ImageImageImage

Trade Talk (Part Two)

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

Nick K
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,862
And1: 419
Joined: Nov 23, 2016
       

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1481 » by Nick K » Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:15 pm

shrink wrote:
Crazy-Canuck wrote:Monte morris is the youngish back up pg id go after.

Could DEN put together a package that would be worth giving up three cheap years of Covington? RoCo is exactly what they need.

I think an offer needs to begin with Morris and Porter Jr.


Why would we do that? ROCO is exactly what we need.
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,071
And1: 1,468
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1482 » by KGdaBom » Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:42 pm

Nick K wrote:
shrink wrote:
Crazy-Canuck wrote:Monte morris is the youngish back up pg id go after.

Could DEN put together a package that would be worth giving up three cheap years of Covington? RoCo is exactly what they need.

I think an offer needs to begin with Morris and Porter Jr.


Why would we do that? ROCO is exactly what we need.

I would have to consider Murray and Porter Jr. for Teague and RoCo.
mplsfonz23
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
And1: 871
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1483 » by mplsfonz23 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:55 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
Nick K wrote:
shrink wrote:Could DEN put together a package that would be worth giving up three cheap years of Covington? RoCo is exactly what they need.

I think an offer needs to begin with Morris and Porter Jr.


Why would we do that? ROCO is exactly what we need.

I would have to consider Murray and Porter Jr. for Teague and RoCo.


I think I would, but I think Murray is going to command a max contract after this season, so......
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,071
And1: 1,468
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1484 » by KGdaBom » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:27 pm

mplsfonz23 wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
Nick K wrote:
Why would we do that? ROCO is exactly what we need.

I would have to consider Murray and Porter Jr. for Teague and RoCo.


I think I would, but I think Murray is going to command a max contract after this season, so......

Murray already got his Max extension and IMO he's much more worth it than D'Angelo Russell. He's pretty much better in every way.
mplsfonz23
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
And1: 871
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1485 » by mplsfonz23 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:34 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:I would have to consider Murray and Porter Jr. for Teague and RoCo.


I think I would, but I think Murray is going to command a max contract after this season, so......

Murray already got his Max extension and IMO he's much more worth it than D'Angelo Russell. He's pretty much better in every way.

No argument here. I was never on the DLo bandwagon, but if it made KAT want to stay, then I would have taken one for the team.
Murray and KAT would have made a nice duo. He might have made Wiggins a better player. "Might have."
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 42,244
And1: 3,964
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1486 » by shrink » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:40 pm

Nick K wrote:
shrink wrote:
Crazy-Canuck wrote:Monte morris is the youngish back up pg id go after.

Could DEN put together a package that would be worth giving up three cheap years of Covington? RoCo is exactly what they need.

I think an offer needs to begin with Morris and Porter Jr.


Why would we do that? ROCO is exactly what we need.

As a player, I agree. The team needs defense, three point shooting, and cost control, and RoCo is perfect for that.

The only ding is that he is 29, and doesn’t fit with the 23-year old KAT’s timeline.
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,071
And1: 1,468
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1487 » by KGdaBom » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:32 pm

shrink wrote:
Nick K wrote:
shrink wrote:Could DEN put together a package that would be worth giving up three cheap years of Covington? RoCo is exactly what they need.

I think an offer needs to begin with Morris and Porter Jr.


Why would we do that? ROCO is exactly what we need.

As a player, I agree. The team needs defense, three point shooting, and cost control, and RoCo is perfect for that.

The only ding is that he is 29, and doesn’t fit with the 23-year old KAT’s timeline.

I would disagree with the timeline thing. RoCo is going to be great for the 5 years or more and RoCo is 28 not 29. He will be 29 in December. I'm not going to be worrying about further into the future than KAT's existing contract. Let's see how good we can be for the duration of KAT's current contract assisted by Culver and RoCo and the next 5 years of Free Agents, Trades, and draft picks, before we get all worried about his next contract.
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1488 » by wesleyt95 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:41 pm

If point-Culver experiment works we dont need to trade anyone
Culver-Okogie-Wiggins-Covington-Towns is SOLID if Culver can handle running the offense
Dewey
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,925
And1: 329
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1489 » by Dewey » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:44 pm

wesleyt95 wrote:If point-Culver experiment works we dont need to trade anyone
Culver-Okogie-Wiggins-Covington-Towns is SOLID if Culver can handle running the offense

would be intersting try, but I dont see it as anything more than a "here and there" occurence.
Flip response to Love wanting out, "He has no reason to be upset, you're either a part of the problem or a part of the solution"
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 42,244
And1: 3,964
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1490 » by shrink » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:47 pm

wesleyt95 wrote:If point-Culver experiment works we dont need to trade anyone
Culver-Okogie-Wiggins-Covington-Towns is SOLID if Culver can handle running the offense

I don’t feel I am going out on a limb by saying Culver will not be a positive PG in his first season.

The star college point guards that get drafted in the lottery are rarely positive players in their first season. The NBA game is just so much more athletic, with smarter players and more complicated systems. I hope Culver gets a little time this year to try it out, but this season, it will be at a cost to the development of the other young players on the floor.
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1491 » by wesleyt95 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:47 pm

Dewey wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:If point-Culver experiment works we dont need to trade anyone
Culver-Okogie-Wiggins-Covington-Towns is SOLID if Culver can handle running the offense

would be intersting try, but I dont see it as anything more than a "here and there" occurence.

Of course you can't "see" something that hasnt happened yet
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1492 » by wesleyt95 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:06 pm

shrink wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:If point-Culver experiment works we dont need to trade anyone
Culver-Okogie-Wiggins-Covington-Towns is SOLID if Culver can handle running the offense

I don’t feel I am going out on a limb by saying Culver will not be a positive PG in his first season.

The star college point guards that get drafted in the lottery are rarely positive players in their first season. The NBA game is just so much more athletic, with smarter players and more complicated systems. I hope Culver gets a little time this year to try it out, but this season, it will be at a cost to the development of the other young players on the floor.

Unless we trade for D-Lo the only other option is starting a rookie a year from now that wont be a positive his first year either
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 42,244
And1: 3,964
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1493 » by shrink » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:23 pm

wesleyt95 wrote:
shrink wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:If point-Culver experiment works we dont need to trade anyone
Culver-Okogie-Wiggins-Covington-Towns is SOLID if Culver can handle running the offense

I don’t feel I am going out on a limb by saying Culver will not be a positive PG in his first season.

The star college point guards that get drafted in the lottery are rarely positive players in their first season. The NBA game is just so much more athletic, with smarter players and more complicated systems. I hope Culver gets a little time this year to try it out, but this season, it will be at a cost to the development of the other young players on the floor.

Unless we trade for D-Lo the only other option is starting a rookie a year from now that wont be a positive his first year either

I don’t think there is any way to know what options will be out there at PG next year. Sure, this year, Russell and Conley might have been likely to change teams, but who could have predicted Westbrook and Chris Paul, even a month before free agency? The league is filled with ball-handlers now. Next draft has several lottery PG’s, that can displace other PG’s. More may be displaced as the league shifts towards putting the ball in the hands of non-PG’s. I do not see it as two options, to either trade for Russell or you’re stuck with a rookie.

In any event, I didn’t understand how that had anything to do with my comment on Culver? I hope he gets some minutes with the ball in his hands, and maybe he can develop. I am just saying don’t get too excited for him this next season. He has a lot of other things to work on to be a good nba player, before he is trying to learn to run an offense vs NBA defenses.
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1494 » by wesleyt95 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:02 pm

shrink wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:
shrink wrote:I don’t feel I am going out on a limb by saying Culver will not be a positive PG in his first season.

The star college point guards that get drafted in the lottery are rarely positive players in their first season. The NBA game is just so much more athletic, with smarter players and more complicated systems. I hope Culver gets a little time this year to try it out, but this season, it will be at a cost to the development of the other young players on the floor.

Unless we trade for D-Lo the only other option is starting a rookie a year from now that wont be a positive his first year either

I don’t think there is any way to know what options will be out there at PG next year. Sure, this year, Russell and Conley might have been likely to change teams, but who could have predicted Westbrook and Chris Paul, even a month before free agency? The league is filled with ball-handlers now. Next draft has several lottery PG’s, that can displace other PG’s. More may be displaced as the league shifts towards putting the ball in the hands of non-PG’s. I do not see it as two options, to either trade for Russell or you’re stuck with a rookie.

In any event, I didn’t understand how that had anything to do with my comment on Culver? I hope he gets some minutes with the ball in his hands, and maybe he can develop. I am just saying don’t get too excited for him this next season. He has a lot of other things to work on to be a good nba player, before he is trying to learn to run an offense vs NBA defenses.

my point is as of now after Teague expires we dont have a better option
Tukkerwolf
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,500
And1: 962
Joined: Nov 07, 2014
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1495 » by Tukkerwolf » Thu Aug 1, 2019 6:15 am

wesleyt95 wrote:
shrink wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:If point-Culver experiment works we dont need to trade anyone
Culver-Okogie-Wiggins-Covington-Towns is SOLID if Culver can handle running the offense

I don’t feel I am going out on a limb by saying Culver will not be a positive PG in his first season.

The star college point guards that get drafted in the lottery are rarely positive players in their first season. The NBA game is just so much more athletic, with smarter players and more complicated systems. I hope Culver gets a little time this year to try it out, but this season, it will be at a cost to the development of the other young players on the floor.

Unless we trade for D-Lo the only other option is starting a rookie a year from now that wont be a positive his first year either

Culver won't be a rookie next year?
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1496 » by wesleyt95 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 6:58 am

Tukkerwolf wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:
shrink wrote:I don’t feel I am going out on a limb by saying Culver will not be a positive PG in his first season.

The star college point guards that get drafted in the lottery are rarely positive players in their first season. The NBA game is just so much more athletic, with smarter players and more complicated systems. I hope Culver gets a little time this year to try it out, but this season, it will be at a cost to the development of the other young players on the floor.

Unless we trade for D-Lo the only other option is starting a rookie a year from now that wont be a positive his first year either

Culver won't be a rookie next year?

He'll definitely be a rookie, thats facts... I'm saying as of now we'll have to draft another rookie pg 11 months from now, that may take years to develop
Tukkerwolf
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,500
And1: 962
Joined: Nov 07, 2014
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1497 » by Tukkerwolf » Thu Aug 1, 2019 7:28 am

wesleyt95 wrote:
Tukkerwolf wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:Unless we trade for D-Lo the only other option is starting a rookie a year from now that wont be a positive his first year either

Culver won't be a rookie next year?

He'll definitely be a rookie, thats facts... I'm saying as of now we'll have to draft another rookie pg 11 months from now, that may take years to develop
Let me get this straight. This year we have Teague as experienced PG and (possibly) Culver in a developmental role. Next year Culver will have one year experience...
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1498 » by wesleyt95 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 3:25 pm

Tukkerwolf wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:
Tukkerwolf wrote:Culver won't be a rookie next year?

He'll definitely be a rookie, thats facts... I'm saying as of now we'll have to draft another rookie pg 11 months from now, that may take years to develop
Let me get this straight. This year we have Teague as experienced PG and (possibly) Culver in a developmental role. Next year Culver will have one year experience...

Culver stays at the 2 in this scenario, we still have a hole at pg
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1499 » by wesleyt95 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 3:28 pm

Thats why i'm saying point-Culver is probably the best case scenario
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,227
And1: 10,345
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1500 » by Klomp » Thu Aug 1, 2019 4:34 pm

Now, I don't think Point Culver will necessarily be a thing. Some might call it that, but I think it'll be more a case of having no true PG out there if that's what they do.

However, to Wesley's point in response to shrink about playing a rookie PG...better this year in a limited role behind Teague to get Culver acclimated than to go into next season with potentially no one with NBA experience as the primary ballhandler if we go the rookie route next summer.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves