Who starts at PF on opening night

[TheGrey08]

I'm not missing the point. LST, sjm, khans, Q, monster (kind of), Grey and likely several others have expressed that they either don't see Young as a starting PF for us, or Bennett/Thompson would be better options, or that they wouldn't give up one of the 1st round picks we receive from CLE for him.

I'm saying he's more than just a throw-in, if we can get him, and would be a good piece to get out of a Love deal. Personally, if Philly wanted Bennett and expirings for him, I'd do that in a heartbeat. I'm good with a package of expirings + a 1st as well, but like I've stated, the "Bennett has high potential" argument doesn't work for me.

Anyways, Young's a good basketball player. I'd like him on the team and I believe he'd perform better than expected. That's all that I'm saying.

Yep, I like Thompson more than Young for sure if he's available especially being on his rookie deal still. I see Thompson as a talented guy the Wolves have the power to retain, who is at least solid both offensively & defensively with the potential to keep getting better. Young on the other hand isn't as good on D, lacks rebounding, possibly only a 1 year rental and is expensive. I'd like to see what this team with a more defensive mindset. Rubio, Wiggins, Dieng, Thompson, Brewer, and I think Lavine can be solid on D as well.

I'm not against getting Young or even trading Bennett for him, BUT I don't think they should get much for assets for him. At most a 1st & 3 expirings for Young alone. Otherwise if Bennett has to be in the deal then Bennett/Expirings/1st from CLE for Young & 2015 PHI 1st.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

"I'm not against getting Young or even trading Bennett for him, BUT I don't think they should get much for assets for him. At most a 1st & 3 expirings for Young alone. Otherwise if Bennett has to be in the deal then Bennett/Expirings/1st from CLE for Young & 2015 PHI 1st."

Barea + Mbah a Moute + 1st (via CLE) for Young works for me.

Barea + Mbah a Moute + Bennett for Young also works for me.

[kms789 [enjin:6694798]]

I don't see how trading a former #1 overall pick in year 2 of his rookie deal for a possible 1 year rental on a non-playoff team is smart in any capacity. Even if Bennett is just a role player, you lose that trade if Young leaves after 1 year because you are guaranteed to have Bennett for another 3 years. You really lose the trade if he become a starter level player. I think trading Love for Wiggins kills any shot at the playoffs this year so we should be accruing as many young assets as possible, not trading them away for mediocre assets that don't make us a playoff team. Seems like a short sighted move to make because you think less than a year's worth of games is enough to say a guy is going to be the next D Will. I would rather go the tank route with Bennett starting at PF than be at the cap with a Ricky/Martin/Wiggins/Thad/Pek starting 5, ditch a long-term asset and end up with a worse pick but still no playoffs. If we can get Thad and keep Bennett, great, but I'm not giving up Bennett for a year of Thad just to get a worse pick and still not make the playoffs.

Bennett really shouldn't be referred to as "former #1 overall pick." It's misleading. He was projected to go in the 5-8 range in last year's draft. He wouldn't have went in the top-12 this year. The only thing that makes him a #1 overall pick is his contract. He's a LaVine level prospect getting paid 3 times as much

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I don't see how trading a former #1 overall pick in year 2 of his rookie deal for a possible 1 year rental on a non-playoff team is smart in any capacity. Even if Bennett is just a role player, you lose that trade if Young leaves after 1 year because you are guaranteed to have Bennett for another 3 years. You really lose the trade if he become a starter level player. I think trading Love for Wiggins kills any shot at the playoffs this year so we should be accruing as many young assets as possible, not trading them away for mediocre assets that don't make us a playoff team. Seems like a short sighted move to make because you think less than a year's worth of games is enough to say a guy is going to be the next D Will. I would rather go the tank route with Bennett starting at PF than be at the cap with a Ricky/Martin/Wiggins/Thad/Pek starting 5, ditch a long-term asset and end up with a worse pick but still no playoffs. If we can get Thad and keep Bennett, great, but I'm not giving up Bennett for a year of Thad just to get a worse pick and still not make the playoffs.

