Minnesota Sports Forum

FNG wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Camden wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:DeRozan might be turning a corner....

That and he's been legitimately good for the last decade.

Has he ever been bad?

PPG: 26.8 vs. 19.8, despite playing next to a very high scoring Zach Lavine

3-point shooting: 37.3% (on 8.8 attempts per game) vs. 28%. His previous best was 33.8% and he has seldom been over 30%

DeRozan is taking only 2.2 3fga per game.

The PPG seems a bit off or misleading, too... considering he's averaged more than 20 ppg for 9 straight seasons now.

Good article on Wiggins on ESPN's website. He's been a great fit for Golden State. A long, long time ago - when people were still arguing over whether Wiggins would be a star or not - Abe predicted that he'd likely end up becoming much more useful on his second or third team. That has indeed come to fruition.

Q-was-here wrote:Good article on Wiggins on ESPN's website. He's been a great fit for Golden State. A long, long time ago - when people were still arguing over whether Wiggins would be a star or not - Abe predicted that he'd likely end up becoming much more useful on his second or third team. That has indeed come to fruition.

The issue with Wiggins has always been about "value". When we signed him the max deal, many of us knew it was not a good investment based on his contributions and limitations. That said, he always served a purpose. He will be viewed differently (more positively) when he hits his next contract (assuming a team pays what he is worth rather than over-bidding as we did). I personally would love to have him back on this team....just not at the salary he is at now:)

Hicks123 wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:Good article on Wiggins on ESPN's website. He's been a great fit for Golden State. A long, long time ago - when people were still arguing over whether Wiggins would be a star or not - Abe predicted that he'd likely end up becoming much more useful on his second or third team. That has indeed come to fruition.

The issue with Wiggins has always been about "value". When we signed him the max deal, many of us knew it was not a good investment based on his contributions and limitations. That said, he always served a purpose. He will be viewed differently (more positively) when he hits his next contract (assuming a team pays what he is worth rather than over-bidding as we did). I personally would love to have him back on this team....just not at the salary he is at now:)

Posting to upset Q...

.... Andrew Wiggins has a better 3fg % (43.4%) right now than he had overall fg % (41.2%) his last full season in MN.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:Good article on Wiggins on ESPN's website. He's been a great fit for Golden State. A long, long time ago - when people were still arguing over whether Wiggins would be a star or not - Abe predicted that he'd likely end up becoming much more useful on his second or third team. That has indeed come to fruition.

The issue with Wiggins has always been about "value". When we signed him the max deal, many of us knew it was not a good investment based on his contributions and limitations. That said, he always served a purpose. He will be viewed differently (more positively) when he hits his next contract (assuming a team pays what he is worth rather than over-bidding as we did). I personally would love to have him back on this team....just not at the salary he is at now:)

Posting to upset Q...

.... Andrew Wiggins has a better 3fg % (43.4%) right now than he had overall fg % (41.2%) his last full season in MN.

Absolutely incredible.

Meanwhile, Naz Reid at 34% is shooting 3s just as accurately or better than Malik Beasley, Jaylen Nowell, DLO, Patrick Beverley, and Taurean Prince. The latter five players should all be in the 35-40%+ range if you look at their pedigree. And Lip tells me this franchise doesn't have a shooting curse. Nonsense! It's been proven time and again that there is a curse! Whether the actual cause is lack of confidence, Target Center site lines, whatever....it's a curse until we have a team that breaks it!

I just saw that Bismack Biyombo was on a 10-day contract.* Now don't get me wrong... the guy is not the answer for anybody. But, he's been a mostly serviceable 15 - 20 mpg guy for nearly a decade. Surprised he wasn't playing for anybody.

If nothing else, steep fall for a guy making $17M only two years ago who isn't even 30 yet.


* Suns signed him until the end of the season.

I was reminded today that John Collins could have been had last year for Malik Beasley and a first-round pick due to the uncertainty surrounding his next contract with Atlanta. The Wolves turned that offer down, and rightly so in my opinion, but I bring that up because I think Minnesota should be looking to make a mini splash by using those two assets -- Beasley and a lottery-protected first-round pick -- and an expiring contract if needed. It's worth mentioning that Beasley's trade value has obviously decreased since last year, but I still think he's a decent chip given his youth, shooting prowess, and flexible contract.

I'm curious what realistic trades this board can come up with using the aforementioned pieces that would arguably make this team better now and moving forward. My list of trade targets that actually fit that criteria is small, but maybe I'm overlooking a player or two. Any ideas? Below is what I would consider.

1. Harrison Barnes and Alex Len for Malik Beasley, Taurean Prince, and Minnesota's 2022 first-round pick (top-14 protected)

2. Jerami Grant for Malik Beasley, Jake Layman, Leandro Bolmaro, and Minnesota's 2022 first-round pick (top-10 protected)

3. Derrick White and Doug McDermott for Malik Beasley, Taurean Prince, Jake Layman, and Minnesota's 2022 first-round pick (top-14 protected)

4. Talen Horton-Tucker and Kendrick Nunn for Malik Beasley and a 2022 second-round pick (more favorable of 76ers, Nuggets picks)

Camden wrote:I was reminded today that John Collins could have been had last year for Malik Beasley and a first-round pick due to the uncertainty surrounding his next contract with Atlanta. The Wolves turned that offer down, and rightly so in my opinion, but I bring that up because I think Minnesota should be looking to make a mini splash by using those two assets -- Beasley and a lottery-protected first-round pick -- and an expiring contract if needed. It's worth mentioning that Beasley's trade value has obviously decreased since last year, but I still think he's a decent chip given his youth, shooting prowess, and flexible contract.

I'm curious what realistic trades this board can come up with using the aforementioned pieces that would arguably make this team better now and moving forward. My list of trade targets that actually fit that criteria is small, but maybe I'm overlooking a player or two. Any ideas? Below is what I would consider.

1. Harrison Barnes and Alex Len for Malik Beasley, Taurean Prince, and Minnesota's 2022 first-round pick (top-14 protected)

2. Jerami Grant for Malik Beasley, Jake Layman, Leandro Bolmaro, and Minnesota's 2022 first-round pick (top-10 protected)

3. Derrick White and Doug McDermott for Malik Beasley, Taurean Prince, Jake Layman, and Minnesota's 2022 first-round pick (top-14 protected)

4. Talen Horton-Tucker and Kendrick Nunn for Malik Beasley and a 2022 second-round pick (more favorable of 76ers, Nuggets picks)

I thought you could only trade every other 1st round pick. They sent last year's pick to GS so they'd have to use this years pick, wouldn't they?

TheSP wrote:I thought you could only trade every other 1st round pick. They sent last year's pick to GS so they'd have to use this years pick, wouldn't they?

I think you're confusing yourself a little bit, but you're on the right track. The "Stepien Rule" was passed to prevent teams from trading away their future draft picks in consecutive years -- the keyword being "future" draft picks. The Wolves trading their picks last year does not matter anymore in regards to future trades because the draft has concluded and there are no protections that have carried over. In short, the trade involving last year's picks is over and Minnesota can operate freely with their future picks.

However, the Stepien Rule does mean that Minnesota can't trade their 2022 and 2023 picks. Or 2023 and 2024. It's a provision that affects future picks without concern for past picks unless protections are involved. The Wolves would have to trade 2022 and 2024 picks, or 2023 and 2025 picks, if they wanted to package them together in a trade.

Speaking hypothetically, if the Wolves traded their 2023 picks during this season, then they'd have to make their picks at the 2022 draft upcoming. But now we're getting into a tricky area where other factors come into play.

Hopefully that helps and I didn't confuse you even more!

Camden wrote:

TheSP wrote:I thought you could only trade every other 1st round pick. They sent last year's pick to GS so they'd have to use this years pick, wouldn't they?

I think you're confusing yourself a little bit, but you're on the right track. The "Stepien Rule" was passed to prevent teams from trading away their future draft picks in consecutive years -- the keyword being "future" draft picks. The Wolves trading their picks last year does not matter anymore in regards to future trades because the draft has concluded and there are no protections that have carried over. In short, the trade involving last year's picks is over and Minnesota can operate freely with their future picks.

However, the Stepien Rule does mean that Minnesota can't trade their 2022 and 2023 picks. Or 2023 and 2024. It's a provision that affects future picks without concern for past picks unless protections are involved. The Wolves would have to trade 2022 and 2024 picks, or 2023 and 2025 picks, if they wanted to package them together in a trade.

Speaking hypothetically, if the Wolves traded their 2023 picks during this season, then they'd have to make their picks at the 2022 draft upcoming. But now we're getting into a tricky area where other factors come into play.

Hopefully that helps and I didn't confuse you even more!

Makes sense, thanks for clearing that up!