Minnesota Sports Forum

mrhockey89 wrote:

bleedspeed177 wrote:

mrhockey89 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

mrhockey89 wrote:khans, I bet the Wolves win more games next year than they did this year if they trade Love for Klay and Lee

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Ricky/Brewer on your wings is a lot different than Curry/Iggy. Lee also doesn't solve any defensive problems. I don't think Thompson solves our defensive problems because we would still be just as bad at the rim.

While I agree Lee doesn't solve defensive issues, Klay does. Why? Because it puts less pressure on our bigs to cover for our perimeter defenders getting beat off the dribble. It also allows Ricky to play defense on the off-guard and playing passing lanes while Klay takes the ball handler. So with that, it hides a lot of defensive weaknesses. Don't agree? Then how does a team starting Steph Curry (not a defender) and David Lee (not a defender) end up #3 in the NBA in defensive efficiency?

AI?

So AI was the reason they were top 3 in defensive efficiency despite having 2 poor defenders on the floor in Curry and Lee? Interesting take, but that's impossible without having other parts that are dominating their matchups.

Hockey, The Warriors went from 14th in defensive efficiency in 2012/13 to 4th this past season primarily because of two people - Iggy and a (relatively) healthy Bogut. Iggy wasn't on the team the season before and Bogut only played 30 games. If you have a good defensive Center and a good wing defender, that goes a super long ways toward building a good defense. It makes it so much easier for the other three guys.

I think the reason our defense would improve with the addition of Klay Thompson is less about him and more about who he would replace - Kevin Martin. It would be a massive upgrade at our weakest spot defensively.

As for Lee, I don't think he's terrible defensively, but I don't think he's any better than Love, and perhaps worse since he doesn't give us the elite defensive rebounding.

Phenom's_Revenge wrote:

sjm34 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Another thing I find interesting: Mike Miller is said to be angling to go to Cleveland to play with Lebron again. Why in the world would they want Miller if they weren't trying to win immediately? How could you justify using financial assets on Miller, but saying no to a Love deal? I'm not sure they know what they're doing in Cleveland.

another reason I believe Wiggins is already on the table. Why haven't they signed him yet?

I have been thinking about LeBron's essay a little more. Is his omission of Wiggins any indication? I assume LeBron has one of the best PR teams that money can buy. They must have checked and rechecked the whole thing a number of times. Every element of that essay is purposely and precisely written. That seems like a big omission to me.

It is a big ommission but does it also mean Waiters or Thompson are absolutely off the table in a Love trade? I've said it before but the feel of the letter sounds like he is up for the challenge of mentoring a young roster and to build something. Imagine if Wiggins becomes a very good player. When Lebron is 40 Wiggins will be 29 Kyrie will be 33. If the Cavs keep the young talent and keep building like the Spurs or even OKC they could be wning titles years from now with Lebron coming out of the stands to hug them David Ronbison Tim Duncan style. I bet Lebron has though about that after watching it happen just a few weeks ago. He is coming home so that would be amazing for him to create that type of a legacy.

sjm34 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Another thing I find interesting: Mike Miller is said to be angling to go to Cleveland to play with Lebron again. Why in the world would they want Miller if they weren't trying to win immediately? How could you justify using financial assets on Miller, but saying no to a Love deal? I'm not sure they know what they're doing in Cleveland.

another reason I believe Wiggins is already on the table. Why haven't they signed him yet?

I guess it's to have a little extra wiggle room to bring in other guys

alexftbl8181 wrote:

sjm34 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Another thing I find interesting: Mike Miller is said to be angling to go to Cleveland to play with Lebron again. Why in the world would they want Miller if they weren't trying to win immediately? How could you justify using financial assets on Miller, but saying no to a Love deal? I'm not sure they know what they're doing in Cleveland.

another reason I believe Wiggins is already on the table. Why haven't they signed him yet?

I guess it's to have a little extra wiggle room to bring in other guys

That's an interesting point is Wiggins cap hold less than the 120% that they are likely to give him?

People have said it before and I'll say it again. Love is 25. Losing Wiggins and possibly Bennett for a 25 year old still makes them a young team. Love could also use the mentoring from Lebron since he is a 25 year old star like Lebron was when he made his "decision". Love isn't 20 like the other guys, but he's still extremely young considering how good he is. I just see the attitude that people are talking like adding Love would get rid of the young label on that team. All it would do is change the label from young and unknown to young and good. Love's game is built to work for another 10 years. That's gives them 3 stars for guaranteed 4 years because of Lebron's deal and who knows how long from there. That is a Spurs level dynasty if they keep those guys there because they're each going to be good for another decade. You can be good for a decade now with Lebron in his prime and Love entering his prime, or you can postpone that for a couple years until Wiggins is good and hope he and Kyrie can carry Lebron when he is in a wheelchair. Lebron's not going to play past 40. If Love and Kyrie can give him 10 years of good basketball starting this year, how is that better than sacrificing 2-3 years to give Lebron 7-8 good years at the end of his career.

monsterpile wrote:

alexftbl8181 wrote:

sjm34 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Another thing I find interesting: Mike Miller is said to be angling to go to Cleveland to play with Lebron again. Why in the world would they want Miller if they weren't trying to win immediately? How could you justify using financial assets on Miller, but saying no to a Love deal? I'm not sure they know what they're doing in Cleveland.

another reason I believe Wiggins is already on the table. Why haven't they signed him yet?

I guess it's to have a little extra wiggle room to bring in other guys

That's an interesting point is Wiggins cap hold less than the 120% that they are likely to give him?

Until he is signed the 100% salary scale amount goes against their cap, so they would be saving around 900 thousand.

Not that it makes Love old but he turns 26 in September. He has had injury issues as well. With Lebron on the team Bennett might really benefit since Lebron can defend all over the floor and do different things on offense to take advantage if Bennett ends up being a total tweener. I just can't get over the young talent with Lebron.

khans2k5 wrote:People have said it before and I'll say it again. Love is 25. Losing Wiggins and possibly Bennett for a 25 year old still makes them a young team. Love could also use the mentoring from Lebron since he is a 25 year old star like Lebron was when he made his "decision". Love isn't 20 like the other guys, but he's still extremely young considering how good he is. I just see the attitude that people are talking like adding Love would get rid of the young label on that team. All it would do is change the label from young and unknown to young and good. Love's game is built to work for another 10 years. That's gives them 3 stars for guaranteed 4 years because of Lebron's deal and who knows how long from there. That is a Spurs level dynasty if they keep those guys there because they're each going to be good for another decade. You can be good for a decade now with Lebron in his prime and Love entering his prime, or you can postpone that for a couple years until Wiggins is good and hope he and Kyrie can carry Lebron when he is in a wheelchair. Lebron's not going to play past 40. If Love and Kyrie can give him 10 years of good basketball starting this year, how is that better than sacrificing 2-3 years to give Lebron 7-8 good years at the end of his career.

All we're doing is repeating ourselves, khans. I completely agree with your stance here.

The reason I think Love to Cleveland is dead is this: Now that he is playing summer league for the Cavs, he is either going to Wow, leave a lot of questions unanswered, or disappoint. If he wows, the Cavs are going to stay perfectly content to keep him. If he disappoints or doesn't show high end potential, the Wolves aren't going to want him as the center piece of a trade. Time to work on other ideas. I still like the Celts deal with all their picks in the next few years.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:The reason I think Love to Cleveland is dead is this: Now that he is playing summer league for the Cavs, he is either going to Wow, leave a lot of questions unanswered, or disappoint. If he wows, the Cavs are going to stay perfectly content to keep him. If he disappoints or doesn't show high end potential, the Wolves aren't going to want him as the center piece of a trade. Time to work on other ideas. I still like the Celts deal with all their picks in the next few years.

I don't think people take as much out of summer league play as you do