Ok everyone, we're bad, now what?
by Mplax on Nov 22, 2009 2:30 PM CST
122 comments
Alright, it's been well established that we are bad. We are awful, it's true. Personally, I still love our Wolves and will cheer for them through thick and thin... Yes, even Corey Brewer thin.
But now that this has been established, where do we go now? Obviously we will not be giving the Clippers our pick this year, and let's pretend for a while that we don't move down in the lottery. I know, I know, we're the Wolves and there is no way that this happens (I still can't believe that we have NEVER moved up in a draft). We'll probably miss out on Wall and Favors, and end up with Laettner. Err.... wait, hopefully Wall and Favors turn out like Shaq and Zo, but we don't move down to third this time.
So we get the number one pick, we get what we have now in salary cap, and for arguments sake we don't get a tier one FA. You are David Kahn, what do you do? I know we've had this post before, but times have changed. Give us what we need (I think much of this will be obvious), who you want to fill that spot, and why they are the right choice. FA, draft, and trades. And yes, you can sign and trade and trade our draft picks if you so choose. What do you do? Let's have some fun with this.
0 recs |
122 comments
Email
Print
Comments
1. Trade Rubio’s rights for a 4th-6th pick.
2. Draft Wall first and Cole Aldrich 4th-6th.
3. Trade Al Jefferson and Jonny Flynn for Kevin Martin and Spencer Hawes (ideally Jason Thompson, but they probably wouldn’t part with him).
4. Sign Rudy Gay
5. Sign Travis Outlaw.
Field a line-up of:
PG: John Wall/ Ramon Sessions
SG: Kevin Martin/ Corey Brewer
SF: Rudy Gay/ Travis Outlaw
PF: Kevin Love/ Ryan Hollins
C: Cole Aldrich/ Spencer Hawes.
Watch the team blossom into a contender.
by LoveTo on Nov 22, 2009 5:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I like most of it
The only issues we might see are injury related with Kevin Martin. And I don’t know much about Wall’s defense, but at positions 2-3, we are pretty weak. Aldrich would be a solid anchor for that though. Think we could get him while only giving up Flynn and then sending Rubio to SacTown (now that they realize Evans is a SG) with Jefferson and coax Thompson out of there?
by Mplax on Nov 22, 2009 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wall is athletic enough that he will be a lockdown defender after he’s proven he can play offense (like MJ, Kobe, and LeBron all did). And the thing is, all four of our 2-3 guys in that rotation are athletic enough that there’s no reason they shouldn’t be adequate defensively. Brewer is a stopper already, and shouldn’t Gay and Outlaw have defensive ability in them to be coaxed out?
The main thing about that rotation is that Love is the only guy who you could even begin to call undersized. Everyone else is long and athletic for their position. I could see Wall becoming a superstar really quickly, and that’s a pretty good supporting cast, if you ask me.
by LoveTo on Nov 22, 2009 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good except for #3
I don’t like that trade for us. I agree with some of the others in that I’m concerned about Martin’s injury risk and lack of defense, but I also don’t like the value in that trade at all. I mean, for Jefferson AND Flynn, I’d want a Granger level player.
by Esohny on Nov 23, 2009 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Jason Thompson a better player than Kevin Love?
Looking at his numbers, I think he might be. Just wondering what people on this site think, since I know a lot of K-Love fans post here.
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's possible
But you can’t compare Thompson’s numbers this season to Love’s last season. It’s also not clear whether Thompson is an intangibles guy to the extent that Love is.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 23, 2009 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
… I was just wondering. I didn’t expect much out of Thompson going into that draft, but he’s turned out to be a beast. I watch quite a few Kings games, and to me Thompson looks like the real deal, not just a stat stuffer on a bad team.
I agree that the jury is out on re: whether Thompson is the intangibles guy Love is, but there’s one area where he’d be an objectively better fit: size & length. Thompson looks long & has a nice NBA PF body. The opposite is true of K-Love on both counts, who does a nice job overcoming this disadvantage.
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Wolves can get Wall and Cole Aldrich
they need to trade for players who are accustomed to WINNING. Adding players from losing franchises is a bad move. Other than going for players other than Gay and Martin, I think you have very solid ideas. Not sure he is the right player, but a Tayshaun Prince type.
by Rumblebee on Nov 23, 2009 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally
I wish we could walk away from this draft with John Wall, Evan Turner, AND Cole Aldrich without fielding a lineup that is too many rookies. Dang. How do we get a defensive center and a defensive minded wing in all of this still without taking too many rookies?
by Mplax on Nov 22, 2009 5:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If we get the first pick, couldn’t we make it simple and just trade Rubio for another top-5 pick (Aldrich), and Jefferson for another top-8 pick (Turner)?
by LoveTo on Nov 22, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If we're going to be trading out so much talent, I'd rather trade it for a prove player
Chris Bosh perhaps.
by Oceanary on Nov 22, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's an FA though
So it’s kinda up to him if he wants to be here. And we wouldn’t HAVE to trade anything for him.
by Mplax on Nov 22, 2009 6:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If we think he's sign here voluntarily
I guess we’d need a guarantee he’s resign, bu by trading for him, we guarantee he’ll be here and we make it mush easier to resign him.
If we’re going to trade big contracts like Jefferson’s, I’d prefer to get a guy averaging 27-12 than try to weed out another draft pick.
by Oceanary on Nov 22, 2009 8:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tough to trade Rubio next year...
It’s going to be very tough to get value for Ricky given that he’s not coming over next year. It’s going to be tough to find a bad/lotto team willing to deal their top pick for a guy they won’t see for another year. The Wolves have taken so much flak for being willing to “wait” for Rubio, but at least we had 2 lotto picks. How do you sell your fans at all if you only have the one pick?
I’m not saying that trading Rubio is a bad idea, but I think it’s going to happen the summer he’s ready to come to the NBA if it’s going to happen.
by Blond Ricky on Nov 23, 2009 6:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
On the bright side...
…the Rubio trade looks better every day
by PoohRubio on Nov 22, 2009 5:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If Washington doesn't make a playoff run
They will be skewered for giving up the #5 for Foye and oft-injured Miller!
by Rumblebee on Nov 23, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But of course, the cure to our ills is always in the next draft....
I don’t think so. How’s that worked out of us the past few years? Every single pick we’ve made has either underperformed or at best met expectations. And it’s too early to trade Rubio’s rights. Let’s see where things stand in the spring of 2011 before trading him away. We won’t get full value for him when he’s still a year away from coming to the NBA. Jefferson is another player that is tough to get equal value on (once he’s fully healthy). In terms of the draft, we need to take the BPA and it’s way too early to start thinking about who that will be this year. Conference play is way different than the silly season we’re in now, so I like to wait until the new year before mocking up the next draft. In terms of FA’s, there is no question we need to go out and get a player or two. And I’m fine with splitting the cap space between a couple of guys like Josh Childress and Anthony Morrow, two players that would be massive, massive upgrades on the wings compared to the trash we have now. Then let’s hope to God that Pekovic is willing to come over. He’d add tremendous depth up front or be a very nice trade asset.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 22, 2009 6:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The cure for any team's ills really IS always in the next draft...
