ImageImageImage

"Major deal" with POR?

Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks

jpatrick
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,250
And1: 1,598
Joined: May 30, 2007
 

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#21 » by jpatrick » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:13 pm

Until Pek proves he is healthy enough to play fulltime, we would have to attach a major asset to dump him. I have to think this was maybe a Bennett for top 55 protected second round pick type discussion. Although, I wouldn't call that "major."
NewWolvesOrder
Head Coach
Posts: 6,943
And1: 1,262
Joined: Dec 20, 2008

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#22 » by NewWolvesOrder » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:16 pm

wolves_89 wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:
eroomlladnar wrote:Cap Room would almost certainly mean Pek.

Portland is $19 mil under the cap, so anything is pretty much open.


I think cap room would mean Bennett

The Wolves can decline Bennett's option for 2016-2017, so he doesn't really affect Minnesota's cap space next off-season. The only player that the Wolves would want to move that impacts next year's cap space is Pek.


They still have to pay Bennett almost 6 mil. Taylor may not like it.
wolves_89
Head Coach
Posts: 7,314
And1: 3,984
Joined: Jul 10, 2012
 

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#23 » by wolves_89 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:23 pm

NewWolvesOrder wrote:
wolves_89 wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:
I think cap room would mean Bennett

The Wolves can decline Bennett's option for 2016-2017, so he doesn't really affect Minnesota's cap space next off-season. The only player that the Wolves would want to move that impacts next year's cap space is Pek.


They still have to pay Bennett almost 6 mil. Taylor may not like it.

The Wolves owner being cheap is a different discussion that one where cap space is the primary concern.

I think Bennett has some value as salary filler for a trade deadline deal. If the Wolves look to make a move at the deadline with one of their young guys, attaching Bennett allows them to bring back a player with considerably more salary. That flexibility could really be useful since I think Minnesota's TPEs are going to expire soon.
guest81
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,932
And1: 1,473
Joined: Jun 26, 2014

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#24 » by guest81 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:30 pm

I herd it was Lillard and a 1st for Rubio. Wolves turned it down though. They thought Lillard was too young to be considered a mentor to Tyus Jones at this point
NewWolvesOrder
Head Coach
Posts: 6,943
And1: 1,262
Joined: Dec 20, 2008

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#25 » by NewWolvesOrder » Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:06 pm

guest81 wrote:I herd it was Lillard and a 1st for Rubio. Wolves turned it down though. They thought Lillard was too young to be considered a mentor to Tyus Jones at this point


Troll81?
NewWolvesOrder
Head Coach
Posts: 6,943
And1: 1,262
Joined: Dec 20, 2008

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#26 » by NewWolvesOrder » Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:11 pm

Feilong wrote:POR is under the cap and they are a good trade partner.
Pek + Bennett for Kaman i thought was the trade. It makes sense for both teams.
Martin is too valuable for our team to trade him.


Kaman/Bennett swap may work. But why would Portland subject themselves to paying Pek 36 mil over 3 years? Do people even think before posting?
Feilong
Veteran
Posts: 2,872
And1: 1,029
Joined: Jan 26, 2014

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#27 » by Feilong » Sat Aug 22, 2015 3:14 pm

NewWolvesOrder wrote:
Feilong wrote:POR is under the cap and they are a good trade partner.
Pek + Bennett for Kaman i thought was the trade. It makes sense for both teams.
Martin is too valuable for our team to trade him.


Kaman/Bennett swap may work. But why would Portland subject themselves to paying Pek 36 mil over 3 years? Do people even think before posting?


Yes some of us think before posting.
a) It was about a major deal (tweet) and Bennett alone is not a major deal.
b) Only "major" players that MIN would trade are Pekovic and Martin, and we badly need Martin's shooting. That leaves only Pekovic.
c) The trade had something to do with cap room (tweet) which means we were sending more salary than we were receiving.
d) POR has only Lillard and maybe Plumlee. For the next 2-3 years they are gathering picks and players. Because they are under the cap they can gamble. Pekovic health and Bennett's talent are exactly this, gambles.
NewWolvesOrder
Head Coach
Posts: 6,943
And1: 1,262
Joined: Dec 20, 2008

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#28 » by NewWolvesOrder » Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:41 pm

haha you indeed seriously think that Blazers could take on Pek without major incentive?! I'm speechless. Please don't tell me that Bennett is that incentive

And some people around here make fun of Knicks fans :banghead:
Note30
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,349
And1: 1,528
Joined: Feb 25, 2014
 

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#29 » by Note30 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:20 pm

NewWolvesOrder wrote:haha you indeed seriously think that Blazers could take on Pek without major incentive?! I'm speechless. Please don't tell me that Bennett is that incentive

And some people around here make fun of Knicks fans :banghead:

... I mean, I'm sure you realize they are rebuilding so they will take picks right?
frankenwolf wrote:I hope you eat every one of these words next year when the Timberwolves are world champions

[*]-Mar 2023 in reference to the Gobert trade.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
NewWolvesOrder
Head Coach
Posts: 6,943
And1: 1,262
Joined: Dec 20, 2008

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#30 » by NewWolvesOrder » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:28 pm

Note30 wrote:
NewWolvesOrder wrote:haha you indeed seriously think that Blazers could take on Pek without major incentive?! I'm speechless. Please don't tell me that Bennett is that incentive

And some people around here make fun of Knicks fans :banghead:

... I mean, I'm sure you realize they are rebuilding so they will take picks right?


Nowhere in his post the guy mentioned picks.....I mean, I'm sure you realize that Kaman for Bennett/Pek is a homer proposal.
Note30
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,349
And1: 1,528
Joined: Feb 25, 2014
 

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#31 » by Note30 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:29 pm

NewWolvesOrder wrote:
Note30 wrote:
NewWolvesOrder wrote:haha you indeed seriously think that Blazers could take on Pek without major incentive?! I'm speechless. Please don't tell me that Bennett is that incentive

And some people around here make fun of Knicks fans :banghead:

... I mean, I'm sure you realize they are rebuilding so they will take picks right?


Nowhere in his post the guy mentioned picks.....I mean, I'm sure you realize that.


You are right. I guess I just assumed picks would also be included.
frankenwolf wrote:I hope you eat every one of these words next year when the Timberwolves are world champions

[*]-Mar 2023 in reference to the Gobert trade.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Worm Guts
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Posts: 26,089
And1: 10,528
Joined: Dec 27, 2003
     

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#32 » by Worm Guts » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:57 pm

The major deal made me think Rubio-Lillard, but I'm not sure how that would fit with the cap space part.
User avatar
Vindicater
General Manager
Posts: 7,948
And1: 423
Joined: Apr 11, 2004

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#33 » by Vindicater » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:47 pm

guest81 wrote:I herd it was Lillard and a 1st for Rubio. Wolves turned it down though. They thought Lillard was too young to be considered a mentor to Tyus Jones at this point


Absolutely fantastic.
"That's why the last two years weren't guaranteed," Walsh said. "Either way, he knew it could have happened either way."
Dame Lizard
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,610
And1: 2,162
Joined: Dec 03, 2012
 

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#34 » by Dame Lizard » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:41 am

Worm Guts wrote:The major deal made me think Rubio-Lillard, but I'm not sure how that would fit with the cap space part.


There is absolutely zero chance of that happening.

I think it's clearly just a case of exaggerated journalism. A Pekovic salary dump must be his definition of "major deal" to draw in media interest.

The only player the Blazers would trade Lillard for is Wiggins, which the Wolves would obviously not agree to (and Olshey loves Lillard so he'd be thinking long and hard too, despite the fact that Wiggins > Lillard value wise).

I absolutely don't think Portland would trade Lillard for K-Towns tbh, even if the value is there. (Lillard's the face of the Franchise, the fans LOVE him, has never missed an NBA game in his first 3 seasons, and a proven All Star). It'd be a pretty big F-U to the fans if he were to be traded, given he's young enough to attempt a successful rebuild. We're already going to be a bottom 5 team in the league, replace Lillard with Towns and we'd be 76ers bad.

I know there's a lot of Rubio lovers amongst the T-Wolves fans, but in the open market Lillard's value >>> Rubio's value.

I think Rubio's a good fit for you anyway going forward, given Minnesota's hope is that Wiggins evolves into a premier scorer in the league.
User avatar
shakendfries
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,886
And1: 1,063
Joined: Jun 24, 2015

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#35 » by shakendfries » Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:27 am

Worm Guts wrote:The major deal made me think Rubio-Lillard, but I'm not sure how that would fit with the cap space part.


Rubio and Martin for Lillard + a throwaway like Plumlee?
ImageImage

"Kevin Durant is not coming to the Nets. If I'm wrong, I will change my avatar to anything you request no matter how humiliating it is." - MrDollarBills, 10/22/18
User avatar
Saltine
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,336
And1: 911
Joined: Jul 20, 2003
Location: Land o' Lakes
     

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#36 » by Saltine » Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:14 am

Flip isn't trading Rubio.
User avatar
PharmD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,953
And1: 5,536
Joined: Aug 21, 2015
 

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#37 » by PharmD » Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:17 am

shakendfries wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:The major deal made me think Rubio-Lillard, but I'm not sure how that would fit with the cap space part.


Rubio and Martin for Lillard + a throwaway like Plumlee?


Why would Portland do this? They're pretty much committed to rebuilding around Lillard. Martin has ~no value to them.
User avatar
Tekkenlaw
Starter
Posts: 2,078
And1: 39
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#38 » by Tekkenlaw » Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:17 am

lol, mods getting butthurt and locking threads in trades and transactions because twolves fans thought Rubio-Lavine-Shabazz-Dieng-Bjelica-two firsts for Lillard would be a bad trade.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 63,514
And1: 17,915
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#39 » by Klomp » Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:39 am

Tekkenlaw wrote:lol, mods getting butthurt and locking threads in trades and transactions because twolves fans thought Rubio-Lavine-Shabazz-Dieng-Bjelica-two firsts for Lillard would be a bad trade.

That's not why the thread was locked. Try again.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.

Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
User avatar
NikolaPekovic
Rookie
Posts: 1,117
And1: 344
Joined: Jun 27, 2012
 

Re: "Major deal" with POR? 

Post#40 » by NikolaPekovic » Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:16 am

Saltine wrote:Flip isn't trading Rubio.

Flip tried to trade him for Bledsoe last year. Also would've taken D'Angelo 2nd in the draft, which would eventually lead to Ricky being traded.


Us Wolves fans probably value Rubio higher than Flip.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves