Minnesota Sports Forum

I do feel the need to bring up that Cleveland and Utah supposedly had discussions two years about Favors for the No. 1 pick before the Cavs decided to acquire Love. So, I do think he could be had.

More specifically, the Jazz and Cavs talked about moving Favors AND their No. 5 pick for the No. 1 pick to draft Parker. Not sure who killed the trade talks, but that's what was floating around at the time.

I think if they made a trade involving Favors this off-season, it'd probably benefit them more than it would have at that time. They wouldn't have to include a first-rounder for me to do the deal. Simmons is equal to, if not better, as a prospect compared to Parker. Notice they're both hybrid, 'tweener type forwards as well. I wonder if the Wolves FO would have interest.

Things do work out. Most of the time for good teams. But it's important to note that some of teams mentioned (GSW, SAS and even Dallas) have key players on reduced salaries. I wouldn't expect anything of the sort for an entire group of young guys seeking their first big payday. They have every right to get paid. They're a decade or more away from taking discounts.

Speaking of a bunch of young guys... EVENTUALLY... it can become a problem. Who's the guy? Who wants to the be guy? Who wants the endorsements? Girls? Money? Fame? Ball? You get the point.

It's just part of the NBA. I'm not saying the Wolves are there yet. And it's probably a good problem to have eventually. After all, you can always trade young guys too. Basically, I'm ready to move on from collecting assets to doing something meaningful with those assets.

I'm tired of 55 - 65 loss seasons and perpetual hope and promise. Whether moving on to the next stage comes with yet another young guy... or slightly more experienced proven commodity... I'm ready.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Things do work out. Most of the time for good teams. But it's important to note that some of teams mentioned (GSW, SAS and even Dallas) have key players on reduced salaries. I wouldn't expect anything of the sort for an entire group of young guys seeking their first big payday. They have every right to get paid. They're a decade or more away from taking discounts.

Speaking of a bunch of young guys... EVENTUALLY... it can become a problem. Who's the guy? Who wants to the be guy? Who wants the endorsements? Girls? Money? Fame? Ball? You get the point.

It's just part of the NBA. I'm not saying the Wolves are there yet. And it's probably a good problem to have eventually. After all, you can always trade young guys too. Basically, I'm ready to move on from collecting assets to doing something meaningful with those assets.

I'm tired of 55 - 65 loss seasons and perpetual hope and promise. Whether moving on to the next stage comes with yet another young guy... or slightly more experienced proven commodity... I'm ready.

There's merit in what Kahn and Cam are arguing. From what I recall, the KG/Marbury era was ultimately ended due to the situation you describe above. I get the concern. Who's Batman and who's Robin? It can happen. But fortunately, I'm not seeing any of that at this point.

I mentioned in the last game thread how Golden State picked up Varejao off the scrap heap and wondered why we didn't go after someone like that. I think it was you who responded "he'd never sign here" which I agreed with in retrospect. Guys are willing to take less to play for good teams. We need to reach that tipping point. But it's a process. And a quick fix can backfire big time.

I'm not opposed to dealing anyone on the roster including Towns if the deal is right. But my preference would be to keep all the young guys one more year to see what they can do with a new coach.

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Things do work out. Most of the time for good teams. But it's important to note that some of teams mentioned (GSW, SAS and even Dallas) have key players on reduced salaries. I wouldn't expect anything of the sort for an entire group of young guys seeking their first big payday. They have every right to get paid. They're a decade or more away from taking discounts.

Speaking of a bunch of young guys... EVENTUALLY... it can become a problem. Who's the guy? Who wants to the be guy? Who wants the endorsements? Girls? Money? Fame? Ball? You get the point.

It's just part of the NBA. I'm not saying the Wolves are there yet. And it's probably a good problem to have eventually. After all, you can always trade young guys too. Basically, I'm ready to move on from collecting assets to doing something meaningful with those assets.

I'm tired of 55 - 65 loss seasons and perpetual hope and promise. Whether moving on to the next stage comes with yet another young guy... or slightly more experienced proven commodity... I'm ready.

There's merit in what Kahn and Cam are arguing. From what I recall, the KG/Marbury era was ultimately ended due to the situation you describe above. I get the concern. Who's Batman and who's Robin? It can happen. But fortunately, I'm not seeing any of that at this point.

I mentioned in the last game thread how Golden State picked up Varejao off the scrap heap and wondered why we didn't go after someone like that. I think it was you who responded "he'd never sign here" which I agreed with in retrospect. Guys are willing to take less to play for good teams. We need to reach that tipping point. But it's a process. And a quick fix can backfire big time.

I'm not opposed to dealing anyone on the roster including Towns if the deal is right. But my preference would be to keep all the young guys one more year to see what they can do with a new coach.

The coach is a big sticking point for just about everybody.

Between the age of these young guys and the lack of coaching (partly just due to the timing of Saunders' death)... next year should be very informative for all of us about just what kind of foundation is here.

If Wiggins makes only marginal steps? Or, makes a jump? That's 3 seasons to use as an evaluation. If LaVine makes another huge leap? Again... there's more tangible evidence there that these guys are worth... or whether they can be made available.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Things do work out. Most of the time for good teams. But it's important to note that some of teams mentioned (GSW, SAS and even Dallas) have key players on reduced salaries. I wouldn't expect anything of the sort for an entire group of young guys seeking their first big payday. They have every right to get paid. They're a decade or more away from taking discounts.

Speaking of a bunch of young guys... EVENTUALLY... it can become a problem. Who's the guy? Who wants to the be guy? Who wants the endorsements? Girls? Money? Fame? Ball? You get the point.

It's just part of the NBA. I'm not saying the Wolves are there yet. And it's probably a good problem to have eventually. After all, you can always trade young guys too. Basically, I'm ready to move on from collecting assets to doing something meaningful with those assets.

I'm tired of 55 - 65 loss seasons and perpetual hope and promise. Whether moving on to the next stage comes with yet another young guy... or slightly more experienced proven commodity... I'm ready.

There's merit in what Kahn and Cam are arguing. From what I recall, the KG/Marbury era was ultimately ended due to the situation you describe above. I get the concern. Who's Batman and who's Robin? It can happen. But fortunately, I'm not seeing any of that at this point.

I mentioned in the last game thread how Golden State picked up Varejao off the scrap heap and wondered why we didn't go after someone like that. I think it was you who responded "he'd never sign here" which I agreed with in retrospect. Guys are willing to take less to play for good teams. We need to reach that tipping point. But it's a process. And a quick fix can backfire big time.

I'm not opposed to dealing anyone on the roster including Towns if the deal is right. But my preference would be to keep all the young guys one more year to see what they can do with a new coach.

The coach is a big sticking point for just about everybody.

Between the age of these young guys and the lack of coaching (partly just due to the timing of Saunders' death)... next year should be very informative for all of us about just what kind of foundation is here.

If Wiggins makes only marginal steps? Or, makes a jump? That's 3 seasons to use as an evaluation. If LaVine makes another huge leap? Again... there's more tangible evidence there that these guys are worth... or whether they can be made available.

That's another reason why I say going after a young, productive vet (Favors) would be a good move if we had the ammo (top pick) to pull it off. Even without Wiggins and LaVine, a core that's made up of Towns, Favors and Rubio is super solid and pretty close to being sure things that still have room to improve. Keep in mind Rubio and Favors are already net positives in the league. Favors is 9th among power forwards who average greater than 30.0 MPG in RPM. Add in the "what can they become" bro's in Wiggins and LaVine and you really do have a good blend of consistent nightly production and high upside.

I think there is some merit to the thought an established vet would be better than taking a chance on another rookie. We should be pretty confident that our young core is going to continue to get better as they play together. Towns will probably be an all star next year, I don't think Wiggins is too far behind, and Zach has a chance to get there too. We are in an incredibly enviable position. I really don't believe a competent GM can screw this up. Not only is this trio remarkably talented, they already have great chemistry. I think you would be crazy to break these guys up. So whether we use our pick as a trade chip, or we take another rookie with a high ceiling, we're in pretty good shape. Surrounding three stars with competent pieces is not the toughest job in basketball. Especiallly when your leaders have high character and good work ethic. So I'd be open to just about anything. I would just make sure you can keep these three guys together, and anybody you bring in doesn't hijack the good chemistry we are developing.

If you want to bring in a top level coach, they are going to be more on board with becoming the coach if they take over a team with a Big 3 and two top veterans like a Rubio and a Favors over our Big 3 with yet another rookie. Big time coaches don't want big time development projects. They want a more ready made situation for winning and getting a veteran like Favors over drafting another rookie is going to give us a better pitch to get a better coach.

khans2k5 wrote:If you want to bring in a top level coach, they are going to be more on board with becoming the coach if they take over a team with a Big 3 and two top veterans like a Rubio and a Favors over our Big 3 with yet another rookie. Big time coaches don't want big time development projects. They want a more ready made situation for winning and getting a veteran like Favors over drafting another rookie is going to give us a better pitch to get a better coach.

Maybe, but I doubt it's really much of a differentiator. A coach would be more likely to want some control over the roster, than care whether he has the unenviable task of trying to develop Brandon Ingram.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:If you want to bring in a top level coach, they are going to be more on board with becoming the coach if they take over a team with a Big 3 and two top veterans like a Rubio and a Favors over our Big 3 with yet another rookie. Big time coaches don't want big time development projects. They want a more ready made situation for winning and getting a veteran like Favors over drafting another rookie is going to give us a better pitch to get a better coach.

Maybe, but I doubt it's really much of a differentiator. A coach would be more likely to want some control over the roster, than care whether he has the unenviable task of trying to develop Brandon Ingram.

Eh, I think most, if not all coaches, prefer having "win now" veterans over rookies. Even more so if this veteran is still just 25 years old and really talented in his own right.

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:If you want to bring in a top level coach, they are going to be more on board with becoming the coach if they take over a team with a Big 3 and two top veterans like a Rubio and a Favors over our Big 3 with yet another rookie. Big time coaches don't want big time development projects. They want a more ready made situation for winning and getting a veteran like Favors over drafting another rookie is going to give us a better pitch to get a better coach.

Maybe, but I doubt it's really much of a differentiator. A coach would be more likely to want some control over the roster, than care whether he has the unenviable task of trying to develop Brandon Ingram.

Eh, I think most, if not all coaches, prefer having "win now" veterans over rookies. Even more so if this veteran is still just 25 years old and really talented in his own right.

Sure they do, my point is it's not THAT big of a deal breaker if you're looking to coach the Wolves now. Like I said, it will be hard to screw this up.