Minnesota Sports Forum

thedoper wrote:Is the elephant in the room beyond the rosters themselves? We mention a max contract for a free agent and we're already worried about the luxury tax when we're nowhere near it. Our market and ownership will always be a factor that tips these discussions away from us. Why aren't we in the mix for Durant?

I'll take our roster and our potential easy over Boston even with their picks. But we already got Ricky putting conditions on his commitment to the team, and it's almost a given that we wont target Horford or Durant. And because of the financial implications 4 years from now when we will be theoretically in a new CBA.

We aren't in the market for Durant because none of our guys have been battle-tested yet. Boston has some guys with playoff scars and multiple laps around the league, yet they are still young enough to offer a window longer than just a couple years. I also think they have the assets to go fetch a couple of other strong veterans to pair up with Durant.

Now, we have the assets too, but the problem is, other than pick #5, I think Thibs would like to keep those assets. So sure, we could make a run at Durant and then put LaVine or Wiggins on the trade block to bring in a high-profile vet to go along with Durant and KAT, but my guess is not only the ownership, but the fans, would like to see this thing built organically for the most part.

Q12543 wrote:

thedoper wrote:Is the elephant in the room beyond the rosters themselves? We mention a max contract for a free agent and we're already worried about the luxury tax when we're nowhere near it. Our market and ownership will always be a factor that tips these discussions away from us. Why aren't we in the mix for Durant?

I'll take our roster and our potential easy over Boston even with their picks. But we already got Ricky putting conditions on his commitment to the team, and it's almost a given that we wont target Horford or Durant. And because of the financial implications 4 years from now when we will be theoretically in a new CBA.

We aren't in the market for Durant because none of our guys have been battle-tested yet. Boston has some guys with playoff scars and multiple laps around the league, yet they are still young enough to offer a window longer than just a couple years. I also think they have the assets to go fetch a couple of other strong veterans to pair up with Durant.

Now, we have the assets too, but the problem is, other than pick #5, I think Thibs would like to keep those assets. So sure, we could make a run at Durant and then put LaVine or Wiggins on the trade block to bring in a high-profile vet to go along with Durant and KAT, but my guess is not only the ownership, but the fans, would like to see this thing built organically for the most part.

I don't know if I agree Q. If we had our exact roster in Boston, LA or any of the big markets I think we would be in the running for those guys, even with the lack of experience on our roster. I see the merits of building organically as you say, and am in it for the long haul. But our management and ownership has been a disaster that we are just now (all credit to Flip too) working are way out of. As long as Taylor is top of the helm I would be hesitant to say we are in better shape than anyone. I am super excited about our team and new basketball people, but I would never want to get cocky with Taylor as owner.

khans2k5 wrote:This difference between the two is the Wolves top assets are already on the team while Boston's are in this draft and the next few. I think having the top assets on the team already makes us a much better situation than hoping your draft luck just gets you in the same position we already are.

I acknowledge the difference you state in your opening line. But I don't think it's far fetched to think Boston will turn some of their assets into star players. I mean those Nets picks should be top 5 for sure. These aren't normal, run of the mill first rounders we're talking about.

thedoper wrote:Is the elephant in the room beyond the rosters themselves? We mention a max contract for a free agent and we're already worried about the luxury tax when we're nowhere near it. Our market and ownership will always be a factor that tips these discussions away from us. Why aren't we in the mix for Durant?

I'll take our roster and our potential easy over Boston even with their picks. But we already got Ricky putting conditions on his commitment to the team, and it's almost a given that we wont target Horford or Durant. And because of the financial implications 4 years from now when we will be theoretically in a new CBA.

I think this is a great question. Why aren't we? It's almost universally acknowledged that the Wolves have the best young core in basketball. Why wouldn't Durant be attracted to our team? I think it comes down to two things, neither particularly encouraging:

1) The Twin Cities market. With it's mid-size and weather, is our market still not attractive to big time free agents with options?

2) Our front office refuses to think big enough. I mean if #1 isn't the case, wouldn't it have to be this? KAT, Durant, and Wiggins would be plenty good enough to contend within 2 years. I'd hate to think we wouldn't inject ourselves into the discussion.

Q stated we might be too far away from contender status, and that could be but how long would it take?

To me, this seems like a similar debate to when we would go back and forth between what trade packages were better for Kevin Love. Some of us were set on getting the No. 1 pick (Andrew Wiggins/Jabari Parker) from Cleveland, others wanted the hodgepodge package from Boston.

In theory, I think draft picks continue to be more valuable before the picks are actually made. Would you rather have the No. 1 pick in 2014 or the No. 5 pick in 2014 and the No. 3 pick in 2016? Based on pick value, almost all of us would probably think the latter, at least initially. Well, that's really just Andrew Wiggins vs Marcus Smart and Dragan Bender (or Jamal Murray, Kris Dunn, etc.). Guess which side of that has more value in terms of actual players...

Q12543 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:So, by that definition, the Chicago Bulls have a better situation than us too... Current W/L record means little to nothing to me when discussing which team has the best situation for the future. Think that kind of rationale ignores that three of our best four players are 20/21-years old. That's not the case in Boston. Progression and development isn't guaranteed, but it's absolutely EXPECTED. Does anyone think that a Towns in his prime couldn't carry a team to 45 wins practically alone? When's the last time Tom Thibodeau was coaching and won less than 45 games (never)? I don't see how this is really even a comparison, but clearly that's just me.

I don't get your Chicago take.

I'm not denying the Wolves have a great future and that they probably improve significantly because of it.
I'm just acknowledging that the Celtics have already proven to be an improving team with a bunch of assets that could probably help them improve.

Yeah, that's the part that makes it somewhat close in my opinion (in terms of the original poll question). It's also not that outlandish to think that because of these things (Wins + Coach + Assets), they could be in the running for a player like Durant.

Not to mention Durant has to be liking the idea of getting through TOR/CLE to get to the Finals compared to GS/SPURS. If Durant thinks OKC is capped out, then Boston would be the choice. They have talent in place to put around him, they have the means of adding top young talent over the next few seasons, and they have cap space to put another max player next to him. I want him to go there. I'd love to restore some balance to the conferences and see LeBron have another real challenge before the NBA Finals.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

thedoper wrote:Is the elephant in the room beyond the rosters themselves? We mention a max contract for a free agent and we're already worried about the luxury tax when we're nowhere near it. Our market and ownership will always be a factor that tips these discussions away from us. Why aren't we in the mix for Durant?

I'll take our roster and our potential easy over Boston even with their picks. But we already got Ricky putting conditions on his commitment to the team, and it's almost a given that we wont target Horford or Durant. And because of the financial implications 4 years from now when we will be theoretically in a new CBA.

I think this is a great question. Why aren't we? It's almost universally acknowledged that the Wolves have the best young core in basketball. Why wouldn't Durant be attracted to our team? I think it comes down to two things, neither particularly encouraging:

1) The Twin Cities market. With it's mid-size and weather, is our market still not attractive to big time free agents with options?

2) Our front office refuses to think big enough. I mean if #1 isn't the case, wouldn't it have to be this? KAT, Durant, and Wiggins would be plenty good enough to contend within 2 years. I'd hate to think we wouldn't inject ourselves into the discussion.

Q stated we might be too far away from contender status, and that could be but how long would it take?

I'm not sure Durant wants to playoff potty-train a bunch of young pups for the next two years when he could enter a situation that allows him to contend right NOW (which potentially includes staying on his current team, OKC, with Westbrook).

Boston has the assets and willingness to make moves to potentially put together a contend-now team that could be very appealing to Durant. I don't think he's as interested in a team that might contend in 2018 or 2019.

Now if you are willing to put Wiggins and our #5 pick on the block for a couple of big-time veteran players to support Durant and KAT, than yeah, we could be a very compelling destination for Durant. Are you willing to do that? I doubt Taylor is.

TheFuture wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:So, by that definition, the Chicago Bulls have a better situation than us too... Current W/L record means little to nothing to me when discussing which team has the best situation for the future. Think that kind of rationale ignores that three of our best four players are 20/21-years old. That's not the case in Boston. Progression and development isn't guaranteed, but it's absolutely EXPECTED. Does anyone think that a Towns in his prime couldn't carry a team to 45 wins practically alone? When's the last time Tom Thibodeau was coaching and won less than 45 games (never)? I don't see how this is really even a comparison, but clearly that's just me.

I don't get your Chicago take.

I'm not denying the Wolves have a great future and that they probably improve significantly because of it.
I'm just acknowledging that the Celtics have already proven to be an improving team with a bunch of assets that could probably help them improve.

Yeah, that's the part that makes it somewhat close in my opinion (in terms of the original poll question). It's also not that outlandish to think that because of these things (Wins + Coach + Assets), they could be in the running for a player like Durant.

Not to mention Durant has to be liking the idea of getting through TOR/CLE to get to the Finals compared to GS/SPURS. If Durant thinks OKC is capped out, then Boston would be the choice. They have talent in place to put around him, they have the means of adding top young talent over the next few seasons, and they have cap space to put another max player next to him. I want him to go there. I'd love to restore some balance to the conferences and see LeBron have another real challenge before the NBA Finals.

Yup.

thedoper wrote:Is the elephant in the room beyond the rosters themselves? We mention a max contract for a free agent and we're already worried about the luxury tax when we're nowhere near it. Our market and ownership will always be a factor that tips these discussions away from us. Why aren't we in the mix for Durant?

I'll take our roster and our potential easy over Boston even with their picks. But we already got Ricky putting conditions on his commitment to the team, and it's almost a given that we wont target Horford or Durant. And because of the financial implications 4 years from now when we will be theoretically in a new CBA.

We should be in the mix for Durant, but why would he come here? The only team he should and likely will sign with out West is OKC for obvious reasons. I don't see any scenario where he leaves OKC and doesn't sign in the East.

Q12543 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

thedoper wrote:Is the elephant in the room beyond the rosters themselves? We mention a max contract for a free agent and we're already worried about the luxury tax when we're nowhere near it. Our market and ownership will always be a factor that tips these discussions away from us. Why aren't we in the mix for Durant?

I'll take our roster and our potential easy over Boston even with their picks. But we already got Ricky putting conditions on his commitment to the team, and it's almost a given that we wont target Horford or Durant. And because of the financial implications 4 years from now when we will be theoretically in a new CBA.

I think this is a great question. Why aren't we? It's almost universally acknowledged that the Wolves have the best young core in basketball. Why wouldn't Durant be attracted to our team? I think it comes down to two things, neither particularly encouraging:

1) The Twin Cities market. With it's mid-size and weather, is our market still not attractive to big time free agents with options?

2) Our front office refuses to think big enough. I mean if #1 isn't the case, wouldn't it have to be this? KAT, Durant, and Wiggins would be plenty good enough to contend within 2 years. I'd hate to think we wouldn't inject ourselves into the discussion.

Q stated we might be too far away from contender status, and that could be but how long would it take?

I'm not sure Durant wants to playoff potty-train a bunch of young pups for the next two years when he could enter a situation that allows him to contend right NOW (which potentially includes staying on his current team, OKC, with Westbrook).

Boston has the assets and willingness to make moves to potentially put together a contend-now team that could be very appealing to Durant. I don't think he's as interested in a team that might contend in 2018 or 2019.

Now if you are willing to put Wiggins and our #5 pick on the block for a couple of big-time veteran players to support Durant and KAT, than yeah, we could be a very compelling destination for Durant. Are you willing to do that? I doubt Taylor is.

I think you're right that the roster would have to be tweaked. My point is that I doubt that is even being explored. If we were in a different market with different ownership all options would be explored right now. It bothers me that Durant seems to be a non-stater. I'd be willing to put Zach and the 5. No problem. If we came out of this offseason with Kat, Wiggins, Durant and a mix of vets where do I sign up?