Big O wrote:If and that's a big if, the Wolves could sign Durant and all of the pups reach their full potential, a few trades would need to be made or Glen would need to pony up and pay the luxury tax for a season or two. He'll be pushing 80 years old by then and will likely be worth more than $2 BILLION. You can't take it with you - what's a few million dollars of tax compared with multiple titles? IMO If you can land Durant you do it and figure out the Cap when you have to.
It's much more complicated than Glen just deciding to pony up (although I still don't think a sane owner is going to pay that absurdly high tax), because he now has several minority owners who are in no way billionaires. Debbie Saunders, for instance, simply doesn't have the means to pay her share of the luxury tax. Unless a crazy Saudi Arabian sheik comes in and buys the team, I think we should give up on the idea of ever going over the lux threshold.
(and I'm not keeping my season tickets if they move the team to Riyadh)
Camden wrote:Re-signing Dieng and then trading him when the time is necessary would be one part of that solution. He's less vital to the team than any of Durant/Horford, Towns, Wiggins, LaVine or Rubio. He's also turning 27 this year so by that time he'd be approaching 30. That would be common sense, IMO.
I agree that Gorgui is less vital, but wouldn't we have to take a comparable amount of salary back in trade? Or is there a rule that you don't have to take back comparable salary if you are over the cap? I have Gorgui in my analysis at $12-15 million and thought about not bringing him back after his rookie contract expires to leave room for both Wig and Zach. I like G, but that has to be considered.
There's lots of cap space out there for the next two years so as long as he can be absorbed under the cap by someone there doesn't have to be a salary match. We'd just get a big trade exception.
Camden wrote:Re-signing Dieng and then trading him when the time is necessary would be one part of that solution. He's less vital to the team than any of Durant/Horford, Towns, Wiggins, LaVine or Rubio. He's also turning 27 this year so by that time he'd be approaching 30. That would be common sense, IMO.
I don't believe this to be true, but I need to ask - Do you put a Durant or Horford acquisition on the same level? To me one's a no brainer for a max deal, the other i'd have to think about real hard.
Camden wrote:Re-signing Dieng and then trading him when the time is necessary would be one part of that solution. He's less vital to the team than any of Durant/Horford, Towns, Wiggins, LaVine or Rubio. He's also turning 27 this year so by that time he'd be approaching 30. That would be common sense, IMO.
I agree that Gorgui is less vital, but wouldn't we have to take a comparable amount of salary back in trade? Or is there a rule that you don't have to take back comparable salary if you are over the cap? I have Gorgui in my analysis at $12-15 million and thought about not bringing him back after his rookie contract expires to leave room for both Wig and Zach. I like G, but that has to be considered.
There's lots of cap space out there for the next two years so as long as he can be absorbed under the cap by someone there doesn't have to be a salary match. We'd just get a big trade exception.
Thanks for the clarification, khans...sounds like I had the trade rule backwards. Trading Gorgui for cheaper players/picks might clear enough space to allow the Wolves to keep Zach and Wig...we'd have to let Bazz and Belly go too, unless they were willing to resign for a very small contract (very doubtful).
Camden wrote:Re-signing Dieng and then trading him when the time is necessary would be one part of that solution. He's less vital to the team than any of Durant/Horford, Towns, Wiggins, LaVine or Rubio. He's also turning 27 this year so by that time he'd be approaching 30. That would be common sense, IMO.
I don't believe this to be true, but I need to ask - Do you put a Durant or Horford acquisition on the same level? To me one's a no brainer for a max deal, the other i'd have to think about real hard.
They're both no-brainer acquisitions to me if you can get one of them. I've actually already laid this out on more detail before -- and got crucified by some -- but I do feel like getting Durant would be the end of the "Wiggins becomes a star in Minnesota" idea. Either he'd become the third or fourth option on offense or he'd become trade bait. So, to me, that is a big negative of getting Durant, despite how great of a player he is.
Horford's the easier fit that not only makes us a good playoff team, but keeps our long-term ceiling (contending for a decade) in mind because Wiggins would still be the No. 2 option and would have to be a go-to player. With Durant, his role is minimized and that lowers his value immensely.
