Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
Moderators: Andre Roberstan, MoneyTalks41890, loserX, Trader_Joe, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, BullyKing, HartfordWhalers, Texas Chuck
Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
cucad8
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,305
- And1: 1,419
- Joined: May 27, 2007
Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
?t=W3AhmYjd2L6eEUvNMZCDyg&s=19
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
cucad8
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,305
- And1: 1,419
- Joined: May 27, 2007
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
Sorry for the typo in the title, if a mod can fix?
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
cgf
- RealGM
- Posts: 35,101
- And1: 14,461
- Joined: Jul 01, 2008
-
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
Good deal
Capn'O wrote:We're the recovering meth addict older brother. And we've been clean for a few years now, thank you very much. Very uncouth to bring it up.
Brunson: So what are you paid to do?
Hart: Run around like an idiot during the game and f*** s*** up!
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
jayjaysee
- King of the Trade Board
- Posts: 21,342
- And1: 8,154
- Joined: Aug 05, 2012
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
Feels cheap to me. Roster is expensive. But this is good value. And there was no big money for Randle this offseason
Randle gets a player option so likely only a two year deal, Minnesota gets to run the bigs back.
Randle gets a player option so likely only a two year deal, Minnesota gets to run the bigs back.
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
Mavrelous
- Forum Mod - Mavericks

- Posts: 20,477
- And1: 18,487
- Joined: Aug 20, 2020
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
Great deal for the Wolves.
Defense wins draft lotteries!
Fortune favours the bold, so it ducked Nico Harrison.
Fortune favours the bold, so it ducked Nico Harrison.
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
nykballa2k4
- RealGM
- Posts: 31,081
- And1: 7,451
- Joined: Jul 26, 2004
- Location: Kurt Rhombus is managing the defense...
-
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
Good stuff! I think that keeps him at a movable number as well in case of trade.
Numbers don't lie, people who use them do
Stand up to all hate
Stand up to Jewish hate
Stand up to all hate
Stand up to Jewish hate
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
SA37
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,944
- And1: 9,712
- Joined: Sep 10, 2002
- Location: Basking in the Glory
-
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
Seems like the right value for Randle.
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
ReggiesKnicks
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,383
- And1: 2,870
- Joined: Jan 25, 2025
-
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
Good value. This is what teams need to be trying to get weaker 2nd options/good 3rd options at price wise.
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
Mamba4Goat
- Forum Mod

- Posts: 11,777
- And1: 8,088
- Joined: Dec 13, 2013
-
Re: Shams: Randleb 3/100 staying with TWolves
cucad8 wrote:Sorry for the typo in the title, if a mod can fix?
Done
Rest in peace Mamba. There'll never be another Kobe.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
shrink
- RealGM
- Posts: 59,727
- And1: 19,835
- Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
I think we are going to see more and more deals of this $30-35 mil size for comparable players. Randle wasn’t an All Star this year (though he would have been if he played like he did to end the season, and first two playoff series!), and I think #2 options that aren’t true stars will not automatically get, or expect, the max.
Still, with the way the cap is expected to rise so quickly the next several years, this deal is pretty good. Randle wanted to stay in Minnesota, and there weren’t a lot of free agent suitors for leverage, so both sides are probably pretty happy with this one.
Still, with the way the cap is expected to rise so quickly the next several years, this deal is pretty good. Randle wanted to stay in Minnesota, and there weren’t a lot of free agent suitors for leverage, so both sides are probably pretty happy with this one.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
shrink
- RealGM
- Posts: 59,727
- And1: 19,835
- Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
I would add, the Randle deal doesn’t necessarily mean NAW is gone.
As I explained in another thread, Connelly should outbid t-MLE offers and perhaps pay all the way up to the $14.1 MLE, and worry about payroll later.
As I explained in another thread, Connelly should outbid t-MLE offers and perhaps pay all the way up to the $14.1 MLE, and worry about payroll later.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
ReggiesKnicks
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,383
- And1: 2,870
- Joined: Jan 25, 2025
-
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
shrink wrote:I would add, the Randle deal doesn’t necessarily mean NAW is gone.
As I explained in another thread, Connelly should outbid t-MLE offers and perhaps pay all the way up to the $14.1 MLE, and worry about payroll later.
I think the Dunc'd on podcast mentioned this back in Late April/Early May.
Basically all of their players (Naz/Randle/NAW) will be tradable on their new contracts. Sign them now, see where the team is in January/Early February. If they are a Top team in the NBA, maybe the owners pay this year like Cleveland and other franchises are doing. If they aren't playing at that level, they can move off of one of the deals.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
gswhoops
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 34,836
- And1: 6,549
- Joined: Apr 27, 2005
-
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
I guess we can put the questions of whether the new ownership is willing to pay up to bed for a while.
Both the Naz and Randle deals are fair, but at the top end of "fair" IMO.
