lipoli390 wrote:I agree that Bagley has been a better player than Culver and that, therefore, he has a high market value than Culver. However, Bagley's salarying is $2.4M higher than Culvers. More importantly, There doesn't appear to be any significant interest around the League in acquiring Bagley even though the Kings have been sipping him.
So I think Cam is on to something, although I think the Wolves would have to add some sweetener to the deal. A straight up Culver for Bagley deal would save the Kings $2.4M in salary space. That's something the Kings might value. Nevertheless, I don't see the Kings going for a straight up deal. However, I could see the Kings having some interest in a Culver-Bagley swap if the Wolves threw in Layman and a 2nd-round pick - maybe 2 second round picks.
Lip Bagley is making 11 million this year. My guess that could be part of the reason he hasn't been moved. No team is going to give up a 1st round pick and the Kings probably don't want to give him up for a 2nd. If Markkanen ends up netting the Bulls a 1st round pick for the Bulls in a sign and trade, a nice season for Bagley could bring that easily.
Adding a big should fall into categories:
1. A difference maker that really impacts amount of wins on a season.
Difference makers are really expensive right now and with all the expiring money we are better set up to pursue a difference maker in season when a team is looking to go in a different direction and values cap relief and assets.
2. A short term mentor / trade chip.
One big that would be worth adding IMO is slightly overpaying for P. Millsap on a 1 year deal. It would likely require finding a way to dump Culver, Layman or Hernangomez but worth it. Millsap would be a mentor for the young players and would be a trade chip in season to any contender.
3. An undervalued young player that you want to try and develop.
Time will tell on undervalued or not but V8 fits here if the price is right.
I want big minutes / opportunity to develop to go KAT, McDaniels, Reid, Knight & V8.
L-Mark would likely cost more than 10 mil per year and not sure two 2nds gets it done. He's the type of player you would love on just one end of the floor and thus I would be trying to trade him as soon as he peaked in the system offensively. I guess if that's the price both money / asset acquisition wise then he'd be worth it.
Hartenstein is the most intriguing to me off the list, I think he would have a good shot at out producing that contract.
I didn't vote though because I think the best option remains Vanderbilt and internal player development. I been on a deep dive N. Knight kick and really love that addition. He's stronger than Vanderbilt and has a similar motor to V8 (pun intended). Knight provides MN with the option to let Vanderbilt walk should another team overpay for his services. I'd love to have Vanderbilt back, he's young and raw and has the defense and effort plays that make him my favorite FA big man.
Going back to Knight for a minute, can we offer him another contract? I'd like to get more than just one year out of this guy. We got awesome contracts on Reid and Nowell as rookies, and keeping Knight on the cheap for multiple years would be great.
Back in 2019 the Wolves converted Naz from a 2-way contract to the 4-year deal he's currently under after flashing some pretty advanced skills in summer league. Keep in mind that Naz was a highly heralded prep prospect just a year earlier, but apparently didn't distinguish himself enough at LSU to get drafted.
I think we need to be a bit more circumspect with Nathan Knight. One of the big differences between he and Naz is age. Knight turns 24 in a month. How much upside does he have?
I think it ultimately comes down to whether Rosas either signs or trades for someone considered better in the next month or so. If all we do is re-sign Vanderbilt and make no other moves to get a big body in the door, then it probably makes sense to sign Knight to a minimum longer-term deal.
Good thoughts, Tactical. I like the way you've parsed the different categories of bigs for the Wolves. My thinking pretty much aligns with yours.
1. Difference Maker -- One potential difference maker who is probably available for the right prices is Myles Turner. But I agree with you that the Wolves simply aren't well positioned now to pursue anyone of his caliber right now. We'd have to give up too much in my view to get a player like that. You suggested that it might be more plausible during the season. I'm not sure. I think next off season would probably be the best opportunity when the Wolves will have their 1st round pick, three 2nd-round picks and some financial flexibility.
2. Short Term Mentor/Trade Chip -- I agree that Millsap would be the guy in this category to pursue. I question how much he has left in the tank as he turns 37 this upcoming season. However, he's been a defensive stalwart his entire career and knows how to play. He'd be a great mentor and could potentially contribute meaningful positive minutes on the floor. I can't think of any other possibilities in this category.
3. Undervalued Young Player -- Tony Bradley was the guy in this category I had my eye one before he signed with the Bulls. The best prospects in this category right now are probably already on the Wolves roster - Vanderbilt and Knight. Otherwise, the only player who comes to might at this point is Hartenstein. I'm surprised he's still unsigned. I'd consider signing him in addition to keeping Vanderbilt and Knight. But I wouldn't overpay him. I'd open up a roster spot by keeping Bolmaro in Spain for another year. I'm not including Markkanen in this category. As I see it, he's over-valuing himself, reportedly seeking a deal around $20M per year.
4. Defensive Depth Vet -- This is a 4th category I'd add to your list. The guy I have in mind in this category is WCS. He's a defensive vet still in his prime who we could go to if Vanderbilt or Knight don't work out or get hurt. I'm not sure what the Wolves would have to give up to get him from Dallas, but it shouldn't be much -- maybe Layman.
My first choice would be Millsap, provided we keep both Vanderbilt and Knight. We'd have to clear a roster spot - not signing JMac, not signing Bolmaro or trading a player (Culver, Juancho, Layman) for a non-guaranteed contract or future 2nd round pick. My second choice would be trading for WSC. My third choice would be signing Hartenstein.
Q12543 wrote:Back in 2019 the Wolves converted Naz from a 2-way contract to the 4-year deal he's currently under after flashing some pretty advanced skills in summer league. Keep in mind that Naz was a highly heralded prep prospect just a year earlier, but apparently didn't distinguish himself enough at LSU to get drafted.
I think we need to be a bit more circumspect with Nathan Knight. One of the big differences between he and Naz is age. Knight turns 24 in a month. How much upside does he have?
I think it ultimately comes down to whether Rosas either signs or trades for someone considered better in the next month or so. If all we do is re-sign Vanderbilt and make no other moves to get a big body in the door, then it probably makes sense to sign Knight to a minimum longer-term deal.
Q- That's exactly what I would like to see happen with Knight contract wise. Knight played 4 years in college and at 24 is still pretty young, He hasn't gotten much NBA opportunity so I don't really know how much upside he has. I do know he produced well in college and had a few nice games with ATL last year. He hasn't really shot the three well but he looks comfortable doing it, so he could improve in that area.
Lip - You might be right on the timeline for finding that difference maker.
I want Bolmaro, J-Mac & V8 back as I like all three. Bolmaro in the NBA probably increases his value unless he falls flat on his face. I also want to see what he can do. I think J-Mac had a down year last year and is capable of a lot more. V8 if the price is right is a perfect player to continue to groom, I'd make these three my priority.
WCS for Layman, Culver or Hernangomez and I'll take that. WCS is in his final year of contract but I think he needs a massive shift in mentality, make that man angry! WCS needs to be more of an enforcer, borderline dirty and impactful, so far he's underperformed IMO. I thought he'd be much more T. Chandler or J. McGee like but maybe KAT can get the best out of him as they played together at Kentucky.
Wait you want me to add a 2nd to get WCS? I think I'm out this front office has shown they can find talent late in drafts or after the draft probably not giving up a 2nd for WCS as I think he's very meh.
Tactical unit wrote:Adding a big should fall into categories:
1. A difference maker that really impacts amount of wins on a season.
Difference makers are really expensive right now and with all the expiring money we are better set up to pursue a difference maker in season when a team is looking to go in a different direction and values cap relief and assets.
2. A short term mentor / trade chip.
One big that would be worth adding IMO is slightly overpaying for P. Millsap on a 1 year deal. It would likely require finding a way to dump Culver, Layman or Hernangomez but worth it. Millsap would be a mentor for the young players and would be a trade chip in season to any contender.
3. An undervalued young player that you want to try and develop.
Time will tell on undervalued or not but V8 fits here if the price is right.
I want big minutes / opportunity to develop to go KAT, McDaniels, Reid, Knight & V8.
L-Mark would likely cost more than 10 mil per year and not sure two 2nds gets it done. He's the type of player you would love on just one end of the floor and thus I would be trying to trade him as soon as he peaked in the system offensively. I guess if that's the price both money / asset acquisition wise then he'd be worth it.
Hartenstein is the most intriguing to me off the list, I think he would have a good shot at out producing that contract.
I didn't vote though because I think the best option remains Vanderbilt and internal player development. I been on a deep dive N. Knight kick and really love that addition. He's stronger than Vanderbilt and has a similar motor to V8 (pun intended). Knight provides MN with the option to let Vanderbilt walk should another team overpay for his services. I'd love to have Vanderbilt back, he's young and raw and has the defense and effort plays that make him my favorite FA big man.
Going back to Knight for a minute, can we offer him another contract? I'd like to get more than just one year out of this guy. We got awesome contracts on Reid and Nowell as rookies, and keeping Knight on the cheap for multiple years would be great.
Thon Maker is available and he meets half of the criteria in point #1. Saw him play in garbage time for Detroit last night. I sent a video of him shooting FTs to my friend that is a Bucks fan. #buckslegend
We basically need a replica of Ed Davis that isn't a complete anchor offensively. That was his problem. Otherwise, he played a refreshing brand of disciplined interior defense that was vastly more effective than anything Naz or KAT had to offer.
Whoever that guy is - Dwight Powell? WCS? Hartenstein? Knight? - I don't know. But Ed Davis was the right archetype...just too damn limited offensively.
Q12543 wrote:Back in 2019 the Wolves converted Naz from a 2-way contract to the 4-year deal he's currently under after flashing some pretty advanced skills in summer league. Keep in mind that Naz was a highly heralded prep prospect just a year earlier, but apparently didn't distinguish himself enough at LSU to get drafted.
I think we need to be a bit more circumspect with Nathan Knight. One of the big differences between he and Naz is age. Knight turns 24 in a month. How much upside does he have?
I think it ultimately comes down to whether Rosas either signs or trades for someone considered better in the next month or so. If all we do is re-sign Vanderbilt and make no other moves to get a big body in the door, then it probably makes sense to sign Knight to a minimum longer-term deal.
