Woj: Wolves trade for Gobert

[winforlose]

Why not? Do you suspect his intentions with that comment were less than genuine and noble. Honestly I hate calling players role players as a way to diminish them with the burning passion of a thousand suns. Every player in the league does play a role. There isn't a player in the league who doesn't. So EVERY Player is a ROLE Player.

Are you familiar with the term “wanker?” The literal meaning of wanker is different than the common usage. There are plenty of words that function that way. The term role player and the definition of someone who plays the role are different, and you know this. You might not like it, but if you call someone a wanker and they think your accusing them of touching themselves, you are just confusing terms.

Strange choice of analogies, but all NBA players are role players and just about all sexually mature human beings are wankers. There's nothing wrong with being either or even both.

Lol. Every human being with employment is a role player in society. Every unemployed human could also technically be called a role player in society. If you over generalize the term the term loses its meaning. I get where you are coming from, and will leave it alone from this point.

[KGdaBom]

Are you familiar with the term “wanker?” The literal meaning of wanker is different than the common usage. There are plenty of words that function that way. The term role player and the definition of someone who plays the role are different, and you know this. You might not like it, but if you call someone a wanker and they think your accusing them of touching themselves, you are just confusing terms.

Strange choice of analogies, but all NBA players are role players and just about all sexually mature human beings are wankers. There's nothing wrong with being either or even both.

Lol. Every human being with employment is a role player in society. Every unemployed human could also technically be called a role player in society. If you over generalize the term the term loses its meaning. I get where you are coming from, and will leave it alone from this point.

I'm glad you get where I'm coming from. I want the term to lose it's meaning.
"If you label me you negate me"
Wayne Campbell

Watch on YouTube

the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home.

[winforlose]

Strange choice of analogies, but all NBA players are role players and just about all sexually mature human beings are wankers. There's nothing wrong with being either or even both.

Lol. Every human being with employment is a role player in society. Every unemployed human could also technically be called a role player in society. If you over generalize the term the term loses its meaning. I get where you are coming from, and will leave it alone from this point.

I'm glad you get where I'm coming from. I want the term to lose it's meaning.
"If you label me you negate me"
Wayne Campbell

Watch on YouTube

the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home.

The Timberwolves had a team meeting after starting 4-9 last year. They discussed their flaws and why things weren’t working, and settled on roles for specific players, (they used the word roles, not me.) You say a role is a label, but that isn’t the whole story. Sometimes a role is a job, an obligation, a responsibility. You may hate the term but the term exists because it is necessary to communicate the idea. It is straight nonsense to say a 2 million dollar minimum guy has the same level of importance as a super max guy. The primary function of Bryn Forbes for example is to shoot at a high percentage. Now for ease of communication we use the term Sharpshooter. What does that communicate, he is expected to hit a high percentage of his shots and probably his 3 point shots. That is his job, the reason he is getting paid. The term sharpshooter also communicates low defensive expectations. If he had high defensive expectations he would be a 3&D. Rim protector is another term with specific connotation. A rim protector is someone who blocks and alters shots close to the rim. We don’t expect a rim protector to necessarily be great at perimeter defense, it is possible, but unlikely because we are differentiating between rim protector and elite defender. Your distaste for short hand does not negate the need for short hand.

[KGdaBom]

Lol. Every human being with employment is a role player in society. Every unemployed human could also technically be called a role player in society. If you over generalize the term the term loses its meaning. I get where you are coming from, and will leave it alone from this point.

I'm glad you get where I'm coming from. I want the term to lose it's meaning.
"If you label me you negate me"
Wayne Campbell

Watch on YouTube

the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home.

The Timberwolves had a team meeting after starting 4-9 last year. They discussed their flaws and why things weren’t working, and settled on roles for specific players, (they used the word roles, not me.) You say a role is a label, but that isn’t the whole story. Sometimes a role is a job, an obligation, a responsibility. You may hate the term but the term exists because it is necessary to communicate the idea. It is straight nonsense to say a 2 million dollar minimum guy has the same level of importance as a super max guy. The primary function of Bryn Forbes for example is to shoot at a high percentage. Now for ease of communication we use the term Sharpshooter. What does that communicate, he is expected to hit a high percentage of his shots and probably his 3 point shots. That is his job, the reason he is getting paid. The term sharpshooter also communicates low defensive expectations. If he had high defensive expectations he would be a 3&D. Rim protector is another term with specific connotation. A rim protector is someone who blocks and alters shots close to the rim. We don’t expect a rim protector to necessarily be great at perimeter defense, it is possible, but unlikely because we are differentiating between rim protector and elite defender. Your distaste for short hand does not negate the need for short hand.

I love the word role as in every player should perform his specified duty. His role. What his purpose on the team is. A role is a job for the player to do. KAT has a role, Rudy has a role, Ant has a role, Russell has a role and Forbes has a role. Those are good. Would you disagree? We could break down the roles for each and every one of them. A role is not a label. Some players are more talented and more important to the teams success. Of course that is true. Calling somebody a role player as a means to diminish him is a label. Since every player on the team has a role then every player on the team is a role player or nobody is a role player.

[winforlose]

I'm glad you get where I'm coming from. I want the term to lose it's meaning.
"If you label me you negate me"
Wayne Campbell

Watch on YouTube

the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home.

The Timberwolves had a team meeting after starting 4-9 last year. They discussed their flaws and why things weren’t working, and settled on roles for specific players, (they used the word roles, not me.) You say a role is a label, but that isn’t the whole story. Sometimes a role is a job, an obligation, a responsibility. You may hate the term but the term exists because it is necessary to communicate the idea. It is straight nonsense to say a 2 million dollar minimum guy has the same level of importance as a super max guy. The primary function of Bryn Forbes for example is to shoot at a high percentage. Now for ease of communication we use the term Sharpshooter. What does that communicate, he is expected to hit a high percentage of his shots and probably his 3 point shots. That is his job, the reason he is getting paid. The term sharpshooter also communicates low defensive expectations. If he had high defensive expectations he would be a 3&D. Rim protector is another term with specific connotation. A rim protector is someone who blocks and alters shots close to the rim. We don’t expect a rim protector to necessarily be great at perimeter defense, it is possible, but unlikely because we are differentiating between rim protector and elite defender. Your distaste for short hand does not negate the need for short hand.

I love the word role as in every player should perform his specified duty. His role. What his purpose on the team is. A role is a job for the player to do. KAT has a role, Rudy has a role, Ant has a role, Russell has a role and Forbes has a role. Those are good. Would you disagree? We could break down the roles for each and every one of them. A role is not a label. Some players are more talented and more important to the teams success. Of course that is true. Calling somebody a role player as a means to diminish him is a label. Since every player on the team has a role then every player on the team is a role player or nobody is a role player.

So is sharpshooter a role, label or both?

[KGdaBom]

The Timberwolves had a team meeting after starting 4-9 last year. They discussed their flaws and why things weren’t working, and settled on roles for specific players, (they used the word roles, not me.) You say a role is a label, but that isn’t the whole story. Sometimes a role is a job, an obligation, a responsibility. You may hate the term but the term exists because it is necessary to communicate the idea. It is straight nonsense to say a 2 million dollar minimum guy has the same level of importance as a super max guy. The primary function of Bryn Forbes for example is to shoot at a high percentage. Now for ease of communication we use the term Sharpshooter. What does that communicate, he is expected to hit a high percentage of his shots and probably his 3 point shots. That is his job, the reason he is getting paid. The term sharpshooter also communicates low defensive expectations. If he had high defensive expectations he would be a 3&D. Rim protector is another term with specific connotation. A rim protector is someone who blocks and alters shots close to the rim. We don’t expect a rim protector to necessarily be great at perimeter defense, it is possible, but unlikely because we are differentiating between rim protector and elite defender. Your distaste for short hand does not negate the need for short hand.

I love the word role as in every player should perform his specified duty. His role. What his purpose on the team is. A role is a job for the player to do. KAT has a role, Rudy has a role, Ant has a role, Russell has a role and Forbes has a role. Those are good. Would you disagree? We could break down the roles for each and every one of them. A role is not a label. Some players are more talented and more important to the teams success. Of course that is true. Calling somebody a role player as a means to diminish him is a label. Since every player on the team has a role then every player on the team is a role player or nobody is a role player.

So is sharpshooter a role, label or both?

It's a role and a complimentary label. I was just going to add that to my prior post when I saw this. KAT is a sharpshooter right? You would not disagree with that or would you? It's a role he has on the team and a complimentary label. That is not to imply that he can't rebound well. He's also a rebounder. Forbes is a sharpshooter per your prior post. Does that imply it's the only thing he can do well. Can't he ball handle pretty good? Maybe not as good as Russell, but probably better than Minott. So he has at least 2 roles. Sharpshooter and ball handler. Rudy is a rim protector. It's a role he has on the team and a complimentary label. That doesn't imply he can't do other things well. When the term role player is used it's often prefaced by just a role player. Then role player becomes a derogatory term. When does a player become not a role player? When he plays 2 roles? 3 roles? When does the derogatory term (just a) role player get removed?

[winforlose]

I love the word role as in every player should perform his specified duty. His role. What his purpose on the team is. A role is a job for the player to do. KAT has a role, Rudy has a role, Ant has a role, Russell has a role and Forbes has a role. Those are good. Would you disagree? We could break down the roles for each and every one of them. A role is not a label. Some players are more talented and more important to the teams success. Of course that is true. Calling somebody a role player as a means to diminish him is a label. Since every player on the team has a role then every player on the team is a role player or nobody is a role player.

So is sharpshooter a role, label or both?

It's a role and a complimentary label. I was just going to add that to my prior post when I saw this. KAT is a sharpshooter right? You would not disagree with that or would you? It's a role he has on the team and a complimentary label. That is not to imply that he can't rebound well. He's also a rebounder. Rudy is a rim protector. It's a role he has on the team and a complimentary label. When the term role player is used it's often prefaced by just a role player. Then role player becomes a derogatory term. When does a player become not a role player? When he plays 2 roles? 3 roles? When does the derogatory term (just a) role player get removed?

Traditionally my understanding of the term sharpshooter means the player is weak on defense and rebounding and their primary function is a high FG percentage with a good/great 3P%. A well rounded player like KAT would likely just be called a superstar. Like MCD is a 3&D because he is known for his defense and his corner 3 point shooting. That doesn’t mean he cannot do other things, for example he can attack off the dribble, but it does suggest his role and strength areas. Playmaker/floor general are often used to suggest they are not great shooters but are great passers. Again, there are exceptions and context matters, but in general they are descriptors with both positive and negatives attached.

The way your talking about role player is essentially the 3 tier system.
Tier 1: Superstars. Superstars are the best of the best. If not all NBA then at least best on the team and likely an All star or all star candidate. KAT has only been all NBA once or twice but he is a 3 time all star, and elite in the league.

Tier 2: Stars. A star is like a Donovan Mitchell, D’Angelo Russell, Julius Randle type player. They are capable of playing at the next tier but usually spend time below it. They can be part of the big core group, but they can also be displaced by the arrival or development of new talent. They can be all stars, (but are not usually in the running for all NBA) and are more likely to be snubbed than to be selected if on a small market team with less exposure.

Tier 3: Everyone else. They are usually called role players because the expectations is they fit within a role and carry out the role well. For example Forbes is a sharp shooter and is therefore expected to shoot like one. If he could be more well rounded he would likely be a star instead of a role player.

Does this make sense?

[KGdaBom]

So is sharpshooter a role, label or both?

It's a role and a complimentary label. I was just going to add that to my prior post when I saw this. KAT is a sharpshooter right? You would not disagree with that or would you? It's a role he has on the team and a complimentary label. That is not to imply that he can't rebound well. He's also a rebounder. Rudy is a rim protector. It's a role he has on the team and a complimentary label. When the term role player is used it's often prefaced by just a role player. Then role player becomes a derogatory term. When does a player become not a role player? When he plays 2 roles? 3 roles? When does the derogatory term (just a) role player get removed?

Traditionally my understanding of the term sharpshooter means the player is weak on defense and rebounding and their primary function is a high FG percentage with a good/great 3P%. A well rounded player like KAT would likely just be called a superstar. Like MCD is a 3&D because he is known for his defense and his corner 3 point shooting. That doesn’t mean he cannot do other things, for example he can attack off the dribble, but it does suggest his role and strength areas. Playmaker/floor general are often used to suggest they are not great shooters but are great passers. Again, there are exceptions and context matters, but in general they are descriptors with both positive and negatives attached.

The way your talking about role player is essentially the 3 tier system.
Tier 1: Superstars. Superstars are the best of the best. If not all NBA then at least best on the team and likely an All star or all star candidate. KAT has only been all NBA once or twice but he is a 3 time all star, and elite in the league.

Tier 2: Stars. A star is like a Donovan Mitchell, D’Angelo Russell, Julius Randle type player. They are capable of playing at the next tier but usually spend time below it. They can be part of the big core group, but they can also be displaced by the arrival or development of new talent. They can be all stars, but are not usually in the running for all NBA and are more likely to be snubbed than to be selected if on a small market team with less exposure.

Tier 3: Everyone else. They are usually called role players because the expectations is they fit within a role and carry out the role well. For example Forbes is a sharp shooter and is therefore expected to shoot like one. If he could be more well rounded he would likely be a star instead of a role player.

Does this make sense?

Nope it doesn't make sense. I've never thought a player being a sharpshooter meant they can't do other things well also. KAT is a sharpshooter and he does other things well also. I've heard him called a sharpshooter or other terms in basketball broadcasts referring to how well he shoots. A lot of people say KAT is poor on defense and not well rounded. So does that mean he's (just) a role player? I've never thought the term playmaker implied a player can't shoot well. Each player is an individual and has his own strengths and weaknesses.

[winforlose]

It's a role and a complimentary label. I was just going to add that to my prior post when I saw this. KAT is a sharpshooter right? You would not disagree with that or would you? It's a role he has on the team and a complimentary label. That is not to imply that he can't rebound well. He's also a rebounder. Rudy is a rim protector. It's a role he has on the team and a complimentary label. When the term role player is used it's often prefaced by just a role player. Then role player becomes a derogatory term. When does a player become not a role player? When he plays 2 roles? 3 roles? When does the derogatory term (just a) role player get removed?

Traditionally my understanding of the term sharpshooter means the player is weak on defense and rebounding and their primary function is a high FG percentage with a good/great 3P%. A well rounded player like KAT would likely just be called a superstar. Like MCD is a 3&D because he is known for his defense and his corner 3 point shooting. That doesn’t mean he cannot do other things, for example he can attack off the dribble, but it does suggest his role and strength areas. Playmaker/floor general are often used to suggest they are not great shooters but are great passers. Again, there are exceptions and context matters, but in general they are descriptors with both positive and negatives attached.

The way your talking about role player is essentially the 3 tier system.
Tier 1: Superstars. Superstars are the best of the best. If not all NBA then at least best on the team and likely an All star or all star candidate. KAT has only been all NBA once or twice but he is a 3 time all star, and elite in the league.

Tier 2: Stars. A star is like a Donovan Mitchell, D’Angelo Russell, Julius Randle type player. They are capable of playing at the next tier but usually spend time below it. They can be part of the big core group, but they can also be displaced by the arrival or development of new talent. They can be all stars, but are not usually in the running for all NBA and are more likely to be snubbed than to be selected if on a small market team with less exposure.

Tier 3: Everyone else. They are usually called role players because the expectations is they fit within a role and carry out the role well. For example Forbes is a sharp shooter and is therefore expected to shoot like one. If he could be more well rounded he would likely be a star instead of a role player.

Does this make sense?

Nope it doesn't make sense. I've never thought a player being a sharpshooter meant they can't do other things well also. KAT is a sharpshooter and he does other things well also. I've heard him called a sharpshooter or other terms in basketball broadcasts referring to how well he shoots. A lot of people say KAT is poor on defense and not well rounded. So does that mean he's (just) a role player? I've never thought the term playmaker implied a player can't shoot well. Each player is an individual and has his own strengths and weaknesses.

Is Jokic a 3&D? Is Embiid?

[KGdaBom]

Traditionally my understanding of the term sharpshooter means the player is weak on defense and rebounding and their primary function is a high FG percentage with a good/great 3P%. A well rounded player like KAT would likely just be called a superstar. Like MCD is a 3&D because he is known for his defense and his corner 3 point shooting. That doesn’t mean he cannot do other things, for example he can attack off the dribble, but it does suggest his role and strength areas. Playmaker/floor general are often used to suggest they are not great shooters but are great passers. Again, there are exceptions and context matters, but in general they are descriptors with both positive and negatives attached.

The way your talking about role player is essentially the 3 tier system.
Tier 1: Superstars. Superstars are the best of the best. If not all NBA then at least best on the team and likely an All star or all star candidate. KAT has only been all NBA once or twice but he is a 3 time all star, and elite in the league.

Tier 2: Stars. A star is like a Donovan Mitchell, D’Angelo Russell, Julius Randle type player. They are capable of playing at the next tier but usually spend time below it. They can be part of the big core group, but they can also be displaced by the arrival or development of new talent. They can be all stars, but are not usually in the running for all NBA and are more likely to be snubbed than to be selected if on a small market team with less exposure.

Tier 3: Everyone else. They are usually called role players because the expectations is they fit within a role and carry out the role well. For example Forbes is a sharp shooter and is therefore expected to shoot like one. If he could be more well rounded he would likely be a star instead of a role player.

Does this make sense?

Nope it doesn't make sense. I've never thought a player being a sharpshooter meant they can't do other things well also. KAT is a sharpshooter and he does other things well also. I've heard him called a sharpshooter or other terms in basketball broadcasts referring to how well he shoots. A lot of people say KAT is poor on defense and not well rounded. So does that mean he's (just) a role player? I've never thought the term playmaker implied a player can't shoot well. Each player is an individual and has his own strengths and weaknesses.

Is Jokic a 3&D? Is Embiid?

No player is a 3&D. Some players are good with those skills. I don't think Jokic or Embiid are particularly good at those, but they make up for it with other very good skills like rebounding and in Jokic's case passing.

[winforlose]

Nope it doesn't make sense. I've never thought a player being a sharpshooter meant they can't do other things well also. KAT is a sharpshooter and he does other things well also. I've heard him called a sharpshooter or other terms in basketball broadcasts referring to how well he shoots. A lot of people say KAT is poor on defense and not well rounded. So does that mean he's (just) a role player? I've never thought the term playmaker implied a player can't shoot well. Each player is an individual and has his own strengths and weaknesses.

Is Jokic a 3&D? Is Embiid?

No player is a 3&D. Some players are good with those skills. I don't think Jokic or Embiid are particularly good at those, but they make up for it with other very good skills like rebounding and in Jokic's case passing.

Accepting the premise, then why does anyone use the term 3&D if it does not apply to anyone? What does it even mean if it has no proper application?

[KGdaBom]

Is Jokic a 3&D? Is Embiid?

No player is a 3&D. Some players are good with those skills. I don't think Jokic or Embiid are particularly good at those, but they make up for it with other very good skills like rebounding and in Jokic's case passing.

Accepting the premise, then why does anyone use the term 3&D if it does not apply to anyone? What does it even mean if it has no proper application?

A player has skills of making 3 point shots and defending well. I don't call that person a 3&D. I call that person a person who is good at 3 & D. The person is more than their basketball skills. If you choose to call McDaniels a 3&D I'll understand what you mean, but I won't call him that. You can drag this on forever, but I'm not going to. I hate calling any player a role player because it's demeaning. It's always used by a person who wants to diminish the player they are calling that. If it makes you happy to call somebody a role player go for it. You will never hear me say that and I won't accept it when you say that.

[winforlose]

No player is a 3&D. Some players are good with those skills. I don't think Jokic or Embiid are particularly good at those, but they make up for it with other very good skills like rebounding and in Jokic's case passing.

Accepting the premise, then why does anyone use the term 3&D if it does not apply to anyone? What does it even mean if it has no proper application?

A player has skills of making 3 point shots and defending well. I don't call that person a 3&D. I call that person a person who is good at 3 & D. The person is more than their basketball skills.

That’s like saying you shouldn’t call a cancer doctor an oncologist because they can also practice internal medicine. Of course these guys are people and more than their profession. You make it sound like a slur, when 3&D is a shorthand for a role. You said yourself roles are good things. You ask MCD to shoot the 3 ball well and play good defense without fouling. Anything more than that is a bonus. That’s the thing about player roles, as long as you do what is asked of you and don’t try and do too much more (trying to do things your bad at like JO shooting a ton of 3s,) then your considered good at your role.

[KGdaBom]

Accepting the premise, then why does anyone use the term 3&D if it does not apply to anyone? What does it even mean if it has no proper application?

A player has skills of making 3 point shots and defending well. I don't call that person a 3&D. I call that person a person who is good at 3 & D. The person is more than their basketball skills.

That’s like saying you shouldn’t call a cancer doctor an oncologist because they can also practice internal medicine. Of course these guys are people and more than their profession. You make it sound like a slur, when 3&D is a shorthand for a role. You said yourself roles are good things. You ask MCD to shoot the 3 ball well and play good defense without fouling. Anything more than that is a bonus. That’s the thing about player roles, as long as you do what is asked of you and don’t try and do too much more (trying to do things your bad at like JO shooting a ton of 3s,) then your considered good at your role.

You responded while I was still working on my reply. Here is the rest of it.

If you choose to call McDaniels a 3&D I'll understand what you mean, but I won't call him that. You can drag this on forever, but I'm not going to. I hate calling any player a role player because it's demeaning. It's always used by a person who wants to diminish the player they are calling that. If it makes you happy to call somebody a role player go for it. You will never hear me say that and I won't accept it when you say that.

[winforlose]

A player has skills of making 3 point shots and defending well. I don't call that person a 3&D. I call that person a person who is good at 3 & D. The person is more than their basketball skills.

That’s like saying you shouldn’t call a cancer doctor an oncologist because they can also practice internal medicine. Of course these guys are people and more than their profession. You make it sound like a slur, when 3&D is a shorthand for a role. You said yourself roles are good things. You ask MCD to shoot the 3 ball well and play good defense without fouling. Anything more than that is a bonus. That’s the thing about player roles, as long as you do what is asked of you and don’t try and do too much more (trying to do things your bad at like JO shooting a ton of 3s,) then your considered good at your role.

You responded while I was still working on my reply. Here is the rest of it.

If you choose to call McDaniels a 3&D I'll understand what you mean, but I won't call him that. You can drag this on forever, but I'm not going to. I hate calling any player a role player because it's demeaning. It's always used by a person who wants to diminish the player they are calling that. If it makes you happy to call somebody a role player go for it. You will never hear me say that and I won't accept it when you say that.

I just think you hate adjectives.

[fattymcgee]

Calling someone a "role player" isn't demeaning, it just means they aren't a "star".

[shangrila]

Calling someone a "role player" isn't demeaning, it just means they aren't a "star".

Don't. Just...let them do their thing.

It'll be over quicker that way.

[KGdaBom]

Calling someone a "role player" isn't demeaning, it just means they aren't a "star".

So if a person is a star they don't play a role, but everyone who's not a star just plays a role? That's obviously not true. If a player is a star they actually play a bigger role.

If there are just stars and role players every player you call a role player is automatically diminished. Why on Earth do we need the term role player. What good does it do to call somebody that? I see no value in it. So I will never do it.

[Klomp]

It's almost comical how well Connelly recouped the depth lost in the Gobert trade.

You look back at the initial thoughts and people were critical because we were trading away two starters and the 2021-22 sixth man in Beverley, Vanderbilt and Beasley.

However, when you look deeper....
-Kyle Anderson (already agreed to terms) was likely to fill one of those spots, either starting PF or sixth man).
-Beverley was unlikely to remain in starting lineup due to age, health and Jaden McDaniels waiting in the wings.
-Beasley played a big role off the bench, but Nowell was waiting in the wings.

All three players were unlikely to keep their same value. They were great for us last season, but the sustainability was a low probability for where we are trying to go. I'm not sure their values could get any higher.

If we are just comparing the individual pieces in the trade from at the time of the trade, I'm fine with people believing we lost value. However, McDaniels' development, Nowell's development and Anderson's signing are big pieces that to me allowed us to shift the balance of the power structure of the roster. Those are three key role players to fill in for the role players lost in the trade.

I haven't even gotten into the other vets such as Bryn Forbes, Austin Rivers or the resigning of Taurean Prince to help fill in the gaps.

[winforlose]

It's almost comical how well Connelly recouped the depth lost in the Gobert trade.

You look back at the initial thoughts and people were critical because we were trading away two starters and the 2021-22 sixth man in Beverley, Vanderbilt and Beasley.

However, when you look deeper....
-Kyle Anderson (already agreed to terms) was likely to fill one of those spots, either starting PF or sixth man).
-Beverley was unlikely to remain in starting lineup due to age, health and Jaden McDaniels waiting in the wings.
-Beasley played a big role off the bench, but Nowell was waiting in the wings.

All three players were unlikely to keep their same value. They were great for us last season, but the sustainability was a low probability for where we are trying to go. I'm not sure their values could get any higher.

If we are just comparing the individual pieces in the trade from at the time of the trade, I'm fine with people believing we lost value. However, McDaniels' development, Nowell's development and Anderson's signing are big pieces that to me allowed us to shift the balance of the power structure of the roster. Those are three key role players to fill in for the role players lost in the trade.

I haven't even gotten into the other vets such as Bryn Forbes, Austin Rivers or the resigning of Taurean Prince to help fill in the gaps.

All of this plus, Rudy himself is a massive upgrade over Bev while Anderson replaces V8.

Quick link to the road not taken. Walker Kessler stats thus far.

https://www.nba.com/player/1631117/walker-kessler