The Rob Dillingham Thread

[thinktank]

Right, but you should go see who I responded to.

It's like you aren't following the conversation.

Here is the quote from the person I originally quoted, which you failed to read.



See, he says there is no way. There is a way, and that is my point. I am not saying 2024 was our best chance. I am saying if we look back in 5-10 years, it is possible 2024 was the closest we got.

So I agree with you, there are both sides. That is EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING!

Calm down, sir, this is a Wendy's.

I'm flummoxed that the mods think this is an appropriate thread for this discussion. It makes no sensel. None of what you're talking about is related to Rob Dillingham!

Who cares? There isn't any name calling and limiting discussion without allowing discussion to run its course isn't the MODs job.

Putting discussion in the appropriate threads enables better discussion, it doesn't limit it. This is the last thread in which I would expect to find this discussion.

[Colbinii]

Step 1: Come into discussion half way
Step 2: Comment on discussion half-way through
Step 3: Get told you are wrong
Step 4: Cry to Mods

[thinktank]

Step 1: Come into discussion half way
Step 2: Comment on discussion half-way through
Step 3: Get told you are wrong
Step 4: Cry to Mods

I appreciate your personal attack.

[Klomp]

But most of all, because we don't have the assets to improve.

...

At this point we're capped.

I think this is the biggest misconception of the second apron.

Everyone thinks we have zero ability to make any transactions. This is the same thing they thought after the Gobert trade: We're maxed out and can't get any better.

It's an insult to Tim Connelly. I think I would understand the mindset if we had Kevin McHale or Jim Stack running the show. They would spend the summer up north at the cabin. But instead, we have a front office that is constantly looking for cracks that will allow us to improve the team. I just can't see any way they remain static and just let this thing run to the ground like Calvin Booth has done in Denver.

[thinktank]

I took the liberty of making a new thread for discussion of the Wolves 2024 Offseason: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2402536

Of course, you're more than welcome to continue muddying up this Dillingham thread with your favorite recipes.

[shrink]

If we needed a PG of the Future, there is no reason we couldn’t have traded the 2030 MIN 1st swap + 2031 MIN 1st unprotected NEXT year for a different guy.

Wrong, for the simple fact that the second apron would have locked the 2031 pick away on July 1.

No, next year it would lock the 2032 pick, right?

[shrink]

Even more than Tyus, the same point can be made for Monte Morris.

I thoroughly endorsed Connelly’s trade last year to bring in Morris, not just for the chance he could recover and help us in the playoffs, but because we had the chance to pay him with Bird rights. However, the gamble on Dillingham and the insistence that we were going to give him big minutes immediately had Morris leave, revoke his Bird rights, and sign for the minimum on a PHX team where he would get more minutes. Moreover, Dillingham’s $6.2 mil is likely more expensive than we could have kept the veteran Morris.

If we needed a PG of the Future, there is no reason we couldn’t have traded the 2030 MIN 1st swap + 2031 MIN 1st unprotected NEXT year for a different guy. Hell, we could likely have traded that package for Dillingham himself, and have him do his rookie learning on the Spurs! But regardless of which PGotF we traded for next year, we would have improved out chances of winning this year with either vet. This season we can afford a bench with Naz and NAW, next season this team is going to lose talent somewhere because of finances, so maximizing our odds to win a championship now should have been the priority, in my opinion.

There are a lot of leaps in this argument.

How many times have we seen a similar trade like we did for Dilly? I'm guessing its well less than a handful, and definitely not available every year.

If Dillingham looked good enough as a rookie on the Spurs, there is no way they trade him to us for that little.

People say we didn’t pay much for Dillingham because the picks are so distant. If we traded those same picks one year from now, wouldn’t that would mean they would have more trade value?

I’m sorry, but a 2031 unprotected 1st, and a 2030 swap have VALUE. Trading for Dillingham, this year, is not the only way we could fill a need next year with that value.

[shrink]

But most of all, because we don't have the assets to improve.

...

At this point we're capped.

I think this is the biggest misconception of the second apron.

Everyone thinks we have zero ability to make any transactions. This is the same thing they thought after the Gobert trade: We're maxed out and can't get any better.

It's an insult to Tim Connelly. I think I would understand the mindset if we had Kevin McHale or Jim Stack running the show. They would spend the summer up north at the cabin. But instead, we have a front office that is constantly looking for cracks that will allow us to improve the team. I just can't see any way they remain static and just let this thing run to the ground like Calvin Booth has done in Denver.

This is true, it’s not “zero ability.” But teams are extremely limited:

1. It’s harder to afford to retain your own free agents to maintain your team. We have seen no benches in PHX and DEN series.
2. Teams lose the ability to replace their free agent losses with other FA’s without the MLE, BAE, or TPE’s from previous years.
3. You can still trade, but there are tight restrictions there as well. Teams can’t add $1 more salary, frozen pick, no cash, etc.

Effectively, this forces transactions to come from teams trading away players for smaller salary guys, to teams that don’t have their own apron restrictions, or to teams that have financial wiggle room (which are rarer now since new rules force teams to enter the season using much of their cap space).

I admire Tim Connelly’s innovation to add salary by using the loophole of trading for a pick that becomes salary. It’s something he could have done next year too. But the new CBA has brought in the most severe restrictions ever, I’d go so far as to say they are overly restrictive, beyond the higher lux taxes - specific rule changes tying big spenders hands. I can’t put blind faith here that Connelly is just so smart, he can find a way through. The choice to make a trade like Dillingham, especially this season, painted us even farther into a corner than we already are - I hope it works out.

[BlacJacMac]

Even more than Tyus, the same point can be made for Monte Morris.

I thoroughly endorsed Connelly’s trade last year to bring in Morris, not just for the chance he could recover and help us in the playoffs, but because we had the chance to pay him with Bird rights. However, the gamble on Dillingham and the insistence that we were going to give him big minutes immediately had Morris leave, revoke his Bird rights, and sign for the minimum on a PHX team where he would get more minutes. Moreover, Dillingham’s $6.2 mil is likely more expensive than we could have kept the veteran Morris.

If we needed a PG of the Future, there is no reason we couldn’t have traded the 2030 MIN 1st swap + 2031 MIN 1st unprotected NEXT year for a different guy. Hell, we could likely have traded that package for Dillingham himself, and have him do his rookie learning on the Spurs! But regardless of which PGotF we traded for next year, we would have improved out chances of winning this year with either vet. This season we can afford a bench with Naz and NAW, next season this team is going to lose talent somewhere because of finances, so maximizing our odds to win a championship now should have been the priority, in my opinion.

There are a lot of leaps in this argument.

How many times have we seen a similar trade like we did for Dilly? I'm guessing its well less than a handful, and definitely not available every year.

If Dillingham looked good enough as a rookie on the Spurs, there is no way they trade him to us for that little.

People say we didn’t pay much for Dillingham because the picks are so distant. If we traded those same picks one year from now, wouldn’t that would mean they would have more trade value?

I’m sorry, but a 2031 unprotected 1st, and a 2030 swap have VALUE. Trading for Dillingham, this year, is not the only way we could fill a need next year with that value.

Sure they have value.

But are you going to get a lottery pick for that value in any given year?

How about a PG that is capable of starting on a contender? And if so, what salary are you adding to match?

[shrink]

There are a lot of leaps in this argument.

How many times have we seen a similar trade like we did for Dilly? I'm guessing its well less than a handful, and definitely not available every year.

If Dillingham looked good enough as a rookie on the Spurs, there is no way they trade him to us for that little.

People say we didn’t pay much for Dillingham because the picks are so distant. If we traded those same picks one year from now, wouldn’t that would mean they would have more trade value?

I’m sorry, but a 2031 unprotected 1st, and a 2030 swap have VALUE. Trading for Dillingham, this year, is not the only way we could fill a need next year with that value.

Sure they have value.

But are you going to get a lottery pick for that value in any given year?

How about a PG that is capable of starting on a contender? And if so, what salary are you adding to match?

Dillingham is not a “PG that is capable of starting on a contender.” Hell, Monte Morris is a lot closer to that level than Dillingham this year, and it wouldn’t have cost us the either pick just to re-sign him!

And not all lottery picks are the same. Dillingham was the 8th pick in a weak draft, and it’s unlikely he would even be a lottery pick in this year’s stronger draft. But could an unprotected 1st and a pick swap bring in a lottery pick? Possibly.

[Klomp]

And not all lottery picks are the same. Dillingham was the 8th pick in a weak draft, and it’s unlikely he would even be a lottery pick in this year’s stronger draft. But could an unprotected 1st and a pick swap bring in a lottery pick? Possibly.

What about the 14th pick in a weak draft? Would you rather have Monte Morris over Giannis Antetokounmpo?

[BlacJacMac]

People say we didn’t pay much for Dillingham because the picks are so distant. If we traded those same picks one year from now, wouldn’t that would mean they would have more trade value?

I’m sorry, but a 2031 unprotected 1st, and a 2030 swap have VALUE. Trading for Dillingham, this year, is not the only way we could fill a need next year with that value.

Sure they have value.

But are you going to get a lottery pick for that value in any given year?

How about a PG that is capable of starting on a contender? And if so, what salary are you adding to match?

Dillingham is not a “PG that is capable of starting on a contender.” Hell, Monte Morris is a lot closer to that level than Dillingham this year, and it wouldn’t have cost us the either pick just to re-sign him!

And not all lottery picks are the same. Dillingham was the 8th pick in a weak draft, and it’s unlikely he would even be a lottery pick in this year’s stronger draft. But could an unprotected 1st and a pick swap bring in a lottery pick? Possibly.

Probably not this year, but maybe next year - which is the year we're talking about.

[shrink]

Sure they have value.

But are you going to get a lottery pick for that value in any given year?

How about a PG that is capable of starting on a contender? And if so, what salary are you adding to match?

Dillingham is not a “PG that is capable of starting on a contender.” Hell, Monte Morris is a lot closer to that level than Dillingham this year, and it wouldn’t have cost us the either pick just to re-sign him!

And not all lottery picks are the same. Dillingham was the 8th pick in a weak draft, and it’s unlikely he would even be a lottery pick in this year’s stronger draft. But could an unprotected 1st and a pick swap bring in a lottery pick? Possibly.

Probably not this year, but maybe next year - which is the year we're talking about.

Maybe that’s where we split. I care about this year, when we can afford seven really good players, and have a legitimate shot at winning a ring. I care less about future years when someone “might be a capable starter. Maybe.”

[BlacJacMac]

Dillingham is not a “PG that is capable of starting on a contender.” Hell, Monte Morris is a lot closer to that level than Dillingham this year, and it wouldn’t have cost us the either pick just to re-sign him!

And not all lottery picks are the same. Dillingham was the 8th pick in a weak draft, and it’s unlikely he would even be a lottery pick in this year’s stronger draft. But could an unprotected 1st and a pick swap bring in a lottery pick? Possibly.

Probably not this year, but maybe next year - which is the year we're talking about.

Maybe that’s where we split. I care about this year, when we can afford seven really good players, and have a legitimate shot at winning a ring. I care less about future years when someone “might be a capable starter. Maybe.”

I don't think Monte Morris is the difference between winning a ring and not winning one.

[shrink]

Probably not this year, but maybe next year - which is the year we're talking about.

Maybe that’s where we split. I care about this year, when we can afford seven really good players, and have a legitimate shot at winning a ring. I care less about future years when someone “might be a capable starter. Maybe.”

I don't think Monte Morris is the difference between winning a ring and not winning one.

.. so let’s reduce our chances by giving the minutes to somebody worse!

Let’s just expect 36-year old Mike Conley to stay healthy, rather than get some functional insurance for this year?

[thinktank]

Maybe that’s where we split. I care about this year, when we can afford seven really good players, and have a legitimate shot at winning a ring. I care less about future years when someone “might be a capable starter. Maybe.”

I don't think Monte Morris is the difference between winning a ring and not winning one.

.. so let’s reduce our chances by giving the minutes to somebody worse!

Let’s just expect 36-year old Mike Conley to stay healthy, rather than get some functional insurance for this year?

Monte Morris is over the hill already. I think he’s carrying too much weight.

[frankenwolf]

Maybe that’s where we split. I care about this year, when we can afford seven really good players, and have a legitimate shot at winning a ring. I care less about future years when someone “might be a capable starter. Maybe.”

I don't think Monte Morris is the difference between winning a ring and not winning one.

.. so let’s reduce our chances by giving the minutes to somebody worse!

Let’s just expect 36-year old Mike Conley to stay healthy, rather than get some functional insurance for this year?

I know we are just posters on a board, but do you really think Morris would have resigned here? Do you think the Timberwolves really wanted him back? There are too many variables to know for sure, unless you are in the front office and know what the team and player is thinking. Would Morris have solved our long term solution for a PG1? I'm thinking that TC didn't think so and that Finch shared that line of thought. Can you, shrink, know that Morris would be functional insurance for this year or that Rob won't be? Yes, the chance is there, but past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. Maybe Rob is the second coming of Iverson or Oscar Robertson.

I understand that it makes sense to keep Morris, but there was something stopping the Wolves from signing him and we don't know for sure what it was. Heck, I was all for keeping him and letting KA walk. I didn't think Morris would leave, but I was wrong.

[Klomp]

Dillingham is not a “PG that is capable of starting on a contender.” Hell, Monte Morris is a lot closer to that level than Dillingham this year, and it wouldn’t have cost us the either pick just to re-sign him!

And not all lottery picks are the same. Dillingham was the 8th pick in a weak draft, and it’s unlikely he would even be a lottery pick in this year’s stronger draft. But could an unprotected 1st and a pick swap bring in a lottery pick? Possibly.

Probably not this year, but maybe next year - which is the year we're talking about.

Maybe that’s where we split. I care about this year, when we can afford seven really good players, and have a legitimate shot at winning a ring. I care less about future years when someone “might be a capable starter. Maybe.”

I care about this year too, but not at the expense of longterm roster development. I'm not Tom Thibodeau, after all.

I know I'm about to hear about the 2031 pick and the 2030 swap, but choosing a minimum Monte Morris over the trade for Dillingham screams short-sighted. In a year, we would be right back where we are right now, another year without finding the PG of the future. Conley is a year older. Gobert is a year older and likely entering his player option, keeping in mind that it usually takes guys a full season to learn how to play with Gobert. Next year, finding a PG then becomes desperation, and your asset pool to find one becomes even more limited.

I could also go into the semantics of your word choices about him being capable of being a starter, and conveniently leaving off on a contender from the quote, but it's only 9 am and I think I'm already running on fumes for the day.

[Klomp]

One of the things I keep coming back to as I keep falling more in love with his game is what he does without the ball. For someone who is about to play next to Anthony Edwards, this is hugely important.

Watch on YouTube

It might seem like no big deal, but when you've watched more and more people just standing around when they don't have the ball, it becomes a bigger deal. He really seems to understand the importance player movement and passing angles.

Jay Bilas quoted Dillingham at the end of Kentucky's game against a Top 5 defense in Tennessee, a game where Dillingham went nuclear in scoring 35 points on 70% shooting while the rest of his teammates combined for 67 points on 40.8% shooting: "Those last two stops (before Kentucky, Donda Academy and Overtime Elite), I learned how to play with superstars and distribute while picking my spots."

This willingness to defer along with the ability to get hot crazy quick gives him a clear leg up in my mind over combo-guard scorers like say Jaden Hardy in Dallas, who has only shown to be a fringe rotation player on a title contender. Yes he played in 19 of 22 playoff games last year, but at under 7 minutes per game.

[shrink]

I don't think Monte Morris is the difference between winning a ring and not winning one.

.. so let’s reduce our chances by giving the minutes to somebody worse!

Let’s just expect 36-year old Mike Conley to stay healthy, rather than get some functional insurance for this year?

I know we are just posters on a board, but do you really think Morris would have resigned here? Do you think the Timberwolves really wanted him back? There are too many variables to know for sure, unless you are in the front office and know what the team and player is thinking. Would Morris have solved our long term solution for a PG1? I'm thinking that TC didn't think so and that Finch shared that line of thought. Can you, shrink, know that Morris would be functional insurance for this year or that Rob won't be? Yes, the chance is there, but past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. Maybe Rob is the second coming of Iverson or Oscar Robertson.

I understand that it makes sense to keep Morris, but there was something stopping the Wolves from signing him and we don't know for sure what it was. Heck, I was all for keeping him and letting KA walk. I didn't think Morris would leave, but I was wrong.

I can’t guarantee what Connelly would do, no one can, but even at the time of their trade for Morris, I said the main part of the deal was to get his Bird rights to retain him. Perhaps people under-estimate Morris because of his time here, but I view Monte Morris as the 25-30th best PG in the league, slightly below Tyus Jones. Conley, Jones, and Morris all play a similar, ball-control, low-turnover style that the Wolves really need, and makes it easier to integrate with the team. He is also a vet that has been through his growing pains, and has started 166 NBA games as a PG. Connelly has shown a desire to bring in players from his past (PJ Dozier, drafted Gobert, Morris). And finally, Morris accepted a spot for the minimum after Connelly drafted Dillingham - MIN could pay him more, and he’d still be on a championship contender.

Now, it’s possible Morris would have left anyway. At the time, it looked like he would be starting for the Suns, versus being a big-minute back up here. As I mentioned with Tyus Jones, we don’t know what any player truly values until his second contract. However, staying in MIN, I would have expected an offer like 2-years, $10 mil, second year player option (less than Dillingham’s rookie scale), and maybe more importantly, Morris would retain his valuable Bird rights if he asked for a trade after one season rehabbing his value for his next contract. There are a lot of reasons for Morris and the Wolves to make a deal, but not if Dillingham is in the picture.