Minnesota Sports Forum

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

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?

{Sigh} I like Tyson Chandler. I have never met anyone who doesn't like Tyson Chandler. He was roundabout 31 y/o when Dallas got him and agreed to pay Raymond Felton's future years for 4 not-great expirings and 2 2nd's. This was "The King of Williston's" first move in an attempt to clear capspace. Some say no one will play for Dolan. Gilbert Arenas says that no one wants to play in NY because the fans treat the visiting team better than they treat the Knicks. So they didn't get anybody. Either way, that's what happened. So no, not 4 1st's, a pick swap, 3 young players, and two usable expirings.

Chandler was 28 when Dallas traded for him. If you are going to act like you know more than everyone else maybe actually get some easily attainable facts correct. There is a great website for some of this info. This joke might get old but anyways there is a great website that I'm pretty sure you have heard of called Wikipedia. I'm also a fan of basketballreference.com. :)

You can do what you want and make weird references and jokes but you are a smart guy I think you can find some way to do that without sounding like a condescending jerk to people. I say that as someone that's known you on this forum for a long while and know you have had some worthwhile thoughts, perspective and info to share. Right low it just seems like you are having a go at whatever post you can find trying to make people sound like they are idiots. At some point nobody is going to respond anymore if you aren't actually going to engage with people like they have something to offer. I come here partly because I might learn something.

Ok, the trade I'm speaking of happened in '14, he was born in '82, so that gives me 31-32 age range, but even if I'm wrong, wouldn't stand to reason that 28y/o Chandler would be worth more than 31y/o Chandler? Well, the Knicks got two seconds and offloaded Felton.

I say to you the same thing I said on the other post. If we're going to do the "Smiley Happy Board", I'll be the first in line. But when I suggest trades the Wolves actually WIN, or better yet, moves the Wolves should avoid to not lose, and alleged Wolves fans have a problem with it and call me disrespectful, then yeah, that puts me on edge. And again, you're entitled to comment on my tone, but I have a really good track record when it comes to these teams as compared to a lot of these people, and some of their tones aren't great either.

Last but not least, I honestly thought "Ok, this is the one. There is nobody dense enough to like this. Whether you're from the Cities, "Red Minnesota", another state, or another country, or Mars, you can't really think RG is worth this. And this will be the one that brings us together as a people". So when people are like "awesome", some of which are people with GOD AWFUL track records covering multiple disciplines, then yeah.

Long Story short: This is the perfect storm of one owner desperate for a championship so he can push for a new stadium (which I'm sure all of the "red Minnesota fiscal conservatives" will oppose), combined with another owner who doesn't understand that guys regress in their 30's because he cheated to overcome his own regression, and a POBO who should have said "I have a 5 year contract, so fuck no" not showing any courage, and I'm not happy, and I'm even more unhappy that others seem confused.

Phenom's_Revenge wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

Phenom's_Revenge wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

Phenom's_Revenge wrote:On the flipside, think to KGs tenure here. 8 straight first round playoff exits. Everytime someone like Gary Payton or Allen Iverson became available the Wolves came up short or got cold feet. They went all in once and really it was lightning in a bottle with Sam Cassell having his best year at the right time. That time period is known in basketball history for wasting away Garnett's career.

This deal sets to elevate Town's prime years and maximize Ant's upside years, not sit back and hope that someone will eventually come along. We could be waiting another 4 years to get another premier player for Towns and then he will be 30. If this ultimately doesn't work the team can conceivably get 2 more bites at the Ant prime apple. Why wait? Let's go!

Loved the topic, went downhill from there.
1. "Came up short on Gary Payton"? Very true, but not for the reason you think. GP was traded for former Timberwolf Ray Allen, so yeah, Allen for Payton definitely could have happened. And not for nothing, but Maybe Lurch takes the draft slash his job a little more seriously.
2. I remember the Iverson thing being for very specific guy(s) that Larry Brown wanted. If you have evidence that LB wanted a Wolf or Wolves that weren't KG, I would love to see it.
3. Cassell wasn't "all in". It was basically Joe Smith. No Firsts.
4. "Hope"? How about they do their job and draft "someone"? Like that time Utah drafted Gobert.
5. So why is it that KAT being 30 is so not-great but it's fine with RG?

What is your deal exactly? Every post you make comes off like someone stole your woman and you need to come in swinging your dick to regain territory.