It’s just very rare for a team to get it. But more than one really, really good starting player comes out of every single draft, usually much more. Not that it’s likely or a slam dunk or anything, but the Wolves have the means to pull off a kind of mega-draft this year, like a Roy/Aldridge.
Can always dream about it at the very least, no?
by LoveTo on Nov 23, 2009 1:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"Every single pick we've made has either underperformed or at best met expectations."
Kevin Love exceeded my expectations, at least.
by LoveTo on Nov 23, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love didn't exceed my expecations overall
He was the 5th pick and I would expect good, solid play from him. He exceeded my expectations as a rebounder. But he missed by expecations as an outside shooter (Jefferson made a higher % of jumpers than Love) and passer. And defensively he met my expectations as being very limited. Overall, he met expectations, but didn’t exceed them. Perhaps he will this year or next year, but so far the jury is out.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Too early to be worrying about this...
Mainly because the ratings of prospects change throughout the college season. They should be looking to add skilled athletes of all stripes in the draft (except at PG unless they get the #1) and figuring out how to get one contender-quality cornerstone with their cap space and a vet who complements what’s already in place and adds toughness.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 22, 2009 6:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Is it too early for the scouting staff to be worrying about it?
It’s not like discussing it will change what happens, I’m just trying to do this to have fun and help us realize how many assets we do still have/could end up with.
by Mplax on Nov 22, 2009 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
Talking about this is really all we Wolves fans have. Because we truly, really do have a lot of assets to deal with. I think in all the bleakness that comes with 1-12, we forget that, if Kahn is as smart as he seems publicly, he has the means to massively upgrade this roster pretty quickly. And it’s fun to talk about every, say, 12 losses or so.
by LoveTo on Nov 23, 2009 1:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My original reasoning for not worrying about this...
Was because the top prospects now (pro and college) might not be the same ones at the end of the season. That’s just misrepresenting my point.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 23, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd guess the first thing to say
is that I expected us to be bad, but not quite this bad. But there is time for the group and Rambis to turn it around somewhat. Its awful to think you’d be pleased (thrilled) with 25 wins, but that is where we are.
I think the other thing to acknowledge is that there are no quick fixes. “Rock Bottom since 2004” is going to continue for some time yet.
I think we’ll see more of the same as last offseason. Trade for picks, use the picks or defer for later pick and enter the FA market late for a “second tier” player that meets specific needs.
I would imagine, however, that Rubio’s rights stay in our pocket. Not because he is going to play in Minnesota (I don’t believe he will) but because he has no easy mechanism to get to the NBA until 2011; his first ETO is after his second season in Barcelona. I think with 12 further months under his belt, age 20, he is a better player and allows us to gain better value at the trade deadline in 2011 or in the leadup to the 2011 draft.
And if John Wall is our guy in the next draft we don’t want to be caught in a PG firesale trying to move two of Sessions, Flynn and Rubio.
If we land a post player I think Jefferson moves on.
I think we see a lot of those expiring deals allowed to do just that also. One eye on the salary cap and another on the balance sheet shall we say.
Judd: "...I've since watched some Steven Seagal movies and I realise that pressure points are no laughing matter.".
by Auswolf on Nov 22, 2009 6:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
In the meantime, how about James Jones?
Miami’s shopping him, and he’d add some much needed three point shooting, plus he rebounds and defends. I think he’d be a much better fit in our starting five than Gomes.
by Oceanary on Nov 22, 2009 8:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He's making $4 mil this season
and has 4 more years on his contract. No thanks. It says something that a team desperate for scoring like Miami is shopping him.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 22, 2009 8:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You hope for John Wall
The Kid looks like a mix between Dwayne Wade, Rajon Rondo, and Derrick Rose. 55% shooting with an awesome free-throw rate. Derrick Favors also has a lot of intrigue but he’s not the sure bet that Wall is for Super-Stardom.
Other Points
1. You don’t trade Rubio since his value is going to be low due to his contract.
2. You maybe trade Al depending on if he can get healthier as the season goes along. Although Al’s so hard to evaluate considering the surronding talent.
3. I’m no real Jonny Flynn fan-I’m not sure what he would bring in a trade. I just don’t know if he becomes an NBA PG.
4. Love the Josh Childress idea- again.
5. No Chance on James Jones.
by Jose Cordoba on Nov 23, 2009 7:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Why does Rubio's value have to be low?
If he plays as well as expected his value may actually climb. Last summer there were questions about his buyout, next summer it will be known he can leave in one year. Also, something nobody mentions is that contracts can be renegotiated if both sides agree. Perhaps Rubio’s Spanish team agrees to a $3 million buyout next summer. Not saying it will happen, but don’t be surprised.
by Rumblebee on Nov 23, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If he can’t renegotiate a buyout, his value isn’t going to be at it’s peak. The one year wait is better than two, but still a tough sell to a team bad enough to have a top 5 pick. It’s bad enough for a team with 2 like the Wolves. Can you imagine suffering through a really bad year and then dealing your pick for a guy who may or may not come over next year without at least another lotto pick to hope on?
by Blond Ricky on Nov 23, 2009 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Our one hope...
Would have been Utah, as they didn’t really have to suffer…
But Derron Williams foils that plan.
by Blakeley on Nov 24, 2009 8:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The draft part is self-explanatory: take the best player available. If there’s more than 1 guy that you feel are even, take the one that’s a better fit.
I’d love to come away with 2 top 10 picks somehow, but I’m not sure what that’s going to take so it’s hard speculate. I’m not clammoring to move Jefferson, but would entertain it if the right deal came along, but it’s going to take more than draft picks (I like the Bosh idea).
I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t trade Rubio’s rights, though. It’s going to be hard to get back value equal to his potential. I do think that a Turner/Aldrich draft would be awesome..
Regarding FA/cap space, I’d like to see them add some real, veteran talent without grossly overpaying. I’d love it if they could add an established all-starish player like Joe Johnson, but at the very least I’m OK with a proven wing along the lines of Gay (if he continues to show improvement), Ronnie Brewer or Childress. Adding some length up front by way of someone like Brendan Haywood would also be nice.
