MIN - CLE Scenarios?

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 1:47 pm

OK, people can add more, but the two scenarios that I see getting the most hype are:

CLE trades 4 + Varejao for 2.

CLE trades 4 + 8 for 2 (getting the 8th for taking Rip's money and sending them some assets)

Both of these scenarios are costly for CLE's owner, Dan Gilbert, but you can see the marketing implications everywhere. With the top two players in a draft some people say is two-deep, Gilbert hopes that people will forget last season, forget LeBron, and stake the strongest claim in the NBA to a "new direction."

However, suppose neither of those deals materialize, or MIN says "no."

1. What do you think the chances are that CLE takes Williams at #1, knowing that Walker or Knight at #4? They start both guys and still run with the "NKOTB" marketing plan?

1a. If this happens, I assume we can't pass on Kyrie Irving. Do we keep him? Or trade him? Perhaps UTA would consider

Favors + 12 (still not a great fit)

or
3 + 12 + GSW pick for #2 + 20?

phonzadellika · Post #2 » by **phonzadellika** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 2:51 pm

How about Favors + 12 + GSW for 2 and 20?

Post #3 » by **C.lupus** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:09 pm

I think we'd have to trade him but if I were Utah, I'd just keep Favors and pick Knight at 3. Maybe Derozan + ? from Toronto?

TrentTuckerForever · Post #4 » by **TrentTuckerForever** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:12 pm

I like the idea of 4 + Varejao for 2.

I would think long and hard about phonz' deal as well... either of these scenarios would leave the Wolves enough assets to add another veteran or two (Iggy, Bogut - someone on that level.)

I'm terrified of Irving falling to us after watching Kahn mishandle the Al Jefferson deal. I just don't think we'd get fair value with another prospect (Rubio) at the same position.

funkatron101 · Post #5 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:14 pm

I can see the #4 + #8 shaking out, because according to fan response, we could probably flip Wes + #8 for Iggy. Al the while still landing a decent prospect (Bismack?) at #4.

phonzadellika · Post #6 » by **phonzadellika** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:33 pm

I'd like to see one more year of Wes Johnson...I think it's too soon to start trading away the young guys for vets...we don't really know what we have yet and there are a lot of moving parts right now. I know the onus is on because of Clippergeddon and what not, but I'd honestly rather see WJ after an off-season of working on his deficiencies than to grab an expensive Iggy who would age faster than the rest of the guys

Fire Mchale · Post #7 » by **Fire Mchale** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:36 pm

Best case scenario for the Wolves would have Cleveland taking Williams first overall. I can't put it at anything better than 10% chance, but that would give us the most negotiating power at #2. Assuming the Utah deal exists, I make the 3+12+GSW pick for the 2+20 and realistacally a player. This is probably in the 1% zone, but that would be amazing value. I think if Kyrie goes first (the public pressure for this almost forces their hands IMO), I go the route of 4+8 and 2nd rounder with us throwing in Pekovic. Either post-Irving deal forces us to move a center since we likely are either directly getting a C (Varejoa) or drafting one (Kanter/Biyombo/Valuncianas). This is where I would see great value in moving Pek for a 2nd.

shangrila · Post #8 » by **shangrila** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:51 pm

What's the point of getting Varejao if you're trading back for a big?

mark blunt · Post #9 » by **mark blunt** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 5:22 pm

Yeah who do we draft at 4 with Varejao in the fold? Burks?

TheProdigy · Post #10 » by **TheProdigy** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 5:43 pm

phonzadellika wrote:How about Favors + 12 + GSW for 2 and 20?

I triple dog dare you to put this on the trade board. :devil:

Post #11 » by **C.lupus** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 5:45 pm

I suppose we could flip #4 + something for Iggy. :dontknow:

Rubio-Iggy-Beasley-Love-Varejao
I doubt that is the direction Kahn wants to go, though.

karch34 · Post #12 » by **karch34** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 6:03 pm

C.lupus wrote:I think we'd have to trade him but if I were Utah, I'd just keep Favors and pick Knight at 3. Maybe Derozan + ? from Toronto?

I think that's what Utah does as well. I'm not as into Favors as everyone else, but wouldn't have an issu withthe Phonz deal.

If Irving falls to #2 we have to take him and then hope for a Derozen, Eric Gordon, etc type trade.

2 for 4 and Varejo is probably my favorite, especially if we could use Darko as outgoing salary. We definitely settle the center need and then have #4, #20, and the suddenly popular Johnny Flynn among our assets to fix SG.

mg · Post #13 » by mg » Mon Jun 6, 2011 6:09 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong but since the Wolves have already traded their 2012 pick I don't believe they can trade this year's first rounder until after they make the pick. If Kahn really wants to trade #2 he needs to have deals in place with teams that want Irving(doubtful he falls to 2) and Williams and then be ready to pull the trigger on a trade after he makes the pick.

Another scenario might be to trade with Toronto. Perhaps #2, #20, and Flynn for Derozan and #5? I believe something similar was posted on Hoopsworld. Both fanbases might hate that trade but it seems almost fair to me.

Post #14 » by **C.lupus** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 6:15 pm

We could trade the #2 because we have the #20 also.

I'd easily do that trade with Toronto. End up with Derozan and Biyombo or Kanter. don't know if toronto would do it, though.

cavsfan58 · Post #15 » by **cavsfan58** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 6:38 pm

What if the cavs got the 17th pick from the Knicks for Ramon Sessions... Would you entertain a 4,17, and Gibson for 2 and Webster? or just 4,17 for 2?

Post #16 » by **The J Rocka** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 6:50 pm

cavsfan58 wrote:What if the cavs got the 17th pick from the Knicks for Ramon Sessions... Would you entertain a 4,17, and Gibson for 2 and Webster? or just 4,17 for 2?

We would decline because there's a talent drop from 2 to 4, we hold the 20th pick that we will already possibly look to move, and having 4, 17, 20 would be adding too many youngsters to our squad. If we are going to trade out of 2, we want the rumored 4 + 8 deal or a pick anywhere from 3-10 (depending on how talented the other asset is) along with a solid vet who can make a positive impact at a position of need (C & SG).

cavsfan58 · Post #17 » by **cavsfan58** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 8:15 pm

How about... first we trade sessions for 17
then trade 17 and 32 and gibson for number 10
then do the detroit trade and get #8
then trade #8 and #10 for #2?

funkatron101 · Post #18 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 8:18 pm

cavsfan58 wrote:How about... first we trade sessions for 17
then trade 17 and 32 and gibson for number 10
then do the detroit trade and get #8
then trade #8 and #10 for #2?

Man, just stop.

Post #19 » by **C.lupus** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 8:29 pm

hmmm, #4 + #8 for #2 or #10 + #8 for #2. Man that's a tough decision...

AQuintus · Post #20 » by **AQuintus** » Mon Jun 6, 2011 9:30 pm

shangrila wrote:What's the point of getting Varejao if you're trading back for a big?

You do it because you can never have too many good defensive bigs. :dontknow:

The way I see it, they do 2 + Darko (for money reasons) for 4 (Biyombo) + Varejao. Then they do Wes + Pekovic (+TPE) for Iguodala.

They add 2 good defensive veterans and another high upside defensive big. They can then start Varejao while Biyombo adapts to the NBA, then move Varejao to the backup 4/5 with Love and BIyombo starting in a 3 big rotation.