ImageImageImage

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

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

User avatar
Mattya
RealGM
Posts: 17,540
And1: 7,929
Joined: Aug 08, 2008
   

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

Post#301 » by Mattya » Sun Dec 15, 2024 7:36 pm

shrink wrote:
TimberKat wrote:
Mattya wrote:2. This trade saves Glen 5 million this year and 11 million next year in salary alone as a tax paying team. That is 30 million in savings for just the next 2 years. That isn’t even counting that they got Gobert to take a pay cut and saved another 18 million including tax next season. That’s roughly 20 million in salary they dropped. For someone who doesn’t like childish games you sure make a lot of “I’m rubber and your glue” arguments. When instead you could have actually read why we wouldn’t have options from 3rd teams to drop that salary unless it was for even worse contracts.

If those numbers are correct, that is the smoking gun on why Taylor or ARod wanted the trade.

Don’t be spoiled hypocrites. If you have been fairly watching Taylor’s bank account, then show me your posts last year where you PRAISED Taylor for agreeing to deals that ADDED so much payroll to be the #2 highest in the NBA!

In fact, the only reason these decreases in payroll are this big is because Taylor paid so much in payroll in the first place, putting us so far in the luxury tax, and it’s higher multipliers. And that’s not even talking about the functionality gains for the team if we get under an apron or two.

Childish? I’m hearing Veruca Salt.


You want people to praise Taylor for being convinced by a new ownership and GM to do moves that cost him more money that led to the best team success in 20 years, in which immediately following said success removes Lore and ARod from ownership decisions, now has the team cutting salary this year and drastically next year, leading to a team struggling in the playoffs race? Please don’t even bring up getting under an apron or 2, because that just solidifies that this team would be dropping a significant amount of salary and players to be able to just aggregate players remaining into trades. At least we can move on from others claiming this wasn’t a cost cutting move,
winforlose
RealGM
Posts: 13,346
And1: 5,885
Joined: Feb 27, 2020

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

Post#302 » by winforlose » Sun Dec 15, 2024 7:42 pm

BlacJacMac wrote:
winforlose wrote:
guest81 wrote:
So only Kessler, who'd play like 15 minutes on this team? Also Vando doesn't start for the Lakers. He's barely played in like a year


He will be when healthy, but point taken. This team wouldn’t have Rudy so Kessler would play 30. Kessler and KAT would have worked for the same reasons that Rudy and KAT worked. But Kessler was much less polished, and the progression would have taken time.


Is he going to start ahead of LeBron or AD?

I'd be surprised if he's ahead of Rui on the depth chart.

Vando is a fun player, but he's not actually good.


He usually starts with them when LBJ moves to SF.
TimberKat
Head Coach
Posts: 6,102
And1: 3,070
Joined: Jul 02, 2022
         

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

Post#303 » by TimberKat » Sun Dec 15, 2024 7:43 pm

shrink wrote:
TimberKat wrote:
Mattya wrote:2. This trade saves Glen 5 million this year and 11 million next year in salary alone as a tax paying team. That is 30 million in savings for just the next 2 years. That isn’t even counting that they got Gobert to take a pay cut and saved another 18 million including tax next season. That’s roughly 20 million in salary they dropped. For someone who doesn’t like childish games you sure make a lot of “I’m rubber and your glue” arguments. When instead you could have actually read why we wouldn’t have options from 3rd teams to drop that salary unless it was for even worse contracts.

If those numbers are correct, that is the smoking gun on why Taylor or ARod wanted the trade.

Don’t be spoiled hypocrites. If you have been fairly watching Taylor’s bank account, then show me your posts last year where you PRAISED Taylor for agreeing to deals that ADDED so much payroll to be the #2 highest in the NBA!

In fact, the only reason these decreases in payroll are this big is because Taylor paid so much in payroll in the first place, putting us so far in the luxury tax, and it’s higher multipliers. And that’s not even talking about the functionality gains for the team if we get under an apron or two.

Childish? I’m hearing Veruca Salt.

