ImageImageImage

Trade Talk (Part Two)

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 53,227
And1: 10,345
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1521 » by Klomp » Fri Aug 2, 2019 1:39 am

shrink wrote: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.

Neutral value to other GMs, but what matters in the end is how Rosas values him. And Rosas said over and over that you couldn't go on the market and find someone of Wiggins caliber easily. To me, that says he values him a good amount. He wasn't just going to sell Wiggins for neutral value, no matter how much fans whine about 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.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1522 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 1:40 am

wesleyt95 wrote:my point is as of now after Teague expires we dont have a better option


I wonder about how Napier is going to be seen by people here if indeed he gets any decent time at Point this year. He might surprise a bit. Going off the analytics we were shown of others playing with him, he doesn't sound like a negative while on the floor. Of course, maybe he never plays here. We are after all so stacked and sure of ourselves that we can slap anyone into a point role.
These are my opinions.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1523 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 1:46 am

Klomp wrote:
shrink wrote: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.

Neutral value to other GMs, but what matters in the end is how Rosas values him. And Rosas said over and over that you couldn't go on the market and find someone of Wiggins caliber easily. To me, that says he values him a good amount. He wasn't just going to sell Wiggins for neutral value, no matter how much fans whine about him.


That may have been the case. Glen might also be on him about this too, as he might have been with Thibs, demanding that if he goes that something positive comes back. Aloof to what all we've been watching him be in games so far.

The Wiggins, KAT, Dlo experiment might have been wonderful, or might have been a .500 average eyeroll, and also might have went so wrong that nobody would remember Kahn's name anymore.
These are my opinions.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1524 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 1:56 am

wesleyt95 wrote: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
I only thought Murray was a 2 with a great shot coming into the league. Wanted him selected in draft. But he's dangerous onball as is because of his shot and more. He is impressive making decisions, shooting, ball handling and creating space for himself. I hope Culver is this type of player, we'll see if he's as quick and has as much bbiq. But Murray may need to create for others more than just being such a threat that he draws defenders for others. I'm sure his assists climb the longer he's in the league. Like some other ball dominant studs started and finished.
These are my opinions.
Nick K
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,862
And1: 419
Joined: Nov 23, 2016
       

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1525 » by Nick K » Fri Aug 2, 2019 2:21 am

old school 34 wrote:
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


I couldn't agree more. Giving Culver some minutes as lead guard with the 2nd unit mitigates his downside and gives the 2nd unit a guy who can create and score. He can also pass it so we won't lose much there. I'm not suggesting he takes the job from Shabazz but I'd like to see him get some minutes.

Plus, the game is changing. The PG role isn't the same as it used to be. Culver might be great there. That is just thinking outside the box. I wouldn't bet against him.
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 780
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1526 » by wesleyt95 » Fri Aug 2, 2019 3:35 am

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).

lmao you honestly cant even compare the 2, Zach came off the bench for a mediocre squad led by Kyle Anderson meanwhile Culver made it all the way to the championship as the man with the ball in his hands
wesleyt95
Pro Prospect
Posts: 780
And1: 194
Joined: Sep 23, 2018
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1527 » by wesleyt95 » Fri Aug 2, 2019 3:54 am

Jedzz wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:my point is as of now after Teague expires we dont have a better option


I wonder about how Napier is going to be seen by people here if indeed he gets any decent time at Point this year. He might surprise a bit. Going off the analytics we were shown of others playing with him, he doesn't sound like a negative while on the floor. Of course, maybe he never plays here. We are after all so stacked and sure of ourselves that we can slap anyone into a point role.

I honestly think the league has seen what Napier has to offer, he's fine as a backup pg but its not like I assume he has something hidden in his tank that he hasnt shown
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 42,244
And1: 3,963
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1528 » by shrink » Fri Aug 2, 2019 3:58 am

Klomp wrote:
shrink wrote: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.

Neutral value to other GMs, but what matters in the end is how Rosas values him. And Rosas said over and over that you couldn't go on the market and find someone of Wiggins caliber easily. To me, that says he values him a good amount. He wasn't just going to sell Wiggins for neutral value, no matter how much fans whine about him.

My point isn’t what the trade value was, but that they was so much chatter about Wiggins’ trade value leading up to the DLo trade.

Why do you think people in the know spent so much time talking about Wiggins’ trade value?
User avatar
Domejandro
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Forum Mod - Timberwolves
Posts: 12,111
And1: 15,121
Joined: Jul 29, 2014
Location: San Diego, California

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1529 » by Domejandro » Fri Aug 2, 2019 4:52 am

Jedzz wrote:
Klomp wrote:
shrink wrote: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.

Neutral value to other GMs, but what matters in the end is how Rosas values him. And Rosas said over and over that you couldn't go on the market and find someone of Wiggins caliber easily. To me, that says he values him a good amount. He wasn't just going to sell Wiggins for neutral value, no matter how much fans whine about him.


That may have been the case. Glen might also be on him about this too, as he might have been with Thibs, demanding that if he goes that something positive comes back. Aloof to what all we've been watching him be in games so far.

The Wiggins, KAT, Dlo experiment might have been wonderful, or might have been a .500 average eyeroll, and also might have went so wrong that nobody would remember Kahn's name anymore.

I get people have been wrongfully scapegoating Glen Taylor for years now, but if Glen actually was controlling the franchise, Tyus Jones would still be in Minnesota
Yang2020.com #HumanityFirst
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1530 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 5:16 am

wesleyt95 wrote:
Jedzz wrote:
wesleyt95 wrote:my point is as of now after Teague expires we dont have a better option


I wonder about how Napier is going to be seen by people here if indeed he gets any decent time at Point this year. He might surprise a bit. Going off the analytics we were shown of others playing with him, he doesn't sound like a negative while on the floor. Of course, maybe he never plays here. We are after all so stacked and sure of ourselves that we can slap anyone into a point role.

I honestly think the league has seen what Napier has to offer, he's fine as a backup pg but its not like I assume he has something hidden in his tank that he hasnt shown


Yeah I don't think I've seen anything special looking at his stats. Low minutes, lower than Tyus so far. It's always hard to fully judge players until they get decent minutes. But his shooting just isn't there. It's too bad. Looks like an all heart player if he could just work on his shot. These guys, figure out some kind of shot to rely on.
These are my opinions.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1531 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 5:24 am

Domejandro wrote:I get people have been wrongfully scapegoating Glen Taylor for years now, but if Glen actually was controlling the franchise, Tyus Jones would still be in Minnesota


What do you know about their relationship that I don't? Are they related? 4 years wasn't enough? His numbers were better than Napiers. But Glen's gift to Wiggins makes it hard to pay everyone now. If they weren't ever going to let him start here maybe letting him go was an act of love.
These are my opinions.
User avatar
minimus
Head Coach
Posts: 6,132
And1: 1,365
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1532 » by minimus » Fri Aug 2, 2019 7:18 am

Jedzz wrote:
Domejandro wrote:I get people have been wrongfully scapegoating Glen Taylor for years now, but if Glen actually was controlling the franchise, Tyus Jones would still be in Minnesota


What do you know about their relationship that I don't? Are they related? 4 years wasn't enough? His numbers were better than Napiers. But Glen's gift to Wiggins makes it hard to pay everyone now. If they weren't ever going to let him start here maybe letting him go was an act of love.


Do you mean Thibs gift to Wiggins, Dieng, Teague, Aldrich?
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,069
And1: 1,467
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1533 » by KGdaBom » Fri Aug 2, 2019 3:45 pm

Jedzz wrote:
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.

Yes, Yes, Yes. Everybody please. Let's do our best to create the best team possible. We do that and the rest should take care of itself. The NBA is in a real mess when all the fans are in an uproar about how they can keep their star player who has yet to play one minute of his current 5 year contract.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1534 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 5:39 pm

minimus wrote:
Jedzz wrote:
Domejandro wrote:I get people have been wrongfully scapegoating Glen Taylor for years now, but if Glen actually was controlling the franchise, Tyus Jones would still be in Minnesota


What do you know about their relationship that I don't? Are they related? 4 years wasn't enough? His numbers were better than Napiers. But Glen's gift to Wiggins makes it hard to pay everyone now. If they weren't ever going to let him start here maybe letting him go was an act of love.


Do you mean Thibs gift to Wiggins, Dieng, Teague, Aldrich?


I say potato, u say potahto. Neither of us will ever know who exactly wanted what. But Glen is the one who had the longest time connection to Wiggins, having been part of the trade decision for Love/Wiggins, part of the team generating buzz on him for years to drum up sales and team value based on that decision. He's the one that would feel some kind of need for a certain value in return before letting him go. Thibs wouldn't have had any of those built up ties. Glen also personally came forward saying it was a decision he could make once Wiggins agreed to sit down with him to discuss. We can't know if Thibs was pushing for it, or if it was Glen's decision rolling down hill. We just can't know. But to excuse the man who proves he's part of big decisions on player contracts and movements, for another example speaking directly to other GMs telling them Butler was available and over-ruling what Thibs and Layden were publicly saying at the time, ...I think to excuse him would be absolutely incorrect at minimum, minimus. Wouldn't you agree?

We can continue beyond Thibs to assume or see how the new Pobo Rosas was possibly coerced at minimum to keep Sounders as an option and to see all the other options for candidates chosen as guys with roughly the same or less experience and young age. Which really had to immensely help the young incumbent interim coach remain. Be honest, when no one with longer head coaching experience is brought in at all, someone had a hand in that. We can't know, but I can imagine a conversation where Rosas is asked to give Sounders a fair chance at the role. What would have been more helpful or fair than removing anyone with substantially more experience? Trying to judge him against someone with years of experience, or even playoff experience would have been a difficult hurdle. They didn't just choose to keep him over someone like that, they removed the possibility of it. What Pobo does that for a half year first time ever interim? It was Glen's law my man. Find us evidence to the contrary that would help it makes sense otherwise.
These are my opinions.
User avatar
minimus
Head Coach
Posts: 6,132
And1: 1,365
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1535 » by minimus » Fri Aug 2, 2019 9:15 pm

Jedzz wrote:
minimus wrote:
Jedzz wrote:
What do you know about their relationship that I don't? Are they related? 4 years wasn't enough? His numbers were better than Napiers. But Glen's gift to Wiggins makes it hard to pay everyone now. If they weren't ever going to let him start here maybe letting him go was an act of love.


Do you mean Thibs gift to Wiggins, Dieng, Teague, Aldrich?


I say potato, u say potahto. Neither of us will ever know who exactly wanted what. But Glen is the one who had the longest time connection to Wiggins, having been part of the trade decision for Love/Wiggins, part of the team generating buzz on him for years to drum up sales and team value based on that decision. He's the one that would feel some kind of need for a certain value in return before letting him go. Thibs wouldn't have had any of those built up ties. Glen also personally came forward saying it was a decision he could make once Wiggins agreed to sit down with him to discuss. We can't know if Thibs was pushing for it, or if it was Glen's decision rolling down hill. We just can't know. But to excuse the man who proves he's part of big decisions on player contracts and movements, for another example speaking directly to other GMs telling them Butler was available and over-ruling what Thibs and Layden were publicly saying at the time, ...I think to excuse him would be absolutely incorrect at minimum, minimus. Wouldn't you agree?


I say картошка, not potato.

Was it Glen who gave these awful/bad contracts to Hill, Aldrich, Shabazz, Dieng, Teague, Gibson?
Norseman79
Junior
Posts: 368
And1: 77
Joined: Jul 26, 2017
     

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1536 » by Norseman79 » Fri Aug 2, 2019 10:15 pm

I think part of what we are actually going to see this Fall is competition for playing time and positions. This is a great thing as it is how you create a good culture. Just looking at the potential lineups and depth chart is pretty crazy as we have a ton of different ways to go. I am not saying its all good or bad, just saying it will be fun to watch. A thought that has kept coming back to me is that changing/challenging the norm was a point that was made early on, 4 wings and a center would challenge the norm.

Culver, Wiggins, Roco, Bell, and Towns as an example...4 players who could easily switch on defense.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1537 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 11:19 pm

Norseman79 wrote:I think part of what we are actually going to see this Fall is competition for playing time and positions. This is a great thing as it is how you create a good culture. Just looking at the potential lineups and depth chart is pretty crazy as we have a ton of different ways to go. I am not saying its all good or bad, just saying it will be fun to watch. A thought that has kept coming back to me is that changing/challenging the norm was a point that was made early on, 4 wings and a center would challenge the norm.

Culver, Wiggins, Roco, Bell, and Towns as an example...4 players who could easily switch on defense.


PG, 2g, Sf, Pf, C
KAT, Layman, Roco, Dieng, Vonleh ("bookends")

2nd hockey lineup
Teague, Nowell, Culver, KBD, Bell ("speedfreaks")

3rd line
Napier, Wiggins, Roco, Bell, Kat ("cleanup crew")

Breakin za laws.
These are my opinions.
KGdaBom
Head Coach
Posts: 7,069
And1: 1,467
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1538 » by KGdaBom » Fri Aug 2, 2019 11:21 pm

Norseman79 wrote:I think part of what we are actually going to see this Fall is competition for playing time and positions. This is a great thing as it is how you create a good culture. Just looking at the potential lineups and depth chart is pretty crazy as we have a ton of different ways to go. I am not saying its all good or bad, just saying it will be fun to watch. A thought that has kept coming back to me is that changing/challenging the norm was a point that was made early on, 4 wings and a center would challenge the norm.

Culver, Wiggins, Roco, Bell, and Towns as an example...4 players who could easily switch on defense.

If you really want to boost the defense put Okogie in place of Wiggins. Seriously though Teague is probably our 3rd best player. He will be in the starting lineup.
Jedzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,466
And1: 867
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1539 » by Jedzz » Fri Aug 2, 2019 11:36 pm

minimus wrote:
I say картошка, not potato.

Was it Glen who gave these awful/bad contracts to Hill, Aldrich, Shabazz, Dieng, Teague, Gibson?


I'll ask Shved if he'll explain. He had a stint in Houston so he might be back here at some point.
These are my opinions.
User avatar
minimus
Head Coach
Posts: 6,132
And1: 1,365
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Trade Talk (Part Two) 

Post#1540 » by minimus » Fri Aug 2, 2019 11:39 pm

Jedzz wrote:
minimus wrote:
I say картошка, not potato.

Was it Glen who gave these awful/bad contracts to Hill, Aldrich, Shabazz, Dieng, Teague, Gibson?


I'll ask Shved if he'll explain. He had a stint in Houston so he might be back here at some point.


Was it Glen who gave these awful/bad contracts to Hill, Aldrich, Shabazz, Dieng, Teague, Gibson?

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves