Minnesota Sports Forum

kurrdog53 wrote:I still say, going back to my original thought, that if we land one of these picks and IF we trade, it should be for an established player (Favors, Crowder, someone) PLUS a top 10 draft pick and more, if we can get a team to give up another bench player.

I hate to give up on a potential star, but we have 3 and do not want to see anyone get upset and leave or have their progress hindered. Currently, we have a chemistry and/or nucleus that is strong going forward. The front office needs to have a good summer this year and next to determine the path of this franchise.

Question:
Have we ever seen a team with 4+ all-star caliber players work? We have seen Big 3's (Miami, Cleveland, Clippers). Outside of San Antonio (Aldridge, Leonard and aging vets like Duncan, Parker and Ginobili), I am really leery. Is too much talent a curse. We might be damned if we do, damned if we don't.

All depends if the players buy in or not.

It's great if they all pan out, but it's unlikely all of them will to the most optimistic expectations. Likewise, it might be unprecedented for 4 young guys to compromise their star status/game/even money at this age for the good of the team. That's the stuff that veterans who have $100+M in the bank are more likely to do.

By the way, there needs to be good fortune along the way, too. For example, Curry is making only $11M right now. When the best player doesn't have to be the highest paid for multiple seasons... the team can do wonderful things.

"We need a legit seven foot, 260-pound center." --Sam Mitchell on radio with @1500ESPN_Reusse (great to hear that clearly acknowledged) https://twitter.com/PDWolves/status/717848075193159680

Derrick Favors would work just fine, thanks. Need some lottery luck.

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

Camden wrote:Quality over quantity is the motto, or should be the motto. Think the chance of drafting Ingram or Simmons, or moving Simmons for Favors, would be much more ideal than getting a role player (Crowder, Faried) and a lesser first rounder.

I know some of you are very high on Crowder, but once again I have to tell you to proceed with caution. This guy's having a breakout year for him and he's still not anything that special. I get the fact he has a reasonable contract, but he's not THAT much of a difference-maker, IMO. He's a guy that can help a winning team, sure, but not one of the integral pieces of said winning team. Also, he's still a below average 3P shooter despite the uptick in attempts and makes this year. And with Brad Stevens as his coach, you have to wonder if Crowder's really just the product of some elite coaching and if he'll be as affective for a different staff. That is a legitimate concern.

I think it'd be a huge mistake to move any top-five pick for Crowder for these reasons.

I don't know Cam. I get the hesitation to a point, but Crowder has IMO been the most important piece to a team seeded 4th in the East (and a team that will most likely win 47-48 games). Will he be a star? Nope. But he doesn't have to be a star to have MASSIVE impact to our teams success....ask Boston fans. And I don't buy the product of good coaching thing in this case. His style is lunch-pail, and he doesn't strike me as someone who will regress. Will he get a lot better, probably not, but he certainly shouldn't get worse. And that contract IS extremely valuable as you look at our surrounding roster. He is signed through 2019/2020 season at about $7M per season. If we are talking about guys like Harrison Barnes getting max or near max this offseason....that makes Crowder an automatic max guy as well. Again, that has EXTREME value as you talk about roster flexibility....especially since we need another 3-4 guys to play minutes on that second line.

That being said, not sure I make trade for him if we are 1 or 2, but anything else, he is in play IMO.

If you get Crowder what's your closing lineup? Role and money are the two most likely things to break up our big 3 so if you get Crowder does that push Zach or Wiggins to the bench to close games? Do you go small and play Crowder at the 4 and give up the boards to teams like SA and Memphis? Crowder isn't a perfect fit here. The perfect fit is a long-term starter at the 4/5 which Favors would be. If you get Crowder and small ball can't close out games you've just created a reason for a guy like Zach or Wiggins to want out because they aren't on the court to close out games. I think we either need to go big with a real starting 4/5 (i.e. Favors or Horford) or keep the pick and pick up role players who can help our second unit, but more importantly accept the role of sitting on the bench at the end of the game when a W or L is on the line.

Look, I hear ya. But based on where we are today, I am not worrying about "who is closing games". Neither Lavine or Wiggins are even stars, let alone superstars that many on this board have already handed them for the future. If I was to plan next season, Crowder would be on the floor. Not sure what position he would be at, or who would accompany him to the floor....but he is on the floor. Look, I love our potential. But I have seen a lot of unrealized potential in the NBA over a long period of time, and am not ready to hand over our future blindly. And the fact is...Crowder is brought to a team like the Wolves not to supplant the stars, but to be a sidekick. And if Lavine and Wiggins don't see the floor in key points of the game, I would say that is more a statement of them not reaching the level that many on this board expect. If they are stars, I am more than happy to have Crowder (or another solid role player) sitting on the bench during crunch time.