Coming away with a lineup like:
Flynn/Sessions (Rubio)
Evan Turner/Brewer
Rudy Gay (or Childress)/Brewer
Love/Jefferson
Jefferson/Haywood
Would be pretty cool, and really fun to watch. Ideally, you’d have a JJ + Turner combo on the wing, but he’s going to be hard to get and if it takes a Rashard Lewis type deal then I say no thanks.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 9:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I love Ronnie Brewer
and I love what he could do to help the Wolves. There aren’t many moves I wouldn’t make to get my hands on this guy.
by nextmove on Nov 23, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing to remember about cap space
Kahn has never said it will be used next summer, he usually refers to 2011 as the time to use cap space. I think his plan is to use the 2009 and 2010 drafts to acquire talent, then at the end of the 2011 season see where the teams stands and fill the final gap with a free agent.
by Rumblebee on Nov 23, 2009 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I love Evan Turner
An absolute BEAST, he is going to be great
The Hochevar Principle: The future comes to all teams. Some teams wait for it. Those teams finish in last place a lot.
by DaTwins on Nov 23, 2009 9:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s waaaay too early to be giving up on Flynn. Wait until Love gets back, and let Rambis turn Flynn loose on the PnR with Love, and then tell me what you think of him.
by Dave T on Nov 23, 2009 10:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Is everyone (except Dave T.) in agreement that Flynn was the wrong choice at #6?...
… or do some of you still think he’ll turn out to be the best pick for our team (i.e., in terms of leadership, intangibles, etc) once Kahn puts the rest of his pieces in place? With Jennings starring and Lawson thriving, saying Flynn was the right choice with such a high lottery pick isn’t easy. Flynn looks like he’s lost confidence during the losing streak. He began the season playing based on his instincts. The result was a string of high-scoring games with few assists. To my eye, he’s now thinking too much, trying to fit into Rambis’ offense. This is resulting in less scoring, and little more tangible productivity in the passing game. I hope this rough patch is simply a matter of him “unlearning” some bad habits and learning some things that he’ll need to thrive in our system, whatever it is. But as each game passes, Flynn looks more and more ordinary, especially compared with Jennings but even with Lawson. Hell, Maynor has even starred when given the opportunity. The point is, there were lots of very good point guards in the draft, including two whom we drafted who aren’t even playing in the NBA (Rubio & Calathes). Even after only 13 games, one has to look at the Flynn pick with regret. We (and especially Kahn) better hope we get something very good with the pick we got for Lawson. Based on what I believed at the time, I’d have gone with Rubio at 5 and Curry at 6, on the intuition that Curry could play the one if Rubio wouldn’t sign for this season and that he could slide over to the two when Ricky finally comes over. I think that Rubio/Curry/Love would’ve been special.
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Legit to doubt, but too early to conclude
I think we all have our doubts about if Flynn was the right pick, and a lot had those doubts from the get-go, as very few of us had Flynn mocked as a top 6 pick. Let’s see if he can fight his way through this rough patch and start tightening up his play as the season wears on.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't remember any Wolves fans thinking that Flynn was the obvious pick...
… until the “blowout pre-draft point guard workout” at the Target Center, where Kahn fell in Love and started selling Flynn. At that point, fans started to buy into the pick. But if Kahn had never instigated the sell job, I think more people would’ve mocked the pick. (I know I’m not representative of the population of Wolves fans, for whatever reasons, but I was skeptical of taking Flynn that high, especially after we took Rubio. When I watched Syracuse last year, Flynn was good but never really stood out—which is sort of what we see in the Wolves’ games this season.)
As a fan, I’m willing to give Jonny & Kahn the benefit of the doubt because I like Jonny’s attitude and leadership and I like Kahn’s aggressiveness & belief in his own talent evaluation/strategic vision. I hope that when/if Kahn puts some worthwhile talent around Jonny, he’ll be the kind of leader who keeps the team moving in the right direction, like Rondo does for the Celtics. But at this point, purely from a talent perspective, Jennings is clearly better, and Lawson was clearly a better value. Based on watching a few Denver games this season, I feel comfortable saying that Flynn is not a significant upgrade over Lawson—and yes, I’m aware of the talent differences between Denver and Minnesota. If this is true, Kahn should’ve kept Lawson and dealt Flynn. Surely he could’ve netted more for Flynn than he got for Lawson.
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree
with your early assessment, especially as it relates to Jennings. And a lot of us on this board sung the praises of Lawson’s incredible year at UNC. I just remember ripping McHale about the OJ for Love trade around this time last year, only to witness Love gradually get better and OJ gradually cool off. By the end of the year I thought it was the right deal to make. I’m not saying the same thing will happen in Flynn’s case, but it really is too early to judge.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe
That everyone’s questioning Flynn as an NBA point guard. Probably the same crew that questioned Love as a player (’He’s not scoring 15+ points a game like Mayo is…" etc.)
We talk about small sample sizes on here quite a bit, and we’re just going to disregard that now? This all comes across to me as an over-reaction to our record. I think talent difference cannot be overstated, re: Lawson or Rondo. You’re talking about young point guards who are the 4th option at best on their own teams. What do you expect? Jennings is doing quite well, but he’s also playing for a coach who is determined to run everything through him? What do you expect? Put either of those guys on our squad and they wouldn’t be having the same kind of impact they are now, and that’s reality.
It’s like the Vikings and Childress. Say what you want about Childress as a coach, the fact of the matter is that he took over a playoff squad and made his changes and the team got worse. So he kept making changes, used the draft and FA adeptly, and the team improved each year. Finally he goes for the big FA splash and signs Favre and suddenly the Vikes are legit Superbowl contenders. Now take a guy like Sidney Rice, who’s leading the NFC in receiving yards. Guy didn’t look like much of a player, until now that he plays with some talent. Put Flynn next to a Carmelo Anthony or KG/Allen/Pierce and watch what he does. Don’t sell out on him after 12 or 13 games because he’s not Steve Nash.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 23, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"Surely he could've netted more for Flynn than Lawson"
I’ve wondered this and am not so sure. No one was after #6 according to the rumors; the Knicks wanted #5, and the Nets wanted Jefferson, but it seemed like no one liked Steph Curry enough to move up to that slot. Logically, I agree, but #18 was sought after by the Nuggets because they really liked Lawson.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 23, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record...
…I am pretty sure we traded the #18 to Denver (after Chicago drafted Johnson – how happy would we be with an Evans, Flynn, Johnson draft?) but couldn’t complete the deal in time. So Kahn called Denver and they instructed him to pick Lawson.
Also, didn’t Jennings act like a complete diva in his workout? Like ignoring requests by coaches to do certain things? I remember words like ‘bizarre’ and ‘never seen anything like it’ being thrown around. We weren’t drafting Jennings either. How could we?
Because there are no fours.
Toine
by CaliWolf on Nov 23, 2009 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I remember that kind of thing coming out about Jennings too.
Which is why, although he’s doing really well right now, I’m still not devastated about passing on him. Can’t you picture things starting to go sour in Milwaukee soon, even if it isn’t til next year?
by LoveTo on Nov 23, 2009 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love vouched for the guy
Love and Jennings go way back as polarizing as Jennings is maybe he will be as polarizing as Kobe for NBA fans but like Kobe he is still a great baller, Hall of famer, ect. Love made numerous statements saying he wanted the T-wolves to pick Jennings at 6 last summer. In fact if McHale was still GM Jennings agent said he would of picked him. But all that aside Flynn can still become a good player as well just will never have the same attention as Jennings does in league.
by KahningPups on Nov 25, 2009 12:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like there are about 50 “good young point guards” in the league, right now. Wall will be 51, next year. Unless you have one of the truly dynamic, game-changer types (Paul, Williams, Parker, Rose, Wall???) you can’t be too excited about your point guard in this NBA.
Kahn explained over and over that he took Flynn because he thought he could be “special.” After a dozen games, Jennings looks like an All-Star and Flynn looks like an ordinary rookie. Of course, if Flynn is slow to develop, it paves a clearer path for Rubio in 2011. If Ricky becomes the player that we all hope and many expect, it might be alright to have a spark plug like Flynn off the bench. Not ideal for the 6th pick, but it was a weak draft and the scenario might not be as bad as it sounds, right now.
After going through the 2009 Draft, however, I’m really hoping that we don’t make the 2010 Draft Lottery a priority, in terms of acquiring additional picks. It’s not fun to watch rookies, unless they are truly special. We’ve got enough young potential with Love, Jefferson, Flynn and hopefully Rubio to start thinking about winning instead of further rebuilding. One pick, which should be a very high one, is enough youth to add to an already young and inexperienced group.
by Andy G on Nov 23, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
We need to add some legit, young vets to the squad. Our player development staff will have their hands full with Hollins, Jawai, Ellington, Flynn, and Brewer next offseason (honestly not sure what more Brewer can even do at this point. At some point, you either have a good outside shot or you don’t. He’s been jacking up thousands of shots each of the last few offseasons and it’s done nothing so far. It was always the same story with Telfair too. He’d come back from a summer of working on his shot, only to keep throwing up bricks in the regular season). The last thing they need is yet another 3 or 4 rookies thrown into the mix. Give us one lottery stud and then either trade or stash the other picks.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wall will be a superstar...
… but I think he might be a combo guard in the “good” sense of the term (i.e., in the D-Wade/LeBron James sense of the term, meaning a freak athlete who is best with the ball in his hands and who is gifted at making plays for himself and for his teammates.) I think we could draft him as a two and play him on the wing with Flynn as the other guard. I’d love to add Evan Turner as the other wing, but now I’m just dreaming.
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2009 draft
was essentially the PG stimulus package. There is no reason to think that Flynn will be better than the cluster of first round picks, and right now he’s performing in the lower half. However, there was no clear cut favorite even at the time. Everyone had question marks, with Jennings havnig as many as anyone. You can only draft with what you know at the time, and even if Flynn doesn’t end up looking to be “worth” the 6 pick compared to the other PGs, I can’t really criticize the pick even if I would have taken a different player.
by dropstep on Nov 23, 2009 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there was no clear-cut favorite. I think the point that some are making and you seem to agree with is that there were a ton of PG’s in that draft, and it was probably a mistake to select two in the Top 6, when an arguably equal PG could be had at 18 (where both Lawson and Maynor were available).
The only problem that I see with that thinking is that there wasn’t anybody else to take at 6 of a different position. Unless you were enamored with Gerald Henderson, DeMar DeRozan and Terrance Williams, there didn’t seem to be a 6-worthy player at a non-PG position.
by Andy G on Nov 23, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s why it would’ve been difficult to move that pick. The only guy teams wanted was Curry; it would’ve been interesting to see whether there were offers for #6 that were turned down.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 23, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And it's fair to point out
That none of those guys are tearing it up either.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 23, 2009 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I had no idea
who the wolves should take at 6. I had no problem with a 2nd PG, especially if I had the insider info on how hard it would be to bring Rubio over. I was never a Flynn guy, because he seemed to be a combine phenom, and he appeared to lack both the high ceiling of the young guys like Jennings and Holiday, as well as the college performance credentials of Lawson, Collison, Maynor, etc. Still, I wasn’t impressed by the SGs available once Harden left the table, so I agree with the approach taken by the Wolves. They needed a guy who could contribute at PG THIS year. Holiday ain’t that guy, and Jennings couldn’t have raised more red flags in his workouts if he went full retard. Curry had the possibility of Foye 2.0 which had to scare the Wolves off.
Hindsight changes everything, knowing Rubio stays overseas makes the Flynn pick smart, but knowing we got Sessions makes me wish we drafted a high ceiling guy like Holiday to mature on the bench with a similar timeline to Rubio. I still am not impressed by the non-PGs that were available at that position. So, it seems like the Wolves took what the draft gave them, and even if Flynn gets outplayed by PGs drafted in the teens and 20s, it doesn’t mean the Wolves blew it. As others are saying, I don’t think the pick could have been dealt for anything.
by dropstep on Nov 23, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh, I’m picturing Jennings as Simple Jack now.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You m-m-m-mmm-m-make me happy.
You were a daydreamer, a sass-mouth, and, not infrequently, a bit of a gigglepuss. Somehow I doubt twenty years of amphetamines and failure have done anything to improve that.
by Kevin Loves McHale's Navy on Nov 23, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jury's still out
I think he’d look at least as good as Lawson does if they were just “letting him play,” and I also think none of those guys would look as good as they do if they were working within Rambis’ confines.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 23, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lawson and Jennings are playing great...
but comparing them to Flynn at this point is absurd. Denver is loaded with talent plus they have Billups and Carter as veteran point guards. There is absolutely no pressure on Lawson. Jennings has complete freedom with the Bucks and they are an extremely good defensive team.
The Timberwolves are so worthless in every aspect of the game it is impossible to make any type of assessment regarding Flynn. It is certainly way too earlier to say if using a #6 pick on will eventually be justified.
by Menyun on Nov 23, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"To my eye, he’s now thinking too much, trying to fit into Rambis’ offense."
I don’t think you can just put this on Flynn and give Rambis a pass.
by Punisher#8 on Nov 23, 2009 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pekovic?
What is the status of Pekovic? Is there a chance he will be here next year? Is he better than Aldrich?
by jgale on Nov 23, 2009 10:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure on his status, but I think we could bring him over next year if we want to pay him enough. I think he’ll be a pretty effective NBA player and a nice asset, though what he brings is pretty redundant with what we already have – think a 6’10 white Craig Smith. Good finisher on pick and rolls, strong offensive rebounder, OK post game, but not a shot-challenger or an impact rebounder. He’ll mostly be a high efficiency finisher from what I’ve seen, so no, I’d rather have Aldrich due to his ability to make an impact defensively. He’ll be a solid shot-blocker and post defender as well as a very good rebounder all while not killing you offensively, so I think he’s a much better fit on this team.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 10:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a thinker...
Does Pekovic have a higher ceiling than Jawai? Jawai is the same age and height and was considered a similar-level prospect as Pek (some mock drafts had him as a first-rounder). I think Pekovic has a higher floor but not necessarily a higher ceiling.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 23, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Could Pekovic be Scola with a better post game?/What's the Deal with Jefferson's Offense?
Pekovic sounds tough as nails. The advantage of a Pekovic over other Euro bruisers, as the scouting reports have it, is that Pek has a well developed inside/post game. If Pek brought many of the best aspects of a Scola along with some interior offense, we’d be a much, much better team. We can no longer rely on Jefferson to score in the paint like we used to, at least not until he fully recovers. And Love proved last year that he isn’t a go-to option on the low block—he’s better at scoring off putbacks and when he gets shots out of the flow of the offense. It’d be nice to have a third guy who can be relied on to get some points in the paint.
Is anyone willing to attribute some of Jefferson’s reduced efficiency/effectiveness on the block not to his knee, or to the new offense, but to his weight loss? To my eye, it appears that Al now struggles to get the kind of low-block position that he was routinely getting last year. Now, this might be due to the knee, but I suspect it has more to do with his “new” body & his reduced strength & bulk.
As a post player on my high school varsity team, I went through periods of weight gain & loss, and I know that shifts of 15 pounds or more dramatically affected my ability to get post position. If this is affecting Al’s ability to get in close where he can make his bunnies, he’s going to need to put on some muscle, or he’s going to have to start eating his mama’s fried food again. (Didn’t he attribute the weight loss to cutting out the fried southern food?) I’m aware that Al’s scoring has been up the past few games, so maybe this is a non-issue, but I feel like he’s forced away from the basket more this year, and it’s hurting his overall offensive game.
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Center vs. PF
Jefferson has been playing more away from the basket ever since he came to the Wolves from the Celtics. The reason is that he’s rarely paired with a legit Center that commands the biggest defender from the opposing team. As a result, he’s guarded by the likes of Oden, Shaq, Brendan Haywood, etc. He can add 15 – 20 lbs back and he’ll still be undersized vs. these guys. When he was in Boston, he was often on the floor with Kendrick Perkins, which allowed him to post up similarly sized or smaller PFs. Look at his shot charts over the years. He took a much higher % of inside shots with the C’s than with the Wolves. I think it has more to do with who he’s paired with as the other big than his weight. For those who want us to go out and draft Cole Aldrich or sign Brendan Haywood as a free agent, there is data to support this sort of move.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you, Rascal, but...
… I think the causal story you’re attributing to the correlation isn’t fully correct. I think Jefferson’s shooting more jumpers now because a) he has improved his 15 foot jumper relative to when he entered the league and believes it can/should be an integral part of his offensive game, and b) he can no longer get the kind of post position he was getting when he was heavier/healthier. Even relative to last year, when Jeff rarely played with a “real” center, he’s now shooting more outside shots. Last year he started gaining confidence in his jumper—I’ve heard Boston’s commentators (not the most reliable source, I know, but still a data point) say that Al had no jumper when he entered the league—and so he started shooting it more, but he was still a force in the paint. This season, Al is no longer a force in the paint, for whatever reason—his knee, the triangle, or his skinny frame—so he’s shooting even more jumpers. But I don’t think it’s just because he’s matched up on the other team’s big guys since this is a constant from last year. Even when he played for Boston, my memory is that Perkins was not getting many minutes alongside Jefferson (or overall, really). Perk didn’t get many minutes until the KG trade gutted the team and forced them to put Perk in the lineup since they no longer had Al to play at the 5.
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's probably some combination of all of the above
- better outside shot
- slimmed down
- guarded by opposing team’s biggest player
Jefferson is truly a ‘tweener. Too small to matchup against the elite Centers and too slow to matchup against most elite PFs. It’s a real problem.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rambis also might be encouraging him to develop a face up game. After all, the wolves are supposed to be leading the league in player development according to Kahn. He still looks pretty awkward when he has the ball anywhere outside of the low post. It looks like he is trying to get a feel for the kinds of footwork and the different moves that might help him beat a slower defender, which causes him to make a lot of fugly moves. A fundamental problem with this may be that he simply isn’t quicker than most of the larger defenders assigned to him.
It also does not help that the team’s lack of shooting gives him almost no space to operate in, help defenders don’t really have to watch their main assignments very closely. Last year, the wolves at least had Foye and Miller to help space the floor. Foye may have been maddeningly inconsistent, but he had enough of a shot that defenders needed to stay close to him. And, even though Miller refused to shoot the basketball, defenders often stuck around him anyway. I suppose players don’t watch a ton of tape to prepare for a bottom dweller opponent.
by oblivionspocket on Nov 24, 2009 3:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am in the Aldrich (or another big guy) camp
Jefferson is most valuable at PF. Trade him to a team in need of a PF and get a legit wing in return.
by Rumblebee on Nov 23, 2009 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I suppose he could be that type of player. He’s a BIG, strong guy who will have no problem banging in the post in the NBA. I’m not sure he’s a go-to guy in the post, as he’s very much a finisher in the EL rather than a creator, but then again Scola is able to get his hook shot off over some big defenders and Pek is probably bigger than Scola.
Thing to remember is that a lot of Scola’s effectiveness comes from his motor and smart play. If Pek brings those types of intangibles, then he could be very effective. Slightly redundant, but useful nonetheless. You can occasionally catch his games on NBATV, and I’d highly recommend it if you get the chance. Dude will come in and drop 10+ points on 80-100% shooting in as many minutes, basically demolishing the opposing team by himself.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Offensively he just destroys other teams in the paint. Not sure he could quite do that against the elite NBA big men, most of whom could manhandle these Euro bigs that Pekovic faces with one arm tied behind their back. But if Pek is coming off the bench against NBA second units, I think he could do some damage. He’s just so far removed philisophically from where I think Kahn wants to take this team. I think Kahn’s ideal Center is a fleet-footed shot blocker that can protect the paint and rebound, surrounded by a bunch of athletes and ball-handlers.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that is
Marcus Camby.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 23, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I don’t expect him to average 26 points per 40 on like 70% shooting like he does in the EL, but he’s got skills near the hoop. Good touch and great ability to finish, and he doesn’t shy away from contact. I think he could be a starter on a team that needs efficient offense near the hoop. I’m not sure how his defense/rebounding are going to translate, so he might need to be in the right situation where those are covered up (or he might be fine in that regard), but he could be a nice player IMO.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I guess the question is whether he is of more value to us on our squad or as a trade asset. Given Kahn’s vision, I don’t know how many more slow-footed bigs we have room for. Jefferson, Love, Pekovic, and Pecherov (if still around) is terribly unathletic. We have Hollins, but he’s more of a combine freak with terrible instincts on how to position himself for blocks, rebounds, etc.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes by default
No way Jawai is a long-term contributor. Classic case of a guy who only sees minutes because he is on a terrible team.
by Punisher#8 on Nov 23, 2009 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
There’s a difference between “young guy who gets put into the lineup too soon” and “guy who plays due to a lack of other options.” He’s only 23 and has acquitted himself decently; they’re not losing games because he’s their backup 5.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 23, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One man's opinion.
