What's new
By:

Trade for Zach Lavine

I'd also be down for packaging players/picks for Brad Beal. Maybe Washington is willing to move on from him due to the injuries.
 
and yet the question remains: why the hell is Minnesota trading a young player with upside? He fits within their development project along with every other young player they have, and there's no reason to think they can't retain all of them. This is a stupid thread.

also, spy, I'm surprised you'd take him over Hood. Massive difference in IQ between them.
 
DownUnder said:
it's ok dude .. i see why you like him, i just don't agree with you All good, each to their own. I could certainly see him being a valuable instant offense type player, maybe a 6th man type. Just not all star level from what i perceive as his lack of nous. Maybe he will learn, but my feel is that's going to be a struggle for him. I remember watching Harold Miner who seemed a very similar player early on and he completely busted
Click to expand...
What is nous?
fishonjazz said:
I agree with these.

I think that some of the people arguing against getting lavine actually might want to have him on the jazz but they just don't want to agree with hack because they don't like him
Click to expand...
I'm a Lavine fan and I hate hack more then most. Even the dumbest dogs stumble onto a bone from time to time.
NAOS said:
and yet the question remains: why the hell is Minnesota trading a young player with upside? He fits within their development project along with every other young player they have, and there's no reason to think they can't retain all of them. This is a stupid thread.

also, spy, I'm surprised you'd take him over Hood. Massive difference in IQ between them.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of this. Min isn't just going to hand him to us for even a reasonable offer. Also not sure I'd take Lavine over Hood. I think he has potential to be one of those Unguardable players and being one of the best closers in the game. If he ever figures out how to get as many or more ft attempts as Hayward that would be a whole other level for Hood.
 
I think Hood is closer to being who he's going to be. He's a good player, but I don't think hes ever going to be in an allstar game or anything. I can't see him getting considerably better.
 
NAOS said:
and yet the question remains: why the hell is Minnesota trading a young player with upside? He fits within their development project along with every other young player they have, and there's no reason to think they can't retain all of them. This is a stupid thread.

also, spy, I'm surprised you'd take him over Hood. Massive difference in IQ between them.
Click to expand...

Oh. I didn't know you were testing players IQ these days. Did the NBA higher you to do that? What were their scores? TIA


This why as a GM you have to be proactive. You gotta start making offers for up and coming players before they are a sure thing. I can understand where it gets hard to project a player before they enter the NBA, but once they've played a few games, you should have a lot better vision of that. I know it's that way for me.

He's not impossible to get right now. If he's as dumb as you say he is, then he Minnesota should be willing to listen to some offers. If this kid becomes an allstar, and you could have had him for a package with Hood and Exum, then in the future, that's a lot cheaper price to pay for an allstar, than it would be, had he already became an allstar. Because at that point they are pretty much untouchable. I think if you want to get ahead in the NBA, especially for Utah, you have to take a risk like that.

Lavine would also fit our timeline. So it would make sense for us. We all know this team is missing that one alpha dog. we have a bunch of Indians and no chiefs, except Gobert fits that on defense, just not on offense, which is what we need. We need a chief on offense. Hayward is nice, but we know he isn't carrying us.


We aren't keeping all these players and picks we have. I guarantee it. It's just the way it works. If they are any good, they will all be over paid one day and not retainable. You need to make a move before they become a lot harder to move, and while they have intrigue to them. In 3 years if Exum and Hood don't look to be all star caliber,(which is a very good chance), and then Lavine is, then it's already way too ****ing late, isn't it?
 
Most T'wolves fans are furious with the way LaVine's being used btw. Look at his FGM-FGA the last 3 games -- 31/44.. pretty impressive, His AST:TO ratio isn't anything to write home about, better than 1½:1 isn't half bad all things considered though.

They aren't trading him, he's already a commodity in this league at 20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyuONbNoxNI
 
King Cy said:
Over Hood? LMAO
Click to expand...

Cmon Cy. We already made so much progress with this. Don't throw it a way.

Not only are you wrong, about Hood over Lavine, but you choose to use LMAO, as if you are saying it's not close. It's not close the other way.

Think about it. Hood is good player, who isn't dynamic in any way. He doesn't possess the same kind of upside that Lavine does. Lavine is just as a good a shooter, but has far superior athleticism. That matters Cy. You can't say it doesnt. It's often what sets apart good players from great players.
 
Hack said:
I think Hood is closer to being who he's going to be. He's a good player, but I don't think hes ever going to be in an allstar game or anything. I can't see him getting considerably better.
Click to expand...
This is how I feel. We need to take a risk. You can't just play it safe if you wanna win it all. The upside of LaVine is obviously higher than Hood's. He's three years younger and 10 times the athlete; he's already putting up similar numbers as Hood.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top