Hypothetical..

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Cam, I still think the fairness of a potential trade needs to be assessed from both sides, and the fact that the typical Cav fan evaluates a Wiggins+/Love trade completely differently than the typical Wolves' fan tells me that the true answer is somewhere in the middle.

But evaluating whether a trade is a win for the Wolves after the fact is a different exercise for me...the only criteria for a successful trade is that it needs to make us better. For whatever reason, the Love years have not been at all successful for the Wolves, and I think we will probably be a better club without him. He may help the Cavs win a championship playing second (or third) fiddle to King James, and barring injury I think he will...Love is probably a better player when he doesn't have to lead a team. But if we make the playoffs and become a fun, athletic team to watch, I will be a happy fan...and nobody will convince me that the trade wasn't a win for us.

It's fair to determine just one winner of a trade if both teams have completely free will going into a trade. But that's not the case here. Love has put a gun to Flip's head, and Flip's job is to make the best of it. Usually that type of situation doesn't wind up well for the team that is being held up. But I think Porkchop is throwing out the possibility that the Wolves may actually be better off after the trade, something that almost never happens when a team is forced to trade its star. And most of you know that my opinion is that we will be better off after this trade, but that's because I don't see Love as the winner that most on this board do.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

It's called win-win for a reason. That still doesn't change the fact that the team who does better after the trade officially wins it. We can still be a winner as a result of the trade like the Grizzlies were, but I don't get how you could say we won the trade if they win a title because of the trade and we don't. There is still going to be an overall winner, but that doesn't automatically make us a loser.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Porkchop has teed up an interesting topic...how do you evaluate who wins a trade? I don't think it's a competition because both teams can win. Frankly, how our trading partner does after the trade doesn't enter into the equation for me as to whether the Wolves win a trade or not. The only thing I am interested in is whether the trade makes us better or more watchable. If Cleveland wins a championship next year, but the Wolves also become a much better team, make the playoffs and position themselves for a more promising future, it would be difficult for me to not call the trade a win for the Wolves. Conversely, if Love rekindles his interest in knuckle pushups, James also gets hurt, and the Cavs miss the playoffs, but everyone we get back in the trade flops and the Wolves get worse, I wouldn't say that the trade was a win for the Wolves.

Ultimately, the trade is a win if our future is brighter after the trade, and that's not a very high bar to clear.

"....or more watchable". I don't get that statement. Wouldn't winning more games make us more watchable by itself? And if you are saying that we were boring last season and winning fewer games with a younger group of guys will make us more watchable, I seriously beg to differ. We played one of the fastest-paced offenses in the league last year, won a bunch of blowouts, and had probably the most prolific display of outlet passing this league has ever seen.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

I think Khans is making the most sense here. Never mind what Cleveland does or doesn't do. What matters is whether relinquishing a top 10 player ultimately gives us a building block to go build a winner in the next few years. Memphis is a great example. While they haven't won a title, they have been a very good team for a few years now. I think that's about the best we can hope for.

[A Friendly Flatulence [enjin:8907904]]

What matters in trades is what are the teams trying to accomplish. Which means that both teams can win a trade or both teams can lose a trade if they fail to achieve what they set out to achieve with the trade.

The Wolves are trying to recuperate talent back from trading a superstar before he leaves via FA for nothing & the Cavs are trying to win now before Lebron begins to decline/age.

I definitely see this trade being a win-win for both teams, Cleveland should win a title in the next few seasons with Love, LBJ, and Kyrie; while Minnesota gets as good a building block as you can get with Wiggins + ________ . It just makes too much sense for this to not happen, as long as neither side gets overly greedy causing talks to fall through.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

What matters in trades is what are the teams trying to accomplish. Which means that both teams can win a trade or both teams can lose a trade if they fail to achieve what they set out to achieve with the trade.

The Wolves are trying to recuperate talent back from trading a superstar before he leaves via FA for nothing & the Cavs are trying to win now before Lebron begins to decline/age.

I definitely see this trade being a win-win for both teams, Cleveland should win a title in the next few seasons with Love, LBJ, and Kyrie; while Minnesota gets as good a building block as you can get with Wiggins + ________ . It just makes too much sense for this to not happen, as long as neither side gets overly greedy causing talks to fall through.

I agree that the Cleveland deal makes sense for both sides, especially the Cavs, who absolutely need another top player to compete with the Bulls. I personally would prefer a Bulls deal for Minnesota, but I won't cry in my soup if we end up with Wiggins + _____.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Porkchop has teed up an interesting topic...how do you evaluate who wins a trade? I don't think it's a competition because both teams can win. Frankly, how our trading partner does after the trade doesn't enter into the equation for me as to whether the Wolves win a trade or not. The only thing I am interested in is whether the trade makes us better or more watchable. If Cleveland wins a championship next year, but the Wolves also become a much better team, make the playoffs and position themselves for a more promising future, it would be difficult for me to not call the trade a win for the Wolves. Conversely, if Love rekindles his interest in knuckle pushups, James also gets hurt, and the Cavs miss the playoffs, but everyone we get back in the trade flops and the Wolves get worse, I wouldn't say that the trade was a win for the Wolves.

