Celtics | Wolves

[rugbyrugger23]

I know I had this as part of a bigger trade, pulling this out and paring it down...

Celtics Trade:
Hayward
Brown
G. Williams

FOR

Covington
Wiggins
Okogie
Wolves Trade:

Who adds what???

Celtics Why: Brown extension most likely will be more dollars and longer contract than Wiggins (Wiggins’ contract aligns with Walker) — yes Brown is a more productive player. Brad sees what he can do with Wiggins, in new situation, in East, maybe even as super 6th (Smart starts). Covington compliments Tatum well — with either playing the 4 depending on matchups.
C: Kanter
F: Covington
F: Tatum
G: Smart or Wiggins
G: Walker
6: Wiggins or Smart

Wolves Why: they turn Wiggins into Hayward contract. Wolves hope Brown will be a better long term sidekick to Towns — even if more expensive than Wiggins (Brown’s contract should align with Towns’ contract).
C: Towns
F: Committee (Layman, Vonleh, Dieng, Williams)
F: Hayward (Culver when ready)
G: Brown
G: Teague (2020 1st which should be mid lotto)
6: Culver (Hayward when Culver ready)

[SmartWentCrazy]

I know this is a continuation of a post from a different thread, but Boston doesnt come close to touching this.

Hayward is much better than Wiggins right now and also has significantly more ‘realistic’ upside and a significantly better contract. Covington has more trade value than Brown, but it no where near offsets the absolute anchor Andrew Wiggins is for his talent level [I have him comfortably as the worst non-Wall contract in the league]. I feel like Okogie/Williams is a “both sides prefer their guy”, with Williams contract value giving him a slight nod.

Boston would want at least one unprotected, and likely a few other protected picks on top of that. Minnesota wouldnt do that and no deal is to be had.

[Resistance]

Celtics Why: Brown extension most likely will be more dollars and longer contract than Wiggins (Wiggins’ contract aligns with Walker) — yes Brown is a more productive player

There are other options for Boston beyond trading for Wiggins.

If Brown's contract will be too much for Ainge to stomach, then flip him at the trade deadline for expiring + some pick or let him walk in July.

[Rockazoids]

Lets see... Boston doen't want to pay Brown near max but they would be ok in having Wiggins at a max just for Covington .

[shrink]

Lets see... Boston doen't want to pay Brown near max but they would be ok in having Wiggins at a max just for Covington .

“Just for Covington” is a pretty big “just for.”

In addition, BOS gets off Hayward’s contract and adds Okogie on a rookie deal.

As for the trade, I don’t particularly like it for either team. BOS is a contender and doesn’t need to go gamble on Wiggins - gambling on Hayward is plenty. MIN doesn’t need to use Covington to clear Wiggins deal, at least this year. RoCo is vital to developing KAT, helping on both ends.

[Rockazoids]

Lets see... Boston doen't want to pay Brown near max but they would be ok in having Wiggins at a max just for Covington .

“Just for Covington” is a pretty big “just for.”

In addition, BOS gets off Hayward’s contract and adds Okogie on a rookie deal.

As for the trade, I don’t particularly like it for either team. BOS is a contender and doesn’t need to go gamble on Wiggins - gambling on Hayward is plenty. MIN doesn’t need to use Covington to clear Wiggins deal, at least this year. RoCo is vital to developing KAT, helping on both ends.

I wouldn't touch either one but if I had to I would take Hayward, he at least knew how to play basketball. Hayward deal is two year
shorter. I'm not taking on the cost just for a good roll player in Covington.

[psman2]

If Boston doesn't want to pay Brown and wants to get rid of Hayward there are much cheaper ways of doing this than eating Wiggins deal.

Using my Grizzlies as example:
Hayward/Brown
for
Iggy/Crowder/Hill and likely throw in the Utah 1st maybe some 2nds.

So would you rather some useful expiring contracts and a 1st or 4 additional years of Wiggins and Covington. I love Cov but the Wiggins/Cov bundle is still a negative trade package in my opinion.

[rugbyrugger23]

If Boston doesn't want to pay Brown and wants to get rid of Hayward there are much cheaper ways of doing this than eating Wiggins deal.

Using my Grizzlies as example:
Hayward/Brown
for
Iggy/Crowder/Hill and likely throw in the Utah 1st maybe some 2nds.

So would you rather some useful expiring contracts and a 1st or 4 additional years of Wiggins and Covington. I love Cov but the Wiggins/Cov bundle is still a negative trade package in my opinion.

Memphis doesn't throw in a 1st on that.

When taking on Hayward and having to pay Brown, Wiggins + Covington is not negative value in return.

[rugbyrugger23]

Lets see... Boston doen't want to pay Brown near max but they would be ok in having Wiggins at a max just for Covington .

Different max amounts. And with Salary going out, it is not that simple in comparison.

The questions is Brown on 4 year max (higher dollar than Wiggins) + 1 year of Hayward

OR

3 Years of Wiggins + 2 Years Covington

2021 Offseason Celtics would have slightly less cap space but still holding Covington.

[Resistance]

OR

No Brown + 1 year of Hayward

[Mamba4Goat]

If Boston doesn't want to pay Brown and wants to get rid of Hayward there are much cheaper ways of doing this than eating Wiggins deal.

Using my Grizzlies as example:
Hayward/Brown
for
Iggy/Crowder/Hill and likely throw in the Utah 1st maybe some 2nds.

So would you rather some useful expiring contracts and a 1st or 4 additional years of Wiggins and Covington. I love Cov but the Wiggins/Cov bundle is still a negative trade package in my opinion.

Memphis doesn't throw in a 1st on that.

When taking on Hayward and having to pay Brown, Wiggins + Covington is not negative value in return.

I have Hayward/Brown as neutral to positive. I have Cov+Wiggins as a negative.

[Mamba4Goat]

If I'm Minnesota I happily take this and run. Maybe even toss in a 1st. If I'm Boston I wouldn't even do it with a 1st added.

[psman2]

If Boston doesn't want to pay Brown and wants to get rid of Hayward there are much cheaper ways of doing this than eating Wiggins deal.

Using my Grizzlies as example:
Hayward/Brown
for
Iggy/Crowder/Hill and likely throw in the Utah 1st maybe some 2nds.

So would you rather some useful expiring contracts and a 1st or 4 additional years of Wiggins and Covington. I love Cov but the Wiggins/Cov bundle is still a negative trade package in my opinion.

Memphis doesn't throw in a 1st on that.

When taking on Hayward and having to pay Brown, Wiggins + Covington is not negative value in return.

I think we would. As a small market team you have to take on some risks. I think Brown is worth the gamble and to a lesser extend Hayward possibly too.

Having to pay Brown is not a negative as of now because plenty of teams are willing to give up trade value for him and gamble on his upside.

One extra year of Hayward and giving up a likely late future Utah 1st is not too big a price in my book. I don't see Hayward as dead-wight like Wiggins, and I think there is a good chance that he regains most of form, but if he doesn't the opportunity cost of the cap space we forgo the next year is likely another late 1st from someone in a salary dump. So at the end of the day the net trade would be the Utah 1st, some unrealized 2nds from the Iggy/Crowder possible trades, and cap space next year that would likely be sold for a late 1st.

That is really not that big a price to pay depending on what your evaluation of Brown looks like.

[Texas Chuck]

I have Cov+Wiggins as a negative.

Me too and I have Covington as being very very valuable. But a big part of his value is tied to how underpaid he is. Triple his salary and have him take up a 2nd roster spot on a negative player and suddenly all that value is gone.

I totally get Minny wanting to keep Covington as he fits beautifully with Towns. But if you could use him to get rid of Wiggins you have to because with Wiggins on the roster you literally have no chance to build anything close to a contender around Towns and thsu you are ensuring he won't sign another contract with the team.

I'd do whatever I had to do to get Wiggins off the roster and the sooner the better. I know the cost to dump him only gets cheaper as years fall off, but the AD saga should teach them you have less time than you think with your star--don't keep wasting it.

[shrink]

I totally get Minny wanting to keep Covington as he fits beautifully with Towns. But if you could use him to get rid of Wiggins you have to because with Wiggins on the roster you literally have no chance to build anything close to a contender around Towns and thus you are ensuring he won't sign another contract with the team.

“Literally no chance to build anything close to a contender?” Can you expand on this for me?

They aren’t a free agent destination, and they are investing heavily in youth that could be on cheap contracts. In addition, most owners are willing to pay lux taxes for a contender, and Taylor was one of the first GM’s to do so.

Is this just about maximizing the production from your total payroll?

[Texas Chuck]

I totally get Minny wanting to keep Covington as he fits beautifully with Towns. But if you could use him to get rid of Wiggins you have to because with Wiggins on the roster you literally have no chance to build anything close to a contender around Towns and thus you are ensuring he won't sign another contract with the team.

“Literally no chance to build anything close to a contender?” Can you expand on this for me?

They aren’t a free agent destination, and they are investing heavily in youth that could be on cheap contracts. Then there’s always the willingness of an owner to pay lux taxes. Is this just about maximizing the production from your total payroll?

Yeah for a small market team that isn't going to be a repeater I wouldn't think its just impossible to tie up that much money in a guy who is such a negative on the court especially when a coach feels obligated to play him big minutes because of the contract. I just don't think the Wolves can hit on draft picks and have them be key contributors fast enough especially with how young players get drafted in the NBA leading to so many failed picks.

It's technically not impossible of course. They could win the lottery next year and a generational player could come in super NBA ready--think Luka 2.0, but it's just so unlikely and even if that happens you would want to surround he and Towns with quality vets but you'd struggle to because of lack of financial flexibility.

Even without being a free agent destination you can use that cap space far more efficiently than Wiggins.

[shrink]

I totally get Minny wanting to keep Covington as he fits beautifully with Towns. But if you could use him to get rid of Wiggins you have to because with Wiggins on the roster you literally have no chance to build anything close to a contender around Towns and thus you are ensuring he won't sign another contract with the team.

“Literally no chance to build anything close to a contender?” Can you expand on this for me?

They aren’t a free agent destination, and they are investing heavily in youth that could be on cheap contracts. Then there’s always the willingness of an owner to pay lux taxes. Is this just about maximizing the production from your total payroll?

Yeah for a small market team that isn't going to be a repeater I wouldn't think its just impossible to tie up that much money in a guy who is such a negative on the court especially when a coach feels obligated to play him big minutes because of the contract. I just don't think the Wolves can hit on draft picks and have them be key contributors fast enough especially with how young players get drafted in the NBA leading to so many failed picks.

It's technically not impossible of course. They could win the lottery next year and a generational player could come in super NBA ready--think Luka 2.0, but it's just so unlikely and even if that happens you would want to surround he and Towns with quality vets but you'd struggle to because of lack of financial flexibility.

Even without being a free agent destination you can use that cap space far more efficiently than Wiggins.

First MIN isn’t a small market team. I believe they are 13th. They aren’t one of the big markets, but are 3-4 times the size of MEM, OKC and NOP. They also have an aging, billionaire owner. For better or worse (usually worse), he is willing to publicly say what he thinks, and he is willing to go over the lux with a contender. Remember, owners needed to invent max deals in the CBA because Taylor was willing to pay Garnett such a big salary.

Second, as bad as Wiggins is, there is always the option to not play him. Neither Saunders or Rosas are responsible for Wiggins contract, and word out of MIN this off-season is that while Wiggins seems more mature, he will have stricter guidelines, and if he fails to meet them, he will lose playing time.

Also, teams have contended with a big chunk of salary being locked up. The Rockets looked to get off Ryan Anderson’s big salary in the 2017 offseason, and couldn’t make a move happen until 2018, but contended just fine.

Finally, this trade deals KAT’s two closest friends on the team, Wiggins and Covington. On the court, RoCo was phenomenal at unlocking KAT. In those limited games last year when he arrived, the Wolves were in the Top 3 offensively and defensively. Towns isn’t bad defensively because he doesn’t care - he gets into foul trouble because perimeter defenders don’t keep opponents to driving to the paint, where Towns has to make a decision (and he often makes the wrong one). When asked about this at Media Day, he said something like, “yeah, the fouls are bad, but I was a leader at contending shots [edit, he was 4th]. I’m not letting anyone just go to the rim.” When asked about his remarkable defensive numbers when Covington joined, he said, “yeah, Covington’s got that side covered, so I don’t need to worry about it.” I just think Covington is too vital to Towns’ growth, to lose him to clear a (very) bad contract.

[Texas Chuck]

Shrink,

I strongly disagree. But you make your points well and I respect your perspective here. I appreciate your engagement and giving me the chance to express an opinion you strongly disagree with while sticking to substance. It's the kind of discussion I love on this board. I may reply further when I get the chance.

[Maple Green]

I'd rather get Towns for Boston packages

Walker-Tatum-Towns is a above averages combinations

[Mamba4Goat]

I'd rather get Towns for Boston packages

Walker-Tatum-Towns is a above averages combinations

You probably can't keep Tatum and get Towns.