Trade Talk (Part Nine) (READ FIRST POST)

[Neeva]

Wolves need to go after PJ washington IMO. reid would be good for the Hornets.

[Domejandro]

One last bit on Smart.

I can see the Timberwolves being interested in Smart. Gupta has said that he wants MIN to be longterm buyers, and as much as we all love Beverley, he is 33. I could see a trade if the price is reasonable, but BOS has less leverage with MIN than virtually any other team - they just extend Beverley and spend a little more money to be able to keep their 1st, and worry about the problem down the road.

But imagine if MIN acquires Smart 27, on his current deal ($14,339,285 $16,607,142 $18,583,713 $19,960,285 $21,336,856). Where does that leave Beverley? If you pay Smart this much, you’re eventually turning the starting role over to him, so you better not pay Bev like a starter to play back up minutes. He’s certainly played well enough to be a starter on some nba team.

I think what we are seeing is that MIN will offer Beverley an extension after the Trade Deadline, if it still makes sense for both parties.

My presumption would be that Minnesota would only really be interested in pulling the trigger on Marcus Smart if Patrick Beverly was part of another deal. I really do not see it happening, otherwise.

I’m not sure I see the distinction here.

If we dealt for Smart, Beverley would either be gone through trade, or gone at the end of the season when we didn’t extend him.

Are you saying we’re unwilling to include Beasley in a Smart deal?

I was saying that I don't see Minnesota trading for Marcus Smart while Patrick Beverly is on the roster. Malik Beasley has nothing to do with it, I just don't see Minnesota trading assets for a redundant player. If Patrick Beverly gets traded elsewhere, however, I could totally see Minnesota trying to trade for Marcus Smart.

[shrink]

My presumption would be that Minnesota would only really be interested in pulling the trigger on Marcus Smart if Patrick Beverly was part of another deal. I really do not see it happening, otherwise.

I’m not sure I see the distinction here.

If we dealt for Smart, Beverley would either be gone through trade, or gone at the end of the season when we didn’t extend him.

Are you saying we’re unwilling to include Beasley in a Smart deal?

I was saying that I don't see Minnesota trading for Marcus Smart while Patrick Beverly is on the roster. Malik Beasley has nothing to do with it, I just don't see Minnesota trading assets for a redundant player. If Patrick Beverly gets traded elsewhere, however, I could totally see Minnesota trying to trade for Marcus Smart.

I get you now. I just think they could add Smart, and not worry about having Beverley too, if just for the next few months. DLo and Bev haven’t been the healthiest players.

I would agree if the contract ran past this summer, but I see what you are saying.

[Klomp]

I understand the reasoning that people don't want to trade away our depth. Where I begin to hesitate with that line of thinking...rotations usually slim down as you get closer to and into the playoffs. Right now, our bench is more a "sum of its parts" success, but what happens when you take out a part or two? If we go down to 8 or 9 in the rotation, would we have the same bench strength?

[winforlose]

I understand the reasoning that people don't want to trade away our depth. Where I begin to hesitate with that line of thinking...rotations usually slim down as you get closer to and into the playoffs. Right now, our bench is more a "sum of its parts" success, but what happens when you take out a part or two? If we go down to 8 or 9 in the rotation, would we have the same bench strength?

Trading 4 for 1 makes you too top heavy. The depth allows you to survive when your stars miss time. But, beyond that having a capable bench allows your stars to have a bad night without losing the game. Take out Prince in the first Detroit game and we likely lose. Without Dlo and with Ant not really feeling it (he had 25, but 2/9 from deep, and really struggling to score consistently.) MCD came up huge for us tonight, we might not have won without him. Then you look at a guy like Nowell who has been slumping. In a shortened rotation his slump kills us. In the normal rotation there is more room to work around him. You trade away the depth without bringing in real alternatives and your margin for error shrinks significantly.

Our defensive rebounding is kryptonite. Everything we do on defense disappears when they get a quick board and throw out to open 3 point shooter, or put back layup/dunk. If Gupta stands firm and does not bring us a rebounding machine then he must go. I know you guys think V8 cannot play the 3 with a new big and KAT, but unless we role the dice and find out (worth mentioning V8 plays fine with MCD and KAT,) we are likely a first round out or best case blown out in the second round. Assuming of course we get to 6 or make it through the play in.

[Klomp]

One thought....

Portland may be willing to unload Larry Nance. He's missed a month with knee inflamation which isn't ideal, but the price may be right if he's ready to come back soon.

[shrink]

I understand the reasoning that people don't want to trade away our depth. Where I begin to hesitate with that line of thinking...rotations usually slim down as you get closer to and into the playoffs. Right now, our bench is more a "sum of its parts" success, but what happens when you take out a part or two? If we go down to 8 or 9 in the rotation, would we have the same bench strength?

I agree with the gist here. In the playoffs, rotations shorten, because playoff teams will pick apart lesser players. I am particularly concerned that could happen to us because so many players on our bench are one-way

But if we are just looking at this from an overall talent point of view, I think we want vet bench players that could be potential starters on lesser teams. Let’s classify them by how many teams would start them.

Our Starters: Beverley, DLo, Ant, Vando, KAT .. do not touch. They play great together
Starters on 15 or more teams?
Starters on 5 or more teams? Beasley, McDaniels, Naz, Nowell (maybe?)
Starters on 0 teams? Prince, Okogie, MacLaughlin, Bolmaro, Layman, Knight

I feel like our bench could go back to being a liability unless we can get a player or two that fits in the 15+ slot.

[Klomp]

I understand the reasoning that people don't want to trade away our depth. Where I begin to hesitate with that line of thinking...rotations usually slim down as you get closer to and into the playoffs. Right now, our bench is more a "sum of its parts" success, but what happens when you take out a part or two? If we go down to 8 or 9 in the rotation, would we have the same bench strength?

I agree with the gist here. In the playoffs, rotations shorten, because playoff teams will pick apart lesser players. I am particularly concerned that could happen to us because so many players on our bench are one-way

But if we are just looking at this from an overall talent point of view, I think we want vet bench players that could be potential starters on lesser teams. Let’s classify them by how many teams would start them.

Our Starters: Beverley, DLo, Ant, Vando, KAT .. do not touch. They play great together
Starters on 15 or more teams?
Starters on 5 or more teams? Beasley, McDaniels, Naz, Nowell (maybe?)
Starters on 0 teams? Prince, Okogie, MacLaughlin, Bolmaro, Layman, Knight

I feel like our bench could go back to being a liability unless we can get a player or two that fits in the 15+ slot.

And to do this, either we need to take advantage of a tanking situation or we need to probably trade multiple bench pieces to get one better one.

[younggunsmn]

I look at it more from a chemistry standpoint.
We have a group of rotation players that have knowledge of and are bought in to our specific offensive and defensive systems,
and for the most part play well together. How much do you want to rock that boat for a slight upgrade?

I think we need one more bigman for depth. Other than that any trade should be a big upgrade to one of our existing pieces, an all-star caliber player. If I can get Sabonis for Reid, expirings, and a couple 1sts I jump on it.

[Klomp]

A few bargain names near the top of my list.

PJ Washington
Brandon Clarke
Marvin Bagley
Trey Lyles
Eric Paschall
Mike Muscala

[moss_is_1]

A few bargain names near the top of my list.

PJ Washington
Brandon Clarke
Marvin Bagley
Trey Lyles
Eric Paschall
Mike Muscala

Whats the scoop with Washington, why is he someone who can be had, and why would we want him if he's getting dumped?

Clarke, Lyles, and Muscala would be good gets for us and should come fairly cheap. Clarke obviously would cost more.

[Mattya]

I wonder what needs to be added for a Naz for Mo Bamba deal.

[Neeva]

I wonder what needs to be added for a Naz for Mo Bamba deal.

I would prefer Naz for PJ Washington because seems like a better fit with Kat and he’s got a year longer on rookie deal and Charlotte could use a promising center like Naz more than Orlando.

[D1SGRUNTL3D]

I wonder what needs to be added for a Naz for Mo Bamba deal.

I would prefer Naz for PJ Washington because seems like a better fit with Kat and he’s got a year longer on rookie deal and Charlotte could use a promising center like Naz more than Orlando.

Better fit with kat? What’s wrong with vando?

[shrink]

I look at it more from a chemistry standpoint.
We have a group of rotation players that have knowledge of and are bought in to our specific offensive and defensive systems,
and for the most part play well together. How much do you want to rock that boat for a slight upgrade?

I agree, and I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately. Chris Finch has found a way to balance our five starters to be highly productive together, despite each having some significant flaws. It’s the balance and chemistry overlaps that makes these five go.

So my question would be .. how much better does a player need to be, to replace a current player on our starting line up? For instance, Harrison Barnes is a terrific player, and is more talented overall than Jared Vanderbilt. But if you replace Vando, does the overall group play as well? Does Vando? Would Barnes be willing to come off the bench, even if he closed games?

Same goes for Beverley. He is the other player I see posters kicking out of the starting line up when they make rotations after their fake trades. Personally, I think Beverley impacts not just the game, but the other starters, in a significant way. If we made a deal for Marcus Smart and still had Bev, do you push Pat to the bench?

I’m pretty happy with our starting line up. Those five have a Net Rtg of 29.1, which is tops for any group who’s played 200 or more minutes together. For reference, BOS is #2 at 25, and UTA is #3 at 17, so 29.1 is a huge number. Of course I’d like to see a talent boost before the deadline, but if we save our assets, I’m comfortable with that. Pick up a back up big with the size to bang, and maybe a vet third string PG for injuries, and let’s go.

[winforlose]

I look at it more from a chemistry standpoint.
We have a group of rotation players that have knowledge of and are bought in to our specific offensive and defensive systems,
and for the most part play well together. How much do you want to rock that boat for a slight upgrade?

I agree, and I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately. Chris Finch has found a way to balance our five starters to be highly productive together, despite them all having some significant flaws. It’s the balance and chemistry overlaps that makes these five go.

So my question would be .. how much better does a player need to be, to replace a current player on our starting line up? For instance, Harrison Barnes is a terrific player, and is more talented overall than Jared Vanderbilt. But if you replace Vando, does the overall group play as well? Does Vando? Would Barnes be willing to come off the bench, even if he closed games?

Same goes for Beverley. He is the other player I see posters kicking out of the starting line up when they make rotations after their fake trades. Personally, I think Beverley impacts not just the game, but the other starters, in a significant way. If we made a deal for Marcus Smart and still had Bev, do you push Pat to the bench?

I’m pretty happy with our starting line up. Those five have a Net Rtg of 29.1, which is tops for any group who’s played 200 or more minutes together. For reference, BOS is #2 at 25, and UTA is #3 at 17, so 29.1 is a huge number. If we don’t bring in a star player this deadline, I’m comfortable with that. Pick up a back up big with the size to bang, and maybe a vet third string PG for injuries, and let’s go.

Detroit had an 11 to 2 second chance point advantage in game one. They had I believe something like 11 to 8 second chance point advantage in game 2. But they also missed a lot more shots in the paint and from deep in game 2. I bring this up because when we play good teams in playoff games those numbers will look worse. At any point this season you can look and we are between 28-30 in defensive rebounding. Right now is a high point because we are tied for 27. This cannot continue. Likewise we are only 14th in points in the paint despite having KAT and Ant, this is an issue as well. It is even more striking when you consider that V8 only scores in the paint.

Bev is a leader, he is good enough from distance that he creates space even if he doesn’t hit shots (which he sometimes does at a nice clip.) Bev is a defensive anchor, and Bev is passing well at the moment. However, Dlo is more than capable of playing PG, Ant is more than capable of playing SG, and V8 is more than capable of playing SF. In fact when used that way we actually gain significant size at every position. 6’4 is big for a PG, 6’7 is big for a SG and 6’9 is big for a SF. You could tell me size isn’t everything with regard to rebounding and you would be right. But when you suck at boxing out (like we do,) size matters quite a bit. Size is also harder to defend especially when you need to keep switching/doubling to contain Ant off the drive and KAT whenever he touches the ball. This is not a case of any old big will do, but with the right big, (a defensive rebounding specialist, who can shoot the open 3 around 33-35%, and can defend the paint,) it is absolutely worth making the change.

Also, can anyone good at advanced stats do a strength of schedule analysis for our starting 5. I believe our net rating is high, but I also believe we give up a ton of uncontested or semi contested (close out or run out,) 3s. We get away with things against bad teams like Detroit or Houston that we don’t get away with against good teams like GSW and the Suns. Also, in the analysis I would be curious to know how many opposing starters are missing from the good teams when we play them. Again, I am not saying the starting five don’t play well together, I am saying that when you look at paper stats sometimes they don’t tell the whole story.

[Mattya]

I wonder what needs to be added for a Naz for Mo Bamba deal.

I would prefer Naz for PJ Washington because seems like a better fit with Kat and he’s got a year longer on rookie deal and Charlotte could use a promising center like Naz more than Orlando.

Better fit with kat? What’s wrong with vando?

And if we are moving Naz I would prefer someone with length who can intimidate at the rim.

[Mattya]

I look at it more from a chemistry standpoint.
We have a group of rotation players that have knowledge of and are bought in to our specific offensive and defensive systems,
and for the most part play well together. How much do you want to rock that boat for a slight upgrade?

I agree, and I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately. Chris Finch has found a way to balance our five starters to be highly productive together, despite each having some significant flaws. It’s the balance and chemistry overlaps that makes these five go.

So my question would be .. how much better does a player need to be, to replace a current player on our starting line up? For instance, Harrison Barnes is a terrific player, and is more talented overall than Jared Vanderbilt. But if you replace Vando, does the overall group play as well? Does Vando? Would Barnes be willing to come off the bench, even if he closed games?

Same goes for Beverley. He is the other player I see posters kicking out of the starting line up when they make rotations after their fake trades. Personally, I think Beverley impacts not just the game, but the other starters, in a significant way. If we made a deal for Marcus Smart and still had Bev, do you push Pat to the bench?

I’m pretty happy with our starting line up. Those five have a Net Rtg of 29.1, which is tops for any group who’s played 200 or more minutes together. For reference, BOS is #2 at 25, and UTA is #3 at 17, so 29.1 is a huge number. Of course I’d like to see a talent boost before the deadline, but if we save our assets, I’m comfortable with that. Pick up a back up big with the size to bang, and maybe a vet third string PG for injuries, and let’s go.

I love Beverly, but he can be a leader as a sixth man yelling at people off the bench, while we get a better player in the starting lineup. Not to mention how much you risk by him being injury prone as well as a point guard. We still keep our top lineup and add another rooster that can hopefully give us another strong lineup combination.

[shrink]

I look at it more from a chemistry standpoint.
We have a group of rotation players that have knowledge of and are bought in to our specific offensive and defensive systems,
and for the most part play well together. How much do you want to rock that boat for a slight upgrade?

I agree, and I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately. Chris Finch has found a way to balance our five starters to be highly productive together, despite each having some significant flaws. It’s the balance and chemistry overlaps that makes these five go.

So my question would be .. how much better does a player need to be, to replace a current player on our starting line up? For instance, Harrison Barnes is a terrific player, and is more talented overall than Jared Vanderbilt. But if you replace Vando, does the overall group play as well? Does Vando? Would Barnes be willing to come off the bench, even if he closed games?

Same goes for Beverley. He is the other player I see posters kicking out of the starting line up when they make rotations after their fake trades. Personally, I think Beverley impacts not just the game, but the other starters, in a significant way. If we made a deal for Marcus Smart and still had Bev, do you push Pat to the bench?

I’m pretty happy with our starting line up. Those five have a Net Rtg of 29.1, which is tops for any group who’s played 200 or more minutes together. For reference, BOS is #2 at 25, and UTA is #3 at 17, so 29.1 is a huge number. Of course I’d like to see a talent boost before the deadline, but if we save our assets, I’m comfortable with that. Pick up a back up big with the size to bang, and maybe a vet third string PG for injuries, and let’s go.

I love Beverly, but he can be a leader as a sixth man yelling at people off the bench, while we get a better player in the starting lineup. Not to mention how much you risk by him being injury prone as well as a point guard. We still keep our top lineup and add another rooster that can hopefully give us another strong lineup combination.

I don’t know. I heard a podcast about our early success, which marveled at DLo’s +25 Net Rtg, but when they dug deeper on how he got the +25, DLo spent half his minutes with Beverley and he was +50, and half his minutes without him and was virtually 0.

But that was a couple months ago. Maybe DLo has changed. Maybe the team has changed. I just know the team feels .. more in control? .. when Beverley is out there. I think they had a game last week that was slipping away until they put Bev in for the final couple of minutes.

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying I’m a little nervous about doing anything to upset the delicate balance Finch has created. I want to keep savoring for a while.

[Mattya]

I agree, and I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately. Chris Finch has found a way to balance our five starters to be highly productive together, despite each having some significant flaws. It’s the balance and chemistry overlaps that makes these five go.

So my question would be .. how much better does a player need to be, to replace a current player on our starting line up? For instance, Harrison Barnes is a terrific player, and is more talented overall than Jared Vanderbilt. But if you replace Vando, does the overall group play as well? Does Vando? Would Barnes be willing to come off the bench, even if he closed games?

Same goes for Beverley. He is the other player I see posters kicking out of the starting line up when they make rotations after their fake trades. Personally, I think Beverley impacts not just the game, but the other starters, in a significant way. If we made a deal for Marcus Smart and still had Bev, do you push Pat to the bench?

I’m pretty happy with our starting line up. Those five have a Net Rtg of 29.1, which is tops for any group who’s played 200 or more minutes together. For reference, BOS is #2 at 25, and UTA is #3 at 17, so 29.1 is a huge number. Of course I’d like to see a talent boost before the deadline, but if we save our assets, I’m comfortable with that. Pick up a back up big with the size to bang, and maybe a vet third string PG for injuries, and let’s go.

I love Beverly, but he can be a leader as a sixth man yelling at people off the bench, while we get a better player in the starting lineup. Not to mention how much you risk by him being injury prone as well as a point guard. We still keep our top lineup and add another rooster that can hopefully give us another strong lineup combination.

I don’t know. I heard a podcast about our early success, which marveled at DLo’s +25 Net Rtg, but when they dug deeper on how he got the +25, DLo spent half his minutes with Beverley and he was +50, and half his minutes without him and was virtually 0.

But that was a couple months ago. Maybe DLo has changed. Maybe the team has changed. I just know the team feels .. more in control? .. when Beverley is out there. I think they had a game last week that was slipping away until they put Bev in for the final couple of minutes.

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying I’m a little nervous about doing anything to upset the delicate balance Finch has created. I want to keep savoring for a while.

I’m not saying the team doesn’t play better with Beverley out there, the problem is Beverly is older and has wear and tear on his body, him missing games upsets the balance of the chemistry. Then we have to rely on our bench which hasn’t been very consistent.