News from the Orlando Bubble

[Lipoli390]

The Clippers won tonight in a very close game. Although in a losing cause, Michael Porter Jr. had a great stat line with 18 points, 10 rebounds and 3 steals. He hit just under 50% of his FG attempts and 2 of his 6 threes. Talk about a draft steal.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

If I was Gersson Rosas and Sacramento called me up dangling Buddy Hield in trade offers, my immediate counter would be something like Jarrett Culver, James Johnson and 17 for Hield. I don't think they'd move him for that, but that's what I'd throw out there.

Hield is an exceptional shooter -- elite, even -- in this league and an underrated scorer to boot. He's not in that tier one or tier two, but an efficient 20-point per game guy from the perimeter. Put him in the lineup around Karl-Anthony Towns and D'Angelo Russell and make it work until something better comes along. Culver, Johnson, and 17 for him would be a coup for Minnesota given the circumstances.

[kekgeek]

The Clippers won tonight in a very close game. Although in a losing cause, Michael Porter Jr. had a great stat line with 18 points, 10 rebounds and 3 steals. He hit just under 50% of his FG attempts and 2 of his 6 threes. Talk about a draft steal.

I agree with the potential of Porter but he needs to get better defensively. He is probably the worst defender in the bubble who gets minutes. They attack him every possession he is on the floor. Really hurts his ceiling if he needs to be on the bench because of his defensive problems

[Lipoli390]

If I was Gersson Rosas and Sacramento called me up dangling Buddy Hield in trade offers, my immediate counter would be something like Jarrett Culver, James Johnson and 17 for Hield. I don't think they'd move him for that, but that's what I'd throw out there.

Hield is an exceptional shooter -- elite, even -- in this league and an underrated scorer to boot. He's not in that tier one or tier two, but an efficient 20-point per game guy from the perimeter. Put him in the lineup around Karl-Anthony Towns and D'Angelo Russell and make it work until something better comes along. Culver, Johnson, and 17 for him would be a coup for Minnesota given the circumstances.

I don't know. I think we can sign Malik Bealey for slightly less and Beasley may end up the better of the two. I agree that Hield is an elite 3-point shooter with a career average of 41.1% from behind the arc on fairly heavy volume. But Beasley's numbers come close. Beasley didn't have enough minutes in his first two seasons to tell us anything. But in his last two seasons he's hit 40.1% and 38.8% of his threes respectively on about 5 attempts per game. He was hitting 42% of his threes with the Wolves on over 8 attempts. He's at least a couple years younger than Hield with far fewer NBA and college minutes under his belt, which suggests Beasley has far more untapped upside than Buddy. Again, I like Buddy and the deal you suggested would be reasonable one in my view. However, if up to me, I'd only do that deal if I didn't think I could re-sign Beasley for the same or less money.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

If I was Gersson Rosas and Sacramento called me up dangling Buddy Hield in trade offers, my immediate counter would be something like Jarrett Culver, James Johnson and 17 for Hield. I don't think they'd move him for that, but that's what I'd throw out there.

Hield is an exceptional shooter -- elite, even -- in this league and an underrated scorer to boot. He's not in that tier one or tier two, but an efficient 20-point per game guy from the perimeter. Put him in the lineup around Karl-Anthony Towns and D'Angelo Russell and make it work until something better comes along. Culver, Johnson, and 17 for him would be a coup for Minnesota given the circumstances.

I don't know. I think we can sign Malik Bealey for slightly less and Beasley may end up the better of the two. I agree that Hield is an elite 3-point shooter with a career average of 41.1% from behind the arc on fairly heavy volume. But Beasley's numbers come close. Beasley didn't have enough minutes in his first two seasons to tell us anything. But in his last two seasons he's hit 40.1% and 38.8% of his threes respectively on about 5 attempts per game. He was hitting 42% of his threes with the Wolves on over 8 attempts. He's at least a couple years younger than Hield with far fewer NBA and college minutes under his belt, which suggests Beasley has far more untapped upside than Buddy. Again, I like Buddy and the deal you suggested would be reasonable one in my view. However, if up to me, I'd only do that deal if I didn't think I could re-sign Beasley for the same or less money.

I knew someone would make this point about Malik Beasley so I'm glad it was you, Lip. You make some good points in regards to their efficiency, but I like Hield's ability to score off the dribble a lot more than Beasley's, which is a big factor for me if I'm comparing the two. I think Hield has the ability to create shots for himself and for others and Beasley is still proving that -- to me at least. And the production Beasley's shown is notable, however, the sample size in comparison to Hield's isn't there. Hield's the more proven volume scorer, though Beasley could eventually be a 20-points per game scorer over a full season as soon as next year.

I like Beasley a lot and I think the Wolves should re-sign him regardless of this hypothetical trade -- assuming his monetary cost is reasonable ($14-million annually or less). Really, this one just comes down to player evaluation and price tag. Hield is the better player and the price to acquire him -- if that's what it took -- is very attractive from my point of view.

Note: I just talked to an educated Kings fan about what the Wolves would need to offer, hypothetically, to get Hield and he threw the offer I posted here at me with the addition of the Wolves second-round pick headed to Sacramento as well. I'd still make that trade.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Luka Doncic is 21.
Jayson Tatum is 22.
Jaylen Brown is 23.
Shai Gilgeous Alexander is 22.
Donovan Mitchell is 23.
Jamal Murray is 23.

So that's 6 out of how many people drafted in that same time period? So we just have to be near flawless at prospect evaluation for a rebuild through the draft to work. Got it. 6/180 (3 years in this case) is a 3% chance to hit that caliber of player and we don't develop players well hence the "if our prospects follow the same timeline our high end young talent had".

I guess I don't follow the 6/180 part.

Wiggins and Towns were chosen #1 (and not #30) for a reason. Both were given max contracts for a reason. So why are we comparing them to RJ Hunter or Nikola Milutinov?

There's 180 players that were drafted in the 3 drafts those 6 were drafted in. Even if you take out the entire second round which we know can still on occasion land a star that drops it down to 6 out of 90 picks. I'm sure there are a couple others from those drafts but at the end of the day we are talking a very low percentage end up as good as those 6 you mentioned as early as they became that good. You responded to my point about not always going the route of the draft and that people we do draft will start to be comparable in age difference to Towns as people had previously been upset about when we got Jimmy and that age difference between him and Towns. So you threw out 6 names out of 180 players drafted that disprove my point hence the pretty much flawless drafting we need to do to not be in the same situation where Towns is getting ready to leave by the time this young player is starting to enter his prime.

You make it sound like the draft is a crapshoot, whether picking 1st or last.

Again... why are we comparing two #1 picks and max contract guys with Nikola Milutinov?

Nobody expects the #30 pick to lead a team in the playoffs at a young age. IF the Wolves thought highly enough of Wiggins and Towns to pay them the max... I think it's safe to compare them to other max or near max extension guys at the same age.

I don't see the value in comparing them to RJ Hunter.

[Lipoli390]

If I was Gersson Rosas and Sacramento called me up dangling Buddy Hield in trade offers, my immediate counter would be something like Jarrett Culver, James Johnson and 17 for Hield. I don't think they'd move him for that, but that's what I'd throw out there.

Hield is an exceptional shooter -- elite, even -- in this league and an underrated scorer to boot. He's not in that tier one or tier two, but an efficient 20-point per game guy from the perimeter. Put him in the lineup around Karl-Anthony Towns and D'Angelo Russell and make it work until something better comes along. Culver, Johnson, and 17 for him would be a coup for Minnesota given the circumstances.

I don't know. I think we can sign Malik Bealey for slightly less and Beasley may end up the better of the two. I agree that Hield is an elite 3-point shooter with a career average of 41.1% from behind the arc on fairly heavy volume. But Beasley's numbers come close. Beasley didn't have enough minutes in his first two seasons to tell us anything. But in his last two seasons he's hit 40.1% and 38.8% of his threes respectively on about 5 attempts per game. He was hitting 42% of his threes with the Wolves on over 8 attempts. He's at least a couple years younger than Hield with far fewer NBA and college minutes under his belt, which suggests Beasley has far more untapped upside than Buddy. Again, I like Buddy and the deal you suggested would be reasonable one in my view. However, if up to me, I'd only do that deal if I didn't think I could re-sign Beasley for the same or less money.

I knew someone would make this point about Malik Beasley so I'm glad it was you, Lip. You make some good points in regards to their efficiency, but I like Hield's ability to score off the dribble a lot more than Beasley's, which is a big factor for me if I'm comparing the two. I think Hield has the ability to create shots for himself and for others and Beasley is still proving that -- to me at least. And the production Beasley's shown is notable, however, the sample size in comparison to Hield's isn't there. Hield's the more proven volume scorer, though Beasley could eventually be a 20-points per game scorer over a full season as soon as next year.

I like Beasley a lot and I think the Wolves should re-sign him regardless of this hypothetical trade -- assuming his monetary cost is reasonable ($14-million annually or less). Really, this one just comes down to player evaluation and price tag. Hield is the better player and the price to acquire him -- if that's what it took -- is very attractive from my point of view.

Note: I just talked to an educated Kings fan about what the Wolves would need to offer, hypothetically, to get Hield and he threw the offer I posted here at me with the addition of the Wolves second-round pick headed to Sacramento as well. I'd still make that trade.

I agree with your comparison of the two. Buddy is definitely a more proven high volume scorer and probably a slightly better shooter off the dribble. But Buddy played 4 years of college ball compared to Beasley's 1 year and has had far more NBA minutes than Beasley. Buddy's also 4 years older than Beasley. Looking at Beasley's skill set, trajectory, age and competitive intensity, I'd prefer him over Buddy even at the same price even though I agree with your comparison of the two to date. And I think Beasley gave us a glimpse of what he's likely to become in his short time with the Wolves this season, shooting over 40% from behind the arc and, I think, scoring well off the dribble.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Give me Billy Donovan in Minnesota.

[thedoper]

Davis is still good. 26 points 15 boards 6 assists and No 3s. Old school big man game tonight. Lakers chance of a title is on the play of Davis.

[thedoper]

Give me Billy Donovan in Minnesota.

Yeah Id be ok with that. Strange firing. Maybe he wasnt on board for tanking.