Minnesota Sports Forum

kekgeek1 wrote:So I've watched/read a good amount about the trade today. Can someone explain to me how the media thinks the Cavs stole Mitchell and the wolves got fleeced by jazz.

Both trades involved 5 picks (wolves have protection on 1 pick that the Cavs don't), Cavs have up arguably 3 players who have not value than any player the wolves gave up. This trade put the Cavs in maybe a contender territory, same as the wolves. Cavs didn't trade their top 3 assets, the wolves didn't trade their top 3 assets. All stats throughout the years have pointed to the Jazz were bad when Mitchell played and gobert sat.

I like both trades but super confused why one trade is a great trade and one trade is one of the worst trades in history?

Someone help me

I agree. It comes down to 3 things:

1. NBA pundits LOVE Mitchell and unfairly blame Gobert for why Utah couldn't win

2. They're also done with Towns altogether and were never in on Russell whereas Garland, Mobley and Allen are darlings.

3. It's the assumption that no matter what Minnesota does, they will fail, so clutch those picks tightly because if not they'll all turn into Kuminga.

kekgeek1 wrote:So I've watched/read a good amount about the trade today. Can someone explain to me how the media thinks the Cavs stole Mitchell and the wolves got fleeced by jazz.

Both trades involved 5 picks (wolves have protection on 1 pick that the Cavs don't), Cavs gave up arguably 3 players who have more value than any player the wolves gave up. This trade put the Cavs in maybe a contender territory, same as the wolves. Cavs didn't trade their top 3 assets, the wolves didn't trade their top 3 assets. All stats throughout the years have pointed to the Jazz were bad when Mitchell played and gobert sat.

I like both trades but super confused why one trade is a great trade and one trade is one of the worst trades in history?

Someone help me

I'll take a shot at answering the question as follows:

1. Wolves gave up one more future 1st-round pick than the Cavs (4 versus 3). In contrast, the Cavs have two pick swaps in their deal compared to the Wolves one swap, but a pick swap is far less problematic than giving up a pick entirely. In most cases the swap won't even be exercised because the rebuilding team will likely have the better pick.

2. The extra pick the Wolves gave up is in 2023. So the Jazz will get a Wolves pick right away in what is expected to be one of the best drafts in a long time. The Jazz will have to wait 3 years to get a pick from the Cavs.

3. The Cavs gave up three players - Agbaji, Sexton and Markkanen. In contrast, the Wolves gave up five players in Kessler, Bolmaro, Beasley, Beverley and Vando.

4. Jazz are getting a 25/26 year old just entering his prime while the Wolves are getting a 30-year old defensive stalwart.

I don't think the difference is as big as some in the media might be suggesting. But I do think the Cavs negotiated a better deal than the Wolves.

Apparently, back in July, Danny Ainge turned down a package that included Obi Toppin, RJ Barrett, Mitchell Robinson and 3 future unprotected 1st-round picks. Presumably those picks were the Knicks' 2023, 2025 and 2027 picks. And no doubt the Knicks would have also included one or two pick swaps. Instead, the Jazz ended up with Agbaji, Sexton, Markkenan and the Cavs' 2025, 2027 and 2029 unprotected firsts.

Did the Jazz end up with a better deal or should they have taken the Knicks offer as I've described it?

lipoli390 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:So I've watched/read a good amount about the trade today. Can someone explain to me how the media thinks the Cavs stole Mitchell and the wolves got fleeced by jazz.

Both trades involved 5 picks (wolves have protection on 1 pick that the Cavs don't), Cavs gave up arguably 3 players who have more value than any player the wolves gave up. This trade put the Cavs in maybe a contender territory, same as the wolves. Cavs didn't trade their top 3 assets, the wolves didn't trade their top 3 assets. All stats throughout the years have pointed to the Jazz were bad when Mitchell played and gobert sat.

I like both trades but super confused why one trade is a great trade and one trade is one of the worst trades in history?

Someone help me

I'll take a shot at answering the question as follows:

1. Wolves gave up one more future 1st-round pick than the Cavs (4 versus 3). In contrast, the Cavs have to pick swaps in their deal compared to the Wolves one swap, but a pick swap is far less problematic than giving up a pick entirely. In most cases the swap won't even be exercised because the rebuilding team will likely have the better pick.

2. The extra pick the Wolves gave up was 2023. So they'll get a Wolves pick right away in what is expected to be one of the best drafts in a long time. The Jazz will have to wait 3 years to get a pick from the Cavs.

3. The Cavs gave up three players - Agbaji, Sexton and Markkanen. In contrast, the Wolves gave up five players in Kessler, Bolmaro, Beasley, Beverley and Vando.

4. Jazz are getting a 25/26 year old just entering his prime while the Wolves are getting a 30-year old defensive stalwart.

I don't think the difference is as big as some in the media might be suggesting. But I do think the Cavs negotiated a better deal than the Wolves.

Lip this is a good rundown. I think depending on a team's situation it could actually be seen as a positive that you don't get a pick till later especially if it's an unprotected pick. The Jazz will already have 2 first round picks in 2023. How much would it benefit them to have a 3rd one?

