Trade market and trade hype thread

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

For the record, I've long said that the best move to make right now involving our young trio is to not make one. For discussion purposes, however, I've thrown out plenty of ideas -- all of them including All-Stars or players that are without much doubt going to be All-Stars. I don't see much wrong with that.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

For the record, I've long said that the best move to make right now involving our young trio is to not make one. For discussion purposes, however, I've thrown out plenty of ideas -- all of them including All-Stars or players that are without much doubt going to be All-Stars. I don't see much wrong with that.

23.4/3.5/3.7 Age 25 #2 option -CJ

20.1/3.4/3.0 Age 21 #3 option -Lavine

21.6/4.3/2.3 Age 21 #2 option -Wiggins

I just don't see a big enough gap between McCollum and Lavine and Wiggins to even remotely consider any deal given the age difference.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

For the record, I've long said that the best move to make right now involving our young trio is to not make one. For discussion purposes, however, I've thrown out plenty of ideas -- all of them including All-Stars or players that are without much doubt going to be All-Stars. I don't see much wrong with that.

23.4/3.5/3.7 Age 25 #2 option -CJ

20.1/3.4/3.0 Age 21 #3 option -Lavine

21.6/4.3/2.3 Age 21 #2 option -Wiggins

I just don't see a big enough gap between McCollum and Lavine and Wiggins to even remotely consider any deal given the age difference.

Include efficiency and I'm sure you can see the intrigue.

AW: .525 TS%, 27.6 USG%

CJM: .589 TS%, 28.2 USG%

[bleedspeed]

Include efficiency and I'm sure you can see the intrigue.

AW: .525 TS%, 27.6 USG%

CJM: .589 TS%, 28.2 USG%

Sadly we should compare CJ numbers when he was 21, but he was not even in the league yet. The other black mark on CJ is he is 25 and only proven to be healthy 1 year in the NBA and had issues in college. He might be a ticking time bomb on the health side.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Include efficiency and I'm sure you can see the intrigue.

AW: .525 TS%, 27.6 USG%

CJM: .589 TS%, 28.2 USG%

Sadly we should compare CJ numbers when he was 21, but he was not even in the league yet. The other black mark on CJ is he is 25 and only proven to be healthy 1 year in the NBA and had issues in college. He might be a ticking time bomb on the health side.

We wouldn't be trading for 21-year old McCollum. We'd be trading for the 25-year old who's already one the very elite shooters -- and consequently one of the best young scorers -- in the NBA.

It isn't a discussion about who was better at what age. It's a "would you deal this guy for this guy right now" conversation. I'm okay with saying it's worth consideration regardless of how unlikely it is.

{Steph Curry and Kyrie Irving once had injury issues too. It's okay to be wary, but you shouldn't dismiss a deal altogether because of them.}

[AbeVigodaLive]

Boy, the talk of trading one of our big 3 for good starter/non-all-star level players is a little baffling. The patience is clearly thin on this board. We have the youngest trio ever to score 20 points each per game and people want to break it up for a few more wins today. It's going to be a legit big 3. You just have to let it mature. I've said it before and I'll say it again. 21 year olds don't run this league. Just wait until they're 23-24-25. They're going to be a great trio. In 2-3-4 years our guys are just going to be better than the other names brought up here.

Just so we're clear about my statements...

I'm in no way suggesting Crowder > Wiggins for the Wolves. It was within the context of Boston trying to win now and what each guy can offer a 50+ win team RIGHT NOW.

And it was couched with Boston also giving the Wolves Brooklyn's top 4 pick as part of the package.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Include efficiency and I'm sure you can see the intrigue.

AW: .525 TS%, 27.6 USG%

CJM: .589 TS%, 28.2 USG%

Sadly we should compare CJ numbers when he was 21, but he was not even in the league yet. The other black mark on CJ is he is 25 and only proven to be healthy 1 year in the NBA and had issues in college. He might be a ticking time bomb on the health side.

I think we're ready for a detailed discussion about real-life age vs. NBA age (experience).

It's becoming a central and defining discussion point about the Timberwolves... arguably more than any other NBA team.

Which is more important? 200 NBA games? Or, being 21 vs. 23 or 24? There's a lot of avenues that discussion could take... and I'm sure there are examples/stats/anecdotes that could make it interesting.

[bleedspeed]

Abe - I think the thing with LaVine is he is improving year over year at a good clip and likely will peak at a higher level then CJ. LaVine is also on the same trajectory as Towns which is huge.

Wiggins has not improved like Zach. That is more of a concern. In ways he has taken a step back this year vs last year. Some of that might be playing more SF.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

For all the people that want Wiggins at SG, let me ask you this: what changes?

Does his handle get tighter? Does his shot get better? Does his court vision get better? Does his shot selection improve? Does his motor run hotter for longer? Does he make more of an effort to rebound? Does his team defense get a lot better?

Changing his spot in the lineup won't really change any of that. Only Wiggins can make those improvements and they're arguably the areas where he's weakest. Should he improve in those areas, however, his specific placement in the lineup won't matter because he'll be a monster. I think that discussion is already played out (whether Wiggins should be a SG or SF).

[Coolbreeze44]

For all the people that want Wiggins at SG, let me ask you this: what changes?

Does his handle get tighter? Does his shot get better? Does his court vision get better? Does his shot selection improve? Does his motor run hotter for longer? Does he make more of an effort to rebound? Does his team defense get a lot better?

Changing his spot in the lineup won't really change any of that. Only Wiggins can make those improvements and they're arguably the areas where he's weakest. Should he improve in those areas, however, his specific placement in the lineup won't matter because he'll be a monster. I think that discussion is already played out (whether Wiggins should be a SG or SF).

What changes is you can play a bigger, stronger player at the 3.