In praise of the Big Piranha
Dear Wolves Marketing:
Please start selling Kevin Love. Please see the attached video for a suggestion about how local sports franchises actually feature their players in TV ads. The ad practically writes itself: Nick Punto and Michael Cuddyer are sitting in a ice shanty on a lake watching video of Kevin Love grabbing rebound after rebound after rebound. Cuddy looks over to Punto and says something along the line of "Winter piranhas, who knew?" Fade to black and a sign that says "Come see the Big Piranha." Show the ticket hot line and cut!
Thank you,
Stop-n-Pop
Moving on, last night's post game show contained something of a big moment for the FSN crew. During the game wrap, analyst (and fellow former Bloomington Kennedy Eagle) Mike McCallow said something that we here at Hoopus have been saying since the latter part of last season: Kevin Love is the best player on this team. Yes. Yes, yes, yes, and more yes.
I know we're in danger of getting repetitive on this point, but the reason why Kevin Love is the best player on the Wolves is simple: He does the most stuff. Last night he was 9-14 from the floor with 16 boards (5 offensive) and 20 points. He controlled the defensive glass, he started fast breaks, he sealed off defenders for easy angles to the bucket for the team's guards, and he even ran a successful 1-on-1 fast break against Tyreke Evans. Al Jefferson can be the best post scorer in the league but that's probably all he could ever be. Love's impact on the game won't be as deep in a single area, but it will be much, much, much wider. When this team gets good (and it will), Kevin Love is going to be its MVP. He will be a much larger-scaled version of what Ozzie Guillen talked about here:
"That's special stuff over there," Guillen said of the Twins club. "All those guys, they don't have big money or big stars, but the way they go about their business is awesome. That's why I call them the little piranhas, because they beat you to death. I would rather someone hit a home run with the bases loaded in the ninth rather then get murdered little by little. Those guys bite you little by little and, all of a sudden, you wake up and you are dead."
Instead of extra bases and hard slides, Love will bite the other teams with hard screens, impossible tips to teammates, and outlet passes. Each one won't seem like much all by itself, but at the end of the day, someone is going to wake up dead. And yes, that's one of the best sports quotes of the decade. Thank you Ozzie.
A few notes from the game:
- Why on earth did the Kings not roll with their large front court lineup of Spencer Hawes and Jason Thompson? Did the Kings' coaching staff not see what they did to Love and Jefferson last weekend?
- Tyreke Evans is a dominant physical presence but he's going to have to figure out what to do on nights when his shot isn't falling.
- Sasha Pavlovic is not an NBA player right now. His worst play last night was when Kevin Love screened off a wide-open angle to the lane for Pavs and instead of going right up with the layup he went under the rim and was forced to pass it off. It's almost like he's forgotten the basic language of basketball...if that makes sense.
- Another win, another solid wing performance. How much more evidence do we need that the Wolves need a solid (and consistent) wing player more than anything else?
That does it for tonight. Bottom line: Kevin Love + competent wing and point play = W.
Gotta run.
0 recs |
117 comments
|
Comments
agree + need more length
when we meet a semi-competent team with length, we are in trouble. Love is our best player. If we could trade al for wing or a good, athletic tall player, I would. but it would have to be the right piece. i like al, but hes not great for the triangle or a running team.
but hes not great for the triangle or a running team.
Al as at the 4 isn’t a good fit for either, but I don’t think that he couldn’t work as a 5 in a running offense. He’s got the length/bulk for the position and is more agile than most NBA 5s. He seems like a good option to trail the break and feed when the primary break fails. As far as the triangle, he’s not ideal unless he considerably improves his passing (I’d love to see him play with some more talent on the wings though), but Shaq succeeded in the triangle as a post up guy.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 18, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions
I hope you will excuse this comment if it seems impertinent, but...
…all the discussion on speed that I see on this excellent site seems to be about how fast a player can run — foot speed.
I think we need to look at speed in a different dimension. How fast can you get off a pass? How fast does it get to the target? How does that accelerate your offense?
Kevin Love can take a rebound & push it up the court faster than anyone. If we have guys that can run or are already at midcourt when Love gets the rebound, we might be the fastest team in the league when he is in that position.
It’s not about how fast Love can run up the court, it’s about how fast he can get the ball to a runner who is already up the court.
He is a fast player. Maybe not in foot speed, but he accelerates the way the game is played.
If he has the ball
If someone else is passing the ball and Love is doing the running, it’s a different story.
But running the floor hasn’t been a problem for us this year. It’s our spacing as we do it that’s the problem.
a 3 legged gazelle...
…With a limp ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 19, 2009 11:54 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Can’t disagree with Love being our best player. He is. I’m hoping he’s not our best player down the road though. Hopefully we’ll get that 1A player in the draft this year and Love becomes the 1B guy. He’d still probably be the MVP though with all the things he does.
I hope the growing support for Love and Al’s slow build to his preinjury form doesn’t diminish how good he is at what he does. Let Al get healthy and let’s see how these two play together.
Was just over reading at Sactown Royalty
Those guys gotta be careful – they’re close to becoming as smug as all the Pritch-slapped Blazers fan(atic)s. I agree with them that they got a special player in Tyreke, but Tyreke is not the end all for them either. Still more work to do before they’re ready for a deep playoff run.
Their post on Ricky was interesting as well. While I personally don’t think it’s good practice to directly replace one player’s production with another player’s production for a given game (what’s to say the game would still play out the same? Nothing. That’s chaos theory for ya.) For what it’s worth, tho, I agree that Ricky will be most successful in the right system, and I think that he could be extremely devastating in the triangle. With his court vision and passing ability, he could become a game changer in the NBA that nobody’s ever seen before. Of course, he could also flop, but I think he’s got the makings of a ‘jefe de piranas’ in him.
Finally, the more I think about it the more I come to one of two conclusions about this team: we need a wing, and I don’t necessarily want to give up Al to do it. Seems strange to me, but for some odd reason I think that Al could have a very significant role in our future success, enough so that I’d like to see this team with a good/great wing first before giving up on him. Maybe that happens through the draft, maybe through FA. At the very least I’d like to know that Pekovic is coming over if we’re going to trade Al for a wing. Also, I’m digging Nathan Jawai right now. That guy has some great potential in him, and I hope he realizes it with us.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
agreed
I’m right there with you b2b… my feeling too is that Rubio and Al will eventually be very big and this team eventually becomes special after Kahn is gone.
I’m not sure where Pek fits in, although he’s a real heroe in Greece. And kudos to Jawai… he’s showing some impressive sense of where to be when (much smarter that way than Hollins). Last year the Raptors held him out for most of the season, after he was diagnosed with a heart aliment. Not sure what health regimen he’s followed but he seems fine now.
Rudy Gay please
Let’s get a great wing player before the season ends and see what happens. Because if it works, then we can start adding the support pieces we need. If it doesn’t, and we decide we need a different wing player or a new frontcourt, this draft is the best way to rebuild.
More Rudy Gay
I’m still not convinced.
1. We’re not acquiring him during the season. What assets are we going to give up that Memphis would be seriously interested in? We’re not trading Al, or Kevin Love. We’re not going to trade our 1st. We’re not going to trade Ricky Rubio. I doubt Memphis has serious interest in Jonny Flynn. Although at least you didn’t suggest we’d get him for Blount’s contract as has been done here before.
2. What’s his dollar value? I remember saying in the Summer- he was giving MLE production. His defense has improved enough to the point- I’d consider 9-10 Million. He’s clearly got Max Talent although he’s also got potential to ruin your cap for 6 years.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 18, 2009 11:12 PM CST up reply actions
People need to stop assuming Memphis will want talent in return
That’s not at all their trade history under Wallace and Heisley.
A team that trades Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown should never be ruled out of a talent firesale. Even one as ridiculous sounding as Gay for Mark Blount.
Different scenario
They traded Gasol because he had a huge long-term deal and the team was struggling. Now, the team is under cap and is playing surprisingly well with young players. Plus, the word around the NBA is that Wallace is overcompensating for that deal by asking for way too much in current deals (like Love and the #5 for the #2).
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 19, 2009 12:55 AM CST up reply actions
But the team is run by Heisley
Wallace might be the GM, but he’s a puppet figure at best. Like Kerr is to Sarver. I mean, Wallace wanted to draft Evans or Rubio, but Heisley wanted Thabeet….and who did the Grizz take?
