Minnesota Sports Forum

TheFuture wrote:

Camden wrote:This is perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a good thing the New York Knicks didn't acquire Donovan Mitchell. I think even with him they'd be a couple significant pieces away from contending for a championship. They should be looking to develop their young talent so they have a better idea of what their core actually is and then they can make one or two big trades to land star players that compliment that. Trading their future for Mitchell for relevancy without any real chance to contend is something the old Knicks would have done.

The sad thing about the Knicks is that they do not have anything very attractive to other teams. Robinson i am intrigued, but not changing anything. Barrett, ok I'll check. OBI, ok I will ask. What else?

Yeah, most of their young talent needs further development, which speaks to my point about being patient. I specifically like R.J. Barrett, Quentin Grimes, and Obi Toppin. Mitchell Robinson is plenty solid. And while I'm not a big Immanuel Quickley fan, I think he's useful to some degree. Basically, it's a handful of guys that they need to let mature and make determinations on before they make any big splashes.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

thedoper wrote:If Mitchell was such a better asset than Gobert then Ainge should have built around him. He got essentially the same deal for both players, it is strange that one deal was almost universally praised by the national media and the other panned. Mitchell is given a lot of slack for one great playoff series (that the Jazz lost too). I think its crazy. I do think the National media likes to shit on the Wolves. Doesn't bother me, I like the way they played with a chip on their shoulder last year, minus the incessant whining to the refs. I think the proper interpretation of these deals is they're both good, they're both ok, they're both horrible. Making one a great deal and the other horrible is just silly rhetoric for ratings.

I personally think both of these deals are ok. They are high risk moves by franchises trying to make themselves relevant. They could both pay off or blow up, but probably should have been made by each team for the need for relevance of the franchise.

To be fair... Donovan Mitchell has averaged 28.3 ppg in the playoffs for his career. That's 7th all time, just behind LeBron James.

He averaged 36.3 ppg in the 2020 playoffs (7 games).
Then, he averaged 32.3 ppg in the 2021 playoffs (10 games). That is elite... in NBA history.

He is a true, legit and proven playoff scorer. That's HIS bag. Meanwhile, Gobert's bag is dominating on defense via schemes designed for his strengths. Very very different players, both effective in what they do.

Depending on their roles and teams, I think their value is comparable. Personally, I dig the deal for Mitchell more. While it can be argued whether the stashes were similar or not... it would be shocking if Mitchell didn't fit in on the Cavs where he has a clearly designed role. The Timberwolves however, are trying something new and unproven... two bigs.

Maybe the Wolves idea will end up working out better. BUT... there is risk to it, especially when we consider Gobert is 30 and we consider how toast previous rim-running elite bigs became by the time they were 33 (Howard + DeeAndre Jordan).

Lots of good points here. One question I ask is playing 2 small scoring guards together that may not be very good on defense next to each other more proven than a electric defensive big next to an elite offensive one? I mean NOBODY has ever played 2 bigs EVER. Lol

I cant put my finger on why I dislike Donovan Mitchell, but I do. I am looking forward to playing Cleveland and hope Gobert puts Mitchell on his ass.

lipoli390 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:So I've watched/read a good amount about the trade today. Can someone explain to me how the media thinks the Cavs stole Mitchell and the wolves got fleeced by jazz.

Both trades involved 5 picks (wolves have protection on 1 pick that the Cavs don't), Cavs gave up arguably 3 players who have more value than any player the wolves gave up. This trade put the Cavs in maybe a contender territory, same as the wolves. Cavs didn't trade their top 3 assets, the wolves didn't trade their top 3 assets. All stats throughout the years have pointed to the Jazz were bad when Mitchell played and gobert sat.

I like both trades but super confused why one trade is a great trade and one trade is one of the worst trades in history?

Someone help me

I'll take a shot at answering the question as follows:

1. Wolves gave up one more future 1st-round pick than the Cavs (4 versus 3). In contrast, the Cavs have two pick swaps in their deal compared to the Wolves one swap, but a pick swap is far less problematic than giving up a pick entirely. In most cases the swap won't even be exercised because the rebuilding team will likely have the better pick.

2. The extra pick the Wolves gave up is in 2023. So the Jazz will get a Wolves pick right away in what is expected to be one of the best drafts in a long time. The Jazz will have to wait 3 years to get a pick from the Cavs.

3. The Cavs gave up three players - Agbaji, Sexton and Markkanen. In contrast, the Wolves gave up five players in Kessler, Bolmaro, Beasley, Beverley and Vando.

4. Jazz are getting a 25/26 year old just entering his prime while the Wolves are getting a 30-year old defensive stalwart.

I don't think the difference is as big as some in the media might be suggesting. But I do think the Cavs negotiated a better deal than the Wolves.

I'll just say I agree with this. Also it's a guards league. We gave up too much for an older Gobert, I think Cleveland gave up the appropriate amount for a younger all star guard. I don't understand the confusion here. Another case of the non biased national experts being correct and the homer wolves fans being wrong.

"It's a guard's league."

The above phrase continues to be argued season after season, but it's actually a league driven by elite talent regardless of position. Let's not confuse the scarcity of elite bigs with what is or isn't necessary to contend. If there were more elite bigs available, there would also be a higher concentration of them that teams built around.

Plainly, there's Nikola Jokic, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Joel Embiid, Karl-Anthony Towns, Rudy Gobert, and Anthony Davis in the elite tier. That's basically it. Those are the guys worth building around versus being complimentary pieces to some degree. Comparatively, there's approximately 20-30 guards and wings that you could argue are elite. There's simply more of them that produce at a star or superstar level than there are bigs that do the same, but that doesn't render those bigs that are elite any less valuable.

I like this trade for Cleveland. They needed another offensive creator and they got one. If they stay healthy, this could be a dangerous team in the East.

.....and the bonus is that Utah is getting less competitive by the week. It's nice to know that we now have multiple rebuilding teams in the West.

Q - I agree with your last two posts.

I agree this is a good trade for Cleveland. They now have four all-star caliber players in their early to mid 20s - Mobley, Allen, Garland and Mitchell. Mobley looks like he'll become a superstar and Mitchell is a guy who's averaged over 28 points per game in his playoff games. The East now has another contender. I could see the Cavs finishing third behind Boston and Philadelphia, but they'll probably finish in the 4-6 range.

I also like how Utah is getting less competitive with each deal. We can put them in the rebuilding bucket with OKC, Houston and San Antonio. Dallas will be very good, but it's hard to see how they can be as good as last season without Brunson.

The bad news is that Portland and the Kings haven't thrown in the title. Both teams, especially the Blazers, have clearly improved on paper over last season. So those two teams could be competitive. Meanwhile, the Clippers and Nuggets will both be much better with key players returning from injury. The Pelicans were already looking really good at the end of last season and now they'll have Zion back. The Lakers could be a lot better if AD stays healthy and they might yet pull off a trade for Mile Turner and Buddy Hield or even Kyrie Irving. The Warriors should be even better with Kuminga's development and a healthy Wiseman.

Bottom line is that the West will be really tough next season.

I'm not that high on Mitchell as many others. It's his lack of size and subpar defense that makes me not as high on him. He is great on offense but so are 15 other guards. The separation between him and the avg guard is smaller then the gap between Gobert and the avg center. Gobert is a better player then Mitchell and Gobert is more of a rarity then Mitchell. Lots of guys can put the ball in the hoop. Not many can change an entire defense from terrible to top ten just by being on the court.

Many casual fans look at offense only or mostly and see the flashiness. Mitchell is more flash, Gobert effects winning more. I love that we got Gobert. The best trade in Wolves history.

I have been listening to some podcasts reviewing the Mitchell trade. Simmons, Reusillo, Duncan, Leroux, Lowe, among others. It is fascinating how panned the Gobert trade was for the Wolves and celebrated the Mitchell trade was for Cleveland. I recall the Wolves were heavily criticized for the amount of picks they gave up while the Cavs amount was barely mentioned. If the Cavs hadn't already traded their 2023 pick to the Pacers it would have been included and the pick package would be been identical. Instead the Cavs had to throw in an extra pick swap and leave the 2029 pick unprotected.

Now understandably Gobert is a solid 4 years older than Mitchell and that has to be factored in and while there are probably some fair questions about the fit for Gobert there are some equally fair fit questions for the Cavs too. Their backcourt defense has the potential to get shredded. If it works out and Mitchell wants to stay in Cleveland, Mobely won't be eligible for the designated rookie max extension. It remains to be seen if that will become a problem.

I think this is all mostly a product of Gobert being vastly underrated. I'm looking forward to the Wolves going all out this year and changing some minds.