Both the Naz and Randle deals are fair, but at the top end of "fair" IMO.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
winforlose
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,580
- And1: 6,065
- Joined: Feb 27, 2020
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
ReggiesKnicks wrote:shrink wrote:I would add, the Randle deal doesn’t necessarily mean NAW is gone.
As I explained in another thread, Connelly should outbid t-MLE offers and perhaps pay all the way up to the $14.1 MLE, and worry about payroll later.
I think the Dunc'd on podcast mentioned this back in Late April/Early May.
Basically all of their players (Naz/Randle/NAW) will be tradable on their new contracts. Sign them now, see where the team is in January/Early February. If they are a Top team in the NBA, maybe the owners pay this year like Cleveland and other franchises are doing. If they aren't playing at that level, they can move off of one of the deals.
There are 3 problems with this. This reply is also for @Shrink
1. There are draft pick penalties for being in the 2nd apron for more than 2 of a 5 year period. We were a 2nd apron team in 24/25. If we go into it in 25/26 then we are either out of it the next three seasons, or taking a poison pill for our pick 7 years out.
2. Roster space is at a premium for this team. We had 15 players, remove Ingles and add Joan and we are back at 15. Even if we let go of Garza we still don’t have a PG and now have an incredible tax bill to add even a minimum PG.
3. NAW log jams the rotation. Clark and TSJ both have great potential but cannot develop stuck behind NAW and DDV. If Dilly takes the backup PG minutes that forces multiple players to share the remaining SG/SF backup minutes. Better to clean the slate and try to get assets out of a sign and trade for NAW.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
gswhoops
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 34,836
- And1: 6,549
- Joined: Apr 27, 2005
-
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
winforlose wrote:ReggiesKnicks wrote:shrink wrote:I would add, the Randle deal doesn’t necessarily mean NAW is gone.
As I explained in another thread, Connelly should outbid t-MLE offers and perhaps pay all the way up to the $14.1 MLE, and worry about payroll later.
I think the Dunc'd on podcast mentioned this back in Late April/Early May.
Basically all of their players (Naz/Randle/NAW) will be tradable on their new contracts. Sign them now, see where the team is in January/Early February. If they are a Top team in the NBA, maybe the owners pay this year like Cleveland and other franchises are doing. If they aren't playing at that level, they can move off of one of the deals.
There are 3 problems with this. This reply is also for @Shrink
1. There are draft pick penalties for being in the 2nd apron for more than 2 of a 5 year period. We were a 2nd apron team in 24/25. If we go into it in 25/26 then we are either out of it the next three seasons, or taking a poison pill for our pick 7 years out.
2. Roster space is at a premium for this team. We had 15 players, remove Ingles and add Joan and we are back at 15. Even if we let go of Garza we still don’t have a PG and now have an incredible tax bill to add even a minimum PG.
3. NAW log jams the rotation. Clark and TSJ both have great potential but cannot develop stuck behind NAW and DDV. If Dilly takes the backup PG minutes that forces multiple players to share the remaining SG/SF backup minutes. Better to clean the slate and try to get assets out of a sign and trade for NAW.
Are we 100% that Joan is even coming over this year? Might make sense to park him in Europe for a season given the roster and tax constraints the Wolves are operating under.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
winforlose
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,580
- And1: 6,065
- Joined: Feb 27, 2020
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
gswhoops wrote:winforlose wrote:ReggiesKnicks wrote:
I think the Dunc'd on podcast mentioned this back in Late April/Early May.
Basically all of their players (Naz/Randle/NAW) will be tradable on their new contracts. Sign them now, see where the team is in January/Early February. If they are a Top team in the NBA, maybe the owners pay this year like Cleveland and other franchises are doing. If they aren't playing at that level, they can move off of one of the deals.
There are 3 problems with this. This reply is also for @Shrink
1. There are draft pick penalties for being in the 2nd apron for more than 2 of a 5 year period. We were a 2nd apron team in 24/25. If we go into it in 25/26 then we are either out of it the next three seasons, or taking a poison pill for our pick 7 years out.
2. Roster space is at a premium for this team. We had 15 players, remove Ingles and add Joan and we are back at 15. Even if we let go of Garza we still don’t have a PG and now have an incredible tax bill to add even a minimum PG.
3. NAW log jams the rotation. Clark and TSJ both have great potential but cannot develop stuck behind NAW and DDV. If Dilly takes the backup PG minutes that forces multiple players to share the remaining SG/SF backup minutes. Better to clean the slate and try to get assets out of a sign and trade for NAW.
Are we 100% that Joan is even coming over this year? Might make sense to park him in Europe for a season given the roster and tax constraints the Wolves are operating under.
The Wolves need a backup C. If they don’t bring him then they are gonna have the same problem they had last season. Running it back is a bad idea. Imbalance at the PG and C will cost us in the playoffs again.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
gswhoops
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 34,836
- And1: 6,549
- Joined: Apr 27, 2005
-
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
winforlose wrote:gswhoops wrote:winforlose wrote:
There are 3 problems with this. This reply is also for @Shrink
1. There are draft pick penalties for being in the 2nd apron for more than 2 of a 5 year period. We were a 2nd apron team in 24/25. If we go into it in 25/26 then we are either out of it the next three seasons, or taking a poison pill for our pick 7 years out.
2. Roster space is at a premium for this team. We had 15 players, remove Ingles and add Joan and we are back at 15. Even if we let go of Garza we still don’t have a PG and now have an incredible tax bill to add even a minimum PG.
3. NAW log jams the rotation. Clark and TSJ both have great potential but cannot develop stuck behind NAW and DDV. If Dilly takes the backup PG minutes that forces multiple players to share the remaining SG/SF backup minutes. Better to clean the slate and try to get assets out of a sign and trade for NAW.
Are we 100% that Joan is even coming over this year? Might make sense to park him in Europe for a season given the roster and tax constraints the Wolves are operating under.
The Wolves need a backup C. If they don’t bring him then they are gonna have the same problem they had last season. Running it back is a bad idea. Imbalance at the PG and C will cost us in the playoffs again.
Not a slight on Joan as a prospect but most likely whoever you can sign for the vet min is going to give you better NBA minutes next year than he is.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
lewdog
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,162
- And1: 94
- Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
ReggiesKnicks wrote:shrink wrote:I would add, the Randle deal doesn’t necessarily mean NAW is gone.
As I explained in another thread, Connelly should outbid t-MLE offers and perhaps pay all the way up to the $14.1 MLE, and worry about payroll later.
I think the Dunc'd on podcast mentioned this back in Late April/Early May.
Basically all of their players (Naz/Randle/NAW) will be tradable on their new contracts. Sign them now, see where the team is in January/Early February. If they are a Top team in the NBA, maybe the owners pay this year like Cleveland and other franchises are doing. If they aren't playing at that level, they can move off of one of the deals.
If this is the Wolves master plan to acquire a starting point guard before the '26 playoffs, then I guess "I'm in". I guess.
Qui me amat, amet et canem meum
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
ReggiesKnicks
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,383
- And1: 2,870
- Joined: Jan 25, 2025
-
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
winforlose wrote:ReggiesKnicks wrote:shrink wrote:I would add, the Randle deal doesn’t necessarily mean NAW is gone.
As I explained in another thread, Connelly should outbid t-MLE offers and perhaps pay all the way up to the $14.1 MLE, and worry about payroll later.
I think the Dunc'd on podcast mentioned this back in Late April/Early May.
Basically all of their players (Naz/Randle/NAW) will be tradable on their new contracts. Sign them now, see where the team is in January/Early February. If they are a Top team in the NBA, maybe the owners pay this year like Cleveland and other franchises are doing. If they aren't playing at that level, they can move off of one of the deals.
There are 3 problems with this. This reply is also for @Shrink
1. There are draft pick penalties for being in the 2nd apron for more than 2 of a 5 year period. We were a 2nd apron team in 24/25. If we go into it in 25/26 then we are either out of it the next three seasons, or taking a poison pill for our pick 7 years out.
This is a rule of the new CBA. It doesn't mean teams should avoid it if they are title contenders.
2. Roster space is at a premium for this team. We had 15 players, remove Ingles and add Joan and we are back at 15. Even if we let go of Garza we still don’t have a PG and now have an incredible tax bill to add even a minimum PG.
Are Dillingham/Donte/Conley not Point Guards?
Even NAW is a PG defensively as a POA defender.
3. NAW log jams the rotation. Clark and TSJ both have great potential but cannot develop stuck behind NAW and DDV. If Dilly takes the backup PG minutes that forces multiple players to share the remaining SG/SF backup minutes. Better to clean the slate and try to get assets out of a sign and trade for NAW.
If you can't develop when stuck behind players of the caliber of NAW/DDV, maybe you aren't a good basketball player.
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
-
gswhoops
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 34,836
- And1: 6,549
- Joined: Apr 27, 2005
-
Re: Shams: Randle 3/100 staying with TWolves
ReggiesKnicks wrote:3. NAW log jams the rotation. Clark and TSJ both have great potential but cannot develop stuck behind NAW and DDV. If Dilly takes the backup PG minutes that forces multiple players to share the remaining SG/SF backup minutes. Better to clean the slate and try to get assets out of a sign and trade for NAW.
If you can't develop when stuck behind players of the caliber of NAW/DDV, maybe you aren't a good basketball player.
I mean, they're both solid vets. The bigger problem is that Minnesota is clearly in win-now mode and isn't going to have the ability (or the inclination) to suffer through the growing pains when they have ready-now guys on the roster.
Return to Trades and Transactions