Trade Talk (Part 16): Early Season Anxiety Edition

[Domejandro]

Goodbye Dozier, hello backup C.

I hope so, but it will be expensive.

BBall Paul would probably cost about $1.5 mil if we signed him for the rest of the season, but that’s about $7.5 mil in lux taxes.

$9 mil is a lot for a guy that another team just waived, but our need for a back up center might be great enough to warrant it.

For what it is worth, I think that P.J. Dozier’s partial guarantee extends into the season. Some websites say it is set at one million, though I’m not able to find the source. If that’s the case, it definitely makes it more manageable financially.

[shrink]

Goodbye Dozier, hello backup C.

I hope so, but it will be expensive.

BBall Paul would probably cost about $1.5 mil if we signed him for the rest of the season, but that’s about $7.5 mil in lux taxes.

$9 mil is a lot for a guy that another team just waived, but our need for a back up center might be great enough to warrant it.

For what it is worth, I think that P.J. Dozier’s partial guarantee extends into the season. Some websites say it is set at one million, though I’m not able to find the source. If that’s the case, it definitely makes it more manageable financially.

I hope so. I went looking for that, and I couldn’t find a consistent date either. Many of these types of offers set the guarantee date for the start of the season (“make-the-team” deals), but another common alternative is to set the date until Dozier makes his $1 mil in pro-rated salary, which would be roughly halfway through the season (“continue to make the team” deals?). If he’s only guaranteed his full salary later, the additional payroll would be about $500 k and about $2.1 mil in taxes.

(Btw, I calculated the original $1.5 mil payroll addition incorrectly. I believe the multiplier is 4.25, so the tax is $6.4, so the overall number is closer to $8 mil. I’ll edit.)

[Neeva]

If we could swing Randle and Det 1st for Vucevic and add a third team to take White to get a backup pf

We could run
Rudy / Vucevic - Center
Reid / Third team PF - Power Forward

Maybe we could cut some salary in the process also.

Why would you want Vucevic? He plays atrocious defense. Wolves need a defensive backup center. keep white, he’s been shooting ass lately but his contract is still great value.

[BlacJacMac]

If we could swing Randle and Det 1st for Vucevic and add a third team to take White to get a backup pf

We could run
Rudy / Vucevic - Center
Reid / Third team PF - Power Forward

Maybe we could cut some salary in the process also.

Why would you want Vucevic? He plays atrocious defense. Wolves need a defensive backup center. keep white, he’s been shooting ass lately but his contract is still great value.

I'd rather take Smith and Ball...

[shangrila]

Because I'm bored, here's a 5 teamer based on recent rumours/moves:

MIN out: Julius Randle
MIN in: Tim Hardaway Jr, Kyle Anderson, Kevon Looney
Cap impact: -100K
Reason - Guarantee shedding salary next season, make space for Naz as the starter, bring back fan favourite Kyle Anderson. I should mention this would require waiving Dozier.

MIA out: Jimmy Butler
MIA in: Julius Randle, Jonathon Kuminga, James Johnson
Cap impact: -6mil
Reason - Heat try to tread the line between the future and present in a Butler trade

GSW out: Kyle Anderson, Kevon Looney, Andrew Wiggins, Buddy Hield, Jonathon Kuminga
GSW in: Jimmy Butler, Isaiah Jackson, Ben Sheppard, Wendell Moore Jr
Cap impact: -1mil
Reason - They go in for a last dance with Butler. It's tricky because they're hard capped so they need bodies back to make the roster work without realistically taking on salary

DET out: Tim Hardaway Jr, Wendell Moore Jr
DET in: Andrew Wiggins
Cap impact: +7.5mil
Reason - Cash in expirings/capspace for a young-ish veteran in Wiggins to help them push for a playoff spot in a weak East

IND out: Isaiah Jackson, Ben Sheppard, James Johnson
IND in: Buddy Hield
Cap impact: -406K
Reason - They get back a guy in Hield who helped their historic offence last season, while contributing some bodies to the Warriors

I didn't include any draft compensation because I don't know how to balance this monstrosity. I realise that we'd need some sort of compensation but I'm not sure what, maybe a second or two and Detroit lowering the protection on their pick to top 10? Pistons themselves likely need a 2nd for taking on the extra salary, with these probably coming from Miami since they're getting a good deal for Butler AND saving money.

[winforlose]

I hope so, but it will be expensive.

BBall Paul would probably cost about $1.5 mil if we signed him for the rest of the season, but that’s about $7.5 mil in lux taxes.

$9 mil is a lot for a guy that another team just waived, but our need for a back up center might be great enough to warrant it.

For what it is worth, I think that P.J. Dozier’s partial guarantee extends into the season. Some websites say it is set at one million, though I’m not able to find the source. If that’s the case, it definitely makes it more manageable financially.

I hope so. I went looking for that, and I couldn’t find a consistent date either. Many of these types of offers set the guarantee date for the start of the season (“make-the-team” deals), but another common alternative is to set the date until Dozier makes his $1 mil in pro-rated salary, which would be roughly halfway through the season (“continue to make the team” deals?). If he’s only guaranteed his full salary later, the additional payroll would be about $500 k and about $2.1 mil in taxes.

(Btw, I calculated the original $1.5 mil payroll addition incorrectly. I believe the multiplier is 4.25, so the tax is $6.4, so the overall number is closer to $8 mil. I’ll edit.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/timberwolves/s/WGZ5xjgQvZ

Jan 10 is the date I would assume is correct. I wonder if anyone would accept the corpse of Jingles for a conditional second? Also we could toss in Dozier later to any Randle deal to clear a roster spot.

The real question is would Paul Reed get minutes with us. If he did Naz can slide to the SF, Randle plays more minutes at PF, and Reed gets C minutes when Rudy is resting. But, adding Reed as the 9th man comes at the expense of Dilly or Minott and I am not sure that is a net positive. It all depends on Finch’s flexibility which to this point has been poor (8 man rotation, closing games with players regardless of individual performance, ect….)

[shrink]

MIN out: Julius Randle
MIN in: Tim Hardaway Jr, Kyle Anderson, Kevon Looney.

Since we technically traded SloMo in a sign-and-trade, we can’t reacquire him for a year.

[shangrila]

MIN out: Julius Randle
MIN in: Tim Hardaway Jr, Kyle Anderson, Kevon Looney.

Since we technically traded SloMo in a sign-and-trade, we can’t reacquire him for a year.

Well...****. Should have known I'd miss one technicality.

[shrink]

MIN out: Julius Randle
MIN in: Tim Hardaway Jr, Kyle Anderson, Kevon Looney.

Since we technically traded SloMo in a sign-and-trade, we can’t reacquire him for a year.

Well...****. Should have known I'd miss one technicality.

I’m just a joy killer around here.

[minimus]

Damn... I wish TC could sign Paul Reed, he has been one of that players who I followed in PHI, because I think he could be an impactful rotation big in MIN. He is 6'9" mobile big man with 7'2" wingspan and basic offensive game, his standing reach is around the same as Jalen Smith, so is not much undersized for C as it might look. He reminds me big man version of our old friend RoCo. The metric I find interesting is his STL% and BLK%.

Watch on YouTube

The problem is that I wanted him to pair with Towns and Reid to mask their defensive issues, but TC got Gobert, and Reed and Gobert cant play together, which leaves only 5-10 minutes for a defensive minded big such as Reed behind Gobert. Which means Reed on his contract 8 mil contract is an odd fit financially, but after he got waived I would say that he a perfect fit behind Gobert. With old CBA finding waived players was always the way to improve a roster for contending teams, and here is where new CBA might bite MIN... But just for creativity sake I put following scenario:

Somehow TC gets Paul Reed via waivers, it makes easier to trade for Ball, because instead of Jalen Smith who might have some value for CHI, we could trade for Ball + Jevon Carter who has one more year left of his contract. Carter will be redirected to Brooklyn for Ziaire Williams (expiring) for MIN SRP. Ziaire Williams is former 10th overall pick is 6’9” tall with 6’10” wingspan. He has been struggling mightly, but what if he can re-vive his career in MIN just like NAW did? He reminds me McDaniels a lot because he had similar high potential but also a lot mentality issues in students, like he had a lot of turnovers, struggled under pressure, struggled to finish through contact, low three point % despite good shooting mechanics. But development is not always linear, maybe he can finally become a NBA player?

Gobert/Reed/Garza
Reid/Minott/Miller
McDaniels/NAW/Williams + TJ
Edwards/DDV + Clark
Ball/Conley/Dilly + Nix

This is a deep, more balanced roster, even more limited offensively that now, but more versatile defensively with more room to improve during 2025 offseason. We basically replace Randle (and his 33 mil contract) with:

Lonzo Ball who (when healthy) is top tier defender, can hit open 3s, can facilitate, can initiate fastbreaks
Paul Reed who is a defensive minded, mobile bigman
23yo Ziaire Williams who still has potential to be a full sized, 6'9" 3&D wing

It is a huge gamble, but at worst they all leave via FA next summer, at best will re-sign here along with Naz Reid and NAW

Watch on YouTube

Another variation of this trade is: Randle for Ball and Fontecchio (via DET)

Gobert/Reed/Garza
Reid/Minott/Fontecchio/Miller
McDaniels/NAW/Fontecchio + TJ
Edwards/DDV + Clark
Ball/Conley/Dilly+ Nix

Watch on YouTube

P.S. I wonder if finding guys like NAW can be a way for TC to continue to build a competetive roster around Edwards.

[minimus]

Since we technically traded SloMo in a sign-and-trade, we can’t reacquire him for a year.

Well...****. Should have known I'd miss one technicality.

I’m just a joy killer around here.

As it is a new CBA

[winforlose]

I keep having an interesting argument with my brother about trading Randle, I thought I would ask the core question here. Would the Wolves rather take back as little money as possible in the hopes of continuing with this group minus Randle? Or would they prefer to take back a legit contributor and risk losing one of NAW or NAZ next year? Of course the answer might be trade for substantive player now and then next season make another deal after resigning both Naz and NAW.

[Norseman79]

I keep having an interesting argument with my brother about trading Randle, I thought I would ask the core question here. Would the Wolves rather take back as little money as possible in the hopes of continuing with this group minus Randle? Or would they prefer to take back a legit contributor and risk losing one of NAW or NAZ next year? Of course the answer might be trade for substantive player now and then next season make another deal after resigning both Naz and NAW.

Would the wolves or would I? Personally, I think what they will do is try to secure Naz first, then NAW if possible, so cap space is great, unless something too good is available.

What I would do is figure out the best possible return value wise that fits a need or draft picks with expirings. Realistically, that's PG, PF, backup C.

To the Paul Reed folks, if you are ditching Randle and not getting a PF back, sure, sign to backup Naz. Get a legit big center to backup Gobert.

[winforlose]

I keep having an interesting argument with my brother about trading Randle, I thought I would ask the core question here. Would the Wolves rather take back as little money as possible in the hopes of continuing with this group minus Randle? Or would they prefer to take back a legit contributor and risk losing one of NAW or NAZ next year? Of course the answer might be trade for substantive player now and then next season make another deal after resigning both Naz and NAW.

Would the wolves or would I? Personally, I think what they will do is try to secure Naz first, then NAW if possible, so cap space is great, unless something too good is available.

What I would do is figure out the best possible return value wise that fits a need or draft picks with expirings. Realistically, that's PG, PF, backup C.

To the Paul Reed folks, if you are ditching Randle and not getting a PF back, sure, sign to backup Naz. Get a legit big center to backup Gobert.

That means needing another roster spot. Dozier and Jingles instead of Dozier or Jingles.

[shrink]

I keep having an interesting argument with my brother about trading Randle, I thought I would ask the core question here. Would the Wolves rather take back as little money as possible in the hopes of continuing with this group minus Randle? Or would they prefer to take back a legit contributor and risk losing one of NAW or NAZ next year? Of course the answer might be trade for substantive player now and then next season make another deal after resigning both Naz and NAW.

To flesh this out a little, I assume you mean that you’re talking about a trade that saves money in 2025, so ownership can afford the Naz and NAW deals, as opposed to saving money this year, where saving $6 mil in payroll could save them $30 mil in real cash to spend next year. This means we’re choosing between trade returns focused on the best mostly expiring players, or a trade that has players on multi-year deals.

I have an unpopular opinion. I would choose to NOT trade Randle.

I prioritize keeping Naz, and I doubt we can find someone as talented as Randle who is also on an expiring. As Klomp said, his mistakes are loud, and his defensive effort is inconsistent, but he has star-level offensive talent to help fill that void from losing Towns. I am hopeful that we will see less inconsistency as he learns the defense and how to play with his teammates. There will still be bad days - Knicks fans warned of Good-Randle and Bad-Randle, but I hope we see more good than bad. For the record, he’s averaging 7-4-21 and shooting 35% 3P, and we can use all of that.

As just an internet poster, I also have a foundational tenet to my view of GMing that is not always shared by real life GM’s who have to be more risk-averse with real dollars. I believe in true economics, that a good contract is never a bad thing. Actual GMs on expensive teams have to be worried about being stuck with the hot potato and pay huge lux taxes if they can’t find a trade partner, but I think with 29 teams, you can always find someone to give you value if the contract is good. If you look at Randle’s numbers $33 mil is a reasonable contract for that production. If he picks up his player option at $31, that would be a decent contract next year as well. So for me, I don’t feel any urgency to turn his contract into guaranteed expirings, believing that if he picks up the option on a good number, we can turn that into expirings if we need to.

[winforlose]

I keep having an interesting argument with my brother about trading Randle, I thought I would ask the core question here. Would the Wolves rather take back as little money as possible in the hopes of continuing with this group minus Randle? Or would they prefer to take back a legit contributor and risk losing one of NAW or NAZ next year? Of course the answer might be trade for substantive player now and then next season make another deal after resigning both Naz and NAW.

To flesh this out a little, I assume you mean that you’re talking about a trade that saves money in 2025, so ownership can afford the Naz and NAW deals, as opposed to saving money this year, where saving $6 mil in payroll could save them $30 mil in real cash to spend next year. This means we’re choosing between trade returns focused on the best mostly expiring players, or a trade that has players on multi-year deals.

I have an unpopular opinion. I would choose to NOT trade Randle.

I prioritize keeping Naz, and I doubt we can find someone as talented as Randle who is also on an expiring. As Klomp said, his mistakes are loud, and his defensive effort is inconsistent, but he has star-level offensive talent to help fill that void from losing Towns. I am hopeful that we will see less inconsistency as he learns the defense and how to play with his teammates. There will still be bad days - Knicks fans warned of Good-Randle and Bad-Randle, but I hope we see more good than bad. For the record, he’s averaging 7-4-21 and shooting 35% 3P, and we can use all of that.

As just an internet poster, I also have a foundational tenet to my view of GMing that is not always shared by real life GM’s who have to be more risk-averse with real dollars. I believe in true economics, that a good contract is never a bad thing. Actual GMs on expensive teams have to be worried about being stuck with the hot potato and pay huge lux taxes if they can’t find a trade partner, but I think with 29 teams, you can always find someone to give you value if the contract is good. If you look at Randle’s numbers $33 mil is a reasonable contract for that production. If he picks up his player option at $31, that would be a decent contract next year as well. So for me, I don’t feel any urgency to turn his contract into guaranteed expirings, believing that if he picks up the option on a good number, we can turn that into expirings if we need to.

Do you start and finish games with Naz if you know you are keeping Randle?

[cmoss84]

To me, 2 things:
1) Randle is valuable enough to get a solid return and/or be able to resign NAZ AND NAW.
2) My top 5 trade destinations for Randle: Brooklyn, Detroit, Miami, Toronto, and Chicago

[shrink]

Do you start and finish games with Naz if you know you are keeping Randle?

The goal of the coach is to win games. The goal of the GM is to win seasons, this year and in future years.

As more a fake GM than a fake coach, I’m biased, but I continue to start Randle. He is a multi-All Star and two time All NBA player. You want to keep him happy and you want to maintain his trade value. However, the numbers are the numbers, and Naz is playing better, so I would leave the decision as to who closes to Finch, based on match ups and who’s played better that game.

[winforlose]

Do you start and finish games with Naz if you know you are keeping Randle?

The goal of the coach is to win games. The goal of the GM is to win seasons, this year and in future years.

As more a fake GM than a fake coach, I’m biased, but I continue to start Randle. He is a multi-All Star and two time All NBA player. You want to keep him happy and you want to maintain his trade value. However, the numbers are the numbers, and Naz is playing better, so I would leave the decision as to who closes to Finch, based on match ups and who’s played better that game.

If you keep Naz benched he might get pissed and leave. If you start Naz Randle might get pissed and opt out (unlikely but you can hope.) If you want to keep both Naz and NAW isn’t this your best path to do it?

[shrink]

Do you start and finish games with Naz if you know you are keeping Randle?

The goal of the coach is to win games. The goal of the GM is to win seasons, this year and in future years.

As more a fake GM than a fake coach, I’m biased, but I continue to start Randle. He is a multi-All Star and two time All NBA player. You want to keep him happy and you want to maintain his trade value. However, the numbers are the numbers, and Naz is playing better, so I would leave the decision as to who closes to Finch, based on match ups and who’s played better that game.

If you keep Naz benched he might get pissed and leave. If you start Naz Randle might get pissed and opt out (unlikely but you can hope.) If you want to keep both Naz and NAW isn’t this your best path to do it?

I trust Naz’ ego much more than Randle’s.