Minnesota Sports Forum

TheGrey08 wrote:

sjm34 wrote:Correct, the teams declined to match. They could have signed them to the same deal, but decided the third year was more than they were willing to spend. The prior team only has to fit the first year of salary under their cap.

Hmm maybe I didn't clearly stated that. I meant if a player signs an offersheet that the team should be able to restructure that deal as long as the overall financials & years were the same. IE: if a player signed a 3 yr 21 mill offer sheet with 5 mill 7 mill, 9 mill for salary the "matching" team should be able to agree with the player on a deal at 7/7/7 or some variation. This whole poison pill shit is weak.

I guess I didn't understand what you were getting at, but keep in mind that the "Arenas Provision" only applies to a couple of players a year. They can only have played for one or two seasons, can't be first rounders, etc. Otherwise the amounts can't really vary by much. You can only have 4.5% raises (or decreases) from year to year.

Camden wrote:Lol Skip said the Cavs and Wolves should do an Irving-for-Love swap. Yuck.

Did he really? What a clown.

horatio81 wrote:If you lose love for nothing, you bottom out to 15 wins and pick top 3 next year.

If you lose love for veteran scraps, you sorta bottom out to 20-25 wins and pick in the 5-8 range next year.

If you lose love for young potential stars and picks, you bottom out next year to 15 wins, pick 1-3 next year, and have pieces in place for a meteoric return to prominence within 4-5 seasons.

Funny how the course prescribed by the national media, also known as "take what you can get and like it", is by far our worst option.

Keep sticking it to everyone, Flip.

Good analysis, Horatio. Honestly, the only acceptable option is to trade Love for picks and/or current young talent with high upside. You've done a good job pointing out the folly in trading Love for veteran scraps. I'll emphasize the folly in just letting Love walk. First, if you lose Love for nothing, that means you've kept him for another season, thus delaying the rebuilding process for a year. Second, your rebuilding effort is limited to your one top 3 pick without other picks and/or additional young talent to help.

So I hope Flip isn't "sticking it to everyone." And I certainly hope he doesn't ultimately decide to keep Love. If Flip can't land a Wiggins package or a Klay package, then he should do a Bulls or Celtic package, getting future picks and young talent like McDermott and Snell from Chicago or Smart and Olynyk from Boston. You may consider Klay Thompson and Harrison Barnes veteran scraps, but I don't. I see Klay as a young all-star caliber two-way SG and Harrison Barnes remains a young player with a ton of upside.

I'm hoping that Flip is intent on trading Love for picks and/or young talent and that Flip is simply being a patient, tough negotiator. But if Flip is simply going through the motions with the intent of keeping Love so he can coach him, then I think Flip is making a terrible mistake.

Should Flip accept a Cavs package that doesn't include Wiggins? Absolutely not! Should he accept a Warriors package that doesn't include Klay? No! Should Flip give up LaVine as part of a Wiggins or Klay package? Absolutely not! But I will have a real issue with Flip if he turns down a Wiggins package for any of the following reasons: (1) Cavs refusal to include a future pick in the deal; (2) Cavs insist on including Waiters rather than Tristan Thompson (even though I'd much prefer Thompson); (3) Cavs insist on getting GRIII or any Wolves roster player other than Ricky or LaVine. I would prefer to keep GRIII and would not want to give up Shabazz, but if push comes to shove, it would be ridiculous if Flip declined a Wiggins deal just because the Cavs insist on getting one of those two players.

lipoli390 wrote:

horatio81 wrote:If you lose love for nothing, you bottom out to 15 wins and pick top 3 next year.

If you lose love for veteran scraps, you sorta bottom out to 20-25 wins and pick in the 5-8 range next year.

If you lose love for young potential stars and picks, you bottom out next year to 15 wins, pick 1-3 next year, and have pieces in place for a meteoric return to prominence within 4-5 seasons.

Funny how the course prescribed by the national media, also known as "take what you can get and like it", is by far our worst option.

Keep sticking it to everyone, Flip.

Good analysis, Horatio. Honestly, the only acceptable option is to trade Love for picks and/or current young talent with high upside. You've done a good job pointing out the folly in trading Love for veteran scraps. I'll emphasize the folly in just letting Love walk. First, if you lose Love for nothing, that means you've kept him for another season, thus delaying the rebuilding process for a year. Second, your rebuilding effort is limited to your one top 3 pick without other picks and/or additional young talent to help.

So I hope Flip isn't "sticking it to everyone." And I certainly hope he doesn't ultimately decide to keep Love. If Flip can't land a Wiggins package or a Klay package, then he should do a Bulls or Celtic package, getting future picks and young talent like McDermott and Snell from Chicago or Smart and Olynyk from Boston. You may consider Klay Thompson and Harrison Barnes veteran scraps, but I don't. I see Klay as a young all-star caliber two-way SG and Harrison Barnes remains a young player with a ton of upside.

I'm hoping that Flip is intent on trading Love for picks and/or young talent and that Flip is simply being a patient, tough negotiator. But if Flip is simply going through the motions with the intent of keeping Love so he can coach him, then I think Flip is making a terrible mistake.

Should Flip accept a Cavs package that doesn't include Wiggins? Absolutely not! Should he accept a Warriors package that doesn't include Klay? No! Should Flip give up LaVine as part of a Wiggins or Klay package? Absolutely not! But I will have a real issue with Flip if he turns down a Wiggins package for any of the following reasons: (1) Cavs refusal to include a future pick in the deal; (2) Cavs insist on including Waiters rather than Tristan Thompson (even though I'd much prefer Thompson); (3) Cavs insist on getting GRIII or any Wolves roster player other than Ricky or LaVine. I would prefer to keep GRIII and would not want to give up Shabazz, but if push comes to shove, it would be ridiculous if Flip declined a Wiggins deal just because the Cavs insist on getting one of those two players.

