Minnesota Sports Forum

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:If you simplistically divide basketball performance into 3 categories...offense, defense and intangibles, Love doesn't fare well. He's a good offensive player, ridiculed by players and pundits on defense, and close to cancerous in intangibles. Further, he's essentially the 4th or 5th best player this season on the Cavs when it counts most under the bright lights, and he forces his coaches to find ways to hide him on defense. When you consider all aspects of Kevin's game, it doesn't add up to a max contract to me.

And Khans' point about Love's contract just being slightly more than Pek and KG who can't play is a non-starter. the fact that we are saddled with a useless contract with Pek can't be an argument for adding a guy just because his contract isn't as bad. the discussion isn't about Love vs. KG plus Pek. It's about Love vs. #5 + Bazz, and that wins easily for me.

You're fucking insane if you would turn down 5 and Bazz for Love. The value isn't even close. Love is so far and away more valuable than 5 and Bazz it's ridiculous. I can't take it anymore. The Love bashing on this board is God damn ridiculous. He was a top 5 player in the entire fucking league when he played for us and you wouldn't take that for Bazz and 5? Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. Love could be the worst defender of all time (which he isn't) and still be more valuable than Bazz and #5. Love is never gonna be a T-Wolf again, but the lack of objective analysis of his basketball abilities because you (in the general sense) don't like him is just astounding.

Whether you're right or wrong, I hate seeing this type of post on this forum. Take it to Rube Chat or RealGM. It would fit in much better there. Either that or think twice about posting after drinking a 12-pack.

I'm going to apologize for piling on here, but I think it's warranted. I actually have no issue being called "fucking insane" (it may not be the first time :) ), but the context is so odd to me. Unlike my poll question about trading Wig for Butler where board sentiment was 32-3 against, Phenom has proposed a poll question where the board is exactly evenly divided...10-10. That tells me that while we may be perplexed by or disagree with someone on the other side of the issue from us, the fact that half the board agrees with either stance tells me that there is at least some merit to either argument. If I'm "fucking insane" so are at least 9 others on this board who also voted against the mythical trade. If I thought there were so many here whose opinions were so off to cause a violent reaction, I would be looking for a new board where the majority agreed with me.

LST, I don't think you're "insane" for not taking that trade, though I do think it would be a mistake to pass over value like that, but I think your opinion on Love is way, way over the top on the negative side. I think that's what aggravates me when this topic comes around. It's especially aggravating because you criticize his intangibles, but in fairness, none of us really know how he is in that department. You can say he's a poor leader for the way he handled certain things in Minnesota, but he's not asked to do that, to be that in Cleveland. So, I'd ask to hear why you think he's such a cancer, but I feel like you'd revert to an answer attacking his personality rather than something that he had actually done to cause problems in the Cavs locker room.

When it comes to LST and Love I think Sir Paul may have said it pretty well...

"Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
Yeah, let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be"

monsterpile wrote:When it comes to LST and Love I think Sir Paul may have said it pretty well...

"Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
Yeah, let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be"

Ha! But didn't Sir Paul also say at the end of Abbey Road:

"And in the end, the Love you trade, is not equal to the Wig....you get"



(or something like that)

longstrangetrip wrote:

monsterpile wrote:When it comes to LST and Love I think Sir Paul may have said it pretty well...

"Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
Yeah, let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be"

Ha! But didn't Sir Paul also say at the end of Abbey Road:

"And in the end, the Love you trade, is not equal to the Wig....you get"



(or something like that)

Oh oh, bucking for a 2nd straight post of the year accolade?

Camden wrote:LST, I don't think you're "insane" for not taking that trade, though I do think it would be a mistake to pass over value like that, but I think your opinion on Love is way, way over the top on the negative side. I think that's what aggravates me when this topic comes around. It's especially aggravating because you criticize his intangibles, but in fairness, none of us really know how he is in that department. You can say he's a poor leader for the way he handled certain things in Minnesota, but he's not asked to do that, to be that in Cleveland. So, I'd ask to hear why you think he's such a cancer, but I feel like you'd revert to an answer attacking his personality rather than something that he had actually done to cause problems in the Cavs locker room.

True, we don't really know the intangibles, but where there's smoke, there's generally fire. I'm not going to repeat any stories I've heard about Love because they all are second hand, and some are likely exaggerated by his former teammates out of spite. But while this is a fun poll question to debate value, at the end of the day monster's take from Jon K. is right on. The Wolves are never going to take Love back. Even if Thibs wanted to trade for him (which is farfetched in my opinion...he's not keen on guys who don't run back on defense), Glen still has ultimate veto power and he would never approve a deal involving Kevin. I know there were private high fives exchanged at 600 First Avenue after Flip completed the deal, but I think they were more about Wig coming in than Love going out. But as players started to open up more and Glen heard things he hadn't heard before, the sentiment changed. Jon K is diplomatic as always in saying "bridges were burned", but I would liken it more to the 35W bridge collapsing.

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:LST, I don't think you're "insane" for not taking that trade, though I do think it would be a mistake to pass over value like that, but I think your opinion on Love is way, way over the top on the negative side. I think that's what aggravates me when this topic comes around. It's especially aggravating because you criticize his intangibles, but in fairness, none of us really know how he is in that department. You can say he's a poor leader for the way he handled certain things in Minnesota, but he's not asked to do that, to be that in Cleveland. So, I'd ask to hear why you think he's such a cancer, but I feel like you'd revert to an answer attacking his personality rather than something that he had actually done to cause problems in the Cavs locker room.

True, we don't really know the intangibles, but where there's smoke, there's generally fire. I'm not going to repeat any stories I've heard about Love because they all are second hand, and some are likely exaggerated by his former teammates out of spite. But while this is a fun poll question to debate value, at the end of the day monster's take from Jon K. is right on. The Wolves are never going to take Love back. Even if Thibs wanted to trade for him (which is farfetched in my opinion...he's not keen on guys who don't run back on defense), Glen still has ultimate veto power and he would never approve a deal involving Kevin. I know there were private high fives exchanged at 600 First Avenue after Flip completed the deal, but I think they were more about Wig coming in than Love going out. But as players started to open up more and Glen heard things he hadn't heard before, the sentiment changed. Jon K is diplomatic as always in saying "bridges were burned", but I would liken it more to the 35W bridge collapsing.

To add a bit to what I said Jon was saying he mentioned about burned bridges. He mentioned how Glen wasn't happy with how Love handled himself and to back that up Jon mentioned how Glen compared Al Jefferson quietly asking for a better situation to what Love did. Jon also said its not that Love is a bad guy it's just that he seems to keep to himself and obviously his situation in Cleveland doesn't exactly led to that aspect manifesting itself (leadership) but it's a legit concern (whether in Cleveland or wherever he goes if he goes) for a guy with that level of talent and salary not being an outspoken part of your team in a more demonstrative way. He said you would think Love could be more of a rah rah type in Cleveland than he is.

Jon also wondered what Love's value would be around the league because he definitely sees him as damaged goods right now to some extent. Personally I still think the Cavs can get pretty good value for him if they decided to move him.

monsterpile wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:LST, I don't think you're "insane" for not taking that trade, though I do think it would be a mistake to pass over value like that, but I think your opinion on Love is way, way over the top on the negative side. I think that's what aggravates me when this topic comes around. It's especially aggravating because you criticize his intangibles, but in fairness, none of us really know how he is in that department. You can say he's a poor leader for the way he handled certain things in Minnesota, but he's not asked to do that, to be that in Cleveland. So, I'd ask to hear why you think he's such a cancer, but I feel like you'd revert to an answer attacking his personality rather than something that he had actually done to cause problems in the Cavs locker room.

