Minnesota Sports Forum

I give the offseason a A. Wolves moved from not in the title picture to in the title picture without giving up their 3 most valuable assets and 4 best players. Think an argument can be made Slow-mo is better than any player the wolves lost this offseason. Then the picks, I think they are being overrated a little bit. Only 19 players of a possible 300 players from 2000-2019 (didn't include the 20-22 drafts due to small sample size) drafted from 16-30 (a top 7 seed) have made an all star game. That is a 6.33% chance of drafting an all star with those picks. Only 5 players out of those 300 guys have made 3 or more all star games (rondo, Jimmy, Lowry, Parker and gobert) and that is a 1.6% chance. Personally I'll take my 98.4% chance that the wolves don't add a player of Gobert ability on that rookie deal.

In this league players can ask out at any minute, when you have special talents you need to maximize their potential for success and that is what the wolves did. The warriors are the exception to the rule not the norm. I mean even Jaylen Brown is in trade rumors you need to strike when you can in the NBA.

Wolves fixed their biggest hole with an all nba talent. Were aggressive and Ant and Mcdaniels are under team control throughout the life span of the trade and the wolves have worst case scenario protection on that 2029 pick. Wolves also gave up no player in the grand scheme of things matters, I love Pat Bev, Vando and Beasley but they are moving furniture what are replaceable and weren't long term needle movers on this team.

Personally I don't think the wolves overpaid they became contenders and I love it!

I think it's going to be pretty easy to judge this offseason. If we become a legitimate contender it will be seen as a great offseason. If we fall short of that, it will be a terrible offseason. There really isn't any inbetween. We pushed our cards into the middle of the table. Now we have to see what happens. I really like that we're taking a shot, but I'm not sure how it's going to go.

Probably the hardest off season in Wolves history and the hardest off season grade to make in 2022 out of all the NBA teams. You can look at all the benefits and be super jacked up in a good way about this team and want to give a high grade or you can look at assets spent and what those assets could have landed and think we spent way to much and focus on that and give a low grade.

It's a trade I could have never made, the pick swap says it all for me "I got you by the balls and I know it!" Lack of protection on picks with all those assets being sent out in my eyes is slightly reckless. Players with value sent out in addition to all those picks seemed like a lack of maximizing value.

I'll hold true to my original thoughts, replace Kessler with N. Reid, add in two 2nds from the Jazz to MN in years we lose a 1st (Ainge can pick the years). Lastly take away the disrespectful pick swap and it would have been acceptable even with the lack of pick protection.

My grade B+
I see both sides here and because needs and weaknesses were addressed, lineup flexibility dramatically increased, and the overall end result puts a core in place I can have true excitement about.

Tactical unit wrote:Probably the hardest off season in Wolves history and the hardest off season grade to make in 2022 out of all the NBA teams. You can look at all the benefits and be super jacked up in a good way about this team and want to give a high grade or you can look at assets spent and what those assets could have landed and think we spent way to much and focus on that and give a low grade.

It's a trade I could have never made, the pick swap says it all for me "I got you by the balls and I know it!" Lack of protection on picks with all those assets being sent out in my eyes is slightly reckless. Players with value sent out in addition to all those picks seemed like a lack of maximizing value.

I'll hold true to my original thoughts, replace Kessler with N. Reid, add in two 2nds from the Jazz to MN in years we lose a 1st (Ainge can pick the years). Lastly take away the disrespectful pick swap and it would have been acceptable even with the lack of pick protection.

My grade B+
I see both sides here and because needs and weaknesses were addressed, lineup flexibility dramatically increased, and the overall end result puts a core in place I can have true excitement about.

That's an interesting statement ("what those assets could have landed"). We know what they landed - Rudy Gobert! And if we had kept the assets, Kekgeek does a really nice job laying out the odds of landing a similarly great player with those first rounders we gave up. Less than 2%!

