Building a Championship Contender Via Trade

[Duke13]

Reading through this tread quickly, the difference between the wolves and these other championship teams who have made significant free agent signings is we aren't a contending team, the others were. We are at the beginning of this process. I don't think we're a legit contender with Butler on this team. Why trade a motivated, hard working 21 year with superstar potential. If our core was 26-30 years old and couldnt wait for a young player to develop, then pull the trigger but to me it not worth it. At the very very least let these guys play one more year with s legit coach, get a better idea what you have if anything next years free agent class is better and deeper, that would be the time to strike, not now.

[Lipoli390]

I think a lot of people have missed my point. I acknowledge that free agency has been a common secondary source of core players on championship contenders. My focus was on trades. And I still think top 2 players (or even top 3 players) on championship contenders have rarely been acquired through trades, especially trading a 1st round pick. There are exceptions to the rule. I pointed out a few and some have identified a few others. And I've never suggested that it's rare to acquire players via trade who help the team win. Again, I was focused on TRADES that bring in one of a team's TOP TWO players.

I noticed that most lumped FA/trades together and I haven't gone back to separate them out. The Celtics traded for KG, so that's an example. But they drafted Paul Pierce. I think they signed Ray Allen as a FA, but I'm not sure. Cleveland signed LeBron as a FA to pair with Kyrie Irving who they drafted. Love is an example of trading for a team's 3rd best player, but he's a distant third to the other two and arguably the Cavs would be better off with Wiggins. I think the Bulls acquired Pau Gasol in a trade to pair with their two best players, Rose and Butler, who they drafted. But Gasol may have been signed as a FA. The Iggy trade was a good one for GS, but I don't see him as one of their two or even three best players the past two seasons when they've been championship contenders. I thought it was a great deal for the Warriors at the time. Monta was a one-dimensional player , a high volume relatively low percentage scorer. He had been in the League a while and no one thought he'd become more than he was then. Nothing like Zach or Wiggins.

[Monster]

When the Pistons won the championship their best players were pretty much aquires by both trades and FA. RIP, Ben Wallace, Sheed (as Abe already pointed out) and Billups. That doesn't apply to Lip's point as he has stated it but I figured I would throw that out there.

[MikkeMan]

I think a lot of people have missed my point. I acknowledge that free agency has been a common secondary source of core players on championship contenders. My focus was on trades. And I still think top 2 players (or even top 3 players) on championship contenders have rarely been acquired through trades, especially trading a 1st round pick. There are exceptions to the rule. I pointed out a few and some have identified a few others. And I've never suggested that it's rare to acquire players via trade who help the team win. Again, I was focused on TRADES that bring in one of a team's TOP TWO players.

I noticed that most lumped FA/trades together and I haven't gone back to separate them out. The Celtics traded for KG, so that's an example. But they drafted Paul Pierce. I think they signed Ray Allen as a FA, but I'm not sure. Cleveland signed LeBron as a FA to pair with Kyrie Irving who they drafted. Love is an example of trading for a team's 3rd best player, but he's a distant third to the other two and arguably the Cavs would be better off with Wiggins. I think the Bulls acquired Pau Gasol in a trade to pair with their two best players, Rose and Butler, who they drafted. But Gasol may have been signed as a FA. The Iggy trade was a good one for GS, but I don't see him as one of their two or even three best players the past two seasons when they've been championship contenders. I thought it was a great deal for the Warriors at the time. Monta was a one-dimensional player , a high volume relatively low percentage scorer. He had been in the League a while and no one thought he'd become more than he was then. Nothing like Zach or Wiggins.

Celtics traded for both KG and Ray Allen. They traded 4th pick, Wally Szczerbiak, Delonte West and 2nd rounder for Allen and Glen Davis. Detroit championship team starting five except Prince and Billups were acquired with trade. Prince was drafted and Billups was signed as free agent. I also think that people were referring Lakers when they mentioned that Gasol was got in trade. Lakers traded Kwame Brown, rights to Marc Gasol and couple of 1st rounders to Pau Gasol. Also Odom was acquired with trade for that team. Dirk and Barea were the only rotation players in Dallas championship team that were not acquired with trade.

I think that San Antonio and Golden State (also Chicago if you count Kukoc to their top3 instead of Rodman) have been the only championship teams in past 20 years that had acquired all of their top3 players by drafting them. All other have either signed or traded for at least one of their top players and I think it has been much more common that teams have got their top players by trading than signing them through free agency. I think that only free agent signings for top3 player for championship team during last 20 years have been LeBron James(twice), Bosh, Shaq(for Lakers) and Billups for Detroit.

[petecorcoran [enjin:6658618]]

I feel like trades vs. drafting is more 50-50 than anything. Auerbach's Boston team were clearly built with the draft, same with San Antonio. The Lakers did it with a trade... first Wilt, then Kareem, and then Gasol. Boston later traded for both Garnett and Allen.

That said, the weighting is probably more toward the draft for the 1-2 players... simply because the TV money and the player contract has levelled the playing field enough that stars are harder to trade because the money is there and the home team can offer more money.

However, I said before the draft and I still feel... I'd trade Dunn and Lavine for Butler any day, simply because I think it makes us better for the next 3 years and injuries and free agency make it hard for me to think longer term than that.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I feel like trades vs. drafting is more 50-50 than anything. Auerbach's Boston team were clearly built with the draft, same with San Antonio. The Lakers did it with a trade... first Wilt, then Kareem, and then Gasol. Boston later traded for both Garnett and Allen.

That said, the weighting is probably more toward the draft for the 1-2 players... simply because the TV money and the player contract has levelled the playing field enough that stars are harder to trade because the money is there and the home team can offer more money.

However, I said before the draft and I still feel... I'd trade Dunn and Lavine for Butler any day, simply because I think it makes us better for the next 3 years and injuries and free agency make it hard for me to think longer term than that.

I agree with your last statement. There's obviously room for promise and looking toward the future. But in the NBA, you do what you need to do to give your team the best chance to win within small windows. There are simply far too many variables to make (or not make) a move now because of what COULD happen in a perfect storm scenario in 3 or 5 or more years.

The Wolves are the envy of so many organizations because it looks like it has its star (Towns) and even a secondary promising one in Wiggins. Why not try to keep improving the team instead of assuming it will improve on its own within a set amount of time? Sometimes, there's a reason to choose production over promise. How many teams in the modern NBA keep a collection of young promising players together for a super long time anyway? There's always fine-tuning along the way as long as the foundation remains set. The Wolves have their foundation and that makes it infinitely "easier."

The one caveat to this is that the Wolves aren't in "Win Now" mode. So they can be more patient than most teams if need be. Eventually (probably sooner than later) though... the time to make moves for Now instead of the Future should be made.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

I feel like trades vs. drafting is more 50-50 than anything. Auerbach's Boston team were clearly built with the draft, same with San Antonio. The Lakers did it with a trade... first Wilt, then Kareem, and then Gasol. Boston later traded for both Garnett and Allen.

That said, the weighting is probably more toward the draft for the 1-2 players... simply because the TV money and the player contract has levelled the playing field enough that stars are harder to trade because the money is there and the home team can offer more money.

However, I said before the draft and I still feel... I'd trade Dunn and Lavine for Butler any day, simply because I think it makes us better for the next 3 years and injuries and free agency make it hard for me to think longer term than that.

I agree with your last statement. There's obviously room for promise and looking toward the future. But in the NBA, you do what you need to do to give your team the best chance to win within small windows. There are simply far too many variables to make (or not make) a move now because of what COULD happen in a perfect storm scenario in 3 or 5 or more years.

The Wolves are the envy of so many organizations because it looks like it has its star (Towns) and even a secondary promising one in Wiggins. Why not try to keep improving the team instead of assuming it will improve on its own within a set amount of time? Sometimes, there's a reason to choose production over promise. How many teams in the modern NBA keep a collection of young promising players together for a super long time anyway? There's always fine-tuning along the way as long as the foundation remains set. The Wolves have their foundation and that makes it infinitely "easier."

The one caveat to this is that the Wolves aren't in "Win Now" mode. So they can be more patient than most teams if need be. Eventually (probably sooner than later) though... the time to make moves for Now instead of the Future should be made.

If we're gonna swing the bat we have to wait until Towns and Wiggins get older and more experienced because a swing and miss is gonna hurt us long term. Why are we taking the swing when they are 20-22 year olds and not ready for any big playoff runs? Butler's prime is gonna be nice playoff runs but nothing special and then he's gonna start to diminish right when Wiggins and Towns are entering their primes. Shouldn't the 3rd guy's prime match up with the other 2 if we are trying to maximize a short window. I don't think Butler alone opens the window. I think the window doesn't open until Towns and Wiggins enter their prime which is 3-4 years away. Also, if I'm building around 3 guys I want them to be complimentary players. Butler and Wiggins are gonna be very similar players in the coming years and neither really should be the primary ball handler even if Butler has promising low turnover numbers. Honestly Zach is an aggressive attacking mentality away from being that third complimentary player in my opinion. He can shoot, he has a handle and he has the athleticism to get to the rim at will if he wants while having the ability to dish the ball off decently. If he can become an effective secondary PnR player I'm sticking with our big 3 on the team already because of the great balance they have.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I feel like trades vs. drafting is more 50-50 than anything. Auerbach's Boston team were clearly built with the draft, same with San Antonio. The Lakers did it with a trade... first Wilt, then Kareem, and then Gasol. Boston later traded for both Garnett and Allen.

That said, the weighting is probably more toward the draft for the 1-2 players... simply because the TV money and the player contract has levelled the playing field enough that stars are harder to trade because the money is there and the home team can offer more money.

However, I said before the draft and I still feel... I'd trade Dunn and Lavine for Butler any day, simply because I think it makes us better for the next 3 years and injuries and free agency make it hard for me to think longer term than that.

I agree with your last statement. There's obviously room for promise and looking toward the future. But in the NBA, you do what you need to do to give your team the best chance to win within small windows. There are simply far too many variables to make (or not make) a move now because of what COULD happen in a perfect storm scenario in 3 or 5 or more years.

The Wolves are the envy of so many organizations because it looks like it has its star (Towns) and even a secondary promising one in Wiggins. Why not try to keep improving the team instead of assuming it will improve on its own within a set amount of time? Sometimes, there's a reason to choose production over promise. How many teams in the modern NBA keep a collection of young promising players together for a super long time anyway? There's always fine-tuning along the way as long as the foundation remains set. The Wolves have their foundation and that makes it infinitely "easier."

The one caveat to this is that the Wolves aren't in "Win Now" mode. So they can be more patient than most teams if need be. Eventually (probably sooner than later) though... the time to make moves for Now instead of the Future should be made.

If we're gonna swing the bat we have to wait until Towns and Wiggins get older and more experienced because a swing and miss is gonna hurt us long term. Why are we taking the swing when they are 20-22 year olds and not ready for any big playoff runs? Butler's prime is gonna be nice playoff runs but nothing special and then he's gonna start to diminish right when Wiggins and Towns are entering their primes. Shouldn't the 3rd guy's prime match up with the other 2 if we are trying to maximize a short window. I don't think Butler alone opens the window. I think the window doesn't open until Towns and Wiggins enter their prime which is 3-4 years away. Also, if I'm building around 3 guys I want them to be complimentary players. Butler and Wiggins are gonna be very similar players in the coming years and neither really should be the primary ball handler even if Butler has promising low turnover numbers. Honestly Zach is an aggressive attacking mentality away from being that third complimentary player in my opinion. He can shoot, he has a handle and he has the athleticism to get to the rim at will if he wants while having the ability to dish the ball off decently. If he can become an effective secondary PnR player I'm sticking with our big 3 on the team already because of the great balance they have.

A few notes:

1. It doesn't have to be about Jimmy Butler. But since he's been in the discussions lately...

2. I like the idea of mixing vets when you have a very young team. This is a losing franchise and losing culture, historically. Thibodeau helps with that. But I think we're seeing he knows the limitations of a coach/POBO. Players can learn from winning... and from other players. They learn what's needed to win games and succeed on/off the court in the league. Getting screamed at by a 40-year-old HOFer is one way. Personally, I dig the idea of learning from a two-way player who came into the league as an unheralded player and earned his big payday and is currently in/near his prime.

3. How many teams keep its 3 best players together for a very long time when all three enter the league at the same time and all three excel with the ball in their hands? When all three will be looking for big paydays at the same time? When all three are seeking their own places in the league (AS berths, endorsements, etc.)? Towns could be the next Duncan and exude that kind of humility throughout the entire organization. But remember, he was already established in SA and was 21/22 year olds when he started and frankly was from a different generation.

4. I just dig the staggered approach for long-time relevance over the "everybody will be the same ages and will grow as one unified force with each reaching his ultimate promise and potential." ESPECIALLY if you have the foundation to pull off that staggered approach. TWO foundational pieces is a rare find in the NBA. We could hold out hope for a 3rd (LaVine). But as noted earlier in this thread, sometimes you go with proven production over potential promise. The key is to do so wisely.

[thedoper]

If we're not in win now mode when the fuck are we going to be? I am all for winning now and they better start doing it. Great franchises are always in win now mode. We should always be looking to maximize our assets.

[AbeVigodaLive]

If we're not in win now mode when the fuck are we going to be? I am all for winning now and they better start doing it. Great franchises are always in win now mode. We should always be looking to maximize our assets.

I should clarify. Nobody loses their job if the Wolves don't "win now." The fanbase doesn't become more apathetic if they don't "win now." There's no chance the best player is leaving if they don't "win now."

I agree that the team should be doing what it can to win the most games it can. I'm just acknowledging that there's not a ton of pressure to do so.