They put the bottom line before everything. Heisley is kind of like Donald Sterling…all he wants is a profit. Even with the team winning a decent number of games, the Grizzlies rank dead last in attendance and are still over the cap. They won’t even approach the luxury tax line if Heisley doesn’t think he’ll turn a profit, or maybe even if he does, so the only other option is to trade Gay before he walks for nothing.
actually
Grizz also received Marc Gasol in that trade, did they not. That makes it look a little bit better for them, but still horrible.
Flawed logic
People want to act like Memphis knew what they were doing with the Gasol trade, but it’s just a coincidence. No one knew Marc was going to be this good back then.
how in the hell
does saying the still horrible trade looks a little better for them b/c Gasol is a contributor
a) imply that Memphis knew what they were doing
or
b) imply the use of false logic?
I was attempting only to insert an additional fact into the conversation.
I've seen a lot of Laker fans trying to justify the trade lately.
So I must’ve automatically interpreted it as such. If that’s not what you were going for, then never mind what I said.
agreed
it is a horrible, horrible trade and a bit fishy as well, if I remember correctly I remember Popovich being pissed off, saying Spurs had better offer on the table.
More Gay
The issue was Gasol’s contract on a terrible team. It was a straight salary dump for Memphis’ perspective. The only problem is when Pau was surronded by talent- he became one of the Top 10-15 players in the league.
Rudy Gay’s contract shouldn’t be an issue with Memphis considering Dollars and also that he’ll be a RFA. I could see Memphis not matching a large offer. I’m just dumbfounded “Why they would trade Rudy Gay for Exprings?” I’m unsure what draft picks- we’d have that would be all that enticing for a team in their situation.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 19, 2009 5:18 PM CST up reply actions
What situation?
Nothing that team does makes sense. Why assume they’ll suddenly act like a real NBA team when it comes to Rudy Gay?
Yes Wing Player, Not Gay
I just don’t see it. I couldn’t agree more that the wing is where the Wolves are deficient, but the value isn’t there.
Agree completely, especially as to Love compared to Jefferson
Here’s a thought I don’t think I’ve seen expressed:
Take two assumptions. (1) Kahn might just be a tricky guy, and in referring to Jefferson as a #2 guy, he was not actually speaking his true opinion. (2) Let’s not judge a player’s potential by his paycheck.
It is entirely possible Jefferson might by the ideal #3 guy on a championship-caliber team. I hadn’t thought of it in you terms before, but he really is a great scorer. However, that’s probably all he’ll ever be great at… but it’s still a very valuable skill.
Is it out of the realm of possibility that Love, four or five years from now, only in his mid-20s, might be a #2 guy himself? All around, he is going to be a hell of a player, and a potential 3rd team all-NBA. Not bad as a second option and all-around make-it-happen guy.
So, then… who’ll be number one? Entirely different topic.
But, I agree, Love has been great since his return, and it’s him who’s having the positive effect on Jefferson.
Love a win!
I didn't think this last summer
but Love can definitely be a #2 guy in the right system. I also think the Wolves are using that system, between the triangle and up-tempo transition, both of these take advantage of Love’s strength.
Yep
Just think Love’s presence has improved our Winning Percentage from .111 to .333 . This might not sound like much- but stretched out over 82 games- it’s the difference between 9 wins and 27 wins.
What really impresses me is Love’s Plus/Minus Numbers so far.
On an unrelated note for our favorite Kevin Love comp- LMA is having a nice season-yet his PER drops to P/40 numbers.
According to PER
Kyle Weaver in the best player in the NBA.
Hollinger himself says it’s merely an efficiency meter, not an end-all stat, so use it judiciously.
Actually Efficiency * playing time = production
but you get the idea.
You didn't mention a least-squares regression line
I’m not convinced. ;-)
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I think Kevin Love is a better player than recent-knee surgery Big Al
but I think Al deserves a few more months. I’d still take him over Love if I were starting a team.
couldn't it be a year before he is 100%?
The real test of Kahn may be to determine if Al will ever come back to something that will complement this team or at least enough to get value in return. He may have to make that call before Al gets healthy enough to know for sure.
by Cedarpenguin on Dec 19, 2009 12:23 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
agree with Tim...
This year, Love has been our best player.
But, he’s not — and probably never will be — the impact player that healthy Al Jefferson is/was. I can’t wait to get that guy back — with Love playing this well, we should start looking like a competitive team.
Also, if we’re trying to be a developmental team, I wish Ellington would get more minutes. He’s shown enough to take all of the Pavlovich minutes. I actually think we would be better in the short term, as well, with Wayne over Sasha.
Agree
We need Wayne to get going with his outside jumper and perhaps a leap in minutes and a green light will do the trick.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 19, 2009 9:30 AM CST up reply actions
The one thing that bothers me about the coaching staff
Is allowing Pav to be on the court instead of Wayne.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 19, 2009 3:01 PM CST up reply actions
Watching the Warriors right now, Steph Curry sure would look good in the triangle
Not as ball dominant, and a superior shooter.
Not that I at all dislike or regret taking Flynn, but a lesson to learn about having a coach when you draft.
Totally agree....
Curry is going to be a good, good player. He’ll be a really good SG. I think a pair of 6’3 guards would work well for them.
Agreed...
… Jonny has his strengths, but Curry would be a much better fit on this team and in this system. He can score just as well, he has better range, he’s a better passer, and he’s a better defender. And, it isn’t as inconceivable that Curry’s versatility would enable him to play alongside Rubio someday, whereas I think we’re all rightly skeptical that Flynn would be able to do so. All in all, Curry was the right choice after Rubio.
by Shogun on Dec 19, 2009 12:27 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
suck it up?
wasn’t the rumor that Curry was sending strong signals that he didn’t want to play for MN? I know that he didn’t work out here. Maybe you pick him anyway, but this franchise certainly doesn’t need any more drama with good young players not wanting to play here.
Agree Curry is good, but he’s been just an inconsistent as Flynn. It will be interesting to see what affects each player’s defensive ability more, Flynn’s lack of height or Curry’s slight build.
Then it worked out for him.
Now he gets to play in the hell hole that is Don Nelson and Chris Cohan’s team.
A good point made by the announcers tonight
They said Al Jefferson is reluctant to pass the ball back out because he thinks he is the best scoring option. He has more confidence that he can make a shot inside than the wings making a shot. Totally true. He’s not dumb and he’s completely right. It’s no wonder the offense becomes stagnant when he gets the ball. He’s not going to give the ball up when there’s only a slight possibility of Corey Brewer or Pavlovic of hitting a jumper. Obviously if we got some wings that could shoot this would change. I think the offense would be a lot more fluid and Al would rack up a bunch of assists per game. He’s willing to pass…if we ever had someone that could hit on a regular.
Pavs is horrible...
… shows how diluted the NBA talent pool is when a guy like him is not only rostered, but also getting minutes. What an embarassment.
I think there’s a lot of truth to this. He looked very willing to throw it out to Foye last year during the January run when he knew he could trust him to hit shots. If we can get another guy (or 2!) on this team that can build that relationship with Al it would be huge.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Maybe Al
would pass more if he learned how to play basketball. It’s a game, James Naismith invented it.
"He's not dumb and he's completely right."
I sort’ve love that, and agree with at least the first half. (Maybe not the “completely.”)
What I think of is that game-winner last year where Al kicked it out to Foye for the three and raised both his arms before the shot was even off. What Jefferson needs is a few more instances of positive reinforcement. If fish in a tank can learn that when a hand casts a shadow onto them they will get food, Big Al can learn that passing gets wins. It’s operant conditioning, and it works on anything with a spinal column. ;-)
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
AL MAY BE Willing to pass BUT he has
very poor BB instincts. On both ends of the floor.
by WinTheLottery on Dec 19, 2009 9:41 AM CST up reply actions
to say that...
…a guy who has arguably the best low-post moves in the league has “very poor” BB instincts is kind of short-sighted. put him on a team with talent and we’d all be shitting ourselves with fear over al’s game.
by davechisholm on Dec 19, 2009 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
Love for Love
I think Love is the most fun player to watch on this team, and many of the Wolves played well tonight, but once again several posters are pushing to move big Al. A team with Love, but without Al would be woeful on offense on most nights. A team with as little talent as ours should not be so quick to advocate getting rid of a post player like Al. His biggest fault, and our team’s biggest fault in my opinion, is lack of length. Most nights we are shorter than players on the opposing team at every position. And when those taller opponents are talented, we are sunk. Tonight the Wolves defense was better (particularly Wilkens on Evans), their offense was better, and most importantly they were much more aggressive. None of that is a reflection on Jefferson at all. There is little Al could do to impress some posters here. And get over Curry. He’s not coming. For me, the “if we’d only taken this guy” conversations get extremely old. I wouldn’t even speculate on Rubio being here until it actually happens. Enjoy and support the players you’ve got. For the most part, they are decent, hard-working chaps. All of them, even the exalted Mr. Love, have major flaws. It doesn’t mean that they can’t improve and be a winning team.
Here's the reason:
The team didn’t do a good job of stockpiling young talent for most of the decade. They’re not 5-22 because they picked Love over Mayo or Flynn over Curry; they’re 5-22 because of the moves they made in the 7 years of the decade before trading KG.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 19, 2009 1:18 AM CST up reply actions
Thin talent pool:
I agree that Kahn was left with a group of players who were at best complimentary parts to Big Al and Love. Most of them didn’t have any more upside in their game and couldn’t play a lick of defense.
The proof of the new GMs skill will not only be wether he succeeds in getting the right lottery picks in the next two drafts, but how he uses the later picks to stockpile quality reserves who will not only maintain the pace of the starters but also crank up the defense to lead to scoring runs. Pritchard may be arrogant, but has done a great job of doing exactly that at Portland. Morley has done the same at Houston. If Kahn can measure up to those two, the Wolves will have a great future!
Agreed
The problems people complain about today are far better than what was happening 5-10 years ago. What I mean is people debate, should the Wolves have traded Mayo for Love, should they have taken Curry over Flynn. The jury may still be out, but the difference today is that even if the Wolves didn’t get the “Best” pick, they still have useful players. Too many times in the KG era not only didn’t the Wolves get the best pick, the player they took was useless (see Rashad McCants vs. Granger).
Or they didn't have a pick at all
Remember when the team’s “young players” consisted of Wally, Loren Woods, Mo Evans, Igor Rakocevic, Felipe Lopez, Bracey Wright, Chris Richard, etc.? Making mistakes with picks and not having them in the first place are a bad combination.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 19, 2009 11:42 AM CST up reply actions
psr you're sounding like a politician
… finishing up his second year in office. “None of this is my fault… just look at what I inherited!”
Of course, eventually another politician comes along and says the same thing.
So then tell me: What is your take now on Wellington, Pavlovic, Hollins, and … dare I say it? … Blount?
i will never speak...
…Of curry again. I clammored for the wolves to pick him for about a year and a half. The idea of him and love running the high pick and roll should have been enough by itself for him to be that pick and…well, you’re right: it’s best not to think about it.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 19, 2009 12:00 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
27 points for him last night
and I die a little bit inside. What’s worse is the way everyone now pretends that Flynn was in some higher tier, the clear BPA at 6, as if pretending that you agreed with the pick all along will make it more likely to succeed.
Not mutually exclusive
I think Al and Love do work together as part of a 3-man frontcourt rotation. The Wolves need their Ervin Johnson-type defensive presence for when the matchups call for it, but each Al and Love bring unique talents to the table. They are each more difficult to handle when they are both on the floor (think offensive and defensive rebounding).
Love is probably our best player, and my favorite player on the team. But I don’t know that you want to rely on him as a #1 or #2 scoring option, even a #1 frontcourt scoring option.
My biggest thought last night was that Al has a ways to go to be in game shape. I know he was playing heavier last season, but I don’t remember him ever seeming as winded or working as hard to get up and down the court as he has so far this season. My experience playing is that the shots fall a lot easier when you are in shape. Let’s let him get all the way back from the knee injury, when healthy last year he could be unguardable for stretches. You still see flashes of that from time to time, and I suspect his productivity will only increase throughout the season.
Yes!
Ervin “Not Magic” Johnson!
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 19, 2009 10:36 AM CST up reply actions
I've used to envision the 3-man frontcourt rotation, however,
a problem becomes will AL, and Love for that matter, settle for reduced playing time. If the Wolves get a legit center who needs at least 30 MPG, that means AL and Love are playing about 30 MPG, not sure they will live with that, also AL is being paid like a 40 MPG player, and in another system he is a 40 MPG player.
One thing the Wolves could try is to have this 3-man front court, and play all three together about 5 MPG, just not sure it would work defensively, but maybe against some teams.
