Lowe - Timberwolves Still Want D-Russell

wildvikeswolves · Post #441 » by **wildvikeswolves** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:18 am

I’m not even worried about a Lakers meeting. Would he rather be a centerpiece of a team and play with your best bud KAT, or be a spot up shooter.

I’ll be slightly mad if Culver’s traded. I thing Cov would be trades before Culver.

Norseman79 · Post #442 » by **Norseman79** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:19 am

DaKid wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
DaKid wrote:
Teague & Culver > Russell?

I wouldn't say that, but Culver > Okoge

But if that 3rd team will only do it if it is teague and Culver, do you say no to Russell?

No, I wouldn't say no. Russell is proven, Culver is potential. Brooklyn doesn't need Culver though, with Dimwiddie and Lavert already there.

Question is, what if it's Roco and Teague for Russell? Would you say no to Russell then?

DaKid · Post #443 » by **DaKid** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:34 am

Norseman79 wrote:
DaKid wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
I wouldn't say that, but Culver > Okoge

But if that 3rd team will only do it if it is teague and Culver, do you say no to Russell?

No, I wouldn't say no. Russell is proven, Culver is potential. Brooklyn doesn't need Culver though, with Dimwiddie and Lavert already there.

Question is, what if it's Roco and Teague for Russell? Would you say no to Russell then?

That's rough but I would still take Russell. In that case, it doesn't have to be a 3 way trade because we could sign Russell outright

Jedzz · Post #444 » by **Jedzz** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:34 am

Norseman79 wrote:
DaKid wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
I wouldn't say that, but Culver > Okoge

But if that 3rd team will only do it if it is teague and Culver, do you say no to Russell?

No, I wouldn't say no. Russell is proven, Culver is potential. Brooklyn doesn't need Culver though, with Dimwiddie and Lavert already there.

Question is, what if it's Roco and Teague for Russell? Would you say no to Russell then?

Supposedly there was an offer on the table before or on draft day from the Pelicans for MN to trade Covington plus 11 for pick #4. Did Rosas pass on that offer, or did the Pelicans pull the offer when they were offered something better? That 4th pick ended up going to Lakers through Hawks by way of Pelicans. I neveer heard what the deal totally encompassed.

GeekFreak · Post #445 » by **GeekFreak** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:42 am

Alright what am I missing? How did we go from getting rid of Wiggins which I loved back to getting rid of Okogie, Culver and 1st rd picks which I hate???

SO_MONEY · Post #446 » by **SO_MONEY** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:43 am

DaKid wrote:
SO_MONEY wrote:
DaKid wrote:
Teague & Culver > Russell?
Doesn't matter if they are or not. It wouldn't take Culver to move Teauge that is an MASSIVE overpay. And like I said unrealistic.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Teague alone isn't enough salary to get Russell here. Plus it does matter because that is basically what you are doing, trading teague and okogie/Culver for russell

Then you send out Okogie. Or KBD. And kick a 2nd to the Nets. Culver is a MASSIVE overpay. Or you just hope Russell won't get the MAX. Either way Culver won't be involved.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Norseman79 · Post #447 » by **Norseman79** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:44 am

Jedzz wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
DaKid wrote:
But if that 3rd team will only do it if it is teague and Culver, do you say no to Russell?

No, I wouldn't say no. Russell is proven, Culver is potential. Brooklyn doesn't need Culver though, with Dimwiddie and Lavert already there.

Question is, what if it's Roco and Teague for Russell? Would you say no to Russell then?

Supposedly there was an offer on the table before or on draft day from the Pelicans for MN to trade Covington plus 11 for pick #4. Did Rosas pass on that offer, or did the Pelicans pull the offer when they were offered something better? That 4th pick ended up going to Lakers through Hawks by way of Pelicans.

The thing with moving Covington is that it does nothing for us, his contract isn't the albatross. Now, if he needs to be thrown in then I am going to be needing something back more than cap space. Now if we can move Teague, Dieng, and Covington in one trade...now I have to think about it.

