Preposterous Statements
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 17, 2009 7:45 AM CST
101 comments
For those of you who are fans of the noon to three program on KFAN you are probably aware of the (in)famous preposterous statement contest where the host and the interim producer gather the silliest and most over-the-top statements from the world of sports and then run them off against each other in a winner-take-all tourney for preposterous statement champion of the world.
During yesterday's pro'grum they added the following statement (from a caller): "If [the Wolves] add a good shooting guard and a center, they'd be a .500 team."
There are two angles to this statement. On one hand, the idea the Wolves are two competent players away from being a .500 team isn't all that far out of an idea. In fact, we here at Hoopus have said over and over that the Wolves need to add a wing player like Rudy Gay and an athletic big like Joakim Noah or Jason Thompson in order to take the next step before hoping that the Sessions/Rubio/Flynn/(Wall?) battle can play itself out at the point.
On the other hand, the idea that the few remaining Wolves fans are in a position to talk excitedly about the addition of 2 more competent players in order to make it to an even split in their record is...well, that's kind of preposterous. It's really preposterous.
What is also preposterous is trying to draw any conclusions about this team from any single game of action. After performing like up-tempo gangbusters against the talented Utah Jazz, the Wolves came out an laid a preposterous egg against the Clips. This team is a whole lot of hit and (mostly) miss right now and if I had to pick one or two angles that would determine whether or not they will win, it would be the play of Jonny Flynn and the nondescript wings. Against Utah, Corey Brewer and Jonny Flynn went off and the team was able to compete. Against the Clips, not so much.
OK, that in mind, and with clear understanding that there are no grand themes you can take away from any of these games other than that Minny is out manned by a mile, let's get around to last night's tilt. It was notable for three reasons:
- Effort. Last night the Wolves played like dogs. With OKC/Dallas and Sacramento/Washington on ESPN, there were plenty of other entertaining NBA viewing options last night and yours truly took full advantage of the remote in order to see them. Again, I don't think this effort is indicative of a larger trend (i.e. a team that quits); rather, it was simply a bad night in terms of effort and focus. Who should be blamed for this? Ultimately, the coaching staff but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that I found it pretty damn easy to flip the channel to watch the Thunder and Kings, two teams that were worse than the 2008/09 Wolves and who are now both hugely watchable, entertaining, and competitive. I think the Wolves are filled to the brim with a bunch of fine outstanding citizens who I really want to see succeed (for example: Brewer and Gomes) but ultimately there is a line that I'm not going to cross in terms of watching a bad product. Last night's game was a bad product. Too many blank stares and possessions with no ball movement. The Wolves had a chance to cut the lead below 10 with a few minutes to go in the 3rd. Instead of moving the ball around and attacking the paint like they were in the first quarter and a half of play, they ended the possession with two soul-sucking Al Jefferson 15 foot jump shots that book-ended an offensive rebound to keep the play alive. Each time he got the ball during this stretch, Big Al grinded the possession to a halt, faced his defender, and moseyed around a bit before jacking up a mid range jumper on a night where he wasn't shooting well. During the first quarter and a half, the ball was moving, players were driving and kicking, and the Wolves were scoring in transition. At somewhere during the middle of the 2nd quarter, it seemed like a switch went off and ball movement went out the window.
- Shooting. A byproduct of bad ball movement and poor effort was a mountain of long and mid range jumpers from a squad that doesn't have any good shooters. The Wolves ended the game with an eFG of 39%. If you throw out Kevin Love's 7-12 effort, they only posted a 35% eFG while going 0-9 from beyond the arc. It's not just that the Wolves were taking long and mid range jumpers, it's that they were taking contested long and mid range jumpers without making attempts to turn their bad look into something better for a teammate. Again, effort contributed to the poor shooting and it led to many a click over to the Dallas/OKC game where I was almost blinded by the awful orange shoes of the Thunder.
- Weak side defense. Ouch. I can't remember how many times during the game where I watched a Clipper player (usually Baron Davis) dribble to the corner, get doubled, and then kick the ball across the court for an open shot and/or drive. It wasn't just that the Wolves were doubling a guy they should have been begging to shoot, it was that the other three puppies on the court seemed hell-bent on drifting towards the double-team, further opening up the weak side of the court. I'm not the only person to notice this:
Minnesota has no orientation whatsoever to their defense. Like a lot of young units, the Wolves’ off-ball defenders overplay the strong side. There are moments when Baron is trapped in the right corner with two other defenders cheating that way (2nd, 3:50). Smart teams beg Baron to shoot from that distance, but for some reason the Wolves think they can beat the Clips by pressuring Davis. This dynamic is one reason Rasual Butler is able to find as many clean looks as he does against Wayne Ellington and Corey Brewer in the second quarter, and why the Clips are able to reverse the ball for easy shots at will.
It was also noticed by the coaching staff:
"Our weakside defense was awful. It was absolutely awful. We were unattentive, we didn't anticipate, we didn't read. Very poor," Rambis said. "We didn't root guys off the post, didn't try to deny post opportunities, and our double teams were sporadic. Getting to cutters, rotating to shooters, the whole thing collapsed. That was a disappointment."
It was atrocious. Aggressive double teaming is one thing, having the other guys on the floor getting locked in on the double team and drifting towards it is another. Again, this is another example of poor effort and a lack of concentration. The Wolves really blew it last night. They had a chance to put together their first winning streak of the season against a below average Clipper squad at home. Instead of taking advantage of an opportunity to (relatively) raise the roof and give their hometown fans something to be excited about, they laid an egg and made them turn the channel. Now that's preposterous.
GameFlow can be found here. Four Factors if you care:
| Pace | Eff | eFG | FT/FG | OREB% | TOr | |
| LA Clippers | 98.0 | 122.4 | 57.8% | 17.8 | 31.0 | 10.2 |
| Minnesota | 96.9 | 39.0% | 26.4 | 28.6 | 12.2 |
You may notice that today's post was led off with a picture of a Sacramento Monarch. That woman's name is Rebekkah Brunson. She is the 6'3" former All Star forward taken by the Lynx with the 2nd pick in the WNBA dispersal draft. She has a career 18.5 reb% and last year she put up a PER of 19.1. While the Wolves are busy putting up dud efforts on nights where they should be giving their equivalent of a playoff effort, the Lynx are busy putting together one of the best young rosters in all of professional basketball. Is it too late to put Roger Griffith in charge of the Wolves? if you are a fan of great basketball, the best basketball in town for the next few years will indeed be played in the Target Center...by the Lynx. They are putting together a championship caliber squad. Here's hoping David Kahn can follow suit with the guys in the men's locker room.
0 recs |
101 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Seeing as I know too little about the WNBA
Any insight as to why Brunson was the choice? Though it sounds like she is a very talented player (holy crap with the rebounds), there may have been better players available. Is it just a style of play/team fit thing? Maybe they wanted more of a veteran than another young player.
Also, what happened to the Monarch’s pick? Did it just disappear and everyone else moved up?
I think what happened was...
…the Liberty took Nicole Powell first. Which I imagine probably surprised the Lynx somewhat. That left Brunson, DeMaya Walker, and Courtney Paris.
The team probably looked at Paris and realized that we can get a center better than her with the first pick in the draft….either Tina Charles or Jayne Appel. And of the remaining two, Brunson is the better player.
No idea what happens with the Monarchs pick. I’m assuming everyone just moves up a spot, but I’m not positive on that.
The Monarchs...
…pick will just disappear.
Nicole Powell is an awesome player. She’s a guard/forward who can play both in and outside. Paris still has a lot to prove and Brunson was widely believed to be the 2nd best player on the squad, thus her position as 2nd player taken in the dispersal draft.
I’ll have more on who the Lynx could take in the draft closer to draft time.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
So Far Away
Look at the Lakers and Celtics. Is there anyone on this team that cracks their starting lineups? A healthy BAJ could play 5 for the Celts, but he’s the fifth option on that club and he’d have KG all over him for his lackadaisical defense. Otherwise, no. We are just so far away from being an elite club, it’s not funny.
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
Love
would be the first big off the bench. That’s about it. Bye bye Rasheed.
by littleboxes on Dec 17, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions
If Phil Jackson had his head on straight
Ramon Sessions would start over Derek Fisher. But then again, so would Shannon Brown. Moot point, ultimately. That team would win 65 games with Kevin Ollie at point.
Could we have found this post
on Celtics sites just before they traded for Allen and KG?
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
There was probably a whole lot wrong with our defense and ball movement and other areas — but it also seemed like one of those games where we missed shots and they made them. Gordon and Butler seemed to knock down anything when they were left open, and Pavlovich and Flynn did not.
I’m not saying this is why we lost, but our team is so young and inexperienced that it’s hard to compete when shots aren’t falling. Seems like most of our good games have come when Gomes, Flynn and a few others are burying jumpers at a high rate.
The only thing I really wish would change is Pavlovich getting any minutes. I’d rather have Ellington learning on the job, or Wilkins/Brewer taking up those minutes. Pavs gives us nothing, and isn’t here for the long haul.
Eric Gordon is fun to watch. He’ll be a 23-25 ppg guy in a few years. Maybe more, considering how good he is at drawing fouls.
Gordon needs more of Baron's shots
No reason why Baron should continue jacking up horrible shots when he’s got a stud like Gordon to feed. They don’t get this kid enough shots.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
Given our need on the wing...
… would a trade with LAC of the rights to OJ Mayo for Eric Gordon and our pick from the Cassell/Jaric trade be better than the trade we made for Love? At the time, there were rumors of this deal being on the table because LAC was infatuated with Mayo. With the number seven pick, we could’ve drafted Lopez if we’d wanted him instead of Gordon.
I'm content with Love and Rubio.
I could go either way on Love versus Gordon, but getting our pick would mean no Rubio and we’d be looking at $7 million worth of Marco Jaric’s contract eating into our 2010 cap space.
Partly depends on how high the Wolves pick is
when it goes to the Clippers. I think Love will be the best team player of the three, so I tend to keep Love. Gordon is a good player, but I think the Wolves can get a different version of him easier than a different version of Love. Lopez is intriguing because his position is so hard to fill. However, if they had Lopez then would McHale still be running the show?
Games like this make me wonder if Flynn will ever be the floor general that the Wolves need him to be. Maybe Kahn recognized that and that is why he drafted Flynn alongside Rubio. Give Flynn the chance to develop that floor general approach and if he didn’t, they would bring Rubio over. Flynn overdribbles and really is selfish. He even was in the Utah game, its just that he connected on those shots.
At first I was thinking the Wolves would be a win/win situation if they could get Wall/Henry or Turner/Henry, but I am not so sure anymore. Turner might be able to hide some of Flynn’s inability to be a playmaker, but it also takes Flynn off the ball and I am not sure how that will work. Maybe Flynn will turn out alright, but after last game it really made me question his development. Unfortunately, I am starting to think the Wolves ned John Wall.
Agree
Flynn hasn’t figured out how to contribute without scoring. His defense and half court playmaking is pretty awful. He is a long, long ways from being a complete PG and right now hurts us unless his shot is falling. That’s not good. The best PGs in the league can hurt you without having to score a bunch of points.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions
I hate to write this...
… but Flynn’s offensive style also reminds one of Randy Foye’s a bit, especially on Flynn’s game-winning shot against Utah (but also in general). Foye’s jumper is purer and Flynn is better at drawing fouls, but there are certain similarities. Jonny looks more comfortable than Foye when handling the ball, but I’m not convinced his court vision/passing ability is significantly better than Foye’s.
His court vision and passing is better in the open floor
I think Flynn shows some great vision when he’s leading the fact break. And because of his explosiveness to the hoop, he can be a more effective drive and kick threat than Foye. But yeah, he does not make the type of “my god he’s one step ahead of everyone else” type passes you see from the likes of Nash, Kidd, or Paul. And he turns it over way, way too much relative to the number of possessions he uses. He may end up more in a Tony Parker mode, but he’s even a long ways from that at this point.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 12:04 PM CST up reply actions
Where he is similar to Foye
Is his obsession driving to the right. Once defenses catch onto this he is going to run into some trouble. Let’s hope he can figure out how to go left better than Foye ever could.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 12:06 PM CST up reply actions
I've seen that too
but he is still able to drive right and score at a pretty good rate where Foye doesn’t. And I have seen Jonny finish going left as well. So to me it’s not an issue. He can finish going either direction, but even though he prefers the right, teams still can’t stop it.
Yes...
… the “driving to the right with tunnel vision” thing is very reminiscent of Foye and disturbing for a guy who is supposed to be a pure point. Given how hard Jonny comes off screens to the right, he misses so many open shooters on the left side of the floor when the defense collapses (on those occasions when he kicks the ball out, it’s always to the shooter on the right side of the floor). Very limiting.
I would argue that Flynn is definitely not a pure point, he is definitely more of a scoring point. But at least Flynn is better at that.
Flynn’s Shot Selection:
Shot Att. eFG% Ast’d Blk’d Pts
Jump
70% .440 25% 4% 7.3
Close
28% .543 18% 17% 3.6
Dunk
2% .667 25% 0% 0.4
Tips
0% .000 0% 0% 0.0
Inside
30% .553 19% 16% 4.0
Foye’s Shot Selection:
Shot Att. eFG% Ast’d Blk’d Pts
Jump
72% .453 43% 3% 9.1
Close
26% .461 26% 21% 3.4
Dunk
2% .938 47% 0% 0.4
Tips
0% 1.000 0% 0% 0.0
Inside
28% .491 28% 20% 3.9
Foye was a slightly better shooter, but Flynn is light years ahead of Foye at finishing around the hoop. Plus, Flynn will start drawing more fouls once Stern decides to market Flynn as an up and coming player.
Bottom line to me is...
….Foye shot barely at a 40% clip last year, and is shooting 37% this year.
By comparison, Corey Brewer is shooting 40% this year.
Foye is so awful, he’s completely lost his playing time to Nick Young and Earl Boykins. Jonny has his problems for sure, but there’s no question he’s better than Foye.
Without A Doubt
Flynn is already a better player than Foye. I just wish Flynn would see the open Jefferson/Love/Hollins/Jawai every time he drives the lane. If he starts seeing that pass, he will easily average 8 assists per game.
I think without a doubt
Flynn will be the better player than Foye, but Foye didn’t turn the ball over nearly as much, was a more reliable 3 point shooter (although not by much) and it’s tough to say whose defense is worse. So although Flynn may be more efficient around the hoop and on the fast break, Foye didn’t make as many mistakes and spaced the floor a bit better. Again, I’ll take Flynn over Foye hands down over the long run, but as a rookie, he isn’t exactly adding a ton more value than what Foye did while he was here.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 2:04 PM CST up reply actions
Flynn may not end up being a lot better guard
than Foye, but Flynn will be a better point guard. I’d rather have Flynn for that reason.
Tunnel Vision
I don’t think Flynn’s tunnel vision is as bad as Foye’s. Foye would literally turn his entire body toward whatever direction he was dribbling. He had poor body control as a point guard and I think that hindered his development as a passing point.
Flynn moves around like a natural point, even if his first instinct is to score. I’m not saying he’s a pure passer — he’s certainly never going to be a Nash-type. But he could easily become an impact point guard with his quickness, ball-handling, and scoring.
agree
he has the tools. he’s only a rookie, people need to remember that. he’ll learn. look what he did with talent around him at the ‘cuse. when we get some solid talent you’ll see flynn’s game rise to another level i guarantee it…
Second
You have to remember about 1/3 of the passes he is sending are not being caught by our players who apparently have never heard of a no look or a behind the back pass.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 17, 2009 3:17 PM CST up reply actions
We also saw Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in Al Jefferson. He was great in the 1st quarter. Making quick decisions and moving the ball if he didn’t have anything. Then in the third quarter we saw the worst of. Him wasting precious shot clock seconds while just surveying (similar to Flynn) and everyone else just standing around. It was freaking horrible.
Jefferson has some unreal qualities and almost requires a double team every time he gets the ball on the block, but there are some qualities that are maddening. If Kahn and Rambis don’t think he will ever expunge those awful qualities, they should move him. I know he is unbelievable, but he could be the impeding factor of a major culture change in the locker room and to me that culture change is imperative.
Trade Jefferson, Keep Love
LAL, Boston, Orlando, etc. are so far ahead of the Wolves in talent and team play. Improving the “talent” part takes both time and luck, so let’s look at a club that the Wolves should aspire to be in the near term: the Houston Rockets.
No stars, just several complementary players (and good coaching) working their way past .500 in the toughest division in the league. Better yet, they’re 6-4 at home and 8-7 on the road, and have played 20 of their 25 games against Western Conference teams. So all other things being equal, they’ll likely grab a low seed in the playoffs.
Which of the two “stars” on the Wolves do you think would fit in better with Houston? I say Love, whose skills are less evident in the box score, but are more complementary to other players on the team. Yes, this team would be even worse without Al Jeff. But I don’t think he has the skills that will improve his teammates as much as Love does, and I think that Jefferson will fetch more in return than Love will.
I’m not advocating getting rid of Jefferson with nothing in return. But once he’s completely healthy, I believe if one of these players are traded (and I think it should and will happen) it should be Al Jefferson.
I'm not as opposed to this as I used to be...
but I still disagree.
For a few reasons:
1) I don’t want to be Houston. They play great team basketball, but have a 0.0% chance of winning the championship this year. For whatever reason they don’t seem to improve much with stars like Yao and T-Mac, either. They are a good story because they win with unselfish, less-talented players, but in the end, they are never going to contend that way. I don’t care that they took LAL to 7 games, last year, it won’t happen.
2) By far and away the biggest difference between the Wolves and the contenders you list is talent — not team play. The Celtics have a point guard who dribbles at least as much as Flynn. The Lakers have a superstar who holds the ball at least as much as Jefferson. Their players are just a lot better, across the board. If the Wolves had a lot more talent, these annoying qualities of Jefferson would seem less obvious.
3) We could only trade Jefferson if we got a great low-block scorer in return. With few examples that basically involve Michael Jordan, you can’t contend without a low-block scorer. And there aren’t many good ones in the league. If we swapped Jefferson for Deng, I think Chicago would rise to borderline contender status, and we would be worse than we are now. So, whatever trade would happen would have to net a low post scorer to replace Al. Love is not this player. He’s most effective away from the hoop or crashing the boards.
But I also get your point — if Jefferson, once healthy, could net us a bigtime player and help us fill out a more balanced roster, it’s worth considering. I just wouldn’t do it unless we’ve got the low-block figured out, either via draft or the trade itself.
If you trade Jefferson, I don’t think you are going to get a low post scorer back. There aren’t too many that can score the way he can. In order to get that low post scorer back, Kahn is going to have to be convinced that the player is on the team now (Love) or the player is in the draft.
With that being said, I am a huge, huge, huge fan of James Harden, especially in the triangle.
Good points all around, as usual
I’m thinking the draft is the only, best way to replace Jefferson. The Wolves don’t need to exactly match 20/10, but 15/7 plus better defense and ball movement (to go along with a real, live perimeter scorer/defender that would theoretically come over in exchange for Jefferson), and no more anguished scowling sounds better to me.
For the 78 games of the season that the Wolves don’t play Utah, the current situation is untenable. I’m not sure that Love and Al Jefferson together are a championship-caliber front line regardless of how well Flynn develops, when Rubio comes over, the 2-3 they draft next year, and the wing they sign/trade for over the next eight months.
I'm glad to see people seem less irritated when
it is brought up that the Love/Jefferson combo cannot work, unless perhaps they get a HOF caliber wing player. Last summer I posted this and was ripped by many, who at the time tried to make valid points. If the Wolves could trade AL and maybe an extra 1st rounder for a slightly taller, better defending version of AL, it would be fantastic. AL is a very good player, and the inside offense is valuable – it will be even more valuable when the team gets a shooter. I just don’t see AL fitting in this system long term, although Shaq offensively was a similar, though better, offensive player.
If the Wolves can find the 2010 version of two of the following players (Kidd, Jordan, Pippen), then they can live with the defense provided by Love/AL – otherwise AL has to go in a good trade.
What about Pekovic?
I don’t know how good he is defensively, but he is definitely a low-block scorer.
Lynx to Wolves is Apples to Oranges
How many players have the Wolves added in dispersal drafts? (Didn’t the Lynx also trade someone they got from a dispersal draft for the #1 pick a few years ago?) How many #1 picks have they had in a draft? How many times have they played in a 12-14 team league? Or could pay most of its players six-figure-or-lower salaries? I don’t have a problem with the Lynx but the Wolves’ challenge is steeper.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 17, 2009 10:26 AM CST reply actions
Is the statement itself preposterous?
Or is it the situation? I lose track.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Is it just length?
It just seems like teams that can put legit 7-footers on the floor are giving the wolves all kinds of trouble — the LA teams, Por, even Sac. They match up well with Utah b/c Boozer and Milsap aren’t that tall and Okur plays more like a 3. Maybe there isn’t enough sample size to make a definitive determination, but I would say there have been enough games with Love now to call it a trend.
While I like both Jefferson and Love and I think they complement each other well, I just don’t see the pair becoming the 4/5s that play 75% of the mintues on a championship-contending team. They just have too much trouble with these players, and the legit title contenders all have them.
Agree it's a problem
But no team is perfect (Ok, the Lakers and Boston are close to perfect….). If we had an all-start caliber wing and stud PG (which Flynn is not yet), then suddenly the lack of length upfront becomes our only hole, and it may not be big enough to worry about given what these two already provide in terms of rebounding and offense. I think we have bigger fish to fry and Kahn has the assets to go fill our other big gaps without having to trade Jefferson or Love.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 11:58 AM CST up reply actions
There are exceptions, but this year
Championship caliber teams seem to have both outstanding wing play and length up front — LA, Celts, sure, but also the Cavs (mostly past their prime, but they can still trot out a front line of Shaq/Ilk and AV), Denver, Portland (before Oden’s injury), SA (to some extent, though they aren’t playing like a championshp caliber team, maybe because Bonner and Blair are playing 2/3 of the minutes at the 4), Orlando (they like to go small, but they can go big if they want and you can get away with a “shooting” 4 when you have Howard). Even Atlanta, who may be similar to us in height but are way more athletic with Josh Smith.
Given that we have neither, it’s a problem.
may as well throw it out there...
but i have this notion Kahn may do something totally unexpected, like get McGrady at the deadline. i mean, we’d have to give up Blount and Cardinal (oh no!), plus more to even out the salaries, but i think i’d actually be a little excited to see McGrady trying to earn a big FA contract somewheres else, all the while giving us a preview of what a Wolves team with a dynamic wing would actually look like. then you draft Henry next year (who i think is EXACTLY the guy we need).
what's preposterous
is that the wolves would spend 4 first round draft picks in two years on point guards. i don’t care if wall is available; that shows a horrific lack of management foresight and skill. i’ll say it once, and then i’ll say it one thousand times more leading up to the draft: Xavier. Henry.
by voiceofharlanspast on Dec 17, 2009 11:47 AM CST reply actions
That's crazy
You take the best talent available and then trade your way to a balanced roster. I agree Xavier Henry is a great prospect, but no draft expert or NBA scout would ever suggest taking him over John Wall at this point in time.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 12:01 PM CST up reply actions
ok
no you’re right let’s pin our hopes on getting the top lottery pick then immediately decimate the value of our other pg assets because any gm knows we’ll have to trade our way to a balanced roster.
i’ve seen john wall play. he’s a great player. i’ve seen xavier henry play. he’s what the wolves need. his numbers would more than match wall’s if he was playing on a team where he was clearly scoring option #1, and the offense was run through him. as it is he leads the nation’s top team in scoring without being a volume shooter.
also, let’s not forget that the pg position is of middling importance to the triangle offense, which the team will be running for the foreseeable future.
by voiceofharlanspast on Dec 17, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions
Novel, but I don’t see it happening. You take the player with superstar potential over the lesser prospect who fits better every time and sort the rest out later.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
If Henry looks really great this year, and is the type of prospect that Ray Allen was, coming out of UConn, AND we get the #1 pick, we’d have to consider the reverse of the Marbury-Allen trade — something like:
Minnesota gets:
Xavier Henry
Unprotected 1st Round Pick 2011
New Jersey gets:
John Wall
Yes, it would be hard to pass on John Wall, but:
1) Point guards take a while to develop, and this team is running low on patience. Flynn is already being developed, as is Rubio, albeit overseas (and maybe here in the summer.)
2) Henry (and Wesley Johnson) is a better fit, obviously. Nobody wants to see the Pavlovic/Wilkins/Brewer trio out there doing everything they can to keep opposing guards looking like magnets attached to Al Jefferson.
3) It gets repeated and it’s annoying, but there’s at least a reasonable chance that a John Wall type of prospect would be less than interested in Minnesota. You can’t completely rule this out, after the Starbury Experience. A Kansas grad like Henry, who isn’t quite the All World phenom that John Wall is, is probably more likely to appreciate Minnesota.
Just a few thoughts. I need to see Henry play a few times before I would ever support trading John Wall for him.
Franchise talent
It’s extremely rare for an NBA team to luck into a franchise talent. So if you have a prospect that most “experts” agree has a chance to be a franchise talent, you take him 10 times out of 10. If there is no discernable difference in the upside of Henry and Wall, then yeah, let’s take Henry. But as of today, Wall is considered hands-down the #1 pick and potentially a franchise changing talent, meaning he could be the #1 guy on a contending team. I don’t even care if it waters down the value of Jonny Flynn and Ricky Rubio. #1 guys are so hard to come by, a team should be willing to give almost anything up to get one.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 2:16 PM CST up reply actions
We already have a Franchise talent...
in Ricky Rubio, according to the same experts that are calling John Wall that.
At some point we need to do something with all the point guards Kahn has assembled/will continue to assemble.
If Wall were a 6’6" off-guard or a 7’ center “franchise talent” I would agree with the 10 times out of 10. But with our roster situation, it isn’t that simple. We can’t just start 3 point guards and Love-Jefferson. I have no idea if Wall is better than Rubio. He’s certainly more athletic but also a worse passer, judging by the video of Ricky that basically show eyes in the back of his head.
Thinking back to the “franchise talents” of the last 15 years, the names that come to mind are Duncan, Garnett, Bryant, Wade, James, Howard. To a lesser extent, Anthony, Paul, and Williams.
Point guard isn’t the position, in my opinion, to be stockpiling these can’t-miss prospects. Unless a great trade was available for Flynn or Rubio, this isn’t a simple scenario.
If Rubio's passing ability and leadership reach their potentials...
….you can definitely build a team around him. I get where some people get the bust impression from, but form what I’ve seen, he has Jason Kidd 2.0 written all over him.
I think people forget how fast Jason Kidd was. He was the fastest player from baseline to baseline in the NBA when he was dominating as a PG and Rubio definitely has no where close to that ability. I think Rubio will have to be a Steve Nash 2.0. He will need picks to free him up and have to find passing lanes that way. Of course Rubio doesn’t have the shooting ability Nash does, but I think that is something he is going to have to work long and hard at. He will need to have his shot analyzed and made need to retool it and then spend many, many hours of practicing in-game shots. I think John Wall actually has a shot at being Jason Kidd 2.0 with a much better scoring ability. Think about how scary that is. They have a similar assists per game, Wall has a higher scoring average, and Wall is on the same pace for TOs. The thing I like the most though is that Wall is shooting a 13% better at the line. That is sign of a better shooting stroke and makes me think that Wall has a good chance at being a good shooter. I can only hope that we can get that lucky. I hope Kahn and Stern are that good of friends :)
Just don't put all your hopes in Wall
Odds are against us, and he’s not the only franchise talent in the draft.
For sure. I would be really happy with Evan Turner and hopefully we can trade some of our considerable assets and get Xavier Henry either way.
I'd love to walk out of the draft with...
…a combo of either Evan Turner or Xavier Henry, and either Derrick Favors or Ed Davis.
Flynn, Turner and Favors would be one hell of a core.
Of course, I’d love to walk out with John Wall too. I think everyone would.
Do you want to retool the franchise completely from the McHale era? I haven’t seen Favors play, but is he that considerable of an upgrade from Love and Jefferson?
Favors crush?
I have seen a couple people mention Favors but %90 of the love is from Oceanary. He is good but at the same time we are talking about a freshman who doesn’t even start for his team and there is no guarantee that he is even entering the draft this year when some people have called this the year of the bigs. Not trying to hate on your man crush but can we maybe mention a few other players that we would like to see in uniform. Finally I do like his upside but am not excited about someone who says, “I was a little surprised. It (the game)shouldn’t have been that close,” Lawal said. Favors had no idea. “I don’t look at the scoreboard during the game,” he said.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 17, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions
???
Favors has started all 9 Georgia Tech games this year.
And the reason I bring up Favors is because no one else does, and that’s a shame. I really like Wall, Evan Turner, Xavier Henry, Wes Johnson, etc….but people talk about them constantly, so they get the exposure they should. Favors doesn’t.
I mean, there’s a reason the guy is consensus #2 in the draft right now…
I think the biggest reason he's ignored somewhat
Is that we see the position and height and move on. Though Wall plays a position we’re strong at, he’s the consensus #1 and has no size problems. Everyone’s focused on the wings for good reason, but if Favors is indeed as good as advertised then I wouldn’t be opposed to getting him.
Personally I think we're a lot weaker in the paint than at point guard...
…but that’s just my opinion. I think everyone knows by now my vies on the Love/Jefferson combo.
You might be right
But either way we are definitely weakest at the wing. No matter who we draft, hopefully we end up with a wing afterward through a pick or trade.
Wall? Trade a PG for assets or a wing. Favors? Trade one of our (then) 3 main big men for the same. Or we draft a wing. This all depends on draft slot of course.
Ideally I'd like to get one of each
Hopefully we land in the right draft position to make it possible. I definitely think we could draft Favors and then trade for a pick that would get us Turner or Henry if we get the #2 pick.
Personally I do think we should 100% turn over from McHale
And I think Favors would be an upgrade from Love and Jefferson in most areas. Not all, but most.
Mainly though, what’d he’d do is still give us scoring and rebounding in the paint, plus add length, athleticism, and potentially great defense as well.
...because?
So, we deal away Love, Brewer, Gomes and Jefferson.
What’s left of value on this team?
You are on the right track
If the Wolves were lucky enough to land the #1 pick, then keep the pick and trade the extra #1 picks and Rubio or Flynn to also get the #2 or #3 pick. Walk away from the draft with two top picks in this draft and one is likely to become a franchise player.
Rubio’s handle is incredible, though, so he’s much quicker than you would think when he has the ball. Given that he’s a pass-first PG who’ll almost always have the ball in his hands when he’s streaking up court, this is a pretty significant point.
I still think that you have to take Wall if he’s there and he’s the consensus #1 talent. Like Rascal said, a shot at a franchise talent doesn’t come along very often. If he’s really that good, take him and work the rest out later. Don’t risk being the team that trades the next Wade..
I have to say that I am excited for this draft. I hope most of these super froshs enter so we don’t have a situation like last year where a bunch of talent bails at the last minute.. But yeah, I’d be pretty damn happy with any of Wall, Favors, Turner, Henry, Aldrich and probably a few others. We should be able to come away with a significant piece regardless of lotto luck.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Franchise Talent continued...
I think there are two types of franchise talents: 1) the dominant big man that can anchor a team on both sides of the court: Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan. These three have what, 9 or 10 rings between them? 2) the elite perimeter scorer/playmaker that can not only score, but also make those around him better: Bird, Isiah, Magic, Wade, Kobe, Jordan. Two of those guys are PGs and one – Wade – is damn close to being a PG and someone that Wall has been compared to.
Those 9 players are largely responsible for a ridiculous proportion of NBA titles in the past 30 years. I would not put Rubio in this class because he has shown no ability to take over a game with his scoring. He’d be solely dependent on other players, like Kidd is. Isiah and Magic could go drop 40 points on you if they had to. By all accounts, Wall has that special ability to be an explosive scorer and elite playmaker. From an upside perspective, I’m not sure Rubio or Flynn are even in the same conversation. You just don’t pass on guys like this if indeed he’s what everyone is cracking him up to be.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions
good points...
but I’m skeptical that Wall has the size to be the kind of impact player of those perimeter players you mention.
I’ll have to watch more of him, but he seems like more Allen Iverson than Dwayne Wade, at this point. Yes, I realize Iverson carried a team to the Finals, but no, I don’t expect a guy of his type to do that again in the foreseeable future — not without a great supporting cast, at least.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m loving what I see from John Wall — I just think he looks like a point guard more than a scoring, do-it-all guard that can play wing.
I would rather have Wall than Rubio or Flynn — but I MIGHT rather have some combination of Favors or Henry (or some other top prospect in ‘10) and an ’11 1st Rounder unprotected — or something. There just might be big trade proposals for Wall that we’re in no position to pass on. That’s all I’m saying.
We’ll see in the combine, but he’s apparently 6’3-6’4 and he has a huge wingspan to go with legitimately absurd athleticism. Those are all-world tools for a guy who actually has basketball skills and tries defensively. Of course, a lot remains to be seen, but the fact remains that I’m definitely looking forward to seeing how this all plays out. Lord knows the Woof are in a massive karmic debt, and this could turn out to be an incredible year to come away with the #1.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
He's definitely got athleticism
And he looks like he’s got a bigger wingspan that Rose at least, although part of that may be because he has a thinner build.
No question though that he’s got an ideal NBA body for the PG spot.
Wing vs. PG doesn't matter
If you can score and set people up to score, it’s all good in my book. To me franchise talents are in the broad categories of perimeter scorer/playmakers and anchor big men. There is nothing about Wall’s physical profile (he’s much bigger than Iverson) that should prevent him from being a premier scorer/playmaker. The question is whether he has the skills. Just like the Bulls and Lakers have put floor spacing “point” guards next to Jordan and Kobe, a team could put a floor spacing shooting guard next to John Wall. He functionally would play the same role as Brandon Roy, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, etc., etc.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 6:57 PM CST up reply actions
I guess I'll have to see the combine results
for whatever reason, I’m expecting to read that he’s 6’2" without shoes. I know that’s a couple inches taller than Iverson, but it might not be tall enough to be a world-class off-guard. I think John Wall is closer to a true point guard than anything else. If that’s the case, the Wolves should consider the other options as well and try to do what’s best for their future. We’re loaded at point guard and they are all very young.
I have to disagree with Andy G...
… Wall looks like he’s got plenty of size and skills to be the kind of dominant scorer AND playmaker who leads teams to titles, ala Wade. As a scoring combo, I think Wall will be at least as good as Brandon Roy, and I agree that we could put an off-the-ball, floor spacing guard next to him, like the Heat, Lakers, and Bulls have done with their ball-dominant studs. At the end of the day, even with the point guards we’ve accumulated, John Wall is far too talented not to take if you have a shot to get him.
No love for Derrick Favors?
I think he has the same franchise talent ability as Blake Griffin. Maybe more, because he has the same build and athleticism, plus he appears to have longer arms and has proven to be much more of a defensive force.
Still haven't seen him play...
but he seems like quite a player. If we got Favors or Wall, I’d be ecstatic — but at least in Wall’s case, it would signal more shuffling of the roster and lineups. I think a big like Favors could be accommodated more-easily than another point guard. Worst case, and this is hardly a bad scenario, we could go with a Love-Favors-Jefferson trio of bigs. At some point, it could become difficult to please and/or pay all three of them, but that sounds like a “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” sort of scenario. Right now, it’d just be nice to replace the Hollins/Jawai minutes with a budding superstar.
It sounds absurd now, but I could see Favors developing into a Dwight Howard kind of force on defense
Interesting fact: Dwight Howard measured just 6’9" without shoes.
What gives him that defensive anchor ability is a ridiculous 7’5" wingspan and his incredibly leaping ability, combined with the obvious strength and effort factors.
I think Favors is going to test out physically and athletically somewhere between D12 and Amare…maybe not quite the wingspan or vertical as Howard, but very close. The effort part is obviously up to him, but physically, athletically, and instinctually, he’s very similar to Dwight.
or even Josh Smith?
Smith is a pretty unique player in the way he impacts games defensively from the forward position, and it seems like (from what I’ve read) Favors could be that type of player.
Potentially better than Smith
The truth is Smith isn’t physically all that special. He actually has the same standing reach and a shorter wingspan than Ryan Gomes.
Where Smoove makes his impact is his near 40" vertical and incredible instincts (and effort, of course…)
We’ll have to see what Favors’ measurements come out to be, but just by watching him, he just has impressive athleticism and basketball IQ.
Smith’s talent is pure explosiveness. He gets off the floor like a rocket.
I definitely need to watch more Favors, but I like what I’ve seen. He’s smart and incredibly long. We’re all aware of our complete and utter dearth of talent on the wing, but you could do much much worse than adding a guy with the length and athleticism of Favors to our current front court.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
On Griffin
I don’t see him as a franchise talent. He doesn’t have the length to really dominate a game defensively. I believe he will be a 20/10 machine, but that doesn’t make Al Jefferson a franchise talent does it?
I have not seen Favors play at all, but if he truly has the length and explosiveness of a Dwight Howard and added more weight to his frame, perhaps he has that type of ability. We could certainly use a player like that.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 17, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions
I wish Griffin would come back from his injury soon.
I live in L.A., and Clipper games would become an order of magnitude more watchable with Blake on the floor.
by Princely Frank on Dec 17, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions
Could it have been a mistake...
to pass on Evans for Griffin?
Of course, this is a bit silly to ask for two reasons:
1. we haven’t even seen Griffin play in the NBA
2. there were a lot of good reasons to doubt Evans and people would’ve though they were crazy if they actually had picked Evans instead of Griffin.
But, it could turn out that Evans becomes an All NBA guard while Griffin becomes a very exciting tweener forward without a position.
by oblivionspocket on Dec 17, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions
It could
I think what we ended up with was in inverse of the Rose/Beasley situation, where Griffin went first because he appears to have a definite position and guaranteed potential, while Evans slipped because no one knew if he was a PG or a SG, and a lot of people questioned if he’d pan out.
Very similar to how Rose was a consensus PG and a guaranteed talent, while no one knew if Beasley was a SF or PF and people questioned if that would limit his production.
you should care
if it waters down flynn or rubio’s value. the fact that we hold them both means that any GM is going to pay us 80 cents on the dollar for one of them. you throw wall in the mix, and we’ve absolutely tossed away two years worth of draft picks because we happened to land the one pick, and there happens to be a consensus among the same “experts” who pegged brandon jennings as mid-first round talent last year.
the value of those players would fall immensely if we draft wall. in the one sense i think you’re right is that wall is the type of player, like derrick rose, who will thrive in the nba’s new small-man friendly environment. then again so does aaron brooks.
by voiceofharlanspast on Dec 17, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions
Is this really true?
I hear this statement a lot, but the truth of the matter is that having too much talent at one position is not dealing from the same weak hand as if your trying to unload someone who is a team cancer or has an anchor contract. If you have a player who is desirable, there should be multiple suitors, and if there are multiple parties interested, a potential trade partner can’t afford to seriously low ball their offer or they lose out on a rare chance for an excellent talent. Are there examples that prove that having two talented, low-cost players at the same position results in getting poor return for one of them in a trade?
Agreed. I don’t buy that argument and I certainly wouldn’t pass on a potential franchise player because of it. It might be true to an extent, but talent is talent is talent. If an opposing GM wants one of our players, he can make a viable offer or go F himself and come away empty handed.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Watered down...
I don’t think the Wolves holding 4 young point guards would water down the value, but I think the 200 or so young stud point guards in the NBA tends to water down the value of young point guards.
Point guard is, by far and away, the strongest position in the NBA, right now and it’s only getting stronger. Drafting a great point guard gives less comparative advantage than drafting a great (anything else).
It’s not a reason to pass on Wall, but it certainly lowers the trade value of Sessions, Flynn, Rubio, and probably Wall.
Just knowing Flynn, Rubio or Sessions aren't needed lowers their value
By how much is open for debate, but any time a team has an excess of players at one position, their value goes down.
GMs play it the other way to. If it’s obvious a team is just trying to dump a player off because it has too many, they won’t offer as much.
The market determines their value
So, my point was that if there is only one team bidding, yes, they can concern themselves only with the players value to their current team. But in a process open to multiple teams, the players potential value to other teams is a more important component of the equation. So, I think that Andy G’s point on the market saturation is more important. The the 09 draft did flood the market pretty well.
Won't drop value to 80%
I would agree with your point if it was a Portland type situation where they want to win this season, and also have a part-time PG making $10 million. But in the Wolves case, they could draft Wall and still get full or near full value for Flynn, Rubio, or Sessions. Because Flynn is being paid on Rookie scale (as would Wall), there is no desperation to move him, even more so with Rubio since he will just spend another year in Europe improving his game. They may move Sessions for slightly less than he is worth, but would anyone really be bothered if the Wolves trade Sessions next summer to a team with cap space and get nothing but maybe a 2nd rounder in return?? I doubt it, people will be thrilled the Wolves have Wall and Flynn, while feeling good about Sessions going somewhere he can get playing time.
Game notes:
They’ll be brief, because this game was just soul-crushing, and I’d prefer not to dwell on it.
-The Clippers are the NBA’s all-beard team. From Baron Davis’s apparent homage to Kimbo Slice to Chris Kaman’s strawberry blonde scraggles, to Brian Skinner’s blue King Tut beard. Even Eric Gordon rocks the chinstrap.
-Speaking of Eric Gordon, in true LA shooting guard form, he appears to have mastered the art of plowing into a defender who is in legal position to draw a bogus blocking foul. The next step is to travel after the contact and throw up a shot, converting it into a 3 point play. He should work on a manly scowl for the cameras, too. Get that jaw out!
-Ryan Hollins gets stripped of the ball down low with impossibly high frequency. What is so different about the way brings the ball up from every other NBA big man that his defender is able to knock it out of his hands literally every time?
-Nice game for Love. Unfortunately, he’s just not the type of player who can give you any more than that. He’s a great asset on a good team, but if he tries to extend his influence beyond what comes to him in the flow of the game, he’ll just end up hurting the team.
-In light of Wilkins’s 8/6/5 line, I guess I’ll have to back off my desire to see Wayne Ellington. Still, our offense just doesn’t seem right, and I think more spacing and one fewer reluctant jump shooter would cure a lot of ills.
-Every time they showed Mike Dunleavy, I kept thinking of that line from a Bill Simmons draft diary:
In the history of the world, has there ever been someone who looked more like a 1930s Movie ‘Bad Guy’ than Coach Dunleavy? Do you think when players are cut or released, he tells them it’s ‘curtains’ for them? Are contracts and salary figures discussed in terms of ‘loot?’ During timeouts, I can’t tell if he’s drawing up plays or figuring out the getaway route for an armored car job.
Dunleavy's got that thick Brooklyn accent too
I wonder if that factored into BS’s comments.
Not a chance
Look how close 12 is to the ball handler. Also, 12 is standing upright instead of writhing on the ground.
Very good.
Also, #12’s hairstyle is more masculine than Miller’s.
Cripes, I half expected that guy ot come out of the locker room with a 60s beehive.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
Related FanShots on Canis Hoopus
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.
