Trade Talk (Part Four)

[old school 34]

Combine 33+17+ one of Culver or Okogie to trade up further hopefully for Vassell.

That's one less pick, and one less signed player. Now choose two to eliminate from the team. Does the MLE really take up a roster spot?

Since no one else has, I'll drop two players.

Evans The team is out 2 million and i'm not gonna cry about it. Trade Johnson for future pick as Klomp outlined above.

Or, Evans and Vanderbuilt
Or, Evans and Martin
Or, Evans and Spellman if Rosas/Ryan don't like Spellman (I see some value in this player).
Or, Evans and Nowell (this will make me cry)

Lol...you would cry if Nowell ends up being the sacrificial lamb. I like him too, so he wouldn't be super high on my list to discard either.

Big fan of Vassell as well & would like him to be the pick especially if we're not top 3...not that I don't like him better...but I'd prefer potentially trading back with top pick & getting him instead of trading up? Keep 17 in my pocket and take Pokusevski...who stays overseas a year or two & saves me one of those roster spots as well?

So preference is probably Evans, Martin, & Spellman....could be convinced Martin more valuable than 33...but I could ultimately wait & make said call at the end of training camp if a guy really wanted to play the whole thing out?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

[shrink]

Omari Spellman to GSW (in the WCS TPE) for MIN’s 2021 2nd rounder and $2 mil cash.

Why for GSW? They seemed to like the kid, he’s cheap and knows the Warriors system. Adding a piece like this now helps their 2021 chances more than MIN’s second rounder at the end of the season. It also may be added trade flexibility, since they can provide $2 mil more in matching salary if they need to add to a total - obviously TPE’s can’t be combined.

Why for MIN? Omari has promise, but he was very unhappy in MIN, stuck behind Naz Reid in a one-big system. This deal helps MIN with next season’s roster glut. While the 2nd rounder may not be great if MIN is more successful next year, it gives them back a little insurance if they fail. Since they’d traded the 2021 1st and don’t have any other teams’ 2021 1sts or 2nds, this at least gets them back in next year’s draft. $2 mil cash pays to dump Jacob Evans.

I thought there was some rule that essentially says we can't trade Spellman back GSW for a year? Or doesn't that specific scenario apply here?

A player can’t be reacquired in the same NBA season.

[Jedzz]

Usually that means after the July date. But of course all the dates are messed up now.

[Jedzz]

[Keep 17 in my pocket and take Pokusevski...who stays overseas a year or two & saves me one of those roster spots as well?

That's not a bad idea if they can't make a better move with the pick. Get an asset without messsing your roster up. Of course the only Euro stash of recent memory that ever finally came to play here was Rubio and that wasn't Wolves choice to make him wait. I'm probably forgetting someone. They could also trade it for a future pick as we are missing a future FRP at the moment. Sticking to one player from this draft seems like a wise move at this time, as long as they don't start kahning around too much with the others.

[Klomp]

Avdiji is a small forward.

That is how he is being classified at this time, but if he comes in at 6'9 or higher and did indeed bulk up, I can see us playing him at the 4. I am not saying I view him as a 4, but I can see Rosas viewing him as a 4. Again, not saying I disagree with you, but could see the Wolves doing something like that with him.

We can call him a PF if we want, but he better rebound and defend the rim a lot better before I would consider him a PF.

Call him whatever you want, but he would play the 4 in Minnesota's system.

[Klomp]

[Keep 17 in my pocket and take Pokusevski...who stays overseas a year or two & saves me one of those roster spots as well?

That's not a bad idea if they can't make a better move with the pick. Get an asset without messsing your roster up. Of course the only Euro stash of recent memory that ever finally came to play here was Rubio and that wasn't Wolves choice to make him wait. I'm probably forgetting someone. They could also trade it for a future pick as we are missing a future FRP at the moment. Sticking to one player from this draft seems like a wise move at this time, as long as they don't start kahning around too much with the others.

Pekovic didn't come over right away.
You could maybe classify Rasho the same way.

[old school 34]

[Keep 17 in my pocket and take Pokusevski...who stays overseas a year or two & saves me one of those roster spots as well?

That's not a bad idea if they can't make a better move with the pick. Get an asset without messsing your roster up. Of course the only Euro stash of recent memory that ever finally came to play here was Rubio and that wasn't Wolves choice to make him wait. I'm probably forgetting someone. They could also trade it for a future pick as we are missing a future FRP at the moment. Sticking to one player from this draft seems like a wise move at this time, as long as they don't start kahning around too much with the others.

Pekovic didn't come over right away.
You could maybe classify Rasho the same way.

And of course...kind of goes without saying but need a contingency plan...cause no guarantee that Pokusevski makes it to us @ 17 as well? I think he does, but he could sneak late lotto ?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

[KGdaBom]

That is how he is being classified at this time, but if he comes in at 6'9 or higher and did indeed bulk up, I can see us playing him at the 4. I am not saying I view him as a 4, but I can see Rosas viewing him as a 4. Again, not saying I disagree with you, but could see the Wolves doing something like that with him.

We can call him a PF if we want, but he better rebound and defend the rim a lot better before I would consider him a PF.

Call him whatever you want, but he would play the 4 in Minnesota's system.

What does playing the 4 mean if he's not a rebounder or shot blocker? Sounds positionless to me or an SF. Defensive rebounding is one of the most crucial elements to defense. It's what ends your opponents possession the vast majority of the time. Are we proposing to sacrifice those possessions in favor of some other function?

[Klomp]

What does playing the 4 mean if he's not a rebounder or shot blocker? Sounds positionless to me or an SF. Defensive rebounding is one of the most crucial elements to defense. It's what ends your opponents possession the vast majority of the time. Are we proposing to sacrifice those possessions in favor of some other function?

Did you watch the Timberwolves this past season? Basically like that....

[KGdaBom]

What does playing the 4 mean if he's not a rebounder or shot blocker? Sounds positionless to me or an SF. Defensive rebounding is one of the most crucial elements to defense. It's what ends your opponents possession the vast majority of the time. Are we proposing to sacrifice those possessions in favor of some other function?

Did you watch the Timberwolves this past season? Basically like that....

In that case don't call the player a four or PF just say we are choosing to not utilize a 4 or PF. I think that is an incredibly stupid way to play. I hope you're wrong about what the Wolves intend to do, but my best guess is that you're right.

[Klomp]

What does playing the 4 mean if he's not a rebounder or shot blocker? Sounds positionless to me or an SF. Defensive rebounding is one of the most crucial elements to defense. It's what ends your opponents possession the vast majority of the time. Are we proposing to sacrifice those possessions in favor of some other function?

Did you watch the Timberwolves this past season? Basically like that....

In that case don't call the player a four or PF just say we are choosing to not utilize a 4 or PF. I think that is an incredibly stupid way to play. I hope you're wrong about what the Wolves intend to do, but my best guess is that you're right.

Basketball is a five-man sport. You have five players on the court numbered one through five. If you don't have a 4, you have only four players on the court.

[Dewey]

wow

[KGdaBom]

Did you watch the Timberwolves this past season? Basically like that....

In that case don't call the player a four or PF just say we are choosing to not utilize a 4 or PF. I think that is an incredibly stupid way to play. I hope you're wrong about what the Wolves intend to do, but my best guess is that you're right.

Basketball is a five-man sport. You have five players on the court numbered one through five. If you don't have a 4, you have only four players on the court.

You don't have to number them 1-5. You can play with 3 1s and 2 2s.
I"m going to be so bummed when we pass on OK Express.

[old school 34]

In that case don't call the player a four or PF just say we are choosing to not utilize a 4 or PF. I think that is an incredibly stupid way to play. I hope you're wrong about what the Wolves intend to do, but my best guess is that you're right.

Basketball is a five-man sport. You have five players on the court numbered one through five. If you don't have a 4, you have only four players on the court.

You don't have to number them 1-5. You can play with 3 1s and 2 2s.
I"m going to be so bummed when we pass on OK Express.

You could play that way...but apparently if you play with say 2-3's and no 4.. your incredibly stupid !

I get your point...just kind of left that one there. While I'm maybe a little more comfortable that we're just going to play smaller...I would like to see a little bit more size or toughness @ the 3 & 4 (assuming the other 3 spots are set). Deni...my concerns are more about being soft and B level athlete & less about his size? Again though so much about what you value or 'eye of the beholder'...cause I like Pokusevski and he's a twig...but a lot longer, more athletic get him @ 17 vs. 3-5?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

[KGdaBom]

Basketball is a five-man sport. You have five players on the court numbered one through five. If you don't have a 4, you have only four players on the court.

You don't have to number them 1-5. You can play with 3 1s and 2 2s.
I"m going to be so bummed when we pass on OK Express.

You could play that way...but apparently if you play with say 2-3's and no 4.. your incredibly stupid !

I get your point...just kind of left that one there. While I'm maybe a little more comfortable that we're just going to play smaller...I would like to see a little bit more size or toughness @ the 3 & 4 (assuming the other 3 spots are set). Deni...my concerns are more about being soft and B level athlete & less about his size? Again though so much about what you value or 'eye of the beholder'...cause I like Pokusevski and he's a twig...but a lot longer, more athletic get him @ 17 vs. 3-5?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

I was being sarcastic about playing with 3 1s and 2 2s. It does seem to appear that the Wolves are intending to play with 1-1 1 or 2-2s 1 or 2 3s 0-4s and 1-5. IMO that is stupid. I stand by that statement that is is my opinion. My opinion could certainly be wrong. I just don't like getting very little rebounding or defense out of what should be the PF position.

I'm going to be so bummed out when we pass on Okungwu.

[Klomp]

You don't have to number them 1-5. You can play with 3 1s and 2 2s.
I"m going to be so bummed when we pass on OK Express.

You could play that way...but apparently if you play with say 2-3's and no 4.. your incredibly stupid !

I get your point...just kind of left that one there. While I'm maybe a little more comfortable that we're just going to play smaller...I would like to see a little bit more size or toughness @ the 3 & 4 (assuming the other 3 spots are set). Deni...my concerns are more about being soft and B level athlete & less about his size? Again though so much about what you value or 'eye of the beholder'...cause I like Pokusevski and he's a twig...but a lot longer, more athletic get him @ 17 vs. 3-5?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

I was being sarcastic about playing with 3 1s and 2 2s. It does seem to appear that the Wolves are intending to play with 1-1 1 or 2-2s 1 or 2 3s 0-4s and 1-5. IMO that is stupid. I stand by that statement that is is my opinion. My opinion could certainly be wrong. I just don't like getting very little rebounding or defense out of what should be the PF position.

So if they went 1 PG, 1 SG, 1 SF, 0 PFs, 2 Cs, you'd still call that stupid, right?

In that case don't call the player a four or PF just say we are choosing to not utilize a 4 or PF. I think that is an incredibly stupid way to play.

[KGdaBom]

You could play that way...but apparently if you play with say 2-3's and no 4.. your incredibly stupid !

I get your point...just kind of left that one there. While I'm maybe a little more comfortable that we're just going to play smaller...I would like to see a little bit more size or toughness @ the 3 & 4 (assuming the other 3 spots are set). Deni...my concerns are more about being soft and B level athlete & less about his size? Again though so much about what you value or 'eye of the beholder'...cause I like Pokusevski and he's a twig...but a lot longer, more athletic get him @ 17 vs. 3-5?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

I was being sarcastic about playing with 3 1s and 2 2s. It does seem to appear that the Wolves are intending to play with 1-1 1 or 2-2s 1 or 2 3s 0-4s and 1-5. IMO that is stupid. I stand by that statement that is is my opinion. My opinion could certainly be wrong. I just don't like getting very little rebounding or defense out of what should be the PF position.

So if they went 1 PG, 1 SG, 1 SF, 0 PFs, 2 Cs, you'd still call that stupid, right?

In that case don't call the player a four or PF just say we are choosing to not utilize a 4 or PF. I think that is an incredibly stupid way to play.

Yes. I don't believe that would work very well.

[chrbal]

I was being sarcastic about playing with 3 1s and 2 2s. It does seem to appear that the Wolves are intending to play with 1-1 1 or 2-2s 1 or 2 3s 0-4s and 1-5. IMO that is stupid. I stand by that statement that is is my opinion. My opinion could certainly be wrong. I just don't like getting very little rebounding or defense out of what should be the PF position.

So if they went 1 PG, 1 SG, 1 SF, 0 PFs, 2 Cs, you'd still call that stupid, right?

In that case don't call the player a four or PF just say we are choosing to not utilize a 4 or PF. I think that is an incredibly stupid way to play.

Yes. I don't believe that would work very well.

Cavs will be close to that. 2 1s, a 3, and 2 5s

[KGdaBom]

So if they went 1 PG, 1 SG, 1 SF, 0 PFs, 2 Cs, you'd still call that stupid, right?

Yes. I don't believe that would work very well.

Cavs will be close to that. 2 1s, a 3, and 2 5s

That's why they're the Cavs.

[karch34]

[Keep 17 in my pocket and take Pokusevski...who stays overseas a year or two & saves me one of those roster spots as well?

That's not a bad idea if they can't make a better move with the pick. Get an asset without messsing your roster up. Of course the only Euro stash of recent memory that ever finally came to play here was Rubio and that wasn't Wolves choice to make him wait. I'm probably forgetting someone. They could also trade it for a future pick as we are missing a future FRP at the moment. Sticking to one player from this draft seems like a wise move at this time, as long as they don't start kahning around too much with the others.

Pekovic didn't come over right away.
You could maybe classify Rasho the same way.

Rasho, Pek, and maybe Rubio could be considered stashes. I'm still waiting ti see Henk Norel debut.