RealGM

SO_MONEY wrote:

thinktank wrote:

minimus wrote:
Thibs paid 24mil Gibson and 64mil Dieng to give us similar production. That is what I call "don’t even fit us very well".

That’s a nice distraction from the current debate.

Trade down. Take OO. Keep 17. Let Johnson expire.

Easy.

Don’t settle for two years of mediocre Gordon.

You don't let Johnson expire, you try to trade him because he is a mechanism to add paid talent, letting him expire accomplishes nothing and eliminates that opportunity.

Fine. Gordon isn’t that talent. I wouldn’t even say he’s talented. Certainly not talented enough to add #17 to it.

I’d be shocked if Rosas did that deal.

SO_MONEY wrote:

thinktank wrote:

minimus wrote:
Thibs paid 24mil Gibson and 64mil Dieng to give us similar production. That is what I call "don’t even fit us very well".

That’s a nice distraction from the current debate.

Trade down. Take OO. Keep 17. Let Johnson expire.

Easy.

Don’t settle for two years of mediocre Gordon.

You don't let Johnson expire, you try to trade him because he is a mechanism to add paid talent, letting him expire accomplishes nothing and eliminates that opportunity.

Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slim Tubby wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:

thinktank wrote:
That’s a nice distraction from the current debate.

Trade down. Take OO. Keep 17. Let Johnson expire.

Easy.

Don’t settle for two years of mediocre Gordon.

You don't let Johnson expire, you try to trade him because he is a mechanism to add paid talent, letting him expire accomplishes nothing and eliminates that opportunity.

Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.

1) Since when MIN became a FA destination?
2) JJ contract in trades becomes 125% which allows us to aggregate other contracts and trade for let say 25mil contract.

If we can land both gordon and jerami grant that'd be awesome.

Slim Tubby wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:

thinktank wrote:
That’s a nice distraction from the current debate.

Trade down. Take OO. Keep 17. Let Johnson expire.

Easy.

Don’t settle for two years of mediocre Gordon.

You don't let Johnson expire, you try to trade him because he is a mechanism to add paid talent, letting him expire accomplishes nothing and eliminates that opportunity.

Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that "space" will be cancelled by Beasley and perhaps Juancho, maybe a MLE player.

IceManBK1 wrote:If we can land both gordon and jerami grant that'd be awesome.

Grant will be a priority resign for Denver. They have his bird rights and with Plumlee and Milsapp coming off the books, they will have the money to pay him.

Wolves don’t have the cap space to sign a free agent except our mid level.

As I’ve said, I don’t think Gordon is a perfect fit, because I don’t know if he is even a credible threat at the three point line to warrant much defensive attention. But I have had an idea in my head for a while now, and let me toss it out there, and you guys can tell me I’m crazy.

We all know MIN has never had very much talent. We occasionally get lucky in the draft (KG and Towns), but generally haven’t made good picks. We are not a free agent destination that way. And without those two ways to get assets, we rarely make a trade for a talented player (Butler).

I think MIN fans are talent starved. This causes us to get overly excited thinking about any player with Top 75 talent, thinking this guy could save the team. We try to ignore flaws in a players game, and ignore the fit, because the player is talented.

To me, Aaron Gordon isn’t the best example - Ben Simmons is. Ben is a great player, and parts of his game would be a godsend. However, Simmons can’t shoot (which minimizes the offensive contribution from Towns), and he’s most valuable with the ball in his hands (which minimizes the offensive contribution from Russell). Note - these guys don’t make that up with their defensive contribution. But even though Simmons is an exciting, talented young player, he’s not that great a fit for our team.

I feel if we are going to add a third star, especially a third max star, we desperately need one that fits.

UnFadeable21 wrote:

IceManBK1 wrote:If we can land both gordon and jerami grant that'd be awesome.

Grant will be a priority resign for Denver. They have his bird rights and with Plumlee and Milsapp coming off the books, they will have the money to pay him.

Wolves don’t have the cap space to sign a free agent except our mid level.

How much is the mid level exception? Maybe someone like Joe Harris would accept the MLE. I would love to have Gordon+Harris.

IceManBK1 wrote:

UnFadeable21 wrote:

IceManBK1 wrote:If we can land both gordon and jerami grant that'd be awesome.

Grant will be a priority resign for Denver. They have his bird rights and with Plumlee and Milsapp coming off the books, they will have the money to pay him.

Wolves don’t have the cap space to sign a free agent except our mid level.

How much is the mid level exception? Maybe someone like Joe Harris would accept the MLE. I would love to have Gordon+Harris.

Wolves mid level is like 8-9 million.

We can pay more to retain And resign our own players like Beasley. Or can trade for equal value like James Johnson’s 16 million contract.

minimus wrote:2) JJ contract in trades becomes 125% which allows us to aggregate other contracts and trade for let say 25mil contract.

120%, so only about $20 million if just trading him.

minimus wrote:

Slim Tubby wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:
You don't let Johnson expire, you try to trade him because he is a mechanism to add paid talent, letting him expire accomplishes nothing and eliminates that opportunity.

Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.

1) Since when MIN became a FA destination?
2) JJ contract in trades becomes 125% which allows us to aggregate other contracts and trade for let say 25mil contract.

I was simply pointing out that not all is lost if we keep him this season for his play and leadership and then letting him expire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SO_MONEY wrote:

Slim Tubby wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:
You don't let Johnson expire, you try to trade him because he is a mechanism to add paid talent, letting him expire accomplishes nothing and eliminates that opportunity.

Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that "space" will be cancelled by Beasley and perhaps Juancho, maybe a MLE player.

The cap space has to come from somewhere and we can match any offer for Beasley. I’d much rather make a run at Grant than extend Hernangomez although he appears to be a priority for DEN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slim Tubby wrote:

minimus wrote:

Slim Tubby wrote:Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.

1) Since when MIN became a FA destination?
2) JJ contract in trades becomes 125% which allows us to aggregate other contracts and trade for let say 25mil contract.

I was simply pointing out that not all is lost if we keep him this season for his play and leadership and then letting him expire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't know yet what will happen with the salary cap post-pandemic. It may seem like we have tons of room in 21-22, but we might not.

Slim Tubby wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:

Slim Tubby wrote:Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that "space" will be cancelled by Beasley and perhaps Juancho, maybe a MLE player.

The cap space has to come from somewhere and we can match any offer for Beasley. I’d much rather make a run at Grant than extend Hernangomez although he appears to be a priority for DEN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, we don't need the space to come from somewhere, it is a soft cap. He needs to be traded one way or the other either to bring in salary or to create enough space where we can offer over the MLE and perhaps have access to players we otherwise wouldn't have.

minimus wrote:

Slim Tubby wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:
You don't let Johnson expire, you try to trade him because he is a mechanism to add paid talent, letting him expire accomplishes nothing and eliminates that opportunity.

Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.

1) Since when MIN became a FA destination?
2) JJ contract in trades becomes 125% which allows us to aggregate other contracts and trade for let say 25mil contract.

It will help when the season starts in January, less cold weather months for players to endure.
Even more if wolves move to Vegas.....Giannis&kat front court dreams.

Slim Tubby wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:

Slim Tubby wrote:Letting JJ expire does open up $16M in net cap space for 21/22 which also allows us to sign additional talent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that "space" will be cancelled by Beasley and perhaps Juancho, maybe a MLE player.

The cap space has to come from somewhere and we can match any offer for Beasley. I’d much rather make a run at Grant than extend Hernangomez although he appears to be a priority for DEN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wouldn’t it be good to make a high offer for Grant make a fellow west rival have to spend more than they wanted to keep him..

Neeva wrote:

Slim Tubby wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:
Except that "space" will be cancelled by Beasley and perhaps Juancho, maybe a MLE player.

The cap space has to come from somewhere and we can match any offer for Beasley. I’d much rather make a run at Grant than extend Hernangomez although he appears to be a priority for DEN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wouldn’t it be good to make a high offer for Grant make a fellow west rival have to spend more than they wanted to keep him..

Meh. Not really. Our luck we would get stuck with paying and Grant isn't worth his rumored amounts. This is a pretty weak FA, better off trading and also adding a MLE player.

SO_MONEY wrote:

Neeva wrote:

Slim Tubby wrote:The cap space has to come from somewhere and we can match any offer for Beasley. I’d much rather make a run at Grant than extend Hernangomez although he appears to be a priority for DEN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wouldn’t it be good to make a high offer for Grant make a fellow west rival have to spend more than they wanted to keep him..

Meh. Not really. Our luck we would get stuck with paying and Grant isn't worth his rumored amounts. This is a pretty weak FA, better off trading and also adding a MLE player.

I would be okay with it, cause I can envision Rosas using him as ballast in a trade for Booker with Ball or Edwards the following year.He is a decent player just will be kind of overpaid. I can definitely see the knicks and hawks driving his price up though to make it hell for Denver.

Neeva wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:

Neeva wrote:Wouldn’t it be good to make a high offer for Grant make a fellow west rival have to spend more than they wanted to keep him..

Meh. Not really. Our luck we would get stuck with paying and Grant isn't worth his rumored amounts. This is a pretty weak FA, better off trading and also adding a MLE player.

I would be okay with it, cause I can envision Rosas using him as ballast in a trade for Booker with Ball or Edwards the following year.He is a decent player just will be kind of overpaid. I can definitely see the knicks and hawks driving his price up though to make it hell for Denver.

In that case you are better off trading for Gordon and signing a MLE player. Regardless of anything, I am not interested in an overpaid Grant on a long-term deal, a contract that is bad from its onset and not one other teams would want due to cost and length.

SO_MONEY wrote:

Neeva wrote:

SO_MONEY wrote:
Meh. Not really. Our luck we would get stuck with paying and Grant isn't worth his rumored amounts. This is a pretty weak FA, better off trading and also adding a MLE player.

I would be okay with it, cause I can envision Rosas using him as ballast in a trade for Booker with Ball or Edwards the following year.He is a decent player just will be kind of overpaid. I can definitely see the knicks and hawks driving his price up though to make it hell for Denver.

In that case you are better off trading for Gordon and signing a MLE player. Regardless of anything, I am not interested in an overpaid Grant on a long-term deal, a contract that is bad from its onset and not one other teams would want due to cost and length.

“Not one other team”. Yeah right.

Another team will make a huge offer.

You know it too.