re: Time to trade Jrue?

And it was all because of the same mandate. Benson had no desire to be patient and build slow.

Again, they all stink, but Benson should get your guys full ire. Instead, you just bash the guys who are visible. The Pels are the 2010 Raiders right now and they have no shot until the old man goes and then they dog out of his mess and start fresh with a more patient approach

They have other good pieces like Zipser, they also have Sacto's pick. I have said for the longest that I would send Jrue to them for Sacto's pick (which they are in danger of not getting because of its protection) and then turn around and give Reke to Sacto for a young guy.

Reke will make Sacto good enough to get us that pick. And then maybe you get Zipser, Felicio, and Skal out of it too.

And again, more importantly, you get worse. If this team really tanks, I mean REALLY tanks, Brooklyn is the only team we absolutely can't catch. Trade Jrue and Reke today and then fire Gentry and start playing all the young guys, and you could be really bad.

Oh, I thought we were talking about what the right thing is to do. Not what we would do if we were Dell and cared more about keeping our job than the long term health of the franchise.

In that case, yes, he will be looking for what you say and that is why Jrue likely won't be traded. Because he won't get anything like that.

I agree, he is the guy who can be fired. So I want him fired too. I am just not disillusioned enough to think it will change

To make things clear.
I mentioned Rubio - Holiday swap BECAUSE there is a risk of overpaying Jrue or that he will walk out for free.

In normal word with similar contracts I prefer Jrue.

But there is a risk that Jrue is gone. Rubio has about 2,5 years on the fair contract left.
And Jrue will earn more than 20 millions...

I like Rubio as a player and would like him on the Pels, but what is the motivation for the Wolves to do this? The whole reason they want to move Rubio is to open up playing time for Dunn next to Lavine. Not sure how this helps with that from their perspective.

quote:

---

Dell is severely flawed. Severely. And others could have done better given the same mandates by Benson. But that is not mutually exclusive from the theory that Benson is the #1 problem with this franchise. It all comes from the top down. Yes, Dell executed the Jrue trade that night, but what you guys don't know - that everybody in the know does know - is the mandate he was given less than a week before.

Now, if it was completely up to Dell, maybe he still prefers Jrue over the slow build. Maybe. But if a more patient owner was there and mandated a slower, more sustainable build, Dell would have followed his orders.

In my ideal world, they are ALL gone. But if I was told I could only get rid of one, it would be Benson. From what I know from multiple parties (not just Dell's POV), it is an absolute no brainer.

---

Just getting to see this. I wish someone with this knowledge would publish an article specifically detailing the "mandate" and what Dell did in response vs what hhe woyld have done without the mandate because his history as a DNA pre-Benson seems to mesh with the moves he made after Benson came on board. I also think specifics of ownership meddling gaining national attention would cause some embarassment and make them rethink their direction.

I actually spoke with Lauscha at a charity event when he was seated at our table a while back and he said that there was no mandate. He said you always want a team to win, but there was not direction from up top on personnel moves. I don't necessarily believe him as I think they wanted wins to generate interest in a "new" team with a budding superstar. I do find it odd that there was a mandate to win and yet Dell supposedly still got an extension last year after we had won very little during his tenure.

Regardless, I don't think people here support the Benson/Lauscha/Loomis group as you seem to think. They try to run an NBA team like the NFL and are way too invested in synergy between the teams beyond just marketing. I wish Morris Bart's investment group would have gotten the team and still hope another ownership group will emerge to keep the team here following Benson's death. However we bitch about getting rid of Dell more than getting rid of Benson because bad press/angry fans can get a GM fired whereas an owner (or death) decides their fate.

I agree with you that I wish both Benson/Dell were gone, but the "if I had to pick one" scenario won't happen so the choice is to keep Dell or try someone else with this ownership. We know that Benson is with us until he leaves this earth and then we will have Gayle for at least some time. Based on that, I really wanted a new GM before all of the capspace from last year was spent. I still want a new GM and it sounds like you do too now.

I know that you will argue the same result will occur with a new GM until there is an ownership change, but if they bring in a stronger willed GM, I believe he at least has a chance to convince AD and then Loomis/Lauscha/Benson that a different path would be better for the team. I know that Dell cannot do this even if he believed that to be the case.

I think the odds of a change of ownership opinion is increased by the fan excitement around Buddy and the scenarios playing out in Milwaukee and Philly.

quote:

---

if they bring in a stronger willed GM

---

They won't and it's not Benson that's the problem here, it's Loomis.

quote:

---

"Who knows what Loomis really thought?" Parcells said. "I don’t have any idea. I don’t know Loomis; I only met him once. But guys like me threaten guys like him."

---

LINK

Loomis seems to have no interest in giving up his position as POBO. I doubt he brings anyone in that would tell him "stay on your side of the building and let me do my job."

The only thing that could remotely put pressure on them is AD telling them very strongly: "Get a legit basketball mind as POBO/GM in here to do this right, or I will start asking for a trade."

quote:

---

Crewz

---

There is no article, is there?