Bennett really shouldn't be referred to as "former #1 overall pick." It's misleading. He was projected to go in the 5-8 range in last year's draft. He wouldn't have went in the top-12 this year. The only thing that makes him a #1 overall pick is his contract. He's a LaVine level prospect getting paid 3 times as much

^^^^^^^^^

This is dead on.

[mjs34]

I don't see how trading a former #1 overall pick in year 2 of his rookie deal for a possible 1 year rental on a non-playoff team is smart in any capacity. Even if Bennett is just a role player, you lose that trade if Young leaves after 1 year because you are guaranteed to have Bennett for another 3 years. You really lose the trade if he become a starter level player. I think trading Love for Wiggins kills any shot at the playoffs this year so we should be accruing as many young assets as possible, not trading them away for mediocre assets that don't make us a playoff team. Seems like a short sighted move to make because you think less than a year's worth of games is enough to say a guy is going to be the next D Will. I would rather go the tank route with Bennett starting at PF than be at the cap with a Ricky/Martin/Wiggins/Thad/Pek starting 5, ditch a long-term asset and end up with a worse pick but still no playoffs. If we can get Thad and keep Bennett, great, but I'm not giving up Bennett for a year of Thad just to get a worse pick and still not make the playoffs.

Bennett really shouldn't be referred to as "former #1 overall pick." It's misleading. He was projected to go in the 5-8 range in last year's draft. He wouldn't have went in the top-12 this year. The only thing that makes him a #1 overall pick is his contract. He's a LaVine level prospect getting paid 3 times as much

Would you trade Lavine for Young?

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I don't see how trading a former #1 overall pick in year 2 of his rookie deal for a possible 1 year rental on a non-playoff team is smart in any capacity. Even if Bennett is just a role player, you lose that trade if Young leaves after 1 year because you are guaranteed to have Bennett for another 3 years. You really lose the trade if he become a starter level player. I think trading Love for Wiggins kills any shot at the playoffs this year so we should be accruing as many young assets as possible, not trading them away for mediocre assets that don't make us a playoff team. Seems like a short sighted move to make because you think less than a year's worth of games is enough to say a guy is going to be the next D Will. I would rather go the tank route with Bennett starting at PF than be at the cap with a Ricky/Martin/Wiggins/Thad/Pek starting 5, ditch a long-term asset and end up with a worse pick but still no playoffs. If we can get Thad and keep Bennett, great, but I'm not giving up Bennett for a year of Thad just to get a worse pick and still not make the playoffs.

Bennett really shouldn't be referred to as "former #1 overall pick." It's misleading. He was projected to go in the 5-8 range in last year's draft. He wouldn't have went in the top-12 this year. The only thing that makes him a #1 overall pick is his contract. He's a LaVine level prospect getting paid 3 times as much

Would you trade Lavine for Young?

No, but I'll trade Bennett for him and that's all that matters.

[mjs34]

I don't see how trading a former #1 overall pick in year 2 of his rookie deal for a possible 1 year rental on a non-playoff team is smart in any capacity. Even if Bennett is just a role player, you lose that trade if Young leaves after 1 year because you are guaranteed to have Bennett for another 3 years. You really lose the trade if he become a starter level player. I think trading Love for Wiggins kills any shot at the playoffs this year so we should be accruing as many young assets as possible, not trading them away for mediocre assets that don't make us a playoff team. Seems like a short sighted move to make because you think less than a year's worth of games is enough to say a guy is going to be the next D Will. I would rather go the tank route with Bennett starting at PF than be at the cap with a Ricky/Martin/Wiggins/Thad/Pek starting 5, ditch a long-term asset and end up with a worse pick but still no playoffs. If we can get Thad and keep Bennett, great, but I'm not giving up Bennett for a year of Thad just to get a worse pick and still not make the playoffs.

Bennett really shouldn't be referred to as "former #1 overall pick." It's misleading. He was projected to go in the 5-8 range in last year's draft. He wouldn't have went in the top-12 this year. The only thing that makes him a #1 overall pick is his contract. He's a LaVine level prospect getting paid 3 times as much

Would you trade Lavine for Young?

