Shams: MIN trades Moore and #37 for #53

[shrink]

Read on Twitter

[Klomp]

If Wendell Moore lands us Bronny....

[Norseman79]

Guess Moore was more expensive than I thought ... Meaning he cost us more to get rid of

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

[winforlose]

We moved from 37 to 53 just to dump him. This is sad. Necessary, but sad.

[MN7725]

too bad they picked up Moore's option previously, i guess that's pride about not wanting to be wrong about your selection

[Neeva]

Ugh good riddance . Praying Tyler Smith or Djurisic will still be there at 53 .. If not steal Bronny from Lakers.

[jpatrick]

A bust. Better to have a bust drafted in the 20s vs the top 10 (I see your Culver). Was hoping for a Christie, Furphy, etc. Oh well. Bronny time!

[Worm Guts]

too bad they picked up Moore's option previously, i guess that's pride about not wanting to be wrong about your selection

I believe you have to decide at the beginning of the season whether to pick up the option, so it is a little bit of guesswork in terms of how you project their development.

[gandlogo]

#53 will likely be too low to get Ingram. Bronny would be a complete waste from both talent and needs standpoints. Feels like another trade down spot to gain ammo for the future. I liked the concept of Moore - especially if he would have been the Duke version of Moore - but he clearly wasn't roster worthy. Minott likely in the same boat.

[shrink]

The craziest thing is that after nearly two decades of proposing deals that never happened, I predicted both the MIN deals - this deal and the Morris one!

Now I’m batting 2-for-10,000!

I thought this deal would happen at the last deadline though, when Mike Conley’s bonus for making the Finals would have edged MIN into the lux.

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

[Klomp]

#53 will likely be too low to get Ingram. Bronny would be a complete waste from both talent and needs standpoints.

It's 53 in a weak draft. Unless someone gets lucky, it's not going to be a contributor for years, if at all.

[BlacJacMac]

#53 will likely be too low to get Ingram. Bronny would be a complete waste from both talent and needs standpoints. Feels like another trade down spot to gain ammo for the future. I liked the concept of Moore - especially if he would have been the Duke version of Moore - but he clearly wasn't roster worthy. Minott likely in the same boat.

Agreed Ingram will likely be gone. But I'll be thrilled if Keshad Johnson is there.

[Klomp]

Bronny would be a complete waste from both talent and needs standpoints.

You're talking about a roster that has Daishen Nix on a two-way...I think it's naive to think he can't be at that level.

[thinktank]

too bad they picked up Moore's option previously, i guess that's pride about not wanting to be wrong about your selection

The thing is, hindsight is 20/20.

If Conley goes down last year, we would've needed Moore.

[Domejandro]

Wendell Moore being on the roster after last year’s Trade Deadline was salary cap malpractice.

Regardless, good trade that needed to happen, especially after the Rob Dillingham trade.

[Klomp]

I called it a week ago!

I'm just curious about the pulse here on Wendell Moore. Would you trade him for 53, for example?

At this point, fans seem to have given up on him. So I think a lot of Wolves fans seem like they'd be willing to trade him and his $2.5 million, even for only a late 2nd round pick.

Meanwhile, what does Detroit at 53 (or Washington at 51) have to gain from a late 2nd round pick? Taking a chance on a former 1st round pick might be worthwhile, even if he doesn't pan out. The added salary to the cap really shouldn't affect them too much.

[thinktank]

Look at it this way, now we have a reason to pay attention to pick 53 might as well be 5,000.

[Sealab2024]

Would have liked a chance at Bona or Flip, but I get it and have absolutely no complaints about Connellys 2024 draft strategy.