Minnesota Sports Forum

thedoper wrote:Isn't deciding who won the trade easy? Just ask how many GM's would make the same trade the Cavs did today. I am guessing not that many.

Cavs are contenders for the next 5 years! Stop acting like they got hosed

alexftbl8181 wrote:

thedoper wrote:Isn't deciding who won the trade easy? Just ask how many GM's would make the same trade the Cavs did today. I am guessing not that many.

Cavs are contenders for the next 5 years! Stop acting like they got hosed

Did I say hosed? Don't get sensitive. I am just saying there are not many GMs in the league who would make the trade that the Cavs did today. Cavs will be contenders as long as Lebron is there. This is not rocket science.

thedoper wrote:

alexftbl8181 wrote:

thedoper wrote:Isn't deciding who won the trade easy? Just ask how many GM's would make the same trade the Cavs did today. I am guessing not that many.

Cavs are contenders for the next 5 years! Stop acting like they got hosed

Did I say hosed? Don't get sensitive. I am just saying there are not many GMs in the league who would make the trade that the Cavs did today. Cavs will be contenders as long as Lebron is there. This is not rocket science.

Ha, exactly Doper!

Alex, nobody here is disputing that the Cavs aren't contenders for the next 5 years, providing LeBron stays healthy. The proved that last year by getting to the finals without either Irving or Love. The Cavs were guaranteed to be contenders the day LeBron decided to come home, especially with Irving already in place. But since this is a thread about the Wiggins/Love trade, many of us are trying to figure out the relevance of the trade to the Cavs being contenders.

Shumway wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

The Wolves in 26 years have never sniffed an NBA title. The Cavs were two games away last season and will be battling for it again this season WITH Love as a key cog... and probably beyond that.

But 25 years of the Wolves history is completely irrelevant to the trade (and the 26th year is hardly evidence for the result of the trade). And the Cavs were two games away from the tile last year without Kevin Love.

This thread certainly has softened my view and I agree that it was a win-win trade. It was a trade that was beneficial for both sides.

But many of the arguments presented for why Cleveland wins the trade are not really relevant to the trade - they're relevant to having Lebron on their roster. So if we're selecting one side to that has done best out of the trade, I still think it's the Wolves by quite a margin.

The reason I put the Wolves record of futility in there was to illustrate how difficult it is to make it to the Finals... so when a team has a better chance to do so with a known commodity... DO IT.

The Cavs revamped style/roster without Love worked via small sample size vs. Chicago and Atlanta. I don't know if that approach would work out over the long haul of an 82-game season with its star player now in his 30s.

thedoper wrote:Isn't deciding who won the trade easy? Just ask how many GM's would make the same trade the Cavs did today. I am guessing not that many.

That seems SLIGHTLY speculative.

Trades don't happen in a vacuum. The Cavs lured James back and he wanted to win now... and wanted Love. Love gave the Cavs the best chance to win last season (compared to Wiggins). I'd expect that to continue this season. After that? Who knows... we might have a lockout season. A lot can change.

That old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" comes to mind. When you have a chance at a title NOW... you gotta go for it. Not saying that makes the Cavs winners of this trade, only that both teams got what they wanted.


[Note: As for those other GMs, I'm guessing most of them would have done whatever James told them to do if it meant he was coming to their team.]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

thedoper wrote:Isn't deciding who won the trade easy? Just ask how many GM's would make the same trade the Cavs did today. I am guessing not that many.

That seems SLIGHTLY speculative.

Trades don't happen in a vacuum. The Cavs lured James back and he wanted to win now... and wanted Love. Love gave the Cavs the best chance to win last season (compared to Wiggins). I'd expect that to continue this season. After that? Who knows... we might have a lockout season. A lot can change.

That old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" comes to mind. When you have a chance at a title NOW... you gotta go for it. Not saying that makes the Cavs winners of this trade, only that both teams got what they wanted.


[Note: As for those other GMs, I'm guessing most of them would have done whatever James told them to do if it meant he was coming to their team.]

It is speculative, but based on the general feedback of analysts and media on the value of both players after a year. At the time the Cavs got what they wanted. But now after a year I highly doubt they would make the same deal based on the current value of the assets. Wiggins is hardly in the bush anymore, he is an emergent talent. Love is on the decline. An aging, injury prone bird with declining performance is not worth a young, talented, healthy bird on the upswing in my mind. ln a completely speculative sense, I think the majority of analysts are on this side of the Love v Wiggins.

thedoper wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

thedoper wrote:Isn't deciding who won the trade easy? Just ask how many GM's would make the same trade the Cavs did today. I am guessing not that many.

That seems SLIGHTLY speculative.

Trades don't happen in a vacuum. The Cavs lured James back and he wanted to win now... and wanted Love. Love gave the Cavs the best chance to win last season (compared to Wiggins). I'd expect that to continue this season. After that? Who knows... we might have a lockout season. A lot can change.

That old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" comes to mind. When you have a chance at a title NOW... you gotta go for it. Not saying that makes the Cavs winners of this trade, only that both teams got what they wanted.


[Note: As for those other GMs, I'm guessing most of them would have done whatever James told them to do if it meant he was coming to their team.]

It is speculative, but based on the general feedback of analysts and media on the value of both players after a year. At the time the Cavs got what they wanted. But now after a year I highly doubt they would make the same deal based on the current value of the assets. Wiggins is hardly in the bush anymore, he is an emergent talent. Love is on the decline. An aging, injury prone bird with declining performance is not worth a young, talented, healthy bird on the upswing in my mind. ln a completely speculative sense, I think the majority of analysts are on this side of the Love v Wiggins.

In each subsequent year, we can point out that Wiggins is one year closer to being the better player... It will happen. Eventually.

But I don't know if that automatically makes them losers in the trade... because that was always part of the equation.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:


In each subsequent year, we can point out that Wiggins is one year closer to being the better player... It will happen. Eventually.

But I don't know if that automatically makes them losers in the trade... because that was always part of the equation.

I agree that the gradient you are laying out was the original equation. However, I think that by all accounts Wiggins exceeded expectations by being more NBA ready than projected; and Love did not by under-performing, not finding a defined role on the team, and getting injured. The difference in value for each player in a year moved faster than anyone projected (other than those Minnesota fans that recognized Love potentially slipping in Cleveland).

All that being said, I can see a scenario where last year was another blip for Love and he will be a beast next year, and a significant contributor to a championship. But as it stands right now the scales favor Wiggins based on performance v expectations.

thedoper wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:


In each subsequent year, we can point out that Wiggins is one year closer to being the better player... It will happen. Eventually.

But I don't know if that automatically makes them losers in the trade... because that was always part of the equation.

I agree that the gradient you are laying out was the original equation. However, I think that by all accounts Wiggins exceeded expectations by being more NBA ready than projected; and Love did not by under-performing, not finding a defined role on the team, and getting injured. The difference in value for each player in a year moved faster than anyone projected (other than those Minnesota fans that recognized Love potentially slipping in Cleveland).

All that being said, I can see a scenario where last year was another blip for Love and he will be a beast next year, and a significant contributor to a championship. But as it stands right now the scales favor Wiggins based on performance v expectations.

Maybe. Maybe not. He was chosen #1 for a reason. And he had a promising, if not always super efficient, season.

It's not like Wiggins season is having everybody outside this board gushing "Holy shit, there's no way Wiggins is not a superstar soon!"

People seem to be forgetting it wasn't a smooth ride for Love in Cleveland last year. Not playing in some 4th quarters, not completely fitting in with teammates, trouble assimilating to a 3rd wheel role. Let's not act like they got everything they wanted out of him.