RealGM

Alex (St. Martin):
Are the Wolves stock piling trade assets or just 'balancing' the roster? It seems Kahn is preparing for a major trade or a major let down.

John Hollinger:
No, they're cutting money. The Clippers trade was entirely to cut the obligation to pay Telfair next year, with Smith as the bait. The Atkins trade was entirely to cut money too, as they'll waive Chucky's non-guaranteed deal. They won't have to pay their No. 5 pick for two more years and they seem pretty OK with that, and the only free agent they're making any noise about is re-signing Carney.

Marky (Thousand Oaks California):

If the Clippers do acquire Ramon Sessions, can they trade Sebastian Telfair to Miami for Dorell Wright?

John Hollinger:

The fact that Minnesota had to bribe The Clips with Craig Smith to take Telafir tells me there is a very, very limited market for his services. Understand people, the Clippers didn't "trade for" Telfair, they traded for Smith and were stuck with Telfair's contract as the penalty for acquiring him. I doubt he's in their plans this year as more than a third PG.

Hollinger is not a "real" reporter. He did broke the Odom's story though. So, is he just talking out of his ass or the talk around the league is "wolves are cutting money"?

Hollinger wrote: Understand people, the Clippers didn't "trade for" Telfair, they traded for Smith and were stuck with Telfair's contract as the penalty for acquiring him.

Well, this is clearly wrong, because Madsen was in the deal as well.

Even if they only expect to get their money's worth from Telfair, then that means Craig Smith needs to produce like a $5+ mil player ($2.3 Smith + $2.82 Madsen / zero production). Smith is good, but paying over $5 mil is too much for a bench big like Smith. And on top of this, Q-Rich isn't a production-less expiring .. he can still put a few balls in the bucket.

LAC wouldn't have paid this much if they thought Telfair was worthless .. especially two years of Telfair. The reason we did the deal is that even though Telfair has a little value, probably a little more than an expiring, he doesn't have as the additional much value to us as raw cap space in 2010. Moreover, I think it was wise for us to move Telfair as a demonstration to Ricky, and also because the market was getting saturated with back-up PG's after this draft, and its better to move him now when there is a buyer than wait.

Duh. It was clear the Wolves were cutting money when they hired Kahn....

I don't think that Hollinger put a whole lot of thought into his response there. I would say that the Clippers did the trade mainly for Telfair, and took Smith and Madsen off of our hands to make the money work out. Clearly the Clippers have no need for Smith, they, like us, have a lot of PF/C that will require minutes (Camby, Griffin, Kaman, Jordan), and we needed to clear up space at the PF position. Behind an injury prone Baron Davis, the clips don't really have anything at PG, and Telfair proved last year that he is a serviceable PG (not a good starter, but a guy most teams would like to have as a backup).

mnWI wrote:Duh. It was clear the Wolves were cutting money when they hired Kahn....

So you don't like his moves?

And if the Wolves are content with Ricky staying overseas for financial purposes why Kahn went to Spain to negotiate the buyout?

Pumaman wrote:I don't think that Hollinger put a whole lot of thought into his response there. I would say that the Clippers did the trade mainly for Telfair, and took Smith and Madsen off of our hands to make the money work out. Clearly the Clippers have no need for Smith, they, like us, have a lot of PF/C that will require minutes (Camby, Griffin, Kaman, Jordan), and we needed to clear up space at the PF position. Behind an injury prone Baron Davis, the clips don't really have anything at PG, and Telfair proved last year that he is a serviceable PG (not a good starter, but a guy most teams would like to have as a backup).

i think they want camby gone ,and smith is there backup

its funny how wolves trade there backup pg/pf now they have none ,yet everyone is ok with that as long as we get the no 1 pick

wolves_fan_82au wrote:its funny how wolves trade there backup pg/pf now they have none ,yet everyone is ok with that as long as we get the no 1 pick

Atkins/Brown and Songaila dont do it for you?

Don't forget about Cardinal.
Gomes can play PF too.

Hollinger sits in a room in the dark and plugs numbers into his self-made formulas and goes with the "results." It's pretty clear that he doesn't watch much actual basketball for a "sanity check" of his theories. This is the guy who thinks that paying Gortat near all-star money to play maybe 10 MPG is a great idea because he had good /40 numbers.

I dont see what the big deal is. Most posters here seemed ok with sending Smith out in order to eliminate the final year of Telfair. And the possibility that the OKC trade was just to acquire Atkin's non-guaranteed contract has already been discussed here. So Hollinger isnt saying anything earth-shattering.

Now, if there is a difference between "cutting money" and "creating cap room" then he'll start pissing off the fans. If these moves are done with 2010 free agency in mind, I think they're great. If MN just wants to operate on the cheap and not make an effort to compete, it's a different story. We wont know unitl next summer, but so far Kahn has given indications that he's eyeing that time to make some kind of splash. Just because we don't see subsequent moves immediatly doesnt mean he doesnt still have a plan.

And Hollinger loses credibility in my mind when he makes no reference to the summer of 2010. It's all we've heard about for the past two years (ask Cleveland fans if they're tired of hearing about it). So when MN makes a few moves to improve their situation long-term, it's not future planning it's cutting money. If Walsh or Presti or Riley makes these moves they're brilliant because they're setting themselves up for the free agency bonanza of 2010.

MN Die Hard wrote:And Hollinger loses credibility in my mind when he makes no reference to the summer of 2010. It's all we've heard about for the past two years (ask Cleveland fans if they're tired of hearing about it). So when MN makes a few moves to improve their situation long-term, it's not future planning it's cutting money. If Walsh or Presti or Riley makes these moves they're brilliant because they're setting themselves up for the free agency bonanza of 2010.

Yeah, but the Wolves are in a worse position than these teams (smaller market, not as popular locally/globally, poor attendance, etc). Franchises like Grizzlies, Warriors, Kings and Bucks are in a full cost-cutting mode already. What makes you think that the Wolves are different from them?

I wouldn't say the Grizzlies are in cost cutting mode having just traded QRich for Zach Randolph.

They still have the 3rd lowest payroll with 8 or 9 players on rookie deals. Zach is not going to lead them to playoffs. He's there so their offense wouldn't look completely brutal.

Sure, but they don't seem to be actively cutting costs anymore when they make a move like that is all I'm saying.

Yeah, cause they don't need to, they've already done it. They are in a "saving face, keeping the status-quo and hoping that someone will eventually buy and move us" mode now.

i love Craigers, he was a good player and could score on anyone, but Hollinger forgets to mention that Smith plays the same position as most of our better players, Love, Jefferson, Gomes, Cardinal, Songalia can all play the same position he can and defend it better than Smith, only thing smith has on them is a reasonable contract and a lower potential ceiling.

"If" this is true that we only did these trades to cut money it could still be good or bad. If Glen just doesn't want to pay players because he's losing all kinds of money on this franchise then that pisses me off. In this league you have to spend money to make money. You have to change Minnesota's view of the Wolves. You do that with new exciting players and winning games. I've talked to a bunch of people who live in Minneapolis about the Wolves and they're pretty much embarrassed by them. When I wear a Wolves shirt they say, "How can you wear that they're horrible?" Spending less on players will not save you money in the long run Glen. Now that I'm done fuming about "ifs" I can say that the most logical explanation is that Kahn is cutting cap for the future. Nothing wrong with that.

Tirion wrote:

MN Die Hard wrote:And Hollinger loses credibility in my mind when he makes no reference to the summer of 2010. It's all we've heard about for the past two years (ask Cleveland fans if they're tired of hearing about it). So when MN makes a few moves to improve their situation long-term, it's not future planning it's cutting money. If Walsh or Presti or Riley makes these moves they're brilliant because they're setting themselves up for the free agency bonanza of 2010.

Yeah, but the Wolves are in a worse position than these teams (smaller market, not as popular locally/globally, poor attendance, etc). Franchises like Grizzlies, Warriors, Kings and Bucks are in a full cost-cutting mode already. What makes you think that the Wolves are different from them?

I think it's impossible to tell at this point, all we can do is take a man at his word when he says he's setting the team up for moves next summer. If Kahn doesnt make significant moves next summer then it will likely be clear they just want to operate on the cheap. I will cross that bridge next summer.

Keep in mind MN is just finally getting out of an era of large payrolls, lack of any cap flexibility, lengthy and overpriced contracts, and mediocre results. For years the annual roster overhaul consisted of adding one average MLE player and/or overpaying to keep our own players. That, coupled with the picks we lost in the Joe Smith fiasco, made it completely impossible to engineer a quick turnaround. McHale started - and Kahn is continuing - a total rebuilding project, and I'm ok giving him the benefit of the doubt for now until we see what he can pull off next summer. This summer really doesnt count for a team like the Wolves. The fact that Hollinger fails to recognize that doesnt do much for his credibility IMO.

Tirion wrote:Yeah, cause they don't need to, they've already done it. They are in a "saving face, keeping the status-quo and hoping that someone will eventually buy and move us" mode now.

but Zach Randolph is WAY overpaid, and plays like Al Jefferson if Al sat sprawled on a Jabba the Hut hover-sled eating donuts and feeding Twi'lek dancers to rancor all day instead of training.