Minnesota Sports Forum

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

TRKO wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

TRKO wrote:We have three guys the same age with massive potential. I say let's keep them together and add great role players around them. Unless Steph Curry becomes available, I say let's stay the course.

Cousins is the best Center in the NBA, but why try to get 4 star players when you can settle for 3? Lavine and Wiggins aren't stars yet and may not even attain star status for a few more years if at all. They might be the really good role players that need a star to carry them. That's why if you can get a star you do it. We can always flip Cousins for depth if our big 3 does indeed become a big 3, but until they do we should still be trying to add another star to this team and not building a team around 3 guys before we know if they are good enough to get the job done.

How many stars do the warriors have? Curry, maybe Thompson? Top to bottom they are a complete team with great role players. I think we have 3 guys that can be stars. There is only one basketball and Towns, Wiggins, and LaVine all can score. Add a 4th guy that needs the ball in his hands isn't ideal for our team. What we need is grit and defense at the 4, a much better bench, and better shooting out of Ricky.

I honestly think we could go into next year with the same starters and an improved bench and fight for the 8th spot. I also think the payoff of three 20 year olds hitting their prime all at the same time is huge. Stay the course and continue to build the team. It's not the time to panic and trade one of your young building blocks.

I get where you're coming from as far as the Wolves... and tend to agree. At least until the organization has more stability so we can evaluate these young guys properly. The future is bright. Obviously.

As far as GSW... I just want to add a bit to it. Part of the reason they are so good is that they have former starters (and even All Stars), All Defense guys and 6th men of the year as their "role players." More importantly, those guys have been willing to sacrifice individual glory for the good of the team.

That's a sneaky thing about the NBA. You won't find that as often as we might think. And it's even less likely with a young team. There's a section in Bill Simmons' "Book of Basketball" that addresses this concept. Isiah Thomas brought it up and discusses it in depth...

TRKO wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

TRKO wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

TRKO wrote:We have three guys the same age with massive potential. I say let's keep them together and add great role players around them. Unless Steph Curry becomes available, I say let's stay the course.

Cousins is the best Center in the NBA, but why try to get 4 star players when you can settle for 3? Lavine and Wiggins aren't stars yet and may not even attain star status for a few more years if at all. They might be the really good role players that need a star to carry them. That's why if you can get a star you do it. We can always flip Cousins for depth if our big 3 does indeed become a big 3, but until they do we should still be trying to add another star to this team and not building a team around 3 guys before we know if they are good enough to get the job done.

How many stars do the warriors have? Curry, maybe Thompson? Top to bottom they are a complete team with great role players. I think we have 3 guys that can be stars. There is only one basketball and Towns, Wiggins, and LaVine all can score. Add a 4th guy that needs the ball in his hands isn't ideal for our team. What we need is grit and defense at the 4, a much better bench, and better shooting out of Ricky.

I honestly think we could go into next year with the same starters and an improved bench and fight for the 8th spot. I also think the payoff of three 20 year olds hitting their prime all at the same time is huge. Stay the course and continue to build the team. It's not the time to panic and trade one of your young building blocks.

I get where you're coming from as far as the Wolves... and tend to agree. At least until the organization has more stability so we can evaluate these young guys properly. The future is bright. Obviously.

As far as GSW... I just want to add a bit to it. Part of the reason they are so good is that they have former starters (and even All Stars), All Defense guys and 6th men of the year as their "role players." More importantly, those guys have been willing to sacrifice individual glory for the good of the team.

That's a sneaky thing about the NBA. You won't find that as often as we might think. And it's even less likely with a young team. There's a section in Bill Simmons' "Book of Basketball" that addresses this concept. Isiah Thomas brought it up and discusses it in depth...

Yes they were able to get very good players to buy into roles to benefit the team. That's why as a team they are so good. I feel we have three young guys most rebuilding teams would be happy to have as their centerpiece to build around. Let's keep that and enhance it instead of trading one and a big asset (top 5 pick) for a talented malcontent. If it were for Anthony Davis, that's one thing. It's not.

khans2k5 wrote:

TRKO wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

TRKO wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

TRKO wrote:We have three guys the same age with massive potential. I say let's keep them together and add great role players around them. Unless Steph Curry becomes available, I say let's stay the course.

Cousins is the best Center in the NBA, but why try to get 4 star players when you can settle for 3? Lavine and Wiggins aren't stars yet and may not even attain star status for a few more years if at all. They might be the really good role players that need a star to carry them. That's why if you can get a star you do it. We can always flip Cousins for depth if our big 3 does indeed become a big 3, but until they do we should still be trying to add another star to this team and not building a team around 3 guys before we know if they are good enough to get the job done.

How many stars do the warriors have? Curry, maybe Thompson? Top to bottom they are a complete team with great role players. I think we have 3 guys that can be stars. There is only one basketball and Towns, Wiggins, and LaVine all can score. Add a 4th guy that needs the ball in his hands isn't ideal for our team. What we need is grit and defense at the 4, a much better bench, and better shooting out of Ricky.

I honestly think we could go into next year with the same starters and an improved bench and fight for the 8th spot. I also think the payoff of three 20 year olds hitting their prime all at the same time is huge. Stay the course and continue to build the team. It's not the time to panic and trade one of your young building blocks.

I get where you're coming from as far as the Wolves... and tend to agree. At least until the organization has more stability so we can evaluate these young guys properly. The future is bright. Obviously.

As far as GSW... I just want to add a bit to it. Part of the reason they are so good is that they have former starters (and even All Stars), All Defense guys and 6th men of the year as their "role players." More importantly, those guys have been willing to sacrifice individual glory for the good of the team.

That's a sneaky thing about the NBA. You won't find that as often as we might think. And it's even less likely with a young team. There's a section in Bill Simmons' "Book of Basketball" that addresses this concept. Isiah Thomas brought it up and discusses it in depth...

Yes they were able to get very good players to buy into roles to benefit the team. That's why as a team they are so good. I feel we have three young guys most rebuilding teams would be happy to have as their centerpiece to build around. Let's keep that and enhance it instead of trading one and a big asset (top 5 pick) for a talented malcontent. If it were for Anthony Davis, that's one thing. It's not.

Read the thread dude. Nobody here said they'd do Wiggins and the pick. We moved on to just the pick and a guy like Dieng.

Camden0916 wrote:If we're talking a top-two pick plus Dieng, that's pretty fair for Cousins. Hell, I'd argue it's more than what we got for Love.

Camden0916 wrote:If we're talking a top-two pick plus Dieng, that's pretty fair for Cousins. Hell, I'd argue it's more than what we got for Love.

kekgeek1 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:If we're talking a top-two pick plus Dieng, that's pretty fair for Cousins. Hell, I'd argue it's more than what we got for Love.

Eh, think they can get a offer than a top pick, and a possible rental player.

Camden0916 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:If we're talking a top-two pick plus Dieng, that's pretty fair for Cousins. Hell, I'd argue it's more than what we got for Love.

Eh, think they can get a offer than a top pick, and a possible rental player.

Ingram *might* be a better NBA player than Wiggins. Simmons *might* be a better NBA player than Wiggins, and he definitely had the same hype as Wigs throughout the season.

Dieng's also not necessarily a rental. He'd become a RFA after next year. They could match whatever offer sheet or even get something back in a sign and trade if they needed to.

kekgeek1 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:If we're talking a top-two pick plus Dieng, that's pretty fair for Cousins. Hell, I'd argue it's more than what we got for Love.

Eh, think they can get a offer than a top pick, and a possible rental player.

Ingram *might* be a better NBA player than Wiggins. Simmons *might* be a better NBA player than Wiggins, and he definitely had the same hype as Wigs throughout the season.

Dieng's also not necessarily a rental. He'd become a RFA after next year. They could match whatever offer sheet or even get something back in a sign and trade if they needed to.

I am not saying it is the worst offer ever. Just think the Celtics or the Lakers if they keep there pick could offer more than the dieng trade.

Also Simmons and ingram might be nor closer to Wiggins ability (I like both players)