Minnesota Sports Forum

lipoli390 wrote:It's no secret I agree with DL that the Wolves gave up too much for Gobert. Like DL, I believe there were better, more creative ways to improve the team while still preserving critical assets and flexibility. But the analysis can't stop there. Any fair critique has to also acknowledge that the Wolves added the best interior defender in the League, still in the prime of his career, and did so without giving up any core players except, arguably, Pat Bev. The Wolves also added a really nice piece in Kyle Anderson. After some adroit maneuvering in the draft, the Wolves picked a really exciting, high upside, young prospect in Josh Minott along with a very solid prospect in Moore. The Gobert trade was a major swing for the fences move, but it wasn't a wild closed-eye swing. The move was calibrated to catapult the Wolves forward into title contention right away and for the next 3-4 years. It may or may not work and I'll always believe it was the wrong move. But the sum total of what the Wolves front office has done this summer isn't below or barely average. There were a lot of average and below average front office performers this summer. But the Wolves, in my view, had an above average summer that grades out as a B. The Wolves could have earned an A from me with more creative moves that preserved future capital and flexibility. I agree with Cam that the Lakers probably would have gotten an A from the national media if they had done the same deal deal the Wolves did.

D-Loser wrote:

TheSP wrote:

D-Mac wrote:I'm just going to be honest, what I see on this board and in this thread are a bunch of people choosing to be "optimistic" about this trade because the alternative sucks. I think a lot of you know better. These national guys are pretty smart (for the most part) and able to be more objective, although I think Camden made a couple good points both about a smaller market being the team to make this move and Atlanta really being the team that set the trade value precedent this offseason. I think our offseason totally deserves a C or even a D. I think these guys are right. I think it's short sighted to suggest otherwise. I think we're marginally better than we could have been with WAY cheaper (more creative) moves. Congrats TC, you came in and got a huge pay day and then made a move that any of us could have made in our sleep. I think most of us could have done better. Sure, I'll enjoy watching next year like I always do, but I think it was a flat out stupid move and deserves all the harsh grades.

Based upon your posting history I think you generally take a more pessimistic view of this team, and I'm right there with you most of the time. In this case I'm on the fence, I think over the next three years it could be really good, beyond that ... ouch! LOL

You're right, I lean pessimistic. I'd say I'm optimistic on Ant, meaning I buy the hype and I'm all in. The rest yeah, not so much. Nothing wrong with being an optimist obviously. I just say what I think. Gobert is a very good player, I just think we gave up too much for a questionable fit. Dlo seems like a good guy, and a good teammate... but then again, he really wants to be here, so maybe he's being a little extra nice. You know what they say, ugly girls have to be nice... :)

Camden wrote:Not to mention, you could easily argue that the Atlanta Hawks set the market this summer with their acquisition of Dejounte Murray by giving up three first-round picks and a pick swap. Certainly, trading for the significantly better player in Rudy Gobert would ultimately cost more than that. And that's not even bringing up recent trades for other star players in Anthony Davis, James Harden, and Paul George that essentially set the precedent of what that haul should look like.

In my opinion, the biggest problem national sports media has with the Gobert trade is that it was the Minnesota Timberwolves that made the big move of the off-season and not one of the big market teams. Had Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Dallas, or even Philadelphia traded the same exact package of assets for an All-NBA caliber player the message would be much more positive. They'd attribute the move as one that is typical of a marquee franchise, that they're getting better, that they think they can contend. The reality is that more often than not the team who receives the established star player ends up satisfied with the deal while the team that receives the haul of draft picks has an uphill battle to recoup the actual on-court value they traded away. That's the harsh truth and nobody knows that better than Timberwolves fans.

Tactical unit wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:It's no secret I agree with DL that the Wolves gave up too much for Gobert. Like DL, I believe there were better, more creative ways to improve the team while still preserving critical assets and flexibility. But the analysis can't stop there. Any fair critique has to also acknowledge that the Wolves added the best interior defender in the League, still in the prime of his career, and did so without giving up any core players except, arguably, Pat Bev. The Wolves also added a really nice piece in Kyle Anderson. After some adroit maneuvering in the draft, the Wolves picked a really exciting, high upside, young prospect in Josh Minott along with a very solid prospect in Moore. The Gobert trade was a major swing for the fences move, but it wasn't a wild closed-eye swing. The move was calibrated to catapult the Wolves forward into title contention right away and for the next 3-4 years. It may or may not work and I'll always believe it was the wrong move. But the sum total of what the Wolves front office has done this summer isn't below or barely average. There were a lot of average and below average front office performers this summer. But the Wolves, in my view, had an above average summer that grades out as a B. The Wolves could have earned an A from me with more creative moves that preserved future capital and flexibility. I agree with Cam that the Lakers probably would have gotten an A from the national media if they had done the same deal deal the Wolves did.

No doubt they made lots of moves to address weaknesses and added tons of lineup flexibility. It's super hard to win a championship but they at least made moves to be considered contenders if things break in there favor and they continue to develop.