I just don’t see it.
I am certainly not saying he is the reason they are losing, he just reminds me of some of the guys who were rolled through here at the 5 in the pre-McHale era. You have to play somebody there, and he’s the guy for now.
Would venture a guess the team will choose to go small when Love is back.
by Punisher#8 on Nov 23, 2009 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Should we worry about Rubio's very mediocre numbers this season?...
So far, Ricky is putting up 6.5 & 5.5 in 22 mpg. I know that Jennings also put up mediocre numbers in Europe last season, but I worry that Ricky’s hype might exceed his ability. I consider myself a Rubio proponent, I’m just a bit worried, that’s all. It’d be better in all ways—for our confidence in him, and for his trade value—if he were showing some signs of dominance.
It’d be a nightmare scenario for the Wolves if neither Flynn nor Rubio becomes an NBA star.
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 12:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
5.5 apg in 22 minutes in the EL is like 12+ in the NBA.
So, no, you shouldn’t.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
He’s, what, 18 this year? 19?
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 23, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's 19 now
But he’s been playing pro ball in Europe for a number of years now. I have no concerns over his ability to pass and get in the passing lanes at the NBA level. It’s creating his own offense that scares me a bit. All NBA elite “franchise” players can score points. This appears to be a real issue for Rubio. He is truly a pure PG that will be an elite distributor and ball hawk, but I don’t ever envision him being in the mold of Chris Paul, Steve Nash, or (sigh) Brandon Jennings where he can go out and drop 30+ on a team any given night in addition to make plays for his teammates.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jason Kidd is a career 13 ppg scorer.
True, that’s just one example among many all-star types, but he also happens to be the player whose game Rubio’s resembles the most.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just saying that there's a chance that Rubio will be Jose Calderon...
… for exactly the reason Rascal Flatts mentioned. (Not that there’s anything wrong with Calderon, but still…)
by Shogun on Nov 23, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there’s always a chance he could fail to meet expectations.. That goes with any prospect, especially a euro guy. Still, you don’t need to be a 20+ ppg scorer to have a huge impact on a game. I think Ricky’s passing and defense alone will be enough to make him pretty valuable, and he’s not as bad offensively as everyone thinks. He doesn’t really need to shoot on hi current team, but he’s an OK set shooter and is pretty creative at getting to the rack.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 1:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One distinction
Is that Calderon is godawful on defense. At least Ricky can play D and steal the ball like crazy.
by nja700 on Nov 23, 2009 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kidd and Nash
Play different games but are pretty equally valuable. I’d happily take either one of those guys. Nash may win out on scoring, but over their careers Kidd’s defense has more than made up for his low scoring output:
Steve Nash WS = 103.7 (13.3 of which from D)
Jason Kidd WS = 115.9 (63.1 of which from D)
If Rubio comes anywhere near this, we all should be happy. BTW-anyone believe that Jennings will get to these levels? I for one am skeptical. Only current PG with a realistic shot is CP3. We’ll see about Rose and Deron.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 23, 2009 2:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For Kidd,
how much of the WS is rebounding? Rubio is not going to crash the boards like Kidd does and I think the WS metric gives a lot of weight to rebounding.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 6:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The rest of Rubio's numbers are fantastic
It’s a small sample size, but all percentage numbers (which are probably so useful since he’s only play 2/3rds of what he would in the U.S., that throws off per game numbers a fair bit) are amazing. The kid is ridiculously efficient. If his game grows the way most successful eighteen-year olds do, then his middle level would be Jason Kidd.
by McCleak on Nov 23, 2009 6:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
mayn u can't compare Euro stats with NBA stats
European basketball, NBA basketball… Two different games. Playing one-on-one from the top of the key, screen and roll, shooting every time. That’s not gonna happen in Europe, u score less there cause they play zone defense and clog the lane more
by anen87 on Nov 24, 2009 2:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All I can say is that from watching and reading about
Turner (still a limited sample size for my viewership), he looks like a legit complete player. The man can just do it all. He would be perfect for the triangle so he could play a spacing game to either hit shots or work a favorable athletic advantage. he definitely has the passing skills to play effectively off ball.
by TheEvilProfessor on Nov 23, 2009 3:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He’d be amazing in the triangle. He’s even got a good post game and great vision so you could use him as the post guy. He can also play off the ball, go 1 on 1 and run ball screens, so he could really play any spot in that offense. Oh and he defends well and rebounds like a beast. He’s going to be a very nice player.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How's his shooting range?
Not to nit-pick, but I’m skeptical about his ability to shoot the rock outside of 15 – 18 feet. Also, he turns the ball over a lot. His point forward routine would look a lot better if he wasn’t turning it over so much. I realize he carries a huge load for that OSU team.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 7:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He has the ball in his hands all the time
and his teammates aren’t very good. Also, that NC game was, I believe, anomalous.
I really like Turner. He can do a lot of good things on the floor.
If they can wind up with Turner and….I dunno, Martin? Gay, maybe? Things would be looking up.
My dream scenario is trading Jefferson for Martin, signing Bosh as a FA, and drafting Turner. I think that’s a good team. However, they have no chance at luring someone like Bosh.
by Eric in Madison on Nov 23, 2009 7:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How can a dream scenario not involve...
signing LeBron? Kidding.
by Blond Ricky on Nov 23, 2009 7:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Turner
Reminds me of B. Roy. I hope that I’m just not creating that comparison.
by Blond Ricky on Nov 23, 2009 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s not going to operate primarily outside, but he can hit from midrange and he has good form on his jumper. Given that he’s ridiculously efficient near the hoop and he gets to the line really well, I think he’s good enough to keep defenses honest, which is all he needs.
He’s had TO issues, but he also had something like a 25 usage rate last year which is crept up to near 28 this year, which is huge. Take out his 10 TO game against UNC (8 in the first half) and he’s doing fine so far. In that game, he tried way too hard to put his team on his back and kept driving into 2 or 3 defenders and turning it over. In the 2nd half I think he had 3 or 4 assists to 2 TO’s and scored/rebounded a ton because he settled down, stopped trying to be a PG and let the game come to him.
And I’m not saying he comes in and you run every play through him, but he could be a very valuable cog in an offense like this with his versatility.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"Stopped trying to be a pg"
This is a good point because that’s likely the source of his ugly game: he’s literally playing point guard for that team. While he’s exceptionally versatile, he’s still a wing learning to play point guard for the first time on a team where the best wing scorer on a weak team is actually him. Hopefully this strange strategy improves him as a basketball player down the line.
by nja700 on Nov 23, 2009 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His TO rate looks is more similar to a Center than a PG
but yeah, I get the fact there is a lot more good than bad. I’m just a little skeptical as to how his overall game translates at the NBA level. I don’t see elite athleticism, shooting, or handles. I do see a player with excellent size and body control at the NCAA level who has been given free reign to run the team.
And in terms of the comparisons to Roy, Brandon is a lot more athletic than people give him credit for. That dude has a killer change of pace move that usually leaves defenders way off balance, plus he can get up high around the rim. He’s no Jordan or Kobe, but he is still very athletic. I’m not sure I’ve seen this in Turner. Color me hopeful, but skeptical.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see an appreciable difference in athleticism between those two, at least as far as explosion goes between the two of them. Roy has a tighter handle, though I couldn’t speak as to how he looked throughout his college career. I will say that you can easily tell that Turner is significantly longer. That guy must have at least a 7’ wingspan, hence the absurd rebounding numbers.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 9:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Aldrich love confuses me
Is it a Minnesota thing? I just don’t see a big impact player there, and with the growth curve of big men in the NBA, even those who get by on dominant physical ability, I can’t see projecting him as a starter on any team next year. And to give up Rubio’s rights for a guy with no potential to be a transformative player makes no sense to me.
by dropstep on Nov 23, 2009 3:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well, I for one wouldn’t give up Rubio’s rights for him, but he’s a pretty damn mobile, coordinated true big with a good motor. Seems like he could be a guy who makes a solid defensive impact while contributing offensively, and those guys are pretty valuable, at least when they’re 6’11 with mammoth wingspans. I think he’d be great in a rotation with Al and Love, though I think our perimeter needs are much more pressing at this point so I wouldn’t take him ahead of an equal wing prospect.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 3:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If
we decide that Flynn may not turn out and can somehow land Wall and Turner…I would jump for joy. I have to believe that Turner would be a top 5 pick given what has happened so far. If we didn’t get the #1 pick and Wall is gone. I would totaly go after Turner hard. I am also keeping an eye on Wesley Johnson from Cuse.
by TheEvilProfessor on Nov 23, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I don’t think Aldrich will be as good as Brook Lopez. I think he’s more of a system guy than a natural talent deserving of a top 3-5 pick.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 23, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In a vacuum..
I would rather cut off my toes than give Rubio’s rights for Aldrich. But if we land the first pick in the draft, we’re going to have the rights to four very desirable point guards. Everyone in the league will know that we will have to trade at least two of them, and because of that, we wouldn’t get fair value for any of them. Just the way it is. In that context, I think getting Aldrich for Rubio’s rights is a pretty good option.
by LoveTo on Nov 23, 2009 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If that were to happen, I’d be tempted to play Wall for a year and see if he’s more Wade than true PG. If he shows signs of being that attacking lead guard, then I think you could make a real case for playing those two together given that both almost have SG size and Wall looks to be an athletic freak. But hey, that’s just me :)
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't even consider that.
But you may be right. And wow, would that be awesome.
by LoveTo on Nov 23, 2009 5:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Can you imagine a those two running the break together? It would be insane. Two 6’4 guards with ridiculous handles and complementary games who look to break at every opportunity.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been thinking about that as well
Both Rubio and Wall are pretty tall for a PG; tall enough to be able to guard SGs. They’re both pretty talented defenders as well. There’s so much talent and upside between the two of them, it’s ridiculous. Rubio would obviously be the PG due to his lesser athleticism, stronger court vision, and weaker outside shooting. Wall is so absurdly athletic that he’d be able to play SG despite average shooting and still do whatever he wants. If any two young true PG prospects could be dominant together, it’d be those two. It’d be exciting at the very least.
Then we could possibly package one or two of our other young PGs for another worthwhile asset or pick and hopefully get a guy like Evan Turner. Imagine Rubio, Wall, Turner, and Love all on the court together. Maybe a bad mashup of great talent, but a plethora of basketball IQ and passing ability.
by nja700 on Nov 23, 2009 7:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Three requirements for any center playing with those four:
(1) Ability to run.
(2) Length to defend.
(3) GREAT hands.
by TheH on Nov 26, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A few things
Flynn- While there’s been disappointment in his progress and some envy of Jennings and Lawson’s success, it WAY too early to dismiss Flynn. I had him below others on my list, but he’s shown great ability to get to the rim. He’s got no wing talent around him and he’s running an offense that doesn’t play to his strengths. Obviously Jennings looks great, but the guy was a flake at draft time throwing up some red flags. Marbury looked pretty good as rookie right? And he had didn’t have any of the quirks apparent in Jennings predraft…and now he’s crazy. Lawson looks good running with an elite team. Throw Flynn on the Nuggets and Lawson with the Wolves and it might be a different story?
Al- I’d trade him if the deal was right, but it’s going to be pretty tough to get value for him.
Draft- Wall could have that superstar upside that’s tough to pass up. Like others, I see him as possibly more of a SG in the Dwayne Wade mold. We’ll see how the season plays out, but if he lives up to the hype, he’s got to the #1.
Evan Turner- My #2 at this point. A do everything guy who looks like a Brandon Roy type of guy at the next level. Enough size to play the 3 if needed.
I’m not feeling the Aldrich love yet. A nice player, but I don’t know about the top end upside there. I don’t know where he’ll end up in rankings come draft time, but given the deep draft, I wouldn’t have a problem trading the Utah pick (hopefully we get it this year) and Pekovic’s rights to get back up into the lottery.
Wings in general- The latest NBADraft.net mock has Wes Johnson, Aminu, Ebanks, Turner, X. Henry, and Paul George all in the top 11. A good time to have a need on the wing.
FA targets: Besides Wade and LeBron (no real chance), Gay deserves a look with his play so far this year. I’m leery at rewarding a contract year performance, but his position and age fits our needs and he could be attainable given how he and Mayo aren’t exactly jelling personally. Maybe Memphis wouldn’t match a 5 year 55 million offer that’s front loaded? I’m down on guys like Joe Johnson given his age.
Other interesting players for me include Azuibuike (although he might not opt out given his injury), Travis Oulaw, and Josh Childress.
Trades are also a high priority for our cap space. If K Martin ever goes on the block for salary relief, he’d be awesome. Other options might entail us eating salary to get a player we like. How much salary would you eat to get Anthony Randolph? Or maybe Thad Young?
Off topic, JaVale McGee interests me. He had a good summer league and was pretty good as a rookie in spurts, but can’t get off the bench for Flip this year. What would it take to get him?
by Blond Ricky on Nov 23, 2009 7:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well, it is too soon to judge the rookies
but one thing that we haven’t mentioned about Jennings is…his team is 8-3. Yes, they have had an easy schedule, but this was a bad team last year, and Jennings is their real addition; they’ve been without Redd until tonight. Jennings isn’t just putting up stats; he’s leading that team to wins. Nobody thought they would be winning like this.
So credit to him.
by Eric in Madison on Nov 23, 2009 8:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's also a net +9 per 100 possessions
so he isn’t just producing for himself; the whole team is doing better while he’s on the floor. We’ll see how he adapts once the outside shot gets a little loose, but he’s been nothing short of phenomenal so far.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 23, 2009 8:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
He won’t keep shooting this well, but he looks like a very good player. I’m watching them right now play in San Antonio; they are getting beat up in the 2nd quarter.
Bonner can’t miss the 3s, and Jennings is missing, mostiy around the basket. Bogut is now hurt for the next few weeks, Redd is making his season debut.
by Eric in Madison on Nov 23, 2009 8:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that anyone cares, but since I'm watching
Bucks came back and lead at half. Jennings makes that crew look pretty good. The Spurs are old and slow. They often get off to indifferent starts, and maybe that’s what’s happening now, but other than Parker, they look really slow. Duncan might not have that much left at this point. Blair can rebound.
I endorsed the Spurs selling out for one more run as opposed to trading Parker, which was chatted about this off-season, and I still think it was worth the risk; try to win when you can. But that team looks nothing like a contender right now.
by Eric in Madison on Nov 23, 2009 8:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What is an Ersan Ilyasova, and where can we get one?
I haven’t heard a thing about this guy, and he’s been going nuts. In 22 minutes he’s producing: 10.5 pts, 7.1 boards, decent A/T ratio, solid block/steal #‘s AND he’s a 39.5% 3pt shooter. This guy can play!
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 23, 2009 9:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone else think Richard Jefferson hurts teams?
The Bucks add Jennings and lose Jefferson, start winning. The Spurs add Jefferson and lose a little youth, start losing. The Nets were no worse off without him, but I don’t remember if they really started doing better or worse immediately after he left. They were a pretty bad team by that point though.
by Mplax on Nov 23, 2009 11:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright well I'll give one of my options
Here goes:
Well I’d love to abuse a team like Washington or New Jersey for their desire to “compete now” rather than to build. But I don’t really know what their financial situations will be come year end with getting some of their guys back and how much a team like New Jersey will just want to go into compete now mode with FA signings. With their picks I would love first and foremost Evan Turner and secondly Cole Aldrich. Honestly though, I think Aldrich will probably drop enough come year end that we could nab him with the Charlotte pick (which I think we should get now that they have Stephen Jackson). Defense is often passed over early in the draft, Thabeet being the exception in a weak draft, and I also think there will be a few guys with a strong enough showing to get hopes up for stardom. Aldrich will be like any other upperclassmen coming in the draft: drafted lower because of lack of upside.
Ideally, our draft would turn out as such:
Draft Wall 1st overall
Draft Evan Turner 4th (give up Rubio if need be, but I would prefer to send only Flynn and Gomes as a nonguaranteed contract while taking back 2-3M in a short term deal from a team over the cap).
Draft Cole Aldrich 12th
Draft David Lighty with one of our late second rounders. He was given some really nice praise in the latest Sports Illustrated (the team went 7-0 with him and then just above .500 after he got injured). He is supposedly a tremendous defender and seemingly a glue guy and energy off the bench. He’s my sleeper pick at this point in the sesaon. And if we got Turner, he would be a nice welcome gift as a teammate.
I know its tough to justify playing 3 rookies for significant time, but Aldrich I don’t think will play like a rookie (similar to Love) and Wall and Evan Turner are worth it. So 2 rookies in big minutes. It’s “worse” than this year in terms of rookies, but I’d think more in terms of talented experience (Wall, Turner, Aldrich compred to Jawai, Hollins, Brewer, Ellington, Flynn).
IF we can get an FA, this leaves us with an ideal lineup of:
Wall/Sessions
Brewer/Ellington/Lighty
Turner/Brewer
Love/Jefferson/Hollins
Jefferson/Aldrich/Hollins
Which leaves us with our biggest gap at the 3 (as Turner and Brewer would both be 2s ideally). So I would like to get Gay if he is available for around $8-9M longterm. Otherwise I would like to see Childress for $6-8M longterm or Outlaw for $4M for a short deal. Otherwise get a castoff like Joe Alexander for a short deal to fill time when needed and sell it as development. Childress and Gay are worth it IMO to go long-term and have them when we are ready to compete. With this lineup, we won’t be competing for at least 2 years, but it would be a helluva ride getting there.
Trading Jefferson would soon become a priority if Aldrich pans out and we realize a glaring need if Turner and/or Brewer don’t pan out and we don’t get a long term solution at SF from FA. If Turner does work out as a 3, then we trade Jefferson for a silky shooter because this lineup doesn’t prove to have many.
Advantages of the lineup: Ridiculous size at the 1,2, 4 and 5. With possibilities for size at the 3. Ridiculous athleticism at the 1 and 2, again with possibilities at the 3. Solid passing throughout the lineup. Strong defense in Turner, Brewer, Lighty, and Aldrich with high ceilings on Wall and to a lesser extent Love. Rubio and Pekovic are still available for trade or combining Rubio and Wall with Turner as the 1,2,3. In this case we are athletic, slightly undersized, but terrific passers throughout the lineup.
Major disadvantages: Youth and learning curve. At least they learn together. Deep shooting. Turnovers. Rebounds could be an issue, but they could also be a strength – Depends on Aldrich at this level and our 1 through 3 (Turner has been dominating the boards against bad teams at least).
Obviously most of this is a best-case scenario (we actually get the first pick, Charlotte gives us theres AND Aldrich drops as much or more than I expect (could always get Cousins if he enters for some more high-potential mid to late first rounders), we can get the 4thish pick for just Flynn and money savings, and all the youth pans out). But it’s also not entirely unrealistic. The most suspect parts of this are Aldrich dropping and Flynn and Gomes netting us the fourth pick. Might need Rubio.
Anyways, that’s just my idea as our best case scenario. What do you think? What % chance do you think it happens? What are the strengths and flaws? I’m giving it about a 15% chance of happening, but who knows!
by Mplax on Nov 24, 2009 4:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
