Q-was-here wrote:D-Mac wrote:Q, one more thing, please give me an example of what I'm exaggerating. I genuinely think Dlo is a loser as a max level starting pg and I also think TC is showing himself to be a lazy, irresponsible idiot as an executive making 8 mil a year... so I hope you were referring to something else by saying that I "exaggerate".
Also, for the 86th freaking time, yeah I think this move increases our title odds 3x in the next four years, but I also said that I think there were several other cheaper/smarter moves that could have increased our title odds almost as much (2.5 x) over the next four years.
I think I've defended myself on everything. If you don't like me calling people idiots or losers, i totally get that, although I think they're making plenty of money to handle it from a stupid chat board. I'll start saying that TC is apparently in over his head when making trades and DLo is an underachiever... you'll know what I really mean though :)
- If you think DLO is a loser than not only are you exaggerating, you are simply wrong on the facts. He's literally not a loser based on his Net Rating with the Wolves and their record with him playing versus not playing. I will agree that he is not worth the contract he's being paid, but he's not the one that gave himself a max deal nor does it make him a loser. Again, call him whatever you want! Heck, even I think we'd be better off eventually moving on from DLO, but I'm also not in denial about how he helped this team win games last season.
- Your comments on TC are just insults with no basis or understanding of what other stakeholders wanted, including the ownership group. The fact I have to defend TC as not being a lazy, incompetent GM is silly on its face.
- And lastly, no, your offer vs. the offer the Wolves ultimately reached with Utah is not that different in my eyes. Quality always trumps quantity in the NBA. We got the best paint protector in the last 20 years without giving up any of our top players. So for you to say the deal you came up with is sound strategy and the deal TC came up with is the work of a lazy imbecile is - yes - a gross exaggeration.
I appreciate you engaging in this debate.
I don't want to get in the middle of this heated debate. :) But I do agree with DL that his suggested deal retaining Kessler is materially better for the Wolves than the deal Connelly made.
DL's deal would have kept Kessler, kept the Wolves' 2029 first-round pick and put full lottery protection on the 2027 pick with no 2026 pick swap. Added together, those differences strike me as significant. Lottery protection on the 2027 pick is particularly significant because that draft will be a year removed from the expiration of Gobert's contract. In other words, Gobert won't even be with the Wolves the season leading up to that draft unless he signs a new contract - and if he remains here he'll be 34 and who knows what shape he'll be in. If nothing else, I think it's problematic to give up unprotected 1st-round picks in years beyond when you can be certain the player you're trading for will even be with the team or in years when the acquired player will no longer be in his prime. Finally, retaining Kessler would have been a big deal (pun intended). He's someone who could potentially develop into a Gobert-like player to provide insurance and continuity over time in the face of any uncertainties regarding Gobert. Moreover, retaining young talent like Kessler becomes even more important when you're trading away multiple first round picks.
In any event, here's the materiality test: Would Utah have made DL's suggested deal? I think the answer is no - precisely because it would have been significantly better for the Wolves and, therefore, worse for Utah.
And I don't think anyone else in the League was going to give Utah a package as good as the one the Wolves gave them - especially with Durant in play, which likely had some potential Gobert-suitors holding their assets for a potential run at Durant. I think the Wolves front office were so intent on getting Gobert that group-think took over and getting him because a self-fulfilling prophesy. I've worked with a lot of companies over the years on big merger deals and I've watched top executives increasingly ignore risks (and contrary facts) as they became increasingly attached to the idea of making the deal. The best companies I've advised would always resist that impulse. In this case, among other things, the laser focus on getting Gobert caused Connelly and his front office team to pass on a deal for Murray that would have required significantly fewer assets, provided far more financial flexibility over the next two years and aligned better developmentally with the age of our cornerstone talent Anthony Edwards.
It's fair to get excited about this deal. In fact, those of us who would not have done this deal, including me and DL, have acknowledged that the deal instantly makes the Wolves substantially better. But it's also fair to consider how much better the Wolves would have gotten both organically, via free agency and through other far less costly for Capela, Myles Turner or (as we now know) Murray - deals that would have required much less from the Wolves and been far better for future financial flexibility to maneuver. Every asset the Wolves gave up - Beverley, Beasley, Kessler, Bolmaro and all the picks - were not only potential players for the Wolves but also potential trade assets for any number of deals to improve the talent around KAT, Edwards and McDaniels. The outgoing picks prevent the Wolves from making any deals that include future 1st-round picks. That's a huge constraint that can't be overlooked or taken lightly.
As you said, Q - this trade was a ballsy move by Connelly. But I also think it's fair for DL to call it lazy. What I think he means is that it spares Connelly the hard work of finishing the Wolves building process through multiple more savvy moves. I'd say the deal was ballsy, but not particularly savvy. TC threw a bunch of assets at a team looking to get rid of a huge contract and start a rebuild process. Anyone could have done that. This deal was sort of a "set-it-and-forget-it" move with little more for Connelly to do now other than scrounge around for a couple veteran role-players willing to come here on minimum vet contracts. I probably wouldn't characterize the deal as lazy, but I see DL's point. I'd just characterize the deal as too risky, a bit ill-considered and the product of unjustified impatience. I say unjustified because the team was on a solid upward trajectory with a 20-year old likely star in the middle of his rookie deal and another star who wasn't a threat to leave. This team is mainly Ant's team. Pairing the 20 year old Ant with a 30-year old Gobert seems like a pretty poor alignment.
But like any ballsy move, this one could pay off for Connelly and the Wolves. The KAT/Gobert pair in is fascinating. So I'm definitely hoping for the best. And I'm excited to see what this group can do.