I think you need to include my entire post. Do you have definitive proof that the "organization" didn't do it for saving money reasons? If TC really did it for basketball reason, then he really sucked this time. Very, very few people think this was a good trade for Wolves. Towns clear is the best player of the trade. I don't buy the future financial flexibility angle, that just another way to said to save a few bucks. Why would anyone prioritize signing NAW a good role player over keeping Towns an all star? So, if TC is above average intelligence, why is the trade made? (again, future financial flexibility is not a reason, I don't see any rationale to it, we could had waited another year if you simply going give Towns away). I will take my words back if we make it to the finals this year and speculating Taylor didn't want to spend money on Towns is not hypocrisy.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#304 » by shrink » Sun Dec 15, 2024 7:50 pm

Mattya wrote:
shrink wrote:
TimberKat wrote:If those numbers are correct, that is the smoking gun on why Taylor or ARod wanted the trade.

Don’t be spoiled hypocrites. If you have been fairly watching Taylor’s bank account, then show me your posts last year where you PRAISED Taylor for agreeing to deals that ADDED so much payroll to be the #2 highest in the NBA!

In fact, the only reason these decreases in payroll are this big is because Taylor paid so much in payroll in the first place, putting us so far in the luxury tax, and it’s higher multipliers. And that’s not even talking about the functionality gains for the team if we get under an apron or two.

Childish? I’m hearing Veruca Salt.


You want people to praise Taylor for being convinced by a new ownership and GM to do moves that cost him more money that led to the best team success in 20 years, in which immediately following said success removes Lore and ARod from ownership decisions, now has the team cutting salary this year and drastically next year, leading to a team struggling in the playoffs race? Please don’t even bring up getting under an apron or 2, because that just solidifies that this team would be dropping a significant amount of salary and players to be able to just aggregate players remaining into trades. At least we can move on from others claiming this wasn’t a cost cutting move,

Even with the $5 mil in savings, Taylor added $96 mil he pays in luxury taxes! And you boys are bitchin’ he’s cheap over the $5.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#305 » by shrink » Sun Dec 15, 2024 8:01 pm

And while I can’t seem to argue evidence over your feelings, I'll repeat what I said earlier. If Taylor is trying to be cheap, he is acting completely opposite of that, and there are far better ways to be cheap.

shrink wrote:
TimberKat wrote:To put it another way, I can't believe TC is that stupid. He has proven to be smarter than Khan. This must be a forced deal from owner.

To put it another way, you’re just going to blame who you want, even though the evidence disagrees.

1. All our insiders said Taylor had no hand in this deal.

2. Taylor has a long history of never interfering in GM’s deals. Even deals he doesn’t like, or will cost him far more money. He was on the record of not liking the Gobert deal at the time, but he gave Tim Connelly full trust to do what he wanted.

3. Tim Connelly also said ownership had no hand in this deal.

4. With Connelly’s one-year opt out, Taylor isn’t going to suddenly choose right now to supersede Connelly, ESPECIALLY because the biggest way to piss him off is to force him to do deals to save ownership money, like the Kroenke’s forced him to do in Denver.

5. If Taylor wanted to save money, wouldn’t he want to save it this season, because who knows if he owns the team next year? Does it make sense that Taylor is forcing a deal that makes the team worse now, when he’s owner, to maybe save ARod and Lore money later?

I don’t believe TC or Taylor is this stupid, so I choose TimberKat to blame for the trade.

But no, you can’t be shaken from your feelings. Taylor is your scary boogeyman, and even when he spends another $100 mil more of his money on the team this year, you’re going to blame him for forcing Connelly to do a deal you don’t like because he’s cheap.
TimberKat
Head Coach
Posts: 6,102
And1: 3,070
Joined: Jul 02, 2022
         

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

Post#306 » by TimberKat » Sun Dec 15, 2024 8:16 pm

shrink wrote:And while I can’t seem to argue evidence over your feelings, I'll repeat what I said earlier. If Taylor is trying to be cheap, he is acting completely opposite of that, and there are far better ways to be cheap.

shrink wrote:
TimberKat wrote:To put it another way, I can't believe TC is that stupid. He has proven to be smarter than Khan. This must be a forced deal from owner.

To put it another way, you’re just going to blame who you want, even though the evidence disagrees.

1. All our insiders said Taylor had no hand in this deal.

2. Taylor has a long history of never interfering in GM’s deals. Even deals he doesn’t like, or will cost him far more money. He was on the record of not liking the Gobert deal at the time, but he gave Tim Connelly full trust to do what he wanted.

3. Tim Connelly also said ownership had no hand in this deal.

4. With Connelly’s one-year opt out, Taylor isn’t going to suddenly choose right now to supersede Connelly, ESPECIALLY because the biggest way to piss him off is to force him to do deals to save ownership money, like the Kroenke’s forced him to do in Denver.

5. If Taylor wanted to save money, wouldn’t he want to save it this season, because who knows if he owns the team next year? Does it make sense that Taylor is forcing a deal that makes the team worse now, when he’s owner, to maybe save ARod and Lore money later?

I don’t believe TC or Taylor is this stupid, so I choose TimberKat to blame for the trade.

But yes, you can’t be shaken from your feelings. Taylor is your scary boogeyman, and even if he spends another $100 mil of his money on the team this year, you’re going to blame him for being cheap.

So, if you believe TC is not stupid and Taylor is not cheap, why did we do this trade? I will take the blame that Towns didn't like me using his initial on RealGM and forced a trade.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#307 » by shrink » Sun Dec 15, 2024 8:30 pm

TimberKat wrote:So, if you believe TC is not stupid and Taylor is not cheap, why did we do this trade? I will take the blame that Towns didn't like me using his initial on RealGM and forced a trade.

I think Connelly made this trade because of the new apron rules, roster flexibility, and risk management in case Towns gets hurt again.

You can blame Taylor for agreeing, but he agrees on almost every trade. Unlike other owners, he lets the GM make the choices for running the franchise. In his who 35ish years of owning the team, the only time I ever heard him of influencing a GM was his phone call to keep Naz.

I think the slow start should have been expected with the trade coming right before the season started, and not in July. This isn’t Connelly (or Taylor’s) fault - the Knicks didn’t increase their offer until then. We’d have probably started the season much better with Towns and the maintained continuity. But the GM’s goal isn’t to win the first twenty games of the season - it’s to win the last twenty, once you’re in the playoffs, for this year and future years. I see pathways for both DDV and Randle by April to be much better, and more locked into this team’s chemistry.

Finally, it’s true that this move may mean a payroll reduction in the future, but we all seem to agree that this isn’t savings for the owner, because even if Randle comes off the books, that money will likely be reinvested in Naz and NAW’s bigger contracts. All owners, even ones far richer than Taylor, realize that teams can’t stay well over the apron for years and still function, so there will likely be a slight decrease.

And I’ll leave you a ray of hope on that too. If the Wolves were to win a ring this year, there would be great pressure on the team and owner to bring back everybody. Taylor is rich, and he’s old, there is a chance he just says “Screw luxury taxes, give them a chance to repeat.” If I’m GM, that’s what I sell to him, and say we’ll cut salary later in the season if we need to. But if we’re contending, the salary might never be cut.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#308 » by shrink » Sun Dec 15, 2024 8:43 pm

For the record, let me add that emotionally, I was sad to see Towns go. I liked his game, though detractors often focused on his issues and called him soft or too emotional. I liked his team loyalty, and his willing to sacrifice for the team. And I liked that you could see he was a dork, because I’m a dork myself.

But if you pay anyone $220 mil for the next four years, that’s putting all your eggs in one basket. If Towns gets hurt again, the team doesn’t advance in the playoffs. That’s a shame, because this is Ant’s team now, and KAT was our #2 on that supermax. An injury might even make Towns untradeable until the final year of that deal, and the $61 mil 2027-28 season becomes as expiring. We don’t know what other offers teams may have made, but it sounds like the Rosas and the Knicks wanted him the most, so I tend to think this team made the best offer.
wolves_89
General Manager
Posts: 8,143
And1: 4,630
Joined: Jul 10, 2012
 

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

Post#309 » by wolves_89 » Mon Dec 16, 2024 4:22 am

I think the upcoming offseason is going to be the make or break point for Connelly's tenure in Minnesota. Trading KAT lowered the ceiling considerably, but gave him more flexibility to make moves. With Randle, Naz, and NAW likely looking for new deals and Mike nearing the end of the road, Connelly needs to find a way to make the roster work better around Ant. My ideal scenario would be to trade Randle for one starter caliber younger (and cheaper) player and resign Naz/NAW. My guess is that by the start of next season we will have a pretty clear idea of just how good or bad the KAT trade will end up.
minimus
RealGM
Posts: 13,751
And1: 5,240
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

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

Post#310 » by minimus » Mon Dec 16, 2024 7:06 am

Well. Rosas built the foundation of this team by drafting/finding/developing Ant/McDaniels/Reid/Beasley/Vando. They played entertaining basketball, but failed in the playoffs. TC built a championship roster in DEN, but they won a championship without him. Too many factors at play. I find it pretty ironic that Rosas in NYK built his dream starting five with two defensive-minded wings and KAT in С with a shooting-first PG, something he always wanted to do in MIN but never achieved. But it is kind of double irony that once Rosas has built his dream starting five under new CBA, it looks like it is extremely difficult to build a deep bench behind that starting unit.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#311 » by shrink » Mon Dec 16, 2024 3:14 pm

minimus wrote:Well. Rosas built the foundation of this team by drafting/finding/developing Ant/McDaniels/Reid/Beasley/Vando.

Good post. When we look at the eight players that make the core of this team, I think we need to give Rosas half the credit here.

Rosas was the guy that picked the right one out of the three options with the first pick to get Ant. He also added Jaden with a low value draft pick, and found Naz without giving up any pick.

For Connelly, we haven’t seen value yet from the draft - though it might just take more time for the projects to develop.

Gobert is a huge reason we aren’t still on a treadmill, but he used a lot of other assets (future picks) to get him.

(Ditto For Dillingham, who fits both of those criteria - gave up assets and too early to tell.)

Finally, we have Randle and DiVincenzo for Towns trade. We all have our opinions on the trade value for Towns (and apparently, Randle and DDV too), but they weren’t added cheaply, like Jaden, Naz, Mike and NAW.

He also gets credit for signing Kyle Anderson last year.

In the end, I think Connelly deserves half credit for our team’s successes, but you’re right, Rosas laid the foundation.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#312 » by shrink » Mon Dec 16, 2024 3:21 pm

Let me say this a different way, to give you a different perspective.

I think if we still had Rosas as our GM, we would have just continued to spin on the mediocrity treadmill. Ant, McDaniels and Naz would continue to develop, but Rosas loved DLo (overpay?) and KAT is just KAT.

But if you were put into that GM job instead of Connelly and asked, “Can you make us a potential contender if we let you trade all our future picks for a star?” then I think that isn’t such an amazing feat. We are a successful win-now team because we PAID to be a successful win-now team, at the cost of some of our future. I think that price was worthwhile, but it doesn’t take a genius GM if you give him a wad of assets to use.
User avatar
Mattya
RealGM
Posts: 17,540
And1: 7,929
Joined: Aug 08, 2008
   

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

Post#313 » by Mattya » Mon Dec 16, 2024 4:42 pm

shrink wrote:
Mattya wrote:
shrink wrote:Don’t be spoiled hypocrites. If you have been fairly watching Taylor’s bank account, then show me your posts last year where you PRAISED Taylor for agreeing to deals that ADDED so much payroll to be the #2 highest in the NBA!

In fact, the only reason these decreases in payroll are this big is because Taylor paid so much in payroll in the first place, putting us so far in the luxury tax, and it’s higher multipliers. And that’s not even talking about the functionality gains for the team if we get under an apron or two.

Childish? I’m hearing Veruca Salt.


You want people to praise Taylor for being convinced by a new ownership and GM to do moves that cost him more money that led to the best team success in 20 years, in which immediately following said success removes Lore and ARod from ownership decisions, now has the team cutting salary this year and drastically next year, leading to a team struggling in the playoffs race? Please don’t even bring up getting under an apron or 2, because that just solidifies that this team would be dropping a significant amount of salary and players to be able to just aggregate players remaining into trades. At least we can move on from others claiming this wasn’t a cost cutting move,

Even with the $5 mil in savings, Taylor added $96 mil he pays in luxury taxes! And you boys are bitchin’ he’s cheap over the $5.


Ah yes people are mad that he only saved 5 million, nothing about the skill level returned or how much is saved next year. Always interesting to see the Taylor fans praise that he both is saving money to make moves in the future while insulting people who say he is making moves to save money :lol:
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#314 » by shrink » Mon Dec 16, 2024 7:49 pm

Mattya wrote:
shrink wrote:
Mattya wrote:You want people to praise Taylor for being convinced by a new ownership and GM to do moves that cost him more money that led to the best team success in 20 years, in which immediately following said success removes Lore and ARod from ownership decisions, now has the team cutting salary this year and drastically next year, leading to a team struggling in the playoffs race? Please don’t even bring up getting under an apron or 2, because that just solidifies that this team would be dropping a significant amount of salary and players to be able to just aggregate players remaining into trades. At least we can move on from others claiming this wasn’t a cost cutting move,

Even with the $5 mil in savings, Taylor added $96 mil he pays in luxury taxes! And you boys are bitchin’ he’s cheap over the $5.


Ah yes people are mad that he only saved 5 million, nothing about the skill level returned or how much is saved next year. Always interesting to see the Taylor fans praise that he both is saving money to make moves in the future while insulting people who say he is making moves to save money :lol:

Send me links to your posts where you praised Taylor for spending an extra $100 million to add talent, and I’ll treat you like a fair poster on the subject.

If you can’t acknowledge the far greater impact of adding $100 mil, and can only bitch at cutting $5, maybe you need to reassess your ability to analyze things fairly, instead of calling out other people?
User avatar
Mattya
RealGM
Posts: 17,540
And1: 7,929
Joined: Aug 08, 2008
   

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

Post#315 » by Mattya » Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:01 pm

shrink wrote:[youtube][/youtube]
Mattya wrote:
shrink wrote:Even with the $5 mil in savings, Taylor added $96 mil he pays in luxury taxes! And you boys are bitchin’ he’s cheap over the $5.


Ah yes people are mad that he only saved 5 million, nothing about the skill level returned or how much is saved next year. Always interesting to see the Taylor fans praise that he both is saving money to make moves in the future while insulting people who say he is making moves to save money :lol:

Send me links to your posts where you praised Taylor for spending an extra $100 million to add talent, and I’ll treat you like a fair poster on the subject.

If you only bitch at the $5, maybe you’re the type of person that just wants to bitch, and can’t see things fairly?


Wait I'm supposed to be grateful to Taylor for actually running the team like he is supposed to for 1 season, only after having new owners show him how to do it? Meanwhile you are saying others are bitching, while you both praise him for spending money and saving money in the future to ease restrictions from cap aprons, yet conveniently like to play blind to the future savings others have brought up then call it bitching for others to bring it up. Shocker Shrink arguing out of both sides of his mouth to defend Glen.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#316 » by shrink » Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:03 pm

Mattya wrote:
shrink wrote:[youtube][/youtube]
Mattya wrote:
Ah yes people are mad that he only saved 5 million, nothing about the skill level returned or how much is saved next year. Always interesting to see the Taylor fans praise that he both is saving money to make moves in the future while insulting people who say he is making moves to save money :lol:

Send me links to your posts where you praised Taylor for spending an extra $100 million to add talent, and I’ll treat you like a fair poster on the subject.

If you only bitch at the $5, maybe you’re the type of person that just wants to bitch, and can’t see things fairly?


Wait I'm supposed to be grateful to Taylor for actually running the team like he is supposed to for 1 season, only after having new owners show him how to do it? Meanwhile you are saying others are bitching, while you both praise him for spending money and saving money in the future to ease restrictions from cap aprons, yet conveniently like to play blind to the future savings others have brought up then call it bitching for others to bring it up. Shocker Shrink arguing out of both sides of his mouth to defend Glen.


You are so spoiled! No, owners aren’t “supposed” to spend $100 mil more than the lux, for the second highest payroll in the NBA!

How embarrassing. Try a little introspection man
User avatar
Mattya
RealGM
Posts: 17,540
And1: 7,929
Joined: Aug 08, 2008
   

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

Post#317 » by Mattya » Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:03 pm

The same people who were anti Lore and ARod saving money in the future based on one projection, also praising Taylor for doing the same thing... just a level of hypocrisy rarely reached on this board.
User avatar
Mattya
RealGM
Posts: 17,540
And1: 7,929
Joined: Aug 08, 2008
   

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

Post#318 » by Mattya » Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:05 pm

shrink wrote:
Mattya wrote:
shrink wrote:[youtube][/youtube]
Send me links to your posts where you praised Taylor for spending an extra $100 million to add talent, and I’ll treat you like a fair poster on the subject.

If you only bitch at the $5, maybe you’re the type of person that just wants to bitch, and can’t see things fairly?


Wait I'm supposed to be grateful to Taylor for actually running the team like he is supposed to for 1 season, only after having new owners show him how to do it? Meanwhile you are saying others are bitching, while you both praise him for spending money and saving money in the future to ease restrictions from cap aprons, yet conveniently like to play blind to the future savings others have brought up then call it bitching for others to bring it up. Shocker Shrink arguing out of both sides of his mouth to defend Glen.


You are so spoiled! No, owners aren’t “supposed” to spend $100 mil more than the lux, for the second highest payroll in the NBA!

How embarrassing. Try a little introspection man


I'm spoiled because I want the owner to spend the money required to win? What a clown

Shrink this might be your most embarrassing argument yet.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,463
And1: 19,523
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

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

Post#319 » by shrink » Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:15 pm

Mattya wrote:
shrink wrote:
Mattya wrote:
Wait I'm supposed to be grateful to Taylor for actually running the team like he is supposed to for 1 season, only after having new owners show him how to do it? Meanwhile you are saying others are bitching, while you both praise him for spending money and saving money in the future to ease restrictions from cap aprons, yet conveniently like to play blind to the future savings others have brought up then call it bitching for others to bring it up. Shocker Shrink arguing out of both sides of his mouth to defend Glen.


You are so spoiled! No, owners aren’t “supposed” to spend $100 mil more than the lux, for the second highest payroll in the NBA!

How embarrassing. Try a little introspection man


I'm spoiled because I want the owner to spend the money required to win? What a clown

Shrink this might be your most embarrassing argument yet.

Again. SECOND HIGHEST PAYROLL IN THE NBA. And you just expect THAT MUCH spending! Because it would kill you to give fair credit to Taylor when he deserves it.

And I had to laugh at your “ARod and Lore showed him how to spend money.” As majority owner, they are spending mostly Taylor’s money, and you give them credit.

The Gobert trade, the Ant extension, the Naz extension, Conley, NAW, Dillingham, everything that added to the payroll, Taylor paid the majority, because he’s the major owner. He agreed to all of them, even deals he didn’t initially like (like the Gobert trade). He forced Connelly to pay Naz, the only time I recall he’s ever interfered with a GM. Hell, Lore and ARod wanted an opulent owners’ suite in Target Center that Taylor didn’t want, but he paid 100% for that! Taylor and ARod couldn’t wait a year, when they might own equity in Target Center and pay themselves.

This is what I picture when Mattya complains Papa Glen only added $95 mil in payroll, instead of $100 million like he’s “supposed to do.”

User avatar
Mattya
RealGM
Posts: 17,540
And1: 7,929
Joined: Aug 08, 2008
   

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

Post#320 » by Mattya » Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:52 pm

shrink wrote:
Mattya wrote:
shrink wrote:
You are so spoiled! No, owners aren’t “supposed” to spend $100 mil more than the lux, for the second highest payroll in the NBA!

How embarrassing. Try a little introspection man


I'm spoiled because I want the owner to spend the money required to win? What a clown

Shrink this might be your most embarrassing argument yet.

Again. SECOND HIGHEST PAYROLL IN THE NBA. And you just expect THAT MUCH spending! Because it would kill you to give fair credit to Taylor when he deserves it.

And I had to laugh at your “ARod and Lore showed him how to spend money.” As majority owner, they are spending mostly Taylor’s money, and you give them credit.

The Gobert trade, the Ant extension, the Naz extension, Conley, NAW, Dillingham, everything that added to the payroll, Taylor paid the majority, because he’s the major owner. He agreed to all of them, even deals he didn’t initially like (like the Gobert trade). He forced Connelly to pay Naz, the only time I recall he’s ever interfered with a GM. Hell, Lore and ARod wanted an opulent owners’ suite in Target Center that Taylor didn’t want, but he paid 100% for that! Taylor and ARod couldn’t wait a year, when they might own equity in Target Center and pay themselves.

Mattya when Papa Glen only adds $95 mil in payroll, instead of $100 million like he’s “supposed to do.”



So you are telling me Wolves fans should not expect Glen Taylor to spend the 2nd highest payroll in the NBA if that is what the team needs to compete for the championship? I can't even consider you a Wolves fan at this point. Meanwhile Shrink when ARod and Lore are rumored to cut spending... "these aren't serious owners." So you argue others are entitled and bitching to demand owners spend money, but when you do it you aren't bitching. You either look out of touch or as just a wild hypocrite.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves