Minnesota Sports Forum

A couple months ago, Dane Moore did a very thorough review of our salary cap situation on his pod where he demonstrated it was not possible to retain all three of Naz, NAW and Randle while staying under the second apron. This afternoon I listened to his latest pod with Kyle Thiege, and he now lays out a scenario where we can bring back all three. I was listening to it in my car and I want to see his charts on youtube later, but basically this is what I understood the steps needed to keep the band together:

1) Ju and Naz need to opt in...the reason they would do this is if the opt in was paired with an extension that would begin in 2026-7.

2) 2 of these three things would have to happen: decline to pick up the team option for Garza and Minott, and trade the 17th pick for future draft capital.

They concluded that these moves would leave enough room under the cap to sign NAW at a reasonable price, as well as the 31st pick plus whichever of Garza or Minott we want to keep.

Did anyone else listen or watch the pod, and did I get it right? I would definitely be on board with this strategy...keeping a nucleus that made it to the WC finals, while adding the 31st pick plus more court time for Rob, Shannon and Clark.

They also go through a detailed analysis of what it would take to bring in KD...I am still not supportive.

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 4:55 pm A couple months ago, Dane Moore did a very thorough review of our salary cap situation on his pod where he demonstrated it was not possible to retain all three of Naz, NAW and Randle while staying under the second apron. This afternoon I listened to his latest pod with Kyle Thiege, and he now lays out a scenario where we can bring back all three. I was listening to it in my car and I want to see his charts on youtube later, but basically this is what I understood the steps needed to keep the band together:

1) Ju and Naz need to opt in...the reason they would do this is if the opt in was paired with an extension that would begin in 2026-7.

2) 2 of these three things would have to happen: decline to pick up the team option for Garza and Minott, and trade the 17th pick for future draft capital.

They concluded that these moves would leave enough room under the cap to sign NAW at a reasonable price, as well as the 31st pick plus whichever of Garza or Minott we want to keep.

Did anyone else listen or watch the pod, and did I get it right? I would definitely be on board with this strategy...keeping a nucleus that made it to the WC finals, while adding the 31st pick plus more court time for Rob, Shannon and Clark.

They also go through a detailed analysis of what it would take to bring in KD...I am still not supportive.

Yes, you have it mostly right. It would depend on Naz opting into his $15M player option for next season with the incentive of doing so being a $96M extension tacked on, starting in 2026-27. You actually can keep both picks if you decline both the Garza and Minott options.

Assuming we ran it back as you seem to support, how would the rotation/playing time look like? We'd obviously still have our "starting 8", so how do you find meaningful time for Shannon, Clark, and Dilly? And what if Miller has a great summer and starts to instill some confidence in the coaching staff? He's got talent, but there's been some b-ball IQ issues that could potentially get better. And lastly, how is this team better equipped to win a Western Conference Finals series than the last two years? I'm basically asking you or someone else to defend the status quo.

Q-is-here wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:06 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 4:55 pm A couple months ago, Dane Moore did a very thorough review of our salary cap situation on his pod where he demonstrated it was not possible to retain all three of Naz, NAW and Randle while staying under the second apron. This afternoon I listened to his latest pod with Kyle Thiege, and he now lays out a scenario where we can bring back all three. I was listening to it in my car and I want to see his charts on youtube later, but basically this is what I understood the steps needed to keep the band together:

1) Ju and Naz need to opt in...the reason they would do this is if the opt in was paired with an extension that would begin in 2026-7.

2) 2 of these three things would have to happen: decline to pick up the team option for Garza and Minott, and trade the 17th pick for future draft capital.

They concluded that these moves would leave enough room under the cap to sign NAW at a reasonable price, as well as the 31st pick plus whichever of Garza or Minott we want to keep.

Did anyone else listen or watch the pod, and did I get it right? I would definitely be on board with this strategy...keeping a nucleus that made it to the WC finals, while adding the 31st pick plus more court time for Rob, Shannon and Clark.

They also go through a detailed analysis of what it would take to bring in KD...I am still not supportive.

Yes, you have it mostly right. It would depend on Naz opting into his $15M player option for next season with the incentive of doing so being a $96M extension tacked on, starting in 2026-27. You actually can keep both picks if you decline both the Garza and Minott options.

Assuming we ran it back as you seem to support, how would the rotation/playing time look like? We'd obviously still have our "starting 8", so how do you find meaningful time for Shannon, Clark, and Dilly? And what if Miller has a great summer and starts to instill some confidence in the coaching staff? He's got talent, but there's been some b-ball IQ issues that could potentially get better. And lastly, how is this team better equipped to win a Western Conference Finals series than the last two years? I'm basically asking you or someone else to defend the status quo.

Fair question, Q. Based on comments Finchy and TC have made post-season, the young guys are going to play next year. So I'm taking them at their word, and making the assumption that Finchy is going to go to a rotation model more like what the two finalists employ with their depth...Both OkC and Indy had 12 players averaging 15 or more minutes per game, while the Wolves of course only had 8. Only Thibs used his bench less than Finchy, with only 7 players averaging 15 or more minutes. I don't think Finchy has to go as far as Steve Kerr, who used 16 players more than 15 minutes a game! But I think there is a happy medium between the Thibs and Kerr approaches. I'm not necessarily faulting Finchy's 8-man rotation this year, because it seems the coaching staff wasn't convinced the kids were ready. I like the OkC and Indy model, and you can't argue with the success of two teams in the finals. There are some nights where a certain player or two is going to get a DNP-CD, but I'm confident we are going to see a much more expanded rotation next year, and hopefully that will mean fresher legs at crunch time and in the playoffs.

Please don't run it back. Okc isn't going anywhere.

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:36 pm

Q-is-here wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:06 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 4:55 pm A couple months ago, Dane Moore did a very thorough review of our salary cap situation on his pod where he demonstrated it was not possible to retain all three of Naz, NAW and Randle while staying under the second apron. This afternoon I listened to his latest pod with Kyle Thiege, and he now lays out a scenario where we can bring back all three. I was listening to it in my car and I want to see his charts on youtube later, but basically this is what I understood the steps needed to keep the band together:

1) Ju and Naz need to opt in...the reason they would do this is if the opt in was paired with an extension that would begin in 2026-7.

2) 2 of these three things would have to happen: decline to pick up the team option for Garza and Minott, and trade the 17th pick for future draft capital.

They concluded that these moves would leave enough room under the cap to sign NAW at a reasonable price, as well as the 31st pick plus whichever of Garza or Minott we want to keep.

Did anyone else listen or watch the pod, and did I get it right? I would definitely be on board with this strategy...keeping a nucleus that made it to the WC finals, while adding the 31st pick plus more court time for Rob, Shannon and Clark.

They also go through a detailed analysis of what it would take to bring in KD...I am still not supportive.

Yes, you have it mostly right. It would depend on Naz opting into his $15M player option for next season with the incentive of doing so being a $96M extension tacked on, starting in 2026-27. You actually can keep both picks if you decline both the Garza and Minott options.

Assuming we ran it back as you seem to support, how would the rotation/playing time look like? We'd obviously still have our "starting 8", so how do you find meaningful time for Shannon, Clark, and Dilly? And what if Miller has a great summer and starts to instill some confidence in the coaching staff? He's got talent, but there's been some b-ball IQ issues that could potentially get better. And lastly, how is this team better equipped to win a Western Conference Finals series than the last two years? I'm basically asking you or someone else to defend the status quo.

Fair question, Q. Based on comments Finchy and TC have made post-season, the young guys are going to play next year. So I'm taking them at their word, and making the assumption that Finchy is going to go to a rotation model more like what the two finalists employ with their depth...Both OkC and Indy had 12 players averaging 15 or more minutes per game, while the Wolves of course only had 8. Only Thibs used his bench less than Finchy, with only 7 players averaging 15 or more minutes. I don't think Finchy has to go as far as Steve Kerr, who used 16 players more than 15 minutes a game! But I think there is a happy medium between the Thibs and Kerr approaches. I'm not necessarily faulting Finchy's 8-man rotation this year, because it seems the coaching staff wasn't convinced the kids were ready. I like the OkC and Indy model, and you can't argue with the success of two teams in the finals. There are some nights where a certain player or two is going to get a DNP-CD, but I'm confident we are going to see a much more expanded rotation next year, and hopefully that will mean fresher legs at crunch time and in the playoffs.

