I thought I make a thread for this as I believe this is the most hot button decision with this team the next month and half.
The only way we can upgrade to a movement shooter or another piece is including Kyle Salary. So my question is would you trade Kyle for an upgrade and who would you want to trade for?
Kyle Anderson
Re: Kyle Anderson
Great question, jester, and I hear where you're coming from. But after thinking about it, I voted no. Anderson's inability to shoot a 3-pointer is weird, especially after shooting them so well last year. And I understand how that can hurt us on offense. But his length and smarts make him such a huge contributor on defense, and I like the way he facilitates on offense (especially against zone defenses). Finally, I don't know how much SloMo would bring back in a trade. I say keep him.
-
Coolbreeze44
- Posts: 13192
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Kyle Anderson
I also voted no. He brings too much versatility for me to want to move him.
Re: Kyle Anderson
Its a tough call. Our bench has been exposed a bit more as of late when I feel like they should dominate. I think Kyle’s play will come around and I trust him in pressure situations. Id rather us ride with what we have than to get too cute.
-
SameOldNudityDrew
- Posts: 3127
- Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Kyle Anderson
I voted no. I get that it would be nice to have more outside shooting, but we can't give up the playmaking, size, defense, and overall savvy that SloMo brings to get it and I'm skeptical of the argument that we're in such bad shape from the perimeter as it is.
JMAC can run the offense and has some poise, but he doesn't have the size and defensive presence SloMo does and would definitely get hunted defensively in the playoffs. He's a solid regular season guy, but his value is limited in the playoffs. If we got rid of SloMo, we'd have to rely on JMAC, which would seriously reduce our length advantage and give our opponents a guy to try to target when they have the ball. That's not worth some extra shooting.
Shake could theoretically have been a solid option who could both run the offense and give us a bit of size (he wouldn't get hunted in the way JMAC would in the playoffs), but he just really hasn't been consistent at all.
But more broadly, I think despite SloMo's dropoff in outside shooting, we're still not actually that bad from the perimeter. Conley and Towns are still 40%+ guys on good volume, and they both play a lot of minutes and average about 5 3 point attempts per game. Naz and Ant also stretch the floor well (38% and 37% respectively) with good volume (4.8 and 6.6 attempts per game). Jaden should be able to shot about that percentage at least, hopefully also with decent volume. TBJ seems like he could end up being a decent option, also 38% on a good pace per 36, and even NAW is shooting about league average, which is enough to keep defences honest. Really, the only rotation guys we have who CAN'T stretch the floor in any way are Rudy, Kyle, and Shake.
Of course, it would be a huge benefit if Kyle could get his shooting form back because he brings too many other good things not to play him, and if he could really keep defences honest and not let them help off of him or sag, it would probably make him more effective again.
JMAC can run the offense and has some poise, but he doesn't have the size and defensive presence SloMo does and would definitely get hunted defensively in the playoffs. He's a solid regular season guy, but his value is limited in the playoffs. If we got rid of SloMo, we'd have to rely on JMAC, which would seriously reduce our length advantage and give our opponents a guy to try to target when they have the ball. That's not worth some extra shooting.
Shake could theoretically have been a solid option who could both run the offense and give us a bit of size (he wouldn't get hunted in the way JMAC would in the playoffs), but he just really hasn't been consistent at all.
But more broadly, I think despite SloMo's dropoff in outside shooting, we're still not actually that bad from the perimeter. Conley and Towns are still 40%+ guys on good volume, and they both play a lot of minutes and average about 5 3 point attempts per game. Naz and Ant also stretch the floor well (38% and 37% respectively) with good volume (4.8 and 6.6 attempts per game). Jaden should be able to shot about that percentage at least, hopefully also with decent volume. TBJ seems like he could end up being a decent option, also 38% on a good pace per 36, and even NAW is shooting about league average, which is enough to keep defences honest. Really, the only rotation guys we have who CAN'T stretch the floor in any way are Rudy, Kyle, and Shake.
Of course, it would be a huge benefit if Kyle could get his shooting form back because he brings too many other good things not to play him, and if he could really keep defences honest and not let them help off of him or sag, it would probably make him more effective again.
Re: Kyle Anderson
This is an inside-out team as designed by Connelly. Rudy is figuring out how to play with guys that drive to the bucket. Just need to get the slam pass working and more open corner 3s will come. Ant has had a few of those since coming back from injury, hope to see more of that going forward. Kyle's lack of confidence on the 3 shouldn't be as important as his ability to play team defense, act as a jack-of-all-trades, and still drive to the cup. I voted to keep!
Re: Kyle Anderson
I’m not in a hurry to make a trade although I’m definitely open to it. Kyle Anderson is back to being a really valuable guy he was last year although he is doing it in a little bit different way but mostly the same way.
1. Shake Milton has shown some signed of life when he has played the last few games. He had put a few solid to good minutes together before not looking good in the 2nd half of the Kings game.
Still are we sure we will get some guy that’s actually better than him or even just playing Trot Brown or McLaughlin??There is no guarantee the guy you trade for ends up working out. Shake himself so far this season is an example of a guy that the team acquired that most here assumed would be at least competent.
2. McDaniels has shown more signs he can get you a bucket even off the dribble. To me he is kind of a missing piece to this Wolves puzzle long term offensively.
Other thoughts:
The Wolves have an open roster spot. There might be a worthwhile FA available now or maybe even a buyout guy. There also might be a g-league guy worth signing.
If offense is part of the concern there are a few things they could clean up or improve on. One is turning over the ball less. They also don’t get a whole lot of offensive rebounds. I don’t think of the Wolves as a slow pace team but they are in the middle of the league (18th) in that category so that may limit them in various categories. They have been improving offensively every month.
I voted no on trading Anderson. I’m not absolutely against it but the guy is valuable and Im not sure moving him is going to make the team better and it might help in one area but losing Anderson could hurt in another area. The wolves could use more shooting but the reality is the only guys they play that I would consider non-shooters are Gobert and Anderson. Moving Anderson would also mean the Wolves would have one less true PG on their roster. Only having Conley and McLaughlin as true PGs would make me nervous. NAW does a good job but he is a caretaker PG when he plays there he doesn’t do much creating.
1. Shake Milton has shown some signed of life when he has played the last few games. He had put a few solid to good minutes together before not looking good in the 2nd half of the Kings game.
Still are we sure we will get some guy that’s actually better than him or even just playing Trot Brown or McLaughlin??There is no guarantee the guy you trade for ends up working out. Shake himself so far this season is an example of a guy that the team acquired that most here assumed would be at least competent.
2. McDaniels has shown more signs he can get you a bucket even off the dribble. To me he is kind of a missing piece to this Wolves puzzle long term offensively.
Other thoughts:
The Wolves have an open roster spot. There might be a worthwhile FA available now or maybe even a buyout guy. There also might be a g-league guy worth signing.
If offense is part of the concern there are a few things they could clean up or improve on. One is turning over the ball less. They also don’t get a whole lot of offensive rebounds. I don’t think of the Wolves as a slow pace team but they are in the middle of the league (18th) in that category so that may limit them in various categories. They have been improving offensively every month.
I voted no on trading Anderson. I’m not absolutely against it but the guy is valuable and Im not sure moving him is going to make the team better and it might help in one area but losing Anderson could hurt in another area. The wolves could use more shooting but the reality is the only guys they play that I would consider non-shooters are Gobert and Anderson. Moving Anderson would also mean the Wolves would have one less true PG on their roster. Only having Conley and McLaughlin as true PGs would make me nervous. NAW does a good job but he is a caretaker PG when he plays there he doesn’t do much creating.
Re: Kyle Anderson
One thing with Kyle I’ve noticed too is that he brings a slightly different defensive “look”, which is especially noticeable on iso players. I like seeing when he gets subbed and switches on or guards a good ISO player and they make a move, but Kyle didn’t bite and is basically squared up right where they were trying to go after the move. He’s just so smart and has had to learn how to anticipate since he lacks the speed to bee aggressive on every movement. Obviously players adjust and figure it out, but it feels like he kinda steals like 3-4 possessions a game doing that. I’m also amazed at how often he get people to bite on a 3 point pump fake, there has to be something in his shot motion that is just memorizing enough to honeypot the average nba defender.
I also feel like we punish zone defense the best when he’s out there (I think finch knows this since I swear Kyle is always on the floor when the opponent goes zone for more than a play).
I vote no, since I think whatever we bring back won’t offset what we’ll lose (even if it does improve an area of need or balance the offense a little better)
I also feel like we punish zone defense the best when he’s out there (I think finch knows this since I swear Kyle is always on the floor when the opponent goes zone for more than a play).
I vote no, since I think whatever we bring back won’t offset what we’ll lose (even if it does improve an area of need or balance the offense a little better)
Re: Kyle Anderson
I also voted no for all the reasons others have given. Kyle brings so many valuable things to the table, including a really high basketball IQ, veteran savvy and a calming presence when the team is under pressure. I also think he’s a really key part of this team’s tremendous chemistry.
Of course, whether to trade a player is always partially a function of who you can get in return. So I also thought about what this team needs and who would potentially be available in exchange for Kyle. What we need is a backup PG who could stand in for Mike Conley as close to an equal of Mike if goes down for an extended period. I couldn’t see anyone I’d consider worth giving up Kyle. Some quality veteran PGs out there who might be available are Brogdon and Tyus Jones but I’m not sure their teams would be interested in Anderson and I’m not sure I’d want to give up Anderson for either of them.
Cool suggested possibly trading Leonard Miller for a PG, but I’d be reluctant to further mortgage our future after trading away so much draft capital unless it’s essential. If Conley were to get seriously hurt, then I’d think about swapping one of our two young talents - Miller or MInott- for a veteran PG. But as long as Conley remains healthy I’m comfortable with who we have to back up Conley. If JMac can stay healthy I have a lot of confidence in him as a backup off the bench, provided Conley stays healthy.
Of course, whether to trade a player is always partially a function of who you can get in return. So I also thought about what this team needs and who would potentially be available in exchange for Kyle. What we need is a backup PG who could stand in for Mike Conley as close to an equal of Mike if goes down for an extended period. I couldn’t see anyone I’d consider worth giving up Kyle. Some quality veteran PGs out there who might be available are Brogdon and Tyus Jones but I’m not sure their teams would be interested in Anderson and I’m not sure I’d want to give up Anderson for either of them.
Cool suggested possibly trading Leonard Miller for a PG, but I’d be reluctant to further mortgage our future after trading away so much draft capital unless it’s essential. If Conley were to get seriously hurt, then I’d think about swapping one of our two young talents - Miller or MInott- for a veteran PG. But as long as Conley remains healthy I’m comfortable with who we have to back up Conley. If JMac can stay healthy I have a lot of confidence in him as a backup off the bench, provided Conley stays healthy.
Re: Kyle Anderson
Good post Lip. I think if I was gonna trade Anderson one thing that would make me more interested in dealing him was if we were getting a younger player back that also was signed for a couple years. Anderson could also he resigned and while he isn’t young he isn’t old and as long as his back problems don’t get significantly worse he has a game that’s gonna age fine he already plays old. LolLipoli390 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 8:18 pm I also voted no for all the reasons others have given. Kyle brings so many valuable things to the table, including a really high basketball IQ, veteran savvy and a calming presence when the team is under pressure. I also think he’s a really key part of this team’s tremendous chemistry.
Of course, whether to trade a player is always partially a function of who you can get in return. So I also thought about what this team needs and who would potentially be available in exchange for Kyle. What we need is a backup PG who could stand in for Mike Conley as close to an equal of Mike if goes down for an extended period. I couldn’t see anyone I’d consider worth giving up Kyle. Some quality veteran PGs out there who might be available are Brogdon and Tyus Jones but I’m not sure their teams would be interested in Anderson and I’m not sure I’d want to give up Anderson for either of them.
Cool suggested possibly trading Leonard Miller for a PG, but I’d be reluctant to further mortgage our future after trading away so much draft capital unless it’s essential. If Conley were to get seriously hurt, then I’d think about swapping one of our two young talents - Miller or MInott- for a veteran PG. But as long as Conley remains healthy I’m comfortable with who we have to back up Conley. If JMac can stay healthy I have a lot of confidence in him as a backup off the bench, provided Conley stays healthy.
In the same vein if we were trading Miller for a player but they were more of a young vet that would make sense. I also think that sometimes trading young players or draft assets is smart if you get the right player. I could see Tyus Jones being that type of player (or even a trade for Kyle Anderson) but he is a FA after this season and isn’t gonna be cheap to retain plus I would guess the market could be pretty strong for him.
The reality is the Wolves at this point don’t NEED to make a deal. Heck they are a team that looks like they will really good and that’s the type of team some players seek out in one way or another. I do think it would make sense for the Wolves to use their empty roster spot to add a player with NBA experience at some point. That could even be absorbing a player in a trade that saves a team some money but staying under the lux tax is really going to limit that as a possibility. Let’s see where we are in a few more weeks and hope the team stays fairly healthy.