The Wolves gave up more players but only 2 of them are signed for more than a year and both of us like Sexton. I'm not gonna declare Sexton is some awesome asset coming to the Jazz but they ended up with him in the deal and is signed for 4 years. I think of the established players Utah received he is clearly the best and has the most upside coming back in any of these deals. The Wolves didn't send anyone like that to Utah. Actually an arguement could be made that Beverly was the most impactful player they received and the way it stands now they turned him into nothing that thrilling.

I think the reality is that both franchises gave up a lot for players that do have a lot of impact in their individual ways. Each guy fits each roster/needs. The Cavs gave up quite a bit to get Mitchell. Are they losing sleep over giving up sexton or Markkenen? No probably not. I don't think the Wolves are loosing much sleep over guys they gave up either as they replaced a lot of those guys either with FAs or young talent via the draft. Beverly is the guy they may wish they still had. What will the Cavs do with their one extra roster spot after this trade? Will they add a player? Keep the spot open and stay somewhat comfortably under the Lux tax especially since they could make an in season move?

Lip presents a decent argument for Cleveland's side of the "who negotiated the better deal" debate, however, I have several counterpoints that paint a different picture in my mind.

1. Minnesota traded four first-round picks (three unprotected) to Cleveland's three (all unprotected), however, the Cavaliers dealt the better and higher-rated prospect in Ochai Agbaji (No. 14 overall pick in 2022) than the Wolves traded in Walker Kessler (No. 22 overall pick in 2022). That difference isn't insignificant as the difference between the 14th and 22nd overall pick in trade value is 450 points, or very close to a late first-round pick, according to Kevin Pelton's draft pick trade value chart. We agree that the pick swaps for both teams have little value for Utah, if any at all, due to the rebuilding team likely yielding the higher pick naturally.

2. Utah will receive Minnesota's 2023 pick first followed by their 2025 pick, however, those assets were traded while knowing what team the Timberwolves were fielding for those years, and it's expected to be competitive teams at that. Comparatively, the first pick Cleveland dealt was their 2025 first-round pick. Coincidentally, Donovan Mitchell has a player option for the 2025 season that he may or may not exercise depending on what happens before then and how strong his desire is to play for another team and another city, perhaps even New York. The Cavaliers could conceivably not even have Mitchell on the roster by the time their picks come into play, which is definitely the riskier situation to have, in my opinion.

3. Cleveland traded away more valuable proven players, specifically the 25-year old Lauri Markkanen and the 24-year old Collin Sexton. Those two likely have more long-term value than any player Minnesota traded away.

4. There's very few, if any, statistics or metrics that indicate Donovan Mitchell impacts winning more than Rudy Gobert, currently. Most telling, in my opinion, is how most of the Jazz's most-played lineups were better with Gobert and no Mitchell than they were with Mitchell and no Gobert. Roster construction and other variables come into play, sure, but Gobert's two-way impact exceeds Mitchell's at this time. He's the better player and his production is likely harder to replicate than Mitchell's. Mitchell's comparative youth has value, however, and that has to be accounted for as well.

--

If you take a look at both deals, and what Minnesota and Cleveland both gave up, they appear close in outgoing value, in my opinion. The Timberwolves chose to trade an additional future pick whereas the Cavaliers chose to trade better, more proven long-term talent and future picks. Furthermore, Cleveland is gambling on Mitchell either opting in for the 2025 season or re-signing prior to Utah making their three picks for themselves. Minnesota will likely have rostered Gobert for two of the four picks they traded away. Marginally, I think the Cavs are taking on more risk and gave up more value than what the Wolves did. But again, it's a slight difference and both organizations will likely benefit greatly from their deals.

Camden wrote:Lip presents a decent argument for Cleveland's side of the "who negotiated the better deal" debate, however, I have several counterpoints that paint a different picture in my mind.

1. Minnesota traded four first-round picks (three unprotected) to Cleveland's three (all unprotected), however, the Cavaliers dealt the better and higher-rated prospect in Ochai Agbaji (No. 14 overall pick in 2022) than the Wolves traded in Walker Kessler (No. 22 overall pick in 2022). That difference isn't insignificant as the difference between the 14th and 22nd overall pick in trade value is 450 points, or very close to a late first-round pick, according to Kevin Pelton's draft pick trade value chart. We agree that the pick swaps for both teams have little value for Utah, if any at all, due to the rebuilding team likely yielding the higher pick naturally.

2. Utah will receive Minnesota's 2023 pick first followed by their 2025 pick, however, those assets were traded while knowing what team the Timberwolves were fielding for those years, and it's expected to be competitive teams at that. Comparatively, the first pick Cleveland dealt was their 2025 first-round pick. Coincidentally, Donovan Mitchell has a player option for the 2025 season that he may or may not exercise depending on what happens before then and how strong his desire is to play for another team and another city, perhaps even New York. The Cavaliers could conceivably not even have Mitchell on the roster by the time their picks come into play, which is definitely the riskier situation to have, in my opinion.

3. Cleveland traded away more valuable proven players, specifically the 25-year old Lauri Markkanen and the 24-year old Collin Sexton. Those two likely have more long-term value than any player Minnesota traded away.

4. There's very few, if any, statistics or metrics that indicate Donovan Mitchell impacts winning more than Rudy Gobert, currently. Most telling, in my opinion, is how most of the Jazz's most-played lineups were better with Gobert and no Mitchell than they were with Mitchell and no Gobert. Roster construction and other variables come into play, sure, but Gobert's two-way impact exceeds Mitchell's at this time. He's the better player and his production is likely harder to replicate than Mitchell's. Mitchell's comparative youth has value, however, and that has to be accounted for as well.

--

If you take a look at both deals, and what Minnesota and Cleveland both gave up, they appear close in outgoing value, in my opinion. The Timberwolves chose to trade an additional future pick whereas the Cavaliers chose to trade better, more proven long-term talent and future picks. Furthermore, Cleveland is gambling on Mitchell either opting in for the 2025 season or re-signing prior to Utah making their three picks for themselves. Minnesota will likely have rostered Gobert for two of the four picks they traded away. Marginally, I think the Cavs are taking on more risk and gave up more value than what the Wolves did. But again, it's a slight difference and both organizations will likely benefit greatly from their deals.

That's a good analysis, Cam. However, I'll note that the Wolves and Cavs bear essentially the same risk of two future picks (2027 and 2029) going to the Jazz after their respective marque acquisitions (Gobert and Mitchell) are beyond their contractual obligation. Mitchell's option year is the 2025-26 season. So he'll be obligated to the Cavs for the season leading up to the 2025 draft. The Cavs' advantage is that Mitchell will likely have more trade value than Gobert based on age and position. Edge to Cleveland. But otherwise, I agree it's pretty close.

If Mitchell was such a better asset than Gobert then Ainge should have built around him. He got essentially the same deal for both players, it is strange that one deal was almost universally praised by the national media and the other panned. Mitchell is given a lot of slack for one great playoff series (that the Jazz lost too). I think its crazy. I do think the National media likes to shit on the Wolves. Doesn't bother me, I like the way they played with a chip on their shoulder last year, minus the incessant whining to the refs. I think the proper interpretation of these deals is they're both good, they're both ok, they're both horrible. Making one a great deal and the other horrible is just silly rhetoric for ratings.

I personally think both of these deals are ok. They are high risk moves by franchises trying to make themselves relevant. They could both pay off or blow up, but probably should have been made by each team for the need for relevance of the franchise.

thedoper wrote:If Mitchell was such a better asset than Gobert then Ainge should have built around him. He got essentially the same deal for both players, it is strange that one deal was almost universally praised by the national media and the other panned. Mitchell is given a lot of slack for one great playoff series (that the Jazz lost too). I think its crazy. I do think the National media likes to shit on the Wolves. Doesn't bother me, I like the way they played with a chip on their shoulder last year, minus the incessant whining to the refs. I think the proper interpretation of these deals is they're both good, they're both ok, they're both horrible. Making one a great deal and the other horrible is just silly rhetoric for ratings.

I personally think both of these deals are ok. They are high risk moves by franchises trying to make themselves relevant. They could both pay off or blow up, but probably should have been made by each team for the need for relevance of the franchise.

To be fair... Donovan Mitchell has averaged 28.3 ppg in the playoffs for his career. That's 7th all time, just behind LeBron James.

He averaged 36.3 ppg in the 2020 playoffs (7 games).
Then, he averaged 32.3 ppg in the 2021 playoffs (10 games). That is elite... in NBA history.

He is a true, legit and proven playoff scorer. That's HIS bag. Meanwhile, Gobert's bag is dominating on defense via schemes designed for his strengths. Very very different players, both effective in what they do.

Depending on their roles and teams, I think their value is comparable. Personally, I dig the deal for Mitchell more. While it can be argued whether the stashes were similar or not... it would be shocking if Mitchell didn't fit in on the Cavs where he has a clearly designed role. The Timberwolves however, are trying something new and unproven... two bigs.

Maybe the Wolves idea will end up working out better. BUT... there is risk to it, especially when we consider Gobert is 30 and we consider how toast previous rim-running elite bigs became by the time they were 33 (Howard + DeeAndre Jordan).

This is perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a good thing the New York Knicks didn't acquire Donovan Mitchell. I think even with him they'd be a couple significant pieces away from contending for a championship. They should be looking to develop their young talent so they have a better idea of what their core actually is and then they can make one or two big trades to land star players that compliment that. Trading their future for Mitchell for relevancy without any real chance to contend is something the old Knicks would have done.

Camden wrote:This is perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a good thing the New York Knicks didn't acquire Donovan Mitchell. I think even with him they'd be a couple significant pieces away from contending for a championship. They should be looking to develop their young talent so they have a better idea of what their core actually is and then they can make one or two big trades to land star players that compliment that. Trading their future for Mitchell for relevancy without any real chance to contend is something the old Knicks would have done.

The sad thing about the Knicks is that they do not have anything very attractive to other teams. Robinson i am intrigued, but not changing anything. Barrett, ok I'll check. OBI, ok I will ask. What else?