The Gobert trade was an over pay and will only look worse when Ainge moves Bev, Beasley, Bolmaro or V8 for additional picks but I can't hate on this offseason because the bottom line looks pretty impressive right now.

lipoli390 wrote:

Tactical unit wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:It's no secret I agree with DL that the Wolves gave up too much for Gobert. Like DL, I believe there were better, more creative ways to improve the team while still preserving critical assets and flexibility. But the analysis can't stop there. Any fair critique has to also acknowledge that the Wolves added the best interior defender in the League, still in the prime of his career, and did so without giving up any core players except, arguably, Pat Bev. The Wolves also added a really nice piece in Kyle Anderson. After some adroit maneuvering in the draft, the Wolves picked a really exciting, high upside, young prospect in Josh Minott along with a very solid prospect in Moore. The Gobert trade was a major swing for the fences move, but it wasn't a wild closed-eye swing. The move was calibrated to catapult the Wolves forward into title contention right away and for the next 3-4 years. It may or may not work and I'll always believe it was the wrong move. But the sum total of what the Wolves front office has done this summer isn't below or barely average. There were a lot of average and below average front office performers this summer. But the Wolves, in my view, had an above average summer that grades out as a B. The Wolves could have earned an A from me with more creative moves that preserved future capital and flexibility. I agree with Cam that the Lakers probably would have gotten an A from the national media if they had done the same deal deal the Wolves did.

No doubt they made lots of moves to address weaknesses and added tons of lineup flexibility. It's super hard to win a championship but they at least made moves to be considered contenders if things break in there favor and they continue to develop.

The Gobert trade was an over pay and will only look worse when Ainge moves Bev, Beasley, Bolmaro or V8 for additional picks but I can't hate on this offseason because the bottom line looks pretty impressive right now.

You're right about the Jazz ultimately converting Beverley, Beasley, V8 and Bolmaro into more picks. I suspect they'll get at least two more first-round picks by the time the dust settles. In the end, the Jazz will have received at least seven first-round picks over the next seven drafts - at least three of them unprotected and one of them only top-5 protected. The Jazz might keep Vando and still get a couple more first-round picks. In any event, that's why many in the media have give the Wolves low marks for their off season. It looks to them like the Wolves front office executives negotiated against themselves and eventually got taken by the savvy Danny Ainge. I think they're right. However, while the Wolves front office overpaid in my view, they substantially improved the team by landing the League's best defensive big who isn't a total stiff on the offensive end while also signing Kyle Anderson and drafting a super high-upside guy at #45. That all adds up to better than a C to me.

lipoli390 wrote:

Tactical unit wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:It's no secret I agree with DL that the Wolves gave up too much for Gobert. Like DL, I believe there were better, more creative ways to improve the team while still preserving critical assets and flexibility. But the analysis can't stop there. Any fair critique has to also acknowledge that the Wolves added the best interior defender in the League, still in the prime of his career, and did so without giving up any core players except, arguably, Pat Bev. The Wolves also added a really nice piece in Kyle Anderson. After some adroit maneuvering in the draft, the Wolves picked a really exciting, high upside, young prospect in Josh Minott along with a very solid prospect in Moore. The Gobert trade was a major swing for the fences move, but it wasn't a wild closed-eye swing. The move was calibrated to catapult the Wolves forward into title contention right away and for the next 3-4 years. It may or may not work and I'll always believe it was the wrong move. But the sum total of what the Wolves front office has done this summer isn't below or barely average. There were a lot of average and below average front office performers this summer. But the Wolves, in my view, had an above average summer that grades out as a B. The Wolves could have earned an A from me with more creative moves that preserved future capital and flexibility. I agree with Cam that the Lakers probably would have gotten an A from the national media if they had done the same deal deal the Wolves did.

No doubt they made lots of moves to address weaknesses and added tons of lineup flexibility. It's super hard to win a championship but they at least made moves to be considered contenders if things break in there favor and they continue to develop.

The Gobert trade was an over pay and will only look worse when Ainge moves Bev, Beasley, Bolmaro or V8 for additional picks but I can't hate on this offseason because the bottom line looks pretty impressive right now.

You're right about the Jazz ultimately converting Beverley, Beasley, V8 and Bolmaro into more picks. I suspect they'll get at least two more first-round picks by the time the dust settles. In the end, the Jazz will have received at least seven first-round picks over the next seven drafts - at least three of them unprotected and one of them only top-5 protected. The Jazz might keep Vando and still get a couple more first-round picks. In any event, that's why many in the media have give the Wolves low marks for their off season. It looks to them like the Wolves front office executives negotiated against themselves and eventually got taken by the savvy Danny Ainge. I think they're right. However, while the Wolves front office overpaid in my view, they substantially improved the team by landing the League's best defensive big who isn't a total stiff on the offensive end while also signing Kyle Anderson and drafting a super high-upside guy at #45. That all adds up to better than a C to me.