There is no question Finch needs to expand the rotation next season and probably should have been less tight this season in hindsight, but I have a hard time seeing him going beyond a 9 or 9.5 man (meaning the 10th guy plays one first half stint) rotation.

Crazysauce wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:56 pm Please don't run it back. Okc isn't going anywhere.

This is my contention as well. Why would you want to run back a roster that can't beat a Western conference rival? Changes must be made and imo they need to start with Randle.

Q-is-here wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 8:25 pm

FNG wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:36 pm

Q-is-here wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:06 pm

Yes, you have it mostly right. It would depend on Naz opting into his $15M player option for next season with the incentive of doing so being a $96M extension tacked on, starting in 2026-27. You actually can keep both picks if you decline both the Garza and Minott options.

Assuming we ran it back as you seem to support, how would the rotation/playing time look like? We'd obviously still have our "starting 8", so how do you find meaningful time for Shannon, Clark, and Dilly? And what if Miller has a great summer and starts to instill some confidence in the coaching staff? He's got talent, but there's been some b-ball IQ issues that could potentially get better. And lastly, how is this team better equipped to win a Western Conference Finals series than the last two years? I'm basically asking you or someone else to defend the status quo.

Fair question, Q. Based on comments Finchy and TC have made post-season, the young guys are going to play next year. So I'm taking them at their word, and making the assumption that Finchy is going to go to a rotation model more like what the two finalists employ with their depth...Both OkC and Indy had 12 players averaging 15 or more minutes per game, while the Wolves of course only had 8. Only Thibs used his bench less than Finchy, with only 7 players averaging 15 or more minutes. I don't think Finchy has to go as far as Steve Kerr, who used 16 players more than 15 minutes a game! But I think there is a happy medium between the Thibs and Kerr approaches. I'm not necessarily faulting Finchy's 8-man rotation this year, because it seems the coaching staff wasn't convinced the kids were ready. I like the OkC and Indy model, and you can't argue with the success of two teams in the finals. There are some nights where a certain player or two is going to get a DNP-CD, but I'm confident we are going to see a much more expanded rotation next year, and hopefully that will mean fresher legs at crunch time and in the playoffs.

There is no question Finch needs to expand the rotation next season and probably should have been less tight this season in hindsight, but I have a hard time seeing him going beyond a 9 or 9.5 man (meaning the 10th guy plays one first half stint) rotation.

We'll have to see, Q. I think he will go at least 10 deep based on the following. Both he and TC have been very consistent in saying the young guys will play next season...barring a lot of injuries, it would be odd to not follow through on their words. Further, while Finchy can be a little rigid in his coaching style, I think he is far more flexible then Thibs. And he's also smart. He has to see that teams like Indy and OkC can put way more pressure on the other team, both offensively and defensively, when they use their benches and have fresher legs. And he knows he has three very good athletes who want to run and that he didn't use much this season. If he doesn't learn from this and use his rotation like the two finals teams do, I'll join the small cohort here calling for his head. But I think he will, and I'll be quite surprised if his rotation is only 9 next season. And I think that will make a big difference in the pace at which we play.

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 8:51 pm

Crazysauce wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:56 pm Please don't run it back. Okc isn't going anywhere.

This is my contention as well. Why would you want to run back a roster that can't beat a Western conference rival? Changes must be made and imo they need to start with Randle.

I think running it back and not signing Randle and Naz long term is different than running it back and signing both long term.

Like if they both opt in and don’t sign long term the wolves could have 35 million to spend in 26-27. Not saying that is my preferred route but I don’t hate that option

kekgeek wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:23 pm

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 8:51 pm

Crazysauce wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:56 pm Please don't run it back. Okc isn't going anywhere.

This is my contention as well. Why would you want to run back a roster that can't beat a Western conference rival? Changes must be made and imo they need to start with Randle.

I think running it back and not signing Randle and Naz long term is different than running it back and signing both long term.

