Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:I'd like to hear what some of the naysayers believe would have been a fair deal for Gobert and then those same naysayers need to ask themselves if that was a fair deal from Utah's perspective. Is it only a good trade if we totally fleece the other team, as if that's possible today with the caliber of modern day GMs? We literally didn't have to give up any of our most prized existing assets in KAT, Ant, and Jaden to get what some would argue is a top 10-15 NBA player in terms of his impact on a game.

Exactly, Q. There's little value in suggesting or mentioning trade ideas that have little plausibility. Trades have to appeal to all parties. So, while it would have been nice to acquire Rudy Gobert for peanuts that just wasn't realistic. You have to give to get. That's the truth of it.

I wouldn't have made the trade that Tim Connelly did and haven't wavered from that position. I'm also not necessarily a naysayer, or hater, either because I respect and understand what the acquisition of Gobert does for this organization in the short-term. The Minnesota Timberwolves have entered the conversation as a championship contender, in my opinion. We obviously still have to round out the rest of the roster and see what the on-court product looks like, but the collection of top talent is impressive and the depth remains solid even after dealing four players.

I think the price for Gobert was an overpay, but not by an insane amount. You also have to consider that Minnesota did not part with Jaden McDaniels, Jaylen Nowell, or Wendell Moore Jr. in the trade. They retained their high-upside youth already on the roster in exchange for additional draft capital, which was a calculated risk from this front office. Essentially, the Timberwolves are gambling that those three young players are more talented than whatever prospects they would have drafted in the future. It's not a bad bet from Minnesota, and Utah obliged by demanding additional picks. There was the compromise.

I compared this trade in detail to the Los Angeles Lakers trade for Anthony Davis pages ago in this thread. Noticeably, the Lakers gave up two high-end prospects on their rookie deals -- Brandon Ingram and Lonzo Ball -- in addition to the fourth-overall pick in 2019, as well as two future first-round picks and a pick swap.

While Gobert is four years older than Davis was at the time of their respective trades, Minnesota didn't have to surrender the top-end prospects that Los Angeles did and only gave up one more pick in their trade. It's a risk, but it's a calculated one that has a high-reward. I can't blame the front office or ownership for wanting to go for it while they can.

lipoli390 wrote:If the Wolves were intent on making a big Jrue Holiday type move, they should have traded for Dejounte Murray. In that case, they would have given up three rather than four first-round picks and the 2023 pick would have had some protection. Moreover, the Wolves would still have Beverley, Kessler, Bolmaro and either Beasley or DLO, depending on which one was traded.

60WinTim wrote:It probably makes sense to extend DLo one year, unless TC has other plans in the works. Extending DLo will not put the Wolves in the luxury tax next year, and actually make his contract a worthwhile piece in a trade if they decide to move on from DLo after this year.

D-Mac wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:

FNG wrote:I'm a defense-first guy, and I've long thought that the typical NBA fan (even smarter than average fans like we have here) tend to favor offense over defense...and often significantly. In my opinion we just completed a trade for a Steph Curry, because I see Gobert impacting the game defensively in a way a guy like Curry impacts a game on offense.

We gave up players who we liked but would never be starters on a championship team, plus a handful of picks most likely to be in the mid to late 20s...for the most dominant defensive player of our era. It's an old adage that the team that ends up with the best player in a trade won the trade. Maybe I'll be proved wrong in the end, but I just can't see this as an overpay.

What you'll read (not sure if it's entirely verifiable or not, but I believe it) is that Utah demanded Jaden McDaniels. TC countered with more draft compensation instead. So let's say Jaden was added to the pool of players given up in addition to two firsts instead of the four firsts. You better believe all the naysayers would be going nuts on how stupid and idiotic TC was for giving up Jaden! How could he!?

I'd like to hear what some of the naysayers believe would have been a fair deal for Gobert and then those same naysayers need to ask themselves if that was a fair deal from Utah's perspective. Is it only a good trade if we totally fleece the other team, as if that's possible today with the caliber of modern day GMs? We literally didn't have to give up any of our most prized existing assets in KAT, Ant, and Jaden to get what some would argue is a top 10-15 NBA player in terms of his impact on a game.

I'm a naysayer and I'm glad we didn't give up jaden, but we should have just hung up the phone. My opinion is that we gave up way too much and I feel like the word idiotic fits perfectly here.

lipoli390 wrote:I'm not sure we can count on moving DLO for value under any circumstances. I get the sense there wasn't much, if any, interest in DLO around the League in spite of his expiring contract. It's kind of like John Collins; DLO's trade value around the League seems less than it should be to those of us on the outside.

Camden wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:I'm not sure we can count on moving DLO for value under any circumstances. I get the sense there wasn't much, if any, interest in DLO around the League in spite of his expiring contract. It's kind of like John Collins; DLO's trade value around the League seems less than it should be to those of us on the outside.

Counterpoint:

Perhaps there was interest in D'Angelo Russell, but Minnesota chose not to move him for the offers that were being presented -- ie. they valued him more than what they could get back for him in return.

Combine the fact that Russell hasn't been moved (to this point) with the fact that the Timberwolves didn't draft any young point guard despite having multiple opportunities to do so, and the idea that their big splash acquisition seemingly fits really well with Russell, and it's more than fair to conclude that they like him a lot more than the general consensus here does. It would appear that while they were open to moving him if the value was appropriate, they were also plenty comfortable with retaining him.

60WinTim wrote:It will always be considered an overpay, not only because of the number of picks, but also how far out some of those picks go -- long after Gobert's current contract expires.

But the Wolves had an opportunity to acquire a single player that massively changes the outlook of their team for the better for multiple years. Time will tell if it was worth it.

On the flip side of the overpay, it is a bit unusual for a team to trade a star and not get back a "star" or "potential star" in return. I suppose that was a contributing factor on the overpay in picks.

And something that is seemingly overlooked: we still have a first round pick every other year through 2029. And Connelly has a track record of making do with what he has to work with. And assuming we are a "contender", that tends to make it easier to find cheap FA help. So we will see how it all plays out.

Camden wrote:

60WinTim wrote:It probably makes sense to extend DLo one year, unless TC has other plans in the works. Extending DLo will not put the Wolves in the luxury tax next year, and actually make his contract a worthwhile piece in a trade if they decide to move on from DLo after this year.

Extending D'Angelo Russell has always made sense to me, assuming tolerable contract terms, but it makes even more sense now given that the salary cap space Minnesota was set up to have next summer and beyond is zapped.

No matter your feelings on D-Lo the player, the Timberwolves can't afford to let his salary slot fizzle into nothing because they won't be able to get it back being that they're over the cap for the foreseeable future. They either need to extend him because they're committed to him at point guard, or extend him to prolong their window of opportunity to move him for value, or begin thinking about potential sign-and-trades next summer, although the free agent market appears thin next year as I've mentioned repeatedly.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

60WinTim wrote:It probably makes sense to extend DLo one year, unless TC has other plans in the works. Extending DLo will not put the Wolves in the luxury tax next year, and actually make his contract a worthwhile piece in a trade if they decide to move on from DLo after this year.

Extending D'Angelo Russell has always made sense to me, assuming tolerable contract terms, but it makes even more sense now given that the salary cap space Minnesota was set up to have next summer and beyond is zapped.

No matter your feelings on D-Lo the player, the Timberwolves can't afford to let his salary slot fizzle into nothing because they won't be able to get it back being that they're over the cap for the foreseeable future. They either need to extend him because they're committed to him at point guard, or extend him to prolong their window of opportunity to move him for value, or begin thinking about potential sign-and-trades next summer, although the free agent market appears thin next year as I've mentioned repeatedly.

Don't forget, they have to pay Ant and Jaden. I guess it depends on how far ownership is willing to go into the luxury tax.