ImageImageImage

Trade Talk (Part Two)

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1501 » by wesleyt95 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 5:08 pm

Klomp wrote: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.

I'm not one for appearances and names, but if he's setting up the offense and averages 5+ assists a game they can call it whatever. Towns would have to take the next step as a distributer as well but I know for a fact our defense would be solid if Okogie is brought up to the starting lineup, Nowell could actually get some PT as well
mplsfonz23
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
And1: 871
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1502 » by mplsfonz23 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 5:14 pm

I don't think point Culver is a good idea. Tried that with LaVine, and took away from his time developing at the two. Now I am willing to watch him start the fast break with the ball, but too much to learn at PG for a rookie that's not a true PG.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,227
And1: 10,345
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1503 » by Klomp » Thu Aug 1, 2019 5:36 pm

mplsfonz23 wrote:I don't think point Culver is a good idea. Tried that with LaVine, and took away from his time developing at the two. Now I am willing to watch him start the fast break with the ball, but too much to learn at PG for a rookie that's not a true PG.

This isn't a video game, where you have a limited amount of development time and have to divvy up how you want to use up the time. PG skills can be applied to the wings, too.

Additionally, Culver has a pretty significant head start on LaVine in PG skills. LaVine averaged 4.2 assists per 100 possessions at UCLA. Culver averaged 6.8 ap100 last year, comparable to Coby White's 7.5 (who people would have no problem putting at PG).
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.
mplsfonz23
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
And1: 871
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1504 » by mplsfonz23 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 5:47 pm

Klomp wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:I don't think point Culver is a good idea. Tried that with LaVine, and took away from his time developing at the two. Now I am willing to watch him start the fast break with the ball, but too much to learn at PG for a rookie that's not a true PG.

This isn't a video game, where you have a limited amount of development time and have to divvy up how you want to use up the time. PG skills can be applied to the wings, too.

Additionally, Culver has a pretty significant head start on LaVine in PG skills. LaVine averaged 4.2 assists per 100 possessions at UCLA. Culver averaged 6.8 ap100 last year, comparable to Coby White's 7.5 (who people would have no problem putting at PG).


Still seems like a bad idea. Also, LaVine didn't even start at UCLA. So, could explain the low assists. But whatever coach thinks he can handle.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1505 » by Jedzz » Thu Aug 1, 2019 5:59 pm

Klomp wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:I don't think point Culver is a good idea. Tried that with LaVine, and took away from his time developing at the two. Now I am willing to watch him start the fast break with the ball, but too much to learn at PG for a rookie that's not a true PG.

This isn't a video game, where you have a limited amount of development time and have to divvy up how you want to use up the time. PG skills can be applied to the wings, too.

Additionally, Culver has a pretty significant head start on LaVine in PG skills. LaVine averaged 4.2 assists per 100 possessions at UCLA. Culver averaged 6.8 ap100 last year, comparable to Coby White's 7.5 (who people would have no problem putting at PG).


Per whatever bananas100. Such bs per100 numbers can be. Culver averaged 3.7 assists per game last year while starting and eating the lionshare of minutes, (2.8 per game 2yr career). Coby White averaged 4.08 a game. Lavine didn't even start in college.

Culver last season. 38 games, 38 starts, 142 assists (3.7 per game) 1234 minutes played
White last season. 35 games, 35 starts, 143 assists (4.1 per game) 999 minutes played
Lavine in college. 37 games, 1 start, 99 assists (1.8 per game) 904 minutes played

I don't know about you but I'm guessing if you don't start, you aren't playing the starting PG role. 24 minutes at combo maybe. Comparing anyone to Lavine in college is...

Can Culver do it for Wolves? Oh why not. Is it the smartest move? I can see arguments for and against it. We do have Napier who would be just fine at backup PG this year. Allowing Culver to focus on getting up to speed of this level would be ideal. I realize some want him starting of course. Because we have always been stupid dummies of a franchise. But take your pick, Wiggins/Okogie/Culver. Start Culver over Wiggins, I don't care.
These are my opinions.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1506 » by Jedzz » Thu Aug 1, 2019 6:02 pm

wesleyt95 wrote:
Klomp wrote: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.

I'm not one for appearances and names, but if he's setting up the offense and averages 5+ assists a game they can call it whatever. Towns would have to take the next step as a distributer as well but I know for a fact our defense would be solid if Okogie is brought up to the starting lineup, Nowell could actually get some PT as well


I don't think 5 is going to be enough if he's running P. You are right, Towns and pretty much everyone would have to start distributing. Wiggins isn't doing this all by himself you know. 8-)
These are my opinions.
Macwolf527
Sophomore
Posts: 190
And1: 123
Joined: Aug 14, 2017
       

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1507 » by Macwolf527 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 6:15 pm

mplsfonz23 wrote:
Klomp wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:I don't think point Culver is a good idea. Tried that with LaVine, and took away from his time developing at the two. Now I am willing to watch him start the fast break with the ball, but too much to learn at PG for a rookie that's not a true PG.

This isn't a video game, where you have a limited amount of development time and have to divvy up how you want to use up the time. PG skills can be applied to the wings, too.

Additionally, Culver has a pretty significant head start on LaVine in PG skills. LaVine averaged 4.2 assists per 100 possessions at UCLA. Culver averaged 6.8 ap100 last year, comparable to Coby White's 7.5 (who people would have no problem putting at PG).


Still seems like a bad idea. Also, LaVine didn't even start at UCLA. So, could explain the low assists. But whatever coach thinks he can handle.


I believe you can get away with it because the move they're making offensively is towards a system predicated on space and movement. The team is trying to move away from the Teague/Rose process of dribbling in one place until you can break your man down or someone comes and picks for you. If you consider Golden State, Draymond Green is more of the point man than Curry who play's PG. Summer league play showed us that everybody (who can handle the ball) can bring the ball up the floor in this system. I saw Naz Reid dribble up the floor a few times. I believe we should be more concerned with how we guard positionally, then who initiates the offense. The real question would be can Culver guard PG's around the league.
old school 34
Freshman
Posts: 87
And1: 38
Joined: Jun 14, 2018
         

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1508 » by old school 34 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 6:16 pm

Jedzz wrote:
Klomp wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:I don't think point Culver is a good idea. Tried that with LaVine, and took away from his time developing at the two. Now I am willing to watch him start the fast break with the ball, but too much to learn at PG for a rookie that's not a true PG.

This isn't a video game, where you have a limited amount of development time and have to divvy up how you want to use up the time. PG skills can be applied to the wings, too.

Additionally, Culver has a pretty significant head start on LaVine in PG skills. LaVine averaged 4.2 assists per 100 possessions at UCLA. Culver averaged 6.8 ap100 last year, comparable to Coby White's 7.5 (who people would have no problem putting at PG).


Per whatever bananas100. Such bs per100 numbers can be. Culver averaged 3.7 assists per game last year while starting and eating the lionshare of minutes, (2.8 per game 2yr career). Coby White averaged 4.08 a game. Lavine didn't even start in college.

Culver last season. 38 games, 38 starts, 142 assists (3.7 per game) 1234 minutes played
White last season. 35 games, 35 starts, 143 assists (4.1 per game) 999 minutes played
Lavine in college. 37 games, 1 start, 99 assists (1.8 per game) 904 minutes played

I don't know about you but I'm guessing if you don't start, you aren't playing the starting PG role. 24 minutes at combo maybe. Comparing anyone to Lavine in college is...

