Minnesota Sports Forum

I never understood why you were so insistent on Bam being included in the deal. In my opinion way to much for Miami to give up.

Duke13 wrote:I never understood why you were so insistent on Bam being included in the deal. In my opinion way to much for Miami to give up.

According to some reports, Miami was willing to include both in the deal, but the Wolves balked anyway. That report is consistent with the many reports we've seen that Thibodeau's demands have been unrealistic to the point where GMs around the League don't think he's serious about trading Butler. I recall a report a while back that Thibodeau was demanding Simmons from Philadelphia in return for Butler. That gives us some idea of how ridiculously unrealistic or diabolical Thibodeau has been.

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:Q What is the salary you would be willing to pay Richardson right now?

If he were on the open market right now as an unrestricted free agent I bet he commands between $15-20M per year, may be even a bit more. He's somewhere in the Gary Harris-Kris Middleton tier if you ask me.

I generally agree with you on his salary range. So if you had to pay Richardson and Waiters a combined 22-23 million it would be worth it? All this is obviously hypothetical.

I know there are salary matching issues at play here... but in my advocacy of a trade for Richardson, I'm not tied to Waiters in the least. Nor should/would the Wolves be.

Unless you think Waiters can be offloaded separately then they are attached at the hip when it comes to value. It's not just Josh Richardson for 10 million if it comes with 11.5 million of untradeable Dion Waiters. That's when you have to consider the value of that 22 million pairing versus the potential of using it elsewhere. Can you get a guy or 2 for 22 million that can match the value Richardson and Waiters give you? That's debateable. The Wolves should absolutely be treating that package as a pairing unless they are willing to part with another asset to get off Waiters. Waiters is signed through 2020. That's not a short term throw in. That's basically the same term Richardson is on because 2021 is a player option he'd likely decline.

My point is why does it have to come with Waiters?

Just remove Waiters entirely from any hypothetical trade from here to the end of time.

Problem solved?

I actually watched some of the Heat/Pistons game last night.

Richardson is very good defensively. Not perfect, but very good. He was often guarding Reggie Jackson or Ish Smith, with McGruder and Dragic taking the Detroit wings. Ish and Reggie were a combined 11-31. One thing he is very good at is recovering quickly from being screened and still challenging the shot. He actually got a couple blocks this way, where his man thought he had an open jumper coming off the screen, only for Josh to get back into the play and challenge the shot.

Probably the weakest part of his game is just general physicality. He doesn't draw many fouls and the rebounds he gets are usually ones that more or less come to him versus ones he grabs out of a scrum. He definitely prefers 3 pt jumpers and pull-ups off the dribble versus going all the way to the rack hard. He is a very solid passer and even brings the ball up from time to time as the initiator of the offense.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:Q What is the salary you would be willing to pay Richardson right now?

If he were on the open market right now as an unrestricted free agent I bet he commands between $15-20M per year, may be even a bit more. He's somewhere in the Gary Harris-Kris Middleton tier if you ask me.

I generally agree with you on his salary range. So if you had to pay Richardson and Waiters a combined 22-23 million it would be worth it? All this is obviously hypothetical.

I know there are salary matching issues at play here... but in my advocacy of a trade for Richardson, I'm not tied to Waiters in the least. Nor should/would the Wolves be.

Unless you think Waiters can be offloaded separately then they are attached at the hip when it comes to value. It's not just Josh Richardson for 10 million if it comes with 11.5 million of untradeable Dion Waiters. That's when you have to consider the value of that 22 million pairing versus the potential of using it elsewhere. Can you get a guy or 2 for 22 million that can match the value Richardson and Waiters give you? That's debateable. The Wolves should absolutely be treating that package as a pairing unless they are willing to part with another asset to get off Waiters. Waiters is signed through 2020. That's not a short term throw in. That's basically the same term Richardson is on because 2021 is a player option he'd likely decline.

My point is why does it have to come with Waiters?

Just remove Waiters entirely from any hypothetical trade from here to the end of time.

Problem solved?

Because the Wolves don't have leverage, simple as that!! It's not apples to apples, Jimmy is a better play no doubt. But when you factor in many things that have been talked about ad nauseam here, contract status, age, etc.

I've said this plenty of times. Even if Jimmy wouldn't be demanding a trade I had fears about signing him long term anyways. I saw this as a great opportunity to kinda of remake the roster.

Going back to last year I didn't see the cohesion needed to win, that's a lot of factors, personalities, coaching, etc. last night was a perfect example. Kat had a great first half, Jimmy not so much. Jimmy turned it on in the second half, Kat was a invisible. Now many can argue this is because of the rift between Kat and Jimmy, I'd argue this was pretty typical of what we saw last year. Not a very symbiotic relationship they have. Coaching is definitely part of that.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:Q What is the salary you would be willing to pay Richardson right now?

If he were on the open market right now as an unrestricted free agent I bet he commands between $15-20M per year, may be even a bit more. He's somewhere in the Gary Harris-Kris Middleton tier if you ask me.

I generally agree with you on his salary range. So if you had to pay Richardson and Waiters a combined 22-23 million it would be worth it? All this is obviously hypothetical.

I know there are salary matching issues at play here... but in my advocacy of a trade for Richardson, I'm not tied to Waiters in the least. Nor should/would the Wolves be.

Unless you think Waiters can be offloaded separately then they are attached at the hip when it comes to value. It's not just Josh Richardson for 10 million if it comes with 11.5 million of untradeable Dion Waiters. That's when you have to consider the value of that 22 million pairing versus the potential of using it elsewhere. Can you get a guy or 2 for 22 million that can match the value Richardson and Waiters give you? That's debateable. The Wolves should absolutely be treating that package as a pairing unless they are willing to part with another asset to get off Waiters. Waiters is signed through 2020. That's not a short term throw in. That's basically the same term Richardson is on because 2021 is a player option he'd likely decline.

My point is why does it have to come with Waiters?

Just remove Waiters entirely from any hypothetical trade from here to the end of time.

Problem solved?

The Waiters argument applies to any filler we're getting back in the trade. They don't have any expiring contracts with the right money. So what's the difference between Waiters or Johnson or Whiteside? They'd all be attached at the hip to Richardson when evaluating the deal. There is no way to just not include that filler when evaluating the deal when that guys is signed beyond this year.

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:Q What is the salary you would be willing to pay Richardson right now?

If he were on the open market right now as an unrestricted free agent I bet he commands between $15-20M per year, may be even a bit more. He's somewhere in the Gary Harris-Kris Middleton tier if you ask me.

I generally agree with you on his salary range. So if you had to pay Richardson and Waiters a combined 22-23 million it would be worth it? All this is obviously hypothetical.

I know there are salary matching issues at play here... but in my advocacy of a trade for Richardson, I'm not tied to Waiters in the least. Nor should/would the Wolves be.

Unless you think Waiters can be offloaded separately then they are attached at the hip when it comes to value. It's not just Josh Richardson for 10 million if it comes with 11.5 million of untradeable Dion Waiters. That's when you have to consider the value of that 22 million pairing versus the potential of using it elsewhere. Can you get a guy or 2 for 22 million that can match the value Richardson and Waiters give you? That's debateable. The Wolves should absolutely be treating that package as a pairing unless they are willing to part with another asset to get off Waiters. Waiters is signed through 2020. That's not a short term throw in. That's basically the same term Richardson is on because 2021 is a player option he'd likely decline.

My point is why does it have to come with Waiters?

Just remove Waiters entirely from any hypothetical trade from here to the end of time.

Problem solved?

The Waiters argument applies to any filler we're getting back in the trade. They don't have any expiring contracts with the right money. So what's the difference between Waiters or Johnson or Whiteside? They'd all be attached at the hip to Richardson when evaluating the deal. There is no way to just not include that filler when evaluating the deal when that guys is signed beyond this year.

Not all "filler" is created equal. Waiters is kind of the worst-case scenario here.

Q12543 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:Q What is the salary you would be willing to pay Richardson right now?

If he were on the open market right now as an unrestricted free agent I bet he commands between $15-20M per year, may be even a bit more. He's somewhere in the Gary Harris-Kris Middleton tier if you ask me.

I generally agree with you on his salary range. So if you had to pay Richardson and Waiters a combined 22-23 million it would be worth it? All this is obviously hypothetical.

I know there are salary matching issues at play here... but in my advocacy of a trade for Richardson, I'm not tied to Waiters in the least. Nor should/would the Wolves be.

Unless you think Waiters can be offloaded separately then they are attached at the hip when it comes to value. It's not just Josh Richardson for 10 million if it comes with 11.5 million of untradeable Dion Waiters. That's when you have to consider the value of that 22 million pairing versus the potential of using it elsewhere. Can you get a guy or 2 for 22 million that can match the value Richardson and Waiters give you? That's debateable. The Wolves should absolutely be treating that package as a pairing unless they are willing to part with another asset to get off Waiters. Waiters is signed through 2020. That's not a short term throw in. That's basically the same term Richardson is on because 2021 is a player option he'd likely decline.

My point is why does it have to come with Waiters?

Just remove Waiters entirely from any hypothetical trade from here to the end of time.

Problem solved?

The Waiters argument applies to any filler we're getting back in the trade. They don't have any expiring contracts with the right money. So what's the difference between Waiters or Johnson or Whiteside? They'd all be attached at the hip to Richardson when evaluating the deal. There is no way to just not include that filler when evaluating the deal when that guys is signed beyond this year.

Not all "filler" is created equal. Waiters is kind of the worst-case scenario here.

Olynyk is the only decent filler they have. The rest are bad contracts with multiple years. We should be demanding J Rich and Bam to take any of it on though.

I still think Tyler Johnson, while severely overpaid, is the best realistic "filler" contract the Heat could offer. I personally wouldn't include Kelly Olynyk in that category as he's more of an asset based on past production and current cost.

Camden0916 wrote:I still think Tyler Johnson, while severely overpaid, is the best realistic "filler" contract the Heat could offer. I personally wouldn't include Kelly Olynyk in that category as he's more of an asset based on past production and current cost.

He isn't mentioned much but I'd guess James Johnson is in that category as well. I agree that Tyler Johnson is probably the best reasonable option for filler...although the Wolves rebounding woes do make a case for Whiteside although he is obviously even more money.