Wow Hassell just got traded. We couldn't even manage to do a 2 for 1? The hell? Upon second review, the last year of Buckner's contract isn't guaranteed... which means he has two years remaining compared to Hassell's three years remaining. So the Wolves save 6 million which I guess is good. The roster space(s) are what's more important though. Geez, I was really hoping that if we could have traded another guy along with one of our \"more valuable\" trade chips (Hassell.) Sigh.

In regards to that \"Another crappy Star Tribune article\" below... The reason I say that is because the author goes on about how this \"clears the way for the Wolves to sign Chris Richard\" and blah blah blah. NO. That's WRONG! I'm not sure how Mr. Jerry Zgoda got his job, but he's clearly an idiot. As I posted in my Financial State of the Wolves article, a team can sign ANY number of rookies and/or random people to a minimum deal. We could have signed Richard the day he was drafted! We could have kept Hassell and signed him! Signing him WASN'T the problem... the problem is having roster spaces! We still can only have 15 guys on our roster come November 1st!!! ARGH! Now, every Joe Q. Public is gonna think \"wow, that's a good trade because now we can sign Chris Richard! Yippee!\"

Jerry Zgoda, you are offically a terrible journalist. I'm beginning to think they have no editors over that at the Strib. At least none that know much about the NBA. What a shame.


Another crappy Star Tribune article

Britt Robson's take at The Rake

http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/10378331

For some reason I am incredibly incensed by such shoddy journalism... So, I emailed the dude. I'll let you all know if/when he responds.

Before I really make up my mind, or get influenced by reading somewhere else about it, I'll just post my first thoughts ...

Dissapointment, your name is McHale!

Oh jeez *sigh*, one of the only valuable assets we have, we trade for a supposedly similar player who is older and smaller than the one we already had? Aaaw man! Maybe there is some \"proven veteran and steady locker room personality that does not demand more than 10 min per game but can tutor the youngsters\" hidden in this, but albeit being three years older, I do not see what Buckner brings in that perspective that Hassel did not. And since CW has already pointed out that this was still a 1-for-1 trade...all we get for Hassel is one year less guaranteed contract? That's ridiculous!

Did I mention I was HIGHLY dissapointed? I know it's strange that after all those years of McHale to have any expectations, but somehow I can never stop dreaming.

So maybe...this is only the beginning and more trades are to come by, maybe one 2-for-1 including Howard since we do have now another oldtimer on the roster?? I will keep hoping...

On the other hand...I am happy for Hassel. He has obviously fallen out of favor with Wittman and for a all-over solid and pleasant character like him, it is good to go to a team which values him (which I expect Dallas will do) and which still bears the expectation of being a sure bet to reach the playoffs at the very least. I know it is unlikely considering Dallas' performance the last years, but wouldn't it be strange to see Hassel win a ring before KG?

@ CW:
Good job writing that e-mail! People need to bee shown where their place is! The worls is already suffering enough from clueless sports journalism (ask me about Basketball coverage in Germany...or better: don't!) I am eager to learn if there will be an response...

Actually, according to hoopshype, Buckner's contract is one year LONGER than Hassell's. Buckner has three years, with at player option for a fourth, and Hassell has only two years, with a player option for a third.

There is nothing you can say! Nothing can justify this. I am amazed beyond belief.

He only has two guaranteed years remaining, and he makes less money than Hassell does...like CW, I would have preferred a 2-1 deal, but this deal is still pretty smart from an economical perspective. I'd guess the Wolves might look to buyout those two years.

I know you save a little bit financially but this trade does not solve anything. We still have too many players at the 2 and 3.

According to the Strib...

\"Hassell is due $4.35 million this season on a contract that runs through 2010. Buckner, a former Clemson star who played in a memorable double-overtime NCAA tournament loss to the Gophers in 1997, is due $3.5 million this season on a contract that runs through 2011.\"

I certainly hope that's not true, otherwise this is an increidbly stupid trade. Even if the last year of Buckner's contract is non-guaranteed, so they both expire in 2010, why would you lose somebody who may be tradeable for somebody who isn't tradeable to save 800K a year? I'm happy that Hassell's on a contender, but this seems like a trade for the sake of a trade and I see no way in which this makes us better.

If Buckner's contract is a year shorter, that's one thing. But I haven't seen that anywhere. This is just dumb.

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_7033658?nclick_check=1

Buckner is owed a total of $7,259,259 for the next two seasons. After that, the Wolves can part ways with Buckner.

Well I feel a whole lot better now knowing that the deal at least make financial sense. Shoddy journalism from the Strib indeed, CW. Forgetting to leave out that the last two years of the contract are non-guaranteed is a big omission.

College Wolf wrote:
PLEASE DO!!

DeROK wrote:
I know. Such a shame... once again, where are the editors?!?! So far I have not heard back...

Last thoughts on the Hassell trade for now: At least it's not a \"negative\" deal. On a scale of -10 to +10 I give it a 1. Just barely better than a wash, but at least it's not negative. (i.e. us getting someone else back that would cost us MORE money for the contract.)

College Wolf wrote:
Good thoughts...I agree. Something that had to be done but nothing really to get excited about. Yeah, you should of CC the editor on that email CW! That would've gotten a response, hahaha!!

Terrific move. Just great. Perhaps McHale is trying to get fired. what a wash. Good move for Dallas. Hassell's a slight upgrade.

We'll probably trade Jaric for 3 players next week...Idiots.

daddyfatsax wrote:

I just read today that the Wolves were also trying to get Nick Fazekas from Dallas in the Hassell-Buckner trade...

This is from \"Shooter\" at the Pioneer Press. He's the same guy that \"broke\" the Hassell to Dallas trade. His info is usually wrong, but he was dead right about the Hassell trade. Here's what he said:


\"Pssst: The Dallas Mavs' 6-11, 235-pound Nick Fazekas, who is Nevada's all-time leading scorer, was discussed as an inclusion for the Timberwolves in the Trenton Hassell-Greg Buckner trade Friday night.\"


WHAT?!?!?! Why would we seriously try to do a 1 for 2 trade!?!?!

Does ANYONE have any brains in our Front Office? My god......

College Wolf wrote:

AAAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!! That's just comical! What are we putting together, a football team??? We might have enough players...I'd vote Foye for QB~