Minnesota Sports Forum

D-Loser25 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 3:37 pm

KiwiMatt wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 3:01 pm You could look at this way. Would you prefer Julius and Naz at 55 mil (combined) next season or Kat at 53 mil?

I’ll take KAT

Considering that with KAT you also end up over the second apron (remember? that's why TC dealt him), this question is pretty easy to answer.

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 3:38 pm Okay, so the franchise objectives have changed. We are no longer chasing a championship but trying to be in the playoff picture every year and bring in consistent playoff revenue.

Randle is still going to be an enigma. His play will go up and down. The better defensive teams in the league will give him fits. And Jaden will continue to spend most of his time in the corner as Ant and Randle take turns jacking up shots.

Even if Rob becomes a pleasant surprise we still don't have enough ball handling which gives us virtually no chance against OKC. 60% of our starting lineup which wasn't good enough to win 2 games in the conference finals is old and about to get older. We have the same problems as far as I can tell.

For the first time I am disappointed in TC. This team can't go any further and will likely get passed by a couple more.

Just because we signed Ju doesn't mean he is here even at the start of the season. Maybe they do a sign and trade package of Ju and NAW for someone in that 45-50 million range? Maybe they trade Ju before the trade deadline. Maybe Dilly surprises us along with TJ and Clark and we are much better then last year?

We're fluid man. Letting Ju walk was the worst result, we have an asset now that could be traded.

Monster wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 5:14 pm

D-Loser25 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 3:54 pm

Monster wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 3:46 pm

Why?

Honestly, I’d take door #3. The goal here is championship and I think an Ant/Kat duo with Jaden getting his chance at the 3rd option gives you the best chance at a championship.

OK how is that option better than where we are now? You believe that much more in Towns? Genuinely curious.

I already said I would have gone a 3rd option, which I assumed was the plan.

60WinTim wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 3:57 pm Another interesting tidbit I did not realize. It's been said that Randle cannot be traded for 6 months. But it turns out the contract could be structured that he does not fall under the 6 month rule! The main criteria at play here is the raises in the contract. Most contracts have annual increases of 8%, but if the annual increases are limited to 5% or less, the 6 month rule may not apply. Other criteria are less than 4 or 5 years and less than 20% raise on the first year, both of which apply to Randle's new deal.

So, if the new deal starts at his player option of 31 mil, 8% raises over 3 years results in a 100 mil deal. But, if the deal starts at 31.75 mil, 5% raises over 3 years also results in a 100 mil deal. Hmm...

My gut tells me the deal starts at 31 mil, thus the 6 month rule applies. It seems the Wolves are all in on keeping Randle. But if it turns out the deal starts at 31.75 mil, it will open the door to an offseason trade.

Hoopshype has Randle’s contract at 30,666,667 in the first year, 33,333,333 the second year and back down to $30,666,667 in the final year. Interestingly, that adds up to only 94,666,667, not $100M as reported. If this is correct, the increase from year one to year to is not under 5% so it looks link Randle’s contract triggers the 6-month rule. If Hoopshype is correct, the is a pretty team-friendly contract that seems fairly tradable, especially after year two but even by next season’s trade deadline.

I’ve never been a fan of bringing back Randle for all the reasons Cool and some others have mentioned. I found the announcement of this multi-year deal a bit deflating as I was hoping they’d deal Randle for a better fit. However, I can’t say this is a bad move. The price is fairly reasonable and I’m inclined to give our coaching staff and front office the benefit of the doubt now on the positive value they obviously believe Randle brings to the team - at least compared to the alternatives they had. For example, I’m sure they’ had sign-and-trade discussions about Randle. Apparently, our front office did not consider any of the offers as good for the team as keeping Julius.

Randle doesnt have to finish his contract here and Towns value will probably just go down as his salary jacks up. TC could very well be keeping door #3 in his back pocket and may not have had that if Towns was still here.

Phenom wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 7:27 pm Randle doesnt have to finish his contract here and Towns value will probably just go down as his salary jacks up. TC could very well be keeping door #3 in his back pocket and may not have had that if Towns was still here.

I just think a lot of us were excited to see a bigger role for some of the other players (Jaden, Shannon, Dillingham) and this makes that process more difficult/slows it down.

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 3:38 pm Okay, so the franchise objectives have changed. We are no longer chasing a championship but trying to be in the playoff picture every year and bring in consistent playoff revenue.

Randle is still going to be an enigma. His play will go up and down. The better defensive teams in the league will give him fits. And Jaden will continue to spend most of his time in the corner as Ant and Randle take turns jacking up shots.

Even if Rob becomes a pleasant surprise we still don't have enough ball handling which gives us virtually no chance against OKC. 60% of our starting lineup which wasn't good enough to win 2 games in the conference finals is old and about to get older. We have the same problems as far as I can tell.

For the first time I am disappointed in TC. This team can't go any further and will likely get passed by a couple more.

Bringing Julius back for three years does seem to suggest our front office has resigned itself to knocking on the door rather than aggressively trying to push through the door. But I don’t look at it that way. I don’t think our front office has tempered its championship aspirations. They tried to trade for Durant, which was obviously aggressive and intended to “go for it” next season. TC couldn’t a Durant deal done for reasons we may not know but perhaps simply because KD didn’t want to be here.

In any event, I don’t think the Randle deal suggests that our front office has thrown in the towel. We made it to the Western Conference Finals with our three bigs - Rudy, Naz and Randle and we should be better next season based solely on improvement from Ant and Jaden along with having our players familiar with one another from the beginning. TC obviously wanted to do more, but he prudently drew some lines for himself he won’t cross to avoid doing something reckless. I think bringing Randle back is a “let’s give this one more shot” move to see if this team can cross the next threshold and if not we’ll bide our time until the right deal comes along or one or two of our newest players - TSJ, Clark, Dilly, Miller - breaks through.

Q-is-here wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:00 pm

Phenom wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 7:27 pm Randle doesnt have to finish his contract here and Towns value will probably just go down as his salary jacks up. TC could very well be keeping door #3 in his back pocket and may not have had that if Towns was still here.

I just think a lot of us were excited to see a bigger role for some of the other players (Jaden, Shannon, Dillingham) and this makes that process more difficult/slows it down.

It doesn't have to be that way. We'll see how intentional Finchy is with more time to acclimate the roster.

Julius Randle may still be trade-eligible based on the extension terms.

No six month trade restriction if all three are met:

No more than four years (including 2024-25)

First year salary doesn’t exceed 120% of previous salary

Raises/declines don’t exceed 5%

-Saw this on Twitter and Jon K confirmed

kekgeek wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 8:10 pm Julius Randle may still be trade-eligible based on the extension terms.

No six month trade restriction if all three are met:

No more than four years (including 2024-25)

First year salary doesn’t exceed 120% of previous salary

Raises/declines don’t exceed 5%

-Saw this on Twitter and Jon K confirmed

I reported this back a couple pages ago... But I did not have the nice checkmarks!