# Proposed Wolves/Blazers Trade



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

well, according to SI.com the wolves are talking a sign and trade. 

wolves trade:
trenton hassell
wally szczerbiak
michael olowokandi

wolves get:
darius miles
shareef abdur rahim

blazers trade:
darius miles
shareef abdur rahim

blazers get:
trenton hassell
wally szczerbiak
michael olowokandi

trade accepted 

honestly, both guys have no experience with the word winning....I like wally better than miles..i wouldnt mind if we took kandi out of the trade then i think it is great. Or if the blazers add a first round pick. Or add the rights to one of their first round picks (likely not telfair, dotn want him anyway). But if the trade looks like this, it is a complete downgrade. The fact That these guys cant define the word WINNING makes it bad for us.

pg-cassell/hudson (wow i hope)/stepp(stud)
sg-sprewell/hoiberg
sf-SAR/miles/ebi
pf-garnett/madsen
c-erv/FA/FA

The scary part is is if we dont get a chris mihm, stro swift, or a dampier then we are as bad as it gets up front.......


your thoughts???


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

You can't trade Hassell to the Blazers since he signed their offer sheet already. You have two options: not match and let him go to them as a FA, or match and have him rejoin your team. Choose the latter option, and a rule pops up that prevents the trade from happening. Basically -- he can't be traded to the team he signed the offer sheet with for one full year. Not under any circumstance.

Miles would have to sign a less expensive contract or you'd have to throw in some salary equal to get the trade to work.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

So, you'd complain about getting a legit center? Someone who doesn't make the team worse? It'd be a huge upgrade for the Wolves. Although I wouldn't want to lose both Wally and Hassell, for what you're getting back, it's worth it. Spree can slide over to the second guard spot and start Miles. Miles is a guy who scores more points than Hassell, but won't take a lot of shots away from KG either. He shoots a high percentage. I'd much rather have him than Hassell. And of course, anything is an upgrade when you have kandi and ervin at center.

It's a lot, but it could be enough to put the Wolves over the top.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

well i thnk the trade would be keeping hassell there. I am not sure. Then i think they allow us to sign miles to an offer sheet, then we do a trade SAR for wally and kandi. I am not sure if u are saying trading kandi is a good idea or a bad idea??????

anyway, every team that wins a championship has a stud shooter. or a guy that can shoot. Hoiberg wont cut it.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> anyway, every team that wins a championship has a stud shooter. or a guy that can shoot. Hoiberg wont cut it.


We have this guy named Kevin Garnett.... he can shoot. No one knows about him yet, he's a secret weapon.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

a 3 point shooter. billups, bowen, fisher, kerr.............soon to be wally *knocks on wood*


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Sam, Spree, Hudson?


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

no not gunners, i said shooter


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sheefo13</b>!
> honestly, both guys have no experience with the word winning....


That shouldn't matter.

If you look at both of them - neither has had an oppotunity to play on a good team.

Considering Atlanta was Reef's most talented team (not including the Portland fiasco) ... there really isn't much opportunity to win.

Garnett couldn't have made Vancouver win back in the day ... and they were both playing at the same age (remember Garnett is older then Reef).

Miles played well in Portland - his first decent team. I think given a shot he'd be okay. The problem would be ... where would he play? 

C = Garnett?
PF = Reef?
SF = Miles?

or
PF = Reef
SF = Garnett

Garnett is SO dang versatile ...



> I like wally better than miles..i wouldnt mind if we took kandi out of the trade then i think it is great. Or if the blazers add a first round pick. Or add the rights to one of their first round picks (likely not telfair, dotn want him anyway). But if the trade looks like this, it is a complete downgrade.


I guess I don't see it that way. I think it will end up being the Twolves kicking in the draft pick.



> The fact That these guys cant define the word WINNING makes it bad for us.


Again ... neither guy has been on a team with even a modicrum of talent.

Play.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

The trade rumor is Wally and Kandi for SAR.

I think it's a good deal for both sides.


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> The trade rumor is Wally and Kandi for SAR.
> 
> I think it's a good deal for both sides.


if that's the case, i would like to see a draft pick thrown in by the blazers.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kaniffmn</b>!
> if that's the case, i would like to see a draft pick thrown in by the blazers.


Chances are - a draft pick would come from the Wolves.

Play.


----------



## wild_style (Feb 26, 2004)

i dont wanna lose kandi without getting a real center in return, SAR would be a bonus, not a necesity (sp?) we need a 5, not another 4, we have that guy, think he won some award last year or something? playing there


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>wild_style</b>!
> i dont wanna lose kandi without getting a real center in return


Let's be honest .. Kandi is hardly what one considers a "real" center. He's an average backup kind-of guy. He isn't the worst in the league, by far, but he isn't among the top either.

With Reef and Garnett ... the front court would still be large. Tall and lanky - with LOADS of talent.



> SAR would be a bonus, not a necesity (sp?) we need a 5, not another 4, we have that guy, think he won some award last year or something?playing there


You smack sarcasm, but Garnett has played more like a SF then a PF for the past couple years. 

The thing with his guy is he would be comfortable in any of the front court slots. I mean ... he's around 7' tall. Reef is 6'10". Johnson is 6'11". That's a TALL front court.

Kandi isn't young nor is he much taller or more skilled than Johnson. 

Play.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Chances are - a draft pick would come from the Wolves.
> ...


Shareef and 1st round pick for Wally and Kandi seems fair.

Shareef is going to make 14 million next season, Wally about 9 and Kandi at around 5. It's good straight up, but Wally's shooting talent and Kandi's big body would be too much to give up for just Shareef. A pick, and that is likely a 15-20 pick isn't asking for too much...is it?:angel:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> A pick, and that is likely a 15-20 pick isn't asking for too much...is it?


Um...yeah it is. SAR is over $14mil in an expiring contract, Wally is owed something like $55mil over the next 5 years. So yeah I do think POR giving up a 1st round draft pick is asking for too much.

Talent for talent you could argue they are equal as players. Although IMO a post player (and one who has averaged for his career 19 & 8) is worth more than a swing player. However, Wally is a very good shooter, something POR sorely needs. Niether player is impressive defensively. One other note, Wally has missed SUBSTANTIAL games due to injury the last few years and SAR has been very durable. That is cause for concern for a team that is commiting itself to paying that player over $55 million. They are approximately the same age.

As for the center, I actually think POR would PREFER Johnson in the deal (with POR throwing back Stepania), but I also think MIN would PREFER to keep Johnson (expiring contract) and would rather send out Olowokandi (2 years remaining). 

So I hardly see why POR should have to throw in a 1st round pick (of which very likely could be a lottery pick this year, POR making the playoffs is by NO MEANS guaranteed) to seal the deal. That is ridiculous.

MIN just matched a SIX YEAR $27 million contract for Hassell, re-signed Hoiberg and is close to inking Troy Hudson (pending league approval), so PLAYING TIME has to be a factor here as well. 

As Playmaker said, KG could EASILY play SF, allowing a frontline of SAR\KG and either Olowokandi or Johnson, with Spree and Cassell in the backcourt, that is a pretty good starting five.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Come on. I threw in a :angel:, didn't that hint anything?

Or another scenario I would like is Wally, Kandi, and 1st round pick/Ebi for Darius Miles and Shareef...if that works, that is.


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21 (Apr 27, 2003)

How are the McHale and Flip going to say that Hassell was an important piece to their run to the Western Conference Finals and then trade him? This trade will definitely not help us out because we already have a nice frontline with enough size and toughness.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Im glad this deal isnt happening for the blazers Kandi is a stiff no need for wally even though hes better than any of our 2 guards


----------



## SilentOneX (Feb 9, 2004)

I'll give you a stiff + other for one.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

i agree with wild style. There is no way we trade kandi and dont get a center in return. Erv would be the only real center, madsen is 6 8. When sar was put in atl he had the chance to win. Miles in LA, had the chance to win. KG came here and helped the wolvces win. Right now the only way i trade wally is for maurice taylor......
And kandi if we nazr+


----------



## Danish Twolf (Aug 1, 2004)

Damn, I just wrote a half page entry and the site was down when I wanted to preview (teaches me to copy first :sigh: )

Don't feel like writing it all down again, but I'm pretty much backing Kmurph in the logic of us not getting any picks on top in a potential Kandi+World for SAR.

Had it been last year I would have balked on the deal, but the thing it all hinges on, is whether or not a team buys into the idea that Kandi is a potential good C who is gonna break through in juuuuuust a little bit (I used to be one of those) or if they think he's just another big body under the basket who can't fulfill neither his potential nor the goal of actually getting the rock inside the rim....thus it's a question of faith.

I must admit I've lost faith in Kandi, and although I love World, we just simply need a PF so much more than a fourth swingman (Hassell, Spree, Hoibs). With THud (hopefully) being another option at the 2 as well and KG -IMHO- looking so much more comfortable at the 3, 'Reef would look comparatively nicer in our starting lineup than Wally... Just imagine how many boards KG and 'Reef as a forward duo could tear down  .

We would look disastrous in terms of C's, but then again don't we already ?? And at crucial times, when we have needed to step up the game (like in game 7 against the Kings) we didn't play with a center (heck in periods we didn't play with neither a C nor a PG).

I wouldn't think it was a revolutionization (or however you spell that in english) to have a quick starting lineup without a real C, but it might get the better of many teams (one could argue that the reigning champs don't have a real C).

Sam - Hassell - Spree - KG - Reef (with THud and Hoibs in the backcourt rotation and Ervin/Mad Dog in the frontcourt) doesn't sound bad to me (and it would be fun to see them up against Shaq hehe).

That said, of course it would be nice to go out and get a big body to push opposing centers around, but can Kandi+World get us 'Reef I say go for it.

 Oops, a different text - but I succeeded in boring you all to death for half a page anyway.


----------



## SilentOneX (Feb 9, 2004)

Welcome, Danish Wolf! 

I am not too fond with Olowokandi, either.

But the latest thing I heard about the SAR trade, unfortunately it went dead because Portland don't want Wally's overloaded contracts. So go figure. :uhoh:


----------



## Danish Twolf (Aug 1, 2004)

hhhmmm posted it again (through me using refresh ???) Now I'll go hunting for a delete icon somewhere


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

i really dont think the wolves are going to give up kandi unless we get some sort of center back. I honestly think mchale wants to prove the league wrong and show that kandi can be a good ball player(wow i hope).Right now a big man under 30 years old that can run the floor and give you 25+ games a year at least.
he is also a good shot blocker..........


----------



## bring77 (Aug 9, 2004)

i hope you are right!

That damn fadeaway he persists in trying....:sigh:


----------



## Danish Twolf (Aug 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sheefo13</b>!
> i really dont think the wolves are going to give up kandi unless we get some sort of center back. I honestly think mchale wants to prove the league wrong and show that kandi can be a good ball player(wow i hope).Right now a big man under 30 years old that can run the floor and give you 25+ games a year at least.
> he is also a good shot blocker..........


I guess we better hope for a miracle then  His career season during 5 years with the leagues worst team had him averaging a whooping 12.3 ppg in 38min. that's about 78min. to reach 25ppg  

I really really hope that I'm wrong, but I just don't see him producing that kind of numbers in our rotation, but if he'd just play hard on defense WITHOUT easy fouls and start grabbing some more offensive boards then I could still adapt to him being on the team... it's just that 'Reef at PF sounds pretty intriguing.


----------



## SilentOneX (Feb 9, 2004)

He isn't that great in either teams, but his stats looked better only when he was on a losing team. That's the difference, but the truth is he is no different in playing for two teams.


----------



## twolvesguy (Jan 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Danish Twolf</b>!
> With THud (hopefully) being another option at the 2 as well and KG -IMHO- looking so much more comfortable at the 3,


Why do people still hold onto this myth?? 

KG is NOT more comfortable at the SF position. He is 7-1, 240 lbs. He is not a SF.


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>twolvesguy</b>!
> 
> 
> Why do people still hold onto this myth??
> ...


took the words right outta my mouth. kg isn't moving over for anyone. he is a true power foward who can play any position, but it's only obvious where his natural position is...PF DUH!!! while i'll admit the rahim trade was interesting, he wouldn't have fit well on our team because he wants to start. notice he hasn't said anything about being traded to a playoff team, because he doesn't care. i like our starting lineup as it is. cassell, spree, hassell, kg, and erv...then off the bench we have hudson, hoiberg, wally, mad-dog, and kandi...just think about that for a minute. let that soak into your mind...we don't need anything else, but a 3rd pg and a 3rd pf. looks like rickert might have a shot at making the team for real this season. 

i've said it before, and i'll say it again, don't fix what's not broken. this same team made it to the western finals and if not for injuries they would be the reigning champions going for a repeat this upcoming year. the team is now set and i'm really looking forward to the beginning of the end...for the 29 other teams in the league.


----------



## Danish Twolf (Aug 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>twolvesguy</b>!
> 
> 
> Why do people still hold onto this myth??
> ...


No, and Muggsy wansn't a Basketball player at all -talk about holding on to myths- you can't simply place guys in a position based solely on his size ?!

I'd put him at the 3 if we got a starting quality PF like Reef - if we went and got Peja I'd keep KG at the 4... why? Solely because I would want to start the best guys ALMOST regardless of "natural position". That said, I still think KG can exploit people better from the 3.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

the thing is, sar would be a sf if we do not get miles in return. sar lost wight and plans to be a sf. i dont know why we are still talking about this because portland has said they will not do this trade.......it is over.


----------



## drza44 (Aug 12, 2004)

In today's Pioneer Press Shooter says that the trade isn't dead and talks are still ongoing. Take that with a spoon full of salt, since Walters isn't always the most reliable source, but it is what it is. Let me chime in on the side that doesn't necessarily think we need to make a move like this, but one that thinks Reef would fit in very well next to KG on this team. I think it definitely shifts some of our perimetner talent to a larger player that can play in the post, which is a great thing. So if something like this does go down I'd definitely be excited...


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

this trade is dead. There should be no talking about this because they could keep sar for a year because liek spree their 14.625 million dollar contracts expire after this season. I would love for this trade to go through but hassell isnt the best player off the bench and kg is not playing the sf position. if he does we wouldnt ever get a defensive rebound.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sheefo13</b>!
> we wouldnt ever get a defensive rebound.


How did Garnett get rebounds when he played the SF spot all those years?

How did Reef get all those rebounds all those years?

Reef would EASILY be the best rebounder a Garnett team has had (outside of Garnett). They would DOUBLE the defensive rebounding.

Play.


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> How did Garnett get rebounds when he played the SF spot all those years?
> ...


while i agree with your statement on rebounds...for once, just get it straight...KG has been a power forward since his second or maybe third season. i'm tired of all this talk saying to put him at small forward, just because he plays like one. he is a POWER FORWARD that can do things nobody else in the league can do at his size. so because he prefers to shoot a 12 foot fadeaway jumper than go to the hoop, that makes him a small forward??? he is the best power forward and player in the league.


----------



## drza44 (Aug 12, 2004)

This is hearsay (maybe some of you in Minnesota can back me up on this), but apparently Flip was on KFAN today talking about the Wolves offseason plans. From what I understand, he says that it was Portland that approached us about a Wally/Reef deal and that he expects Wally to have a monster year for us this year. This might suggest that we shouldn't be holding our breath about this trade taking place...


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

i'm with flip 100%. give the guys a chance to play together at full strength. no injuries, no contract disputes, no nothing...just let em' go full blast and see what they can do all together from the beginning to hopefully the end.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

u guys talk like wally sucks or something hes just an offeensive minded player he shoots 50% for his career and r u forgetting that he was an all star? give him a chance hes good


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

who said wally sucks???


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Um...yeah it is. SAR is over $14mil in an expiring contract, Wally is owed something like $55mil over the next 5 years. So yeah I do think POR giving up a 1st round draft pick is asking for too much.


Since when are the Wolves like the Jazz? We're capped out, taxed out, whatever. I think Hoiberg took the LLE so we'll get the MLE, some trade possibilities, the bargain basement players, and the finally we can draft each year.


----------



## SilentOneX (Feb 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jokeaward</b>!
> 
> 
> Since when are the Wolves like the Jazz? We're capped out, taxed out, whatever. I think Hoiberg took the LLE so we'll get the MLE, some trade possibilities, the bargain basement players, and the finally we can draft each year.


I agree. They can make some offers to summer league players, who knows?


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

you homers will not get D-miles but u can have SAR 4 all i care

i would trade hime for wallys world and kandi 

anyone want Derek Anderson


----------



## SilentOneX (Feb 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerben4</b>!
> you homers will not get D-miles but u can have SAR 4 all i care
> 
> i would trade hime for wallys world and kandi
> ...


We don't need no stinkin' Darius Miles. 

BTW, we're looking for bulky PF just like Trent to fill the spot.


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerben4</b>!
> you homers will not get D-miles but u can have SAR 4 all i care
> 
> i would trade hime for wallys world and kandi
> ...


we don't need miles or SAR. if you'd done you're research as flip saunders was quoted on the radio the other day "the blazers confronted us with a trade for wally involving SAR." but being that the wolves aren't homers, they obviously declined any real possibility of that trade occurring without something other than rahim.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

dont believe portland came to T wolves , Flip just said that to raise up wallys value and of course they are shopping his contract just like the blazers would love to get rid of Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson contracts but no takers


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

i don't think anybody in their right mind will take derek anderson or ruben patterson. let's face it...they won't make or break your team, and they aren't very good players. at least in wally you are certain to get a proven player who's been to the all star game and a player who shoots 50%+ from the field. while his salary is huge, at least you are getting a legit player unlike in derek anderson and ruben patterson. they fail to come close in comparison to wally.


----------



## SilentOneX (Feb 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> dont believe portland came to T wolves , Flip just said that to raise up wallys value and of course they are shopping his contract just like the blazers would love to get rid of Derek Anderson and Ruben Patterson contracts but no takers


Why should I believe you about that? Well, according to *numerous* sources claiming that Portland came to the Wolves about the trade. You are twisting the story around. But of course, both teams would die to get rid of fatty *** contracts, see Wally.

We don't need Anderson nor Patterson, I wouldn't go after a pot smoker and cause troubles in the team. No thanks.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SilentOneX</b>!
> 
> 
> But of course, both teams would die to get rid of fatty *** contracts,
> ...




thats all im saying


----------

