I also wouldn't ask LaMelo to take DiVincenzo's role and pay him max money to do it, not when there's a pool (pardon the pun) of DiVincenzo's to pick from for $5 mil every summer.
1. Dante’s “role” is what it is because thats all his talent allows …a better player in those minutes would obviously give you more value
2. Having to pay a guy max money means you likely have a good player

Like my brother what are you even saying here? “Ohh no we have tooo many good players that we have to pay” I don’t understand what kind of argument that is …are you suggesting that you rather have bad players that don’t command high salaries? Help me digest what you’re trying to say here.
Now, would LaMelo command value in a trade? Absolutely, but teams are clingy and the reason why there are franchises I call "Clusterfukk City" is because they have talent that can't fully grow unless something gives, and teams are always afraid of trading the wrong guy. They just want it all to sort itself out somehow (it's why I give Sacramento credit for trading Haliburton even though it had to hurt. He'll be amazing, but what the Kings were doing wasn't gonna work without one of Fox/Haliburton being dealt for comparable talent at another position)
Ok bro so now are you’re insinuating that Lamelo would have looked sooooooo good on the Warriors that they would of course not trade him and thus not extract true value for him?

cmon my bro
I just showed you an example of a team that moved on from a young player because of roster construction and the value proposition that young player offers you if you let him go …if the Kings would do that to accommodate building a better team for DeAron Foxx you’re going to sit here and straight face say that the warriors wouldn’t have traded either Ball or Poole to accommodate Steph Curry and building a better balanced team for him?
Like even if what you’re saying about clusterfukk teams is true that’s still a good problem to have as you still have an off ramp in that situation with a trade that can benefit your team.
Wiseman's demise came from 2 things:
1. He was farther behind than they had time for
2. He lost a whole season due to injury.
This is a bunch of excuse making tbh, the guy played what 5 college games, you mean to tell me they didn’t know he was going to be “behind” in his development lmao that’s called neglect at best and incompetence at worst
He wasn’t good before the injury he wasn’t good after the injury he was simply never a good basketball player period… his demise steams from him simply not being good and being OVERDRAFTED based solely on physical traits instead of basketball ability… we’ve seen this time and time and time again with big men in drafts.. especially when they flash a level of athleticism at that size
Since we're down this road, what mistake was worse: not drafting LaMelo or not trading up to #1?
Well I don’t know if the Warriors actually had a competitive package to solicit a move up to #1 at the time. What would that offer have even looked like? And what guarantees the Wolves would have taken it? It’s one thing to say you’re shopping your pick it’s another to make the deal.
There’s variables in that scenario outside of the Warriors pure boneheaded decision making process unlike them directly choosing to draft James Wiseman