The Tim Connelly Thread (prev./still Fire Him)

[KGdaBom]

When Tim Connelly said he was trying hard to extend Naz, I thought it’d be next to impossible for him to not wait for free agency.

When Tim Connelly said he was trying to move into the first round, I thought that would be next to impossible with our limited assets. Connelly traded up to #33, and drafted 1st round talent.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a very good GM. Tells us the truth, too.

I like a lot of his smaller moves, which is why its still so baffling to me how horribly he got fleeced in the Gobert trade.
The other move I really didnt like was giving up 2 future 2nds to move up from 29 to 26 for Moore.

The Russell trade was very very good. Loved it at the time and keeps getting better.
Even more important than the trade, his evaluation on Russell was spot on. Re-signing him would have been catastrophic.
Slo-Mo signing was great.

Naz signing is great, he had a lot of help on that with the chemistry with his teammates and development he made here under Rosas.
Those few games we gave Naz extra run next to KAT before he broke his wrist were huge. Don't know if he re-signs without that.

Trading into the early 2nd for Miller looks great, although it helped it was a weak draft. He hasn't done anything yet though.

I loved the Kessler pick and trade down to pick up 29 too.

He's got a lot of digging to do to get out of the hole he dug himself with the Gobert trade, but if he keeps making good decisions I'll stick with him.
I do think he's got an eye for talent and I like that he seems to value character/BBIQ and culture more than a lot of previous regimes.

I do think he still has another huge problem of his own making to untangle though down the road with 2 bigs making 100 million.
And 2 hugely important extensions to get done with Ant and Jaden.
But hopefully all these small moves he is making in the margins (NAW, Naz, Miller) are laying the groundwork for a foundation beyond the KAT/Gobert experiment.

If we hadn't made the Gobert trade would KAT/Kessler have been an experiment? There was no experiment. Just basketball players.

[Note30]

If we hadn't made the Gobert trade would KAT/Kessler have been an experiment? There was no experiment. Just basketball players.

Running two players who primarily play the center position in your lineup is pretty uncommon. Outside of Minnesota, not one team runs two centers. The only team that comes close is the Cavs. But even then it's not all that close, because Towns has never played the PF slot, and Mobley has, it's just that you can run small ball with Mobley at the 5. It's why players like AD were so valuable four to five years ago, they could play both spots and the team could go small ball.

However our lineup doesn't allow for that unless one of the two is off the floor.

The problem is that they are both starting caliber players. One has a very limited game and can't score outside of 2 ft of the basket, and the other can score anywhere on the floor but also does his best work in the post. As a result unless you can run offensive schemes to cover that both of their strengths are in the paint you are screwed.

That's why it's considered an experiment because you are choosing to run two players who are both starting caliber players at the same position in the same lineup that play roles they conventionally can't do.

So yes it is an experiment, just as much as Towns / Kessler would have been. The only difference is that we could rotate Kessler to the bench and we would be fine because we're not paying him $41 million.

[SO_MONEY]

If we hadn't made the Gobert trade would KAT/Kessler have been an experiment? There was no experiment. Just basketball players.

Running two players who primarily play the center position in your lineup is pretty uncommon. Outside of Minnesota, not one team runs two centers. The only team that comes close is the Cavs. But even then it's not all that close, because Towns has never played the PF slot, and Mobley has, it's just that you can run small ball with Mobley at the 5. It's why players like AD were so valuable four to five years ago, they could play both spots and the team could go small ball.

However our lineup doesn't allow for that unless one of the two is off the floor.

The problem is that they are both starting caliber players. One has a very limited game and can't score outside of 2 ft of the basket, and the other can score anywhere on the floor but also does his best work in the post. As a result unless you can run offensive schemes to cover that both of their strengths are in the paint you are screwed.

That's why it's considered an experiment because you are choosing to run two players who are both starting caliber players at the same position in the same lineup that play roles they conventionally can't do.

So yes it is an experiment, just as much as Towns / Kessler would have been. The only difference is that we could rotate Kessler to the bench and we would be fine because we're not paying him $41 million.

It was clearly an experiment, one they didn't know would work going into it, which really makes you question what we gave up, but it is not something being done, in fact teams are far more inclined to do the opposite. I would say comparing the drafting of Kessler is a false equivalence because you are not forced to or have pressure to play the two together nor do you have as much tied to the need for success to push the issue. It is one thing to experiment it is another to bank everything on a result you don't know will happen.

[Klomp]

He's got a lot of digging to do to get out of the hole he dug himself with the Gobert trade, but if he keeps making good decisions I'll stick with him.
I do think he's got an eye for talent and I like that he seems to value character/BBIQ and culture more than a lot of previous regimes.

That’s honestly a big thing to do with the Gobert trade though that gets forgotten…character/BBIQ and culture.

Everyone loved the trash talking and dawg mindset that Beverley and Vando brought, but I think it’s part of what Connelly was trying to correct. We talked a lot about how whining to the officials needed to stop, and Beverley was arguably the biggest culprit of that group. I think his influence is part of why Ant gets a little chirpy and has been near the top of the league in techs. Hoping Conley will rub off on him in a major way.

[Biff Cooper]

It is going to be interesting to see if the ownership team stands behind their all-in Gobert move to be willing to go into the luxury tax, or if Connelly is going to have to let players like Prince, Slo-Mo, and Conley leave in order to sign Ant and Jaden.

[urinesane]

It is going to be interesting to see if the ownership team stands behind their all-in Gobert move to be willing to go into the luxury tax, or if Connelly is going to have to let players like Prince, Slo-Mo, and Conley leave in order to sign Ant and Jaden.

Are those the only options? They wouldn't kick in this year anyway right?

[Klomp]

If we hadn't made the Gobert trade would KAT/Kessler have been an experiment? There was no experiment. Just basketball players.

Here’s the thing…no Gobert trade means Vanderbilt is still here. Vanderbilt probably still starts at PF. Kessler probably doesn’t play much unless he beats out Reid, in which case Reid doesn’t re-sign here.

There are so many more dominos involved beyond just Gobert and Kessler.

[Baseline81]

If we hadn't made the Gobert trade would KAT/Kessler have been an experiment? There was no experiment. Just basketball players.

It was most certainly an experiment.

Prior to Connelly's hire, folks on this forum and others have wondered if Towns may be best as a PF. With how the season ended a year ago against Memphis, it was only natural for the Wolves to consider it. They needed more rebounding and rim protection, hence, the selection of Kessler, and follow-up trade for Gobert.

But again, Towns alongside another center has only been hypothesized. Though it's possible he once played with Dieng years ago...

EDIT: SO_MONEY's last sentence is why I was, and still am, against the Gobert trade.

It is one thing to experiment it is another to bank everything on a result you don't know will happen.

[shrink]

EDIT: SO_MONEY's last sentence is why I was, and still am, against the Gobert trade.

It is one thing to experiment it is another to bank everything on a result you don't know will happen.

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

[urinesane]

EDIT: SO_MONEY's last sentence is why I was, and still am, against the Gobert trade.

It is one thing to experiment it is another to bank everything on a result you don't know will happen.

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

You really should put that in green for the folks here that have trouble with sarcasm...

[Baseline81]

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

It's posts like this, shrink, that remind me of Herm Edwards saying, "Don't press send."

A first-round selection, four future first rounds picks, and a pick swap is about as close to "everything" as one can get in the NBA when it comes to trading.

[SO_MONEY]

EDIT: SO_MONEY's last sentence is why I was, and still am, against the Gobert trade.

It is one thing to experiment it is another to bank everything on a result you don't know will happen.

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

I never said you need to know the result of a trade, I was making the point that when you risk everything (as explained by Baseline) and don't know, it should be a red flag. The certainty of results or risk assessment should be directly correlated to the amount you give up. I don't think this is controversial.

[Klomp]

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

It's posts like this, shrink, that remind me of Herm Edwards saying, "Don't press send."

A first-round selection, four future first rounds picks, and a pick swap is about as close to "everything" as one can get in the NBA when it comes to trading.

Other teams sent that AND established talent in Bridges or Markkanen. Those were everything.

[shrink]

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

It's posts like this, shrink, that remind me of Herm Edwards saying, "Don't press send."

A first-round selection, four future first rounds picks, and a pick swap is about as close to "everything" as one can get in the NBA when it comes to trading.

Other teams sent that AND established talent in Bridges or Markkanen. Those were everything.

I would say even those weren’t everything, with trade offers starting with their third best talent or worse.

For MIN, it was likely fourth.

[SO_MONEY]

It's posts like this, shrink, that remind me of Herm Edwards saying, "Don't press send."

A first-round selection, four future first rounds picks, and a pick swap is about as close to "everything" as one can get in the NBA when it comes to trading.

Other teams sent that AND established talent in Bridges or Markkanen. Those were everything.

I would say even those weren’t everything, with trade offers starting with their third best talent or worse.

For MIN, it was likely fourth.

I think you are making too much of me using a hyperbolic "everything" as if it makes your point... anyway you cut it it was an substantial amount of value and we did it for an experiment that was high risk.

[Battletrigger]

EDIT: SO_MONEY's last sentence is why I was, and still am, against the Gobert trade.

It is one thing to experiment it is another to bank everything on a result you don't know will happen.

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

Weren't you the one complaining about how difficult was to argue with the people who is against the Robert trade? You know perfectly what he is saying and you are trying to fool us.

[shrink]

EDIT: SO_MONEY's last sentence is why I was, and still am, against the Gobert trade.

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

I never said you need to know the result of a trade, I was making the point that when you risk everything (as explained by Baseline) and don't know, it should be a red flag. The certainty of results or risk assessment should be directly correlated to the amount you give up. I don't think this is controversial.

I disagree with this fundamentally. So let’s leave the name “Gobert” out and talk about the principle.

In decision-making, the certainty of results should be correlated with the cost, but also the size of the rewards. This is talking about the “home run swing.”

But let’s talk first about what we know, about where we are. I believe the 2022 Wolves over-achieved their talent by making the playoffs. They had a star in Towns, and a rising star in Ant, but the rest of their starters were worse than most competitors. They were a fun team, that was very lucky with their own health, and repeatedly facing teams when their stars were sick or injured. Worse, adding star-talent is tough for MIN, since stars aren’t begging to come here in free agency, or could force their way out at the earliest opportunity. Staying the course with the rotational players they gave up, in my view, was highly likely to put us back in the lottery, and keep Ant from adding to his playoff experience.

To me, MIN is exactly the type of team that needs to make home run swings, when a rare opportunity came up for them. Rebuilding with picks nearly every season for twenty years has been a pathway to mediocrity. I understand that you don’t like the price in future picks, and that’s fair, but I feel a high risk, high return trade is exactly the type of trade that the MIN franchise needed to take. I want MIN to make moves to try to compete at the highest level, even if they fail, and not piddle along as a mediocre teams or worse, year after year.

[shrink]

Other teams sent that AND established talent in Bridges or Markkanen. Those were everything.

I would say even those weren’t everything, with trade offers starting with their third best talent or worse.

For MIN, it was likely fourth.

I think you are making too much of me using a hyperbolic "everything" as if it makes your point... anyway you cut it it was an substantial amount of value and we did it for an experiment that was high risk.

If you say “everything” and I point out we kept three, maybe four of our best assets (if you think Naz was worth more than a future 1st) off the table, you have to admit you were using that language to embellish your point.

Maybe I should explain it differently. Say I have in my wallet two $10’s, a $5, and a bunch of 1’s. I want another $5, but pay 7 $1’s. If you say, “you overpaid for that $5!” I’m fine with that. If you say, “you gave everything for that $5!” then I’m more resistant.

[SO_MONEY]

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

I never said you need to know the result of a trade, I was making the point that when you risk everything (as explained by Baseline) and don't know, it should be a red flag. The certainty of results or risk assessment should be directly correlated to the amount you give up. I don't think this is controversial.

I disagree with this fundamentally. So let’s leave the name “Gobert” out and talk about the principle.

In decision-making, the certainty of results should be correlated with the cost, but also the size of the rewards. This is talking about the “home run swing.”

But let’s talk first about what we know, about where we are. I believe the 2022 Wolves over-achieved their talent by making the playoffs. They had a star in Towns, and a rising star in Ant, but the rest of their starters were worse than most competitors. They were a fun team, that was very lucky with their own health, and repeatedly facing teams when their stars were sick or injured. Worse, adding star-talent is tough for MIN, since stars aren’t begging to come here in free agency, or could force their way out at the earliest opportunity. Staying the course with the rotational players they gave up, in my view, was highly likely to put us back in the lottery, and keep Ant from adding to his playoff experience.

To me, MIN is exactly the type of team that needs to make home run swings, when a rare opportunity came up for them. Rebuilding with picks nearly every season for twenty years has been a pathway to mediocrity. I understand that you don’t like the price in future picks, and that’s fair, but I feel a high risk, high return trade is exactly the type of trade that the MIN franchise needed to take.

A risk assessment is a general term used across many industries to determine the likelihood of loss on an asset, loan, or investment. Assessing risk is essential for determining how worthwhile a specific investment is and the best process(es) to mitigate risk. It presents the upside reward compared to the risk profile.

So I covered reward.

Additionally, if people lived their lives giving up mass value for unknown and speculative rewards the fallout would be catastrophic. You give up the most when you have reason to believe a result will happen, something where there is low perceived risk, not for an unknown novel concept. Reward is factored in, but risk reduces value respective of reward. You can have a high reward deal where there are known expectations be it observational, data driven research or any other measurement which would make you confident the risk is worth the reward, then you can have a high reward deal where it is effectively based on... trust me bro... that is what the wolves did. And the two deals are not the same. You give up value for one and you reduce your stake in or completely avoid the other.

[urinesane]

Exactly! Why give up everything?!? Why send Towns and Naz to UTA in the trade? Why include Ant and Jaden?!? I think they could have really grown into something if we kept them with the Timberwolves!

That’s right, teams should only make trades if they know the result, and are guaranteed to succeed! Everyone knows that the NBA should have immediately awarded us the 2025 NBA Championship at the time of the trade, or it should have been no deal.

It's posts like this, shrink, that remind me of Herm Edwards saying, "Don't press send."

A first-round selection, four future first rounds picks, and a pick swap is about as close to "everything" as one can get in the NBA when it comes to trading.

He literally made fun of the people saying that we included everything, by listing 4 major pieces we didn't include (without talking about the 1st rounders that we didn't include).

The hyperbole around here is what makes it nearly impossible to have any sort of nuanced discussion.