Can Culver do it for Wolves? Oh why not. Is it the smartest move? I can see arguments for and against it. We do have Napier who would be just fine at backup PG this year. Allowing Culver to focus on getting up to speed of this level would be ideal. I realize some want him starting of course. Because we have always been stupid dummies of a franchise. But take your pick, Wiggins/Okogie/Culver. Start Culver over Wiggins, I don't care.
Not sure if he can handle it or not, but I do think that's one of the paths to be considered as a way to maximize/develop him long term.... Been considering this some as it pertains to rotation...say you start Layman as your 5th starter (checks your 3 wings box & one of your better lineup combos that gets Wiggins to be defended by the other team's SG...checks another box we've been hearing)...then bring a backcourt off the bench of Napier/Culver (where I see it mimicking Tyus/Rose)....you can give Culver small doses of the point...capitalizing on some of those analytics of when Napier is the 2 & the responsibilities can even evolve throughout the season as he grows ?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1509 » by Jedzz » Thu Aug 1, 2019 6:33 pm

Macwolf527 wrote:
I believe you can get away with it because the move they're making offensively is towards a system predicated on space and movement. The team is trying to move away from the Teague/Rose process of dribbling in one place until you can break your man down or someone comes and picks for you.


Teague and Rose were nothing alike. I get what you are saying though.
These are my opinions.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1510 » by Jedzz » Thu Aug 1, 2019 6:37 pm

old school 34 wrote:...then bring a backcourt off the bench of Napier/Culver (where I see it mimicking Tyus/Rose)....you can give Culver small doses of the point...capitalizing on some of those analytics of when Napier is the 2 & the responsibilities can even evolve throughout the season as he grows ?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app


I know someone showed numbers where Napier improved the numbers of other guards he played with, but I still don't want to see it. Especially if you are going to make Napier the 2. So sick of this team putting players in a position that isn't their best. Might as well put Towns as the point. Napier can run point with Culver at the 2.
These are my opinions.
old school 34
Freshman
Posts: 87
And1: 38
Joined: Jun 14, 2018
         

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1511 » by old school 34 » Thu Aug 1, 2019 7:16 pm

Jedzz wrote:
old school 34 wrote:...then bring a backcourt off the bench of Napier/Culver (where I see it mimicking Tyus/Rose)....you can give Culver small doses of the point...capitalizing on some of those analytics of when Napier is the 2 & the responsibilities can even evolve throughout the season as he grows ?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app


I know someone showed numbers where Napier improved the numbers of other guards he played with, but I still don't want to see it. Especially if you are going to make Napier the 2. So sick of this team putting players in a position that isn't their best. Might as well put Towns as the point. Napier can run point with Culver at the 2.
I get where some might be haunted of the old wolves days where that wasn't very successful. And if you get to rigid with positions, I agree Napier @ the 2 won't work. But if defensively guarding the 1 & playing some off the ball offensively...allowing for some point Culver to initiate....would be good development opportunity for Culver & give us a better idea if worth pursuing that development path? Like Shrink said from a W/L's perspective probably doesn't help, but unless you're thinking playoffs, & then....I'd argue that a trade @ the position will need to happen before that thought can be taken too seriously?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1512 » by Jedzz » Thu Aug 1, 2019 11:35 pm

mplsfonz23 wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
mplsfonz23 wrote:
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."


I just don't know if the team can be signing maxed players only for making Towns happy. Sure it would help, but if it goes south in a hurry he's just as likely to move on when his deal is done anyway. You would have to be really high on their chances to succeed here to pay that. Can you imagine if it all went South and Kat forced out, and now a new coach and gm have to come in they would be stuck with Wiggin's deal and now this other maxed guy that we signed just to make Kat happy. I would rather sign one of his non pro basketball friends or his girlfriend or whatever to a league min deal if that kind of thing makes him happy. Seems like that sort of thing happens a lot.

I know a lot of us assumed Wiggins was parting ways if Dlo was going to be traded for. But Wiggins is Kat's boy too and he's already pulled rank to keep him around once. Wasn't the whole point of being able to sign and trade for Dlo because we couldn't just sign him outright with space we didn't have? I'm thinking Kat figured that He, Wiggs, and Dlo would have made some kind of big three here.

Sure wish we would have drafted Murray.
These are my opinions.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,227
And1: 10,345
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1513 » by Klomp » Thu Aug 1, 2019 11:39 pm

Jedzz wrote:I just don't know if the team can be signing maxed players only for making Towns happy. Sure it would help, but if it goes south in a hurry he's just as likely to move on when his deal is done anyway. You would have to be really high on their chances to succeed here to pay that. Can you imagine if it all went South and Kat forced out, and now a new coach and gm have to come in they would be stuck with Wiggin's deal and now this other maxed guy that we signed just to make Kat happy.

Signing Russell to a 5-year max would've taken his contract off the books the same year as Towns expires, and Wiggins expires the year before. Trading for Russell now would mean Russell's deal expires at the same time as Wiggins.
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.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,227
And1: 10,345
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1514 » by Klomp » Thu Aug 1, 2019 11:41 pm

Jedzz wrote:I know a lot of us assumed Wiggins was parting ways if Dlo was going to be traded for. But Wiggins is Kat's boy too and he's already pulled rank to keep him around once. Wasn't the whole point of being able to sign and trade for Dlo because we couldn't just sign him outright with space we didn't have? I'm thinking Kat figured that He, Wiggs, and Dlo would have made some kind of big three here.

This I definitely agree with. People have blinders on when it comes to Wiggins. I saw maybe a 1% chance of him being traded this offseason, even with all the Russell rumors swirling and it looked like we might get him.
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.
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,071
And1: 1,468
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1515 » by KGdaBom » Thu Aug 1, 2019 11:57 pm

Klomp wrote:
Jedzz wrote:I know a lot of us assumed Wiggins was parting ways if Dlo was going to be traded for. But Wiggins is Kat's boy too and he's already pulled rank to keep him around once. Wasn't the whole point of being able to sign and trade for Dlo because we couldn't just sign him outright with space we didn't have? I'm thinking Kat figured that He, Wiggs, and Dlo would have made some kind of big three here.

This I definitely agree with. People have blinders on when it comes to Wiggins. I saw maybe a 1% chance of him being traded this offseason, even with all the Russell rumors swirling and it looked like we might get him.

I never assumed for a second that Wiggins was going out in a Russell deal. I always thought it would be Teague and Dieng plus some kind of sweetener to move Dieng. A draft pick or Okogie.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 42,244
And1: 3,964
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1516 » by shrink » Fri Aug 2, 2019 12:12 am

Klomp wrote:
Jedzz wrote:I know a lot of us assumed Wiggins was parting ways if Dlo was going to be traded for. But Wiggins is Kat's boy too and he's already pulled rank to keep him around once. Wasn't the whole point of being able to sign and trade for Dlo because we couldn't just sign him outright with space we didn't have? I'm thinking Kat figured that He, Wiggs, and Dlo would have made some kind of big three here.

This I definitely agree with. People have blinders on when it comes to Wiggins. I saw maybe a 1% chance of him being traded this offseason, even with all the Russell rumors swirling and it looked like we might get him.

Well, count me as somebody with those blinders.

1. In the week leading up to DLo, Wiggins talk was being floated everywhere. National pundits like Windhorst and Zach Lowe, who that had been talking to GM’s, we’re talking about the value of Wiggins (not Dieng and Teague), and how Wiggins was closer to neutral trade value from the GM’s they talked to.

2. I know risk management is not a big issue on internet trade boards or in the media, but it is an incredibly important concern in business. As we have learned from max deals to guys like Otto Porter, a third max can crush your team financially. WAS was in better shape than MIN when they ponied up for Porter (Wall and Beal both looked good). MIN has hopefully learned it’s lessons from Wiggins about giving out max deals to players who have yet to earn them, but the downside risk is magnified (tripled?) when you already have a guy like that on the books, eating payroll. What if Russell remains mediocre, or declines from his one high usage season? He has never been efficient, even last year. A team with maxes on KAT, Wiggins and Russell - with Wiggins and Russell not worth that max - is a franchise killed four four years. The price - KAT demands a trade after three. No team can risk that, especially MIN.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1517 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 12:40 am

Klomp wrote:
Jedzz wrote:I just don't know if the team can be signing maxed players only for making Towns happy. Sure it would help, but if it goes south in a hurry he's just as likely to move on when his deal is done anyway. You would have to be really high on their chances to succeed here to pay that. Can you imagine if it all went South and Kat forced out, and now a new coach and gm have to come in they would be stuck with Wiggin's deal and now this other maxed guy that we signed just to make Kat happy.

Signing Russell to a 5-year max would've taken his contract off the books the same year as Towns expires, and Wiggins expires the year before. Trading for Russell now would mean Russell's deal expires at the same time as Wiggins.


and...? Yes I did say "when his deal is done" he might still leave if it was a losing venture.. But I also then followed that with the What if - (Can you imagine) Towns pushing out early and having the team start over with new coach/gm who would be stuck with Wiggins and Dlo each on Max in that scenario. It would be just like the scenario Thibs walked into or worse.
These are my opinions.
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 781
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1518 » by wesleyt95 » Fri Aug 2, 2019 1:17 am

Jedzz wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:
Klomp wrote: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.

I'm not one for appearances and names, but if he's setting up the offense and averages 5+ assists a game they can call it whatever. Towns would have to take the next step as a distributer as well but I know for a fact our defense would be solid if Okogie is brought up to the starting lineup, Nowell could actually get some PT as well


I don't think 5 is going to be enough if he's running P. You are right, Towns and pretty much everyone would have to start distributing. Wiggins isn't doing this all by himself you know. 8-)

I only said 5 because thats what Jamal Murray averages and no one complains about it, in all seriousness I'm expecting/praying for big things for Wiggins next year
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1519 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 1:23 am

shrink wrote:Well, count me as somebody with those blinders.

1. In the week leading up to DLo, Wiggins talk was being floated everywhere. National pundits like Windhorst and Zach Lowe, who that had been talking to GM’s, we’re talking about the value of Wiggins (not Dieng and Teague), and how Wiggins was closer to neutral trade value from the GM’s they talked to.

2. I know risk management is not a big issue on internet trade boards or in the media, but it is an incredibly important concern in business. As we have learned from max deals to guys like Otto Porter, a third max can crush your team financially. WAS was in better shape than MIN when they ponied up for Porter (Wall and Beal both looked good). MIN has hopefully learned it’s lessons from Wiggins about giving out max deals to players who have yet to earn them, but the downside risk is magnified (tripled?) when you already have a guy like that on the books, eating payroll. What if Russell remains mediocre, or declines from his one high usage season? He has never been efficient, even last year. A team with maxes on KAT, Wiggins and Russell - with Wiggins and Russell not worth that max - is a franchise killed four four years. The price - KAT demands a trade after three. No team can risk that, especially MIN.

That might have been what other GMs were talking about, thinking they could hold our feet over the fire for Wiggins and didn't want Teague/Dieng who was maybe the pair we were trying to sell. Maybe that's partially why the Dlo thing never happened here. Maybe they wouldn't let Wiggins go.

I agree that if their plan was to keep Wiggins Kat and Dlo all on max size deals it was going to be teetering on the edge of oblivion. The price/risk of keeping Kat from pushing out early shouldn't be that you force yourself into a losing situation that does nothing but keep him socially happy. I guess if they believed the Trio would be something, maybe. But again that sounds like KAT talking. I said it in a previous post, but we can sign one of his buddies or relatives to a minimum deal like other teams have done. Handing out max deals to his friends isn't going to fly. They need to start reserving those for deserving players or he's going to do nothing but lose more here and then get out when he can anyway.

Personally I wish the fans and the team would stop worrying about what Kat does and just focuses on putting the best team around him they can. If the team starts becoming a consistent winner he's going to stay and enjoy his money and winning. And if he ever does force out, so what. I would be tickled pink with all the assets they get to start over with in that scenario just as well. I've seen the team win without him. He's a center after all. It would of course be hard to find another hopeful budding star. But it would be easier to build a full team with multiple picks per year for a while too.
These are my opinions.
Nick K
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,862
And1: 419
Joined: Nov 23, 2016
       

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1520 » by Nick K » Fri Aug 2, 2019 1:28 am

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.


Damn it Kgdabom, you hit me with one that I'd do in a minute! :nod: That's how much I love Jamal Murray who was my pick on draft night by a wide margin. Porter Jr. is super solid too.

I love RoCo as he's the 2nd best player on the team but no one is safe besides Towns.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves