We should have kept...

Moderators: NO-KG-AI, klomp44, revprodeji

Regional RealGM Forum Links
Minnesota Twins | Minnesota Vikings | Minnesota Wild

We should have kept...

Postby Foye on Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:30 am

Ty Lawson and Jonny Flynn and let them battle it out :lol:

I know we didn't know if Rubio was coming over or not but we should have kept him until the Rubio situation was solved.

Lets just hope Flynn turns out to be better than Lawson otherwise we'll be pissed :lol:
Foye
Senior
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:43 am
Location: Frankfurt

Re: We should have kept...

Postby funkatron101 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:58 am

Foye wrote:Ty Lawson and Jonny Flynn and let them battle it out :lol:

I know we didn't know if Rubio was coming over or not but we should have kept him until the Rubio situation was solved.

Lets just hope Flynn turns out to be better than Lawson otherwise we'll be pissed :lol:

I believe the Wolves agreed to the trade with Denver prior to knowing that Lawson would still be available.
User avatar
funkatron101
Bench Warmer
 
Posts: 1384
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: St. Paul

Re: We should have kept...

Postby Calinks on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:03 am

I'm just waiting for us to be one of those lucky teams who wind up getting a major steal. I was watching the Bucks game and they were talking about how Milwaukee finally caught a break and how their franchise was so deserving to luck out with Jennings at 10. I'm thinking, yea, the Bucks have kind of been in the dumps so they deserve a break but come on, the wolves have had way worse luck. At least the Bucks have gotten all-star caliber players like Redd and Ray Allen. They also landed a top 3 pick!
Image

nWo- New Wolves Order
User avatar
Calinks
RealGM
 
Posts: 10790
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:31 pm

Re: We should have kept...

Postby Worm Guts on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:04 am

funkatron101 wrote:
I believe the Wolves agreed to the trade with Denver prior to knowing that Lawson would still be available.



I hate that excuse. Trading a pick before you know who's available isn't a viable excuse for missing out on a good player.
A viable excuse is that it would be ridiculous to draft 3 PG in the first round, and we got a good return.
Last edited by Worm Guts on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Worm Guts
Forum Mod
 
Posts: 9165
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:56 pm

Re: We should have kept...

Postby funkatron101 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:08 am

Calinks wrote:I'm just waiting for us to be one of those lucky teams who wind up getting a major steal. I was watching the Bucks game and they were talking about how Milwaukee finally caught a break and how their franchise was so deserving to luck out with Jennings at 10. I'm thinking, yea, the Bucks have kind of been in the dumps so they deserve a break but come on, the wolves have had way worse luck. At least the Bucks have gotten all-star caliber players like Redd and Ray Allen. They also landed a top 3 pick!

Jennings seems like a punk. I'll take a solid-performing, good-character guy over someone with higher stats and a thuggy attitude any day.
User avatar
funkatron101
Bench Warmer
 
Posts: 1384
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: St. Paul

Re: We should have kept...

Postby funkatron101 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:18 am

Worm Guts wrote:
funkatron101 wrote:
I believe the Wolves agreed to the trade with Denver prior to knowing that Lawson would still be available.



I hate that excuse. Trading a pick before you know available isn't a viable excuse for missing out on a good player.
A viable excuse is that it would be ridiculous to draft 3 PG in the first round, and we got a good return.

I didn't really mean to use it as an excuse. It's just one of the things we have heard. I don't know when the terms of the trade were agreed upon. Certainly the draft didn't shake out like Kahn had thought it would. Perhaps the deal was made hours earlier and Kahn's draft board had Lawson out of reach. Or maybe Kahn didn't think Lawson was worth it?

The reasons you gave certainly are a good excuse.
User avatar
funkatron101
Bench Warmer
 
Posts: 1384
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: St. Paul

Re: We should have kept...

Postby PeeDee on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:41 am

Khan knew he was going to draft Flynn. When Rubio fell, he had to take him. Getting and keeping Lawson at that point is silly. The only player that was woth taking there was Earl Clark, and he was off the board. It was a good trade. Just wait till we get a top 5 pick out of it.
I'd like to dedicate this sig to David Robinson and Larry Bird and the smart GMs that took a chance on them even though they had to wait for them.
User avatar
PeeDee
Rookie
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:29 pm

Re: We should have kept...

Postby Mattya on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:46 am

I would still do the trade today. That charlotte pick has a really good chance at being a higher pick in a deeper draft.
Mattya
Junior
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:54 pm

Re: We should have kept...

Postby C.lupus on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:59 am

Flynn is gonna be better than Lawson anyway.
Image
The best part of waking up is C.lupus in your cup
User avatar
C.lupus
Analyst
 
Posts: 3232
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Sitting on Occam's razor

Re: We should have kept...

Postby Dr.Krapinsky on Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:04 pm

Dumb thread.
BrooklynBulls wrote:Wilson Chandler suckles testicles. Don't let any Knick fan tell you differently. There's streaky, there's very streaky, there's Jamal Crawford, and then there's Wilson Chandler.
User avatar
Dr.Krapinsky
Analyst
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:03 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: We should have kept...

Postby shrink on Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:47 pm

Worm Guts wrote:
funkatron101 wrote:I believe the Wolves agreed to the trade with Denver prior to knowing that Lawson would still be available.

I hate that excuse. Trading a pick before you know who's available isn't a viable excuse for missing out on a good player.
A viable excuse is that it would be ridiculous to draft 3 PG in the first round, and we got a good return.


I certainly agree with the second part. If experts are ripping us for drafting Flynn because it makes Rubio angry and unlikely to come over this year, how would Rubio respond if you drafted Flynn and Lawson? Moreover, is anyone really unhappy that we got Sessions on that cheap deal as a back-up?

I'm starting to hear more people say your first part, particularly after Chalmers last year, but let me give you a different way to think about it. Suppose the other team says, "We'll make the trade for your pick, but only if you do it right now .. before either of us knows the next few picks." Both teams are acquiring risk, and its a managable function. Remember, if we tossed out all those trades where they are done before the teams know what player will be available, we're basicly removing the ability to trade picks. We don't know who we will get with the UTA pick or the CHA pick, or even our own, for that matter. Trading picks always involves uncertainty, and trading one mid-draft is probably the least uncertain of these swaps.
shrink
RealGM
 
Posts: 20024
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:19 pm

Re: We should have kept...

Postby revprodeji on Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:42 pm

We only wanted JJ with that pick. Once he went off the board we moved it for the future first to maintain flexability.
Image
http://www.timetoshop.org
Sports nutrition and more...
User avatar
revprodeji
Forum Mod
 
Posts: 20041
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: USA--land of 1.37 Million abortions per year.

Re: We should have kept...

Postby Worm Guts on Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:45 pm

I'm specifically talking draft day trades. The Wolves knew what players could reasonably be available at 18, and traded the pick for a future 1st rounder where they have no idea who will be available. If the Wolves had really liked someone at 18, it would have made more sense to take the player they know they like, instead of trading the pick and hoping they get the opportunity to take someone they like in the future.
User avatar
Worm Guts
Forum Mod
 
Posts: 9165
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:56 pm

Re: We should have kept...

Postby Winter Wonder on Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:57 pm

Do you think the wolves would have been intersted in Daye with the pick? Not that he has done much at this point, but he was kind of a fit as a long and tall shooting SF. Either way, the trade was a very savy move on our part in my estimation.
Winter Wonder
Pro Prospect
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:22 pm

Re: We should have kept...

Postby shrink on Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:54 pm

Worm Guts wrote:I'm specifically talking draft day trades. The Wolves knew what players could reasonably be available at 18, and traded the pick for a future 1st rounder where they have no idea who will be available. If the Wolves had really liked someone at 18, it would have made more sense to take the player they know they like, instead of trading the pick and hoping they get the opportunity to take someone they like in the future.


No. Let's imagine that we've had eleven picks in the draft and the Wolves draft board goes:

12. Ty Lawson
13. CHA future pick
14. Gerald Henderson
15. Tyler Hansbrough
16. Earl Clark
17. Austin Daye
18. Jrue Holiday

The Wolves have the #18 pick, when DEN says they'll trade the CHA pick right now if they can have #18.

At this point, the Wolves have to look at the other teams in the draft and decide the likelyhood that Ty Lawson is available for them to pick when they get to #18. Now, you may be right that they don't know that Lawson won't be availalable, but if they wait, they miss the chance at CHA's future pick.

If you wait to know who exactly is available at #18, you lose the opportunity costs, which in this case, was the future 1st. I don't think that it makes sense to always wait until you know who exactly will be available.
shrink
RealGM
 
Posts: 20024
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:19 pm

Next

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves