A site to discuss Minnesota sports, news, culture, and more
https://www.forum.mnrubecentral.org/
“the target in the draft”HeHateMe wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:57 amI think Garland was the target in the draft but I do think Garland/Russell were both targets and they were OK with Culver if they couldn't get Garland. Either way, if they get Russell, I really like the Russell/Culver/Covington/Towns pairing -- you can throw in almost any fifth player and that lineup works because of Culver and Covington's ability to guard multiple positions. And Towns/Russell's versatility on offense.
The time of the tweets matter dipshit. They happened after the pick. The times listed are PST. Some of us pay attention. Additionally, there were other tweets on the matter. Who knows if they were speculative based on Woj, but they too exist. You are wrong.kilkenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:23 amExactly, absolutely nothing about trading Culver "AFTER" we drafted him. Jodaclown and So_dummy are trolls.SHAFA wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:55 am Fucking hell, you bozos.
At 3:16
At 4:36
At 4:52
At 5:07
The following day:
Teams were trying to jump up to 6. We took the calls. None of them were worthy. In no way does any of this point to Rosas "desperately trying to trade Culver".The Pelicans were looking for Robert Covington and 11 for 4, Solomon Hill (who has an expiring contract for $12.8 million) and possibly a second-round pick. The Cavaliers were asking for a significant haul for 5 as well, so the Wolves moved on to the Suns at 6.
The Wolves took several calls from teams exploring the idea of trading up to 6 to see if any of the teams would make them an offer they couldn’t refuse. In the end, no offers came close to what they think they are getting in Culver, who led the Red Raiders to the national championship game at U.S. Bank Stadium in April.
Joda's a loon that deserves to be left alone.
You understand nothing of how this stuff works do you?
I already stated they tried Cleveland but the price was too expensive.jodaman01 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:07 amSo you don’t think the Wolves made any calls....none to Cleveland.....or returned any call from Teams lower than them in the draft to see if they could fleece them.j2j wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:01 am What I've read about the Culver pick is we had Garland and Culver on the same tier, and we has 5 guys we liked including the obvious top 3. Hunter going 4 pushed 2 of the guys we wanted down. Cleveland wanted too much to move to 5.
Getting to 6 was fairly cheap. After the pick we took a bunch of calls and we turned them all down. We weren't making the calls.
C’Mon Man!
I would honestly think less of Rosas if he hadn’t, but have no doubt he did.
So you hate Rosas now?jodaman01 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:34 amYou understand nothing of how this stuff works do you?
You honestly in your heart of hearts believe Rosas didn’t contact Cleveland after he drafted Culver to see if he coundn’t finalize a deal they were trying to negotiate prior to Cleveland taking Garland.
Yep he took Culver, never checked if he could get Garland who he was negotiating all along for and never took calls to see if he could get something better after. All evidence points to Rosas doing exactly that.
Days later Cleveland came out and said they had offers on the table on draft night for Garland. Who do think that possibly could have been?
Wake Up.
I think you are talking me, the time of the tweets matter as I said. Your listing of PST doesn't represent the timeline. The times in the embedded tweets is correct, I.E. two hours later than you listed.
Are you dense? The last tweet there at 5:07 pst states "Minnesota is on the clock for pick 6". We didn't draft Culver yet.SO_MONEY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:33 amThe time of the tweets matter dipshit. They happened after the pick. The times listed are PST. Some of us pay attention. Additionally, there were other tweets on the matter. Who knows if they were speculative based on Woj, but they too exist. You are wrong.kilkenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:23 amExactly, absolutely nothing about trading Culver "AFTER" we drafted him. Jodaclown and So_dummy are trolls.SHAFA wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:55 am Fucking hell, you bozos.
At 3:16
At 4:36
At 4:52
At 5:07
The following day:
Teams were trying to jump up to 6. We took the calls. None of them were worthy. In no way does any of this point to Rosas "desperately trying to trade Culver".
Joda's a loon that deserves to be left alone.
P.S. the correct times are in the imbedded tweets at the bottom.
HA!SHAFA wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:19 amSame shit as always.
"They traded up for a guy they didn't get, then tried desperately to dump their fallback guy."
Someone asks for proof of that happening and gets the "I'm not going to show you. Find it yourself."
Then it just spirals out of control into non-stop circular arguments so people can continue to bitch for the sole reason of wanting to bitch.
Now that Rubio “his grand Plan B” is apparently gone, he better strike on D-Lo.morneaumvp wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:37 amSo you hate Rosas now?jodaman01 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:34 amYou understand nothing of how this stuff works do you?
You honestly in your heart of hearts believe Rosas didn’t contact Cleveland after he drafted Culver to see if he coundn’t finalize a deal they were trying to negotiate prior to Cleveland taking Garland.
Yep he took Culver, never checked if he could get Garland who he was negotiating all along for and never took calls to see if he could get something better after. All evidence points to Rosas doing exactly that.
Days later Cleveland came out and said they had offers on the table on draft night for Garland. Who do think that possibly could have been?
Wake Up.
Was he really interested in Rubio? I've liked what Rosas has done so far. I don't like knowing he even considered Rubio.jodaman01 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:48 amNow that Rubio “his grand Plan B” is apparently gone, he better strike on D-Lo.morneaumvp wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:37 amSo you hate Rosas now?jodaman01 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:34 am
You understand nothing of how this stuff works do you?
You honestly in your heart of hearts believe Rosas didn’t contact Cleveland after he drafted Culver to see if he coundn’t finalize a deal they were trying to negotiate prior to Cleveland taking Garland.
Yep he took Culver, never checked if he could get Garland who he was negotiating all along for and never took calls to see if he could get something better after. All evidence points to Rosas doing exactly that.
Days later Cleveland came out and said they had offers on the table on draft night for Garland. Who do think that possibly could have been?
Wake Up.
Off course his decision tree has a trunk but also a myriad of roots underground that are unseen....it’s complicated.
I will just shut up now and watch how the next few days play out.
I will be back to offer an unvarnished take, positive or negative - maybe some of both.
GO WOLVES!!
Let's hope the reports were true from earlier this week where they've got options on getting rid of Wiggins, and won't have to lose to do it.The Replacements wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:50 am Let's get back to some positive thoughts. How do we get the dream scenario?
- get Russell, Harris and Redick
- get rid of Wiggins, Deing and Teague
It looks like I am wrong. Tweets probably hit my feed out of order during the draft and ironically I am "misremembering". My appologies. I will admit I am wrong when it happens. Though there were other tweets and Jon K felt the need late in the draft to issue a we're "keeping him" tweet. If someone wants to comb through his tweets he aided speculation, for sure.kilkenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:45 amAre you dense? The last tweet there at 5:07 pst states "Minnesota is on the clock for pick 6". We didn't draft Culver yet.SO_MONEY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:33 amThe time of the tweets matter dipshit. They happened after the pick. The times listed are PST. Some of us pay attention. Additionally, there were other tweets on the matter. Who knows if they were speculative based on Woj, but they too exist. You are wrong.
P.S. the correct times are in the imbedded tweets at the bottom.
What other tweets? By who?
I assume Johnny Athletic tweeted that because he was getting flooded by roobs asking if we were keeping him. Many of those roobs have a very short term mentality and think our roster is set on draft night.SO_MONEY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:59 amIt looks like I am wrong. Tweets probably hit my feed out of order during the draft and ironically I am "misremembering". My appologies. I will admit I am wrong when it happens. Though there were other tweets and Jon K felt the need late in the draft to issue a we're "keeping him" tweet. If someone wants to comb through his tweets he aided speculation, for sure.kilkenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:45 amAre you dense? The last tweet there at 5:07 pst states "Minnesota is on the clock for pick 6". We didn't draft Culver yet.SO_MONEY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:33 am
The time of the tweets matter dipshit. They happened after the pick. The times listed are PST. Some of us pay attention. Additionally, there were other tweets on the matter. Who knows if they were speculative based on Woj, but they too exist. You are wrong.
P.S. the correct times are in the imbedded tweets at the bottom.
What other tweets? By who?
The target in the draft -- the guy they were hoping to trade up to get. Simple as that. The rest of your stuff, OK?thinktank wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:26 am“the target in the draft”HeHateMe wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:57 amI think Garland was the target in the draft but I do think Garland/Russell were both targets and they were OK with Culver if they couldn't get Garland. Either way, if they get Russell, I really like the Russell/Culver/Covington/Towns pairing -- you can throw in almost any fifth player and that lineup works because of Culver and Covington's ability to guard multiple positions. And Towns/Russell's versatility on offense.
What does that mean?
I can tell you one thing it means:
Obtaining Garland in the draft is a CONDITION, it has requirements that must be fulfilled in order for Garland to be obtained.
There are no guarantees that these conditions can, or should, be filled.
That’s where a decision chart comes in.
Garland in the draft was an OPTION whose requirements Rosas decided not to meet.
Similarly, Rosas decided that the conditions to trade Culver where not sufficiently met.
A lot of froobs seem to believe that GM-ing is done in black and white, and it isn’t.
Not saying you’re such a froob, just saying these are my thoughts on this topic of Rosas’ fallibility in pursuing the target of “Garland in the draft” or whatever you said.
Personally, I thought a target of Bol Bol in the draft would’ve been more interesting.
I think Denver was a good landing spot for him.No worries. Just thought I was being trolled. JK tweeted 1 hour after we drafted Culver that we were keeping him. Nothing more than that in terms of trading him to anyone.SO_MONEY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:59 amIt looks like I am wrong. Tweets probably hit my feed out of order during the draft and ironically I am "misremembering". My appologies. I will admit I am wrong when it happens. Though there were other tweets and Jon K felt the need late in the draft to issue a we're "keeping him" tweet. If someone wants to comb through his tweets he aided speculation, for sure.kilkenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:45 amAre you dense? The last tweet there at 5:07 pst states "Minnesota is on the clock for pick 6". We didn't draft Culver yet.SO_MONEY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:33 am
The time of the tweets matter dipshit. They happened after the pick. The times listed are PST. Some of us pay attention. Additionally, there were other tweets on the matter. Who knows if they were speculative based on Woj, but they too exist. You are wrong.
P.S. the correct times are in the imbedded tweets at the bottom.
What other tweets? By who?
He tweeted something to the effect that it was fluid and we were looking at options, but he could have been hogpiling on Woj and old news, who knows?j2j wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:01 pmI assume Johnny Athletic tweeted that because he was getting flooded by roobs asking if we were keeping him. Many of those roobs have a very short term mentality and think our roster is set on draft night.SO_MONEY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:59 amIt looks like I am wrong. Tweets probably hit my feed out of order during the draft and ironically I am "misremembering". My appologies. I will admit I am wrong when it happens. Though there were other tweets and Jon K felt the need late in the draft to issue a we're "keeping him" tweet. If someone wants to comb through his tweets he aided speculation, for sure.
I would discount any rumors that the Wolves were trying to trade Culver after they selected him.
I disagree. It was stated that we talked about trading up to 4 or 5 but it would have required Cov. We weren't doing that for Garland. We made that trade for Culver imo. But that's what it is, opinion. However, most mocks had Garland gone before 6 so it makes sense that Rosas knew Garland would be gone.mlhouse wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:10 pmI would discount any rumors that the Wolves were trying to trade Culver after they selected him.
When the trade was made, I would assume it was targeted at Garland hoping Cleveland would not pick a PG. But, he had to have as a contingency that the trade was worth trading up for Culver. Anybody who would make that trade without that assumption is very dumb. Although I disagree with him, I don't think Rosas is dumb.
I agree with this. Rosas knew what he would do if Garland wasn't there. Foolish to think otherwise.mlhouse wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:10 pmI would discount any rumors that the Wolves were trying to trade Culver after they selected him.
When the trade was made, I would assume it was targeted at Garland hoping Cleveland would not pick a PG. But, he had to have as a contingency that the trade was worth trading up for Culver. Anybody who would make that trade without that assumption is very dumb. Although I disagree with him, I don't think Rosas is dumb.
kilkenny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:22 pmI disagree. It was stated that we talked about trading up to 4 or 5 but it would have required Cov. We weren't doing that for Garland. We made that trade for Culver imo. But that's what it is, opinion. However, most mocks had Garland gone before 6 so it makes sense that Rosas knew Garland would be gone.mlhouse wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:10 pmI would discount any rumors that the Wolves were trying to trade Culver after they selected him.
When the trade was made, I would assume it was targeted at Garland hoping Cleveland would not pick a PG. But, he had to have as a contingency that the trade was worth trading up for Culver. Anybody who would make that trade without that assumption is very dumb. Although I disagree with him, I don't think Rosas is dumb.