Trade Talk (Part Seven)

[SO_MONEY]

McDaniels kills the deal. No interest in trading McDaniels for Simmons at all. Simmons at $35mil isn't worth McDaniels at $2mil.

Replace McDaniels with Reid. That is fair value. If we give up McDaniels we are the team getting fleeced.

McDaniels is becoming so over rated it is ridiculous.

I dont want to move McDaniels in a Simmons trade either because I see a lineup of Dlo/Ant/Mcdaniels/Simmons/Towns as being extremely well balanced with the potential of being an elite unit. McDaniels low usage and defensive versatility are big factors in that balance but hes not irreplaceable, hes a role player. Role players are great and all, you need well fitting ones if you really want to succeed. Drop a Jae Crowder into that slot and the outlook of that team doesnt look much different and hes so special hes been on 7 teams in 9 seasons.

Quit pretending hes a future star or magical unicorn ffs, hes a low usage 3+D wing. In the end he shouldnt prevent us from adding a legit floor raiser who is elite in multiple facets of the game. Again, I dont offer him up and fight hard to retain him just so we have that hole filled, but hes not some deal breaker.

Simmons is the overrated one, he is making $35mil on average...the extra couple of points (this year anyways), the extra couple/few of rebounds and assists (for the foreseeable future) are not worth $33mil and they are comparable defenders, like it or not. Simmons is the replaceable one, not McDaniels. I don't know how you don't get that. You don't trade McDaniels because out of the two he is the one that is next to impossible to replace.

And stop pretending Simmons is a star because some subjective, political process has given him accolades.

[Baseline81]

McDaniels kills the deal. No interest in trading McDaniels for Simmons at all. Simmons at $35mil isn't worth McDaniels at $2mil.

Replace McDaniels with Reid. That is fair value. If we give up McDaniels we are the team getting fleeced.

I don't think posters fully grasp the impact Simmons' contract would have on the Wolves.

Here is an example of what others think of his contract (10th worst for 2021-22 season):
https://fadeawayworld.net/nba/ranking-the-10-worst-contracts-for-the-2021-22-nba-season

Granted, it's an opinion piece, but several on this board believe something similar.

[SO_MONEY]

McDaniels kills the deal. No interest in trading McDaniels for Simmons at all. Simmons at $35mil isn't worth McDaniels at $2mil.

Replace McDaniels with Reid. That is fair value. If we give up McDaniels we are the team getting fleeced.

I don't think posters fully grasp the impact Simmons' contract would have on the Wolves.

Here is an example of what others think of his contract (10th worst for 2021-22 season):
https://fadeawayworld.net/nba/ranking-the-10-worst-contracts-for-the-2021-22-nba-season

Granted, it's an opinion piece, but several on this board believe something similar.

It is a Baaaaaaddd contract, still even I would give value for it, largely given we can only create about $13mil in space next year, best case and tacking on his contract does less harm than it otherwise might for some teams as we might not use that flexibility and achieve equal results. That said no team is giving up a ton to be saddled with it.

[VeritasTri]

Simmons is the overrated one, he is making $35mil on average...the extra couple of points (this year anyways), the extra couple/few of rebounds and assists (for the foreseeable future) are not worth $33mil and they are comparable defenders, like it or not. Simmons is the replaceable one, not McDaniels. I don't know how you don't get that. You don't trade McDaniels because out of the two he is the one that is next to impossible to replace.

And stop pretending Simmons is a star because some subjective, political process has given him accolades.

The last 4 years Chris Paul has averaged 17/5/8 on teams that are winning ~50 games
The last 4 years Ben Simmons has averaged 16/8/8 on teams that are winning ~50 games

last year Jaden Mcdaniels averaged 6.8/3.7/1.1 on a team that won 23 games.

Jaden Mcdaniels > Chris Paul because Paul only scores a couple extra points and a few rebounds/assists and are comparable defenders.

You are embarrassing.

You are comparing an extremely low usage non ball handler complementary player to a legitimate creator and impact player. Your justification for this is pointing out that Simmons got paid according to the impact on winning he has proven to have while McDaniels is on a rookie deal.

Jaden McDaniels is nothing but a spot up shooter offensively, hes a 5th option after thought who could be replaced by countless other players without any negative impact. His biggest value is his defensive ability/versatility, and hes not even as good as Simmons in that regard.

[Neeva]

Simmons is the overrated one, he is making $35mil on average...the extra couple of points (this year anyways), the extra couple/few of rebounds and assists (for the foreseeable future) are not worth $33mil and they are comparable defenders, like it or not. Simmons is the replaceable one, not McDaniels. I don't know how you don't get that. You don't trade McDaniels because out of the two he is the one that is next to impossible to replace.

And stop pretending Simmons is a star because some subjective, political process has given him accolades.

The last 4 years Chris Paul has averaged 17/5/8 on teams that are winning ~50 games
The last 4 years Ben Simmons has averaged 16/8/8 on teams that are winning ~50 games

last year Jaden Mcdaniels averaged 6.8/3.7/1.1 on a team that won 23 games.

Jaden Mcdaniels > Chris Paul because Paul only scores a couple extra points and a few rebounds/assists and are comparable defenders.

You are embarrassing.

You are comparing an extremely low usage non ball handler complementary player to a legitimate creator and impact player. Your justification for this is pointing out that Simmons got paid according to the impact on winning he has proven to have while McDaniels is on a rookie deal.

Jaden McDaniels is nothing but a spot up shooter offensively, hes a 5th option after thought who could be replaced by countless other players without any negative impact. His biggest value is his defensive ability/versatility, and hes not even as good as Simmons in that regard.

You have zero foresight and will look like an even bigger imbecile in a few years.

[VeritasTri]

Simmons is the overrated one, he is making $35mil on average...the extra couple of points (this year anyways), the extra couple/few of rebounds and assists (for the foreseeable future) are not worth $33mil and they are comparable defenders, like it or not. Simmons is the replaceable one, not McDaniels. I don't know how you don't get that. You don't trade McDaniels because out of the two he is the one that is next to impossible to replace.

And stop pretending Simmons is a star because some subjective, political process has given him accolades.

The last 4 years Chris Paul has averaged 17/5/8 on teams that are winning ~50 games
The last 4 years Ben Simmons has averaged 16/8/8 on teams that are winning ~50 games

last year Jaden Mcdaniels averaged 6.8/3.7/1.1 on a team that won 23 games.

Jaden Mcdaniels > Chris Paul because Paul only scores a couple extra points and a few rebounds/assists and are comparable defenders.

You are embarrassing.

You are comparing an extremely low usage non ball handler complementary player to a legitimate creator and impact player. Your justification for this is pointing out that Simmons got paid according to the impact on winning he has proven to have while McDaniels is on a rookie deal.

Jaden McDaniels is nothing but a spot up shooter offensively, hes a 5th option after thought who could be replaced by countless other players without any negative impact. His biggest value is his defensive ability/versatility, and hes not even as good as Simmons in that regard.

You have zero foresight and will look like an imbecile in a few years.

Feel free to address anything I said and give your reasoning for your disagreement. I know people like so_money and yourself arent the type to actually expound on something and prefer to make moronic statements based on feelings, but embarrassing you is so much more fun when you actually attempt to put forth an argument.

[shrink]

This article isn’t alone. There are several posters, and several national sites, that think Ben Simmons is overpaid. I posted one about a week ago. I would add that Nate Duncan doesn’t have any team alliegences, and he focuses on CBA and the NBA market. His view got dismissed immediately in this thread from several posters who disagreed.

I think there is room for disagreement on the issue. But that doesn’t mean you have to call people you disagree with morons or imbeciles.

[SO_MONEY]

This article isn’t alone. There are several posters, and several national sites, that think Ben Simmons is overpaid. I posted one about a week ago. I would add that Nate Duncan doesn’t have any team alliegences, and he focuses on CBA and the NBA market. His view got dismissed immediately in this thread from several posters who disagreed.

I think there is room for disagreement on the issue. But that doesn’t mean you have to call people you disagree with morons or imbeciles.

I agree there is no need for name calling... if you cannot admit Simmons' contract is bad...you are openly advertising what you are.

[Klomp]

I think the problem comes when people aren't willing to admit there is a gray area. There are more than two options here. Contracts aren't just bad or good. Ben Simmons isn't on a good contract, but that doesn't make it a bad contract necessarily.

[SO_MONEY]

I think the problem comes when people aren't willing to admit there is a gray area. There are more than two options here. Contracts aren't just bad or good. Ben Simmons isn't on a good contract, but that doesn't make it a bad contract necessarily.

It is a bad contract. It is not even debatable, there isn't a gray area on this. He is an underperforming player on a MAX contract. While he isn't the worst contract he is up there. He is a good player, paid like he is a great player. It is a bad contract.

I have seen a poster or two act like Simmons is a bad player, there is issue to take with that, but posters who act like calling something for what it is, i.e. that Simmons is a bad contract is somehow equal to calling him a bad player...this is also a problem. That is the gray area, that a player can be good and a bad contract at the same time.

The second part is understanding that bad contracts, be the player good or not has an affect on trade value.

[thinktank]

What is “bad”? Define it.

Is it the same as negative value?

Those are different things.

It’s getting into semantics.

The question is what can he bring to us?

He can make us much better.

[winforlose]

I think the bigger issue with Simmons is he is a bad fit. Even if his defense is stellar (debatable,) and his upside is incredible (still hasn’t learned to shoot,) he just doesn’t fit with our gameplan. MCD is a guy who can hit the corner 3 and on occasion take it to the basket. Simmons is a guy who needs to go inside because he cannot play outside. The issue is that KAT likes to post up or go inside and with Simmons clogging the lane this is much more difficult. Simmons lack of mid range also makes pick and roll more challenging when he is not the roller. Also, there is the question of what we can do with the money. Simmons ties up 33 plus million this year and 35 next year. You can get multiple rotation players for that money and while Simmons might get you X wins when healthy, one injury takes that away. 2 or 3 value players like Beasley who you need to lose to get Simmons spread out the injury risk. If Beasley goes down that is 15 million on the bench instead of 33. We already have our stars in KAT and Dlo, with Ant becoming a third (hopefully.) What we need is bigs who can shoot from distance and play defense. Simmons only meets one of those two criteria.

[thinktank]

That’s a very good argument.

[KGdaBom]

McDaniels kills the deal. No interest in trading McDaniels for Simmons at all. Simmons at $35mil isn't worth McDaniels at $2mil.

Replace McDaniels with Reid. That is fair value. If we give up McDaniels we are the team getting fleeced.

McDaniels is becoming so over rated it is ridiculous.

I dont want to move McDaniels in a Simmons trade either because I see a lineup of Dlo/Ant/Mcdaniels/Simmons/Towns as being extremely well balanced with the potential of being an elite unit. McDaniels low usage and defensive versatility are big factors in that balance but hes not irreplaceable, hes a role player. Role players are great and all, you need well fitting ones if you really want to succeed. Drop a Jae Crowder into that slot and the outlook of that team doesnt look much different and hes so special hes been on 7 teams in 9 seasons.

Quit pretending hes a future star or magical unicorn ffs, hes a low usage 3+D wing. In the end he shouldnt prevent us from adding a legit floor raiser who is elite in multiple facets of the game. Again, I dont offer him up and fight hard to retain him just so we have that hole filled, but hes not some deal breaker.

Simmons is the overrated one, he is making $35mil on average...the extra couple of points (this year anyways), the extra couple/few of rebounds and assists (for the foreseeable future) are not worth $33mil and they are comparable defenders, like it or not. Simmons is the replaceable one, not McDaniels. I don't know how you don't get that. You don't trade McDaniels because out of the two he is the one that is next to impossible to replace.

And stop pretending Simmons is a star because some subjective, political process has given him accolades.

I suppose since Simmons makes 17 times as much as McDaniels you expect him to score 17 times as much and get 17 times the assists, rebounds, blocks and steals and have a 17 times larger PER right.

[KGdaBom]

Simmons is the overrated one, he is making $35mil on average...the extra couple of points (this year anyways), the extra couple/few of rebounds and assists (for the foreseeable future) are not worth $33mil and they are comparable defenders, like it or not. Simmons is the replaceable one, not McDaniels. I don't know how you don't get that. You don't trade McDaniels because out of the two he is the one that is next to impossible to replace.

And stop pretending Simmons is a star because some subjective, political process has given him accolades.

The last 4 years Chris Paul has averaged 17/5/8 on teams that are winning ~50 games
The last 4 years Ben Simmons has averaged 16/8/8 on teams that are winning ~50 games

last year Jaden Mcdaniels averaged 6.8/3.7/1.1 on a team that won 23 games.

Jaden Mcdaniels > Chris Paul because Paul only scores a couple extra points and a few rebounds/assists and are comparable defenders.

You are embarrassing.

You are comparing an extremely low usage non ball handler complementary player to a legitimate creator and impact player. Your justification for this is pointing out that Simmons got paid according to the impact on winning he has proven to have while McDaniels is on a rookie deal.

Jaden McDaniels is nothing but a spot up shooter offensively, hes a 5th option after thought who could be replaced by countless other players without any negative impact. His biggest value is his defensive ability/versatility, and hes not even as good as Simmons in that regard.

You have zero foresight and will look like an even bigger imbecile in a few years.

Neeva calling people imbecile's for not thinking McDaniels will be a star? REALLY???????????????????????????
He might become a star in a very loose sense of the word, but people not believing that doesn't make them imbeciles.

[KGdaBom]

This article isn’t alone. There are several posters, and several national sites, that think Ben Simmons is overpaid. I posted one about a week ago. I would add that Nate Duncan doesn’t have any team alliegences, and he focuses on CBA and the NBA market. His view got dismissed immediately in this thread from several posters who disagreed.

I think there is room for disagreement on the issue. But that doesn’t mean you have to call people you disagree with morons or imbeciles.

Thank you.

[KGdaBom]

I think the problem comes when people aren't willing to admit there is a gray area. There are more than two options here. Contracts aren't just bad or good. Ben Simmons isn't on a good contract, but that doesn't make it a bad contract necessarily.

It is a bad contract. It is not even debatable, there isn't a gray area on this. He is an underperforming player on a MAX contract. While he isn't the worst contract he is up there. He is a good player, paid like he is a great player. It is a bad contract.

I have seen a poster or two act like Simmons is a bad player, there is issue to take with that, but posters who act like calling something for what it is, i.e. that Simmons is a bad contract is somehow equal to calling him a bad player...this is also a problem. That is the gray area, that a player can be good and a bad contract at the same time.

The second part is understanding that bad contracts, be the player good or not has an affect on trade value.

Simmons bad contract???????????? No way.

[SO_MONEY]

McDaniels is becoming so over rated it is ridiculous.

I dont want to move McDaniels in a Simmons trade either because I see a lineup of Dlo/Ant/Mcdaniels/Simmons/Towns as being extremely well balanced with the potential of being an elite unit. McDaniels low usage and defensive versatility are big factors in that balance but hes not irreplaceable, hes a role player. Role players are great and all, you need well fitting ones if you really want to succeed. Drop a Jae Crowder into that slot and the outlook of that team doesnt look much different and hes so special hes been on 7 teams in 9 seasons.

Quit pretending hes a future star or magical unicorn ffs, hes a low usage 3+D wing. In the end he shouldnt prevent us from adding a legit floor raiser who is elite in multiple facets of the game. Again, I dont offer him up and fight hard to retain him just so we have that hole filled, but hes not some deal breaker.

Simmons is the overrated one, he is making $35mil on average...the extra couple of points (this year anyways), the extra couple/few of rebounds and assists (for the foreseeable future) are not worth $33mil and they are comparable defenders, like it or not. Simmons is the replaceable one, not McDaniels. I don't know how you don't get that. You don't trade McDaniels because out of the two he is the one that is next to impossible to replace.

And stop pretending Simmons is a star because some subjective, political process has given him accolades.

I suppose since Simmons makes 17 times as much as McDaniels you expect him to score 17 times as much and get 17 times the assists, rebounds, blocks and steals and have a 17 times larger PER right.

Nope.

[Norseman79]

I think the bigger issue with Simmons is he is a bad fit. Even if his defense is stellar (debatable,) and his upside is incredible (still hasn’t learned to shoot,) he just doesn’t fit with our gameplan. MCD is a guy who can hit the corner 3 and on occasion take it to the basket. Simmons is a guy who needs to go inside because he cannot play outside. The issue is that KAT likes to post up or go inside and with Simmons clogging the lane this is much more difficult. Simmons lack of mid range also makes pick and roll more challenging when he is not the roller. Also, there is the question of what we can do with the money. Simmons ties up 33 plus million this year and 35 next year. You can get multiple rotation players for that money and while Simmons might get you X wins when healthy, one injury takes that away. 2 or 3 value players like Beasley who you need to lose to get Simmons spread out the injury risk. If Beasley goes down that is 15 million on the bench instead of 33. We already have our stars in KAT and Dlo, with Ant becoming a third (hopefully.) What we need is bigs who can shoot from distance and play defense. Simmons only meets one of those two criteria.

You lost me when you said Kat likes playing on the block. Kat would gladly chuck all day. For all I care, play Simmons at the 5 on offense and Kat the 4.

[SO_MONEY]

I think the problem comes when people aren't willing to admit there is a gray area. There are more than two options here. Contracts aren't just bad or good. Ben Simmons isn't on a good contract, but that doesn't make it a bad contract necessarily.

It is a bad contract. It is not even debatable, there isn't a gray area on this. He is an underperforming player on a MAX contract. While he isn't the worst contract he is up there. He is a good player, paid like he is a great player. It is a bad contract.

I have seen a poster or two act like Simmons is a bad player, there is issue to take with that, but posters who act like calling something for what it is, i.e. that Simmons is a bad contract is somehow equal to calling him a bad player...this is also a problem. That is the gray area, that a player can be good and a bad contract at the same time.

The second part is understanding that bad contracts, be the player good or not has an affect on trade value.

Simmons bad contract???????????? No way.

Whatever. All the necessary points have been made. If you believe this or can't admit he is a bad contract, I have made it clear how that makes people look and worse that the a willfully doing it and basically bragging about it...