"Five big trades we want to see at the 2021 NBA trade deadline" from ESPN+

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Out of curiosity, which team says no? Is this a trade that you would even want the Wolves to make if it was available?

Wolves:
- Aaron Gordon (1-year, $16.4-million)
- Lonzo Ball (RFA*)

Pelicans:
- Ricky Rubio (1-year, $17.8-million)
- Malik Beasley (2-years, $30-million + 1-year, $16.5-million TO)

Magic:
- Eric Bledsoe (2-years, $37.5-million)


*ESPN projects free agent contract at $18-million annually.

Magic say no. They'll be in the lottery this year and they just gave Fultz $50 mil AND have Cole Anthony. They have no need for Bledsoe.


To the original trade, I don't even like Gordon, but yes you do that deal. Culver just seems like he needs a psychiatrist and a hug before he needs work on his game and that's gonna take a long time.

Evan Fournier is an expiring contract this year. It might make sense for them to trade him at the deadline for future assets. That would leave plenty of minutes available at the wing while acquiring point guard insurance that they've needed all season long. They've been relying on Michael Carter-Williams this season due to injuries, which should tell you all you need to know about their depth. Eric Bledsoe theoretically solves both issues while being a starting level player who's signed to a short-term deal. The value might not be enough, but the basketball aspect of it makes sense to me.

[Monster]

Out of curiosity, which team says no? Is this a trade that you would even want the Wolves to make if it was available?

Wolves:
- Aaron Gordon (1-year, $16.4-million)
- Lonzo Ball (RFA*)

Pelicans:
- Ricky Rubio (1-year, $17.8-million)
- Malik Beasley (2-years, $30-million + 1-year, $16.5-million TO)

Magic:
- Eric Bledsoe (2-years, $37.5-million)


*ESPN projects free agent contract at $18-million annually.

Beasley and his deal is really good and Ball as Gordon are solid players that would help the team but idk how much it will cost to keep them. I'd probably do the deal getting 2 worthwhile players for one (in regards to the team long term relatively speaking).

[Lipoli390]

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Culver deal. Gordon simply won't move the need much and that deal would make us a luxury tax repeater. I'd certainly be tempted because I think the Wolves would be the net beneficiary of that deal. But a team in the bottom three of the standings has no business being over the luxury tax threshold even once, much less twice in a row. It's just not the right deal for this team right now.

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Ball//Rubio/Beasley deal either. I actually like Lonzo Ball - someone we probably could have gotten in exchange for our #17 pick before this season. But Beasley is by far our best player and best asset outside of KAT. He's on a fairly reasonable contract given his productivity and remaining upside as a still very young player.

[Porckchop]

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Culver deal. Gordon simply won't move the need much and that deal would make us a luxury tax repeater. I'd certainly be tempted because I think the Wolves would be the net beneficiary of that deal. But a team in the bottom three of the standings has no business being over the luxury tax threshold even once, much less twice in a row. It's just not the right deal for this team right now.

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Ball//Rubio/Beasley deal either. I actually like Lonzo Ball - someone we probably could have gotten in exchange for our #17 pick before this season. But Beasley is by far our best player and best asset outside of KAT. He's on a fairly reasonable contract given his productivity and remaining upside as a still very young player.

Agreed. Beasley is the only shooter on this team and we want to trade him away for another non shooter on a down year? No thank u

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Culver deal. Gordon simply won't move the need much and that deal would make us a luxury tax repeater. I'd certainly be tempted because I think the Wolves would be the net beneficiary of that deal. But a team in the bottom three of the standings has no business being over the luxury tax threshold even once, much less twice in a row. It's just not the right deal for this team right now.

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Ball//Rubio/Beasley deal either. I actually like Lonzo Ball - someone we probably could have gotten in exchange for our #17 pick before this season. But Beasley is by far our best player and best asset outside of KAT. He's on a fairly reasonable contract given his productivity and remaining upside as a still very young player.

Agreed. Beasley is the only shooter on this team and we want to trade him away for another non shooter on a down year? No thank u

2020-21:

Malik Beasley: 40.6 3P% (3.5 - 8.7 3PA)
D'Angelo Russell: 39.9 3P% (3.0 - 7.4 3PA)
Karl-Anthony Towns: 38.7 3P% (1.9 - 5.0 3PA)

Lonzo Ball: 39.7 3P% (3.1 - 7.7 3PA)

I'm not sure you took the time to look up the simple statistics before making this comment, friend.

[Monster]

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Culver deal. Gordon simply won't move the need much and that deal would make us a luxury tax repeater. I'd certainly be tempted because I think the Wolves would be the net beneficiary of that deal. But a team in the bottom three of the standings has no business being over the luxury tax threshold even once, much less twice in a row. It's just not the right deal for this team right now.

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Ball//Rubio/Beasley deal either. I actually like Lonzo Ball - someone we probably could have gotten in exchange for our #17 pick before this season. But Beasley is by far our best player and best asset outside of KAT. He's on a fairly reasonable contract given his productivity and remaining upside as a still very young player.

Agreed. Beasley is the only shooter on this team and we want to trade him away for another non shooter on a down year? No thank u

FWIW Lonzo Ball is shooting pretty well this season on a high volume. He has been trending upwards in terms of 3 point shooting every season. I think Lip's point about Beasley as the Wolves best assets is probably the best reason against this trade. If you move Beasley it's probably for a really good player not a couple solid players in Ball and Gordon. Ball still could become a core type guy though because he can do a lot of things pretty well and if he is really a good 3 point shooter that will make him really valuable. The problem with many of these deals is you simply don't know what contracts you will have to give out to keep these guys. I was mad at the deal Beasley got this offseason...and now it's looking FANTASTIC.

I was looking at some possible deals and noticed Norman Powell is playing REALLY well and had good numbers last year too. I remember thinking he was a bounce back type I would have been willing to take a chance on if the right deal presented itself. The Raptors...that organization doesn't suck. 3 of their top 4 scorers this year are a late first rounder Siakim, a 2nd rounder Powell and an undrafted FA FVV.

[Porckchop]

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Culver deal. Gordon simply won't move the need much and that deal would make us a luxury tax repeater. I'd certainly be tempted because I think the Wolves would be the net beneficiary of that deal. But a team in the bottom three of the standings has no business being over the luxury tax threshold even once, much less twice in a row. It's just not the right deal for this team right now.

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Ball//Rubio/Beasley deal either. I actually like Lonzo Ball - someone we probably could have gotten in exchange for our #17 pick before this season. But Beasley is by far our best player and best asset outside of KAT. He's on a fairly reasonable contract given his productivity and remaining upside as a still very young player.

Agreed. Beasley is the only shooter on this team and we want to trade him away for another non shooter on a down year? No thank u

2020-21:

Malik Beasley: 40.6 3P% (3.5 - 8.7 3PA)
D'Angelo Russell: 39.9 3P% (3.0 - 7.4 3PA)
Karl-Anthony Towns: 38.7 3P% (1.9 - 5.0 3PA)

Lonzo Ball: 39.7 3P% (3.1 - 7.7 3PA)

I'm not sure you took the time to look up the simple statistics before making this comment, friend.

I was referencing Beasley to Gordon.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Ball//Rubio/Beasley deal either. I actually like Lonzo Ball - someone we probably could have gotten in exchange for our #17 pick before this season. But Beasley is by far our best player and best asset outside of KAT. He's on a fairly reasonable contract given his productivity and remaining upside as a still very young player.

That's fair, Lip, and I agree with you to some extent about Malik Beasley as a positive asset. He's easily outplaying his annual salary thus far. But may I provide you with my thought process when constructing that unlikely-to-happen trade.

Firstly, I think Lonzo Ball is actually the superior player between the two. Beasley is proving to be a legitimate and efficient volume scorer in this league. That's understood, however, Ball provides so much more than Beasley in the other aspects of the game.

Notably, Ball is one of the better defenders at either guard position in the league. He's long, he's rangy, he's strong, he's great laterally, and he shows great instincts. Ball also has point guard skills that result in 5.2 assists per game to Beasley's 2.5 -- or 22.7 AST% to 12.3 AST%, respectfully. Granted, I'll acknowledge that Beasley's role isn't to facilitate, but I'm doubtful that he even has that ability to create for his teammates off the dribble. He's either quickly moving the ball or taking the shot. Ball's more adept at attacking the defense and finding a teammate for a favorable look.

Additionally, Ball's shown to be a comparably good outside shooter not just this season but last as well. So while Minnesota would lose a volume scorer in Beasley, I feel like they'd be getting a much more well-rounded player in Ball.

There's also the additional factors such as contract, salary, and age that certainly need to be factored in. I think Ball will end up getting a bigger deal, but he also does more than Beasley on the court so it's probably warranted to some degree. And Beasley's team-friendly deal would theoretically be attractive to New Orleans who has already had difficulty in signing Ball to an extension to this point -- so much so that his name has been involved in trade rumors. Lastly, Ball's younger than Beasley by roughly six months, which is negligible, but that's to say that they are both young assets at this time.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Culver deal. Gordon simply won't move the need much and that deal would make us a luxury tax repeater. I'd certainly be tempted because I think the Wolves would be the net beneficiary of that deal. But a team in the bottom three of the standings has no business being over the luxury tax threshold even once, much less twice in a row. It's just not the right deal for this team right now.

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Ball//Rubio/Beasley deal either. I actually like Lonzo Ball - someone we probably could have gotten in exchange for our #17 pick before this season. But Beasley is by far our best player and best asset outside of KAT. He's on a fairly reasonable contract given his productivity and remaining upside as a still very young player.

Agreed. Beasley is the only shooter on this team and we want to trade him away for another non shooter on a down year? No thank u

2020-21:

Malik Beasley: 40.6 3P% (3.5 - 8.7 3PA)
D'Angelo Russell: 39.9 3P% (3.0 - 7.4 3PA)
Karl-Anthony Towns: 38.7 3P% (1.9 - 5.0 3PA)

Lonzo Ball: 39.7 3P% (3.1 - 7.7 3PA)

I'm not sure you took the time to look up the simple statistics before making this comment, friend.

I was referencing Beasley to Gordon.

That's odd though considering Ball would be replacing Beasley directly. Not to mention, the trade idea I outlined has Gordon incoming and Rubio outgoing. The net outside shooting, if you will, definitely favors Minnesota in this deal.

[FNG]

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Culver deal. Gordon simply won't move the need much and that deal would make us a luxury tax repeater. I'd certainly be tempted because I think the Wolves would be the net beneficiary of that deal. But a team in the bottom three of the standings has no business being over the luxury tax threshold even once, much less twice in a row. It's just not the right deal for this team right now.

I wouldn't do the Gordon/Ball//Rubio/Beasley deal either. I actually like Lonzo Ball - someone we probably could have gotten in exchange for our #17 pick before this season. But Beasley is by far our best player and best asset outside of KAT. He's on a fairly reasonable contract given his productivity and remaining upside as a still very young player.

Agreed. Beasley is the only shooter on this team and we want to trade him away for another non shooter on a down year? No thank u

2020-21:

Malik Beasley: 40.6 3P% (3.5 - 8.7 3PA)
D'Angelo Russell: 39.9 3P% (3.0 - 7.4 3PA)
Karl-Anthony Towns: 38.7 3P% (1.9 - 5.0 3PA)

Lonzo Ball: 39.7 3P% (3.1 - 7.7 3PA)

I'm not sure you took the time to look up the simple statistics before making this comment, friend.

I was referencing Beasley to Gordon.

Yeah, to Pork's point, we can look at the 3-point shooting for the players involved in this trade for just this half season, or we can look at a larger sample size with their career numbers. We would be losing our best or second best 3-point shooter in Beasley at 39.3%, and would be left with a backcourt with career three-point shooting below the NBA average of 36.8%: DLO (35.9%) and Ball (35.3%). Add Gordon (32.2%) and Edwards to the starting lineup (30.2%), and we would have 4 below average 3-point shooters joining Towns in the starting lineup.

This Wolves team ranks 26th out of 30th in 3-point shooting. As much as Beas hurts us on the defensive end, we simply can't afford to trade a guy who makes close to 40% of his threes on high volume for two guys below the league average.