Ultimately, the trade is a win if our future is brighter after the trade, and that's not a very high bar to clear.

"....or more watchable". I don't get that statement. Wouldn't winning more games make us more watchable by itself? And if you are saying that we were boring last season and winning fewer games with a younger group of guys will make us more watchable, I seriously beg to differ. We played one of the fastest-paced offenses in the league last year, won a bunch of blowouts, and had probably the most prolific display of outlet passing this league has ever seen.

Q, there's no question that we were just about the most watchable team in the league last year...in the first quarter. After that, it wasn't that fun for me...in fact, it was downright painful to watch leads slip away and our pathetic record in close games. I'm more of a 4th quarter guy, and we just didn't have anyone who would step up at crunch time. Martin and Love were terrific 1st quarter scorers, but showed me nothing when it counted. I don't think it's at all coincidental that my favorite game of the year was the 112-110 win over Houston the last week of the year, and guess who didn't play that game...Martin and Love. Two great stat guys who will never be winners.

We likely won't have as many 40 point first quarters next season or as many full-court passes, but at least for me, we will be more watchable and a better team.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Porkchop has teed up an interesting topic...how do you evaluate who wins a trade? I don't think it's a competition because both teams can win. Frankly, how our trading partner does after the trade doesn't enter into the equation for me as to whether the Wolves win a trade or not. The only thing I am interested in is whether the trade makes us better or more watchable. If Cleveland wins a championship next year, but the Wolves also become a much better team, make the playoffs and position themselves for a more promising future, it would be difficult for me to not call the trade a win for the Wolves. Conversely, if Love rekindles his interest in knuckle pushups, James also gets hurt, and the Cavs miss the playoffs, but everyone we get back in the trade flops and the Wolves get worse, I wouldn't say that the trade was a win for the Wolves.

Ultimately, the trade is a win if our future is brighter after the trade, and that's not a very high bar to clear.

"....or more watchable". I don't get that statement. Wouldn't winning more games make us more watchable by itself? And if you are saying that we were boring last season and winning fewer games with a younger group of guys will make us more watchable, I seriously beg to differ. We played one of the fastest-paced offenses in the league last year, won a bunch of blowouts, and had probably the most prolific display of outlet passing this league has ever seen.

Q, there's no question that we were just about the most watchable team in the league last year...in the first quarter. After that, it wasn't that fun for me...in fact, it was downright painful to watch leads slip away and our pathetic record in close games. I'm more of a 4th quarter guy, and we just didn't have anyone who would step up at crunch time. Martin and Love were terrific 1st quarter scorers, but showed me nothing when it counted. I don't think it's at all coincidental that my favorite game of the year was the 112-110 win over Houston the last week of the year, and guess who didn't play that game...Martin and Love. Two great stat guys who will never be winners.

We likely won't have as many 40 point first quarters next season or as many full-court passes, but at least for me, we will be more watchable and a better team.

Well, I will agree we weren't very watchable when our bench was in the game. We would not have been in as many close games to begin with if our bench didn't let so many teams back in it.

I'm a big believer in random variability, which plays a major factor in close games (i.e. games decided by 4 points or less) since there is such a small sample size of shots, passes, and calls that can have a big impact on the final outcome. Which brings me to this question: How did we go 6-2 during our last 8 close games from January 24th through the end of the season? We had the same players and same coach.

[Monster]

This post may be a little different perspective I think is worth thinking about.

It was a few weeks ago on ESPN radio that one of the guys said how he thinks the idea that ONLY championships is the way to show success is unfortunate because that's really not true. Of course you have examples of the Jazz or the Bills. Are. Those teams really not successful because they didn't win a title? Why I bring this up is the idea. That someone wins or loses based on who wins a title or in the Wolves case compete for one. If the Wolves end up with a pretty good team as a result of this trade that's a win and who cares what the Cavs do I am interested in what MY team does. The reality is if this trade gets the Wolves to be a legit playoff team the. Trade is actually probably a win. Why?

This team hasn't made the playoffs in 10 years. Last year was the closest we have been. I understand the hate of Love for wanting to leave but we all get why. Dwight Howard and Lebron left their teams and they had been to NBA finals. Love just finished a 40-42 losing season despite him putting up basically his best season of his career. So with that in mind if the Wolves can become a playoff team WITHOUT Love that's probably a win in a number of ways. Don't get me wrong we shouldn't settle for just being pretty good we should want to win a championship but I know a couple posters here have said how they would be pretty excited to see some winning basketball again. Hopefully we can see that soon and also make the steps towards a Championship as well.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Would we be making the playoffs because Love wasn't good enough OR because Rubio and Dieng were more improved and the team as a whole was deeper.

Forget about "rim protection", our bench was the problem last year as well as our coach being a disinterested old man. I just don't want this "hypothetical" thread to turn into another one of those "Love isn't a winner" bullshit threads.

What team did Love have around him before this year? I can't take anyone seriously when they don't recognize Minnesota's inability to surround Love with talent, but then talk about Love's inability to get the team to the playoffs. That will always annoy me because it isn't fair.

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular. Just some thoughts after reading some of the last few posts.