Camden wrote:Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars?
I'd rather have a top-10 player in the NBA so long as he has his head screwed on right. I understand the attraction, but team chemistry matters, just ask the Wolves next opponent how well chasing top-10 player in the NBA team building can fail. Or Cleveland for that matter.
The potential with adding Cousins to the Wolves is huge, in both directions.
Houston? Remember when they traded for a young Harden? That turned out great. That's pretty much what some of us in this thread are advocating for.
Now, imagine if they were pairing him with the best rookie in 20 years and two other potential stars. That's the scenario we'd be in.
We're not going after a 30-year old center with back issues.
I wouldn't do that deal either for two reasons. First, I still think the price is too steep. We only have five good players right now. So if you give up Dieng to get Cousins, you still only have five good players.
Wait, why are you acting like Dieng and Cousins are equal? If we moved Dieng and our pick to get Cousins, we'd be moving a solid player for a great player. Dieng isn't in the same zip code as Cousins.
No Cam. I'm not saying Cousins and Dieng are equal. Don't be silly. I'm saying Dieng is a good player. And we need to add more good players - not deal our existing good players to try and upgrade. It should be very obvious we lack depth more than talent right now.
High quality players still reign supreme in the NBA. I'd rather move a solid player and a high pick for a legitimate star player who hasn't even reached his prime yet and figure out the rest later. Assuming we came close enough salary-wise in that hypothetical trade, you now are a real player in free agency to fill in some holes. Dieng is by no means untouchable or an immovable player, especially when the return is a player that's leaps and bounds better than him.
Stars > Depth.
I don't disagree with that. But in the trade you are proposing you'd likely be giving up a top 5 pick (potential star) plus a solid Big in Dieng (depth) for an expensive loose cannon in Cousins. That's too much.
And as I wrote before...How long you think Cousins would be happy if he's not getting 20+ shots a game? He would have to be the focus of the offense. Which means Towns, Wiggins and LaVine would all logically play lesser roles. That's not what I want either.
I'd much rather role the dice with our top 5 pick. Maybe that person turns into a Star? And I want to keep Dieng. It's not necessary to give up one of our good players at this time. We can add good players via Free Agency without giving up what little depth we have.
Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars? We have the high ceiling guys we need. I'll take the sure commodity to provide nightly production, especially in a shaky draft class.
As for your sentence highlighted above: Sure, you can add good players if they want to sign here even though we're not a contender yet. That's tough. Regardless, Minnesota cannot sign a player like Cousins in FA. That comes via trade. He's a great talent, not just a good player. Very different.
Can I make a counter argument couldn't the same thing be said about when the wolves traded love for a young player. We all thought (or at least I did) thought love was a top 7 player in the NBA and I think we found out that he is not. If you are talking about the Dieng trade do you honestly believe that the Kings would do that and there would be no better offer out there
I was on the side saying the Cavs were right for what they were doing then. It's not every year that players of those levels are available so when they are and you're in a position to get one, I think it's a relatively easy decision. It's a winning trade. That one in particular was good for both teams. THAT is the rare thing.
I think the Kings would have to listen if we had a top-two pick, yes.
I agree that the Kings would have to listen to the trade but I just believe that other teams could offer things better than the wolves offer of #1 pick and Dieng. Like the Celtics could offer a top 5 pick this years draft a late first this year, 2018 Nets 1st and Crowder for Cousins and I think that is better. I think if the Lakers keep there pick, a trade of Russell, there pick and a future 1st could be better.
Now I am not opposed to bringing in Cousins if we don't have to give up one of the 3 (Wiggins, Lavine, Towns). I just believe a better offer would be out there for the Kings. I also remember like a month back on a Lowe podcast they say some of the reason the Kings don't entertain cousin trades are because of the economy impact Cousins has on that city
Camden wrote:Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars?
I'd rather have a top-10 player in the NBA so long as he has his head screwed on right. I understand the attraction, but team chemistry matters, just ask the Wolves next opponent how well chasing top-10 player in the NBA team building can fail. Or Cleveland for that matter.
The potential with adding Cousins to the Wolves is huge, in both directions.
Houston? Remember when they traded for a young Harden? That turned out great. That's pretty much what some of us in this thread are advocating for.
Now, imagine if they were pairing him with the best rookie in 20 years and two other potential stars. That's the scenario we'd be in.
We're not going after a 30-year old center with back issues.
Yeah, Cousin's issues originate above the neck.
I'm not saying you can't win chasing big time players, but Houston put a very talented team on the floor and their failing is between their two star players, acquisitions, ears.