SO_MONEY · Post #448 » by **SO_MONEY** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:45 am

GeekFreak wrote:Alright what am I missing? How did we go from getting rid of Wiggins which I loved back to getting rid of Okogie, Culver and 1st rd picks which I hate???

It is just a person trolling because they didn't like the Culver pick and it is quite transparent.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Nick K · Post #449 » by **Nick K** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:57 am

KGdaBom wrote:
DaKid wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:I am more interested in hearing the trades we have set up, than if we are going to sign DLO. I can't believe that none of this has been leaked, or even a hint at who is being traded to where and for what.

Me too...

My guess is teague and one of okogie or Culver along with a pick going somewhere

Timberwolves
Russell

Nets
Pick(s)

Third team
Teague
Okogie or Culver

No way in hell is Culver being traded.

It ain't happening!

DaKid · Post #450 » by **DaKid** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:00 am

SO_MONEY wrote:
GeekFreak wrote:Alright what am I missing? How did we go from getting rid of Wiggins which I loved back to getting rid of Okogie, Culver and 1st rd picks which I hate???
It is just a person trolling because they didn't like the Culver pick and it is quite transparent.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Lol, I'm not trolling at all. It really has nothing to do with Culver as a player. It's a possibility that he is included in a trade to get a better player. He still hasn't played a second in the NBA which is why a 3rd team might want him over okogie. If he is required to get us a s&t Russell, why would you say no?

Jedzz · Post #451 » by **Jedzz** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:02 am

Norseman79 wrote:
Jedzz wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
No, I wouldn't say no. Russell is proven, Culver is potential. Brooklyn doesn't need Culver though, with Dimwiddie and Lavert already there.

Question is, what if it's Roco and Teague for Russell? Would you say no to Russell then?

Supposedly there was an offer on the table before or on draft day from the Pelicans for MN to trade Covington plus 11 for pick #4. Did Rosas pass on that offer, or did the Pelicans pull the offer when they were offered something better? That 4th pick ended up going to Lakers through Hawks by way of Pelicans.

The thing with moving Covington is that it does nothing for us, his contract isn't the albatross. Now, if he needs to be thrown in then I am going to be needing something back more than cap space. Now if we can move Teague, Dieng, and Covington in one trade...now I have to think about it.

That would be interesting.

DaKid · Post #452 » by **DaKid** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:03 am

Considering that almost none of us were expecting Culver to be the pick when Rosas traded up, people are being very sensitive about him being included in a trade to get a possible franchise cornerstone at pg.

SO_MONEY · Post #453 » by **SO_MONEY** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:16 am

DaKid wrote:
SO_MONEY wrote:
GeekFreak wrote:Alright what am I missing? How did we go from getting rid of Wiggins which I loved back to getting rid of Okogie, Culver and 1st rd picks which I hate???
It is just a person trolling because they didn't like the Culver pick and it is quite transparent.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Lol, I'm not trolling at all. It really has nothing to do with Culver as a player. It's a possibility that he is included in a trade to get a better player. He still hasn't played a second in the NBA which is why a 3rd team might want him over okogie. If he is required to get us a s&t Russell, why would you say no?

Because it exceeds the amount of value required to obtain Russell.

KGdaBom · Post #454 » by **KGdaBom** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:18 am

SO_MONEY wrote:
DaKid wrote:
SO_MONEY wrote:Lol. Culver is not getting traded. There is no need to trade him to accomplish our aims. It is a MASSIVE overpay. Get over the idea it is not realistic.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Teague & Culver > Russell?
Doesn't matter if they are or not. It wouldn't take Culver to move Teauge that is an MASSIVE overpay. And like I said unrealistic.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

I've maintained all along that Teague can likely be moved by himself without giving any assets. If we do maybe a 2nd round pick swap.

Nick K · Post #455 » by **Nick K** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:23 am

DaKid wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:No way, much rather have Okoge go than Culver. Okoge is a great hustle player who may develop a consistent 3pt shot. Culver's potential is much higher.

Wiggins is going to be traded, but I wouldn't be surprised if Teague and Dieng are moved as well, and we go after Harris.

A lineup of Russell, Wiggins, Roco, Harris, towns would be expensive but fun

Regardless of the Wigs hatred, that lineup is one I love! I'd take that in a hearteat today.

Culver and Okogie coming off the bench, with Gorgui and Tyus and maybe KBD looks good to me.

KGdaBom · Post #456 » by **KGdaBom** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:23 am

DaKid wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
DaKid wrote:
Teague & Culver > Russell?

I wouldn't say that, but Culver > Okoge

But if that 3rd team will only do it if it is teague and Culver, do you say no to Russell?

yes you say no. It's not worth adding Culver to the deal to get Russell because then we don't have Culver. We need that wing that can be a shot creator for himself and others. Obviously Russell is better but he will be costing us MAX. Culver just a rookie contract. That has to be factored in.

KGdaBom · Post #457 » by **KGdaBom** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:25 am

Norseman79 wrote:
DaKid wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
I wouldn't say that, but Culver > Okoge

But if that 3rd team will only do it if it is teague and Culver, do you say no to Russell?

No, I wouldn't say no. Russell is proven, Culver is potential. Brooklyn doesn't need Culver though, with Dimwiddie and Lavert already there.

Question is, what if it's Roco and Teague for Russell? Would you say no to Russell then?

Factor in the contracts. RoCo, Culver, Okogie are the best contracts on the team.

Takingbaconback · Post #458 » by **Takingbaconback** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:25 am

I feel like Teague is a very movable contract as its expiring and he is a scorer. Honestly if he could stay to come off the bench, he would be amazing in that role. Dieng will be a bit difficult, but it helps that he's only got two more years left. Team absorbing his contract can marginalize the hit because it will be expiring next year. Definitely don't wanna give up Okogie, Covington, and Culver in that order. Feel like Wolves gotta give up at least an unprotected first round pick without those three in the deal, in which DLo would have to give a guarantee to sign here.

Wiggins trade would obviously be preferable because Wolves can keep Teague as great guy off bench and retain him for the year or trade him at midseason deadline. Dieng could see more minutes at the 4 with Gibson's absence and possibly raise his trade value at midseason. Also opens up minutes for Culver and Okogie which Wolves desperately need. Either is fine with me to be honest as long as we don't give up Okogie, Covington, or Culver

Norseman79 · Post #459 » by **Norseman79** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:28 am

KGdaBom wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
DaKid wrote:
But if that 3rd team will only do it if it is teague and Culver, do you say no to Russell?

No, I wouldn't say no. Russell is proven, Culver is potential. Brooklyn doesn't need Culver though, with Dimwiddie and Lavert already there.

Question is, what if it's Roco and Teague for Russell? Would you say no to Russell then?

Factor in the contracts. RoCo, Culver, Okogie are the best contracts on the team.

But only if Culver produces. What if he is a total bust? I understand where you are coming from, and if you have faith Culver is a solid starter or better I would agree. It is a gamble either way.

Slim Tubby · Post #460 » by **Slim Tubby** » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:29 am

KGdaBom wrote:
DaKid wrote:
Norseman79 wrote:
I wouldn't say that, but Culver > Okoge

But if that 3rd team will only do it if it is teague and Culver, do you say no to Russell?

yes you say no. It's not worth adding Culver to the deal to get Russell because then we don't have Culver. We need that wing that can be a shot creator for himself and others. Obviously Russell is better but he will be costing us MAX. Culver just a rookie contract. That has to be factored in.

This is my opinion,too, but I certainly understand the opposite opinion if you feel strongly enough that Russell is the long term PG solution even on a Max deal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk