Trade Talk (Part Five)

[KGdaBom]

If Josh Okogie improves to an average three point shooter, Culver builds some confidence and improves as a shooter in a simpler role, Beas improves to be a plus defender (that added muscle may be enough), and Ant is legit...who would you guys ideally trade and who would you keep?

If all these things happened, MIN would have six NBA starting guards on the team. I think since MIN isn’t a free agent destination, they need to keep the ones who have the most upside. Rubio will help develop the youth and is the best complimentary player, and Russell is KAT’s buddy and expensive, so they are givens. I think the trade order goes

Beasley, Okogie, Culver, Edwards.

6. Rosas may have invested a 1st to get Beasley’s RFA rights to have tradable salary. I think a 40% three point shooter (if Beasley is one) is nice, but not critical - we need players who will be guarded out to the three point line.

5. 4. Okogie is beloved, but he is a year closer to being fairly paid. He may also be behind Culver since Rosas selected Culver.

3. Edwards has star upside, and we have the most years of team control.

EDIT: as I look at it, this is also the order I expect even without the improvements you present. Beas, Okogie, Culver, Rubio, Edwards, Russell. I personally would push Russell far up in the order, but I don’t think it’s realistic.

So you want to guarantee that KAT leaves?

[shrink]

If Josh Okogie improves to an average three point shooter, Culver builds some confidence and improves as a shooter in a simpler role, Beas improves to be a plus defender (that added muscle may be enough), and Ant is legit...who would you guys ideally trade and who would you keep?

If all these things happened, MIN would have six NBA starting guards on the team. I think since MIN isn’t a free agent destination, they need to keep the ones who have the most upside. Rubio will help develop the youth and is the best complimentary player, and Russell is KAT’s buddy and expensive, so they are givens. I think the trade order goes

Beasley, Okogie, Culver, Edwards.

6. Rosas may have invested a 1st to get Beasley’s RFA rights to have tradable salary. I think a 40% three point shooter (if Beasley is one) is nice, but not critical - we need players who will be guarded out to the three point line.

5. 4. Okogie is beloved, but he is a year closer to being fairly paid. He may also be behind Culver since Rosas selected Culver.

3. Edwards has star upside, and we have the most years of team control.

EDIT: as I look at it, this is also the order I expect even without the improvements you present. Beas, Okogie, Culver, Rubio, Edwards, Russell. I personally would push Russell far up in the order, but I don’t think it’s realistic.

So you want to guarantee that KAT leaves?

Umm .. that’s why it’s “not realistic?”

:: insertIng five childish emoticons ::

[KGdaBom]

If all these things happened, MIN would have six NBA starting guards on the team. I think since MIN isn’t a free agent destination, they need to keep the ones who have the most upside. Rubio will help develop the youth and is the best complimentary player, and Russell is KAT’s buddy and expensive, so they are givens. I think the trade order goes

Beasley, Okogie, Culver, Edwards.

6. Rosas may have invested a 1st to get Beasley’s RFA rights to have tradable salary. I think a 40% three point shooter (if Beasley is one) is nice, but not critical - we need players who will be guarded out to the three point line.

5. 4. Okogie is beloved, but he is a year closer to being fairly paid. He may also be behind Culver since Rosas selected Culver.

3. Edwards has star upside, and we have the most years of team control.

EDIT: as I look at it, this is also the order I expect even without the improvements you present. Beas, Okogie, Culver, Rubio, Edwards, Russell. I personally would push Russell far up in the order, but I don’t think it’s realistic.

So you want to guarantee that KAT leaves?

Umm .. that’s why it’s “not realistic?” :: insert five childish emoticons ::

Saying it's not realistic doesn't change that it's what you would do. Russell leaving I would say makes it a 95% probability that KAT would leave. I put three not childish emoticons in to emphasize how strongly I disagree with you.

[shrink]

So you want to guarantee that KAT leaves?

Umm .. that’s why it’s “not realistic?” :: insert five childish emoticons ::

Saying it's not realistic doesn't change that it's what you would do. Russell leaving I would say makes it a 95% probability that KAT would leave. I put three not childish emoticons in to emphasize how strongly I disagree with you.

Yes, I also said ITH’s UNREALISTIC, you dolt. Is it possible for you to finish the sentence, if you want to play the “that’s what you said” card? That was not ALL I said. In the same sentence.

[KGdaBom]

Umm .. that’s why it’s “not realistic?” :: insert five childish emoticons ::

Saying it's not realistic doesn't change that it's what you would do. Russell leaving I would say makes it a 95% probability that KAT would leave. I put three not childish emoticons in to emphasize how strongly I disagree with you.

Yes, I also said ITH’s UNREALISTIC, you dolt. Is it possible for you to finish the sentence?

Your name calling doesn't change what you said.

[shrink]

Saying it's not realistic doesn't change that it's what you would do. Russell leaving I would say makes it a 95% probability that KAT would leave. I put three not childish emoticons in to emphasize how strongly I disagree with you.

Yes, I also said ITH’s UNREALISTIC, you dolt. Is it possible for you to finish the sentence?

Your name calling doesn't change what you said.

Is it possible for you to finish the sentence, if you want to play the “that’s what you said” card?

That was not ALL I said. In the same sentence!

[KGdaBom]

Yes, I also said ITH’s UNREALISTIC, you dolt. Is it possible for you to finish the sentence?

Your name calling doesn't change what you said.

Is it possible for you to finish the sentence, if you want to play the “that’s what you said” card?

That was not ALL I said. In the same sentence.

I acknowledged that you said it's not realistic. There is no unfinished sentence that I can see. You said it is what you would do. You didn't add, but since it would guarantee KAT leaving you wouldn't. Is that what you meant by it's not realistic?

[shrink]

Your name calling doesn't change what you said.

Is it possible for you to finish the sentence, if you want to play the “that’s what you said” card?

That was not ALL I said. In the same sentence.

I acknowledged that you said it's not realistic. There is no reason to finish the sentence that I can see. You said it is what you would do. You didn't add, but since it would guarantee KAT leaving you wouldn't. Is that what you meant by it's not realistic?

“No reason to finish the sentence, I can see?” Unbelievable!?!?

Listen, a sentence represents a complete thought. In this case, that complete thought ends with a period - that’s how you can tell.

Look, I am all for holding people accountable for what they write. I am completely against kids who parse a sentence to create an argument, especially if they want to play the “that’s what you said” card. If you can’t finish a whole sentence, then please don’t mischaracterize it, by only referring to half of it.

This really seems like you are looking to pick a fight, especially choosing to include your childish emoticons. Are you still bitter I pointed out the stats say that Russell is not a “good overall player,” and just a good offensive player? Let it go.

[KGdaBom]

Is it possible for you to finish the sentence, if you want to play the “that’s what you said” card?

That was not ALL I said. In the same sentence.

I acknowledged that you said it's not realistic. There is no reason to finish the sentence that I can see. You said it is what you would do. You didn't add, but since it would guarantee KAT leaving you wouldn't. Is that what you meant by it's not realistic?

“No reason to finish the sentence, I can see?” Unbelievable!?!?

Listen, a sentence represents a complete thought. In this case, that complete thought ends with a period - that’s how you can tell.

Look, I am all for holding people accountable for what they write. I am completely against kids who parse a sentence to create an argument, especially if they want to play the “that’s what you said” card. If you can’t finish a whole sentence, then please don’t mischaracterize it, by only referring to half of it.

This really seems like you are looking to pick a fight, especially choosing to include your childish emoticons. Are you still bitter I pointed out the stats say that Russell is not a “good overall player,” and just a good offensive player? Let it go.

For the 4th time. I acknowledged you said it was unrealistic. However, you never said you wouldn't do it because KAT would leave if you did. You said it is what you would DO, but it's not realistic. So I called you out on what you would do as a move that would ensure the departure of KAT. I never in my wildest dreams intended to disregard your calling the move unrealistic as in unlikely to happen. I'm not picking any fight. You're the one who took offense and called the emoticons childish when their was nothing childish about them and they were simply used for emphasis. I never mischaracterized one iota of what you said.

As for Russell not being a good overall player IMO that's a ridiculous stance. You like to use stats to act like your IMO ridiculous stance is correct. It does bother me because it's ridiculous.

[Klomp]

If Josh Okogie improves to an average three point shooter, Culver builds some confidence and improves as a shooter in a simpler role, Beas improves to be a plus defender (that added muscle may be enough), and Ant is legit...who would you guys ideally trade and who would you keep?

If Beasley became a plus defender on top of being basically a 40% 3-point shooter, that contract becomes a major plus. I would personally trade him though, because I believe star 2s need a little more on-ball ability than he's shown. Use him to get Booker though!

You dream big Klomp?

What would be your plan for Booker?

The question was posed "if this happened"....so I answered it.

I believe stars run this league. I still believe this is a longterm goal of the front office, just as Russell was. I don't think the dream is dead, even if it takes a year or two to happen.

[Dewey]

When a Harden trade goes down.... gotta hunch we are gonna be a part of the side-show aka as the 3-4th team.

[SO_MONEY]

If Josh Okogie improves to an average three point shooter, Culver builds some confidence and improves as a shooter in a simpler role, Beas improves to be a plus defender (that added muscle may be enough), and Ant is legit...who would you guys ideally trade and who would you keep?

I would trade Okogie right now, or between now and the deadline anyways. I don't think we are going to re-sign him and he is easily the lowest ceiling player of our guard group. And waiting until next year will drastically decrease his value. I think this is the obvious choice and there are no imperatives to trade any of the others short of a substantial deal materializing.

[Norseman79]

If Josh Okogie improves to an average three point shooter, Culver builds some confidence and improves as a shooter in a simpler role, Beas improves to be a plus defender (that added muscle may be enough), and Ant is legit...who would you guys ideally trade and who would you keep?

I would trade Okogie right now, or between now and the deadline anyways. I don't think we are going to re-sign him and he is easily the lowest ceiling player of our guard group. And waiting until next year will drastically decrease his value. I think this is the obvious choice and there are no imperatives to trade any of the others short of a substantial deal materializing.

So who would be some potentially available 3's or 4's that are about equal to Okoge? Preferably in that 6'8-6'10 range that could guard 3-5

[SO_MONEY]

If Josh Okogie improves to an average three point shooter, Culver builds some confidence and improves as a shooter in a simpler role, Beas improves to be a plus defender (that added muscle may be enough), and Ant is legit...who would you guys ideally trade and who would you keep?

I would trade Okogie right now, or between now and the deadline anyways. I don't think we are going to re-sign him and he is easily the lowest ceiling player of our guard group. And waiting until next year will drastically decrease his value. I think this is the obvious choice and there are no imperatives to trade any of the others short of a substantial deal materializing.

So who would be some potentially available 3's or 4's that are about equal to Okoge? Preferably in that 6'8-6'10 range that could guard 3-5

I don't think we trade him to bring in a player unless it is in combination with another player in a 2 for 1. The only player that really fits the bill at this point is Layman. If we wait to the deadline, that probably doesn't change with more players being available to combine, but a 1 for 1 deal would be more possible. Right now the only reason to trade Josh is to open up a roster spot. He probably gets you a 2nd and flexibility to add both JMac and RHJ. If we choose to forego one of the two or bring JMac back on a two-way deal no real reason to move quickly. The hope of course is we could find a team to give up a first.

[Klomp]

If Josh Okogie improves to an average three point shooter, Culver builds some confidence and improves as a shooter in a simpler role, Beas improves to be a plus defender (that added muscle may be enough), and Ant is legit...who would you guys ideally trade and who would you keep?

I would trade Okogie right now, or between now and the deadline anyways. I don't think we are going to re-sign him and he is easily the lowest ceiling player of our guard group. And waiting until next year will drastically decrease his value. I think this is the obvious choice and there are no imperatives to trade any of the others short of a substantial deal materializing.

I disagree with basically all of this.

[shrink]

Lol! I 100% agree with all of it, and SO MONEY’s next post too!

I guess that’s why we have discussion boards!

[minimus]

If Josh Okogie improves to an average three point shooter, Culver builds some confidence and improves as a shooter in a simpler role, Beas improves to be a plus defender (that added muscle may be enough), and Ant is legit...who would you guys ideally trade and who would you keep?

I would trade Okogie right now, or between now and the deadline anyways. I don't think we are going to re-sign him and he is easily the lowest ceiling player of our guard group. And waiting until next year will drastically decrease his value. I think this is the obvious choice and there are no imperatives to trade any of the others short of a substantial deal materializing.

So who would be some potentially available 3's or 4's that are about equal to Okoge? Preferably in that 6'8-6'10 range that could guard 3-5

No one.

[Klomp]

Lol! I 100% agree with all of it, and SO MONEY’s next post too!

I guess that’s why we have discussion boards!

I don't believe it's a coincidence that Okogie is one of two players not brought in by Rosas....Towns being the other. Not saying he's on Towns' level of course, but I do believe they view him as an important piece for the franchise.

[RiRuHoops]

If the plan for Okogie to be played vs PFs, then I'd see what pick he can fetch and just play RHJ there who is an actual PF.

[Jedzz]

What kind of team would Harden/Dlo/Towns be? Anyone else would be on the table if trying to make that move so just considering those three players, I wonder what it would look like.

Harden hasn't had a Towns who himself is a 40-41% threat and can play inside or outside. Dlo seems like he could play on and off ball with Harden and can shoot just fine, unlike recent Rocket's team issues. It really seems like a pick your poisen team that opponents would struggle with. All three can/could take the lead in any given game or possession.

If he wants a chance at competing it might take this kind of left field attempt people don't see coming together. Would it honestly be any better in say Philly? They are more cap strapped than Wolves and probably have less young enticing assets to trade.