Minnesota Sports Forum

Duke13 wrote:Haha. Laughable. Can we put a end to this thread right now please. nance as a starting point for our #7 pick. Oh my!

Well, I included #28 too, but yeah, a future 1st probably makes sense too.

Given our track record of drafting, I'm by no means assuming we will find a stud at #7. Nor should you. I think Nance is damn near close to a role-playing stud already and he still has room to improve.

khans2k5 wrote:I like Nance, but he's the only one I like for us and 7 is way too steep to pay for a guy who's restricted next summer. They have ambitious goals for signing guys so I would just snipe him in free agency when they are occupied trying to land bigger fish.

This is a more realistic approach.

First, LA has no one I want that is worth the #7 pick. Second, F LA. I want no part in a trade with them where they potentially come out the winner. They are the one team in the league that I would refuse to trade with.

Q12543 wrote:

Duke13 wrote:Haha. Laughable. Can we put a end to this thread right now please. nance as a starting point for our #7 pick. Oh my!

Well, I included #28 too, but yeah, a future 1st probably makes sense too.

Given our track record of drafting, I'm by no means assuming we will find a stud at #7. Nor should you. I think Nance is damn near close to a role-playing stud already and he still has room to improve.

He's also a restricted free agent next summer which is also when Wiggins and Zach's deals kick in. He certainly won't be cheap so it might just be better to wait on him than commit now and just try to sign him next offseason. That way you could keep 7 and get him potentially, but also eliminate the potential where you trade 7 for him and someone throws a huge offer at him and you might lose him and 7.

TheFuture wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:I like Nance, but he's the only one I like for us and 7 is way too steep to pay for a guy who's restricted next summer. They have ambitious goals for signing guys so I would just snipe him in free agency when they are occupied trying to land bigger fish.

This is a more realistic approach.

First, LA has no one I want that is worth the #7 pick. Second, F LA. I want no part in a trade with them where they potentially come out the winner. They are the one team in the league that I would refuse to trade with.

I hear ya. The thing I like about it is that it takes one of the few decent defenders they have from the worst defense in the team last year. Now add Ball and another rookie into the mix along with their current disaster of Ingram/Randle/Russell and they may never stop anyone from scoring.

Giving up 7 for Nance and #28...sounded interesting. If we have to pay Nance in a year that made it less interesting. It's also another example over overpaying assets to get a decent player the type we should be able to draft ourselves.

I still like Randle but he might not be a starter either and he is not far from getting paid as well. It would be interesting to see what player the Lakers would be targeting with another pick. What if it's a PG?

TheFuture wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:I like Nance, but he's the only one I like for us and 7 is way too steep to pay for a guy who's restricted next summer. They have ambitious goals for signing guys so I would just snipe him in free agency when they are occupied trying to land bigger fish.

This is a more realistic approach.

First, LA has no one I want that is worth the #7 pick. Second, F LA. I want no part in a trade with them where they potentially come out the winner. They are the one team in the league that I would refuse to trade with.

Amen Brother. LA is going to get good enough, soon enough. No reason for us to help them on the way to getting there.

monsterpile wrote:Giving up 7 for Nance and #28...sounded interesting. If we have to pay Nance in a year that made it less interesting. It's also another example over overpaying assets to get a decent player the type we should be able to draft ourselves.

I still like Randle but he might not be a starter either and he is not far from getting paid as well. It would be interesting to see what player the Lakers would be targeting with another pick. What if it's a PG?

Yes, we should be able to draft ourselves.....but never seem to! (although I guess Dunn may end up being the guard version of Larry Nance Jr.).

If it were so easy to find these guys, we would have done it by now.....

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:Giving up 7 for Nance and #28...sounded interesting. If we have to pay Nance in a year that made it less interesting. It's also another example over overpaying assets to get a decent player the type we should be able to draft ourselves.

I still like Randle but he might not be a starter either and he is not far from getting paid as well. It would be interesting to see what player the Lakers would be targeting with another pick. What if it's a PG?

Yes, we should be able to draft ourselves.....but never seem to! (although I guess Dunn may end up being the guard version of Larry Nance Jr.).

If it were so easy to find these guys, we would have done it by now.....

That not a fair position. It's been 1 year for these new guys in charge and they had one draft pick. I'm not saying throw out all history of the franchise but we have to expect better and most of the failings of the franchise before they arrived has nothing to do with them.

Woj just reported Russell and Mozgov to the Nets for Lopez and 27. At least Zach should be safe from them next summer. The NBA is just drunk right now with trades and moves. Also interesting to see the Lakers give up Russell because that's probably the end of getting PG in a trade unless they give up Ingram.

khans2k5 wrote:Woj just reported Russell and Mozgov to the Nets for Lopez and 27. At least Zach should be safe from them next summer. The NBA is just drunk right now with trades and moves. Also interesting to see the Lakers give up Russell because that's probably the end of getting PG in a trade unless they give up Ingram.

Won't they just draft Ball?