I didn't add up all of your numbers but what is the maximum the wolves would be looking at for luxury tax if they sign Durant and Wigs, Towns, Lavine and Rubio all become max studs?
Part of the equation also needs to be what happens to the value of the team if the the above scenario happens, in which case they are looking at multiple titles. Right now the wolves are the 4th least valuable team at about $720M. if winning titles at least moves the team to the median the team would be worth 40% more...
Camden wrote:Re-signing Dieng and then trading him when the time is necessary would be one part of that solution. He's less vital to the team than any of Durant/Horford, Towns, Wiggins, LaVine or Rubio. He's also turning 27 this year so by that time he'd be approaching 30. That would be common sense, IMO.
I don't believe this to be true, but I need to ask - Do you put a Durant or Horford acquisition on the same level? To me one's a no brainer for a max deal, the other i'd have to think about real hard.
They're both no-brainer acquisitions to me if you can get one of them. I've actually already laid this out on more detail before -- and got crucified by some -- but I do feel like getting Durant would be the end of the "Wiggins becomes a star in Minnesota" idea. Either he'd become the third or fourth option on offense or he'd become trade bait. So, to me, that is a big negative of getting Durant, despite how great of a player he is.
Horford's the easier fit that not only makes us a good playoff team, but keeps our long-term ceiling (contending for a decade) in mind because Wiggins would still be the No. 2 option and would have to be a go-to player. With Durant, his role is minimized and that lowers his value immensely.
There is no negative to having Durant join Andrew in Minnesota. Andrew is going to be a great player regardless. Playing next to KD isn't going to change that.
Camden wrote:Re-signing Dieng and then trading him when the time is necessary would be one part of that solution. He's less vital to the team than any of Durant/Horford, Towns, Wiggins, LaVine or Rubio. He's also turning 27 this year so by that time he'd be approaching 30. That would be common sense, IMO.
I don't believe this to be true, but I need to ask - Do you put a Durant or Horford acquisition on the same level? To me one's a no brainer for a max deal, the other i'd have to think about real hard.
They're both no-brainer acquisitions to me if you can get one of them. I've actually already laid this out on more detail before -- and got crucified by some -- but I do feel like getting Durant would be the end of the "Wiggins becomes a star in Minnesota" idea. Either he'd become the third or fourth option on offense or he'd become trade bait. So, to me, that is a big negative of getting Durant, despite how great of a player he is.
Horford's the easier fit that not only makes us a good playoff team, but keeps our long-term ceiling (contending for a decade) in mind because Wiggins would still be the No. 2 option and would have to be a go-to player. With Durant, his role is minimized and that lowers his value immensely.
There is no negative to having Durant join Andrew in Minnesota. Andrew is going to be a great player regardless. Playing next to KD isn't going to change that.
Well, forgive me if this is too harsh, but that's a delusional idea, IMO. Just from what we've seen through two seasons, Wiggins is forced into the star role. I think that's good for him if he has any chance of becoming a top-10 player in basketball like you foresee. On this hypothetical superteam, he'd be the clear cut 3rd/4th option offensively. He wouldn't need to be a star on that team, thus he wouldn't be a star player. He wouldn't be the player closing out games because better players in Durant and Towns would get that responsibility. He would have to get a lot better defensively, rebounding, and on his catch-and-shoot from 3P -- role player skills. In theory, he'd be like Kawhi Leonard was several seasons ago.
Camden wrote:Re-signing Dieng and then trading him when the time is necessary would be one part of that solution. He's less vital to the team than any of Durant/Horford, Towns, Wiggins, LaVine or Rubio. He's also turning 27 this year so by that time he'd be approaching 30. That would be common sense, IMO.
I don't believe this to be true, but I need to ask - Do you put a Durant or Horford acquisition on the same level? To me one's a no brainer for a max deal, the other i'd have to think about real hard.
They're both no-brainer acquisitions to me if you can get one of them. I've actually already laid this out on more detail before -- and got crucified by some -- but I do feel like getting Durant would be the end of the "Wiggins becomes a star in Minnesota" idea. Either he'd become the third or fourth option on offense or he'd become trade bait. So, to me, that is a big negative of getting Durant, despite how great of a player he is.
Horford's the easier fit that not only makes us a good playoff team, but keeps our long-term ceiling (contending for a decade) in mind because Wiggins would still be the No. 2 option and would have to be a go-to player. With Durant, his role is minimized and that lowers his value immensely.
There is no negative to having Durant join Andrew in Minnesota. Andrew is going to be a great player regardless. Playing next to KD isn't going to change that.
Well, forgive me if this is too harsh, but that's a delusional idea, IMO. Just from what we've seen through two seasons, Wiggins is forced into the star role. I think that's good for him if he has any chance of becoming a top-10 player in basketball like you foresee. On this hypothetical superteam, he'd be the clear cut 3rd/4th option offensively. He wouldn't need to be a star on that team, thus he wouldn't be a star player. He wouldn't be the player closing out games because better players in Durant and Towns would get that responsibility. He would have to get a lot better defensively, rebounding, and on his catch-and-shoot from 3P -- role player skills. In theory, he'd be like Kawhi Leonard was several seasons ago.
Yeah, someone has to be the Chris Bosh or Kevin Love. It ain't going to be Durant and KAT was already a more versatile and efficient scorer than Wiggins last season.
It's interesting, because if Wiggins had stayed in Cleveland, he would have taken this exact role, with LeBron and Irving doing most of the scoring. Would he have evolved into a better defender and rebounder than he is right now as a result? Would his catch-and-shoot 3 be better because he'd be given a green light to park in the corner and take those shots? On the other hand, his overall scoring ability would be years behind where it is today.
Camden wrote:Re-signing Dieng and then trading him when the time is necessary would be one part of that solution. He's less vital to the team than any of Durant/Horford, Towns, Wiggins, LaVine or Rubio. He's also turning 27 this year so by that time he'd be approaching 30. That would be common sense, IMO.
I don't believe this to be true, but I need to ask - Do you put a Durant or Horford acquisition on the same level? To me one's a no brainer for a max deal, the other i'd have to think about real hard.
They're both no-brainer acquisitions to me if you can get one of them. I've actually already laid this out on more detail before -- and got crucified by some -- but I do feel like getting Durant would be the end of the "Wiggins becomes a star in Minnesota" idea. Either he'd become the third or fourth option on offense or he'd become trade bait. So, to me, that is a big negative of getting Durant, despite how great of a player he is.
Horford's the easier fit that not only makes us a good playoff team, but keeps our long-term ceiling (contending for a decade) in mind because Wiggins would still be the No. 2 option and would have to be a go-to player. With Durant, his role is minimized and that lowers his value immensely.
There is no negative to having Durant join Andrew in Minnesota. Andrew is going to be a great player regardless. Playing next to KD isn't going to change that.
Well, forgive me if this is too harsh, but that's a delusional idea, IMO. Just from what we've seen through two seasons, Wiggins is forced into the star role. I think that's good for him if he has any chance of becoming a top-10 player in basketball like you foresee. On this hypothetical superteam, he'd be the clear cut 3rd/4th option offensively. He wouldn't need to be a star on that team, thus he wouldn't be a star player. He wouldn't be the player closing out games because better players in Durant and Towns would get that responsibility. He would have to get a lot better defensively, rebounding, and on his catch-and-shoot from 3P -- role player skills. In theory, he'd be like Kawhi Leonard was several seasons ago.
Yeah, someone has to be the Chris Bosh or Kevin Love. It ain't going to be Durant and KAT was already a more versatile and efficient scorer than Wiggins last season.
It's interesting, because if Wiggins had stayed in Cleveland, he would have taken this exact role, with LeBron and Irving doing most of the scoring. Would he have evolved into a better defender and rebounder than he is right now as a result? Would his catch-and-shoot 3 be better because he'd be given a green light to park in the corner and take those shots? On the other hand, his overall scoring ability would be years behind where it is today.
to me the question is would be be be better than the Shupert Smith Combo the Cavs have right now compared to another PG they could have acquired. Tough to say but Shumpert seemed to take a step the wrong direction offensively especially when it came to 3 point shooting this year.
