Going forward
- Camden [enjin:6601484]
- Posts: 18065
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Going forward
Clarification:
- Only players who have fewer than four years of experience in the NBA can sign a two-way contract
- Players are limited to two years on a two-way contract with the same team
That "with the same team" part is what I was missing. That's why Minnesota had to give Jordan McLaughlin an NBA deal last year or lose him to another team. In any event, I would expect Nathan Knight to be back for the Timberwolves either on an NBA deal similar to McLaughlin's -- heavy on team options and non-guaranteed money -- or on his final two-way contract.
- Only players who have fewer than four years of experience in the NBA can sign a two-way contract
- Players are limited to two years on a two-way contract with the same team
That "with the same team" part is what I was missing. That's why Minnesota had to give Jordan McLaughlin an NBA deal last year or lose him to another team. In any event, I would expect Nathan Knight to be back for the Timberwolves either on an NBA deal similar to McLaughlin's -- heavy on team options and non-guaranteed money -- or on his final two-way contract.
- Coolbreeze44
- Posts: 13192
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Going forward
We just made the biggest trade in the history of the franchise and we are devoting pages to Nathan Knight.
Re: Going forward
Camden wrote:Clarification:
- Only players who have fewer than four years of experience in the NBA can sign a two-way contract
- Players are limited to two years on a two-way contract with the same team
That "with the same team" part is what I was missing. That's why Minnesota had to give Jordan McLaughlin an NBA deal last year or lose him to another team. In any event, I would expect Nathan Knight to be back for the Timberwolves either on an NBA deal similar to McLaughlin's -- heavy on team options and non-guaranteed money -- or on his final two-way contract.
The 2-way rules about qualifying offers and service time etc make figuring things out a little confusing. I think what you might be referring to about the 2-way players not being able to play for 3 years with the same team is I think you can only sign a 2 way player for a 2 year deal but they can play for the same team 3 years. The Wolves could have kept McLaughlin on a 2 way deal but I think they knew what they had and knew he had really probably earned an actual NBA deal the previous season. Also they likely knew they had an opportunity to add another worthwhile player via a 2 way deal and that become Knight.
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q82
"Teams are allowed to have up to two players on Two-Way contracts at any time, and teams receive additional roster spots beyond the standard 15 in order to do so (see question number 79). A Two-Way player can be signed starting on July 1 (during the July Moratorium), and can be signed through January 15. A player is ineligible to sign a Two-Way contract if he will have more than three years of NBA service at any point in the contract. A player cannot play under Two-Way contracts for the same team for more than three years total1."
- Camden [enjin:6601484]
- Posts: 18065
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Going forward
Dennis Schroder would be fine on a one-year deal as an insurance policy at point guard. I definitely don't want Schroder in the rotation, but in the event the Timberwolves had an injury or needed a spark he would be plenty.
Also, it's crazy to think about how he turned down four-years, $84-million just a couple seasons ago. Total miscalculation of what his market could be. Awful representation and guidance from his agency. That's too bad.
Also, it's crazy to think about how he turned down four-years, $84-million just a couple seasons ago. Total miscalculation of what his market could be. Awful representation and guidance from his agency. That's too bad.
Re: Going forward
Camden wrote:Dennis Schroder would be fine on a one-year deal as an insurance policy at point guard. I definitely don't want Schroder in the rotation, but in the event the Timberwolves had an injury or needed a spark he would be plenty.
Also, it's crazy to think about how he turned down four-years, $84-million just a couple seasons ago. Total miscalculation of what his market could be. Awful representation and guidance from his agency. That's too bad.
I wouldn't mind him in the rotation (still think he can play) but unless proved otherwise not over McLaughlin. Ironically I was thinking he would make some sense returning back to the Lakers.
Re: Going forward
CoolBreeze44 wrote:We just made the biggest trade in the history of the franchise and we are devoting pages to Nathan Knight.
I'm sure you have noticed, but the circle-jerk here gets smaller every year.
- JasonIsDaMan [enjin:7981157]
- Posts: 1270
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Going forward
monsterpile wrote:I wouldn't have done the deal for Gobert but I'm ready to move on and see what we can do to go on the path Connelly has chosen.
The Wolves traded 5 players and brought back one. That opens up 4 roster spots. I know the Wolves gave up a lot but those roster spots could have value both for this season or in the future if the Wolves add some guys with youth/potential.
Needs:
PG depth seems like it could be bolstered. Here are guys that could provide some sort of minutes at that position.
Russell
McLaughlin
Edwards
Nowell
Moore
Anderson
Basically the Wolves have 5 guards right now. They went from having a bunch of them to 5 plus a couple guys like Anderson or McDaniels who can offer something on one end or the other in that respect. The Wolves could probably use another guy that can handle the ball and another shooter wouldn't hurt.
PF the Wolves are back to having 1 guy that's a PG in Anderson and he isn't a total classic PF either. With Gobert playing Prince or McDaniels is more ok but getting another guy that is more of a PF would be good. Bjelica for the vet min could be fun. Juancho/Bo Cruz is available! The kinda funny thing is that for the vet min he might be be worthwhile.
What guys available for the vet min or I guess the biannual exception would you be interested in getting? Are there some young guys you would like to take a flyer on? Maybe there is a young player we may not have signed otherwise that we can get now. I see the open roster spots as a possible opportunity to add a worthwhile player to the roster either now or as they develop.
I couldn't find evidence of Anderson or Moore having ANY PG minutes. McLaughlin is unproductive. And Edwards has stated he doesn't want to play Point and actually had more PF minutes last year than Point minutes. Again, if "Typing it into a message board and it is made so" was a thing, I would have done it long ago.
- JasonIsDaMan [enjin:7981157]
- Posts: 1270
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Going forward
Q-was-here wrote:Potential 10-man rotation:
5 - Gobert/KAT/Reid
4 - KAT/Anderson/McDaniels
3 - McDaniels/Prince/Ant
2 - Ant/Nowell
1 - DLO/McLaughlin
Gotta love those 10-man rotations that are 12 players big. Only on Enjin.
Re: Going forward
JasonIsDaMan wrote:Q-was-here wrote:Potential 10-man rotation:
5 - Gobert/KAT/Reid
4 - KAT/Anderson/McDaniels
3 - McDaniels/Prince/Ant
2 - Ant/Nowell
1 - DLO/McLaughlin
Gotta love those 10-man rotations that are 12 players big. Only on Enjin.
I only see 10 players
- Camden [enjin:6601484]
- Posts: 18065
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Going forward
JasonIsDaMan wrote:Q-was-here wrote:Potential 10-man rotation:
5 - Gobert/KAT/Reid
4 - KAT/Anderson/McDaniels
3 - McDaniels/Prince/Ant
2 - Ant/Nowell
1 - DLO/McLaughlin
Gotta love those 10-man rotations that are 12 players big. Only on Enjin.
Only 10 players listed there with some listed at multiple positions. Gotta love when Jason looks stupid.