D-Mac wrote:I mean to everyone saying it was such a good offseason, go back and revisit your initial reaction to the gobert trade... aka your true reaction before you proceeded to talk yourself into liking it :)

I'm all for making a big move with some draft capital, but this was probably a year early and definitely for the wrong player/fit. I've explained what I would have down several times. With some creative moves we could have upgraded the other starting big while not losing any firsts and keeping Beverly. I liked Kessler as a bench piece next year. Kat IS a center and he definitely needed some help up front, but if he really needed us to get Gobert, then Kat isn't worth what we're paying him. I'm a big believer that our big swing should have been saved for next year after we see how Jaden, nowell, Ant and even Kessler would have developed. If this team couldn't have made the playoffs this year with just an upgrade at the 4, then that would have been a Kat problem in my mind. I really like the Anderson signing and the Minot pick, but otherwise, this offseason was crap.

I've seen this before..."it was too early".....but we don't know what would have been available next offseason. And who is to say that without this move we'd win more than 40-something games? Then it would still be "too early" by your definition.

A generational defensive talent was made available. The Wolves jumped on it without giving up any of their most prized assets.

kekgeek1 wrote:I give the offseason a A. Wolves moved from not in the title picture to in the title picture without giving up their 3 most valuable assets and 4 best players. Think an argument can be made Slow-mo is better than any player the wolves lost this offseason. Then the picks, I think they are being overrated a little bit. Only 19 players of a possible 300 players from 2000-2019 (didn't include the 20-22 drafts due to small sample size) drafted from 16-30 (a top 7 seed) have made an all star game. That is a 6.33% chance of drafting an all star with those picks. Only 5 players out of those 300 guys have made 3 or more all star games (rondo, Jimmy, Lowry, Parker and gobert) and that is a 1.6% chance. Personally I'll take my 98.4% chance that the wolves don't add a player of Gobert ability on that rookie deal.

In this league players can ask out at any minute, when you have special talents you need to maximize their potential for success and that is what the wolves did. The warriors are the exception to the rule not the norm. I mean even Jaylen Brown is in trade rumors you need to strike when you can in the NBA.

Wolves fixed their biggest hole with an all nba talent. Were aggressive and Ant and Mcdaniels are under team control throughout the life span of the trade and the wolves have worst case scenario protection on that 2029 pick. Wolves also gave up no player in the grand scheme of things matters, I love Pat Bev, Vando and Beasley but they are moving furniture what are replaceable and weren't long term needle movers on this team.

Personally I don't think the wolves overpaid they became contenders and I love it!

I'll add to the numbers by saying Fred Van Vliet is the only undrafted player during that stretch to make an all-star team. Still looking back there were years there were a number of worthwhile undrafted players. 2013 and 2019 (looking good at this point anyway) were particularly strong classes. There were also some years where there was only a couple guys that were worthwhile NBA players. Still, what if you have an open roster spot to sign a guy like Anthony Tolliver or Jose Calderon or...Naz Reid or Jordan McLaughlin? :) It doesn't have to be just undrafted players though either. The Nets added 2 good players via FA that other teams gave up on in Joe Harris and Spencer Dinwiddie. Meanwhile you could also just sign worthwhile vets instead too instead of drafting a guy you hope will be an NBA player. If you are a really good team the level of vet you can get for a vet min typically goes up. Contenders do still end up sometimes overpaying to keep players but they do often get good players on the vet min.

Not having draft picks is certainly worrisome but again there are other avenues to add to a team both in terms of helping your team now and in the future. As I've mentioned before now with the G-league and 2-way contracts there are even more ways to add and develop more young talent. The league added 2-way deals in 2017 but Covid did kinda throw off some of the developmental aspect of that league for at least one year. I'm not sure if there has quite been enough time to go by that we can see/ make a good analysis of what effect that has had in terms of players making impacts on rosters in a wider view. I think most of us would agree it's provided more accessible talent to the league the past years and that's a good thing whether you are a good team or one that's trying to become good. Would I have done the Gobert deal? No. Do I think there are opportunities to build up the roster that don't include draft picks? Yes. Do I have some confidence that Connelly will be able to do just that? Yes.

One last thing I'll add here that I've seen contenders/playoff teams give up assets to get off players that are first round picks. So not only did they select a guy late in the draft and they didn't work out but then they had to give up a future 2nd rounder etc to dump the player to save money against the tax and open up a spot for someone who could actually help them. Picking a player with a 1st round pick can actually be a negative too.

