Minnesota Sports Forum

Ingram or Simmons for a two year rental of Favors? NO. Favors walks after 2018 and we end up with nothing for a potential franchise type player. Very shortsided and defeatist. Favors is good and I like him, but there will be plenty of big options in free agency over the next 3 years. Ingram/Simmons on a rookie deal for many more years is the better route to building a franchise. The only time this might make sense is if we were one player away from a title and our window was closing. If you think we'll win a title in 2017 or 2018 with Favors, I got a bridge to sell you.

The big problem would be all these players coming up for renewal at the same time. It's going to be hard enough to keep Wiggins and Zach, assuming Towns gets the Max 5 year deal. I like Favors and think he would have greater impact than anyone in this draft, but the logistics worry me.

TeamRicky wrote:Ingram or Simmons for a two year rental of Favors? NO. Favors walks after 2018 and we end up with nothing for a potential franchise type player. Very shortsided and defeatist. Favors is good and I like him, but there will be plenty of big options in free agency over the next 3 years. Ingram/Simmons on a rookie deal for many more years is the better route to building a franchise. The only time this might make sense is if we were one player away from a title and our window was closing. If you think we'll win a title in 2017 or 2018 with Favors, I got a bridge to sell you.

Well, if it's just 2 years vs. 7... can't disagree.

I didn't look at Favors' contract. By the way, I'm very interested to see how contracts change with the new CBA. The Wolves are in great shape under the current system for at least the first extension for these guys.

But the NBA has been trending toward shorter deals and more player movement. Personally, I think it's bad for the league... and would be terrible for the Wolves.

I think a reason the NBA worked is because you had teams that could grow together. I know the constant player movement is great for 365-day news cycles... but it sucks in the long run for fans like me. I'm hoping that the next CBA doesn't encourage that even more. Sadly... I think it might.

TeamRicky wrote:Ingram or Simmons for a two year rental of Favors? NO. Favors walks after 2018 and we end up with nothing for a potential franchise type player. Very shortsided and defeatist. Favors is good and I like him, but there will be plenty of big options in free agency over the next 3 years. Ingram/Simmons on a rookie deal for many more years is the better route to building a franchise. The only time this might make sense is if we were one player away from a title and our window was closing. If you think we'll win a title in 2017 or 2018 with Favors, I got a bridge to sell you.

Talk about a defeatist attitude! So you are giving the Wolves a 0% chance of resigning Favors. So what then makes you think we will resign Towns? Wiggins? Lavine? You are then obviously assuming they walk as well. Who is then left on this team in 3-4 years? If you think there is a good chance at retaining the current Wolves guys, there would be no reason to expect that Favors wouldn't resign as well. Like Cam, I would agree that he is a great player to slide into our front court long-term. And I also agree that he may be attainable because of the previous reasons described. That team is good, but they seem to be missing some components that will be hard to acquire once they pay everyone already on the team. Also, while Favors is a very good player, he isn't a superstar, which again makes a trade realistic. That being said, he would bring a crucial skillset to the Wolves in toughness, size, rebounding and low-post defense. I definitely do the trade.

Hicks123 wrote:

TeamRicky wrote:Ingram or Simmons for a two year rental of Favors? NO. Favors walks after 2018 and we end up with nothing for a potential franchise type player. Very shortsided and defeatist. Favors is good and I like him, but there will be plenty of big options in free agency over the next 3 years. Ingram/Simmons on a rookie deal for many more years is the better route to building a franchise. The only time this might make sense is if we were one player away from a title and our window was closing. If you think we'll win a title in 2017 or 2018 with Favors, I got a bridge to sell you.

Talk about a defeatist attitude! So you are giving the Wolves a 0% chance of resigning Favors. So what then makes you think we will resign Towns? Wiggins? Lavine? You are then obviously assuming they walk as well. Who is then left on this team in 3-4 years? If you think there is a good chance at retaining the current Wolves guys, there would be no reason to expect that Favors wouldn't resign as well. Like Cam, I would agree that he is a great player to slide into our front court long-term. And I also agree that he may be attainable because of the previous reasons described. That team is good, but they seem to be missing some components that will be hard to acquire once they pay everyone already on the team. Also, while Favors is a very good player, he isn't a superstar, which again makes a trade realistic. That being said, he would bring a crucial skillset to the Wolves in toughness, size, rebounding and low-post defense. I definitely do the trade.

No you completely missed my point. The defeatist attitude is assuming that we cant sign anyone in free agency so we might as well trade a future franchise guy on a rookie deal for a two year rental. Why cant we have both??? Good franchises would never consider this trade. Favors is good but there are several bigs we could sign this offseason or next offseason or 2018 offseason when the team might be ready to leap into contention. I haven't ruled out possibility we could sign Favors in 2018, but if we could do so, we could just wait until 2018 and sign him then. Why give up a potential franchise player for renting him for two years?

TeamRicky wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

TeamRicky wrote:Ingram or Simmons for a two year rental of Favors? NO. Favors walks after 2018 and we end up with nothing for a potential franchise type player. Very shortsided and defeatist. Favors is good and I like him, but there will be plenty of big options in free agency over the next 3 years. Ingram/Simmons on a rookie deal for many more years is the better route to building a franchise. The only time this might make sense is if we were one player away from a title and our window was closing. If you think we'll win a title in 2017 or 2018 with Favors, I got a bridge to sell you.

Talk about a defeatist attitude! So you are giving the Wolves a 0% chance of resigning Favors. So what then makes you think we will resign Towns? Wiggins? Lavine? You are then obviously assuming they walk as well. Who is then left on this team in 3-4 years? If you think there is a good chance at retaining the current Wolves guys, there would be no reason to expect that Favors wouldn't resign as well. Like Cam, I would agree that he is a great player to slide into our front court long-term. And I also agree that he may be attainable because of the previous reasons described. That team is good, but they seem to be missing some components that will be hard to acquire once they pay everyone already on the team. Also, while Favors is a very good player, he isn't a superstar, which again makes a trade realistic. That being said, he would bring a crucial skillset to the Wolves in toughness, size, rebounding and low-post defense. I definitely do the trade.

No you completely missed my point. The defeatist attitude is assuming that we cant sign anyone in free agency so we might as well trade a future franchise guy on a rookie deal for a two year rental. Why cant we have both??? Good franchises would never consider this trade. Favors is good but there are several bigs we could sign this offseason or next offseason or 2018 offseason when the team might be ready to leap into contention. I haven't ruled out possibility we could sign Favors in 2018, but if we could do so, we could just wait until 2018 and sign him then. Why give up a potential franchise player for renting him for two years?

We can't sign anyone. That's the point. We have the assets to trade for guys and the pieces that will help them stay once they get here. We won't have the money to sign a Favors in 2018 because that summer Wiggins and Lavine's extensions kick in which could be max deals. Where's the money to sign Favors coming from then? You say good franchises would never consider this trade when the freaking Cavs did it with Love and Wiggins less than 2 years ago and Love was on an expiring deal when that trade was made. What happened? Love signed a new 5 year deal with them because good teams make those trades and find ways to keep those guys. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too and NBA teams don't have the resources to do that. You can't re-sign 3 max guys, pay your PG 12 million and another top 2 pick around 9 million in his last year of his rookie deal and sign a big time free agent all at the same time.

khans2k5 wrote:

TeamRicky wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

TeamRicky wrote:Ingram or Simmons for a two year rental of Favors? NO. Favors walks after 2018 and we end up with nothing for a potential franchise type player. Very shortsided and defeatist. Favors is good and I like him, but there will be plenty of big options in free agency over the next 3 years. Ingram/Simmons on a rookie deal for many more years is the better route to building a franchise. The only time this might make sense is if we were one player away from a title and our window was closing. If you think we'll win a title in 2017 or 2018 with Favors, I got a bridge to sell you.

Talk about a defeatist attitude! So you are giving the Wolves a 0% chance of resigning Favors. So what then makes you think we will resign Towns? Wiggins? Lavine? You are then obviously assuming they walk as well. Who is then left on this team in 3-4 years? If you think there is a good chance at retaining the current Wolves guys, there would be no reason to expect that Favors wouldn't resign as well. Like Cam, I would agree that he is a great player to slide into our front court long-term. And I also agree that he may be attainable because of the previous reasons described. That team is good, but they seem to be missing some components that will be hard to acquire once they pay everyone already on the team. Also, while Favors is a very good player, he isn't a superstar, which again makes a trade realistic. That being said, he would bring a crucial skillset to the Wolves in toughness, size, rebounding and low-post defense. I definitely do the trade.

No you completely missed my point. The defeatist attitude is assuming that we cant sign anyone in free agency so we might as well trade a future franchise guy on a rookie deal for a two year rental. Why cant we have both??? Good franchises would never consider this trade. Favors is good but there are several bigs we could sign this offseason or next offseason or 2018 offseason when the team might be ready to leap into contention. I haven't ruled out possibility we could sign Favors in 2018, but if we could do so, we could just wait until 2018 and sign him then. Why give up a potential franchise player for renting him for two years?

We can't sign anyone. That's the point. We have the assets to trade for guys and the pieces that will help them stay once they get here. We won't have the money to sign a Favors in 2018 because that summer Wiggins and Lavine's extensions kick in which could be max deals. Where's the money to sign Favors coming from then? You say good franchises would never consider this trade when the freaking Cavs did it with Love and Wiggins less than 2 years ago and Love was on an expiring deal when that trade was made. What happened? Love signed a new 5 year deal with them because good teams make those trades and find ways to keep those guys. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too and NBA teams don't have the resources to do that. You can't re-sign 3 max guys, pay your PG 12 million and another top 2 pick around 9 million in his last year of his rookie deal and sign a big time free agent all at the same time.

You prove my point and that is having a franchise player on a rookie deal is very valuable. I also said the only time it might make sense is when you have a narrow title window as Cleveland does now. I also think Cleveland is not a smartly run franchise and most of their fans were upset with giving up Wiggins for Love and probably still are. Plus, everyone knows Love had to convince Cleveland he wouldn't leave for them to do the deal (why would Favors do that?). If we keep the pick we can go after Horford, Mahinmi or Ezeli with a big offer and hopefully get Ingram on a rookie deal. We wouldn't have to pay Ingram for a long while, so we could have a better core in place when we make our title run.

khans2k5 wrote:

We can't sign anyone. That's the point. We have the assets to trade for guys and the pieces that will help them stay once they get here. We won't have the money to sign a Favors in 2018 because that summer Wiggins and Lavine's extensions kick in which could be max deals. Where's the money to sign Favors coming from then? You say good franchises would never consider this trade when the freaking Cavs did it with Love and Wiggins less than 2 years ago and Love was on an expiring deal when that trade was made. What happened? Love signed a new 5 year deal with them because good teams make those trades and find ways to keep those guys. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too and NBA teams don't have the resources to do that. You can't re-sign 3 max guys, pay your PG 12 million and another top 2 pick around 9 million in his last year of his rookie deal and sign a big time free agent all at the same time.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions. How can we know for certain we'll need to have all three guys on Max deals? Even Love wasn't a max contract from what I recall. I'm not saying they won't get paid. But i a couple years we can determine if they are worth the money or if we should move/upgrade at that time (like we did with Love eventually).

Also, I'm not buying into this speculative bullshit that we can't sign any good free agents. That's all conjecture. IF we get a name brand coach - we'll get some free agents in here that can play. Players follow coaches. I agree with Team Ricky. No need to panic that the sky is falling. We have a base. But we're not close enough that we should be considering making some blockbuster trade with our young core or lotto picks. Once we have some stability (long term coach, GM and another year with our young core) we can make the type of moves some of you are suggesting.

TeamRicky wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

TeamRicky wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

TeamRicky wrote:Ingram or Simmons for a two year rental of Favors? NO. Favors walks after 2018 and we end up with nothing for a potential franchise type player. Very shortsided and defeatist. Favors is good and I like him, but there will be plenty of big options in free agency over the next 3 years. Ingram/Simmons on a rookie deal for many more years is the better route to building a franchise. The only time this might make sense is if we were one player away from a title and our window was closing. If you think we'll win a title in 2017 or 2018 with Favors, I got a bridge to sell you.

Talk about a defeatist attitude! So you are giving the Wolves a 0% chance of resigning Favors. So what then makes you think we will resign Towns? Wiggins? Lavine? You are then obviously assuming they walk as well. Who is then left on this team in 3-4 years? If you think there is a good chance at retaining the current Wolves guys, there would be no reason to expect that Favors wouldn't resign as well. Like Cam, I would agree that he is a great player to slide into our front court long-term. And I also agree that he may be attainable because of the previous reasons described. That team is good, but they seem to be missing some components that will be hard to acquire once they pay everyone already on the team. Also, while Favors is a very good player, he isn't a superstar, which again makes a trade realistic. That being said, he would bring a crucial skillset to the Wolves in toughness, size, rebounding and low-post defense. I definitely do the trade.

No you completely missed my point. The defeatist attitude is assuming that we cant sign anyone in free agency so we might as well trade a future franchise guy on a rookie deal for a two year rental. Why cant we have both??? Good franchises would never consider this trade. Favors is good but there are several bigs we could sign this offseason or next offseason or 2018 offseason when the team might be ready to leap into contention. I haven't ruled out possibility we could sign Favors in 2018, but if we could do so, we could just wait until 2018 and sign him then. Why give up a potential franchise player for renting him for two years?

We can't sign anyone. That's the point. We have the assets to trade for guys and the pieces that will help them stay once they get here. We won't have the money to sign a Favors in 2018 because that summer Wiggins and Lavine's extensions kick in which could be max deals. Where's the money to sign Favors coming from then? You say good franchises would never consider this trade when the freaking Cavs did it with Love and Wiggins less than 2 years ago and Love was on an expiring deal when that trade was made. What happened? Love signed a new 5 year deal with them because good teams make those trades and find ways to keep those guys. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too and NBA teams don't have the resources to do that. You can't re-sign 3 max guys, pay your PG 12 million and another top 2 pick around 9 million in his last year of his rookie deal and sign a big time free agent all at the same time.

You prove my point and that is having a franchise player on a rookie deal is very valuable. I also said the only time it might make sense is when you have a narrow title window as Cleveland does now. I also think Cleveland is not a smartly run franchise and most of their fans were upset with giving up Wiggins for Love and probably still are. Plus, everyone knows Love had to convince Cleveland he wouldn't leave for them to do the deal (why would Favors do that?). If we keep the pick we can go after Horford, Mahinmi or Ezeli with a big offer and hopefully get Ingram on a rookie deal. We wouldn't have to pay Ingram for a long while, so we could have a better core in place when we make our title run.

All you're doing is delaying the inevitable of having to let one of Lavine/Wiggins/Towns/Ingram walk or get traded because you can't have 4 max deals on the team at the same time. They're only 3 years apart so they're all on the books at the same time no matter what. That's what you aren't understanding and that's the cake you are trying to eat that you can't have. Lavine/Wiggins/Towns/Horford/Ingram. Are you delusional? You can't pay all those guys.

So, from what I've been reading the last couple of weeks, TeamRicky, Carlos Danger and whoever else opposed that trade (or any other) are just completely against trading this year's first round pick, really don't want to contend until 2018 or so when our young guys are on their second contract and when we're not super flexible with cap space. I think some of you are too caught up in wanting to have a mega lineup of 20/21-year olds.