I don't have a problem with Gobert being 30. You are making my point for me. If we are going to have a problem with Gobert's age then we shouldn't want to wait for something else to just come along in the next 4 years because then you will have a problem with KAT being 30. And yes, Cassell wasn't an all-in. Again the team sat happy with 8 first round exits before nabbing Cassell who happened to have had a career year and getting Spree when his value was fairly low.

As for GP and AI the point is the Wolves didn't capitalize when they had even a sliver of chance. All of these things are opposite of how it was done with KG and I dig it.

So to be clear, you have a woman, but you're ignoring her so you can make really bad points on a message board?
You said all in for Cassell. I know what it's like to type the wrong thing, and my wrong things are nowhere near as wrong as "all in for Cassell", which is still there. Cassell had a few tenths of a points higher than he normally did in points and assists, but career year? Not really. MIL broke it up, and rather than get fleeced, Mchale (wow) won a trade. Then won another with Spree for Brandon's expiring. Now, if someone (not me) were to say "you know what, I think Mchale finally gets it and is going to have a good POBO career" that would be a lot more realistic than Gobert's best years are ahead of him.
I don't have a problem with Kat being 30 because he's not 30.
And again, if you think MIN was in on Iverson, then you literally think they were in on every trade since 1988.

Fine I didnt word it in a Jason approved way. My bad. But keep in mind that wirh Cassell Glen paid out the ass to accommodate Spree and the tax implications of the time. That was a rare concession during Garnett's time. Sam got his one and only all star/all nba year that year so yes, I will stick with it being his career year.

I also don't recall you stating that you had a problem with KAT being 30 or that I said you did. It's fairly simple. If the timeline is an issue for (anyone) Gobert at 30 then it should be an issue for Karl at 30 when we might find our way into a player suitable for going for it. So why not do it now?

And yes the Wolves had a shot at AI. Billy King has discussed it before. Iverson wanted it, the Wolves had Foye as the centerpiece (which was legitimate at the time), there were money matching issues and the Wolves were not willing to meet draft pick demands of Philly.

I like that the Gobert deal is doing everything that many of us wished the KG administration would have done at some point in his time.

I still don't understand your truculent posting style but you certainly don't have to explain yourself to me.

Phenom's_Revenge wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

Phenom's_Revenge wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

Phenom's_Revenge wrote:On the flipside, think to KGs tenure here. 8 straight first round playoff exits. Everytime someone like Gary Payton or Allen Iverson became available the Wolves came up short or got cold feet. They went all in once and really it was lightning in a bottle with Sam Cassell having his best year at the right time. That time period is known in basketball history for wasting away Garnett's career.

This deal sets to elevate Town's prime years and maximize Ant's upside years, not sit back and hope that someone will eventually come along. We could be waiting another 4 years to get another premier player for Towns and then he will be 30. If this ultimately doesn't work the team can conceivably get 2 more bites at the Ant prime apple. Why wait? Let's go!

Loved the topic, went downhill from there.
1. "Came up short on Gary Payton"? Very true, but not for the reason you think. GP was traded for former Timberwolf Ray Allen, so yeah, Allen for Payton definitely could have happened. And not for nothing, but Maybe Lurch takes the draft slash his job a little more seriously.
2. I remember the Iverson thing being for very specific guy(s) that Larry Brown wanted. If you have evidence that LB wanted a Wolf or Wolves that weren't KG, I would love to see it.
3. Cassell wasn't "all in". It was basically Joe Smith. No Firsts.
4. "Hope"? How about they do their job and draft "someone"? Like that time Utah drafted Gobert.
5. So why is it that KAT being 30 is so not-great but it's fine with RG?

What is your deal exactly? Every post you make comes off like someone stole your woman and you need to come in swinging your dick to regain territory.

I don't have a problem with Gobert being 30. You are making my point for me. If we are going to have a problem with Gobert's age then we shouldn't want to wait for something else to just come along in the next 4 years because then you will have a problem with KAT being 30. And yes, Cassell wasn't an all-in. Again the team sat happy with 8 first round exits before nabbing Cassell who happened to have had a career year and getting Spree when his value was fairly low.

As for GP and AI the point is the Wolves didn't capitalize when they had even a sliver of chance. All of these things are opposite of how it was done with KG and I dig it.

So to be clear, you have a woman, but you're ignoring her so you can make really bad points on a message board?
You said all in for Cassell. I know what it's like to type the wrong thing, and my wrong things are nowhere near as wrong as "all in for Cassell", which is still there. Cassell had a few tenths of a points higher than he normally did in points and assists, but career year? Not really. MIL broke it up, and rather than get fleeced, Mchale (wow) won a trade. Then won another with Spree for Brandon's expiring. Now, if someone (not me) were to say "you know what, I think Mchale finally gets it and is going to have a good POBO career" that would be a lot more realistic than Gobert's best years are ahead of him.
I don't have a problem with Kat being 30 because he's not 30.
And again, if you think MIN was in on Iverson, then you literally think they were in on every trade since 1988.

Fine I didnt word it in a Jason approved way. My bad. But keep in mind that wirh Cassell Glen paid out the ass to accommodate Spree and the tax implications of the time. That was a rare concession during Garnett's time. Sam got his one and only all star/all nba year that year so yes, I will stick with it being his career year.

I also don't recall you stating that you had a problem with KAT being 30 or that I said you did. It's fairly simple. If the timeline is an issue for (anyone) Gobert at 30 then it should be an issue for Karl at 30 when we might find our way into a player suitable for going for it. So why not do it now?

And yes the Wolves had a shot at AI. Billy King has discussed it before. Iverson wanted it, the Wolves had Foye as the centerpiece (which was legitimate at the time), there were money matching issues and the Wolves were not willing to meet draft pick demands of Philly.

I like that the Gobert deal is doing everything that many of us wished the KG administration would have done at some point in his time.

I still don't understand your truculent posting style but you certainly don't have to explain yourself to me.

WolvesFan21 wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden wrote:Ha! I empathize with the feelings you're having, Lip, and I wouldn't have made this trade either. That needs to be very clear and on the record.

While the future salary cap issues are extreme with Rudy Gobert on the payroll, and the war chest of assets is missing a handful of first-round picks, I truly believe that the upcoming season of Timberwolves basketball will be one of the best and most successful in franchise history -- a low bar to exceed, no doubt. The 2022-23 roster looks like the best and most talented that we've seen in a long time, and maybe ever. I can get excited about that even though I'm aware of what was given up.

In terms of value, I think Minnesota gave up too much for Gobert. Four first-round picks plus the rights to 2022 first-rounder, Walker Kessler, and more is a bitter pill to swallow. I mentioned that the quantity of firsts outgoing for Minnesota would likely have been lower had they been willing to include Jaden McDaniels in their package. That has essentially been confirmed by The Athletic. That's a mighty big detail in all of this and it places even more importance on his player development.

However, Gobert is an elite player in the NBA even though he's often cast aside in those conversations. He's undoubtedly a top-20 player in the league and a future Hall of Famer. The annual Defensive Player of the Year candidate (and three-time winner) is a legitimate team-changer, a ceiling-riser. We went from hoping for an average defense last year and being happy with middle of the ranks to now expecting a top-five defense next year. That's the Gobert effect. He just puts a lid on the basket whether he actually blocks shots, alters the attempt, or intimidates shooters from even challenging him. The impact I expect him to have on this team is insane.

Did Minnesota give up way too much? Yes, I believe they did. But if they make a couple of legitimate runs at the conference finals and beyond, will we look back and think fondly of this move? I tend to believe we will, especially because of how little winning we've experienced as fans of this organization. It's an all-in move with an aggressive front office supported by new ownership who appears to be results-driven and invested as fans of the product. They want to win as much as we do. When you take all of that into account I think you can talk yourself into enjoying the next couple of years. They might have to reshuffle some parts later on, but they likely went from a team that had a fifth-seed ceiling to a team that could be playing in the NBA Finals if things go their way. That has to mean something.

Good post, Cam. A thoughtful analysis that accurately captures the upside of this deal. I still dislike the deal, but I'll have to deal with it. :). Fingers crossed that our two bigs and Ant stay healthy. You and I agree that the Wolves gave up too much in this deal. I think we differ a bit on just how much better this deal made the Wolves. I'll have to ponder how much better this team is right now than it would have been with we Beverley, Kessler and Myles Turner, Capela or Richaun Holmes, all of them likely available for Beasley, Naz and maybe one future 1st. The Caesar's oddsmakers increased the Wolves championship odds from 80-1 to 50-1. That's a significant gain, but 50-1 doesn't seem anywhere close to the value the Wolves just gave up for Rudy. And note the beginning odds of 80-1 did not reflect any further acquisitions like Capela or Turner. One thing for sure is that the Wolves have less depth, a much higher risk profile and far less flexibility to adjust and recover from the trials and unforeseeable events that always come along.

I'm with you in questioning whether keeping McDaniels was worth giving up multiple additional picks. I guess we don't know how many additional picks were substituted for McDaniels, but I believe it was more than one of the four. And I'm a big McDaniels fan who's been preaching patience. On the other hand, he hasn't been more than a role player so far and he was the 28th pick in the draft. To keep him, we apparently gave up probably two if not three picks at 28 or better.

My final thought is that there's a rhythm to things and this deal just seems out of rhythm. I guess that's just another riff on my tone deaf theme. There was an edge to this team with Beverley and even Beasley. There was excitement building in the arrival of Kessler and the potential of Bolmaro. We had all our future first-round picks and some additional moves to make that would have been more measured but still exciting. Beverly gave this team a personality that was infectious among teammates. I don't know what our team's personality is now.

And one final question. If the Wolves suddenly decided they wanted to turn around and trade Gobert, is there another team that would give the Wolves anything close to what we just gave Utah? My answer is absolutely not. That in itself is telling.

The only thing I'll mention or disagree with a bit is this. There were numerous reports of the Wolves looking to acquire Rudy, Turner, Capela and others. So that 80-1 was at least reflecting that a decent chance of the Wolves getting a defensive Center was priced in.

Had they stood pat maybe the odds drop to 100-1 or 120-1 instead of increasing to 50-1.

I've seen numerous national media reports and many pundits are grossly undervaluing Rudys impact on winning games.

The Wolves got beat by Memphis because they couldn't rebound the damn ball. They just acquired the best one in the NBA. Defense is not only about making a shot tougher, you need to also rebound. The Wolves couldn't do that. I'm happy we got the best rebounder in the NBA.

You'll have to forgive me, because I used the super-secret internet that no one else has, but I have learned that MEM actually LEAD THE LEAGUE in rebounding differential in the regular season. And who is to say that Kessler doesn't help with that? So if MIN get bumped from the '23 playoffs by another good rebounding team and has a negative rebounding differential, are going to FINALLY admit that you're horrible at this, or are you going to try to change the subject to another sports (or god forbid non-sports) topic?

So because Memphis was a good rebounding team the Wolves cannot go forward and improve in that area with the best rebounder in the NBA? That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen written.

The Wolves did lose because Memphis simply rebounded and defended better. In the 4 wins Memphis averaged 8 more rebounds per game then the Wolves. They couldn't grab boards. As much as we loved Vando he was out hustled by Clarke. KAT wasn't getting it done either.

So again you get the best defender in the NBA and the best rebounder in the NBA in Gobert and all the best players are coming back. The Wolves got massively better with this trade.

And Kessler would have been lucky to play as a late 1st round pick.

1. No, I did not say the Wolves should not try to improve in that area. But it make ZERO sense to dismiss everything because MIN came up short in an area MEM was very good at. Giving up 4 1st's and a swap for a guy because of a shortfall in one area is the dumbest thing I've seen written.
2. Ok, so now you're adding defense to go with rebounding. Is there any way this can get better without trading 4 1st's and a pick swap. And if Kat's the problem, why aren't you talking about trading him for 4 1st's and a pick swap?
3. Again, Marcus Smart was DPOY, but you've decided it was Gobert, and I should listen...because of your incredible track covering several knowledge areas?
4. Yes, Kessler was a late first, just like Gobert. And you say he's not going to play, and I should listen....why again?

Kat isn't the problem but he's also not the solution, he's been an avg defender who fouls way too much on the defensive side. He's proven he can't be a good or even great defensive rim protector, never mind the best in the NBA like Rudy.

I also don't want 1st round picks. Didn't I already tell you they are pretty much worthless? A late round 1st rounder is like a 4th rounder in the NFL. You just won't find too many elite players after 20 teams pass on them. It's proven time and again throughout draft history.

A great pick late in the draft results in an avg starter, Extremely rarely someone like Gobert. Not to mention no superstar top talent FA is going to come sign with the Wolves. They either need to draft stars (can't do that outside of the top 10 realistically) or trade for them. They gave up some garbage picks. Don't care.

monsterpile wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

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?

{Sigh} I like Tyson Chandler. I have never met anyone who doesn't like Tyson Chandler. He was roundabout 31 y/o when Dallas got him and agreed to pay Raymond Felton's future years for 4 not-great expirings and 2 2nd's. This was "The King of Williston's" first move in an attempt to clear capspace. Some say no one will play for Dolan. Gilbert Arenas says that no one wants to play in NY because the fans treat the visiting team better than they treat the Knicks. So they didn't get anybody. Either way, that's what happened. So no, not 4 1st's, a pick swap, 3 young players, and two usable expirings.

Chandler was 28 when Dallas traded for him. If you are going to act like you know more than everyone else maybe actually get some easily attainable facts correct. There is a great website for some of this info. This joke might get old but anyways there is a great website that I'm pretty sure you have heard of called Wikipedia. I'm also a fan of basketballreference.com. :)

You can do what you want and make weird references and jokes but you are a smart guy I think you can find some way to do that without sounding like a condescending jerk to people. I say that as someone that's known you on this forum for a long while and know you have had some worthwhile thoughts, perspective and info to share. Right low it just seems like you are having a go at whatever post you can find trying to make people sound like they are idiots. At some point nobody is going to respond anymore if you aren't actually going to engage with people like they have something to offer. I come here partly because I might learn something.

Ok, the trade I'm speaking of happened in '14, he was born in '82, so that gives me 31-32 age range, but even if I'm wrong, wouldn't stand to reason that 28y/o Chandler would be worth more than 31y/o Chandler? Well, the Knicks got two seconds and offloaded Felton.

I say to you the same thing I said on the other post. If we're going to do the "Smiley Happy Board", I'll be the first in line. But when I suggest trades the Wolves actually WIN, or better yet, moves the Wolves should avoid to not lose, and alleged Wolves fans have a problem with it and call me disrespectful, then yeah, that puts me on edge. And again, you're entitled to comment on my tone, but I have a really good track record when it comes to these teams as compared to a lot of these people, and some of their tones aren't great either.

Last but not least, I honestly thought "Ok, this is the one. There is nobody dense enough to like this. Whether you're from the Cities, "Red Minnesota", another state, or another country, or Mars, you can't really think RG is worth this. And this will be the one that brings us together as a people". So when people are like "awesome", some of which are people with GOD AWFUL track records covering multiple disciplines, then yeah.

Long Story short: This is the perfect storm of one owner desperate for a championship so he can push for a new stadium (which I'm sure all of the "red Minnesota fiscal conservatives" will oppose), combined with another owner who doesn't understand that guys regress in their 30's because he cheated to overcome his own regression, and a POBO who should have said "I have a 5 year contract, so fuck no" not showing any courage, and I'm not happy, and I'm even more unhappy that others seem confused.

You clearly don't know what my position is on this trade and you treat me and others like a morons. Have fun at the Red Lobster.

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:Hey, let's keep it focused and useful.

Listen to this great podcast segment about Rudy. It's awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBukorULIgk

Q-was-here wrote:

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:Hey, let's keep it focused and useful.

Listen to this great podcast segment about Rudy. It's awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBukorULIgk

Yeah, been checking out quite a few things about him.

I do think there is some truth that his defensive effectiveness gets somewhat diluted in the playoffs. Folks that seem objective about it don't believe he's actually a liability or poor defender in the playoffs; just not quite as dominant as the regular season.

I think one of the things that happened to the Jazz over the years is that their perimeter defenders perhaps took Rudy a bit too much for granted and they became sloppy at the point of attack.

DLO, McLaughlin, and Nowell....I don't mind a couple guys that are mostly one-way offensive players, but that's one too many guys that struggle defensively for my tastes.

Wendell Moore, Jr. has an excellent opportunity to step up early in his career!

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

mrhockey89 wrote:10 years of 20th pick in the NBA Draft:

2019 Matisse Thybulle, Washington - Boston Celtics
2018 Josh Okogie, Georgia Tech - Minnesota Timberwolves
2017 Harry Giles, Duke - Portland Trail Blazers
2016 Caris LeVert, Michigan - Indiana Pacers
2015 Delon Wright, Utah - Toronto Raptors
2014 Bruno Caboclo, Brazil - Toronto Raptors
2013 Tony Snell, New Mexico - Chicago Bulls
2012 Evan Fournier, France - Denver Nuggets
2011 Donatas Motiejunas, Lithuania - Minnesota Timberwolves
2010 James Anderson, Oklahoma State - San Antonio Spurs

Is there any 5 of those you wouldn't trade for a top tier NBA player?

So that's how you define success? Drafting #20 for 10 straight years? And wouldn't a better post have been "Guys available at #20 for the last 10 years" or would that have gone poorly for you, especially when you would have listed Rudy Gobert in 2013?