Minnesota Sports Forum

lipoli390 wrote:

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:Here are some defensive bigs.

Nic Batum-Career resurgence. Two more years at 9 mil. per. Meh. I probably wouldn't pull the trigger to get him.

Mason Plumlee-Less flexible defensively than those other guys, but a good defender in the paint. At 8 mil. per for the next two years, I could see the Pistons possibly biting for some kind of asset given how bad they are.

Kevon Looney-Has a 5 mil. player option. Given their tax situation and investment in Wiseman, I could potentially see G.S. not re-signing him.

Daniel Theis-Free agent. I like the toughness he brings. Ein starker Mann.

Willie Cauley-Stein-If he doesn't show Dallas anything in these playoffs, I can see them letting him walk. Maybe reuniting with KAT could spark something decent out of him?

Out of those guys, Plumlee might be the best reasonable possibility. It would take more than Culver though. What do the rest of you guys think of any of those options?

I trimmed your list down to those who I'd consider realistic possibilities. Like you, I wouldn't pull the trigger on Batum. I don't trust his durability enough to commit $9M a year for two years to him. WCS brings almost nothing to the table and I wouldn't anticipate a spark out of him at this point in his career. I think Plumlee, Looney and Theis might be worth pursuing. My first pick in this group would be Plumlee who I think we could get straight up for Culver. I doubt we can afford Looney, which means we'd have to do a salary-clearing deal to sign him. I'm not even sure we could afford Theis without a salary-clearing deal. At the end of the day, the Wolves will have to make a trade if they want to bring in another big. Not matter what, I'd still re-sign Vando.

Here are the veteran bigs I'd pursue via trade in order of preference:

1. Myles Turner
2. Adams
3. Favors
4. Plumlee

Turner is the only one I'd consider giving up Beasley to get. And I'm still on the fence given Turner's difficulty staying healthy.

Unfortunately I don't see Detroit trading Plumblee for Culver. Plumblee is a solid player on a reasonable contract that is non guaranteed in 2022. The Pistons already have a version of Culver in Josh Jackson. They also have Diallo who is a RFA but looks to have played well for them this year. Detroit has a couple guys in Mcgruder and Corey Joseph who have non guaranteed deals for the upcoming season which may help them land some low level assets. I was kinda hoping maybe they would be a team interested in Rubio but Joseph came in and played well for them.

Lip I do think there will be a team or two out there that would be interested in acquiring Culver and believe they can turn his career around but if the market isn't very strong those teams might feel like they can ask the Wolves to pay them for taking him.

I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Hicks123 wrote:I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Yeah, I never quite understand the "we must trade one of the least effective players on the roster" narrative. For who exactly? If anything, Culver is more valuable being kept. He's not that expensive, a super hard worker, and all around good kid. I can think of far worse types of ineffective players to have on the roster.

Obviously if someone actually showed interest and provided something of more value to us, then by all means jump all over that. But in the meantime, it's sort of odd to think that we can just churn out poor players already under contract for......what exactly?

Hicks123 wrote:I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

Culver is virtually un-tradeable right now... sans being a negative throw-in with an asset.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

Culver is virtually un-tradeable right now... sans being a negative throw-in with an asset.

He is a better attitude version of Josh Jackson who the Suns had to pay to get rid of. Lets say the Wolves could trade for Culver. Would you even trade Jake Layman for him considering Culver would cost nearly 2.5 million more than Layman and quite frankly might not be any better at basketball? How about Juancho? The more I look at various teams and contracts the more I am convinced Culver is simply a negative trade asset in a player for player trade. Has any team every done a buyout of a guy on a rookie deal? I could see a team thinking Culver could be rehabbed and have value for them as part of a larger deal but yeah they aren't taking him for free. I hope we don't pay much to move on from him but I'm bracing for having to pay at least a future 2nd rounder to send him elsewhere.

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

Culver is virtually un-tradeable right now... sans being a negative throw-in with an asset.

He is a better attitude version of Josh Jackson who the Suns had to pay to get rid of. Lets say the Wolves could trade for Culver. Would you even trade Jake Layman for him considering Culver would cost nearly 2.5 million more than Layman and quite frankly might not be any better at basketball? How about Juancho? The more I look at various teams and contracts the more I am convinced Culver is simply a negative trade asset in a player for player trade. Has any team every done a buyout of a guy on a rookie deal? I could see a team thinking Culver could be rehabbed and have value for them as part of a larger deal but yeah they aren't taking him for free. I hope we don't pay much to move on from him but I'm bracing for having to pay at least a future 2nd rounder to send him elsewhere.

Even guys like Kevin Knox and Frank Ntkilitina were picked up in team options... are we sure Culver is even getting that 4th season? It's pretty sad when a #6 pick, especially when it's not for attitude/drugs/et al. Culver seems like a swell guy.

It would cost the Wolves $8M to pick up that 4th year.



[Note: Fortunately, Rosas' miss on Culver doesn't seem as damaging with Edwards, McDaniels and Reid looking like NBA players.]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

Culver is virtually un-tradeable right now... sans being a negative throw-in with an asset.

He is a better attitude version of Josh Jackson who the Suns had to pay to get rid of. Lets say the Wolves could trade for Culver. Would you even trade Jake Layman for him considering Culver would cost nearly 2.5 million more than Layman and quite frankly might not be any better at basketball? How about Juancho? The more I look at various teams and contracts the more I am convinced Culver is simply a negative trade asset in a player for player trade. Has any team every done a buyout of a guy on a rookie deal? I could see a team thinking Culver could be rehabbed and have value for them as part of a larger deal but yeah they aren't taking him for free. I hope we don't pay much to move on from him but I'm bracing for having to pay at least a future 2nd rounder to send him elsewhere.

Even guys like Kevin Knox and Frank Ntkilitina were picked up in team options... are we sure Culver is even getting that 4th season? It's pretty sad when a #6 pick, especially when it's not for attitude/drugs/et al. Culver seems like a swell guy.

It would cost the Wolves $8M to pick up that 4th year.



[Note: Fortunately, Rosas' miss on Culver doesn't seem as damaging with Edwards, McDaniels and Reid looking like NBA players.]

I can't imagine them picking up that 4th year unless Culver does something amazing this offseason...MAYBE. Maybe they think by 2022 they will have some expiring contracts and they will have room to make it worth guaranteeing culver that money...I doubt it.

I'm not sure if the Knicks had Lux tax concerns when they picked up those option years plus both were a little cheaper than Culver's 3rd year option (much cheaper than his 4th year) and I don't think they had answers at positions where those guys played either at the time so they may have figured they would give them one more shot. The Wolves in terms of that position have no real pressing need for Culver really...at last as the roster is currently constructed.

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

Culver is virtually un-tradeable right now... sans being a negative throw-in with an asset.

He is a better attitude version of Josh Jackson who the Suns had to pay to get rid of. Lets say the Wolves could trade for Culver. Would you even trade Jake Layman for him considering Culver would cost nearly 2.5 million more than Layman and quite frankly might not be any better at basketball? How about Juancho? The more I look at various teams and contracts the more I am convinced Culver is simply a negative trade asset in a player for player trade. Has any team every done a buyout of a guy on a rookie deal? I could see a team thinking Culver could be rehabbed and have value for them as part of a larger deal but yeah they aren't taking him for free. I hope we don't pay much to move on from him but I'm bracing for having to pay at least a future 2nd rounder to send him elsewhere.

Even guys like Kevin Knox and Frank Ntkilitina were picked up in team options... are we sure Culver is even getting that 4th season? It's pretty sad when a #6 pick, especially when it's not for attitude/drugs/et al. Culver seems like a swell guy.

It would cost the Wolves $8M to pick up that 4th year.



[Note: Fortunately, Rosas' miss on Culver doesn't seem as damaging with Edwards, McDaniels and Reid looking like NBA players.]

I can't imagine them picking up that 4th year unless Culver does something amazing this offseason...MAYBE. Maybe they think by 2022 they will have some expiring contracts and they will have room to make it worth guaranteeing culver that money...I doubt it.

I'm not sure if the Knicks had Lux tax concerns when they picked up those option years plus both were a little cheaper than Culver's 3rd year option (much cheaper than his 4th year) and I don't think they had answers at positions where those guys played either at the time so they may have figured they would give them one more shot. The Wolves in terms of that position have no real pressing need for Culver really...at last as the roster is currently constructed.

I don't know the specifics of the Knicks... nor the percentage of players drafted in the top 10 who don't make it to year 4. But I assume it's pretty rare.

Looks like Josh Jackson was the last top 6 player not picked up for year 4. Before him, Dragan Bender. Rough company to keep.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

Culver is virtually un-tradeable right now... sans being a negative throw-in with an asset.

He is a better attitude version of Josh Jackson who the Suns had to pay to get rid of. Lets say the Wolves could trade for Culver. Would you even trade Jake Layman for him considering Culver would cost nearly 2.5 million more than Layman and quite frankly might not be any better at basketball? How about Juancho? The more I look at various teams and contracts the more I am convinced Culver is simply a negative trade asset in a player for player trade. Has any team every done a buyout of a guy on a rookie deal? I could see a team thinking Culver could be rehabbed and have value for them as part of a larger deal but yeah they aren't taking him for free. I hope we don't pay much to move on from him but I'm bracing for having to pay at least a future 2nd rounder to send him elsewhere.

Even guys like Kevin Knox and Frank Ntkilitina were picked up in team options... are we sure Culver is even getting that 4th season? It's pretty sad when a #6 pick, especially when it's not for attitude/drugs/et al. Culver seems like a swell guy.

It would cost the Wolves $8M to pick up that 4th year.



[Note: Fortunately, Rosas' miss on Culver doesn't seem as damaging with Edwards, McDaniels and Reid looking like NBA players.]

I can't imagine them picking up that 4th year unless Culver does something amazing this offseason...MAYBE. Maybe they think by 2022 they will have some expiring contracts and they will have room to make it worth guaranteeing culver that money...I doubt it.

I'm not sure if the Knicks had Lux tax concerns when they picked up those option years plus both were a little cheaper than Culver's 3rd year option (much cheaper than his 4th year) and I don't think they had answers at positions where those guys played either at the time so they may have figured they would give them one more shot. The Wolves in terms of that position have no real pressing need for Culver really...at last as the roster is currently constructed.

I don't know the specifics of the Knicks... nor the percentage of players drafted in the top 10 who don't make it to year 4. But I assume it's pretty rare.

Looks like Josh Jackson was the last top 6 player not picked up for year 4. Before him, Dragan Bender. Rough company to keep.

Anthony Bennett and Hasheem Thabeet come to mind...

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:I personally just can't get behind the hope that Culver can be traded. He has statistically been probably one of the worst players of all time thus far. I just don't see anything the guy actually does well to hang our "potential" hat on. I have to admit, I was optimistic we would see improvement last season, but it just didn't materialize.

If we look honestly at the player (let's pretend he wasn't a Wolf), would anyone even consider taking Culver, at his contract, even if he was given to you for free? I believe the answer is absolutely not. Unfortunately, he seems to be a guy in which we would have to give up other positive assets to unload.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

Culver is virtually un-tradeable right now... sans being a negative throw-in with an asset.

He is a better attitude version of Josh Jackson who the Suns had to pay to get rid of. Lets say the Wolves could trade for Culver. Would you even trade Jake Layman for him considering Culver would cost nearly 2.5 million more than Layman and quite frankly might not be any better at basketball? How about Juancho? The more I look at various teams and contracts the more I am convinced Culver is simply a negative trade asset in a player for player trade. Has any team every done a buyout of a guy on a rookie deal? I could see a team thinking Culver could be rehabbed and have value for them as part of a larger deal but yeah they aren't taking him for free. I hope we don't pay much to move on from him but I'm bracing for having to pay at least a future 2nd rounder to send him elsewhere.

Even guys like Kevin Knox and Frank Ntkilitina were picked up in team options... are we sure Culver is even getting that 4th season? It's pretty sad when a #6 pick, especially when it's not for attitude/drugs/et al. Culver seems like a swell guy.

It would cost the Wolves $8M to pick up that 4th year.



[Note: Fortunately, Rosas' miss on Culver doesn't seem as damaging with Edwards, McDaniels and Reid looking like NBA players.]

I can't imagine them picking up that 4th year unless Culver does something amazing this offseason...MAYBE. Maybe they think by 2022 they will have some expiring contracts and they will have room to make it worth guaranteeing culver that money...I doubt it.

I'm not sure if the Knicks had Lux tax concerns when they picked up those option years plus both were a little cheaper than Culver's 3rd year option (much cheaper than his 4th year) and I don't think they had answers at positions where those guys played either at the time so they may have figured they would give them one more shot. The Wolves in terms of that position have no real pressing need for Culver really...at last as the roster is currently constructed.

I agree Culver's trade value is probably nearly negative at this point, which is almost impossible on a rookie scale. When would they need to pick up his option?

We do have a lot of guards, which makes it hard to see a role for him going forward. It's a shame because, IF he actually did become the player it looked like he was projected to be, I do think he would be valuable. He's a pretty good, rangy defender who can guard multiple positions and on offense can handle the ball and give you a little scoring and playmaking. If a player like that actually worked out, that's a pretty versatile player. His shooting was always going to be a liability, but it's not crazy to think if everything else had worked out he could have been a longer Josh Okogie with more ball skills. The problem, beyond his totally broken shot, is that when he did get time on the floor this year, he often looked like he'd forgotten how to play. Like he's been away from the game too long. If you can't shoot though, you gotta be really good at a lot of other things, and he just hasn't been unfortunately.