Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    18,414

    Woj on KAT rumors

    https://uproxx.com/dimemag/minnesota...ors-overblown/

    “I think their owner would trade management/the coach before he would trade Karl-Anthony Towns,” Wojnarowski said. “I don’t think they would allow that. I just don’t believe they’d allow that kind of decision. And I don’t know that they’d want to trade him. To answer this first, Minnesota’s bigger issue is not…he’s Karl-Anthony Towns, they’re not moving him, Towns is eligible for his extension this summer. You know Jimmy Butler…it’s more of a question of Andrew Wiggins. That to me would be, if someone was going to get moved — and I’m not saying anyone’s going to get moved — I think Andrew Wiggins is the one you’re going to look at first. Because…you don’t have to make a decision on Towns and Jimmy Butler and one of those guys having to take less on an extension, because you can’t have three [max] guys.”
    Inching back towards the wagon...slowly...


  2. #2
    All I can say is I trust Woj more than Wind Horse.


  3. #3
    Woj makes plenty of sense to me. I'd listen to him.


  4. #4
    It's just logic. The Towns stuff might be real in that Towns and Thibs aren't on the same page, but there's no logical reason to trade Towns.

    Talent wins in the NBA and KAT is a supreme young talent.

    The financial concerns don't make sense as there are always ways to dump a salary like Wiggins if needed.

    The only one who should be nervous about the KAT rumors is Thibs.

    1 members liked this post.

  5. #5
    What I don't like about that report is that it says nothing about removing the other side of the Thibs-Towns problem. Changing which player to trade doesn't address the problem at all.


  6. #6
    Imagine if we had a coach/front office that actually did their jobs. Part of the job description is to reach out to disgruntled players and try and make it better. Make an honest effort to understand each and every player isn't asking too much imo. Everything I've read/heard is that Thibs hates crap like that. Crap as in doing his job.


  7. #7
    The ultimate truth is you can't have 3 max players, unless you are ridiculously profitable and don't mind paying heavy tax installments, i.e. Golden State. For all those reasons, Wiggins needs to be the first shoe to drop. I just don't know if Glen has the foresight to do it. I think Thibs would in a heartbeat but I worry about what return they would get back.


  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by spiker View Post
    What I don't like about that report is that it says nothing about removing the other side of the Thibs-Towns problem. Changing which player to trade doesn't address the problem at all.
    Its all speculation, but he does talk about removing Thibs before they'd trade KAT:

    So it shouldn’t come as a surprise if the Minnesota Timberwolves — which have been the subject of rumors this week regarding Karl-Anthony Towns — would prefer to make a coaching and/or management change before they deal away their franchise center. At least that’s what ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski believes would be the more likely outcome in this scenario, via The Russillo Show.

    “I think their owner would trade management/the coach before he would trade Karl-Anthony Towns,” Wojnarowski said. “I don’t think they would allow that. I just don’t believe they’d allow that kind of decision. And I don’t know that they’d want to trade him. To answer this first, Minnesota’s bigger issue is not…he’s Karl-Anthony Towns, they’re not moving him.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,269
    Taylor is old (and wise) enough to know money (like in swallowing Thibs' contract) is easier to get by than top shelf talent (like in KAT level players)... where things get complicated is when it comes to Jimmy: he is top shelf talent that would go away WITH the money in the equation above! Jimmy is probably Thibs' only leverage in this Mexican standoff!

    Taylor made two mistakes:
    first: giving Thibs too much power for too long for too much money
    second: not allowing him to use the power he had when he wanted to trade Wiggs rather than pay him max.

    Now papa Glen might have to pay for these mistakes. At the end of the day, it's only money...
    Truth is not determined by how many believe it!


  10. #10
    I agree with BBW. Bottom line is Glen, over and above firing Thibs, needs to spend money in luxury tax. He's got it to spend it. Try to make the best deal you can with KAT and Butler. They had to know this would happen when they signed Wiggins and should already have planned a path forward.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    18,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Cory View Post
    The ultimate truth is you can't have 3 max players, unless you are ridiculously profitable and don't mind paying heavy tax installments, i.e. Golden State. For all those reasons, Wiggins needs to be the first shoe to drop. I just don't know if Glen has the foresight to do it. I think Thibs would in a heartbeat but I worry about what return they would get back.
    Candidly, I don't think it matters as long as they can get at least one decent role player in return. The best moves don't always give you the most "value" on paper but yield the best fitting players. I'd be happier with a glue guy and an expiring for Wiggins than getting DeMar all day, every day. We have enough alphas and wannabe alphas.

    Wiggins has very little value in the league except to a team that's rebuilding and needs to fill out cap space and/or needs a scorer.

    Taylor's gotta realize that about Wiggins at this point and let Thibs make a move.
    Inching back towards the wagon...slowly...


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by The Country Club View Post
    Candidly, I don't think it matters as long as they can get at least one decent role player in return. The best moves don't always give you the most "value" on paper but yield the best fitting players. I'd be happier with a glue guy and an expiring for Wiggins than getting DeMar all day, every day. We have enough alphas and wannabe alphas.

    Wiggins has very little value in the league except to a team that's rebuilding and needs to fill out cap space and/or needs a scorer.

    Taylor's gotta realize that about Wiggins at this point and let Thibs make a move.
    Since Wiggs contract is Taylor's doing, you can look at it as his personal luxury trinket! If MIN land in the tax territory for about 30M/year and Wiggs makes that much money, you can say he is MIN's true luxury, not having a 3+D, a rim protector, a glue guy, some competent 3p shooting players they need.

    Glen probably owns other exorbitantly expensive, supremely designed, completely under performing luxuries! I don't know it for a fact, but he must own a Rolls Royce or other such similar "jewels".
    Truth is not determined by how many believe it!


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    5,860
    Yeah, if Glen was willing to play the veto card with Wiggins, I can't imagine he lets Thibs trade Towns (and, I can't imagine Thibs would do that anyway). If there is no change in ownership or FO, I suspect that Towns, Butler and Wiggins are all essentially "untouchable". If Thibs goes, I suspect that Butler is the guy that gets moved (or he leaves in FA). Unless Glen changes his mind on Wiggins, I think he is going to be part of our big 3 for a long time to come. I am perfectly fine with Wiggins in general. I have said before I think he is a solid 6th man. He isn't worth a max contract, but that can't be changed now. I don't know that he is bad enough that it is addition by subtraction moving him just for cap relief. His contract won't get us money to make any moves. If it means we can't keep Butler, that would be a huge problem, but if Glen is willing to pay for both, I see no reason why we should be in a hurry to clear his cap space. If we get better talent back, absolutely. But, if the idea is to move him just to move him, or even worse, trade an extra asset just to move him, I would say keep him.


  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by TJ Styles View Post
    Yeah, if Glen was willing to play the veto card with Wiggins, I can't imagine he lets Thibs trade Towns (and, I can't imagine Thibs would do that anyway). If there is no change in ownership or FO, I suspect that Towns, Butler and Wiggins are all essentially "untouchable". If Thibs goes, I suspect that Butler is the guy that gets moved (or he leaves in FA). Unless Glen changes his mind on Wiggins, I think he is going to be part of our big 3 for a long time to come. I am perfectly fine with Wiggins in general. I have said before I think he is a solid 6th man. He isn't worth a max contract, but that can't be changed now. I don't know that he is bad enough that it is addition by subtraction moving him just for cap relief. His contract won't get us money to make any moves. If it means we can't keep Butler, that would be a huge problem, but if Glen is willing to pay for both, I see no reason why we should be in a hurry to clear his cap space. If we get better talent back, absolutely. But, if the idea is to move him just to move him, or even worse, trade an extra asset just to move him, I would say keep him.
    I dont really disagree much, but keep in mind that if we are pushed into the luxury tax for an extended period of time, it does actually change the assets (exceptions) we can use to acquire talent.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by BIG BAD WOLF View Post
    Since Wiggs contract is Taylor's doing, you can look at it as his personal luxury trinket! If MIN land in the tax territory for about 30M/year and Wiggs makes that much money, you can say he is MIN's true luxury, not having a 3+D, a rim protector, a glue guy, some competent 3p shooting players they need.

    Glen probably owns other exorbitantly expensive, supremely designed, completely under performing luxuries! I don't know it for a fact, but he must own a Rolls Royce or other such similar "jewels".
    It's called the Star Tribune.
    Publicity, fame and accolades can make a theory popular. They can't make it true.


  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by TJ Styles View Post
    Yeah, if Glen was willing to play the veto card with Wiggins, I can't imagine he lets Thibs trade Towns (and, I can't imagine Thibs would do that anyway). If there is no change in ownership or FO, I suspect that Towns, Butler and Wiggins are all essentially "untouchable". If Thibs goes, I suspect that Butler is the guy that gets moved (or he leaves in FA). Unless Glen changes his mind on Wiggins, I think he is going to be part of our big 3 for a long time to come. I am perfectly fine with Wiggins in general. I have said before I think he is a solid 6th man. He isn't worth a max contract, but that can't be changed now. I don't know that he is bad enough that it is addition by subtraction moving him just for cap relief. His contract won't get us money to make any moves. If it means we can't keep Butler, that would be a huge problem, but if Glen is willing to pay for both, I see no reason why we should be in a hurry to clear his cap space. If we get better talent back, absolutely. But, if the idea is to move him just to move him, or even worse, trade an extra asset just to move him, I would say keep him.
    First off, can we all just agree that Kats not getting traded and just move on? Its not happening. But what IS happening and is a good byproduct of all this is that the national media is seeing that Thibs has created a poor organization here. All the negative press should only help accelerate his leaving...which still wont come until next year.

    TJ, I Completely agree. Wiggins is over paid for the value he provides but that doesnt mean he's a bad player. He still WILL improve but the question is how much? The old saying "Dont throw good money after bad" applies here I think. I would wait at least a year unless you get an offer you cant refuse before putting any assets into a trade just to get rid of Wiggins. Not worth it.

    Re: discussions about Glen not being willing to pay the luxury tax. He will pay the luxury tax. He's proven in the past that when his teams have a legitimate change to win big he will pay it. He wont spend foolishly. The only question is if Thibs will get this team to a point where they will have a realistic chance to contend of if all of this is just for a 8-3 seed with no real shot at winning a championship. If that looks like the ceiling...i dont see Glen paying a luxury tax for too many years.


  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsxman View Post
    Re: discussions about Glen not being willing to pay the luxury tax. He will pay the luxury tax. He's proven in the past that when his teams have a legitimate change to win big he will pay it. He wont spend foolishly. The only question is if Thibs will get this team to a point where they will have a realistic chance to contend of if all of this is just for a 8-3 seed with no real shot at winning a championship. If that looks like the ceiling...i dont see Glen paying a luxury tax for too many years.
    The tax is quite a bit more damaging than when we last paid it though isn't it?

    The repeater tax is an absolute killer that even contenders aren't looking to pay.


  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by LEvine View Post
    The tax is quite a bit more damaging than when we last paid it though isn't it?

    The repeater tax is an absolute killer that even contenders aren't looking to pay.
    Glen will pay the tax for a single season, sure. Agree with LEvine (and have said so repeatedly) that there's no effin way he's going to go into repeater tax territory. That's why we'll be under the tax this season, so we can exceed it in 19/20 (if/when Jimmy re-signs).


  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by da_blueprint View Post
    Glen will pay the tax for a single season, sure. Agree with LEvine (and have said so repeatedly) that there's no effin way he's going to go into repeater tax territory. That's why we'll be under the tax this season, so we can exceed it in 19/20 (if/when Jimmy re-signs).
    How many seasons do you have to be in it before you pay the repeater tax? I can see him paying the luxury tax up to that point.


  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    18,414
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsxman View Post
    How many seasons do you have to be in it before you pay the repeater tax? I can see him paying the luxury tax up to that point.
    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q18

    3 years out of 4 = repeat territory.
    Inching back towards the wagon...slowly...



 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •