Minnesota Sports Forum

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

thedoper wrote:I see the fit issue with Simmons in Golden state a bit. But I dont think you reject talent for fit, if anyone knows that its Golden State. Good coaches and GMs make the talented pieces work. But if any team can afford to have 2 non shooters on floor its Golden State when Klay gets healthy. Draymond is their first asset that needs to be replaced if they want a chance in the small window their stars have left. He's definitely farther down the hill on his career than Steph and even with the injured Klay. He's also the most difficult asset to replace with his D and playmaking. I think if anyone could benefit from playing reduced minutes on that team it would be Draymond at this point. If Golden State added Beal or Lillard it fits a Golden State likes to shoot narrative but theyd be completely kissing their D goodbye.

Plus Golden State has another bad shooting big salary that matches and he went to school with Embid. It would be super funny to me if Golden State ended up with Simmons for a package centered on Wiggins + assets. Wouldnt that prove Cool right?

I still say Golden State is my bet as long as this is a predictions thread.

If Golden State makes a trade for Simmons, Wiggins is the first element to be included. There is truth to the idea that the Warriors don't see Simmons and Green as a fit. So it's hard for me to see the Warriors as a real contender. That is unless they get off to a 10-14 start or something like that.

As far as being right on the Wiggins - DLO trade goes, I think I'm in the lead as Wiggins proved to be a better overall player last year. Never mind the additional draft pick compensation. But I'm open to waiting a few years to see how things ultimately play out.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm beyond curious how the removal of Rosas is going to affect our pursuit of Simmons. If it cools off, I think we could surmise that Rosas was prepared to give up more than ownership would go along with. If it heats up, could it mean the inclusion of someone Rosas was refusing to move? This is getting very interesting to say the least.

lipoli390 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm beyond curious how the removal of Rosas is going to affect our pursuit of Simmons. If it cools off, I think we could surmise that Rosas was prepared to give up more than ownership would go along with. If it heats up, could it mean the inclusion of someone Rosas was refusing to move? This is getting very interesting to say the least.

I'm also curious, Cool. But I find it hard to believe that the Wolves fired Rosas over what he was willing or not willing to give up for Simmons. Ownership can always override the PBO and make or veto a deal. That's essentially what Taylor did when he deputized Layman to deal Butler when Thibs was being recalcitrant. Ownership could have gone around Rosas and then dared Rosas to resign - which would have saved ownership a lot of money owing on Gersson's contract. And if Rosas refused to resign, ownership could have easily waited until a less conspicuous and disruptive time to fire him. This timing of this firing was so abrupt and awkward, that I don't see a seasoned business pro like Lore signing off on it over a trade strategy disagreement that could have easily been circumvented directly by ownership.

lipoli390 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm beyond curious how the removal of Rosas is going to affect our pursuit of Simmons. If it cools off, I think we could surmise that Rosas was prepared to give up more than ownership would go along with. If it heats up, could it mean the inclusion of someone Rosas was refusing to move? This is getting very interesting to say the least.

I'm also curious, Cool. But I find it hard to believe that the Wolves fired Rosas over what he was willing or not willing to give up for Simmons. Ownership can always override the PBO and make or veto a deal. That's essentially what Taylor did when he deputized Layman to deal Butler when Thibs was being recalcitrant. Ownership could have gone around Rosas and then dared Rosas to resign - which would have saved ownership a lot of money owing on Gersson's contract. And if Rosas refused to resign, ownership could have easily waited until a less conspicuous and disruptive time to fire him. This timing of this firing was so abrupt and awkward, that I don't see a seasoned business pro like Lore signing off on it over a trade strategy disagreement that could have easily been circumvented directly by ownership.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm beyond curious how the removal of Rosas is going to affect our pursuit of Simmons. If it cools off, I think we could surmise that Rosas was prepared to give up more than ownership would go along with. If it heats up, could it mean the inclusion of someone Rosas was refusing to move? This is getting very interesting to say the least.

I'm also curious, Cool. But I find it hard to believe that the Wolves fired Rosas over what he was willing or not willing to give up for Simmons. Ownership can always override the PBO and make or veto a deal. That's essentially what Taylor did when he deputized Layman to deal Butler when Thibs was being recalcitrant. Ownership could have gone around Rosas and then dared Rosas to resign - which would have saved ownership a lot of money owing on Gersson's contract. And if Rosas refused to resign, ownership could have easily waited until a less conspicuous and disruptive time to fire him. This timing of this firing was so abrupt and awkward, that I don't see a seasoned business pro like Lore signing off on it over a trade strategy disagreement that could have easily been circumvented directly by ownership.

Lip, I'm not saying he may have been fired due to the negotiations. I'm just saying it will be interesting to see how him not being there affects them going forward.

WolvesFan21 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm beyond curious how the removal of Rosas is going to affect our pursuit of Simmons. If it cools off, I think we could surmise that Rosas was prepared to give up more than ownership would go along with. If it heats up, could it mean the inclusion of someone Rosas was refusing to move? This is getting very interesting to say the least.

I'm also curious, Cool. But I find it hard to believe that the Wolves fired Rosas over what he was willing or not willing to give up for Simmons. Ownership can always override the PBO and make or veto a deal. That's essentially what Taylor did when he deputized Layman to deal Butler when Thibs was being recalcitrant. Ownership could have gone around Rosas and then dared Rosas to resign - which would have saved ownership a lot of money owing on Gersson's contract. And if Rosas refused to resign, ownership could have easily waited until a less conspicuous and disruptive time to fire him. This timing of this firing was so abrupt and awkward, that I don't see a seasoned business pro like Lore signing off on it over a trade strategy disagreement that could have easily been circumvented directly by ownership.

Maybe they already have a PBO ready to take the job and enter negotiations. Maybe Rosas refused to trade DLO but the new owners and potential PBO are. Wouldn't you actually want your new guy to be in there to do the actual trade so you can get the best deal possible?

Doing it behind the back of the current PBO gets a little messy. Maybe makes things worse.

lipoli390 wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm beyond curious how the removal of Rosas is going to affect our pursuit of Simmons. If it cools off, I think we could surmise that Rosas was prepared to give up more than ownership would go along with. If it heats up, could it mean the inclusion of someone Rosas was refusing to move? This is getting very interesting to say the least.

I'm also curious, Cool. But I find it hard to believe that the Wolves fired Rosas over what he was willing or not willing to give up for Simmons. Ownership can always override the PBO and make or veto a deal. That's essentially what Taylor did when he deputized Layman to deal Butler when Thibs was being recalcitrant. Ownership could have gone around Rosas and then dared Rosas to resign - which would have saved ownership a lot of money owing on Gersson's contract. And if Rosas refused to resign, ownership could have easily waited until a less conspicuous and disruptive time to fire him. This timing of this firing was so abrupt and awkward, that I don't see a seasoned business pro like Lore signing off on it over a trade strategy disagreement that could have easily been circumvented directly by ownership.

Maybe they already have a PBO ready to take the job and enter negotiations. Maybe Rosas refused to trade DLO but the new owners and potential PBO are. Wouldn't you actually want your new guy to be in there to do the actual trade so you can get the best deal possible?

Doing it behind the back of the current PBO gets a little messy. Maybe makes things worse.

I owned the team and wanted to make a deal that Rosas refused to make, I'd make the deal. I wouldn't do it behind Gersson's back. I'd direct him to make the calls and get it done. That would be my prerogative as his boss and I would expect him to carry out my directive or resign. If he refused to carry out my directive and declined to resign, I'd executive the deal myself or have someone else in the front office do it - not behind Gersson's back, but right in front of him. Going forward work directly with Gupta and hope that Rosas would eventually be miserable enough to resign as an outcast. If he continued to hang on, I'd simply wait for a less conspicuous and awkward time to fire him. If I had someone in mind to replace Rosas, I'd see no reason to rush into hiring him. There aren't any open PBO positions in the NBA right now, so it' not as if my guy would be going anywhere soon.

WolvesFan21 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm beyond curious how the removal of Rosas is going to affect our pursuit of Simmons. If it cools off, I think we could surmise that Rosas was prepared to give up more than ownership would go along with. If it heats up, could it mean the inclusion of someone Rosas was refusing to move? This is getting very interesting to say the least.

I'm also curious, Cool. But I find it hard to believe that the Wolves fired Rosas over what he was willing or not willing to give up for Simmons. Ownership can always override the PBO and make or veto a deal. That's essentially what Taylor did when he deputized Layman to deal Butler when Thibs was being recalcitrant. Ownership could have gone around Rosas and then dared Rosas to resign - which would have saved ownership a lot of money owing on Gersson's contract. And if Rosas refused to resign, ownership could have easily waited until a less conspicuous and disruptive time to fire him. This timing of this firing was so abrupt and awkward, that I don't see a seasoned business pro like Lore signing off on it over a trade strategy disagreement that could have easily been circumvented directly by ownership.

Maybe they already have a PBO ready to take the job and enter negotiations. Maybe Rosas refused to trade DLO but the new owners and potential PBO are. Wouldn't you actually want your new guy to be in there to do the actual trade so you can get the best deal possible?

Doing it behind the back of the current PBO gets a little messy. Maybe makes things worse.

I owned the team and wanted to make a deal that Rosas refused to make, I'd make the deal. I wouldn't do it behind Gersson's back. I'd direct him to make the calls and get it done. That would be my prerogative as his boss and I would expect him to carry out my directive or resign. If he refused to carry out my directive and declined to resign, I'd executive the deal myself or have someone else in the front office do it - not behind Gersson's back, but right in front of him. Going forward work directly with Gupta and hope that Rosas would eventually be miserable enough to resign as an outcast. If he continued to hang on, I'd simply wait for a less conspicuous and awkward time to fire him. If I had someone in mind to replace Rosas, I'd see no reason to rush into hiring him. There aren't any open PBO positions in the NBA right now, so it' not as if my guy would be going anywhere soon.

Maybe the new owners have a guy who is not employed and they don't want the former regime to be pulling the trigger, nor do they want to try and negotiate a deal without their guy in charge.

If they hire someone right away then that scenario is probable. But if they don't hire anyone then it was simply Rosas doing something poor/bad/not befitting of a PBO.

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.