Minnesota Sports Forum

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 12:51 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:51 am

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:50 am

I disagree, I'd say it's a 75% shot Kyrie if traded here not only plays great but stays healthy and plays most of the games. Every player has risk, sure these mid 30's players are probably higher, but it's not that big a difference in reality.

There is a higher reward potential then risk.

For one season

He can sign an extension if he agrees to be traded here. It's the same with Giannis. You're not trading for a guy for a one year rental and giving up assets like draft picks.

Realistically, you're getting one good year is what I'm saying. And if that one good year doesn't end in a championship you're still left with what will be degrading results on the roster due to the opportunity cost of bringing in a 40 million aging vet and then extending him at likely a similar amount.

In a vacuum, Kyrie is a perfect matchup, but it really strains credulity to suggest it's that it is the best move globally

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:50 pm

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 12:51 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:51 am

For one season

He can sign an extension if he agrees to be traded here. It's the same with Giannis. You're not trading for a guy for a one year rental and giving up assets like draft picks.

Realistically, you're getting one good year is what I'm saying. And if that one good year doesn't end in a championship you're still left with what will be degrading results on the roster due to the opportunity cost of bringing in a 40 million aging vet and then extending him at likely a similar amount.

In a vacuum, Kyrie is a perfect matchup, but it really strains credulity to suggest it's that it is the best move globally

You can’t use logic to argue with a gambler.

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:50 am

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:46 am

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 7:37 am

One of those he sat out a bunch too because of not getting a covid shot, couldn't play home games. I'd look at the last two healthy seasons and say, OK 54 games. I'd be fine with that if he can be there for the playoffs. Give me 54 games, but a top 5 PG play for the playoffs and I'm all in. Versus the mid-low tier PG play we might get in a safe trade.

I think where I and some fans differ is some want to play it safe. Safe isn't winning a championship IMO. We need to go for it all. I have zero interest in playing it safe at this point. Remembering too, DDV even if he's coming back won't help much being at say 50% of his former self of course coming back off the achilles (he needs really 18 months). We should trade him, sad to see him go, but winning takes sacrifices.

You continue to mistake pragmatic for "playing it safe"

To be honest I would just like to see the PBO be a little more clever than bombing a hail Mary for 34 year old who hasn't helped a team win a title in over a decade.

I'm also so sick of watching a poorly functioning roster limit the upside of the teams best and most important players - which, I suspect, is exactly the "questions" Ant is asking TC regarding the roster. Let's see what Ant, Jaden and Naz can do when you compliment them with a roster that accentuates their strengths rather than asking them to make sacrifices to accommodate lesser players.

The real lesson from KAT playing so well on this Knicks finals run is seeing what happens when an extremely unique and talented player is given the tools to do what he does best. Karl isn't different than he was here two years ago, but he's flourishing because the roster and role is so complimentary of his skills.

Give that to our core and see what happens, make adjustments as needed. It's not "safe" it's the best way to retool the teams championship window

I disagree, I'd say it's a 75% shot Kyrie if traded here not only plays great but stays healthy and plays most of the games. Every player has risk, sure these mid 30's players are probably higher, but it's not that big a difference in reality.

There is a higher reward potential then risk.

Kyrie isn’t just any player in his mid 30s. He’s a player coming off ACL surgery last. He’s also a player who averaged less than 50 games per season in the 8 seasons before missing all of last season with his torn ACL. If your bar is “playing most games” that would mean 41 games. Talk about a low bar. History tells us that trading for “stars” in their mid 30s almost never works out for the acquiring team. So the odds of success start really low but get even lower when you factor in Kyrie’s recent ACL surgery last and more so his long, well-established record of missing almost half his respective teams’ games even when he was in his 20s.

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:50 pm

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 12:51 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:51 am

For one season

He can sign an extension if he agrees to be traded here. It's the same with Giannis. You're not trading for a guy for a one year rental and giving up assets like draft picks.

Realistically, you're getting one good year is what I'm saying. And if that one good year doesn't end in a championship you're still left with what will be degrading results on the roster due to the opportunity cost of bringing in a 40 million aging vet and then extending him at likely a similar amount.

In a vacuum, Kyrie is a perfect matchup, but it really strains credulity to suggest it's that it is the best move globally

Realistically, you’re getting roughly 50 good regular season games. And the Kyrie you’re getting will likely be at a level below the Kyrie of his prime because of both his age and his ACL surgery. Just reinforcing your point, Aussie, that it strains credulity to suggest that acquiring Kyrie is the best move globally. If I were TC, Kyrie would not be on my list. The only star I’d have on my list is Giannis and I’d certainly kick the tires on possible deals to get him. But I also wouldn’t get obsessed with acquiring him. I’d be focused like a laser on other trade targets likes Jrue Holiday, Jalen Suggs, Derrick White and Davion Mitchell - along with some others on Q’s PG list.

Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:42 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:50 pm

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 12:51 pm

He can sign an extension if he agrees to be traded here. It's the same with Giannis. You're not trading for a guy for a one year rental and giving up assets like draft picks.

Realistically, you're getting one good year is what I'm saying. And if that one good year doesn't end in a championship you're still left with what will be degrading results on the roster due to the opportunity cost of bringing in a 40 million aging vet and then extending him at likely a similar amount.

In a vacuum, Kyrie is a perfect matchup, but it really strains credulity to suggest it's that it is the best move globally

Realistically, you’re getting roughly 50 good regular season games. And the Kyrie you’re getting will likely be at a level below the Kyrie of his prime because of both his age and his ACL surgery. Just reinforcing your point, Aussie, that it strains credulity to suggest that acquiring Kyrie is the best move globally. If I were TC, Kyrie would not be on my list. The only star I’d have on my list is Giannis and I’d certainly kick the tires on possible deals to get him. But I also wouldn’t get obsessed with acquiring him. I’d be focused like a laser on other trade targets likes Jrue Holiday, Jalen Suggs, Derrick White and Davion Mitchell - along with some others on Q’s PG list.

Several of the media podcasters I've been listening to are opining for Kyrie as well, saying he's a perfect fit. Basically everyone but this board is all in on him, which is strange. Some say he's too expensive, that we can't even get him. But IDK about that. There is risk there, but there is also a very likely scenario he is exactly what we are missing. An elite ball handler and scorer to take the doubles off of Ant.

I would say as a whole, the avg fan has Kyrie one, Kawhi two, Zion probably 3 and GIannis 4 simply because we have to probably gut our roster to get him.

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:59 pm

Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:42 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:50 pm

Realistically, you're getting one good year is what I'm saying. And if that one good year doesn't end in a championship you're still left with what will be degrading results on the roster due to the opportunity cost of bringing in a 40 million aging vet and then extending him at likely a similar amount.

In a vacuum, Kyrie is a perfect matchup, but it really strains credulity to suggest it's that it is the best move globally

Realistically, you’re getting roughly 50 good regular season games. And the Kyrie you’re getting will likely be at a level below the Kyrie of his prime because of both his age and his ACL surgery. Just reinforcing your point, Aussie, that it strains credulity to suggest that acquiring Kyrie is the best move globally. If I were TC, Kyrie would not be on my list. The only star I’d have on my list is Giannis and I’d certainly kick the tires on possible deals to get him. But I also wouldn’t get obsessed with acquiring him. I’d be focused like a laser on other trade targets likes Jrue Holiday, Jalen Suggs, Derrick White and Davion Mitchell - along with some others on Q’s PG list.

Several of the media podcasters I've been listening to are opining for Kyrie as well, saying he's a perfect fit. Basically everyone but this board is all in on him, which is strange. Some say he's too expensive, that we can't even get him. But IDK about that. There is risk there, but there is also a very likely scenario he is exactly what we are missing. An elite ball handler and scorer to take the doubles off of Ant.

I would say as a whole, the avg fan has Kyrie one, Kawhi two, Zion probably 3 and GIannis 4 simply because we have to probably gut our roster to get him.

I think it's unfair to say this board is not opining for Kyrie. You are just hearing a few squeaky wheels!

If TC does manage to get Kyrie, it will be pretty popular with most of the board, any most of those squeaky wheels will get on board after a few days...

Lipoli390 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:35 pm

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:50 am

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:46 am
You continue to mistake pragmatic for "playing it safe"

To be honest I would just like to see the PBO be a little more clever than bombing a hail Mary for 34 year old who hasn't helped a team win a title in over a decade.

I'm also so sick of watching a poorly functioning roster limit the upside of the teams best and most important players - which, I suspect, is exactly the "questions" Ant is asking TC regarding the roster. Let's see what Ant, Jaden and Naz can do when you compliment them with a roster that accentuates their strengths rather than asking them to make sacrifices to accommodate lesser players.

The real lesson from KAT playing so well on this Knicks finals run is seeing what happens when an extremely unique and talented player is given the tools to do what he does best. Karl isn't different than he was here two years ago, but he's flourishing because the roster and role is so complimentary of his skills.

Give that to our core and see what happens, make adjustments as needed. It's not "safe" it's the best way to retool the teams championship window

I disagree, I'd say it's a 75% shot Kyrie if traded here not only plays great but stays healthy and plays most of the games. Every player has risk, sure these mid 30's players are probably higher, but it's not that big a difference in reality.

There is a higher reward potential then risk.

Kyrie isn’t just any player in his mid 30s. He’s a player coming off ACL surgery last. He’s also a player who averaged less than 50 games per season in the 8 seasons before missing all of last season with his torn ACL. If your bar is “playing most games” that would mean 41 games. Talk about a low bar. History tells us that trading for “stars” in their mid 30s almost never works out for the acquiring team. So the odds of success start really low but get even lower when you factor in Kyrie’s recent ACL surgery last and more so his long, well-established record of missing almost half his respective teams’ games even when he was in his 20s.

The Knicks are having success because they are playing great basketball right now but like Finch pointed out a few days ago in the Atlanta series people were saying the Bridges trade was a disaster. The thing is that when Brunson Bridges OG and Towns are all playing reasonably well that's 4 damn good players plus Josh Hart that does all kinds of shit. Meanwhile Robinson is a nice backup for Towns and Shamet is shooting out of his mind. Do those players component Towns or are they just really good and it's working because of the talent level. Idk if those guys specifically compliment him or the other way around. They are just good players and are playing like it unlike at times last playoffs those guys at time were not playing well. The difference between last year and this year for those 2 guys in terms of efficiency is pretty massive. Imagine if they had Josh Hart blow out his Achilles in round 1 do they cruise through the playoffs like they had after stumbling in the Atlanta series before getting on track? The past 3 years when the Wolves lost to the team that reached the finals it seemed like they were at least one player short. That was actually the same thing for the Knicks last season but it was also lack of depth and how some of the other guys didn't play as well. They changed coaching and 3 of the players from their roster have played much better this playoffs in OG Bridges and Shamet. This year the Wolves may have been a player short but they were missing Donte and at least 2 players were playing through injuries that were hampering them. Going into the playoffs I don't think many of us thought they were gonna get to the finals this year and that was before Donte got hurt and Edwards injuring the other knee.

I'm not really excited about adding Kyrie but I understand the case for it. I'd be sorta cool with it if the price is right not I'm not sure what price that is for Dallas. Personally I would like to see the roster reconfigured with a chance taken on a younger player not one older than Randle or even Rudy.

I think what everyone here agrees on is the roster needs to be reconfigured or something reasonably significant added to it especially with Donte out for most of next season and even when he returns who knows what he will reasonably give the team. So the fact that Edwards is masking this question (it's Connelly's job to be doing it) doesn't seem like much of any news toe. The draft isn't too far away so that's the first chance to see what might be done.

Wolvesfan21 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 7:41 am

Phenom wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 10:53 pm

AussieWolf3 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2026 4:47 pm

Yup!

This type of 'story' is as old as basketball. Once a star player is in their second contract its in the media bylaws to start putting these ideas out there. It happens to all of them. I guess it's good that Ant is worth their time.

I would think it's unlikley though Ant plays his entire career here. Thats just a very rare thing for NBA players these days. So I would look at it as when you have him, go for it. Planning for 3 years from now doesn't do jack, he could be gone and that is realistic to consider.

Its unlikely any player does. That is part of the calculus for putting those stories out there. Hell, Tim Duncan almost went to the Magic back in the day for free agency.

I'm still skeptical of a Kyrie trade because I don't see what's in it for Dallas.

WildWolf2813 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 8:53 pm I'm still skeptical of a Kyrie trade because I don't see what's in it for Dallas.

If they are realistic and don't consider themselves ready to contend with OKC/SA which it seems to be obviously true (Flagg looks nice but needs time and their roster is meh). Why keep the aging star vet. Say they are 3-5 years away, get some assets now to help build for that timeframe. That aging star vet has more value to us, then to them.