Minnesota Sports Forum

khans2k5 wrote:If we could get Gallo for sub 20 I'd be on board.

Tempting, but his injury history is so consistently bad that it's beyond troubling. And it's not as if he brings defense, rebounding or toughness. If by sub-$20 million you mean $17-19 million, I still wouldn't touch him. Again, I'd go with Redick for that price knowing that he'll likely be available to play the entire season. And I'm not crazy about paying that kind of money to Redick.

Gallo is not a terrrible defender. He would be an upgrade over some of our guys.

lipoli390 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:If we could get Gallo for sub 20 I'd be on board.

Tempting, but his injury history is so consistently bad that it's beyond troubling. And it's not as if he brings defense, rebounding or toughness. If by sub-$20 million you mean $17-19 million, I still wouldn't touch him. Again, I'd go with Redick for that price knowing that he'll likely be available to play the entire season. And I'm not crazy about paying that kind of money to Redick.

Not everyone is an iron man like Wiggins and Towns. 60 games as long as he can play in the playoffs is good enough for me. A guy like Anthony Davis played over 70 games for the first time in his career last year and yet he is still the premier franchise piece for most teams in the league if they could start a team today. It's all about what you get out of those 60+ games. There's not 30 minutes a night for Reddick here like he gets in LA so you'd be paying the same money for less of a contribution in probably 15 more games. That's not enough of a difference to me to swing a season. I'd rather have Gallo and the significant time he could give us for 60+ games than the lessor time and production Reddick would give us in 75+ games.

khans2k5 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:If we could get Gallo for sub 20 I'd be on board.

Tempting, but his injury history is so consistently bad that it's beyond troubling. And it's not as if he brings defense, rebounding or toughness. If by sub-$20 million you mean $17-19 million, I still wouldn't touch him. Again, I'd go with Redick for that price knowing that he'll likely be available to play the entire season. And I'm not crazy about paying that kind of money to Redick.

Not everyone is an iron man like Wiggins and Towns. 60 games as long as he can play in the playoffs is good enough for me. A guy like Anthony Davis played over 70 games for the first time in his career last year and yet he is still the premier franchise piece for most teams in the league if they could start a team today. It's all about what you get out of those 60+ games. There's not 30 minutes a night for Reddick here like he gets in LA so you'd be paying the same money for less of a contribution in probably 15 more games. That's not enough of a difference to me to swing a season. I'd rather have Gallo and the significant time he could give us for 60+ games than the lessor time and production Reddick would give us in 75+ games.

Anthony Davis. Hmm. How has that New Orleans team been doing since he got there. You play 60 games and you've missed 25% of the season. If you're important enough to the team to get over $15 million per year, missing a quarter of the season for a team that won only 31 games the previous season would be a substantial hit to the team's chances of making the playoffs. Cool's right that Gallo's not a terrible defender, but I never said he was. But he's not known at all for his defense any more than Redick. So for the same money, I'll take Redick's 41.5% career three-point shooting for an entire season over Gallo's 37% for 3/4 of the season. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

lipoli390 wrote:
Anthony Davis. Hmm. How has that New Orleans team been doing since he got there. You play 60 games and you've missed 25% of the season. If you're important enough to the team to get over $15 million per year, missing a quarter of the season for a team that won only 31 games the previous season would be a substantial hit to the team's chances of making the playoffs. Cool's right that Gallo's not a terrible defender, but I never said he was. But he's not known at all for his defense any more than Redick. So for the same money, I'll take Redick's 41.5% career three-point shooting for an entire season over Gallo's 37% for 3/4 of the season. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Problem with Redick is that he is essentially one position player. With Lavine already in shooting guard position, there wouldn't be more than 20 minutes for Redick. Even that would require that Wolves would already play them some minutes together, which could be pretty awful defensively. Paying around 18 million for 20 minute bench player is not a good strategy.

Gallo could play both forward positions, so there would be more minutes available for him and since it would be defensively easier to play him together with Lavine, he would improve floor spacing and outside shooting more than Redick. Still I don't like Gallo that much either. Main difference between Gallo and Belly is that Gallo is much better scorer and especially better getting to free throw line. If you look their career three point shooting numbers their volume per 36 minutes is pretty much same and Gallo's 37% accuracy is not that much better than Belly's 34.4%. When you look their other stats Belly is better in every other aspect than in turnovers and fouls. If Gallo would play with Towns, Lavine and Wiggins, his usage would drop for sure and thus gain from his main advantage: scoring compared to Belly would diminish.

I would really want some real 3&D guy that could take the main wing defender responsibilities from Wiggins. If they cannot find wing with both 3&D capabilities, I think it would be more important that the player would be at least good defender.

List of 3&D free agent wings that I like includes Snell, Sefolosha, Otto Porter, Caldwell-Pope and Iguodala. Since I think Porter, KCP and Iggy will be too expensive or in case of Iggy otherwise not realistic, my options for 3&D free agent signings are basically Snell and Sefolosha. If Wolves cannot get either, I would consider even Andre Roberson or Jonathan Simmons even tough they both are pretty bad outside shooters.

If wing defender need cannot be addressed through free agency, I would try to get either Harkless or Aminu from Portland via trade. Portland will be in luxury tax territory if they won't shed some salaries and I think no one will trade for Turner. I would even consider acquiring Lamb from Charlotte. He was rumored to be available cheaply during last season. I could even accept trade for DeMarre Carroll, even tough he is woefully overpaid. Carroll has just two years left his current contract but Toronto may need to get rid of him if they want to keep Ibaka and Lowry without entering to luxury tax territory. Since both Tucker and Powell played more minutes than Carroll in playoffs, I think Carroll might be available really cheaply.

lipoli390 wrote:
Mikkeman -- There seems to be a lot more hype surrounding Tucker than Sefalosha. Maybe it's his rebounding, I'm not sure. But there's been a lot more buzz about Tucker than Selalosha. That's why I see Tucker commanding a bigger contract. If I'm wrong and they'd end up costing the same, I'd still opt for Selalosha mainly because he can play SG as well as SF. Getting a SG is critical in my view because Zach may not be ready to start the season and ultimately he may help the team more in a 6th-man role.

I suspect that Tucker will cost $15 million per year. I see Sefalosha costing closer to the $10-12 million per year range. Sounds like Redick will cost around $18 million per year. If that's right, I'd opt for Sefalosha and use the money save on another free agent. My next choice would be Redick because he can fill the gap at SG and you know he'll significantly upgrade our 3-point shooting. None of these choices are ideal. I'd still rather take a shot at Millsap or Ibaka and failing to get one of those two I'd go after younger FAs with remaining upside.

Ok, got it. I have missed Tucker hype. I thought that his DUI incident three years ago would still affect teams interest for him. I wouldn't pay more than 6-7 million per year for Tucker but I would be ready pay little more for Sefolosha. Probably around 9-10 million per year. Probably both figures are then way too low to get them but number for Sefolosha would be closer to his market value.

lipoli390 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:If we could get Gallo for sub 20 I'd be on board.

Tempting, but his injury history is so consistently bad that it's beyond troubling. And it's not as if he brings defense, rebounding or toughness. If by sub-$20 million you mean $17-19 million, I still wouldn't touch him. Again, I'd go with Redick for that price knowing that he'll likely be available to play the entire season. And I'm not crazy about paying that kind of money to Redick.

Not everyone is an iron man like Wiggins and Towns. 60 games as long as he can play in the playoffs is good enough for me. A guy like Anthony Davis played over 70 games for the first time in his career last year and yet he is still the premier franchise piece for most teams in the league if they could start a team today. It's all about what you get out of those 60+ games. There's not 30 minutes a night for Reddick here like he gets in LA so you'd be paying the same money for less of a contribution in probably 15 more games. That's not enough of a difference to me to swing a season. I'd rather have Gallo and the significant time he could give us for 60+ games than the lessor time and production Reddick would give us in 75+ games.

Anthony Davis. Hmm. How has that New Orleans team been doing since he got there. You play 60 games and you've missed 25% of the season. If you're important enough to the team to get over $15 million per year, missing a quarter of the season for a team that won only 31 games the previous season would be a substantial hit to the team's chances of making the playoffs. Cool's right that Gallo's not a terrible defender, but I never said he was. But he's not known at all for his defense any more than Redick. So for the same money, I'll take Redick's 41.5% career three-point shooting for an entire season over Gallo's 37% for 3/4 of the season. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Well NO made the playoffs last year when he basically dragged them there with little help. That happens to be more playoff appearances than we've had in the last decade. I think you are way too hung up on shooting and not how it actually fits here. Gallo playing 30 minutes 60 games a year is 1800 minutes. Reddick playing 20 minutes 75 games a year is 1500 minutes. That's over 6 more games worth of minutes Gallo gives you even in 15 less games. You actually get more minutes for your money with Gallo. Gallo is an addition to the same team that won 31 games with no subtractions in the frontcourt so I fail to see how we are any worse off in the games he'd miss than we already were this past year. So we see a bump for 60 games and the same for 22 games and that's assuming nobody in our frontcourt gets better. I don't see how that's gonna make us a worse or even the same team. We'd be better for 75% of the season and depending on the development of current players might not even take a huge hit when he misses time. Reddick meanwhile would help in more games, but the minutes difference shows he just wouldn't play as much as Gallo to actually be able to impact the game as much.

Detroit is offering their #12 for a proven player, and this is exactly why I laugh at those who get mad at Thibs for biding his time with our cap space. Top 15 pick in a particularly interesting draft and no clear path to 50 (let alone 50+) wins with the current roster. Why on earth would you mortgage your future to maybe crack the 40 win mark for a couple of years with a mid-tier veteran? They are not set up to be a 'win now' team, so why throw a valuable building block out the window chasing (at best) a 6-7 seed?

They are a worse version of Portland, two teams stuck with what they have and zero cap room. At least Portland's 25 and under core has potential, Detroit's 25 and under core looks like they have maxed out, Drummond is somehow regressing each year....just ick

BloopOracle wrote:Detroit is offering their #12 for a proven player, and this is exactly why I laugh at those who get mad at Thibs for biding his time with our cap space. Top 15 pick in a particularly interesting draft and no clear path to 50 (let alone 50+) wins with the current roster. Why on earth would you mortgage your future to maybe crack the 40 win mark for a couple of years with a mid-tier veteran? They are not set up to be a 'win now' team, so why throw a valuable building block out the window chasing (at best) a 6-7 seed?

They are a worse version of Portland, two teams stuck with what they have and zero cap room. At least Portland's 25 and under core has potential, Detroit's 25 and under core looks like they have maxed out, Drummond is somehow regressing each year....just ick

I understand it some sense. Draft is suppose to get pretty meh after 10 so I understand. Also SVG trying to save his job. So for an organization probably bad move but SVG good move

khans2k5 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:If we could get Gallo for sub 20 I'd be on board.

Tempting, but his injury history is so consistently bad that it's beyond troubling. And it's not as if he brings defense, rebounding or toughness. If by sub-$20 million you mean $17-19 million, I still wouldn't touch him. Again, I'd go with Redick for that price knowing that he'll likely be available to play the entire season. And I'm not crazy about paying that kind of money to Redick.

Not everyone is an iron man like Wiggins and Towns. 60 games as long as he can play in the playoffs is good enough for me. A guy like Anthony Davis played over 70 games for the first time in his career last year and yet he is still the premier franchise piece for most teams in the league if they could start a team today. It's all about what you get out of those 60+ games. There's not 30 minutes a night for Reddick here like he gets in LA so you'd be paying the same money for less of a contribution in probably 15 more games. That's not enough of a difference to me to swing a season. I'd rather have Gallo and the significant time he could give us for 60+ games than the lessor time and production Reddick would give us in 75+ games.

Anthony Davis. Hmm. How has that New Orleans team been doing since he got there. You play 60 games and you've missed 25% of the season. If you're important enough to the team to get over $15 million per year, missing a quarter of the season for a team that won only 31 games the previous season would be a substantial hit to the team's chances of making the playoffs. Cool's right that Gallo's not a terrible defender, but I never said he was. But he's not known at all for his defense any more than Redick. So for the same money, I'll take Redick's 41.5% career three-point shooting for an entire season over Gallo's 37% for 3/4 of the season. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Well NO made the playoffs last year when he basically dragged them there with little help. That happens to be more playoff appearances than we've had in the last decade. I think you are way too hung up on shooting and not how it actually fits here. Gallo playing 30 minutes 60 games a year is 1800 minutes. Reddick playing 20 minutes 75 games a year is 1500 minutes. That's over 6 more games worth of minutes Gallo gives you even in 15 less games. You actually get more minutes for your money with Gallo. Gallo is an addition to the same team that won 31 games with no subtractions in the frontcourt so I fail to see how we are any worse off in the games he'd miss than we already were this past year. So we see a bump for 60 games and the same for 22 games and that's assuming nobody in our frontcourt gets better. I don't see how that's gonna make us a worse or even the same team. We'd be better for 75% of the season and depending on the development of current players might not even take a huge hit when he misses time. Reddick meanwhile would help in more games, but the minutes difference shows he just wouldn't play as much as Gallo to actually be able to impact the game as much.

Who said we'd be worse off than last season in games Gallo would miss? It's about games, not minutes unless the gap in minutes is really huge. You pay big money to a player because you expect him to make a difference in every game and, therefore, win more games. If he's not available because of injuries, he's not helping and, therefore, not having the impact you paid him to have. So I'll take a guy playing 28 minutes per game for 75 games (Redick's avg. the past 3 seasons) over a guy averaging 32 minutes for 58 games (Gallo's avg the past 3 seasons). You pay big money to Gallo and Redick because you expect each to help you win games through their respective 32 and 28 minutes per game. I'll take the guy who's available to help me win those additional 17 games.