Wolves Offseason Point Guard Options

[AussieWolf3]

The Heat still want Randle too, I think you could expand the list a bit. Maybe a Herro to Dallas, Ju to Heat and Kyrie to Wolves deal, something like that. Dallas drafts another PG in draft whos not 34 YO and will be around in 4-5 years when Dallas hopes to be good.

I think Ju's value isn't as bad as we think. There are plenty of middling teams who would like to have him.

What is the fascination with Kyrie? Why do WE want a pg coming off injury, who wears out his welcome everywhere, and will be 35 this year. Didn't we just go through this? We would be using our last assets to gain a depreciating asset and be in the same position in a year or two with even less options. This team needs to find a 4+ year solution at PG this offseason or next. If you move Randle and Divencenzo for a Kyrie, then you create a hole at PF without gaining a long-term answer at pg, while still having a hole of a proven backup C. If the idea is to have Jaden soak up some PF minutes, well then there is a hole as well of a proven backup SF.

I don't see any great answer other than working the margins at PG, and parceling Randle and Divo into 2-3 rotational players. Kyrie, Ja, Suggs, Garland, or Murray are not the answer. They'd all eat up all the money and they all carry too much inherent risk, whether it is age, injuries, inability to shoot or defend.

I think we're too far away from OKC or SA without a big swing and homerun. Thats why. Any middling/minor move likely doesn't move the needle enough to give us any real chance. You get a 90% plus version of Kyrie and now all of a sudden you are a dangerous threat.

Is this really true?
There's a cogent argument to be made that what bit them was a poorly constructed roster, terrible luck with injuries and a loser effort from the "second best player". You could also rightfully argue that putting better supporting pieces around a re-prioritized core is more helpful than just raw talent.
That's what the Thunder have
That's what Spurs have
And that's what the Knicks have.
Complimentary pieces that support their stars strengths and weaknesses.
c
I'm not suggesting nothing be done, but it's very important that the correct problem is accessed and the risk for any solutions are properly considered. There's isn't a path the Wolves can pursue that won't entail any risk, in fact any serious path will have a lot of risk. TC and company will just have to sort out which of those risk are worth absorbing for payoffs that are worth attaining

[Q-is-here]

What is the fascination with Kyrie? Why do WE want a pg coming off injury, who wears out his welcome everywhere, and will be 35 this year. Didn't we just go through this? We would be using our last assets to gain a depreciating asset and be in the same position in a year or two with even less options. This team needs to find a 4+ year solution at PG this offseason or next. If you move Randle and Divencenzo for a Kyrie, then you create a hole at PF without gaining a long-term answer at pg, while still having a hole of a proven backup C. If the idea is to have Jaden soak up some PF minutes, well then there is a hole as well of a proven backup SF.

I don't see any great answer other than working the margins at PG, and parceling Randle and Divo into 2-3 rotational players. Kyrie, Ja, Suggs, Garland, or Murray are not the answer. They'd all eat up all the money and they all carry too much inherent risk, whether it is age, injuries, inability to shoot or defend.

I think we're too far away from OKC or SA without a big swing and homerun. Thats why. Any middling/minor move likely doesn't move the needle enough to give us any real chance. You get a 90% plus version of Kyrie and now all of a sudden you are a dangerous threat.

Is this really true?
There's a cogent argument to be made that what bit them was a poorly constructed roster, terrible luck with injuries and a loser effort from the "second best player". You could also rightfully argue that putting better supporting pieces around a re-prioritized core is more helpful than just raw talent.
That's what the Thunder have
That's what Spurs have
And that's what the Knicks have.
Complimentary pieces that support their stars strengths and weaknesses.
c
I'm not suggesting nothing be done, but it's very important that the correct problem is accessed and the risk for any solutions are properly considered. There's isn't a path the Wolves can pursue that won't entail any risk, in fact any serious path will have a lot of risk. TC and company will just have to sort out which of those risk are worth absorbing for payoffs that are worth attaining

Yeah, like I mentioned in the Kyrie thread, there are very few precedents where a 35-year old is the 1st or 2nd best player on a title team. It just rarely happens, but that would be what we would be expecting from Kyrie if we were to trade for him.

I still think you can go get a Tre Jones or Collin Gillespie as a 3rd guard to Ant and Ayo and it gives you that more cerebral type player. That's more of a nip and a tuck then a complete makeover.

[AussieWolf3]

I think we're too far away from OKC or SA without a big swing and homerun. Thats why. Any middling/minor move likely doesn't move the needle enough to give us any real chance. You get a 90% plus version of Kyrie and now all of a sudden you are a dangerous threat.

Is this really true?
There's a cogent argument to be made that what bit them was a poorly constructed roster, terrible luck with injuries and a loser effort from the "second best player". You could also rightfully argue that putting better supporting pieces around a re-prioritized core is more helpful than just raw talent.
That's what the Thunder have
That's what Spurs have
And that's what the Knicks have.
Complimentary pieces that support their stars strengths and weaknesses.
c
I'm not suggesting nothing be done, but it's very important that the correct problem is accessed and the risk for any solutions are properly considered. There's isn't a path the Wolves can pursue that won't entail any risk, in fact any serious path will have a lot of risk. TC and company will just have to sort out which of those risk are worth absorbing for payoffs that are worth attaining

Yeah, like I mentioned in the Kyrie thread, there are very few precedents where a 35-year old is the 1st or 2nd best player on a title team. It just rarely happens, but that would be what we would be expecting from Kyrie if we were to trade for him.

I still think you can go get a Tre Jones or Collin Gillespie as a 3rd guard to Ant and Ayo and it gives you that more cerebral type player. That's more of a nip and a tuck then a complete makeover.

Would that be in addition to anything else, or is that still the main premise of what you'd consider?

[Q-is-here]

Is this really true?
There's a cogent argument to be made that what bit them was a poorly constructed roster, terrible luck with injuries and a loser effort from the "second best player". You could also rightfully argue that putting better supporting pieces around a re-prioritized core is more helpful than just raw talent.
That's what the Thunder have
That's what Spurs have
And that's what the Knicks have.
Complimentary pieces that support their stars strengths and weaknesses.
c
I'm not suggesting nothing be done, but it's very important that the correct problem is accessed and the risk for any solutions are properly considered. There's isn't a path the Wolves can pursue that won't entail any risk, in fact any serious path will have a lot of risk. TC and company will just have to sort out which of those risk are worth absorbing for payoffs that are worth attaining

Yeah, like I mentioned in the Kyrie thread, there are very few precedents where a 35-year old is the 1st or 2nd best player on a title team. It just rarely happens, but that would be what we would be expecting from Kyrie if we were to trade for him.

I still think you can go get a Tre Jones or Collin Gillespie as a 3rd guard to Ant and Ayo and it gives you that more cerebral type player. That's more of a nip and a tuck then a complete makeover.

Would that be in addition to anything else, or is that still the main premise of what you'd consider?

Ha, that's just the guard rotation! You'd have to trade for Tre since he's under contract (only $8M though), but Gillespie is a free agent.

I'd want to see more beyond that, including upgrading Jaylen Clark with a legit 3&D wing that would allow Jaden more time off the ball defensively. Clark was a real disappointment to me this past season. If you are going to be a limited offensive player, then you have to be absolutely elite defensively and he just wasn't. Above average doesn't cut it defensively if you are just barely over a zero offensively. It's why KiwiMatt's Randle for Wiggins trade made some sense to me. You get above average defense AND a guy that can create and make some shots.

[WildWolf2813]

What is the fascination with Kyrie? Why do WE want a pg coming off injury, who wears out his welcome everywhere, and will be 35 this year. Didn't we just go through this? We would be using our last assets to gain a depreciating asset and be in the same position in a year or two with even less options. This team needs to find a 4+ year solution at PG this offseason or next. If you move Randle and Divencenzo for a Kyrie, then you create a hole at PF without gaining a long-term answer at pg, while still having a hole of a proven backup C. If the idea is to have Jaden soak up some PF minutes, well then there is a hole as well of a proven backup SF.

I don't see any great answer other than working the margins at PG, and parceling Randle and Divo into 2-3 rotational players. Kyrie, Ja, Suggs, Garland, or Murray are not the answer. They'd all eat up all the money and they all carry too much inherent risk, whether it is age, injuries, inability to shoot or defend.

I think we're too far away from OKC or SA without a big swing and homerun. Thats why. Any middling/minor move likely doesn't move the needle enough to give us any real chance. You get a 90% plus version of Kyrie and now all of a sudden you are a dangerous threat.

I dont think that makes the team a dangerous threat. Kyrie makes more than Julius. You're likely going to see a pick going as well and maybe a player like TSJ. You're now struggling more to try to re-sign Ayo and fill out the bench because you're removing our main punch from the bench in Naz. There is no depth in the frontcourt or on the wing.

Divo is a sunk cost 11.5mil.

I think it is insane to blindly trade for a smaller pg who is going to be 35 coming off a major injury that you haven't seen play in a game going on what will be a year.

well this is the issue.

You can either have a halfway decent bench but no potential 2nd star or add potential 2nd star at the expense of any depth you have. Either way you lose, but the reason why you lose either way is because TC either can't find the 2nd star or can't round out a roster with vet min actual contributors to surround his 2 stars.

If it feels like we're asking TC to draft another Jokic, it's because he kinda has to now to salvage this thing.

[Wolvesfan21]

What is the fascination with Kyrie? Why do WE want a pg coming off injury, who wears out his welcome everywhere, and will be 35 this year. Didn't we just go through this? We would be using our last assets to gain a depreciating asset and be in the same position in a year or two with even less options. This team needs to find a 4+ year solution at PG this offseason or next. If you move Randle and Divencenzo for a Kyrie, then you create a hole at PF without gaining a long-term answer at pg, while still having a hole of a proven backup C. If the idea is to have Jaden soak up some PF minutes, well then there is a hole as well of a proven backup SF.

I don't see any great answer other than working the margins at PG, and parceling Randle and Divo into 2-3 rotational players. Kyrie, Ja, Suggs, Garland, or Murray are not the answer. They'd all eat up all the money and they all carry too much inherent risk, whether it is age, injuries, inability to shoot or defend.

I think we're too far away from OKC or SA without a big swing and homerun. Thats why. Any middling/minor move likely doesn't move the needle enough to give us any real chance. You get a 90% plus version of Kyrie and now all of a sudden you are a dangerous threat.

I dont think that makes the team a dangerous threat. Kyrie makes more than Julius. You're likely going to see a pick going as well and maybe a player like TSJ. You're now struggling more to try to re-sign Ayo and fill out the bench because you're removing our main punch from the bench in Naz. There is no depth in the frontcourt or on the wing.

Divo is a sunk cost 11.5mil.

I think it is insane to blindly trade for a smaller pg who is going to be 35 coming off a major injury that you haven't seen play in a game going on what will be a year.

I think we could be a contender if he's 90% plus of what he was a couple years ago. Maybe not super likely, but the odds are higher then say going for the 20th best PG in the league. Get a potentially top 5 PG and now we're talking. It's about fit as well, teams like to double Ant so if you have a legit threat besides him, you're now in deep doodoo if you are doubling Ant, leaving Kyrie who is one of the best PG's in NBA history 4 on 3 to either score or make a play and get a wide open shot for someone.

Ju was not the ideal fit guy nest to Ant, neither was KAT. You need someone who can quickly make the defense pay with smart dynamic play. Both those guys are slower to score, or make plays. The fit makes sense.

[Wolvesfan21]

What is the fascination with Kyrie? Why do WE want a pg coming off injury, who wears out his welcome everywhere, and will be 35 this year. Didn't we just go through this? We would be using our last assets to gain a depreciating asset and be in the same position in a year or two with even less options. This team needs to find a 4+ year solution at PG this offseason or next. If you move Randle and Divencenzo for a Kyrie, then you create a hole at PF without gaining a long-term answer at pg, while still having a hole of a proven backup C. If the idea is to have Jaden soak up some PF minutes, well then there is a hole as well of a proven backup SF.

I don't see any great answer other than working the margins at PG, and parceling Randle and Divo into 2-3 rotational players. Kyrie, Ja, Suggs, Garland, or Murray are not the answer. They'd all eat up all the money and they all carry too much inherent risk, whether it is age, injuries, inability to shoot or defend.

I think we're too far away from OKC or SA without a big swing and homerun. Thats why. Any middling/minor move likely doesn't move the needle enough to give us any real chance. You get a 90% plus version of Kyrie and now all of a sudden you are a dangerous threat.

Is this really true?
There's a cogent argument to be made that what bit them was a poorly constructed roster, terrible luck with injuries and a loser effort from the "second best player". You could also rightfully argue that putting better supporting pieces around a re-prioritized core is more helpful than just raw talent.
That's what the Thunder have
That's what Spurs have
And that's what the Knicks have.
Complimentary pieces that support their stars strengths and weaknesses.
c
I'm not suggesting nothing be done, but it's very important that the correct problem is accessed and the risk for any solutions are properly considered. There's isn't a path the Wolves can pursue that won't entail any risk, in fact any serious path will have a lot of risk. TC and company will just have to sort out which of those risk are worth absorbing for payoffs that are worth attaining

As the roster is constructed I think so. Both Ju and Rudy have enough games against OKC and SA for me to say, I really think it's a bad matchup. They got two things which they usually take advantage of against 95% of teams. Length and physicality. That doesn't work against Chet/Hartenstein Wemby/Kornet.

They matchup and even are BETTER then our strengths, Nullifying what is an advantage against most NBA teams to a disadvantage. It's not only that, they struggle to respond to the challenge as well. When the matchup gets tough, they shrink. I could understand getting beat, but watching them get outworked and bullied themselves is no bueno.

If your argument is to trade both of them, OK. But then it goes back to what players are you getting back.

[TheFuture]

I think we're too far away from OKC or SA without a big swing and homerun. Thats why. Any middling/minor move likely doesn't move the needle enough to give us any real chance. You get a 90% plus version of Kyrie and now all of a sudden you are a dangerous threat.

Is this really true?
There's a cogent argument to be made that what bit them was a poorly constructed roster, terrible luck with injuries and a loser effort from the "second best player". You could also rightfully argue that putting better supporting pieces around a re-prioritized core is more helpful than just raw talent.
That's what the Thunder have
That's what Spurs have
And that's what the Knicks have.
Complimentary pieces that support their stars strengths and weaknesses.
c
I'm not suggesting nothing be done, but it's very important that the correct problem is accessed and the risk for any solutions are properly considered. There's isn't a path the Wolves can pursue that won't entail any risk, in fact any serious path will have a lot of risk. TC and company will just have to sort out which of those risk are worth absorbing for payoffs that are worth attaining

As the roster is constructed I think so. Both Ju and Rudy have enough games against OKC and SA for me to say, I really think it's a bad matchup. They got two things which they usually take advantage of against 95% of teams. Length and physicality. That doesn't work against Chet/Hartenstein Wemby/Kornet.

They matchup and even are BETTER then our strengths, Nullifying what is an advantage against most NBA teams to a disadvantage. It's not only that, they struggle to respond to the challenge as well. When the matchup gets tough, they shrink. I could understand getting beat, but watching them get outworked and bullied themselves is no bueno.

If your argument is to trade both of them, OK. But then it goes back to what players are you getting back.

Well, you pointed out what has been maybe our largest issue the last two years. The Wolves have not had an actual backup C for 2 years. Both OKC and Spurs have a top one. As do the Knicks. So did Dallas when they made the Finals. So did Boston. Bucks did too.

[AussieWolf3]

I think we're too far away from OKC or SA without a big swing and homerun. Thats why. Any middling/minor move likely doesn't move the needle enough to give us any real chance. You get a 90% plus version of Kyrie and now all of a sudden you are a dangerous threat.

Is this really true?
There's a cogent argument to be made that what bit them was a poorly constructed roster, terrible luck with injuries and a loser effort from the "second best player". You could also rightfully argue that putting better supporting pieces around a re-prioritized core is more helpful than just raw talent.
That's what the Thunder have
That's what Spurs have
And that's what the Knicks have.
Complimentary pieces that support their stars strengths and weaknesses.
c
I'm not suggesting nothing be done, but it's very important that the correct problem is accessed and the risk for any solutions are properly considered. There's isn't a path the Wolves can pursue that won't entail any risk, in fact any serious path will have a lot of risk. TC and company will just have to sort out which of those risk are worth absorbing for payoffs that are worth attaining

As the roster is constructed I think so. Both Ju and Rudy have enough games against OKC and SA for me to say, I really think it's a bad matchup. They got two things which they usually take advantage of against 95% of teams. Length and physicality. That doesn't work against Chet/Hartenstein Wemby/Kornet.

They matchup and even are BETTER then our strengths, Nullifying what is an advantage against most NBA teams to a disadvantage. It's not only that, they struggle to respond to the challenge as well. When the matchup gets tough, they shrink. I could understand getting beat, but watching them get outworked and bullied themselves is no bueno.

If your argument is to trade both of them, OK. But then it goes back to what players are you getting back.

Everyone should be operating from the assumption that at least one member of the frontcourt will not be returning.

I am pushing back that a big swing is absolutely necessary to be a championship roster. Things absolutely need to change, but for starters dropping Julius will be addition by subtraction, of that I am convinced.

Regardless you are still left with the question of what is to be done. You've consistently advocated for a big swing being the only real way to get one the top teams levels. Personally I'm open to lots of solutions, but I very strongly believe that simply having better synergy will go a long way.

Everyone keeps saying how you have to get past OCK and the Spurs, and I understand why, but the sole goal should not be to beat those teams. Build a championship roster that is not only talented but properly covers each others weaknesses and boost strengths.
Again, look at the 3 teams remaining. Obviously they're all very talented but they also have a clear identity, the wolves don't.

[AussieWolf3]

I'm honestly blown away at the idea that Kyrie is the big gamble worth taking. Given that you'll have to give up assets to get him and lose cap space on his salary I just don't get it, at this ago and with his injury history I just don't
Even if it pays off you got older instead of taking a different risk on someone like Ja or Zion who if the gamble pays off you could gain a core piece for the foreseeable future.

I think people are overrating what his ceiling would be as well. Say everything works out and you get the best out of him that you can hope for, that's the 25th best player in the league, maybe 20th. That'll help but it's not quite the kerosene some seem to propose.

There's is only one grand slam gamble available this summer and it's Giannis. Given the potential cost, who's to say if that works out either