Ricky Rubio, what would your team give up for him

jgustav1 · Post #41 » by **jgustav1** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:38 pm

shagadelic45 wrote:LA CLIPPERS: Future MN #1 Returned

how much more would it take?

The future MN #1 pick alone is too much in return for Rubio, Clippers decline the offer. I'd expect it to be in the top 5 in 2012 after the protection runs out on it.

jgustav1 · Post #42 » by **jgustav1** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:40 pm

Esohny wrote:
shagadelic45 wrote:LA CLIPPERS: Future MN #1 Returned

how much more would it take?

I'm more interested in Gordon as a main trade piece. Jordan would be a nice component.

Gordon is unavailable for Rubio. The only available players from the Clippers that could help fill position needs for Minnesota would be Kaman and Thornton.

Esohny · Post #43 » by **Esohny** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:13 pm

jgustav1 wrote:
Esohny wrote:
shagadelic45 wrote:LA CLIPPERS: Future MN #1 Returned

how much more would it take?

I'm more interested in Gordon as a main trade piece. Jordan would be a nice component.

Gordon is unavailable for Rubio. The only available players from the Clippers that could help fill position needs for Minnesota would be Kaman and Thornton.

Can I quote you that the pick will be top 5 in 2012? Unless the wolves entire roster is injured for the next two years straight, the pick will exceed protection and go to the clippers in 2011.

Thornton sort of fills a need, but he's not desirable, and Kaman is an overpaid, injury prone center who can't play with good low post players. Honestly the only positive assets you have to the wolves are Gordon, Jordan, Griffin(worth more than Rubio but yet another PF), and picks.

LakeShowKobe24 · Post #44 » by **LakeShowKobe24** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:17 pm

Lol at Clips saying hte 2012 pick is worth more than Rubio. God damn clip fans.

ITK9 · Post #45 » by **ITK9** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:19 pm

Esohny wrote:
ITK9 wrote:marrese speights and jrue holiday.

Maybe if the centerpiece is Young, there would be interest. We sure don't need another PF and PG.

i might be interested in Thad Young for Rubio and Brewer.

jakecronus8 · Post #46 » by **jakecronus8** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:28 pm

I'm not sure about how the Bucks front office feels about Ricky, or where they had him on their draft board. Personally, I feel him and Jennings are about even as prospects. However, if they do prefer Rubio, I could see them offering Jennings, a swap of Ridnour's expiring for Sangaila (deal runs a year longer) and a future protected first rounder. If Minny wants to be an even bigger player in Free Agency next year, maybe they could swap Gomes for one of Milwaukee's expirings as well.

Post #47 » by **loflin3hree5ive** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:30 pm

Clips would give anything outside of Gordon/Griffin/Jordan and probably take back whatever contracts they had to.

Post #48 » by **revprodeji** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:46 pm

MN has no bad contracts. They would want a potential stud at the 2 or 3. The closest trade I have seen is the PJA 3 way (figures, he is the best trade guy on the board) MN is not auctioning rubio off. We are fine waiting for him. So if you want him offer something decent.

jgustav1 · Post #49 » by **jgustav1** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:32 pm

Esohny wrote:Can I quote you that the pick will be top 5 in 2012? Unless the wolves entire roster is injured for the next two years straight, the pick will exceed protection and go to the clippers in 2011.

Thornton sort of fills a need, but he's not desirable, and Kaman is an overpaid, injury prone center who can't play with good low post players. Honestly the only positive assets you have to the wolves are Gordon, Jordan, Griffin(worth more than Rubio but yet another PF), and picks.

You seriously think the Wolves will be out of the top 10 lottery picks within 2 seasons? What if Rubio is in Europe for the next 2 years? Who starts for the Wolves at SG and SF over the next two years? The Clippers may not be a good trading partner with the Wolves but Gordon, Griffin, Jordan and future picks aren't going to be involved in the Rubio auction. Sacramento was the only team he worked out for and they passed on him, why would the Clippers be that high on him?

jgustav1 · Post #50 » by **jgustav1** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:36 pm

revprodeji wrote:MN has no bad contracts. They would want a potential stud at the 2 or 3. The closest trade I have seen is the PJA 3 way (figures, he is the best trade guy on the board) MN is not auctioning rubio off. We are fine waiting for him. So if you want him offer something decent.

MN is loaded with bad short term contracts - Cardinal, Madsen, Thomas are expiring. Songalia is a bad contract that has two years to run.

Esohny · Post #51 » by **Esohny** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:55 pm

jgustav1 wrote:
Esohny wrote:Can I quote you that the pick will be top 5 in 2012? Unless the wolves entire roster is injured for the next two years straight, the pick will exceed protection and go to the clippers in 2011.

Thornton sort of fills a need, but he's not desirable, and Kaman is an overpaid, injury prone center who can't play with good low post players. Honestly the only positive assets you have to the wolves are Gordon, Jordan, Griffin(worth more than Rubio but yet another PF), and picks.

You seriously think the Wolves will be out of the top 10 lottery picks within 2 seasons? What if Rubio is in Europe for the next 2 years? Who starts for the Wolves at SG and SF over the next two years? The Clippers may not be a good trading partner with the Wolves but Gordon, Griffin, Jordan and future picks aren't going to be involved in the Rubio auction. Sacramento was the only team he worked out for and they passed on him, why would the Clippers be that high on him?

Yes. With only Randy Foye as the only legit starter in the backcourt, and the Love being the only one of the top 4 players on the wolves who didn't miss extensive time due to injury, the wolves and memphis were tied for the 5/6 worst record at 24 wins. Milwaukee was 10th with 34 wins. With the talent they've added, and will continue to add(they have 3 1st rounders next season as well) and players coming back from injuries, I can't imagine a scenario where they don't outplay the protection on the pick. And I don't care if the clippers don't want to trade those players, I want the Wolves to keep Rubio. I was simply responding to other posts about the clippers potential to trade for him.

Post #52 » by **revprodeji** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:49 pm

jgustav1 wrote:
MN is loaded with bad short term contracts - Cardinal, Madsen, Thomas are expiring. Songalia is a bad contract that has two years to run.

An expiring deal has value, in that it is ending, but can also be combined to a team looking for money.

Songaila is the closest thing to a bad contract we have. All the others expire the year.

john2jer · Post #53 » by **john2jer** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:52 pm

jgustav1 wrote:
revprodeji wrote:MN has no bad contracts. They would want a potential stud at the 2 or 3. The closest trade I have seen is the PJA 3 way (figures, he is the best trade guy on the board) MN is not auctioning rubio off. We are fine waiting for him. So if you want him offer something decent.

MN is loaded with bad short term contracts - Cardinal, Madsen, Thomas are expiring. Songalia is a bad contract that has two years to run.

HUH!?!?

Cardinal, Madsen, Thomas, Smith, and Brown are all expiring. Songalia is the only contract the Wolves have that's not on a rookie deal or Al Jefferson.

Wolves will have roughly 15.5mil in cap space next year, assuming the cap drops to 55mil. That's max cap room.

The Wolves have zero bad contracts, maybe one, being Songalia.

If you take the time between when McHale took over and when Al Jefferson went down, 2+ months, and stretched it over the course of the whole season, that's a 34 win season. Which is a 3 way tie for the 10th pick.

Now we lost Miller and Foye, but we're getting back Brewer and Jefferson, plus adding in at least Flynn. Add in up to a max free agent in 2010, I think it's pretty obvious we'd be better than a 5th pick in the draft in 2012.

Wow... I understand hope has sprung eternal cause of Griffin, but keep in mind that Randolph, Davis, and Dunleavy are still there in LALA land.

AgEnT50 · Post #54 » by **AgEnT50** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:55 pm

muratatistanbul wrote:if i were orlando i'd give jameer nelson for rubio (& expirings if needed). though rubio could be said that has no experience, orlando could make the playoff anyway, till playoff this kid will be better. his defence is definitely better than nelson.

i think rubio will play definitely better than jameer at most by the end of the year. kid is amazing.

what do you think?

Are you out of your mind?

This "rookie" will play better than our All-star point guard lol?

giberish · Post #55 » by **giberish** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:16 am

There's what I would give if I were running the Warriors, and what the Warriors would give. The guts of any deal would be something based on Curry or Monta (with extra wing(s) for extra PF(s)).

I would do either Curry + Speedy for Rubio + Songiala or Curry + (Belinelli or Azibukie) for Rubio + Smith. GS claims Curry was #2 on their draft board - so they wouldn't make these deals.

I'm ok with GS drafting Curry - outside of knee concerns with Blair he was the BPA, but Rubio's better. Even if Rubio doesn't come over for a year or two - his value is long-term and most rookies don't provide much immediate help anyway.

The other possibility I would do is something like Monta + (Belinelli or Azibukie) for Rubio + Songiala + Cardinal. Minnesota would have to like Monta going forward to do that, and the Warriors FO wouldn't anyways they're in win-now mode. For me though, Rubio/Curry is a great backcourt to build around, and Randolf and Biendrins are young enough to grow with them.

mikero · Post #56 » by **mikero** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:45 am

Here goes an offer from the Raps:

DeRozan + Graham (QO) + Hump for Rubio + Madsen + Songaila

Depends on how high you had DeRozan rated I guess. With their athleticism, I think DeRozan and Brewer could be very good together on the wings, especially defensively. Graham and Hump are slight upgrades in contract/talent to Madsen and Songaila. A variation with Calderon might also be possible, although that doesn't really solve your PG issue.

I'm sure Kahn wants much more though, especially after how much it cost to get #5.

Post #57 » by **Trader_Joe** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:05 am

Before the draft and before the BS from a Nets perspective Harris for Rubio was really not that bad of a deal for either side, but now that Rubio's value has gone down for a variety of reasons, there is no way that should happen.

Now the Nets could offer:

1 of Lee, TWill or CDR
1 of Swat or Boone
2010 Dallas #1
GS #1 from M.Will trade

The Nets could then start Harris and Rubio since both have good size, and Harris' shot will hopefully improve enough where he could play off the ball more in a VC type role.

NY should NOT offer 2 of Chandler, Gallinari and Hill, unless Curry or Jeffries go as well.

They should offer:

1 of Chandler, Gallinari, Hill
Nate or Lee (s&t)
$3m
Future protected #1

for

Rubio
E.Thomas

john2jer · Post #58 » by **john2jer** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:19 am

Toronto offer is lateral in the none rookies portion so it becomes DeRozan versus Rubio, no thanks.

The Knicks offer is no good. Wolves don't want anything to do with Nate or Lee, neither make sense.

So it becomes a 2012 1st and Chandler or Gallinari? Pass. Knicks just don't have the pieces to get it done in a 2 team trade.

I just don't think the Wolves want to trade Rubio, so none of these are worth the time. Now if someone wants to overpay for him, sure, but no team is going to do that.

Post #59 » by **Trader_Joe** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:43 am

john2jer wrote:Toronto offer is lateral in the none rookies portion so it becomes DeRozan versus Rubio, no thanks.

The Knicks offer is no good. Wolves don't want anything to do with Nate or Lee, neither make sense.

So it becomes a 2012 1st and Chandler or Gallinari? Pass. Knicks just don't have the pieces to get it done in a 2 team trade.

I just don't think the Wolves want to trade Rubio, so none of these are worth the time. Now if someone wants to overpay for him, sure, but no team is going to do that.

What do you think of the Nets offer?

After thinking about, it's actually a pretty good trade IMO.

Lee, Twill or CDR would probably come in and be a starter right away.
Boone or Swat could plays some back-up 5 and are both low risk expirers
The Dallas #1 will be nice in a deep draft and probably in the 13-23 range
(maybe worse if they get nothing for Kidd)
The GS #1 is not a bad thing to have, if for no other reason it handcuffs GS in trades from sending out #1 picks for the next several years so maybe they come calling for it, or can be worked into this deal.

All, in all, it's not bad return for a #5 pick who has major risks and baggage associated with them already and probably the upper limit of a NJ offer.

Revised:

NJ
Gives: TWill (or Lee or CDR), Swat (or Boone), 2010 Dallas #1, GS #1 (MWill trade)
For: Rubio, C.Smith

GS
Gives: Belinelli
For: Own #1, Swat

GS gets their pick back, allowing flexibility in trades. With GS landing Curry, Belinelli's role would be minimal considering all the guards on the roster. Swat (or Boone) adds some minutes at PF or C.

Minny
Gives: Rubio, C.Smith
Gets: TWill, Belinelli, 2010 Dallas #1

Minny
Flynn / Telfair
Belinelli / Ellington / Brewer
Twill / Gomes / Cardinal
Love / Songalia / E.Thomas
Jefferson / Pecherov / Madsen
+ 2010 Dallas #1

jgustav1 · Post #60 » by **jgustav1** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:07 am

john2jer wrote:HUH!?!?

Cardinal, Madsen, Thomas, Smith, and Brown are all expiring. Songalia is the only contract the Wolves have that's not on a rookie deal or Al Jefferson.

Wolves will have roughly 15.5mil in cap space next year, assuming the cap drops to 55mil. That's max cap room.

The Wolves have zero bad contracts, maybe one, being Songalia.

If you take the time between when McHale took over and when Al Jefferson went down, 2+ months, and stretched it over the course of the whole season, that's a 34 win season. Which is a 3 way tie for the 10th pick.

Now we lost Miller and Foye, but we're getting back Brewer and Jefferson, plus adding in at least Flynn. Add in up to a max free agent in 2010, I think it's pretty obvious we'd be better than a 5th pick in the draft in 2012.

Wow... I understand hope has sprung eternal cause of Griffin, but keep in mind that Randolph, Davis, and Dunleavy are still there in LALA land.

The Wolves can't get anything of value for most of those contracts, Cardinal, Thomas, Madsen etc. They will likely expire without being dealt just like Raef LaFrentz did in Portland if you decide to hold onto Rubio.

What does projecting Kevin McHale's record as coach have anything to do with next season? He was let go and all the teams in the conference that finished below the Wolves have added lottery picks.

Cap room is nice, but when was the last time a big name free agent from another team decided to join the TWolves? We'll find out where the 2011-2012 pick owed to the Clippers ends up, I expect it to be sent over to the Clippers as a 2012 lottery pick.