Gerald Glass
1997: Paul Grant
1998: Rasho Nesterovic
2003: Ndudi Ebi
2009: Wayne Ellington
2010: Lazar Hayward
2018: Josh Okogie
While I will admit that all 7 of these players are talented enough to beat me in a game of one-on-one, I would not lose any sleep over having to lose the rights to them in exchange for picking up an All-Star defensive stopper like Rudy Gobert.
I don't think the issue is the players the Wolves could have drafted so much as the trade flexibility they lost.
Yeah, trade flexibility might be the biggest surrendered asset with this deal. But I'll take the contributions of a perennial DPOY candidate over trade flexibility any day.
The Wolves draft history is largely irrelevant to what this franchise might be missing out on in the future. Those past picks were the work of Kevin McHale, David Kahn, and Thibs. May word hasn't gotten out yet that all three of those characteris have moved on. :). Seriously, the Wolves' current head of basketball operations drafted Jokic, Monte Morris and Bones Hyland in the second round. He also drafted Jamal Murray and Nurkic.
There's no doubt the Wolves landed a game-changing defender in Gobert. But there seems to be a homer penchant for trivializing what the Wolves gave up. Giving up four of the team's next seven first-round picks with only a top five protection on the 2029 pick is a big deal, especially when the team just hired a PBO who is known for his draft acumen. The Wolves draft history illustrates the frustration of relying on drafts when you have bad front offices making draft decisions. The article I posted illustrates the potential downside to giving up future picks.
The Wolves paid a hefty price, but the price they paid has put this team in the conversation among Wolves fans for a top four spot in the West and a top seven finish among national pundits. I like the team we have. I hope the move pays off.
That goes both ways, Lip. You think there's a homer effect in play where fans are trivializing what was given up for Rudy Gobert, and the opposing side would say that draft picks in general just don't end up being that valuable after the pick is actually made. Gobert's elite production the next three seasons will likely exceed anything the Timberwolves would collectively get from those assets.
I can see it both ways, but I have always leaned towards the side that draft picks are essentially poker chips. You can use them to draft quality players or you can trade them for quality players, but the name of the game is accumulating talent, especially elite talent. It's not by accident that the team that acquires the star player usually wins the trade. It's because that level of player is difficult to acquire and even more difficult to develop. Gobert is an immediate defensive star, who is more than capable offensively, being added to basically the same team we were intrigued with last year. The excitement is justified.
Camden wrote:That goes both ways, Lip. You think there's a homer effect in play where fans are trivializing what was given up for Rudy Gobert, and the opposing side would say that draft picks in general just don't end up being that valuable after the pick is actually made. Gobert's elite production the next three seasons will likely exceed anything the Timberwolves would collectively get from those assets.
I can see it both ways, but I have always leaned towards the side that draft picks are essentially poker chips. You can use them to draft quality players or you can trade them for quality players, but the name of the game is accumulating talent, especially elite talent. It's not by accident that the team that acquires the star player usually wins the trade. It's because that level of player is difficult to acquire and even more difficult to develop. Gobert is an immediate defensive star, who is more than capable offensively, being added to basically the same team we were intrigued with last year. The excitement is justified.
That's a fair assessment, Cam. I'm not sure we're quite the same team we were last season with Beverley and Vanderbilt gone, although I'll concede that the addition of Kyle Anderson helps offset at least some of that loss.
