SO_MONEY wrote:shrink wrote:SO_MONEY wrote:I never said you need to know the result of a trade, I was making the point that when you risk everything (as explained by Baseline) and don't know, it should be a red flag. The certainty of results or risk assessment should be directly correlated to the amount you give up. I don't think this is controversial.
I disagree with this fundamentally. So let’s leave the name “Gobert” out and talk about the principle.
In decision-making, the certainty of results should be correlated with the cost, but also the size of the rewards. This is talking about the “home run swing.”
But let’s talk first about what we know, about where we are. I believe the 2022 Wolves over-achieved their talent by making the playoffs. They had a star in Towns, and a rising star in Ant, but the rest of their starters were worse than most competitors. They were a fun team, that was very lucky with their own health, and repeatedly facing teams when their stars were sick or injured. Worse, adding star-talent is tough for MIN, since stars aren’t begging to come here in free agency, or could force their way out at the earliest opportunity. Staying the course with the rotational players they gave up, in my view, was highly likely to put us back in the lottery, and keep Ant from adding to his playoff experience.
To me, MIN is exactly the type of team that needs to make home run swings, when a rare opportunity came up for them. Rebuilding with picks nearly every season for twenty years has been a pathway to mediocrity. I understand that you don’t like the price in future picks, and that’s fair, but I feel a high risk, high return trade is exactly the type of trade that the MIN franchise needed to take.
First off a risk assessment is a general term used across many industries to determine the likelihood of loss on an asset, loan, or investment. Assessing risk is essential for determining how worthwhile a specific investment is and the best process(es) to mitigate risk. It presents the upside reward compared to the risk profile.
So I covered reward.
Additionally, if people lived their lives giving up mass value for unknown and speculative rewards the fallout would be catastrophic. You give up the most when you have reason to believe a result will happen, something where there is low perceived risk, not for an unknown novel concept. Reward is factored in, but risk reduces value respective of reward. You can have a high reward deal where there are known expectations be it observational, data driven research or any other measurement which would make you confident the risk is worth the reward, then you can have a high reward deal where it is effectively based on... trust me bro... that is what the wolves did. And the two deals are not the same. You give up value for one and you reduce your stake in or completely avoid the other.
What did the Wolves lose? You keep using these vague concepts of "future flexibility" etc etc, but what did they REALLY lose out on by paying what they did for Gobert? Running it back with a team that probably had a ceiling of 1st rounder? Missing out on getting a higher lottery pick while not playing as many meaningful games?
Do you believe that what they gave up was the only path to championship contention? Let's go back to before the trade and try to simulate a different version of the multi-verse.
Let's say POBO SO_MONEY is hired in the offseason of 2022, what is your 5 year plan with the assets in place to make this team a contender?
My guess is that you are the type that likes to point out problems, but has no solutions. Critiquing something is infinitely easier than doing something, because you have no skin in the game and there are no consequences to being wrong.
The people that attempt things and fail get a lot more respect from me than the people simply watching and saying "I told ya so." while taking no risks.
The first type of person is how we get new stuff that we didn't imagine was possible... the 2nd is how we get Stephen A Smiths.
