I changed my mind, the Gobert trade was a win-win for both teams

[life_saver]

Just Kessler, Vando and Keyonte George are worth more than 30+ y/o Gobert on more than max money, and they still owe 3 more 1sts and a swap.

Kessler and Vando are decent rotation guys, we don't know yet with Keyonte George, and yeah Gobert's contract isn't great but he still makes a real defensive impact whenever he's on the court and to be honest that's just more valuable than any number of replaceable role guys.

If Keyonte becomes an all star level talent or if they draft a guy like that with one of the other Minnesota picks then you can make a case for the Jazz but I don't see a bunch of okay rotation guys ever being the winning side of the trade when you're sending out an actually impactful player.

It isn't about Keyonte the player though, it's the 16th pick in deep draft, Wolves could've taken Whitmore there, or anyone else they liked.
Is Gobert at that age and on that contract worth mortgaging your future? Was there demand in the market for Gobert to pay this price? I personally think the answer is no, I don't think it was close.
Remember Wolves gave up the 7th pick in 21 draft to replace Wiggins with D'Lo, these trades backfire sometimes and risk is integral part to pricing, when they made that trade, they couldn't imagine it would've been this pick.
What's funny about the transactions that Cavs were in a better situation when they traded for Mitchell than Wolves trading for Gobert, and it looks the exact opposite now.

Wolves didn't really mortgage the future...Wolves key core at the point of trade was Ant/KAT/Jaden. They kept all 3 of them (2 of them are 22, 23 yrs old) and all 3 of them are locked in contracts atleast until 2028. If Wolves included Jaden in the trade, then draft compensation would have been less but instead Wolves felt they had the right core and rather wanted to include 1-2 additional draft picks over including Jaden in the trade. I would have agreed with the mortgaging future part if the core was an old one like when Nets traded with Celtics in 2013 but Ant is 22, Jaden is 23 and KAT just turned 28 last month

[Harry Garris]

Just Kessler, Vando and Keyonte George are worth more than 30+ y/o Gobert on more than max money, and they still owe 3 more 1sts and a swap.

Kessler and Vando are decent rotation guys, we don't know yet with Keyonte George, and yeah Gobert's contract isn't great but he still makes a real defensive impact whenever he's on the court and to be honest that's just more valuable than any number of replaceable role guys.

If Keyonte becomes an all star level talent or if they draft a guy like that with one of the other Minnesota picks then you can make a case for the Jazz but I don't see a bunch of okay rotation guys ever being the winning side of the trade when you're sending out an actually impactful player.

It isn't about Keyonte the player though, it's the 16th pick in deep draft, Wolves could've taken Whitmore there, or anyone else they liked.
Is Gobert at that age and on that contract worth mortgaging your future? Was there demand in the market for Gobert to pay this price? I personally think the answer is no, I don't think it was close.
Remember Wolves gave up the 7th pick in 21 draft to replace Wiggins with D'Lo, these trades backfire sometimes and risk is integral part to pricing, when they made that trade, they couldn't imagine it would've been this pick.
What's funny about the transactions that Cavs were in a better situation when they traded for Mitchell than Wolves trading for Gobert, and it looks the exact opposite now.

I'm not denying that the Gobert trade was risky. Giving up young assets is always a risk, there's just more risk associated with traded 4 first round picks than trading one, but in either case you could be giving up a future all star talent.

But in reality this is all about probabilities. And when you're talking winners and losers of a trade in my mind that's not about risk assessment it's about results. As of right now the results are inconclusive.

[shrink]

It isn't about Keyonte the player though, it's the 16th pick in deep draft, Wolves could've taken Whitmore there, or anyone else they liked.
Is Gobert at that age and on that contract worth mortgaging your future? Was there demand in the market for Gobert to pay this price? I personally think the answer is no, I don't think it was close.
Remember Wolves gave up the 7th pick in 21 draft to replace Wiggins with D'Lo, these trades backfire sometimes and risk is integral part to pricing, when they made that trade, they couldn't imagine it would've been this pick.
What's funny about the transactions that Cavs were in a better situation when they traded for Mitchell than Wolves trading for Gobert, and it looks the exact opposite now.

There are several things in here that I don’t see the same way. In reverse order:

1. The DLo trade was done by Gersson Rosas, not Tim Connelly, who thought Russell could be a “mini-Harden.” I’ve never liked the deal, but I will say that Wiggins at the time was considered one of the three worst deals in the NBA, and I feel he wouldn’t have improved if he stayed in MIN, further dooming the franchise.

2. Was their market demand? Perhaps the price was more than the other 28 teams would pay, but Ainge was under no obligation to trade Gobert. He could have run it back with Mitchell, and built around those two guys, or at a minimum, waited for other offers down the line. I think Ainge came in and was willing to tank, but not obligated to.

3. Is it worth it to mortgage your future? First, remember that MIN has its pick or pick swaps in odd years. They also have players they could trade to reclaim picks, and now that includes Gobert. And they have young players like Ant, Jaden and Naz and others, whose development probably impacts the Wolves future more than some future picks.

But “worth it” means you need to define what’s a win. If they get a championship, of course it’s worth it. But Tim Connelly has said many times that it’s worth it to put Ant in games that matter early in his career, to help him develop (and I would add, want to stay with the franchise). It’s worth it to have the community not see the team as continual losers. It’s worth it to see the franchise’s value increase 72% in a year. And it’s worth it if a successful, profitable team can get public support for a new stadium. This isn’t all Gobert, but how many future picks would an owner of any franchise give up to get those things, championship or not?

[Wolveswin]

Minnesota went all in and needs to win a ring in the next 5 years to justify trading away 5 years of picks/swap

I don’t think a ring is only barometer in which to measure trade. A poll existed and that wasn’t the majority - I don’t care to hunt down poll.

For example, if Wolves have a ton of success but don’t win a chip while Jazz flounder. Wolves win trade. Both of those are subjective - so will be in eye of beholder.

[Mavrelous]

There are several things in here that I don’t see the same way. In reverse order:

1. The DLo trade was done by Gersson Rosas, not Tim Connelly, who thought Russell could be a “mini-Harden.” I’ve never liked the deal, but I will say that Wiggins at the time was considered one of the three worst deals in the NBA, and I feel he wouldn’t have improved if he stayed in MIN, further dooming the franchise.

2. Was their market demand? Perhaps the price was more than the other 28 teams would pay, but Ainge was under no obligation to trade Gobert. He could have run it back with Mitchell, and built around those two guys, or at a minimum, waited for other offers down the line. I think Ainge came in and was willing to tank, but not obligated to.

3. Is it worth it to mortgage your future? First, remember that MIN has its pick or pick swaps in odd years. They also have players they could trade to reclaim picks, and now that includes Gobert. And they have young players like Ant, Jaden and Naz and others, whose development probably impacts the Wolves future more than some future picks.

But “worth it” means you need to define what’s a win. If they get a championship, of course it’s worth it. But Tim Connelly has said many times that it’s worth it to put Ant in games that matter early in his career, to help him develop (and I would add, want to stay with the franchise). It’s worth it to have the community not see the team as continual losers. It’s worth it to see the franchise’s value increase 72% in a year. And it’s worth it if a successful, profitable team can get public support for a new stadium. This isn’t all Gobert, but how many future picks would an owner of any franchise give up to get those things, championship or not?

I'll be more than happy if Wolves wins it all, I love seeing new faces and I like Edwards a lot, I also like the team setup, they are missing minor 8th man chucker to complete a contending roster.
My point is that if I find a house worth 0.5 million that fit my needs, and pay 1 million for it 0.5 in cash and 0.5 in mortgage I wouldn't call it a good deal, but if I watch my children grow there and go to good schools and I enjoy good neighbors I'll think less of what I paid, which is what's important in the end.

[Ritzo]

Imagine if the trade didn't happen?
Twolves would've been a mediocre defensive team, they would've been fighting for a play-in spot. Ant wouldn't have been happy with the organization and would've been demanding a trade now.