The Official Jaden McDaniels Thread

[KGdaBom]

All-in Trade is our only chance to exceed being just a mediocre playoff team

I don't buy this line of thinking for a second. Michael Jordan won his first title at 28 years old. Ant is 24. No drastic all in move is needed and it could destroy the team.

Using an outlier like Jordan (the GOAT) isn’t a realistic comparison for team building modeling.

He's a great model to help people understand that it can take a while for young phenoms to reach the pinnacle of the profession.

[Klomp]

All-in Trade is our only chance to exceed being just a mediocre playoff team

I don't buy this line of thinking for a second. Michael Jordan won his first title at 28 years old. Ant is 24. No drastic all in move is needed and it could destroy the team.

Using an outlier like Jordan (the GOAT) isn’t a realistic comparison for team building modeling.

LEADING a team to a championship for the first time:

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander - 26 years old (7th season)
Jayson Tatum - 25 years old (7th season)
Nikola Jokic - 27 years old (8th season)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 26 years old (8th season)
Kawhi Leonard - 27 years old (8th season)
Kevin Durant - 28 years old (9th season)
Steph Curry - 26 years old (6th season)
LeBron James - 27 years old (8th NBA season)
Dirk Nowitzki - 32 years old (12th NBA season)
Kobe Bryant - 30 years old (12th NBA season)

24 is a far bigger outlier than 28 if you ask me.

[Wolveswin]

I don't buy this line of thinking for a second. Michael Jordan won his first title at 28 years old. Ant is 24. No drastic all in move is needed and it could destroy the team.

Using an outlier like Jordan (the GOAT) isn’t a realistic comparison for team building modeling.

LEADING a team to a championship for the first time:

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander - 26 years old (7th season)
Jayson Tatum - 25 years old (7th season)
Nikola Jokic - 27 years old (8th season)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 26 years old (8th season)
Kawhi Leonard - 27 years old (8th season)
Kevin Durant - 28 years old (9th season)
Steph Curry - 26 years old (6th season)
LeBron James - 27 years old (8th NBA season)
Dirk Nowitzki - 32 years old (12th NBA season)
Kobe Bryant - 30 years old (12th NBA season)

24 is a far bigger outlier than 28 if you ask me.

Age wasn’t the outlier being mentioned. But I am sure you knew that already.

[Wolveswin]

I don't buy this line of thinking for a second. Michael Jordan won his first title at 28 years old. Ant is 24. No drastic all in move is needed and it could destroy the team.

Using an outlier like Jordan (the GOAT) isn’t a realistic comparison for team building modeling.

He's a great model to help people understand that it can take a while for young phenoms to reach the pinnacle of the profession.

We all know it takes time for young players to develop. Again using a GOAT as team building model isn’t a realistic one.

[Klomp]

Using an outlier like Jordan (the GOAT) isn’t a realistic comparison for team building modeling.

He's a great model to help people understand that it can take a while for young phenoms to reach the pinnacle of the profession.

We all know it takes time for young players to develop. Again using a GOAT as team building model isn’t a realistic one.

Which is why I presented plenty of others who aren't GOATs.

I think we need to be careful about making any all-in moves when Ant is only 24. Keep smartly building around Ant so that he stays in the thick of things when he is 26-28.

[FrenchMinnyFan]

All-in Trade is our only chance to exceed being just a mediocre playoff team

We have been in the last two WCFs. We are not a mediocre playoff team.

I’m not so sure.

Two years ago we made the WCF, but we were just a top three Western Conference team.

Last year we made the finals too, but I wouldn’t say we were significantly better than about seven western teams.

Yes, we were 4-2 the last two years in the playoffs, but we weren’t heavily favored in any of them - many even picked PHX to upset su because it was a bad match up.

I’m not saying we’re a bad team, and we have the chance for internal growth. And the playoffs wins rose expectations. But I wouldn’t disagree with anyone who said we have been a mediocre playoff team that got some upset wins. And most of our rivals in the West got better in the off-season, while we probably declined.

I think it will take some tremendous growth and a lot of luck for us to get back to the WCF without a big move. And maybe that’s okay. But those playoff upsets the last two years will quickly be forgotten by the “Fire Finch!” crowd if we don’t get back to the WCF again this year.

Can’t disagree more . We were a 50% the first 4 months and the best team after OKC the last 3 months. Last min trade hurt us a lot at first. Tue fact that we have to play 100% all regular season (no load management) hurt us as well when PO come. We do not have this problem again this year.
I’m convinced we will start strong and compete for top spot this year.

[Wolveswin]

He's a great model to help people understand that it can take a while for young phenoms to reach the pinnacle of the profession.

We all know it takes time for young players to develop. Again using a GOAT as team building model isn’t a realistic one.

Which is why I presented plenty of others who aren't GOATs.

I think we need to be careful about making any all-in moves when Ant is only 24. Keep smartly building around Ant so that he stays in the thick of things when he is 26-28.

We have no guarantee Ant stays in MN. He is signed through 27 but can ask out before then. NBA has seen its fair share of stars leave or demand out.

Why does an all-in trade need to be dumb or not smart? All-in trades can be just as smart as any other move. And winning a chip goes along way in confirming Ant stays in MN.

[KGdaBom]

We all know it takes time for young players to develop. Again using a GOAT as team building model isn’t a realistic one.

Which is why I presented plenty of others who aren't GOATs.

I think we need to be careful about making any all-in moves when Ant is only 24. Keep smartly building around Ant so that he stays in the thick of things when he is 26-28.

We have no guarantee Ant stays in MN. He is signed through 27 but can ask out before then. NBA has seen its fair share of stars leave or demand out.

Why does an all-in trade need to be dumb or not smart? All-in trades can be just as smart as any other move. And winning a chip goes along way in confirming Ant stays in MN.

There's no law of physics saying it has to be dumb or not smart, but it has a high probability of that.

[Dewey]

Which is why I presented plenty of others who aren't GOATs.

I think we need to be careful about making any all-in moves when Ant is only 24. Keep smartly building around Ant so that he stays in the thick of things when he is 26-28.

We have no guarantee Ant stays in MN. He is signed through 27 but can ask out before then. NBA has seen its fair share of stars leave or demand out.

Why does an all-in trade need to be dumb or not smart? All-in trades can be just as smart as any other move. And winning a chip goes along way in confirming Ant stays in MN.

There's no law of physics saying it has to be dumb or not smart, but it has a high probability of that.

That’s just a reckless assumption …

McD and Randle (for example) are not consistently up to the task once you reach playoff level basketball - IMO. There’s another gear there and they have not shown they have it. Ya just never know what we’ll get from McD game to game, and Randle has moved around enough for a reason. So ya, lots of safe space to roll the dice without putting the future at risk… after all, you can’t risk what you don’t have.

[Wolveswin]

Which is why I presented plenty of others who aren't GOATs.

I think we need to be careful about making any all-in moves when Ant is only 24. Keep smartly building around Ant so that he stays in the thick of things when he is 26-28.

We have no guarantee Ant stays in MN. He is signed through 27 but can ask out before then. NBA has seen its fair share of stars leave or demand out.

Why does an all-in trade need to be dumb or not smart? All-in trades can be just as smart as any other move. And winning a chip goes along way in confirming Ant stays in MN.

There's no law of physics saying it has to be dumb or not smart, but it has a high probability of that.

That is not true and just a flat out wrong statement.

[KGdaBom]

We have no guarantee Ant stays in MN. He is signed through 27 but can ask out before then. NBA has seen its fair share of stars leave or demand out.

Why does an all-in trade need to be dumb or not smart? All-in trades can be just as smart as any other move. And winning a chip goes along way in confirming Ant stays in MN.

There's no law of physics saying it has to be dumb or not smart, but it has a high probability of that.

That is not true and just a flat out wrong statement.

Panic moves have a high probability of being dumb or not smart. I consider an all in to get one player a panic move. Remember when you say all in that means giving up everything else. If you don't then obviously it's not all in.

[Wolveswin]

There's no law of physics saying it has to be dumb or not smart, but it has a high probability of that.

That is not true and just a flat out wrong statement.

Panic moves have a high probability of being dumb or not smart. I consider an all in to get one player a panic move. Remember when you say all in that means giving up everything else. If you don't then obviously it's not all in.

Well you need to redefine your definition because that is also wrong.

All-in is striking when iron is hot on that one player (usually one stud and filler). Pooling one’s available resources and going for it - getting that one player (usually one stud and filler) to push team over the hump. No panic whatsoever. But team does have to act - get off their hands and push all-in.

In Wolves case it’s Randle, DDV (most likely), Dilly (for right PG upgrade) and other resources (with other being picks and filler players).

I will add, for Wolves, it’s the opposite of panic. Calm. Calculated. Now, trades are a two way street and player Wolves would want needs to be ‘available’ and in Wolves’ price range (player won’t be perfect because perfect isn’t available). So, Wolves need to be ready to strike. Push all-in for the last piece to deliver more than a WCF loser outcome (and last one wasn’t competitive).

[KGdaBom]

That is not true and just a flat out wrong statement.

Panic moves have a high probability of being dumb or not smart. I consider an all in to get one player a panic move. Remember when you say all in that means giving up everything else. If you don't then obviously it's not all in.

Well you need to redefine your definition because that is also wrong.

All-in is striking when iron is hot on that one player (usually one stud and filler). Pooling one’s available resources and going for it - getting that one player (usually one stud and filler) to push team over the hump. No panic whatsoever. But team does have to act - get off their hands and push all-in.

In Wolves case it’s Randle, DDV (most likely), Dilly (for right PG upgrade) and other resources (with other being picks and filler players).

I will add, for Wolves, it’s the opposite of panic. Calm. Calculated. Now, trades are a two way street and player Wolves would want needs to be ‘available’ and in Wolves’ price range (player won’t be perfect because perfect isn’t available). So, Wolves need to be ready to strike. Push all-in for the last piece to deliver more than a WCF loser outcome (and last one wasn’t competitive).

My definition is correct. All in means holding nothing back. It's a term that originated with poker and means holding nothing in reserve. It's borrowed from poker in this case. It doesn't mean you trade every player on the team, but it totally implies you give up every player of value to get it done. I'm assuming you mean keeping Ant to pair with this all in player, but all other players are fair game. So in reality you don't mean all in, but you do mean make a big trade giving up some of our best assets.

[Wolveswin]

Panic moves have a high probability of being dumb or not smart. I consider an all in to get one player a panic move. Remember when you say all in that means giving up everything else. If you don't then obviously it's not all in.

Well you need to redefine your definition because that is also wrong.

All-in is striking when iron is hot on that one player (usually one stud and filler). Pooling one’s available resources and going for it - getting that one player (usually one stud and filler) to push team over the hump. No panic whatsoever. But team does have to act - get off their hands and push all-in.

In Wolves case it’s Randle, DDV (most likely), Dilly (for right PG upgrade) and other resources (with other being picks and filler players).

I will add, for Wolves, it’s the opposite of panic. Calm. Calculated. Now, trades are a two way street and player Wolves would want needs to be ‘available’ and in Wolves’ price range (player won’t be perfect because perfect isn’t available). So, Wolves need to be ready to strike. Push all-in for the last piece to deliver more than a WCF loser outcome (and last one wasn’t competitive).

My definition is correct. All in means holding nothing back. It's a term that originated with poker and means holding nothing in reserve. It's borrowed from poker in this case. It doesn't mean you trade every player on the team, but it totally implies you give up every player of value to get it done. I'm assuming you mean keeping Ant to pair with this all in player, but all other players are fair game. So in reality you don't mean all in, but you do mean make a big trade giving up some of our best assets.

Mmmmk. Whatever floats your boat.

Yes, all-in means trading whole roster. Let’s see the rare but because it’s your definition 15 for 15 player full roster swap trade. Come on TC, get’er done, KGdaBom needs to be right in his message board channel. Green font.

[KGdaBom]

Well you need to redefine your definition because that is also wrong.

All-in is striking when iron is hot on that one player (usually one stud and filler). Pooling one’s available resources and going for it - getting that one player (usually one stud and filler) to push team over the hump. No panic whatsoever. But team does have to act - get off their hands and push all-in.

In Wolves case it’s Randle, DDV (most likely), Dilly (for right PG upgrade) and other resources (with other being picks and filler players).

I will add, for Wolves, it’s the opposite of panic. Calm. Calculated. Now, trades are a two way street and player Wolves would want needs to be ‘available’ and in Wolves’ price range (player won’t be perfect because perfect isn’t available). So, Wolves need to be ready to strike. Push all-in for the last piece to deliver more than a WCF loser outcome (and last one wasn’t competitive).

My definition is correct. All in means holding nothing back. It's a term that originated with poker and means holding nothing in reserve. It's borrowed from poker in this case. It doesn't mean you trade every player on the team, but it totally implies you give up every player of value to get it done. I'm assuming you mean keeping Ant to pair with this all in player, but all other players are fair game. So in reality you don't mean all in, but you do mean make a big trade giving up some of our best assets.

Mmmmk. Whatever floats your boat.

Yes, all-in means trading whole roster. Let’s see the rare but because it’s your definition 15 for 15 player full roster swap trade. Come on TC, get’er done, KGdaBom needs to be right in his message board channel. Green font.

Dude there is the assumption of keeping Ant for the pairing. After that if you say all in every other player of value must be available or it isn't all in. The other team will not want every player so it won't mean sending all 15 players away. All you really mean is make a big trade. That is far below the level of all in, just like a large bet in poker is below the level of all in.
The Rudy trade was close to all in regarding draft assets. We gave up all the FRPs we could under NBA rules and even added some swaps.

