ESPN Reporting Trade with Griz is close

Wingman · Post #1 » by **Wingman** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:18 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2010 ... id=5315275

Obviosly wrong, but we better not trade 16 for two late picks

allweneedisLOVE · Post #2 » by **allweneedisLOVE** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:18 pm

Yea this is terrible if true.. just have to see what else Kahn is doing

MattyP · Post #3 » by **MattyP** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:19 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2010/news/story?id=5315275

first off, lol @ the misreporting.

Second off, something doesn't seem right with Kahn's philosophy and trading the 16 for 25 and 28. Why would the Wolves want to do that?

EDIT: sorry for the duplicate, go ahead and delete.

Post #4 » by **ReasonablySober** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:20 pm

I like it for the Wolves. There isn't a huge difference between a guy you could get at #16 vs someone at #28.

Krapinsky · Post #5 » by **Krapinsky** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:20 pm

That's a head scratcher. Maybe we're trading up to 12 though?

MattyP · Post #6 » by **MattyP** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:21 pm

Yeah, something doesn't seem right with this.

Krapinsky · Post #7 » by **Krapinsky** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:21 pm

DrugBust wrote:I like it for the Wolves. There isn't a huge difference between a guy you could get at #16 vs someone at #28.

It would give us three picks in the 20's, which makes no sense.

Post #8 » by **Worm Guts** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:21 pm

DrugBust wrote:I like it for the Wolves. There isn't a huge difference between a guy you could get at #16 vs someone at #28.

Even if you believe that, the Wolves don't need more picks.

Post #9 » by **The J Rocka** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:22 pm

Yea I hope those are more bargaining chips for trades to come.

If we plan to take players there and NOT trade up for George or Henry, I'll really be pissed at this trade

Howler21 · Post #10 » by **Howler21** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:22 pm

I have never been this confused before a draft EVER!

Devilzsidewalk · Post #11 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:23 pm

then we can trade them all for 3 million a pop, everybody wins. By everybody I mean Glen Taylor.

funkatron101 · Post #12 » by **funkatron101** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:23 pm

KAHHHHHN!!!

He's working everyone up in a tizzy.

wildvikeswolves · Post #13 » by **wildvikeswolves** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:24 pm

so 12 for 16 and 23?

Howler21 · Post #14 » by **Howler21** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:27 pm

I really want to know what else we could possibly be linked to in the next few days. Someone has declared a rumor bombing on us.

Post #15 » by **ReasonablySober** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:27 pm

Worm Guts wrote:
DrugBust wrote:I like it for the Wolves. There isn't a huge difference between a guy you could get at #16 vs someone at #28.

Even if you believe that, the Wolves don't need more picks.

Then give 'em to us and take the #15.

MattyP · Post #16 » by **MattyP** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:28 pm

wildvikeswolves wrote:so 12 for 16 and 23?

Yeah, but why would Memphis want picks 16, 23, 25, and 28?

AQuintus · Post #17 » by **AQuintus** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:29 pm

wildvikeswolves wrote:so 12 for 16 and 23?

That's the only Memphis-Minnesota pick swap deal that would make sense to me. Combine our picks to move up for Paul George.

The deal reported doesn't make any sense at all.

moss_is_1 · Post #18 » by **moss_is_1** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:29 pm

wildvikeswolves wrote:so 12 for 16 and 23?

That'd make more sense. Maybe this reporter is high and just got confused with the picks but had the trading up on our part right. #12 would put us ahead of Houston, Milwaukee, and Toronto who may take George or Henry.

MNRunLeft · Post #19 » by **MNRunLeft** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:31 pm

If it's 16 for 25 and 28 I'll be very confused. Atleast if we had stayed at 16 we'd have a shot at George or Henry but with 23, 25 and 28 I'm just not sure what they would be thinking.

Wingman · Post #20 » by **Wingman** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:31 pm

Kahn promised he will not sell any picks at the favors workout