CoolBreeze44 wrote:OKC is proving they can win without Westbrook. I have no doubt they are a better team with Rubio, Pek, and Durant as their core.
So adding two guys who have never been over .500 for an entire season are going to make OKC better than the two guys who have helped them reach the Finals and one of the top teams in the league for years now?
Ok. We can disagree on this one. I have no problem disagreeing with you. I guess we'll never know who's right... because there's no way OKC would dump Ibaka and Westbrook for Rubio and Pekovic. (not that they could anyway...)
Rubio/Pek/Bazz for Westbrook/Adams. If we are trading Pek, we need a C in return and Adams looks promising long-term. Bazz gives them a bench scorer they could use and Pek gives them some inside scoring they don't have. The only way I see this happening is if they fail to make the finals this year. Like others have said, they aren't going to rock the boat if they make another finals.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Perkins and Westbrook doesn't make sense for Minnesota IMO
It is more challenging but if we really want to gain a star for 2 good players that would be what it would take. No way we get Ibaka and Westbrook for anyone on our roster other than Love.
khans2k5 wrote:Rubio/Pek/Bazz for Westbrook/Adams. If we are trading Pek, we need a C in return and Adams looks promising long-term. Bazz gives them a bench scorer they could use and Pek gives them some inside scoring they don't have. The only way I see this happening is if they fail to make the finals this year. Like others have said, they aren't going to rock the boat if they make another finals.
Don't think Shabazz would have to be involved, but that's a minor part of this deal. Is Westbrook worth that much? Do we get significantly better from this deal? I'm not sure the answer is yes to either question.
Westbrook is a star. And obtaining a star requires a high price. We don't have draft picks so our talent is our only other option. I think from a pure number point right now OKC gets more out of it. But for our chances of building a contender long term we are way better off with a twosome of Love and Westbrook than with the threesome of Love/Rubio/Pek.
Camden wrote:I'd think a more realistic deal would be Rubio/Love for Westbrook/Ibaka. Just off the top of my head.
I think the only reality that happens in is in a Wolves fan's head. OKC never does that deal. Ibaka is too valuable to them. That deal may be more "fair" for their production right now. But it would mess with OKC's plans too much and they would reject it.
Camden wrote:I'd think a more realistic deal would be Rubio/Love for Westbrook/Ibaka. Just off the top of my head.
I think the only reality that happens in is in a Wolves fan's head. OKC never does that deal. Ibaka is too valuable to them.
I forgot people on here think that Ibaka has more value to the Thunder than Love would. Dumb dumb dumb. That's fine, though. I'd rather have the better player, which is Love. Back to the Rubio/Pek for Westbrook talk.
Oh shit. I am sorry cam. I just completely missed that you had love in there. My bad. My response was dumb. I don't want that deal myself only because i view a Westbrook deal as a home run shot to keep Love.
thedoper wrote:Oh shit. I am sorry cam. I just completely missed that you had love in there. My bad. My response was dumb. I don't want that deal myself only because i view a Westbrook deal as a home run shot to keep Love.
No worries. I thought you were one of those "Ibaka has more value to OKC than Love" people.