[Wolveswin]

My definition is correct. All in means holding nothing back. It's a term that originated with poker and means holding nothing in reserve. It's borrowed from poker in this case. It doesn't mean you trade every player on the team, but it totally implies you give up every player of value to get it done. I'm assuming you mean keeping Ant to pair with this all in player, but all other players are fair game. So in reality you don't mean all in, but you do mean make a big trade giving up some of our best assets.

Mmmmk. Whatever floats your boat.

Yes, all-in means trading whole roster. Let’s see the rare but because it’s your definition 15 for 15 player full roster swap trade. Come on TC, get’er done, KGdaBom needs to be right in his message board channel. Green font.

Dude there is the assumption of keeping Ant for the pairing. After that if you say all in every other player of value must be available or it isn't all in. The other team will not want every player so it won't mean sending all 15 players away. All you really mean is make a big trade. That is far below the level of all in, just like a large bet in poker is below the level of all in.
The Rudy trade was close to all in regarding draft assets. We gave up all the FRPs we could under NBA rules and even added some swaps.

I don’t even think you know what you are saying any longer.

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

[KGdaBom]

Mmmmk. Whatever floats your boat.

Yes, all-in means trading whole roster. Let’s see the rare but because it’s your definition 15 for 15 player full roster swap trade. Come on TC, get’er done, KGdaBom needs to be right in his message board channel. Green font.

Dude there is the assumption of keeping Ant for the pairing. After that if you say all in every other player of value must be available or it isn't all in. The other team will not want every player so it won't mean sending all 15 players away. All you really mean is make a big trade. That is far below the level of all in, just like a large bet in poker is below the level of all in.
The Rudy trade was close to all in regarding draft assets. We gave up all the FRPs we could under NBA rules and even added some swaps.

I don’t even think you know what you are saying any longer.

I know exactly what I'm saying and I think you realize that you shouldn't have called it an all in trade, but since I've backed you into a corner you're doubling and tripling down. Can we just agree you want to see us make a big trade to get a bonafide 2nd star? You don't see Randle or Jaden to be a good enough Robin to Ant's Batman. KAT was a big enough star to be Robin and we veered away from that to get Randle, DDV and Le Berricade. I'd do that trade again if given the opportunity.

[Wolveswin]

Dude there is the assumption of keeping Ant for the pairing. After that if you say all in every other player of value must be available or it isn't all in. The other team will not want every player so it won't mean sending all 15 players away. All you really mean is make a big trade. That is far below the level of all in, just like a large bet in poker is below the level of all in.
The Rudy trade was close to all in regarding draft assets. We gave up all the FRPs we could under NBA rules and even added some swaps.

I don’t even think you know what you are saying any longer.

I know exactly what I'm saying and I think you realize that you shouldn't have called it an all in trade, but since I've backed you into a corner you're doubling and tripling down. Can we just agree you want to see us make a big trade to get a bonafide 2nd star? You don't see Randle or Jaden to be a good enough Robin to Ant's Batman.

It is an all-in trade. In no shape or form - other than your silly world - does an all-in trade mean the entire 15 man roster needs to be involved. Implying even close to that is beyond laughable.

An all-in trade is exactly how I defined it twice. And twice defined what the trade components would entail. “Well, that isn’t an all-in trade, that is a big trade.” - KGdaBom.

Give me a break - not worth derailing this thread as you have.

[KGdaBom]

I don’t even think you know what you are saying any longer.

I know exactly what I'm saying and I think you realize that you shouldn't have called it an all in trade, but since I've backed you into a corner you're doubling and tripling down. Can we just agree you want to see us make a big trade to get a bonafide 2nd star? You don't see Randle or Jaden to be a good enough Robin to Ant's Batman.

It is an all-in trade. In no shape or form - other than your silly world - does an all-in trade mean the entire 15 man roster needs to be involved. Implying even close to that is beyond laughable.

An all-in trade is exactly how I defined it twice. And twice defined what the trade components would entail. “Well, that isn’t an all-in trade, that is a big trade.” - KGdaBom.

Give me a break - not worth derailing this thread as you have.

I never once said an all in trade is trading all 15 players. Don't misrepresent/straw man me. I understood you meaning to pair with Ant as a given. However, you were simply talking about making a big trade. All in is more than just a big trade. Sure it's semantics, but I really thought you meant all in at first. Later you described what you meant and it was a big trade. I'm done on this. If you can't acknowledge your use of all in was not the appropriate wording OK. Continue to call every big trade an all in trade.