Like if they both opt in and don’t sign long term the wolves could have 35 million to spend in 26-27. Not saying that is my preferred route but I don’t hate that option

I think our window is open and it would behoove us to not waste time. And maybe it's the coach in me, but seeing Randle quit in that last game is something I can't get past. He needs to go, the sooner the better. I have faith that TC and Finchy saw the same thing and no matter what they are saying publicly, they won't be happy with status quo. The next several weeks are going to be very interesting.

kekgeek wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:23 pm

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 8:51 pm

Crazysauce wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:56 pm Please don't run it back. Okc isn't going anywhere.

This is my contention as well. Why would you want to run back a roster that can't beat a Western conference rival? Changes must be made and imo they need to start with Randle.

I think running it back and not signing Randle and Naz long term is different than running it back and signing both long term.

Like if they both opt in and don’t sign long term the wolves could have 35 million to spend in 26-27. Not saying that is my preferred route but I don’t hate that option

I agree, Kek. The scenario where both Naz and Randle opt in is very different in my mind from signing both to long-term deals. If they both exercise their options, we’ll be in very good financial shape while retaining flexibility beyond next season.

But I think it’s highly unlikely that Naz will opt into his $15 million for one year because that amount is too low compared to his current market value in spite of the limited pool of teams with cap space. I can see Randle exercising his $31 million option although I’m sure he’d much prefer a longer term deal. I don’t think Randle will find any teams out there willing to pay him more than around $110 million over four years and I could see his value ending up at closer to $100 million. I think Randle’s value is limited by poor his historically poor defense, lack of any rim protection ability, turnover propensity, mediocre 3-point shooting, overall style of play and age. I suspect Naz has a higher market value than Randle because of his better mobility, superior handle, lower turnover rate and significantly better three-point shooting as well as his age and potential for remaining upside. I see Naz having a market value this summer of around $115 million.

I see the following four possible scenarios:

Scenario #1 (Long-Term Run-It-Back Scenario - Naz and Randle Sign Extensions). I don’t think this scenario is realistic even though the Wolves can probably do it and remain below the 2nd apron. Last I looked, I think the Wolves can sign both Naz and Randle to contracts starting at around $27 million next year and remain barely under the 2nd apron if they let NAW go and don’t use their taxpayer MLE. That’s essentially the “run-it-back scenario” but relying on some combination of TSJ, Clark and/or Donte to fill the void left by NAW’s departure. I’m OK with this scenario, although I’m generally in Cool’s camp preferring to move on from Randle. And I’m especially dubious of signing Randle long term.

Scenario #2 (Short Term Run-It-Back Scenario - Randle Opt-In/Naz Extension). If Randle opts in at $31 million, which is plausible, we could sign Naz long term if he’s willing to take a somewhat below-market contract starting at around $23 million and going up from there over four years. I could see Naz agreeing to this because having Randle on only a 1-year deal would open the door to Naz becoming a starter the following season and I could see him being OK with that given how much he likes it here.

Scenario #3 (Randle In/Naz Out Scenario — Extend Randle & Trade Naz). Signing Randle to a multi-year deal probably means Naz will leave. I don’t see Naz accepting the same amount of money or less to stay here if Randle gets a multi-year deal because that would suggest Naz will remain in his 6th-man role and I don’t see him accepting that for more than one more year. In this scenario the Wolves would likely sign-and-trade Naz. I can’t see TC just letting Naz walk and the good relationship between the Wolves front office and Naz lends itself to a win-win type sign-and-trade scenario.

Scenario #4 (Naz In/Randle Out Scenario — Extend Naz & Trade Randle). In this scenario, we sign Naz to a 4-year deal of probably around $115 million starting at maybe $25 million next season and work out a sign-and-trade deal for Randle on a multi-year deal. I think coming up with a sign-and-trade for Randle would be more difficult that coming up with one for Naz and I doubt we’d get as good a return for Randle. However, I would think that TC could find a deal that works where we would take back less salary. Perhaps we could sweeten the deal by adding both of our picks and Josh Minott, along with Randle, for Derrick White. Boston is over the 2nd apron so salaries would have to match perfectly. White is due $28.1 million next season. We could sign Randle to a 4 year deal starting at that amount as part of the sign-and-trade, but we wouldn’t be able to include Minott.

My preference would be scenario #4 regardless of what, if anything, we get in return for Randle. I’d be comfortable letting him walk and using the additional payroll flexibility to sign a solid defensive rotation big using the MLE.