No, but I'll trade Bennett for him and that's all that matters.

actually what matters is what Flip will do. We have zero say in the matter.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

The guy was taken #1 overall. It's not rocket science. When they look back on former #1's, they don't throw in whether the guy was number 1 on everybody's board pre-draft. He was taken #1 overall and should be acknowledged as such because that is what happened. If he was clearly a 5-8 player last year then Cleveland wouldn't have taken him with the top pick because they would have picked somebody else in the 1-4 range. He finished at the top of their board and was taken #1 overall. How is it misleading to call a #1 pick a #1 pick? You think Zeller was a top 4 talent? No, but he's the number 4 overall pick in the draft. You can't change that fact for Bennett just because he shouldn't have gone there. He was taken with the top pick so he should be classified as a former number 1 pick same as anyone else where they got drafted. Darko is still a former #2 pick. He busted out of the league, but that doesn't change his draft status. Given Bennett has 1 year under his belt, calling him a former number 1 is not misleading in any form because we have no idea if he is a star/starter/role player/bust yet.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I don't see how trading a former #1 overall pick in year 2 of his rookie deal for a possible 1 year rental on a non-playoff team is smart in any capacity. Even if Bennett is just a role player, you lose that trade if Young leaves after 1 year because you are guaranteed to have Bennett for another 3 years. You really lose the trade if he become a starter level player. I think trading Love for Wiggins kills any shot at the playoffs this year so we should be accruing as many young assets as possible, not trading them away for mediocre assets that don't make us a playoff team. Seems like a short sighted move to make because you think less than a year's worth of games is enough to say a guy is going to be the next D Will. I would rather go the tank route with Bennett starting at PF than be at the cap with a Ricky/Martin/Wiggins/Thad/Pek starting 5, ditch a long-term asset and end up with a worse pick but still no playoffs. If we can get Thad and keep Bennett, great, but I'm not giving up Bennett for a year of Thad just to get a worse pick and still not make the playoffs.

Bennett really shouldn't be referred to as "former #1 overall pick." It's misleading. He was projected to go in the 5-8 range in last year's draft. He wouldn't have went in the top-12 this year. The only thing that makes him a #1 overall pick is his contract. He's a LaVine level prospect getting paid 3 times as much

Would you trade Lavine for Young?

No, but I'll trade Bennett for him and that's all that matters.

actually what matters is what Flip will do. We have zero say in the matter.

I believe your question was: "Would you trade Lavine for Young?"

So my answer was no on LaVine, but Bennett? Absolutely.

It also appears that Flip thinks the same. Reports coming out that Bennett may be moved for Young.

[mjs34]

I don't see how trading a former #1 overall pick in year 2 of his rookie deal for a possible 1 year rental on a non-playoff team is smart in any capacity. Even if Bennett is just a role player, you lose that trade if Young leaves after 1 year because you are guaranteed to have Bennett for another 3 years. You really lose the trade if he become a starter level player. I think trading Love for Wiggins kills any shot at the playoffs this year so we should be accruing as many young assets as possible, not trading them away for mediocre assets that don't make us a playoff team. Seems like a short sighted move to make because you think less than a year's worth of games is enough to say a guy is going to be the next D Will. I would rather go the tank route with Bennett starting at PF than be at the cap with a Ricky/Martin/Wiggins/Thad/Pek starting 5, ditch a long-term asset and end up with a worse pick but still no playoffs. If we can get Thad and keep Bennett, great, but I'm not giving up Bennett for a year of Thad just to get a worse pick and still not make the playoffs.

Bennett really shouldn't be referred to as "former #1 overall pick." It's misleading. He was projected to go in the 5-8 range in last year's draft. He wouldn't have went in the top-12 this year. The only thing that makes him a #1 overall pick is his contract. He's a LaVine level prospect getting paid 3 times as much

Would you trade Lavine for Young?

No, but I'll trade Bennett for him and that's all that matters.

actually what matters is what Flip will do. We have zero say in the matter.

I believe your question was: "Would you trade Lavine for Young?"

So my answer was no on LaVine, but Bennett? Absolutely.

It also appears that Flip thinks the same. Reports coming out that Bennett may be moved for Young.

My question was to KMS, but you said that is all that matters, and it really isn't . What reports are you talking about. I have read reporters speculating about what it would take, but haven't seen anyone state that has legs.