ImageImageImage

Interesting discussion on Trade Board

Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks

User avatar
Vindicater
General Manager
Posts: 7,948
And1: 423
Joined: Apr 11, 2004

Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#1 » by Vindicater » Fri May 29, 2009 1:42 am

Minnesota Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players: Al Thornton, Chris Kaman, Sean Williams, Devin Harris, future MIN 1st (returned)
Outgoing Players: Randy Foye, Ryan Gomes, Kevin Love, Brian Cardinal, #6
MIN assembles a young and talented core to contend.


This was a section from a recent trade that someone posted on the trade board, I didnt bother putting the rest of the trade in because from the other teams reactions to the trade it would never go through, but there was discussion on the Wolves side of it as people were sitting on both sides of the fence on this.

Gopher It and I seemed to be the main protagonists, with Gopher saying he would not do this trade and myself saying I was all for it. We managed to raise some good points for both sides in our discussion so Gophr suggested I bring this over to the main Wolves board for other people to discuss.

So... would you do this trade?
"That's why the last two years weren't guaranteed," Walsh said. "Either way, he knew it could have happened either way."
User avatar
AQuintus
RealGM
Posts: 10,425
And1: 2,458
Joined: Jan 10, 2008
Location: But let me speak for the weak, I mean the rookies
   

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#2 » by AQuintus » Fri May 29, 2009 1:45 am

I'd probably do it without Kaman and Thornton + whatever salary filler is coming from the Wolves, but not with them.
Image
wolves_fan_82au
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,911
And1: 32
Joined: Jan 02, 2005
Location: Melbourne,Australia
Contact:

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#3 » by wolves_fan_82au » Fri May 29, 2009 1:52 am

Interresting trade idea

c-Kaman
pf-Jefferson
sf-Thornton
sg-Brewer
pg-Harris

it doesnt look to bad
teams supporting
NBA-Minnesota t-wolves
NHL-Toronto Mapleleafs
NFL-Miami Dolphins
MLB-???
Others:Wests Tigers,Leeds United,Schalke,VVV,Sydney Kings,Tatsuma Ito
User avatar
Vindicater
General Manager
Posts: 7,948
And1: 423
Joined: Apr 11, 2004

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#4 » by Vindicater » Fri May 29, 2009 2:06 am

AQuintus wrote:I'd probably do it without Kaman and Thornton + whatever salary filler is coming from the Wolves, but not with them.


I can understand not wanting Kaman (due to his contract and injury problems) but why not Thornton? The kid averaged 17 and 5 this season and was probably the only reason the clippers managed to break double figure wins? Hes not perfect but hes better then what we have now.

I can't see how we could turn this down. We are constantly moaning on these boards about not having a good point guard. Harris is about to enter the elite class of point guard.

Harris averaged 21ppg, 7 apg, 3rpg and 1.5spg last season.

This trade keeps us young, makes us better and still leaves us with some capspace in 2010 to sign a vet to round out the roster with.

I think this trade is good for us but if Kaman comes back healthy then this just becomes a steal for us.
"That's why the last two years weren't guaranteed," Walsh said. "Either way, he knew it could have happened either way."
User avatar
AQuintus
RealGM
Posts: 10,425
And1: 2,458
Joined: Jan 10, 2008
Location: But let me speak for the weak, I mean the rookies
   

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#5 » by AQuintus » Fri May 29, 2009 2:11 am

Vindicater wrote:I can understand not wanting Kaman (due to his contract and injury problems) but why not Thornton? The kid averaged 17 and 5 this season and was probably the only reason the clippers managed to break double figure wins?


I wouldn't want Thornton because he's an old, overrated, no-defense chucker who hurts his team more than he helps it. To me, he comes off exactly like his teammates Ricky Davis and Zach Randolph in that regard.

Hes not perfect but hes better then what we have now.


I disagree with this. He may be good on offense, but I'd say that Brewer (and Gomes) is better on O than Thornton is on D, and Brewer (and Gomes) helps his team in more ways than Thornton does.
Image
User avatar
Esohny
RealGM
Posts: 11,613
And1: 339
Joined: Apr 18, 2009
Location: Saint Paul
     

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#6 » by Esohny » Fri May 29, 2009 2:36 am

To be fair, Thornton is 25 and still on his rookie contract. He shot just below 45% from the field to get his 17/game, but was hurt by his terrible 3 point shooting (25% down from 31 career). He also got to the line 4.5 times a game and made 75% of foul shots. This is despite being on the Clippers, where players go to die.

His defense is certainly debatable, although it's hard to single out his play when the Clippers defense was so dismal overall.

So, I think he's a talented guy who would need to improve his 3-point shooting to become a taller, better rebounding Richard Jefferson(Thornton shoots better overall since he's better closer to the basket), who some have suggested we trade for, although Jefferson literally makes more than 7 times as much and is almost 29.

I wouldn't mind him on our team, especially if we still had Brewer to split minutes at the SF spot.
SMAC-K wrote:Mayo>>>>Love and that 5th pick
OJ Mayo is one of the best defenders in the league, hes a two way player and hes a great passer and playmaker.
User avatar
Esohny
RealGM
Posts: 11,613
And1: 339
Joined: Apr 18, 2009
Location: Saint Paul
     

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#7 » by Esohny » Fri May 29, 2009 2:40 am

That said, I'd still be on the fence with this trade because of Kaman and Williams.
SMAC-K wrote:Mayo>>>>Love and that 5th pick
OJ Mayo is one of the best defenders in the league, hes a two way player and hes a great passer and playmaker.
User avatar
revprodeji
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 22,388
And1: 8
Joined: Dec 25, 2002
Location: Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought
Contact:

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#8 » by revprodeji » Fri May 29, 2009 2:44 am

I do not like it, but I do not like Kaman or Thornton to be fair. But I would not like this trade. We give up 2 foundational pieces, 2 quality role players, and a giant expiring. Stupid deal.
http://www.timetoshop.org
Weight management, Sports nutrition and more...
User avatar
Vindicater
General Manager
Posts: 7,948
And1: 423
Joined: Apr 11, 2004

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#9 » by Vindicater » Fri May 29, 2009 2:56 am

revprodeji wrote:I do not like it, but I do not like Kaman or Thornton to be fair. But I would not like this trade. We give up 2 foundational pieces, 2 quality role players, and a giant expiring. Stupid deal.


Yet I can counter that

We get the best player in the trade (Harris) who also happens to fill a need.
We get 2 Better roleplayers back in Kaman and Thornton (this is where you and me disagree Rev :D )
We get our 1st round pick back from the clippers.

THe only hangup I have about this trade is the injury concerns over Kaman. IM willing to take that risk though
"That's why the last two years weren't guaranteed," Walsh said. "Either way, he knew it could have happened either way."
User avatar
Krapinsky
RealGM
Posts: 20,712
And1: 1,952
Joined: May 13, 2007
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#10 » by Krapinsky » Fri May 29, 2009 3:07 am

Bad trade all around. Kaman is terrible and an injury concern - he may have negative value at this point. Thornton is just terrible. A player that will always make his team worse. Harris would be marginalized by playing if an offense centered around Jefferson and Kaman.

Love + #6 + Foye + Gomes is a ton to give up.
FinnTheHuman wrote: Your post is just garbage.

NewWolvesOrder wrote:Garbage post, indeed.
User avatar
JR Rider
Sophomore
Posts: 191
And1: 39
Joined: Feb 27, 2008

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#11 » by JR Rider » Fri May 29, 2009 4:10 am

I will pass on this trade in a heartbeat. Devin Harris is not good enough to justify giving up all of that, and I am not particularly enamored with any of those other pieces. Thanks, but no thanks.
User avatar
revprodeji
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 22,388
And1: 8
Joined: Dec 25, 2002
Location: Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought
Contact:

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#12 » by revprodeji » Fri May 29, 2009 4:10 am

screw injury. Kaman has a horrible contract, makes Al look all-defense and does not produce when playing with another post option.

Thornton has been a ball hog since college. These guys do not make this team better.

I like Harris. But the other guys do not belong on my team.
http://www.timetoshop.org
Weight management, Sports nutrition and more...
User avatar
TheFranchise21
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,518
And1: 1
Joined: Aug 14, 2001
Location: All Day
Contact:

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#13 » by TheFranchise21 » Fri May 29, 2009 4:51 am

revprodeji wrote:I do not like it, but I do not like Kaman or Thornton to be fair. But I would not like this trade. We give up 1 foundational piece, 3 quality role players, and a giant expiring. Stupid deal.

Fixed.

Kaman's contract makes me turn away from this one.
My Kobe Bryant website I designed myself: http://personal.stthomas.edu/dnnguyen/kb24.
User avatar
Vindicater
General Manager
Posts: 7,948
And1: 423
Joined: Apr 11, 2004

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#14 » by Vindicater » Fri May 29, 2009 9:42 am

Dr.Krapinsky wrote:Bad trade all around. Kaman is terrible and an injury concern - he may have negative value at this point. Thornton is just terrible. A player that will always make his team worse. Harris would be marginalized by playing if an offense centered around Jefferson and Kaman.

Love + #6 + Foye + Gomes is a ton to give up.


I dont agree with anything in this post apart from Kaman being injury prone.

When Healthy Kaman is a top ten centre in this leauge and would be the best centre MInnesota has EVER had.

Why is Thornton terrible? How does he make his team worse? Your basing this on what? The clippers? Griffin is gonna be horrible then and make his team worse :roll: (I know that comparison is hopeless but claiming a guy will always make his team worse after one year is abit rich)

Harris would be everything we wanted Foye to be, Foye was meant to be a penetrating guard who could score at will in the fourth term and set up Jefferson for the first three quarters. Wow... What is Harris? oh yeah, a point guard who will penetrate and score and someone who can set up Jefferson for the first three quarters.

As to the tonne we give up

Love- Yes hes a special talent, yes hes awsome at rebounding and outlet passes, yes he plays the same position as our franchise player.

Foye- He still may turn it on one day, but way too inconsistent to be anything but a 6th man.

#6 Pick- The wild card, could be amazing, could be horrible, thats the kind of draft this is. Thornton would be a top ten pick in this draft.

Gomes- Oh wow, we are caring about a guy who would be #8 or #9 on a contending team n
"That's why the last two years weren't guaranteed," Walsh said. "Either way, he knew it could have happened either way."
User avatar
revprodeji
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 22,388
And1: 8
Joined: Dec 25, 2002
Location: Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought
Contact:

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#15 » by revprodeji » Fri May 29, 2009 1:23 pm

tf21...I was considering Love and the draft pick as the foundational.
http://www.timetoshop.org
Weight management, Sports nutrition and more...
User avatar
karch34
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,887
And1: 864
Joined: Jul 05, 2001
Location: Valley of the Sun
     

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#16 » by karch34 » Fri May 29, 2009 1:32 pm

I like it, but I don't love it as we give up a bit more than I think is fair. I don't think it's as imbalanced as most do though. That said I think Harris would be a great fit, like Kaman or not he helps upfront, and I liked Thorton and Young way more than Brewer in the draft and still do.
Dewey
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,895
And1: 1,069
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#17 » by Dewey » Fri May 29, 2009 1:39 pm

I'm not sure why Kevin Love is ever mentioned in trades when Al Jefferson has yet to prove he can successfully come off his knee surgery.

The trade isn't going to happen. Outside of Love/Harris, you'd basically be swapping spit. Kaman fills a hole, but is not dependable. We're better off picking up a big man in the draft later in the first round.
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"
GopherIt!
RealGM
Posts: 10,599
And1: 24,742
Joined: Oct 20, 2007
Location: bird watching
Contact:

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#18 » by GopherIt! » Fri May 29, 2009 2:19 pm

Just an FYI, because most of us are not interested in Kaman/Thornton, I'm looking at the MN-NJ portion of the trade which is essentially Love and #6 for Harris. I think those two pieces are the key to dealing Harris for Ecuhus.


I kind of see this as a matter of leveraging assets.

I really like Eric Maynor as a point guard prospect. He has a reasonable chance to be available to us at the 18th pick. I'm hoping if he's available that we pick him (if we don't draft a PG at #6.) Long term, he might not become Harris good but he still looks like he has a great future ahead of him.

There is, of course, a chance he might not be available to us at that pick. If we have to, I think we could move up a few slots to increase the likelihood we will obtain him. The cost of moving up should be relatively minor. There are MIL (#10) and NJ (#11) proposals that have been passed around the boards whereby we would give up our #18, Cookie and either Bassy or the #45 for either of those teams higher pick. I think we will be able to move up if we have to. Worst case, we are surrendering minor assets to virtually ensure we obtain a quality point guard in this years draft.

To obtain Harris in the New Jersey deal would cost us significant assets, namely Love and the #6 pick. We have a different perspective on the draft. At #6 I see a relatively minor degree of risk. I think the Wolves are fortune to be picking where they are. Players like Harden, DeRozan & Holliday have a good chance of succeeding in the NBA. Now if we were picking outside of the top ten then I would agree with you but as it stands I think we are in a good spot.

I can see your point in that Harris is a very good PG and would really help the Wolves immediately. I just don't believe that the long term improvement from Maynor (or Holliday) to Harris is enough to justify loosing one or two valuable assets in the process. If the draft were weak in PG's then it might be a different story. Right now though, I would rather have Love, Maynor & either DeRozan or Harden than Harris. That's just me.
User avatar
john2jer
RealGM
Posts: 15,304
And1: 452
Joined: May 26, 2006
Location: State Of Total Awesomeness
 

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#19 » by john2jer » Fri May 29, 2009 3:38 pm

As I said over there, Kaman is over-paid garbage that can't play with a top level post as he proved with Elton Brand.

Thornton is a year younger than Gomes, but doesn't bring anything special to the court, other than reports of a crappy attitude and a lack of defense.

Harris is the only piece I like out of this and I think we could get more for that package.
basketball royalty wrote:Is Miami considered a big city in the States? I thought guys just went there because of the weather and the bitches?
User avatar
Foye
Club Captain- German Soccer
Posts: 25,054
And1: 3,612
Joined: Jul 29, 2008
Location: Frankfurt
 

Re: Interesting discussion on Trade Board 

Post#20 » by Foye » Fri May 29, 2009 4:39 pm

I will have to pass on that one, too.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves