RealGM

What if Cleveland took D. Williams and #1 and hope to get Knight at #4? Does this make sense for them? If this was the case, what should the Wolves do? I think it is obvious that if Rubio is not coming you take Irving and maybe trade Rubios rights, but what isRubio does come over this year? Keep both? Trade.....who???

I don't see it. I know this is a hypothetical situation, but every year there's that one guy who MIGHT be drafted over the consensus number one pick and it rarely if ever happens. Plus we've already discussed this topic to death before the lottery. Just for fun though, I would trade the player that brings in the deal that makes the most sense. I'm not emotionally attached to either player. Rubio and Irving shouldn't really be considered untouchable.

TexasGopher wrote:What if Cleveland took D. Williams and #1 and hope to get Knight at #4? Does this make sense for them? If this was the case, what should the Wolves do? I think it is obvious that if Rubio is not coming you take Irving and maybe trade Rubios rights, but what isRubio does come over this year? Keep both? Trade.....who???

i think there's a 99.99% chance they at least take irving..if they were then to trade him and maximise return..i don't know what the odds of that are but i would imagine extremely unlikely again. i'm pretty sure they'll at least draft him though.

If we got Kyrie Irving, and Rubio is coming over, I'd see if UTA would offer Favors and maybe 12.

Favors may be the biggest part of the Deron trade, but he didn't do anything spectacular in Utah or NJN this year, and Kyrie may have star potential and is a better fit to replace Deron and keep fans happy. Favors has high upside, but he's still a gamble, and Kyrie would just be more valuable to Utah than to us.

shrink wrote:If we got Kyrie Irving, and Rubio is coming over, I'd see if UTA would offer Favors and maybe 12.

Favors may be the biggest part of the Deron trade, but he didn't do anything spectacular in Utah or NJN this year, and Kyrie may have star potential and is a better fit to replace Deron and keep fans happy. Favors has high upside, but he's still a gamble, and Kyrie would just be more valuable to Utah than to us.

I was a huge Favors apologist last year, but with Love's progression last season I wonder where he fits in on this team. Unless you feel he can play the 5, he really becomes depth at an area we don't need depth. I suppose you could propose playing small, but you can't get away with that night after night. This issue for me lies in that Favors doesn't own a great and creative offensive game - which creates a positive mismatch for him in the mold of Stoudemire. Instead he's an athlete really geared for the 4. Now if you were willing to make him your 4 and use Love in another deal, I could see some merit there. The problem is gauging value on Love. I'm not opposed to moving Love in a deal, but can you imagine the PR move on that one?

Why do I feel like this is an almost rewind of the 2008 draft? Where it was a debate between Beasley and Rose on who should be the number 1 pick? I recall that Beasley was the consesus number 1 pick back then and Rose just eventually caught up on him a couple of days before the draft...

In terms of position
Iriving = Rose (both are PGs)
Williams = Beastly (both are PF/SF Tweeners)

This time though, I think it's reversed, where D. Williams might catch Kyrie Irving and be the number 1 pick.

Fire Mchale wrote:

shrink wrote:If we got Kyrie Irving, and Rubio is coming over, I'd see if UTA would offer Favors and maybe 12.

Favors may be the biggest part of the Deron trade, but he didn't do anything spectacular in Utah or NJN this year, and Kyrie may have star potential and is a better fit to replace Deron and keep fans happy. Favors has high upside, but he's still a gamble, and Kyrie would just be more valuable to Utah than to us.

I was a huge Favors apologist last year, but with Love's progression last season I wonder where he fits in on this team. Unless you feel he can play the 5, he really becomes depth at an area we don't need depth. I suppose you could propose playing small, but you can't get away with that night after night. This issue for me lies in that Favors doesn't own a great and creative offensive game - which creates a positive mismatch for him in the mold of Stoudemire. Instead he's an athlete really geared for the 4. Now if you were willing to make him your 4 and use Love in another deal, I could see some merit there. The problem is gauging value on Love. I'm not opposed to moving Love in a deal, but can you imagine the PR move on that one?

I agree with you on all your points, and it would be a tough fit.

Ironically, I just saw a post on the trade board of Millsap + #3 for Love. I don't know if that's fair value (or why they'd want to combine al and Love again), but it's an interesting combo platter:

MIN OUT: #2 (Irving) + Love + filler
MIN IN: #3 (Kanter) + #12 + Favors + Millsap (traded elsewhere for a SG)

Rubio, Ridnour
(Millsap's SG), 12
Beasley, Wes Johnson
Favors, Randolph
Kanter, Darko

It helps us financially as well, not having to pay Love when Beas and AR get contracts.

Yeah, pass on trading Love.

shrink wrote:

Fire Mchale wrote:

shrink wrote:If we got Kyrie Irving, and Rubio is coming over, I'd see if UTA would offer Favors and maybe 12.

Favors may be the biggest part of the Deron trade, but he didn't do anything spectacular in Utah or NJN this year, and Kyrie may have star potential and is a better fit to replace Deron and keep fans happy. Favors has high upside, but he's still a gamble, and Kyrie would just be more valuable to Utah than to us.

I was a huge Favors apologist last year, but with Love's progression last season I wonder where he fits in on this team. Unless you feel he can play the 5, he really becomes depth at an area we don't need depth. I suppose you could propose playing small, but you can't get away with that night after night. This issue for me lies in that Favors doesn't own a great and creative offensive game - which creates a positive mismatch for him in the mold of Stoudemire. Instead he's an athlete really geared for the 4. Now if you were willing to make him your 4 and use Love in another deal, I could see some merit there. The problem is gauging value on Love. I'm not opposed to moving Love in a deal, but can you imagine the PR move on that one?

I agree with you on all your points, and it would be a tough fit.

Ironically, I just saw a post on the trade board of Millsap + #3 for Love. I don't know if that's fair value (or why they'd want to combine al and Love again), but it's an interesting combo platter:

MIN OUT: #2 (Irving) + Love + filler
MIN IN: #3 (Kanter) + #12 + Favors + Millsap (traded elsewhere for a SG)

Rubio, Ridnour
(Millsap's SG), 12
Beasley, Wes Johnson
Favors, Randolph
Kanter, Darko

It helps us financially as well, not having to pay Love when Beas and AR get contracts.

I'd ask for Utah's #3 and Favors for #2, #20, Pekovic, Flynn, Utah '12 1st returned. Or keep go with the highest bidder. I'm sure you could pit a couple PG-needy teams against each other.

Agree with cpfsf, that you draft Irving and then see what the best deal is for either. I know we believe that Kahn has all his eggs in the Rubio basket, but if for some reason Rubio can bring the package that makes more sense he's the one to move. I like both, but prefer Irving (and I know I'm in the minority).

shangrila wrote:Yeah, pass on trading Love.

I lean that way too, but let me ask this:

Can you keep both Derrick Williams and Beasley, and still have the minutes for Love? Randolph?

If we're lucky enough to have Irving fall to us, then it should be Rubio on his way out. A PG who can score, pass, and has high level quickness is much more valuable in the NBA than a PG who can only pass (even if it is at an elite level for the NBA) and doesn't have that same quickness.

AQuintus wrote:If we're lucky enough to have Irving fall to us, then it should be Rubio on his way out. A PG who can score, pass, and has high level quickness is much more valuable in the NBA than a PG who can only pass (even if it is at an elite level for the NBA) and doesn't have that same quickness.

But, like Beasley, Rubio won't bring back anything close to the value that his upside is worth to us.

shrink wrote:

shangrila wrote:Yeah, pass on trading Love.

I lean that way too, but let me ask this:

Can you keep both Derrick Williams and Beasley, and still have the minutes for Love? Randolph?

Love? Yes, as long as he's on the roster he's going to get his 35+ minutes a night.

Randolph? Dunno.

Love for Monroe + 8?

No from me. Love is worth more.

shrink wrote:But, like Beasley, Rubio won't bring back anything close to the value that his upside is worth to us.

So? You win games by having the best team, not the most value efficient team. It's the same situation as Love vs Jefferson, and I think that we absolutely made the right move despite Love having more trade value than Jefferson at the time.

shrink wrote:

shangrila wrote:Yeah, pass on trading Love.

I lean that way too, but let me ask this:

Can you keep both Derrick Williams and Beasley, and still have the minutes for Love? Randolph?

Randolph doesn't figure into the equation. On a team with as few wins as the Wolves, you don't make a decision like Williams vs. Beasley (vs. Love) and include Randolph.

I say no, you can't, but the answer would probably be to trade Beasley.

But it's not Williams vs Beasley, it's Williams vs Love.

The Jazz would not trade Favors for any player or combination of players in this draft.