Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

I wouldn't do that deal either for two reasons. First, I still think the price is too steep. We only have five good players right now. So if you give up Dieng to get Cousins, you still only have five good players.

Wait, why are you acting like Dieng and Cousins are equal? If we moved Dieng and our pick to get Cousins, we'd be moving a solid player for a great player. Dieng isn't in the same zip code as Cousins.

No Cam. I'm not saying Cousins and Dieng are equal. Don't be silly. I'm saying Dieng is a good player. And we need to add more good players - not deal our existing good players to try and upgrade. It should be very obvious we lack depth more than talent right now.

High quality players still reign supreme in the NBA. I'd rather move a solid player and a high pick for a legitimate star player who hasn't even reached his prime yet and figure out the rest later. Assuming we came close enough salary-wise in that hypothetical trade, you now are a real player in free agency to fill in some holes. Dieng is by no means untouchable or an immovable player, especially when the return is a player that's leaps and bounds better than him.

Stars > Depth.

I don't disagree with that. But in the trade you are proposing you'd likely be giving up a top 5 pick (potential star) plus a solid Big in Dieng (depth) for an expensive loose cannon in Cousins. That's too much.

And as I wrote before...How long you think Cousins would be happy if he's not getting 20+ shots a game? He would have to be the focus of the offense. Which means Towns, Wiggins and LaVine would all logically play lesser roles. That's not what I want either.

I'd much rather role the dice with our top 5 pick. Maybe that person turns into a Star? And I want to keep Dieng. It's not necessary to give up one of our good players at this time. We can add good players via Free Agency without giving up what little depth we have.

TRKO wrote:We have three guys the same age with massive potential. I say let's keep them together and add great role players around them. Unless Steph Curry becomes available, I say let's stay the course.

Cousins is the best Center in the NBA, but why try to get 4 star players when you can settle for 3? Lavine and Wiggins aren't stars yet and may not even attain star status for a few more years if at all. They might be the really good role players that need a star to carry them. That's why if you can get a star you do it. We can always flip Cousins for depth if our big 3 does indeed become a big 3, but until they do we should still be trying to add another star to this team and not building a team around 3 guys before we know if they are good enough to get the job done.

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

I wouldn't do that deal either for two reasons. First, I still think the price is too steep. We only have five good players right now. So if you give up Dieng to get Cousins, you still only have five good players.

Wait, why are you acting like Dieng and Cousins are equal? If we moved Dieng and our pick to get Cousins, we'd be moving a solid player for a great player. Dieng isn't in the same zip code as Cousins.

No Cam. I'm not saying Cousins and Dieng are equal. Don't be silly. I'm saying Dieng is a good player. And we need to add more good players - not deal our existing good players to try and upgrade. It should be very obvious we lack depth more than talent right now.

High quality players still reign supreme in the NBA. I'd rather move a solid player and a high pick for a legitimate star player who hasn't even reached his prime yet and figure out the rest later. Assuming we came close enough salary-wise in that hypothetical trade, you now are a real player in free agency to fill in some holes. Dieng is by no means untouchable or an immovable player, especially when the return is a player that's leaps and bounds better than him.

Stars > Depth.

I don't disagree with that. But in the trade you are proposing you'd likely be giving up a top 5 pick (potential star) plus a solid Big in Dieng (depth) for an expensive loose cannon in Cousins. That's too much.

And as I wrote before...How long you think Cousins would be happy if he's not getting 20+ shots a game? He would have to be the focus of the offense. Which means Towns, Wiggins and LaVine would all logically play lesser roles. That's not what I want either.

I'd much rather role the dice with our top 5 pick. Maybe that person turns into a Star? And I want to keep Dieng. It's not necessary to give up one of our good players at this time. We can add good players via Free Agency without giving up what little depth we have.

This logic makes zero sense to me. So you are worried about our best player taking shots away from guys that are, as of today, marginal starters? You are not talking about a mediocre player stealing shots. Let's be clear that Cousins would instantly, and deservedly, be our best player. I like Lavine as much as the next guy, but my concerns lie far from potentially having a superstar take his shots. And last I saw, there are lot's of productive bench minutes this team needs to fill. Remember how good Harden looked on that OKC second unit?

This is my last post on topic. I could have said any name short of Curry in this thread, and the same posters would make excuses why they prefer our 22 win guys over these players. Age, contract, don't smile enough, etc. The funny thing is that I also love our nucleus. Difference is that I am willing to spin our "good" players and potential draft picks for great players. Neither is wrong, just different ways to build.

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

I wouldn't do that deal either for two reasons. First, I still think the price is too steep. We only have five good players right now. So if you give up Dieng to get Cousins, you still only have five good players.

Wait, why are you acting like Dieng and Cousins are equal? If we moved Dieng and our pick to get Cousins, we'd be moving a solid player for a great player. Dieng isn't in the same zip code as Cousins.

No Cam. I'm not saying Cousins and Dieng are equal. Don't be silly. I'm saying Dieng is a good player. And we need to add more good players - not deal our existing good players to try and upgrade. It should be very obvious we lack depth more than talent right now.

High quality players still reign supreme in the NBA. I'd rather move a solid player and a high pick for a legitimate star player who hasn't even reached his prime yet and figure out the rest later. Assuming we came close enough salary-wise in that hypothetical trade, you now are a real player in free agency to fill in some holes. Dieng is by no means untouchable or an immovable player, especially when the return is a player that's leaps and bounds better than him.

Stars > Depth.

I don't disagree with that. But in the trade you are proposing you'd likely be giving up a top 5 pick (potential star) plus a solid Big in Dieng (depth) for an expensive loose cannon in Cousins. That's too much.

And as I wrote before...How long you think Cousins would be happy if he's not getting 20+ shots a game? He would have to be the focus of the offense. Which means Towns, Wiggins and LaVine would all logically play lesser roles. That's not what I want either.

I'd much rather role the dice with our top 5 pick. Maybe that person turns into a Star? And I want to keep Dieng. It's not necessary to give up one of our good players at this time. We can add good players via Free Agency without giving up what little depth we have.

Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars? We have the high ceiling guys we need. I'll take the sure commodity to provide nightly production, especially in a shaky draft class.

As for your sentence highlighted above: Sure, you can add good players if they want to sign here even though we're not a contender yet. That's tough. Regardless, Minnesota cannot sign a player like Cousins in FA. That comes via trade. He's a great talent, not just a good player. Very different.

I like Cousins but I am starting to get worried he is a lot like K Love, I know people need help to make the playoffs but he has not made the playoffs in his career and he hasn't even been close. He is said to be the reason why so many coaches have been fired in the past. Rumors say that he has had very heated arguments with Karl on a consistent rate.

Now Cousins is a beast but are we sure he would like Sam Mitchell, I hate Sam as much as the next guy but I am getting worried he will be the coach next year and Cousins only has 2 more years on his contract. I would not be willing to risk min. of 7 more years of Wiggins and possible 9 years of the 1st round pick or 2 years of Cousins.

Now the Dieng trade, I would probably do it but I believe that better offers will be out there for what the wolves can offer.

Overall I don't think the wolves are that far away, need to improve the bench but the starters have been some of the best in the NBA since starting.

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

I wouldn't do that deal either for two reasons. First, I still think the price is too steep. We only have five good players right now. So if you give up Dieng to get Cousins, you still only have five good players.

Wait, why are you acting like Dieng and Cousins are equal? If we moved Dieng and our pick to get Cousins, we'd be moving a solid player for a great player. Dieng isn't in the same zip code as Cousins.

No Cam. I'm not saying Cousins and Dieng are equal. Don't be silly. I'm saying Dieng is a good player. And we need to add more good players - not deal our existing good players to try and upgrade. It should be very obvious we lack depth more than talent right now.

High quality players still reign supreme in the NBA. I'd rather move a solid player and a high pick for a legitimate star player who hasn't even reached his prime yet and figure out the rest later. Assuming we came close enough salary-wise in that hypothetical trade, you now are a real player in free agency to fill in some holes. Dieng is by no means untouchable or an immovable player, especially when the return is a player that's leaps and bounds better than him.

Stars > Depth.

I don't disagree with that. But in the trade you are proposing you'd likely be giving up a top 5 pick (potential star) plus a solid Big in Dieng (depth) for an expensive loose cannon in Cousins. That's too much.

And as I wrote before...How long you think Cousins would be happy if he's not getting 20+ shots a game? He would have to be the focus of the offense. Which means Towns, Wiggins and LaVine would all logically play lesser roles. That's not what I want either.

I'd much rather role the dice with our top 5 pick. Maybe that person turns into a Star? And I want to keep Dieng. It's not necessary to give up one of our good players at this time. We can add good players via Free Agency without giving up what little depth we have.

Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars? We have the high ceiling guys we need. I'll take the sure commodity to provide nightly production, especially in a shaky draft class.

As for your sentence highlighted above: Sure, you can add good players if they want to sign here even though we're not a contender yet. That's tough. Regardless, Minnesota cannot sign a player like Cousins in FA. That comes via trade. He's a great talent, not just a good player. Very different.

Can I make a counter argument couldn't the same thing be said about when the wolves traded love for a young player. We all thought (or at least I did) thought love was a top 7 player in the NBA and I think we found out that he is not. If you are talking about the Dieng trade do you honestly believe that the Kings would do that and there would be no better offer out there

kekgeek1 wrote:

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

I wouldn't do that deal either for two reasons. First, I still think the price is too steep. We only have five good players right now. So if you give up Dieng to get Cousins, you still only have five good players.

Wait, why are you acting like Dieng and Cousins are equal? If we moved Dieng and our pick to get Cousins, we'd be moving a solid player for a great player. Dieng isn't in the same zip code as Cousins.

No Cam. I'm not saying Cousins and Dieng are equal. Don't be silly. I'm saying Dieng is a good player. And we need to add more good players - not deal our existing good players to try and upgrade. It should be very obvious we lack depth more than talent right now.

High quality players still reign supreme in the NBA. I'd rather move a solid player and a high pick for a legitimate star player who hasn't even reached his prime yet and figure out the rest later. Assuming we came close enough salary-wise in that hypothetical trade, you now are a real player in free agency to fill in some holes. Dieng is by no means untouchable or an immovable player, especially when the return is a player that's leaps and bounds better than him.

Stars > Depth.

I don't disagree with that. But in the trade you are proposing you'd likely be giving up a top 5 pick (potential star) plus a solid Big in Dieng (depth) for an expensive loose cannon in Cousins. That's too much.

And as I wrote before...How long you think Cousins would be happy if he's not getting 20+ shots a game? He would have to be the focus of the offense. Which means Towns, Wiggins and LaVine would all logically play lesser roles. That's not what I want either.

I'd much rather role the dice with our top 5 pick. Maybe that person turns into a Star? And I want to keep Dieng. It's not necessary to give up one of our good players at this time. We can add good players via Free Agency without giving up what little depth we have.

Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars? We have the high ceiling guys we need. I'll take the sure commodity to provide nightly production, especially in a shaky draft class.

As for your sentence highlighted above: Sure, you can add good players if they want to sign here even though we're not a contender yet. That's tough. Regardless, Minnesota cannot sign a player like Cousins in FA. That comes via trade. He's a great talent, not just a good player. Very different.

Can I make a counter argument couldn't the same thing be said about when the wolves traded love for a young player. We all thought (or at least I did) thought love was a top 7 player in the NBA and I think we found out that he is not. If you are talking about the Dieng trade do you honestly believe that the Kings would do that and there would be no better offer out there

If we land the number 1 overall pick, no there wouldn't be a better offer on the table. If we landed the number 2 pick, only the team with the top pick could make a better offer. If we offered any other pick, multiple teams could offer better. #1 or 2 and Dieng is better than what we got for Love so it's a very realistic deal.

Hicks123 wrote:
This logic makes zero sense to me. So you are worried about our best player taking shots away from guys that are, as of today, marginal starters? You are not talking about a mediocre player stealing shots. Let's be clear that Cousins would instantly, and deservedly, be our best player. I like Lavine as much as the next guy, but my concerns lie far from potentially having a superstar take his shots. And last I saw, there are lot's of productive bench minutes this team needs to fill. Remember how good Harden looked on that OKC second unit?

This is my last post on topic. I could have said any name short of Curry in this thread, and the same posters would make excuses why they prefer our 22 win guys over these players. Age, contract, don't smile enough, etc. The funny thing is that I also love our nucleus. Difference is that I am willing to spin our "good" players and potential draft picks for great players. Neither is wrong, just different ways to build.

You are entitled to your opinion. And it's okay if we disagree. In a different situation, I would agree with you. Specifically, if I thought we were close to being a championship team and it was time to go all in. But we are not close. We don't even know who our coach will be next year. Trading young talent too soon could be another disastrous blow to the Franchise.

Right now we have three very intriguing young players in Towns, Wiggins and LaVine. We are also in line for another top 5 lotto pick. And of course we still need to firm up who our long term GM and Coach will be and what system they will run. It's just not the right time to make such a move IMO.

kekgeek1 wrote:

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Camden wrote:

I wouldn't do that deal either for two reasons. First, I still think the price is too steep. We only have five good players right now. So if you give up Dieng to get Cousins, you still only have five good players.

Wait, why are you acting like Dieng and Cousins are equal? If we moved Dieng and our pick to get Cousins, we'd be moving a solid player for a great player. Dieng isn't in the same zip code as Cousins.

No Cam. I'm not saying Cousins and Dieng are equal. Don't be silly. I'm saying Dieng is a good player. And we need to add more good players - not deal our existing good players to try and upgrade. It should be very obvious we lack depth more than talent right now.

High quality players still reign supreme in the NBA. I'd rather move a solid player and a high pick for a legitimate star player who hasn't even reached his prime yet and figure out the rest later. Assuming we came close enough salary-wise in that hypothetical trade, you now are a real player in free agency to fill in some holes. Dieng is by no means untouchable or an immovable player, especially when the return is a player that's leaps and bounds better than him.

Stars > Depth.

I don't disagree with that. But in the trade you are proposing you'd likely be giving up a top 5 pick (potential star) plus a solid Big in Dieng (depth) for an expensive loose cannon in Cousins. That's too much.

And as I wrote before...How long you think Cousins would be happy if he's not getting 20+ shots a game? He would have to be the focus of the offense. Which means Towns, Wiggins and LaVine would all logically play lesser roles. That's not what I want either.

I'd much rather role the dice with our top 5 pick. Maybe that person turns into a Star? And I want to keep Dieng. It's not necessary to give up one of our good players at this time. We can add good players via Free Agency without giving up what little depth we have.

Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars? We have the high ceiling guys we need. I'll take the sure commodity to provide nightly production, especially in a shaky draft class.

As for your sentence highlighted above: Sure, you can add good players if they want to sign here even though we're not a contender yet. That's tough. Regardless, Minnesota cannot sign a player like Cousins in FA. That comes via trade. He's a great talent, not just a good player. Very different.

Can I make a counter argument couldn't the same thing be said about when the wolves traded love for a young player. We all thought (or at least I did) thought love was a top 7 player in the NBA and I think we found out that he is not. If you are talking about the Dieng trade do you honestly believe that the Kings would do that and there would be no better offer out there

I was on the side saying the Cavs were right for what they were doing then. It's not every year that players of those levels are available so when they are and you're in a position to get one, I think it's a relatively easy decision. It's a winning trade. That one in particular was good for both teams. THAT is the rare thing.

I think the Kings would have to listen if we had a top-two pick, yes.

Camden wrote:Would you rather have a potential star or a top-10 player in the NBA right now at age 25 to go along with one star and two potential stars?

I'd rather have a top-10 player in the NBA so long as he has his head screwed on right. I understand the attraction, but team chemistry matters, just ask the Wolves next opponent how well chasing top-10 player in the NBA team building can fail. Or Cleveland for that matter.

The potential with adding Cousins to the Wolves is huge, in both directions.