Camden wrote:Not to mention, you could easily argue that the Atlanta Hawks set the market this summer with their acquisition of Dejounte Murray by giving up three first-round picks and a pick swap. Certainly, trading for the significantly better player in Rudy Gobert would ultimately cost more than that. And that's not even bringing up recent trades for other star players in Anthony Davis, James Harden, and Paul George that essentially set the precedent of what that haul should look like.

I'm cool with this.

But a counterpoint could be made that brings salaries into the mix to help justify both returns. D. Murray is only 25 and making only $35M over the next TWO seasons combined. Gobert will be paid more than that just this season... and will be making $40+M into his mid 30s.


[Note: Four years of team control vs. two can be the counter to that counter IF you think Gobert maintains his value or IF you think Murray jettisons Atlanta for another team in two years.]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Not to mention, you could easily argue that the Atlanta Hawks set the market this summer with their acquisition of Dejounte Murray by giving up three first-round picks and a pick swap. Certainly, trading for the significantly better player in Rudy Gobert would ultimately cost more than that. And that's not even bringing up recent trades for other star players in Anthony Davis, James Harden, and Paul George that essentially set the precedent of what that haul should look like.

I'm cool with this.

But a counterpoint could be made that brings salaries into the mix to help justify both returns. D. Murray is only 25 and making only $35M over the next TWO seasons combined. Gobert will be paid more than that just this season... and will be making $40+M into his mid 30s.


[Note: Four years of team control vs. two can be the counter to that counter IF you think Gobert maintains his value or IF you think Murray jettisons Atlanta for another team in two years.]

The next question is whether or not Murray is worth the salary it may take to keep him on the roster. Maybe he doesn't get a max deal. It's pretty clear the Spurs didn't think he would be worth what they thought he would be paid especially considering the assets they would receive in return.

Murray is a 1 time all star that is a questionable 3 point shooter and that was playing on the Spurs. He certainly has potential to continue his trajectory upwards but that's not certain either. How many guys that were supposed to ascend to the next level didn't and actually dropped off a bit?

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Not to mention, you could easily argue that the Atlanta Hawks set the market this summer with their acquisition of Dejounte Murray by giving up three first-round picks and a pick swap. Certainly, trading for the significantly better player in Rudy Gobert would ultimately cost more than that. And that's not even bringing up recent trades for other star players in Anthony Davis, James Harden, and Paul George that essentially set the precedent of what that haul should look like.

I'm cool with this.

But a counterpoint could be made that brings salaries into the mix to help justify both returns. D. Murray is only 25 and making only $35M over the next TWO seasons combined. Gobert will be paid more than that just this season... and will be making $40+M into his mid 30s.


[Note: Four years of team control vs. two can be the counter to that counter IF you think Gobert maintains his value or IF you think Murray jettisons Atlanta for another team in two years.]

The next question is whether or not Murray is worth the salary it may take to keep him on the roster. Maybe he doesn't get a max deal. It's pretty clear the Spurs didn't think he would be worth what they thought he would be paid especially considering the assets they would receive in return.

Murray is a 1 time all star that is a questionable 3 point shooter and that was playing on the Spurs. He certainly has potential to continue his trajectory upwards but that's not certain either. How many guys that were supposed to ascend to the next level didn't and actually dropped off a bit?

Sure.

But I will say that D. Murray's trajectory has been very consistently moving upward. He's significantly improved in each of his first 5 seasons. While it's possible it suddenly stagnates in a new setting, it's usually a good bet to take a swing on younger guys that show steady, tangible improvement every year early in their careers.

Q-was-here wrote:
That's an interesting statement ("what those assets could have landed"). We know what they landed - Rudy Gobert! And if we had kept the assets, Kekgeek does a really nice job laying out the odds of landing a similarly great player with those first rounders we gave up. Less than 2%!

Actually it was 1.6% per each pick and if we count Kessler Wolves traded 5 of them. Still the probability that none of the picks will be three time all star is more than 90% when you use Kek's numbers.

But if we use that 6.3% chance for being an all star, probabilities look already much better. Based on that number there is about 28% chance that at least one of the picks Utah received will be at least once all star. For example Manu was just twice all star. So he wasn't counted for at least three time all star group but was still good enough to be 3rd or 2nd best player of championship team.