Minnesota/Sacramento

turk3d · Post #1 » by **turk3d** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:12 am

Wolves trade Kevin Love + #2 pick, Kings trade #5 pick.

Why for Wolves? Get the #4 and #5 picks. This gives them a lot of flexibility and gets them two of the top two picks in the draft.

Sacramento gets themselves a solid PF who could backup Center. Can trade Thompson and maybe get another pick.

longfellow44 · Post #2 » by **longfellow44** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:17 am

Value wise it's pretry solid I just don't like the idea of love to the kings he's not exactly the kind of player were looking for. Namely not a defender and doesn't play in the post.

Post #3 » by **KF10** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:18 am

I don't like it.

I mean, Love is a very good player but fit-wise, I don't see it.

CDM88 · Post #4 » by **CDM88** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:26 am

Rubio

Wesly
Al Jeff
Cousins

Bac2Basics · Post #5 » by **Bac2Basics** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:54 am

I like Kevin Love, but I agree with my fellow Kings fans in saying that fit is a concern.

DirtyDez · Post #6 » by **DirtyDez** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:12 am

So where would he fit?

Coxy · Post #7 » by **Coxy** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:14 am

DirtyDez wrote:So where would he fit?

With that ass? Might get into a hummer, thats about it though.

DirtyDez · Post #8 » by **DirtyDez** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:24 am

I'd take him in PHX anyday. Dominant rebounder at 3.5 mil?

longfellow44 · Post #9 » by **longfellow44** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:27 am

Kings would probably be fine turning it into a 3 way if another team could
provide a top notch rookie scale pf/c that is a fantastic defender and plays in the post because that's what we are looking for in adding a bigman.

KM44 · Post #10 » by **KM44** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:29 am

I'm confused, how did the wolves get the #2 pick and why on God's green earth would the kings not do this trade? Am I missing something?

Post #11 » by **loserX** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:33 am

KM44 wrote:I'm confused, how did the wolves get the #2 pick and why on God's green earth would the kings not do this trade? Am I missing something?

I wondered that...but I assume the "#2 pick" is actually a second rounder, not the second pick. (Minny has a couple, albeit not their own.)

John Doe [MIN] · Post #12 » by **John Doe [MIN]** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:43 am

Wolves would probably do this. I personally wouldn't. IMO, there's a 95% chance Love will be a better player than Johnson. I'd rather sit on him and our crappy, imbalanced roster until we can trade for fit without losing value.

longfellow44 · Post #13 » by **longfellow44** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:08 am

^^^i dont think you lose value here. Love is a pretty good young player but he is not the type of pf that holds massive value. He is a fantastic rebounder but he's a poor defender and he's a perimeter oriented pf. He's rather similar to al harrington or David lee who are both valuable players just not off the charts value.

SacKingsPejaFan · Post #14 » by **SacKingsPejaFan** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:00 pm

I'm really high on Kevin Love and would do this. He's better than Thompson and Hawes and will only get better. Of course the Kings would not be done after this move. We would still need a shot-blocker down low, but we could take care of that in another transaction. I approve this deal.

ClubLakers KB8 · Post #15 » by **ClubLakers KB8** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:05 pm

Kevin Love, #16, #23 for Garcia and #5?

Esohny · Post #16 » by **Esohny** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm

ClubLakers KB8 wrote:Kevin Love, #16, #23 for Garcia and #5?

Laughably terrible for Minnesota.

lewdog · Post #17 » by **lewdog** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:46 pm

ClubLakers KB8 wrote:Kevin Love, #16, #23 for Garcia and #5?

With proposed trades like this one, it’s apparent that many have not seen Love’s vast array of skill sets (e.g. rebounding, passing, 3-point shooting, etc.). In my opinion if the Wolves have any untouchables, it's Love.

With that said, the criticism with Love is obviously with his defense. He’s not quick, lengthy, nor can he jump. However, with his amazing work ethic and deep desire to be a star, I no doubt think that we’ll see a much-improved Love defensively in the years ahead.

Although I would love to acquire the #5 pick to acquire Wes Johnson, giving up Love (plus all the draft picks) would be ridiculously awful for the Wolves.

AQuintus · Post #18 » by **AQuintus** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:25 pm

longfellow44 wrote:He is a fantastic rebounder but he's a poor defender and he's a perimeter oriented pf.

He's a bad help defender, but according to synergy, he's actually a pretty good man defender.

dozencousins · Post #19 » by **dozencousins** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:27 pm

ClubLakers KB8 wrote:Kevin Love, #16, #23 for Garcia and #5?

I think this offer is better for the KINGS than the origional proposal !

longfellow44 · Post #20 » by **longfellow44** » Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:10 am

^^^Yeah that trade is much better for the kings than the original but I don't think Minny does that one. I think the value was pretty close with the 1st it was purely an issue with fit. But if the kings could get one of Udoh or Whiteside to go with Love then we'd be in pretty good shape with a big that could make up for love on the defensive end.