Hicks123 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

Camden wrote:Quality over quantity is the motto, or should be the motto. Think the chance of drafting Ingram or Simmons, or moving Simmons for Favors, would be much more ideal than getting a role player (Crowder, Faried) and a lesser first rounder.

I know some of you are very high on Crowder, but once again I have to tell you to proceed with caution. This guy's having a breakout year for him and he's still not anything that special. I get the fact he has a reasonable contract, but he's not THAT much of a difference-maker, IMO. He's a guy that can help a winning team, sure, but not one of the integral pieces of said winning team. Also, he's still a below average 3P shooter despite the uptick in attempts and makes this year. And with Brad Stevens as his coach, you have to wonder if Crowder's really just the product of some elite coaching and if he'll be as affective for a different staff. That is a legitimate concern.

I think it'd be a huge mistake to move any top-five pick for Crowder for these reasons.

I don't know Cam. I get the hesitation to a point, but Crowder has IMO been the most important piece to a team seeded 4th in the East (and a team that will most likely win 47-48 games). Will he be a star? Nope. But he doesn't have to be a star to have MASSIVE impact to our teams success....ask Boston fans. And I don't buy the product of good coaching thing in this case. His style is lunch-pail, and he doesn't strike me as someone who will regress. Will he get a lot better, probably not, but he certainly shouldn't get worse. And that contract IS extremely valuable as you look at our surrounding roster. He is signed through 2019/2020 season at about $7M per season. If we are talking about guys like Harrison Barnes getting max or near max this offseason....that makes Crowder an automatic max guy as well. Again, that has EXTREME value as you talk about roster flexibility....especially since we need another 3-4 guys to play minutes on that second line.

That being said, not sure I make trade for him if we are 1 or 2, but anything else, he is in play IMO.

If you get Crowder what's your closing lineup? Role and money are the two most likely things to break up our big 3 so if you get Crowder does that push Zach or Wiggins to the bench to close games? Do you go small and play Crowder at the 4 and give up the boards to teams like SA and Memphis? Crowder isn't a perfect fit here. The perfect fit is a long-term starter at the 4/5 which Favors would be. If you get Crowder and small ball can't close out games you've just created a reason for a guy like Zach or Wiggins to want out because they aren't on the court to close out games. I think we either need to go big with a real starting 4/5 (i.e. Favors or Horford) or keep the pick and pick up role players who can help our second unit, but more importantly accept the role of sitting on the bench at the end of the game when a W or L is on the line.

Look, I hear ya. But based on where we are today, I am not worrying about "who is closing games". Neither Lavine or Wiggins are even stars, let alone superstars that many on this board have already handed them for the future. If I was to plan next season, Crowder would be on the floor. Not sure what position he would be at, or who would accompany him to the floor....but he is on the floor. Look, I love our potential. But I have seen a lot of unrealized potential in the NBA over a long period of time, and am not ready to hand over our future blindly. And the fact is...Crowder is brought to a team like the Wolves not to supplant the stars, but to be a sidekick. And if Lavine and Wiggins don't see the floor in key points of the game, I would say that is more a statement of them not reaching the level that many on this board expect. If they are stars, I am more than happy to have Crowder (or another solid role player) sitting on the bench during crunch time.

I guess I'm hoping that the player we get with our pick via draft or trade is on the court during crunch time, not sitting on the bench watching. I don't want to knowingly settle for a role player/bench player with a top-five pick.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

kurrdog53 wrote:I still say, going back to my original thought, that if we land one of these picks and IF we trade, it should be for an established player (Favors, Crowder, someone) PLUS a top 10 draft pick and more, if we can get a team to give up another bench player.

I hate to give up on a potential star, but we have 3 and do not want to see anyone get upset and leave or have their progress hindered. Currently, we have a chemistry and/or nucleus that is strong going forward. The front office needs to have a good summer this year and next to determine the path of this franchise.

Question:
Have we ever seen a team with 4+ all-star caliber players work? We have seen Big 3's (Miami, Cleveland, Clippers). Outside of San Antonio (Aldridge, Leonard and aging vets like Duncan, Parker and Ginobili), I am really leery. Is too much talent a curse. We might be damned if we do, damned if we don't.

All depends if the players buy in or not.

It's great if they all pan out, but it's unlikely all of them will to the most optimistic expectations. Likewise, it might be unprecedented for 4 young guys to compromise their star status/game/even money at this age for the good of the team. That's the stuff that veterans who have $100+M in the bank are more likely to do.

By the way, there needs to be good fortune along the way, too. For example, Curry is making only $11M right now. When the best player doesn't have to be the highest paid for multiple seasons... the team can do wonderful things.

The Spurs have been pulling it off for basically all of Duncan's career. Like Abe said do the players all buy in? Some of that is the players some is coaching and the organization being successful we'll run as well. It's easier to buy in when it seems the place you work knows what the hell they are doing.

Hicks123 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

Camden wrote:Quality over quantity is the motto, or should be the motto. Think the chance of drafting Ingram or Simmons, or moving Simmons for Favors, would be much more ideal than getting a role player (Crowder, Faried) and a lesser first rounder.

I know some of you are very high on Crowder, but once again I have to tell you to proceed with caution. This guy's having a breakout year for him and he's still not anything that special. I get the fact he has a reasonable contract, but he's not THAT much of a difference-maker, IMO. He's a guy that can help a winning team, sure, but not one of the integral pieces of said winning team. Also, he's still a below average 3P shooter despite the uptick in attempts and makes this year. And with Brad Stevens as his coach, you have to wonder if Crowder's really just the product of some elite coaching and if he'll be as affective for a different staff. That is a legitimate concern.

I think it'd be a huge mistake to move any top-five pick for Crowder for these reasons.

I don't know Cam. I get the hesitation to a point, but Crowder has IMO been the most important piece to a team seeded 4th in the East (and a team that will most likely win 47-48 games). Will he be a star? Nope. But he doesn't have to be a star to have MASSIVE impact to our teams success....ask Boston fans. And I don't buy the product of good coaching thing in this case. His style is lunch-pail, and he doesn't strike me as someone who will regress. Will he get a lot better, probably not, but he certainly shouldn't get worse. And that contract IS extremely valuable as you look at our surrounding roster. He is signed through 2019/2020 season at about $7M per season. If we are talking about guys like Harrison Barnes getting max or near max this offseason....that makes Crowder an automatic max guy as well. Again, that has EXTREME value as you talk about roster flexibility....especially since we need another 3-4 guys to play minutes on that second line.

That being said, not sure I make trade for him if we are 1 or 2, but anything else, he is in play IMO.

If you get Crowder what's your closing lineup? Role and money are the two most likely things to break up our big 3 so if you get Crowder does that push Zach or Wiggins to the bench to close games? Do you go small and play Crowder at the 4 and give up the boards to teams like SA and Memphis? Crowder isn't a perfect fit here. The perfect fit is a long-term starter at the 4/5 which Favors would be. If you get Crowder and small ball can't close out games you've just created a reason for a guy like Zach or Wiggins to want out because they aren't on the court to close out games. I think we either need to go big with a real starting 4/5 (i.e. Favors or Horford) or keep the pick and pick up role players who can help our second unit, but more importantly accept the role of sitting on the bench at the end of the game when a W or L is on the line.

Look, I hear ya. But based on where we are today, I am not worrying about "who is closing games". Neither Lavine or Wiggins are even stars, let alone superstars that many on this board have already handed them for the future. If I was to plan next season, Crowder would be on the floor. Not sure what position he would be at, or who would accompany him to the floor....but he is on the floor. Look, I love our potential. But I have seen a lot of unrealized potential in the NBA over a long period of time, and am not ready to hand over our future blindly. And the fact is...Crowder is brought to a team like the Wolves not to supplant the stars, but to be a sidekick. And if Lavine and Wiggins don't see the floor in key points of the game, I would say that is more a statement of them not reaching the level that many on this board expect. If they are stars, I am more than happy to have Crowder (or another solid role player) sitting on the bench during crunch time.

I mean Lavine and Wiggins were both on the floor playing key roles in a victory over one of the best teams of all time. I don't know how much more they need to do to prove they are a great 2/3 tandem moving forward. Zach's averaging 17/3/3 on 47/45/80 splits as a starter. Wiggins is averaging 21/3.6/2.6 on 49/43/79 since the all-star break. How much more do they need to do to prove they have what it takes to be successful in this league? They're doing this at 21 years of age by the way. Our starting lineup with them is 4th in the entire league in offensive rating for a lineup that's played at least 40 games together and if you do it based on minutes they're the best in the league over 200 minutes together. The defense needs work sure, but that is always something that takes time to develop in young players especially undersized ones. So you'd be trading a top 2 pick for a bench role player if small ball doesn't work out and another pick. I'd rather add Simmons to this starting 5 than trade him for bench help. You can always sign bench help in the off season.

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

Camden wrote:

.

I mean Lavine and Wiggins were both on the floor playing key roles in a victory over one of the best teams of all time. I don't know how much more they need to do to prove they are a great 2/3 tandem moving forward. Zach's averaging 17/3/3 on 47/45/80 splits as a starter. Wiggins is averaging 21/3.6/2.6 on 49/43/79 since the all-star break. How much more do they need to do to prove they have what it takes to be successful in this league? They're doing this at 21 years of age by the way. Our starting lineup with them is 4th in the entire league in offensive rating for a lineup that's played at least 40 games together and if you do it based on minutes they're the best in the league over 200 minutes together. The defense needs work sure, but that is always something that takes time to develop in young players especially undersized ones. So you'd be trading a top 2 pick for a bench role player if small ball doesn't work out and another pick. I'd rather add Simmons to this starting 5 than trade him for bench help. You can always sign bench help in the off season.

I wouldn't put too much stock in one game. After all, that disaster in LA clobbered Golden State.

The starting lineup has shown nice promise. But a lot of teams do in varying degrees. The next step is to prove it's sustainable and that the fairly glossy numbers translate to more wins.

Another option could be to keep the pick and if Durant and Westbrook leave after next season go after Ibaka. He'd be 27 going on 28 and would be a great fit in our frontcourt. I can't imagine him hanging around if Durant and Westbrook leave and by then we should be a playoff team on the rise. He likely won't command a max or really all that close either with the way he's played this year and last year when the big 2 were down for parts of the year. He's just a good starter, but not all-star caliber. Throw 15-18 at him and that allows us to keep the band together through the first mini-maxes.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

Camden wrote:

.

I mean Lavine and Wiggins were both on the floor playing key roles in a victory over one of the best teams of all time. I don't know how much more they need to do to prove they are a great 2/3 tandem moving forward. Zach's averaging 17/3/3 on 47/45/80 splits as a starter. Wiggins is averaging 21/3.6/2.6 on 49/43/79 since the all-star break. How much more do they need to do to prove they have what it takes to be successful in this league? They're doing this at 21 years of age by the way. Our starting lineup with them is 4th in the entire league in offensive rating for a lineup that's played at least 40 games together and if you do it based on minutes they're the best in the league over 200 minutes together. The defense needs work sure, but that is always something that takes time to develop in young players especially undersized ones. So you'd be trading a top 2 pick for a bench role player if small ball doesn't work out and another pick. I'd rather add Simmons to this starting 5 than trade him for bench help. You can always sign bench help in the off season.

I wouldn't put too much stock in one game. After all, that disaster in LA clobbered Golden State.

The starting lineup has shown nice promise. But a lot of teams do in varying degrees. The next step is to prove it's sustainable and that the fairly glossy numbers translate to more wins.

Except that wasn't a stinker of a game from them and they were trying everything to win and our top 2 guys just outplayed their top 2 guys. They had no answer for Wiggins and Towns and had multiple chances to put us away, but our guys fought through it and just beat them at their own small ball game. I don't think it's fair to discount the win because they got beat by the Lakers earlier this year. They were still playing well enough to win that game and we just beat them with our best players outplaying their best players.

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

Camden wrote:

.

I mean Lavine and Wiggins were both on the floor playing key roles in a victory over one of the best teams of all time. I don't know how much more they need to do to prove they are a great 2/3 tandem moving forward. Zach's averaging 17/3/3 on 47/45/80 splits as a starter. Wiggins is averaging 21/3.6/2.6 on 49/43/79 since the all-star break. How much more do they need to do to prove they have what it takes to be successful in this league? They're doing this at 21 years of age by the way. Our starting lineup with them is 4th in the entire league in offensive rating for a lineup that's played at least 40 games together and if you do it based on minutes they're the best in the league over 200 minutes together. The defense needs work sure, but that is always something that takes time to develop in young players especially undersized ones. So you'd be trading a top 2 pick for a bench role player if small ball doesn't work out and another pick. I'd rather add Simmons to this starting 5 than trade him for bench help. You can always sign bench help in the off season.

I wouldn't put too much stock in one game. After all, that disaster in LA clobbered Golden State.

The starting lineup has shown nice promise. But a lot of teams do in varying degrees. The next step is to prove it's sustainable and that the fairly glossy numbers translate to more wins.

Except that wasn't a stinker of a game from them and they were trying everything to win and our top 2 guys just outplayed their top 2 guys. They had no answer for Wiggins and Towns and had multiple chances to put us away, but our guys fought through it and just beat them at their own small ball game. I don't think it's fair to discount the win because they got beat by the Lakers earlier this year. They were still playing well enough to win that game and we just beat them with our best players outplaying their best players.

I'm not discounting the win. But I hope you're not discounting the LA Lakers win. Both teams won. Both teams should get credit for it. But that automatically mean that they've arrived or anything? No.

And we can disagree whether GSW played a stinker. Steph Curry shot 7 - 25 fg, the team had 23 TOs and allowed a team that hadn't hit 86 points in 4 of its previous 5 games to explode for 124 on the road. The Wolves deserve some credit for that, obviously.

But I don't think that performance from GSW was on par with most of the team's performances this season. It is what it is... a great win over a great team. But if the Wolves don't sustain it, I don't see how it's anything groundbreaking or telling about long-term success.