MEM - MIN (Mayo for pick?)

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:14 pm

MIN GETS: OJ Mayo
MEM GETS: MEM Future 1st returned (top 14 protected 2013-16, then reverts to 2nd) + TPE

I wouldn't do this deal myself, but I was curious what Wolves fans thought.

For MEM, that's about Mayo's trade value, and the pick has a little extra value for MEM, because it gives MEM more flexibility for future planning, by not being contrained by the Stepien Rule.

Kahn gets a more "win now" asset.

Foye · Post #2 » by **Foye** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:20 pm

I'm not sure whether Mayo really fits into our team but I would do that deal. We'll likely be getting an early (or even late) #20's pick with that 1st.. Mayo in return would be great value.

PeeDee · Post #3 » by **PeeDee** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:25 pm

I think it'd be a good acquisition. Not only for rounding the roster, but for another young trade asset. At this point, however, it is extremely unlikely Kahn acquires more youth. Expect a vets only mantra coming from the FO from here forward.

_AIJ_ · Post #4 » by **_AIJ_** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:26 pm

Yes please!

Rubio/Ridnour/Lee
Wes/OJ/Lee
SCB/Williams/Webster
Love/Williams/AT
AR/Darko/Pek

shrink · Post #5 » by **shrink** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:50 pm

We'd probably include Hayward or Ellington, not just for financial/youth reasons, but to disguise the fact that it was Minnesota that destroyed them in the first Mayo trade.

eyeteeth · Post #6 » by **eyeteeth** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:12 pm

Mayo sucks. Keep him away.

jpatrick · Post #7 » by **jpatrick** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:16 pm

He's in the same draft class as Beasley, Randolph and Love. We can't pay all of them, so would Mayo be a 1 to 2 year rental until we let him go in free agency?

Esohny · Post #8 » by **Esohny** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:33 pm

jpatrick wrote:He's in the same draft class as Beasley, Randolph and Love. We can't pay all of them, so would Mayo be a 1 to 2 year rental until we let him go in free agency?

I'd do it. The Wolves probably won't (or at least shouldn't) give big contracts to all those players anyway.

shangrila · Post #9 » by **shangrila** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:57 pm

I don't really see the point. Between Wes, Webster and Lee you've got that SG spot pretty much covered.

I would have done it before the draft, or if they moved Williams to play Webster at the backup 3 spot, but now there's just no time for him.

Esohny · Post #10 » by **Esohny** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:18 pm

shangrila wrote:I don't really see the point. Between Wes, Webster and Lee you've got that SG spot pretty much covered.

I would have done it before the draft, or if they moved Williams to play Webster at the backup 3 spot, but now there's just no time for him.

That's kind of like saying that they've got the center spot covered with Darko and Pekovic.

jscott · Post #11 » by **jscott** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:19 pm

jpatrick wrote:He's in the same draft class as Beasley, Randolph and Love. We can't pay all of them, so would Mayo be a 1 to 2 year rental until we let him go in free agency?

This is my concern too but if Mayo comes in and proves he should be paid instead of AR, Beasley or even Love then I welcome it. My thought though is that he just becomes a 1-year rental or a trade chip going forward and with a looming contract doesn't a 1st hold a bit more value since there is no cost involved.

Sephiroth · Post #12 » by **Sephiroth** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:41 pm

I'm good with this trade. What would the extensions look like?

Kevin Love: 12mill/year
Michael Beasley: 9mill/year
Anthony Randolph: 7mill/year
OJ Mayo: 7mill/year

Does this seem accurate? If not, please make suggestions. Who would be underpaid/overpaid? Of course, this all awaits the results of the new CBA.

Rubio would still be on rookie contract, no? As would Derrick Williams.

shangrila · Post #13 » by **shangrila** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:43 pm

Esohny wrote:
shangrila wrote:I don't really see the point. Between Wes, Webster and Lee you've got that SG spot pretty much covered.

I would have done it before the draft, or if they moved Williams to play Webster at the backup 3 spot, but now there's just no time for him.

That's kind of like saying that they've got the center spot covered with Darko and Pekovic.

It's not, actually.

Esohny · Post #14 » by **Esohny** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:03 pm

shangrila wrote:
Esohny wrote:That's kind of like saying that they've got the center spot covered with Darko and Pekovic.

It's not, actually.

I sure don't see any starting SGs in that group.

eToasT · Post #15 » by **eToasT** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:59 pm

Esohny wrote:
shangrila wrote:
Esohny wrote:That's kind of like saying that they've got the center spot covered with Darko and Pekovic.

It's not, actually.

I sure don't see any starting SGs in that group.

yep wes is playing out of position and he cant dribble

B Calrissian · Post #16 » by **B Calrissian** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:17 pm

No thanks. I don't want to see Mayo playing for a contract while on this team.

Post #17 » by **Klomp** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:20 pm

We need vets

Swish4 · Post #18 » by **Swish4** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:34 pm

I don't think I'd trade for Mayo at this time. If there is a season this year, it will be an evaluation year trying to sort out what we have. How will Wes develop at the 2, where does AR fit, what does Ricky need, what kind of defensive scheme will we have. is Williams gonna be the main dog star, etc etc etc. Maybe a year or 2 down the road we can worry about filling in the "missing pieces" but I think right now we need to find a coach who can teach good fundamentals and get this team started right. Signinng Mayo for 1 year would be a mistake.

shangrila · Post #19 » by **shangrila** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:37 am

Esohny wrote:
shangrila wrote:
Esohny wrote:That's kind of like saying that they've got the center spot covered with Darko and Pekovic.

It's not, actually.

I sure don't see any starting SGs in that group.

And? Mayo isn't one either.

Esohny · Post #20 » by **Esohny** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:38 am

shangrila wrote:And? Mayo isn't one either.

I disagree, clearly.