You'd give up Dieng?

My post wasn't meant to advocate for keeping Love. I just wanted to illustrate why a team in our position really has all the leverage in the world: we can go scorched earth, embracing the worst case scenario, and the end result won't be fantastically different.

Meanwhile, the difference between deal and no deal for the cavs is immense. They could be a legit contender... or not. No sweat off our backs either way. Hardball negotiating with a team that is about to suck no matter what is a little like haggling with a man who is about to die tomorrow. He can walk away at any time because he honestly doesn't give a shit.

horatio81 wrote:My post wasn't meant to advocate for keeping Love. I just wanted to illustrate why a team in our position really has all the leverage in the world: we can go scorched earth, embracing the worst case scenario, and the end result won't be fantastically different.

Meanwhile, the difference between deal and no deal for the cavs is immense. They could be a legit contender... or not. No sweat off our backs either way. Hardball negotiating with a team that is about to suck no matter what is a little like haggling with a man who is about to die tomorrow. He can walk away at any time because he honestly doesn't give a shit.

Heh. Very good points.

horatio81 wrote:My post wasn't meant to advocate for keeping Love. I just wanted to illustrate why a team in our position really has all the leverage in the world: we can go scorched earth, embracing the worst case scenario, and the end result won't be fantastically different.

Meanwhile, the difference between deal and no deal for the cavs is immense. They could be a legit contender... or not. No sweat off our backs either way. Hardball negotiating with a team that is about to suck no matter what is a little like haggling with a man who is about to die tomorrow. He can walk away at any time because he honestly doesn't give a shit.

I agree with you on the relative difference in leverage between the Cavs and Wolves. I like your analogy to haggling with a guy who is about to die. But here's my point using your analogy. The Wolves are sick, but they don't necessarily have to die. They give themselves the best chance of living by doing a deal for young prospects and/picks. That's the best medicine. They face almost certain death if they deal for veteran scraps with bad contracts, which is like taking the wrong medicine, laced with poisons that will extend your suffering and do nothing to help cure what ails you.

My point is that keeping Love and watching him walk for nothing is like refusing to take any of the medicine that could make you better. Not as bad as taking the poison, but still a dumb move.

northernhoops wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

horatio81 wrote:If you lose love for nothing, you bottom out to 15 wins and pick top 3 next year.

If you lose love for veteran scraps, you sorta bottom out to 20-25 wins and pick in the 5-8 range next year.

If you lose love for young potential stars and picks, you bottom out next year to 15 wins, pick 1-3 next year, and have pieces in place for a meteoric return to prominence within 4-5 seasons.

Funny how the course prescribed by the national media, also known as "take what you can get and like it", is by far our worst option.

Keep sticking it to everyone, Flip.

Good analysis, Horatio. Honestly, the only acceptable option is to trade Love for picks and/or current young talent with high upside. You've done a good job pointing out the folly in trading Love for veteran scraps. I'll emphasize the folly in just letting Love walk. First, if you lose Love for nothing, that means you've kept him for another season, thus delaying the rebuilding process for a year. Second, your rebuilding effort is limited to your one top 3 pick without other picks and/or additional young talent to help.

So I hope Flip isn't "sticking it to everyone." And I certainly hope he doesn't ultimately decide to keep Love. If Flip can't land a Wiggins package or a Klay package, then he should do a Bulls or Celtic package, getting future picks and young talent like McDermott and Snell from Chicago or Smart and Olynyk from Boston. You may consider Klay Thompson and Harrison Barnes veteran scraps, but I don't. I see Klay as a young all-star caliber two-way SG and Harrison Barnes remains a young player with a ton of upside.

I'm hoping that Flip is intent on trading Love for picks and/or young talent and that Flip is simply being a patient, tough negotiator. But if Flip is simply going through the motions with the intent of keeping Love so he can coach him, then I think Flip is making a terrible mistake.

Should Flip accept a Cavs package that doesn't include Wiggins? Absolutely not! Should he accept a Warriors package that doesn't include Klay? No! Should Flip give up LaVine as part of a Wiggins or Klay package? Absolutely not! But I will have a real issue with Flip if he turns down a Wiggins package for any of the following reasons: (1) Cavs refusal to include a future pick in the deal; (2) Cavs insist on including Waiters rather than Tristan Thompson (even though I'd much prefer Thompson); (3) Cavs insist on getting GRIII or any Wolves roster player other than Ricky or LaVine. I would prefer to keep GRIII and would not want to give up Shabazz, but if push comes to shove, it would be ridiculous if Flip declined a Wiggins deal just because the Cavs insist on getting one of those two players.

You'd give up Dieng?

Good catch. I would NOT give up Dieng!! I should.have said any player other than Ricky, LaVine or Dieng.

My absolute favorite part of this situation is the certain media members who say "Flip Saunders needs to bite the bullet today and trade him otherwise the Wolves lose significant leverage..."

Really? Sort of like how we HAD to trade Love before the draft because the Boston pupu platter was the best we could get? Or how we had to take the GS offer because they would never include Klay and Lee/Barnes was the "best we could get..."

Bottom line is, as it CURRENTLY stands, you have to really enjoy how Flip is handling a situation that he cannot win. He has to trade the better player and get less in return, but by sticking to his guns (despite media backlash), he has successfully forced other teams to sweat a bit (rather than the small-market Wolves always having to sweat and panic).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDrl_lMoCKU&list=UUIIKPy27YWW5yhc0qvr4KnA

To raise some of you guys blood pressure :)