Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:DLo led the Warriors to 4 straight. The west is a guantlet. No wonder we keep losing these "winnable" games.

D'Angelo Russell is trash. Overpaid, no good, weird haircut, too many smiles, reportedly has ice in his veins which can't be healthy long-term. I want him having nothing to do with this team. The Wolves are much better with -- *checks notes* -- Shabazz Napier at point guard! Plus, he'll just stunt Jarrett Culver's growth! No way, Josè. Not today. Not on my watch.

No one is arguing that Russell wouldn't be an upgrade to Napier and Culver, so it's a little silly for you to imply otherwise (albeit in jest). I think reasonable people can look at the size of his contract versus his stats and overall track record and make a case against trading for him.

And despite the recent hot streak, he still has a net negative on/off rating, meaning the team plays better when he's on the bench.

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:DLo led the Warriors to 4 straight. The west is a guantlet. No wonder we keep losing these "winnable" games.

D'Angelo Russell is trash. Overpaid, no good, weird haircut, too many smiles, reportedly has ice in his veins which can't be healthy long-term. I want him having nothing to do with this team. The Wolves are much better with -- *checks notes* -- Shabazz Napier at point guard! Plus, he'll just stunt Jarrett Culver's growth! No way, Josè. Not today. Not on my watch.

No one is arguing that Russell wouldn't be an upgrade to Napier and Culver, so it's a little silly for you to imply otherwise (albeit in jest). I think reasonable people can look at the size of his contract versus his stats and overall track record and make a case against trading for him.

And despite the recent hot streak, he still has a net negative on/off rating, meaning the team plays better when he's on the bench.

This is a fair rebuttal and I'm aware that there's a case against him -- you've made solid arguments throughout. My comment was more tongue in cheek considering my take is well documented already.

Russell may not be the best option but he's far and away better than anything were looking at currently or through free agency.

thedoper wrote:Russell may not be the best option but he's far and away better than anything were looking at currently or through free agency.

How do you know who we are looking at? If the universe of choices is DLO, Dennis Smith and Dion Waiters, you might be right. But doing nothing and not adding DLO's max contract seems like the best option of the three.

Getting Russell at this point would only help in getting this team a shittier draft pick .

PorkChop wrote:Getting Russell at this point would only help in getting this team a shittier draft pick .

If he was on a one year deal, I'd be for it as I think he'd help with the tank. But we have a lot of needs and we need to keep as much capspace as we can to fill our needs.

KG4Ever wrote:

PorkChop wrote:Getting Russell at this point would only help in getting this team a shittier draft pick .

If he was on a one year deal, I'd be for it as I think he'd help with the tank. But we have a lot of needs and we need to keep as much capspace as we can to fill our needs.

I know I've mentioned this 8 million times. But as long as Wiggins and Kat are on the roster the wolves will not nave significant cap space.

kekgeek1 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:

PorkChop wrote:Getting Russell at this point would only help in getting this team a shittier draft pick .

If he was on a one year deal, I'd be for it as I think he'd help with the tank. But we have a lot of needs and we need to keep as much capspace as we can to fill our needs.

I know I've mentioned this 8 million times. But as long as Wiggins and Kat are on the roster the wolves will not nave significant cap space.

If you actually said it 8 million times, then you really need to shut your mouth and see a shrink. I disagree with you and trying to explain the scenarios where taking on nearly $30 million a year for a net negative player is a dumb ass move is exhausting.

Cap space?

Is that really how this team is going to improve significantly? Really?

The Wolves will have to overpay 2nd and even 3rd rate guys at times just to get them in Minnesota. I don't know if Russell is the answer. But I do know that building a team via free agency aint gonna work in MN.

KG4Ever wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:

PorkChop wrote:Getting Russell at this point would only help in getting this team a shittier draft pick .

If he was on a one year deal, I'd be for it as I think he'd help with the tank. But we have a lot of needs and we need to keep as much capspace as we can to fill our needs.

I know I've mentioned this 8 million times. But as long as Wiggins and Kat are on the roster the wolves will not nave significant cap space.

If you actually said it 8 million times, then you really need to shut your mouth and see a shrink. I disagree with you and trying to explain the scenarios where taking on nearly $30 million a year for a net negative player is a dumb ass move is exhausting.

1) Please do not take personal shots at me or other people dealing with mental health. Mental health means a lot to me.

2) Did I mention Dlo one time in my post?

3) I'm perfectly fine not adding Dlo, but you name the argument a lot that wolves need to preserve its cap space. I'm just reminding you that the wolves will not have cap space for the next 4 years including this one without trading Wiggins or towns. So your point of needing cap space is not valid when with Dlo or without DLO the wolves will not have cap space.

4) Can you please stop calling people dumbasses everytime you disagree with them. Your post are go like this "that is a fucking terrible idea, what a dumbass move". I want you to continue to be on this board because you might bring something valuable to it but please stop attacking Cam and others when you disagree. (Sometimes people have to be reminded of this, like when Abe called me out about my constant shots at Saunders).