Minnesota Sports Forum

Q-was-here wrote:

D-Mac wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:

D-Mac wrote:

FNG wrote:First let me toss some kudos to the naysayers here. Your take (that we got fleeced by Utah) is much more in line with the national media than perhaps the more biased positive take of an excited rube like me. So those like me who love this deal have to acknowledge there is a good chance your opinion will prove to be right.

But if you're in the naysayer group, take the time to answer two questions for me. The homers who love this deal like me are welcome to answer too.

1) What would have been your predicted win total for the Wolves prior to the Gobert deal, and what is it now? (For me, probably 45 before, and 55 after)

2) What percentage chance did you give the Wolves of winning an NBA championship in the next 4 years before the Gobert deal, and what percentage chance do you give it now? (For me, 1% before, 50% now).

I recognize these are difficult questions, because injuries, other deals, salary cap etc. have to be considered. But this is how I evaluate a deal. Does it make us significantly better for the upcoming season, and does it significantly increase our chances of being in the championship conversation in a short period of time. And I give a resounding yes to both questions.

Great questions. I'll ignore door #3 (sign a young Pf like Jalen smith or trade for someone like capela)

If we ran it back as is, I'd say 42 next year, now I'll say 52 (if we can trade Dlo for an upgrade at ball boy or water boy, I'll bump this up to 55) :)

I'd go 10% previously and now I'd say 30%. Problem is I think there were a lot of other cheaper moves that could have got it to 25%

That's not illogical from an owner's perspective. But why does that matter to you so much as a fan? If I were to go tell a bunch of fans that we now have a 30% chance at a title instead of 10% with the possibility of may be getting that up to 25%, what choice do you think most of them make?

I guess it's because I'm a practical person by nature, I manage budgets/financials for a living, and I can't help but take the same view as a fan. I think this trade was grossly irresponsible and it basically confirms what I already suspected... TC is pretty good on drafting, but he's basically an idiot when it comes to trades.

I can understand why folks have questions about this trade or think he paid too high of a price, but saying that he's an "idiot" and got bamboozled when he added one of the best defensive players of all time without giving up KAT, Ant, or Jaden and admitting that he just raised our title possibilities by 3X (10% to 30% according to you) doesn't sound like an idiotic move to me. Risky? Sure. Expensive? Absolutely. The work of a stupid person? Nope.

Q-was-here wrote:

D-Mac wrote:

TheFuture wrote:This is laughable. Beyond stupid. That offer doesn't get you KD or Ayton?

Yeah I think this trade shows TC to be both lazy and irresponsible. I think we could have got Ayton for two firsts and he would have been just as good, for longer and also he would be cheaper. I like ayton. He's not as good on defense (still very good) but I think he's better than Rudy on offense. Instead we basically gave up six firsts (that pick swap will likely be worth a first). Besides Ayton, I think there were other ways to get a similar result too (capella for example) I like bold moves, but not when they come off as the lazy and easy answer. I mean did we really have to pay someone 8 mil a year to make his trade for Gobert? TC got taken to the cleaners here. Sure, we'll be a better team next year, and sure I'll still enjoy watching them next year but this was irresponsible.

Gobert is >>Ayton. It's not even close really.

Camden wrote:

D-Loser wrote:

TheFuture wrote:This is laughable. Beyond stupid. That offer doesn't get you KD or Ayton?

Yeah I think this trade shows TC to be both lazy and irresponsible. I think we could have got Ayton for two firsts and he would have been just as good, for longer and also he would be cheaper. I like ayton. He's not as good on defense (still very good) but I think he's better than Rudy on offense. Instead we basically gave up six firsts (that pick swap will likely be worth a first). Besides Ayton, I think there were other ways to get a similar result too (capella for example) I like bold moves, but not when they come off as the lazy and easy answer. I mean did we really have to pay someone 8 mil a year to make his trade for Gobert? TC got taken to the cleaners here. Sure, we'll be a better team next year, and sure I'll still enjoy watching them next year but this was irresponsible.

Deandre Ayton is no where near as productive nor does he impact winning like Rudy Gobert. If you can prove otherwise, I'd be willing to listen.

We can probably agree that the price to acquire would have been less and the contractual obligations are going to be cheaper for Ayton, but Gobert is the significantly better player, and an overall better fit with this core. The Timberwolves would not be contenders with Ayton. I believe that they are with Gobert. And if I had to choose between the two, I would go with Gobert even with the overpay.

Camden wrote:

TheFuture wrote:

Camden wrote:

D-Loser wrote:

TheFuture wrote:This is laughable. Beyond stupid. That offer doesn't get you KD or Ayton?

Yeah I think this trade shows TC to be both lazy and irresponsible. I think we could have got Ayton for two firsts and he would have been just as good, for longer and also he would be cheaper. I like ayton. He's not as good on defense (still very good) but I think he's better than Rudy on offense. Instead we basically gave up six firsts (that pick swap will likely be worth a first). Besides Ayton, I think there were other ways to get a similar result too (capella for example) I like bold moves, but not when they come off as the lazy and easy answer. I mean did we really have to pay someone 8 mil a year to make his trade for Gobert? TC got taken to the cleaners here. Sure, we'll be a better team next year, and sure I'll still enjoy watching them next year but this was irresponsible.

Deandre Ayton is no where near as productive nor does he impact winning like Rudy Gobert. If you can prove otherwise, I'd be willing to listen.

We can probably agree that the price to acquire would have been less and the contractual obligations are going to be cheaper for Ayton, but Gobert is the significantly better player, and an overall better fit with this core. The Timberwolves would not be contenders with Ayton. I believe that they are with Gobert. And if I had to choose between the two, I would go with Gobert even with the overpay.

Where has Gobert gotten a team to? Has he been devoid of surrounding talent?

We can debate about the assets given up to acquire Rudy Gobert, and whether or not his contract will cripple the financial future of this roster, but we cannot legitimately argue about Gobert's impact on the court. Frankly, I won't waste my time doing so because I find that it would be silly, and that's not a shot aimed at you.

Gobert has been a massive game-changer since he was inserted into Utah's starting lineup years ago. He's only gotten better and added hardware to show for it. The proof is in the pudding with that guy and he's arguably about to play on the best roster of his career in Minnesota.

D-Mac wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:

D-Mac wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:

D-Mac wrote:

FNG wrote:First let me toss some kudos to the naysayers here. Your take (that we got fleeced by Utah) is much more in line with the national media than perhaps the more biased positive take of an excited rube like me. So those like me who love this deal have to acknowledge there is a good chance your opinion will prove to be right.

But if you're in the naysayer group, take the time to answer two questions for me. The homers who love this deal like me are welcome to answer too.

1) What would have been your predicted win total for the Wolves prior to the Gobert deal, and what is it now? (For me, probably 45 before, and 55 after)

2) What percentage chance did you give the Wolves of winning an NBA championship in the next 4 years before the Gobert deal, and what percentage chance do you give it now? (For me, 1% before, 50% now).

I recognize these are difficult questions, because injuries, other deals, salary cap etc. have to be considered. But this is how I evaluate a deal. Does it make us significantly better for the upcoming season, and does it significantly increase our chances of being in the championship conversation in a short period of time. And I give a resounding yes to both questions.

Great questions. I'll ignore door #3 (sign a young Pf like Jalen smith or trade for someone like capela)

If we ran it back as is, I'd say 42 next year, now I'll say 52 (if we can trade Dlo for an upgrade at ball boy or water boy, I'll bump this up to 55) :)

I'd go 10% previously and now I'd say 30%. Problem is I think there were a lot of other cheaper moves that could have got it to 25%

That's not illogical from an owner's perspective. But why does that matter to you so much as a fan? If I were to go tell a bunch of fans that we now have a 30% chance at a title instead of 10% with the possibility of may be getting that up to 25%, what choice do you think most of them make?

I guess it's because I'm a practical person by nature, I manage budgets/financials for a living, and I can't help but take the same view as a fan. I think this trade was grossly irresponsible and it basically confirms what I already suspected... TC is pretty good on drafting, but he's basically an idiot when it comes to trades.

I can understand why folks have questions about this trade or think he paid too high of a price, but saying that he's an "idiot" and got bamboozled when he added one of the best defensive players of all time without giving up KAT, Ant, or Jaden and admitting that he just raised our title possibilities by 3X (10% to 30% according to you) doesn't sound like an idiotic move to me. Risky? Sure. Expensive? Absolutely. The work of a stupid person? Nope.

It's just my opinion, but we gave up 7 first round picks (my own value assessment) and a pick swap for a 30 year old center, on a massive contract. I don't use the word idiotic lightly, but I personally feel like it's warranted here... along with other words including lazy and irresponsible. Also, what about something Lip mentioned... TC is literally going against everything he claimed to be about as an executive. So does he just abandon his values at the first shiny thing that comes along OR is he just the biggest bullshitter in the history of bullshitting? Y'all have to admit that it's one or the other, right? Which is it?

mrhockey89 wrote:I see a lot of hate on the Wolves pairing big men, with suggestions that they think they're going to old school ball with a Duncan/Admiral pairing. I don't like that comparison...

I think the better comp is when Dallas acquired Tyson Chandler. He was the exact piece they needed to propel them to a championship. Dallas already had a historically good 3 point shooting big man who couldn't keep up with PFs defensively. They paired two 7' big men with almost eerily similar strengths to Towns/Gobert, and not only did they figure out how to make it work, but they won the title. Dallas let Chandler go soon after and Dallas saw that Chandler was that missing piece as they dwindled back down out of contention.

Was Dirk/Chandler better than Towns/Gobert? Nope. Dallas also had Kidd, but we have other pieces too. I'm curious why people are so concerned with this not being a fit? Are we really worried about Towns getting blown by only to have a PF attack the best rim protector in the league?

lipoli390 wrote:Everyone knows I don't like the Gobert deal. I'm not going to get into the Ayton debate in any detail, except to say that we could have obviously gotten him, a much younger player on a much more team-friendly contract, for significantly less than we gave up for Gobert. I would have preferred that. And we could have gotten Dejounte Murray for less than we gave up for Gobert and I would have preferred that as well. I say that while fully acknowledging that Gobert is better than either one.

But even though I'm not fond of the Gobert deal, I'm a little tired of national media blowhards spewing false or grossly distorted narratives related to the deal as they try to create an analytical basis for a pre-determined conclusion. Zach Harper's article in The Athletic is a good example of what I'm referring to. He gave the Wolves a C+ for the deal. That's arguably a fair grade given all the risks we've discussed. But grade aside, he cobbled together justifications for his grade that have little if any basis in fact. Here's an excerpt from his article:

Last reason for this being a risk? Chemistry matters. If the Wolves end up trading Russell after this move, how does KAT process that? Towns and Gobert haven't exactly loved and respected each other on the court over the years, and both players have a history of some chemistry questions involving them in their respective locker rooms. Now they're sharing a locker room, and that has the potential to be volatile. Everything here is a big expensive risk.

Any Wolves fan who understands anything about the NBA knows how ridiculous this is. The fact that Towns and Gobert haven't gotten along as adversaries should be expected unless they're Wes Johnson types who don't give a shit. Of course they didn't get along on the court. They are both highly competitive centers playing for division rivals and going head to head repeatedly in the rough-and-tumble NBA paint. That doesn't even remotely suggest they won't get along as teammates. In fact, quite the opposite. Highly competitive rivals who don't get along playing against one another tend to get along especially well if they become teammates. Zach is simply attempting to create something out of nothing and ends up just flat wrong. Then Zach goes on to say that both players "have a history of some chemistry questions involve in them in their respective locker rooms." I can't speak to any chemistry issues Gobert might have had. But what in the hell is he talking about when it comes to Towns?? We all know KAT's weaknesses like whining on the court, but he's always been known as a good teammate in the locker room. If Harper is referring to the Butler situation, then he's engaging in a gross distortion. KAT's issue with Butler was an anomaly. It was a 21-year old somewhat thin-skinned KAT who didn't take well to the bullying he was getting from the 28-year old Butler, who to that point had a history of not getting along with young players. The issue with KAT resulted when Butler crossed a line into the personal realm, threatening to sleep with KAT's girlfriend.

There are real risks associated with this trade. They've already been discussed ad nauseum. But the national media frenzy, animated by false narratives and gross distortions, is driving me nuts. The Gobert deal was a high-risk maneuver, but it was a calculated risk. Connelly gave up too much in my opinion, but he did not strip the cupboard bare. We still have a fairly deep team of bona fide NBA talent including allstar KAT, budding superstar Ant, potential all-star McDaniels a number of solid NBA players in Prince, Anderson, Forbes, McLaughlin, Naz Reid and Nowell. We also have a couple of talented rookies in Moore and the more developmental project Minott. We have an intriguing Euro-stash player in Spagnolo. There's more work to be done, but this Wolves team has the potential to be a title contender for the next four years. It's not the situation I wanted because I believe we could have gotten to the same place a bit more slowly and with a lot less risk. Nevertheless, it's not a bad situation at all. If the national media are looking for a franchise to ridicule they should look to the Nation's two largest cities - New York (aka Brooklyn Nets and LA (aka LA Lakers). Those are a couple organizations fully deserving of ridicule. And you can criticize them without having to make anything up.

monsterpile wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

KiwiMatt wrote:

PorkChop wrote:1st round picks are just to valuable. Especially for small market teams.

It depends where they land. With our current squad the 2023 and 2025 picks will likely be late 20's. It's the 2027 and 2029 which we should be worried about. Cast your memory back when Houston were offering us 4 first round picks for Jimmy Butler and we all thought that wasn't good enough because they would likely fall in late 20's.

At least the 2029 has some protection (knowing our luck we draw 6th pick that year). And at least we didn't give up Jaden.

A few things
1. RG was the 30th pick in the 2013 NBA draft. So, no, it does not depend on where they land, it depends on who is making the call, which I thought was the whole point of hiring Connelly.
2. Not EVERYBODY thought the HOU offer was bad. I actually thought it was awesome and didn't watch a game the rest of the year after Jimmy Bricks was sent to PHI for not-at-all-much
3. "Jaden" was the 28th pick, so again, these picks only matter sometimes?

Gobert was taken with the 27th pick.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Now we DO have someone who can slow down Giannis

So two regular season games and a (potential) finals appearance (where the refs could actually call the charges)? That makes this worth it?

It's so great to have you pop in every 6 months or so to impart your wisdom on us pleebs. Thank you.

Q-was-here wrote:

D-Mac wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:

D-Mac wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:

D-Mac wrote:

FNG wrote:First let me toss some kudos to the naysayers here. Your take (that we got fleeced by Utah) is much more in line with the national media than perhaps the more biased positive take of an excited rube like me. So those like me who love this deal have to acknowledge there is a good chance your opinion will prove to be right.

But if you're in the naysayer group, take the time to answer two questions for me. The homers who love this deal like me are welcome to answer too.

1) What would have been your predicted win total for the Wolves prior to the Gobert deal, and what is it now? (For me, probably 45 before, and 55 after)

2) What percentage chance did you give the Wolves of winning an NBA championship in the next 4 years before the Gobert deal, and what percentage chance do you give it now? (For me, 1% before, 50% now).

I recognize these are difficult questions, because injuries, other deals, salary cap etc. have to be considered. But this is how I evaluate a deal. Does it make us significantly better for the upcoming season, and does it significantly increase our chances of being in the championship conversation in a short period of time. And I give a resounding yes to both questions.

Great questions. I'll ignore door #3 (sign a young Pf like Jalen smith or trade for someone like capela)

If we ran it back as is, I'd say 42 next year, now I'll say 52 (if we can trade Dlo for an upgrade at ball boy or water boy, I'll bump this up to 55) :)

I'd go 10% previously and now I'd say 30%. Problem is I think there were a lot of other cheaper moves that could have got it to 25%

That's not illogical from an owner's perspective. But why does that matter to you so much as a fan? If I were to go tell a bunch of fans that we now have a 30% chance at a title instead of 10% with the possibility of may be getting that up to 25%, what choice do you think most of them make?

I guess it's because I'm a practical person by nature, I manage budgets/financials for a living, and I can't help but take the same view as a fan. I think this trade was grossly irresponsible and it basically confirms what I already suspected... TC is pretty good on drafting, but he's basically an idiot when it comes to trades.

I can understand why folks have questions about this trade or think he paid too high of a price, but saying that he's an "idiot" and got bamboozled when he added one of the best defensive players of all time without giving up KAT, Ant, or Jaden and admitting that he just raised our title possibilities by 3X (10% to 30% according to you) doesn't sound like an idiotic move to me. Risky? Sure. Expensive? Absolutely. The work of a stupid person? Nope.

It's just my opinion, but we gave up 7 first round picks (my own value assessment) and a pick swap for a 30 year old center, on a massive contract. I don't use the word idiotic lightly, but I personally feel like it's warranted here... along with other words including lazy and irresponsible. Also, what about something Lip mentioned... TC is literally going against everything he claimed to be about as an executive. So does he just abandon his values at the first shiny thing that comes along OR is he just the biggest bullshitter in the history of bullshitting? Y'all have to admit that it's one or the other, right? Which is it?

It's the NBA, which means opportunities and circumstances change all the time. It would have been patently irresponsible (and lazy to use your words) for him to NOT have had a discussion with Utah. These front office guys should constantly be making and taking calls.

You have created a narrative around TC with minimal understanding of the other stakeholders (ahem, A-Rod and Lore!!!) that may have had an influence on him and what Utah's original ask was in the trade.

I will stress again - he added Gobert while keeping 8 of our top 11 rotation players from last year including Ant, KAT, and Jaden.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't have an issue with you not liking the trade, but calling TC idiotic, bamboozled, lazy, etc. is pure hyperbole and I think your own words belie the narrative you are trying to build.