VOTE: Love for Derrick Favors?

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:42 pm

I'm wondering what you'd say if NJN was trying to complete a deal for Carmelo, and said that DEN wanted Love instead of Favors in their package. Would you swap?

Its really difficult to project two such young players, but I could see DEN prefering Love because:

1. Nuggets have a contending team right now
2. Love is less risky.
3. Kenyon Martin is an expiring next season, and DEN could use its cap space on another position.
4. Love may make ticketholders happier as DEN wins games .. or at least less devastated about losing Carmelo than some far-off prospect.

MIN may like it because:

1. Favors sets the clock back two years on that first free agent contract
2. Love has been hot and cold about his commitment to MIN.
3. Favors would be a riskier, but may have a higher upside, and the team needs to take risks
4. Favors potentially fits better with Rubio
5. Moving Love also has the benefit of giving Beasley a ton of PF minutes this year, as Favors learns the game.
6. Less wins next season as Favor develops improves lottery position.

Twolves98 · Post #2 » by **Twolves98** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:00 pm

Where to start...
1) Nuggets are not contenders without Anthony
2) Love is the only for sure player we got
3) Teams need to take risks... your talking to the Timberwolves
4) Twolves are to young
5) We don't need to improve are lottery position if were supposed to be the worst team
6) Beasley > Favors
So no...

cpfsf · Post #3 » by **cpfsf** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:07 pm

I voted LOVE

if Favors is a bust, than we are ******. The odds are not in our favor

Annnnnd we're going to suck regardless if we have Love or Favors.

walchy · Post #4 » by **walchy** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:14 pm

our pick goes to the clippers this year, unprotected im pretty sure. So our lottery position is a moot point.
The nuggets wont contend without anthony, so again a moot point. theres no good reason to do something like this, in all honesty.

cpfsf · Post #5 » by **cpfsf** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:17 pm

walchy wrote:our pick goes to the clippers this year, unprotected im pretty sure. So our lottery position is a moot point.
The nuggets wont contend without anthony, so again a moot point. theres no good reason to do something like this, in all honesty.

It's top 10 protected in 2011, and unprotected in 2012.

Harrison Barnes says hi.

Vindicater · Post #6 » by **Vindicater** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:25 pm

shrink wrote:1. Favors sets the clock back two years on that first free agent contract

Worst pro-point I have ever seen. By this logic we should draft and then trade players very 2-3 years and never let the team grow.

shrink · Post #7 » by **shrink** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:06 am

Vindicater wrote:
shrink wrote:1. Favors sets the clock back two years on that first free agent contract

Worst pro-point I have ever seen. By this logic we should draft and then trade players very 2-3 years and never let the team grow.

If I could irradicate a word or phrase frmom the english language, near the top of my list would be "by that logic." The thing that annoys me most isn't the mis-use of the word logic (which many posters on the trade board mean "according to my opinion") but that the phrase "by that logic" generally is followed by an illogical extremist extension. I'm not trying to single you out V -- this is a pervasive thing.

Maybe I can show this better by giving an example back. Kevin Love is the best player on the team? "By that logic," we should dump everyone else to get 14 other Kevin Loves, and start 5 PF's.

In the original case, I'm talking about a very specific circumstance here with Kevin Love's contract specifically. We have a position where we have cap space, and if we couldn't find a use for it next year, we would still have time to use it next year. I'm not advocating doing this for every player, but in Love's case, this characteristic of his contract (cheap now, will be much larger) at this specific time (cap space years), could provide potential benefit if traded.

Busch Legion · Post #8 » by **Busch Legion** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:42 am

I wish Love had Favors' body. Domination.

Its hard for me to say. If I had to pick right now, i'd take Love. But I think its just a moot point because if Beasley pans, he'll be the PF of the future. I just don't think he'll cut it at SF; Johnsons position anyway.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #9 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:17 pm

skydragonslashs wrote:I wish Love had Favors' body. Domination.

I wish I had his PENIS. 6'10" black guy junk on a normal white guy body? Domination.

Post #10 » by **Worm Guts** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:40 pm

I don't think this is a realistic option and we discussed it near a dozen times around the draft.

funkatron101 · Post #11 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:43 pm

Worm Guts wrote:I don't think this is a realistic option and we discussed it near a dozen times around the draft.

The black guy junk on a white guy's body...or the other thing?

Devilzsidewalk · Post #12 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:50 pm

funkatron101 wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:I don't think this is a realistic option and we discussed it near a dozen times around the draft.

The black guy junk on a white guy's body...or the other thing?

the black guy junk part. I forgot abut that one thread we had on it, thanks for reminding me Worm. I remember it went for like 60 pages before we could come to agreement that it'd probably cause more problems than it would solve. We decided it'd be way too hard to explain the dramatic color difference, plus you wouldn't be able to get the bootylicious ethnic chicks since you'd still look like a nerdy white guy despite your hidden gem, so you'd still be with the normal white chicks and they wouldn't be able to fully accept the 6'10 black guy junk without fearing for their woohoo destruction.

Foye · Post #13 » by **Foye** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:10 pm

Trading Love for Favors would move us back 1 year until we are ready to finally be competitive. :dontknow:

Esohny · Post #14 » by **Esohny** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:13 pm

Devilzsidewalk wrote:
funkatron101 wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:I don't think this is a realistic option and we discussed it near a dozen times around the draft.

The black guy junk on a white guy's body...or the other thing?

the black guy junk part. I forgot abut that one thread we had on it, thanks for reminding me Worm. I remember it went for like 60 pages before we could come to agreement that it'd probably cause more problems than it would solve. We decided it'd be way too hard to explain the dramatic color difference, plus you wouldn't be able to get the bootylicious ethnic chicks since you'd still look like a nerdy white guy despite your hidden gem, so you'd still be with the normal white chicks and they wouldn't be able to fully accept the 6'10 black guy junk without fearing for their woohoo destruction.

Sadly, that makes sense. Too bad.

Dewey · Post #15 » by **Dewey** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:41 pm

I'd have to think this would be an easy decision for management, especially Ronzone since he's likely the most aware of the type of minutes these bigs can handle in the NBA.

I'm a Love fan, but eventhough Favors is raw, I gotta wonder if his athleticism wouldn't be advantageous along-side Pekovic/Milicic and the fact he could play behind Beas while content with fewer minutes ... Potentially having Beasely as a role model to Favors concerns me though.

funkatron101 · Post #16 » by **funkatron101** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:31 pm

Devilzsidewalk wrote:
funkatron101 wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:I don't think this is a realistic option and we discussed it near a dozen times around the draft.

The black guy junk on a white guy's body...or the other thing?

the black guy junk part. I forgot abut that one thread we had on it, thanks for reminding me Worm. I remember it went for like 60 pages before we could come to agreement that it'd probably cause more problems than it would solve. We decided it'd be way too hard to explain the dramatic color difference, plus you wouldn't be able to get the bootylicious ethnic chicks since you'd still look like a nerdy white guy despite your hidden gem, so you'd still be with the normal white chicks and they wouldn't be able to fully accept the 6'10 black guy junk without fearing for their woohoo destruction.

The plight of the white man.

younggunsmn · Post #17 » by **younggunsmn** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:06 pm

I voted FAVORS. The huge difference in size and athleticism is just way too much to pass up. I like Love's game, I just think Favors is going to be an absolute stud, who will rebound well, block shots and play great d. That he can play minutes at C is a nice perk because we can go with a flynn/webster/wes/beasley/favors uber-athletic uptempo lineup at times.

The extra 2 years of contract is a big deal. ask the nugs or hornets if they'd want an extra 2 years on melo or cp3's deals. Plus it means about 20 million in cap room over those 2 years.

That said, Love and Murphy duplicate each other, so no way jersey does it straight up. And the nugs I think, If they're tearing it down to start over, would rather have favors than anyone on our roster.

younggunsmn · Post #18 » by **younggunsmn** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:06 pm

I voted FAVORS. The huge difference in size and athleticism is just way too much to pass up. I like Love's game, I just think Favors is going to be an absolute stud, who will rebound well, block shots and play great d. That he can play minutes at C is a nice perk because we can go with a flynn/webster/wes/beasley/favors uber-athletic uptempo lineup at times.

The extra 2 years of contract is a big deal. ask the nugs or hornets if they'd want an extra 2 years on melo or cp3's deals. Plus it means about 20 million in cap room over those 2 years.

That said, Love and Murphy duplicate each other, so no way jersey does it straight up. And the nugs I think, If they're tearing it down to start over, would rather have favors than anyone on our roster.

Zeitgeister · Post #19 » by **Zeitgeister** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:22 pm

I don't know, I'm siding more with Love right now. Favors is a project IMO, he has great physical tools but I'm not sure he'll reach his potential.

jade_hippo · Post #20 » by **jade_hippo** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:33 am

younggunsmn wrote:I voted FAVORS. The huge difference in size and athleticism is just way too much to pass up. I like Love's game, I just think Favors is going to be an absolute stud, who will rebound well, block shots and play great d. That he can play minutes at C is a nice perk because we can go with a flynn/webster/wes/beasley/favors uber-athletic uptempo lineup at times..

I remember hearing the exact same thing out of LSU STUD Stro Switft. Swap in the name Swift every time you see favors and flash back 10 years. I'm giving Love the advantage because we KNOW he's already one of the best rebounders in the league, and he has legit range on his jumper. He just turned 22, is it reasonable to trade him for someone who's calling card is filled with the P-word?

I'd rather have