True, we don't really know the intangibles, but where there's smoke, there's generally fire. I'm not going to repeat any stories I've heard about Love because they all are second hand, and some are likely exaggerated by his former teammates out of spite. But while this is a fun poll question to debate value, at the end of the day monster's take from Jon K. is right on. The Wolves are never going to take Love back. Even if Thibs wanted to trade for him (which is farfetched in my opinion...he's not keen on guys who don't run back on defense), Glen still has ultimate veto power and he would never approve a deal involving Kevin. I know there were private high fives exchanged at 600 First Avenue after Flip completed the deal, but I think they were more about Wig coming in than Love going out. But as players started to open up more and Glen heard things he hadn't heard before, the sentiment changed. Jon K is diplomatic as always in saying "bridges were burned", but I would liken it more to the 35W bridge collapsing.

To add a bit to what I said Jon was saying he mentioned about burned bridges. He mentioned how Glen wasn't happy with how Love handled himself and to back that up Jon mentioned how Glen compared Al Jefferson quietly asking for a better situation to what Love did. Jon also said its not that Love is a bad guy it's just that he seems to keep to himself and obviously his situation in Cleveland doesn't exactly led to that aspect manifesting itself (leadership) but it's a legit concern (whether in Cleveland or wherever he goes if he goes) for a guy with that level of talent and salary not being an outspoken part of your team in a more demonstrative way. He said you would think Love could be more of a rah rah type in Cleveland than he is.

Jon also wondered what Love's value would be around the league because he definitely sees him as damaged goods right now to some extent. Personally I still think the Cavs can get pretty good value for him if they decided to move him.

Jon K is building a nice career for himself, because he finds a way to be insightful and break some stories without pissing anyone off. I don't think he has ever said anyone is a bad guy, although I'm sure he has heard more Love stories than I have, and I gotta believe thinks he's somewhat of a bad guy.

I have heard Jon on the radio questioning Love's value around the league, and I agree with him...I really think the Cavs are going to have difficulty getting back what their fans think is value for him, and that's why I think they are going to keep him. He had a bad defensive reputation while he was here, but that seems to have increased greatly since he went to the Cavs and has become a frequent topic of the media. He's a 16-10 guy so there's some value there to be sure, but despite winning the 3-point contest a few years ago, his career and 2016 3-point percentage is only slightly above the league average. I think Jon knows a terrible defensive reputation and questionable leadership qualities more than offset 16-10 stats.

You'd think Kevin Love had been arrested a plethora of times and has 10 kids with five different women -- and doesn't consistently pay child support -- with the way LST talks about him. I'll admit, I don't know how Love is off the court except for some of what I've read, but calling him a "bad guy" seems way too harsh considering the only negative thing that has been reported about him is that he keeps to himself and has a wacky family.

I guess Ray Allen is a bad guy too. But we've already been over that one. And this Love berating has exhausted me, as it usually does. So, to sum up, I'd jump all over a trade that doesn't ship out Towns, Wiggins, LaVine, or Rubio to get him back here, especially with how his perceived value has plummeted, and the trade proposal that started this thread is a major steal for us.

Based on talent, we'd be committing felony theft of the Knicks in that trade. Love's weaknesses as a player have been exposed in Cleveland, but he is still a very good player.

Still, adding any veteran to this talented core needs to be done carefully in terms of chemistry. I always thought Love came off as a little whiny and selfish, and he became even more unlikeable the closer it got to the end. I wouldn't want him on the team today partly because of my concern he'd disrupt the team's chemistry.

I do agree that Love's value is very depressed right now, in part because of the rumors about the Cavs' lack of chemistry with Love. But I also think there are two other factors. One, he's really faded in these playoffs. Two, the consensus seems to be building that his defensive weakness means that he's a liability as the league seems to be going smaller. Love's 3 point shooting used to lead people to say he was a prototype of the future 4 in the NBA. Now Green or Kawhi are the future, and Love is the past even before we reached the future he was supposed to represent. This is similar to the critique of Jahlil Okafor. To some degree, I think this theory in both cases (Love and Okafor) is correct. But I also think the consensus narrative that Love's game itself is a thing of the past is in part just that, a narrative. It's a story we tell ourselves to make sense of what we're seeing. And what we're seeing is a pretty good player, playing pretty bad.