Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:

1. The poster who initiated this thread said that he wouldn't make the trade until after the lottery.

2. I've already stated several times on the board and once in this very thread that I wouldn't trade LaVine + No. 5 for Butler, that deal is too rich for my liking. We agree there even though you responded like we don't.

3. I took issue with you arguing that the Wiggins/Love trade is comparable to your hypothetical trade involving our first rounder and Pekovic for Butler. That's just no where near the same value or same situation. If you'd like to argue your case some more, we can certainly do that. It's just really difficult to get my mind around why you think that's the same type of trade because it's not.

4. What have I said to you that you're getting pissy about? I called your response to someone smug? It was certainly written that way with the "oh, right, that's never happened before" attitude. It was so very off. Or was it me saying your math was off when it was? Either way, I don't see the problem and would 100% say both things in person.

5. You're the only one that has had a real problem with me as of late. I've had disagreements with Cool recently and they fizzle out before they get to the point you're taking this. I don't drink, by the way, but how polite of you to assume that I'm intoxicated when dismantling your awful trade proposal.

6. I'd be delighted to have an Enjin Forum get-together. What a splendid idea. There are some very interesting people on here whose company I would likely enjoy. If you getting worked up over the argument we're having in this thread is an indication of your personality, then I could see me shaking your hand and being on my way.

I realize you won't acknowledge the similarities between the Love trade and the one I proposed, but that doesn't make it an "awful trade proposal". That just means that maybe you are not trying very hard to see someone else's point of view. At the time of the trade, Love was a 25 year old All-Star. Butler is currently a 26 year old All-Star. That's similar. The main piece back in the Love trade was Wiggins aka a top pick in the draft. We currently hold the possibility of one of the top picks in this year's draft. That's similar. The Love trade included other parts/pieces which were done to clear space/facilitate the deal. Us including a contract in a trade for Butler would be similar. I realize it's not exactly the same. But certainly you can see there are similarities if you really try.

And "no" Cam, you would not walk up to me (or anyone else) in person and say their proposal was "Awful" or attempt to insult their intelligence by saying they are bad at math. Come on - You know that and I know that. So stop doing that bullshit on here. 90% of the ideas/proposals thrown out on this forum are just for fun/discussion. It's when the insults start flying that things go off track.

As far as a forum get-together, I'd love it! I'd suggest we target a game next season and get a block of tickets. Perhaps someone on here has connections and can even get us a deal. And yeah, I'd shake your hand and talk Wolves. I just think things would be more respectful in person than they sometimes get online - that's all.

Carlos Danger wrote:

As far as a forum get-together, I'd love it! I'd suggest we target a game next season and get a block of tickets. Perhaps someone on here has connections and can even get us a deal. And yeah, I'd shake your hand and talk Wolves. I just think things would be more respectful in person than they sometimes get online - that's all.

Yes. Get onto organising the forum get together... And Kiwi and I would certainly appreciate if you can organise flights and accomodation for us Southern Hemisphere supporters.

Man I would love to come along and have a beer and talk Wolves with you guys if not for the tyranny of distance.

Shumway wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

As far as a forum get-together, I'd love it! I'd suggest we target a game next season and get a block of tickets. Perhaps someone on here has connections and can even get us a deal. And yeah, I'd shake your hand and talk Wolves. I just think things would be more respectful in person than they sometimes get online - that's all.

Yes. Get onto organising the forum get together... And Kiwi and I would certainly appreciate if you can organise flights and accomodation for us Southern Hemisphere supporters.

Man I would love to come along and have a beer and talk Wolves with you guys if not for the tyranny of distance.

Yes, we'd all have a beer or two and Cam could have a Shirley Temple.

I think one of the attractions of a forum like this is that we can all be spread out all over the place, yet still share a common interest. I haven't kept track, but it might be the case that fewer than half of us regular posters actually live in Minnesota!

LaVine and the 5th for Butler and Gibson and I bet Thibs considers it. I wouldn't. I want to see our young guys grow with a coach who has a track record of developing young players.

Duke13 wrote:I wanted to stay out of this but couldn't resist. I wouldn't do the above mentioned deal either but find it funny that Cam finds that trade laughable but would trade Simmons for Favors. Cmon dude.

So are you saying you wouldn't trade Simmons for Favors, because you'd be crazy to not do that.
If you're saying Utah wouldn't do that trade, then I understand where you're coming from.

As for the initial trade proposal. I wouldn't touch it. Sky is the limit for LaVine and I want to see how far he goes. Top 5 pick and Shabazz, sure. If Chicago is trying to move Butler then we know he either is a disruptive personality or has a lingering health issue. I won't give up any of our current starting 5 to get him. I also say no to the LaVine and 5th for Butler and Gibson trade as well. At this point in their careers, I have Wiggins, Towns, and LaVine as untouchable. That may change after this next season, but right now they are going no where if I was in the front office.

Q12543 wrote:

Shumway wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

As far as a forum get-together, I'd love it! I'd suggest we target a game next season and get a block of tickets. Perhaps someone on here has connections and can even get us a deal. And yeah, I'd shake your hand and talk Wolves. I just think things would be more respectful in person than they sometimes get online - that's all.

Yes. Get onto organising the forum get together... And Kiwi and I would certainly appreciate if you can organise flights and accomodation for us Southern Hemisphere supporters.

Man I would love to come along and have a beer and talk Wolves with you guys if not for the tyranny of distance.

Yes, we'd all have a beer or two and Cam could have a Shirley Temple.

I think one of the attractions of a forum like this is that we can all be spread out all over the place, yet still share a common interest. I haven't kept track, but it might be the case that fewer than half of us regular posters actually live in Minnesota!

A get together would be pretty fun. I'd add an hour or 2 of friendly hoops before we go out. Also I don't drink either so can we go somewhere that also has milkshakes on menu? A Milkshake sounds good right now..Hmmm...I'm gonna have to eat something before brunch in 3 hours... Lol

Carlos Danger: "I realize you won't acknowledge the similarities between the Love trade and the one I proposed, but that doesn't make it an "awful trade proposal". That just means that maybe you are not trying very hard to see someone else's point of view. At the time of the trade, Love was a 25 year old All-Star. Butler is currently a 26 year old All-Star. That's similar. The main piece back in the Love trade was Wiggins aka a top pick in the draft. We currently hold the possibility of one of the top picks in this year's draft. That's similar. The Love trade included other parts/pieces which were done to clear space/facilitate the deal. Us including a contract in a trade for Butler would be similar. I realize it's not exactly the same. But certainly you can see there are similarities if you really try.

And "no" Cam, you would not walk up to me (or anyone else) in person and say their proposal was "Awful" or attempt to insult their intelligence by saying they are bad at math. Come on - You know that and I know that. So stop doing that bullshit on here. 90% of the ideas/proposals thrown out on this forum are just for fun/discussion. It's when the insults start flying that things go off track."

The Bulls would be dealing an All-Star that's one of the best wing defenders in the NBA and locked up for at least three more seasons at $17-20M, which is a bargain as we head into a higher cap. Love, if you recall, was on his last year under contract (opt out after that season was inevitable) and it was clear around the league that he wanted out. He also wasn't considered a plus defensively. So, the value of just the two players isn't similar. Their situations are very different, thus what it would take to trade for them are as well.

The No. 1 pick in a draft that's perceived as strong is much, much more valuable than a probable No. 5 pick in a draft that's considered weak at the top. I hope you could at least agree with that. Again, Butler should have more trade value right now than Love did mainly because of his defensive ability and contract situation. So, no, trading a lesser pick than the No. 1 pick isn't comparable to me. That's like saying Buddy Hield has similar value as a trade chip as Andrew Wiggins and that's just not true.

Not only would you be giving the Bulls a pick that's very likely to be outside of the top-three, but you're loading them down with two years of an injury prone 30-year old center that doesn't fit today's NBA and is making close to $12M each season. That's what we'd consider a negative asset. We couldn't even move Kevin Martin's $6M for two seasons this past season. That should tell you how difficult, how impossible it would be to include Pekovic in almost any trade offer, especially one where you're trying to acquire an All-Star player. Teams that move their best player usually want to move their bad contracts as well and get salary cap relief, not take bad deals and prolong their potential rebuild. This is another key area of your trade that I don't find to be comparable at all with the Love trade.

And Carlos Danger, I can promise you that I would discuss this out with you in person and tell you why I think the hypothetical deal is a bad one. I would lay it out just as I have and continue doing so until you fully understood my position. That's how I discuss sports and pretty much every other topic that's worth debating. It's my nature to voice my stance, especially if it's something I feel strongly about.

Lastly, I really didn't think you were upset about the math comment, but it appears that you were so I'll clear that up too while I'm at it. The initial reply was: "Comparing a No. 5 pick and a $12M bad contract to a No. 1 pick and a $5M contract might not be good math on your part..." I didn't insult your intelligence. I didn't do that at all. What I meant was a No. 1 pick is greater than a No. 5 pick and a $5M bad deal is greater than, or more attractive than, a $12M bad deal. I thought that was fairly obvious. And then when you discussed the contracts further, I said that Pekovic has $23.7M left on his deal compared to Bennett's $11M. The math involved isn't comparable. That's all I said. Perhaps I ruffled your feathers with those comments, and for that I guess I will take the responsibility for them, but in no way was I insulting your intelligence or telling you that you need a math lesson.

Personally, I don't think I insulted you in any way other than completely disagreeing with your trade proposal and comparison to the Wiggins/Love deal and telling you why.

I proposed a forum get together a couple years ago to watch the finals in Vegas. Not sure if I can do it this year, maybe next June?

Camden wrote:
The Bulls would be dealing an All-Star that's one of the best wing defenders in the NBA and locked up for at least three more seasons at $17-20M, which is a bargain as we head into a higher cap. Love, if you recall, was on his last year under contract (opt out after that season was inevitable) and it was clear around the league that he wanted out. He also wasn't considered a plus defensively. So, the value of just the two players isn't similar. Their situations are very different, thus what it would take to trade for them are as well.

The No. 1 pick in a draft that's perceived as strong is much, much more valuable than a probable No. 5 pick in a draft that's considered weak at the top. I hope you could at least agree with that. Again, Butler should have more trade value right now than Love did mainly because of his defensive ability and contract situation. So, no, trading a lesser pick than the No. 1 pick isn't comparable to me. That's like saying Buddy Hield has similar value as a trade chip as Andrew Wiggins and that's just not true.

Not only would you be giving the Bulls a pick that's very likely to be outside of the top-three, but you're loading them down with two years of an injury prone 30-year old center that doesn't fit today's NBA and is making close to $12M each season. That's what we'd consider a negative asset. We couldn't even move Kevin Martin's $6M for two seasons this past season. That should tell you how difficult, how impossible it would be to include Pekovic in almost any trade offer, especially one where you're trying to acquire an All-Star player. Teams that move their best player usually want to move their bad contracts as well and get salary cap relief, not take bad deals and prolong their potential rebuild. This is another key area of your trade that I don't find to be comparable at all with the Love trade.

And Carlos Danger, I can promise you that I would discuss this out with you in person and tell you why I think the hypothetical deal is a bad one. I would lay it out just as I have and continue doing so until you fully understood my position. That's how I discuss sports and pretty much every other topic that's worth debating. It's my nature to voice my stance, especially if it's something I feel strongly about.

Lastly, I really didn't think you were upset about the math comment, but it appears that you were so I'll clear that up too while I'm at it. The initial reply was: "Comparing a No. 5 pick and a $12M bad contract to a No. 1 pick and a $5M contract might not be good math on your part..." I didn't insult your intelligence. I didn't do that at all. What I meant was a No. 1 pick is greater than a No. 5 pick and a $5M bad deal is greater than, or more attractive than, a $12M bad deal. I thought that was fairly obvious. And then when you discussed the contracts further, I said that Pekovic has $23.7M left on his deal compared to Bennett's $11M. The math involved isn't comparable. That's all I said. Perhaps I ruffled your feathers with those comments, and for that I guess I will take the responsibility for them, but in no way was I insulting your intelligence or telling you that you need a math lesson.

Personally, I don't think I insulted you in any way other than completely disagreeing with your trade proposal and comparison to the Wiggins/Love deal and telling you why.

To say that Kevin Love's value at the time of that trade was less than Butler's today is an opinion Cam - not a fact. And it's an opinion that I strongly disagree with. Kevin Love's last season he had a PER of 26.9 was scoring 7.3 VORP. Compare that to Butler's 21.3 and 3.7. Love had just finished a historic season stat wise (26 points/13 rebounds a game!). It's not even close IMO. And Love was a year younger with a longer/better track record. Butler has two good seasons under his belt. Butler is a fine player, but I don't think his name would come up if LeBron wanted to form another "Big 3" run like how LeBron wanted Love at that time.

To attempt to split hairs and say the contract situation is different and that's why you can't see similarities doesn't fly with me either. The driving force behind the Love deal was the "wink-wink" that he was going to re-sign a big deal with the Cavs which he did - 5 years, $113 Million. The contract was a non-issue aside from them needing to clear space. Similarily, the Wolves probably would want to move some things around to accommodate Butler's 5 year, $95M deal. Both players were going to be around long term for big money. Again - very similar.

I could go through and address everything else you post above - but I've got other stuff to do today. I have no problem debating things. But at a certain point it just becomes non-productive. What are we really debating? The OP and my counter proposal were just off the wall things thrown out there for fun discussion. As I wrote very early in thread, one idea is no more crazy than the other. Neither is will ever happen. So I'm not sure why you are spending so much time trying to break it down. But whatever floats your boat. Gotta run.