Camden wrote:Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars?
I'd rather have a top-10 player in the NBA so long as he has his head screwed on right. I understand the attraction, but team chemistry matters, just ask the Wolves next opponent how well chasing top-10 player in the NBA team building can fail. Or Cleveland for that matter.
The potential with adding Cousins to the Wolves is huge, in both directions.
Houston? Remember when they traded for a young Harden? That turned out great. That's pretty much what some of us in this thread are advocating for.
Now, imagine if they were pairing him with the best rookie in 20 years and two other potential stars. That's the scenario we'd be in.
We're not going after a 30-year old center with back issues.
Also different situation in that trade, Thunder didnt want to go over the luxury tax so they had to decide between Harden or Ibaka. Also people didn't know Harden would be that good. They knew he would be good but that good I am not sure people knew that. I remember the rumor out there that the wolves offered Derrick Williams and our pick for Harden. We know Cousins is a top ten type talent, while at the time we didn't know Harden would be a top ten talent. So IMO Cousins value is greatly increased because he is the sole star on the kings and his talent is perceived greater then Harden at the time
Hicks123 wrote:Cam, what I have learned from this thread is that we have the absolute best 22 win team money can buy. Don't mess with perfection. Let's roll with it.
What's the most games Cousins has ever won in a season? Just sayin..............
If we were playing a video game, it would be great to get Cousins. I still wouldn't give up Wiggins and a number 1 but it would be great. Problem is the NBA isn't a video game. And I think this is the way some of you think.
TRKO wrote:We have three guys the same age with massive potential. I say let's keep them together and add great role players around them. Unless Steph Curry becomes available, I say let's stay the course.
Cousins is the best Center in the NBA, but why try to get 4 star players when you can settle for 3? Lavine and Wiggins aren't stars yet and may not even attain star status for a few more years if at all. They might be the really good role players that need a star to carry them. That's why if you can get a star you do it. We can always flip Cousins for depth if our big 3 does indeed become a big 3, but until they do we should still be trying to add another star to this team and not building a team around 3 guys before we know if they are good enough to get the job done.
How many stars do the warriors have? Curry, maybe Thompson? Top to bottom they are a complete team with great role players. I think we have 3 guys that can be stars. There is only one basketball and Towns, Wiggins, and LaVine all can score. Add a 4th guy that needs the ball in his hands isn't ideal for our team. What we need is grit and defense at the 4, a much better bench, and better shooting out of Ricky.
I honestly think we could go into next year with the same starters and an improved bench and fight for the 8th spot. I also think the payoff of three 20 year olds hitting their prime all at the same time is huge. Stay the course and continue to build the team. It's not the time to panic and trade one of your young building blocks.
TRKO wrote:We have three guys the same age with massive potential. I say let's keep them together and add great role players around them. Unless Steph Curry becomes available, I say let's stay the course.
Cousins is the best Center in the NBA, but why try to get 4 star players when you can settle for 3? Lavine and Wiggins aren't stars yet and may not even attain star status for a few more years if at all. They might be the really good role players that need a star to carry them. That's why if you can get a star you do it. We can always flip Cousins for depth if our big 3 does indeed become a big 3, but until they do we should still be trying to add another star to this team and not building a team around 3 guys before we know if they are good enough to get the job done.
How many stars do the warriors have? Curry, maybe Thompson? Top to bottom they are a complete team with great role players. I think we have 3 guys that can be stars. There is only one basketball and Towns, Wiggins, and LaVine all can score. Add a 4th guy that needs the ball in his hands isn't ideal for our team. What we need is grit and defense at the 4, a much better bench, and better shooting out of Ricky.
I honestly think we could go into next year with the same starters and an improved bench and fight for the 8th spot. I also think the payoff of three 20 year olds hitting their prime all at the same time is huge. Stay the course and continue to build the team. It's not the time to panic and trade one of your young building blocks.
I get where you're coming from as far as the Wolves... and tend to agree. At least until the organization has more stability so we can evaluate these young guys properly. The future is bright. Obviously.
As far as GSW... I just want to add a bit to it. Part of the reason they are so good is that they have former starters (and even All Stars), All Defense guys and 6th men of the year as their "role players." More importantly, those guys have been willing to sacrifice individual glory for the good of the team.
That's a sneaky thing about the NBA. You won't find that as often as we might think. And it's even less likely with a young team. There's a section in Bill Simmons' "Book of Basketball" that addresses this concept. Isiah Thomas brought it up and discusses it in depth...