I bet they would if they’re getting paid and it means winning more. They could still get 34+ mpg on average, and more depending on matchups and foul trouble. I think Brendan Haywood would be ideal in this role. He’s huge, plays good D, finishes near the hoop and will be a UFA next summer.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I agree
Haywood is 30 and probably doesn’t need to play 30+ minutes per game anymore. But I could see him having four or five more productive years as a 20-25 MPG player. Washington’s defense is terrible without him in the middle. Not that he’s Hakeem or David Robinson, but his size in the middle makes a huge difference for a squad that is otherwise filled with horrible defenders. He would do wonders for us against the bigger teams.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 19, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, he’s not DRob or anything, but he’s very good. He’s HUGE, and he’s one of the few guys out there who are both capable post defenders against big dudes and good shot-blockers. I think he’d be ideal, and his ability to be a 3rd big enforcer type isn’t going to tail off much into his early 30’s. EJ was our big post defender at what, 37?
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Thank you
To much complaining about who we didn’t take and who we should be trading. Let’s keep adding players to the list of people we would like to see on the team and then maybe if need be discus what the cost would be.
by TheMorningAfter on Dec 19, 2009 3:22 PM CST up reply actions
Now this I like...
Using cap space to sign a big like BH and improving wing play thru the draft.
Brendan Haywood would be fine by me. He’s more of 25-28 mpg game type of guy either. Very good shot blocker, tough/strong and HUGE (7’1.5" predraft, w/ nearly a 7’7" wingspan). I remember being upset when Haywood was still available when the Wolves would have drafted (first year of the Joe Smith penalty).
We could split our FA money between Haywood and a guy like Outlaw or Azuibuike to provide wing shooting. Or Josh Childress for more defense, although it looks like we’re going to have Brewer in that role.
I am just nervous that the effort he is playing with now is a contract year thing rather than a I want to consistently play my best attitude.
Haywood's Numbers
His numbers have been pretty good dating back to 2 years ago.
Jefferson
In these frequent discussions of the Wolves best player, are we just tossing out the torn ACL as an important consideration?
I think any comparison of Love and Jefferson should be last year’s Al Jefferson. And not to belabor previous points in this discussion, but Al gives more than low-block scoring. When healthy he’s an 11 rebound per game guy, blocks shots and isn’t exactly Yinka Dare when dishing it to teammates, even if his haters would have you think that.
I’ve been impressed with Love this year — much more than I was last season. But, unless and until he can be a dominant force against the top big men in the league, the way Jefferson has already shown that he can — I can’t call him anything but a complementary player. Great to have, but not the best player on anything close to a good team.
Requiescat in Pace, Yinka Dare
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Here's my thing about Al
Headcase quality aside, how is he any different than Zach Randolph? We’ve seen what Love’s presence does to this team, how it impacts the team in so many different ways. It seems like Al’s presence is important mostly for one reason – low post scoring. Interestingly his rebounding numbers improved by something like 33% when Love returned. So is Al our cornerstone because he does one thing really well, because he’s the only guy on the team who does one thing at an elite level? The counter example would be saying that we have to keep Flynn because he’s got the best first step on the team and can blow by elite PGs to get to the hoop (not that Rambis showcases that ability).
My point is that for all the discussion about Al being a building block, Al has given precious little evidence on the court that he can be a #1 type player (unless you value volume shot scoring), and only a little bit more evidence that he’s a #2 or 3 type building block. My comparison for this is KG – a guy who could score when he wanted to (like Al), but who also impacted the team in lots of other ways (he made the defense better, could be counted on to make the pass that needed to be made, understood how to get guys spaced correctly, etc.). Al isn’t anywhere near that. He’s never looked to me like he’s had the same kind of impact that a ‘Melo or an ’09-’10 KD has on a surrounding cast. Kevin Love would be that guy based on what we’ve seen this season, hands down, if anyone believed that he could score regularly at a high level against most competition. Unfortunately he can’t, or at least it’s looking like he’ll be a bit limited, and if anything I wonder if that makes us overvalue Al’s skills for opening up the floor for our best player.
I don’t know. Al is tough to figure out. He’s just sooo good at one thing, pretty damn good at another (rebounding), and really doesn’t do anything else. He’s not a number one guy, but trading him exposes the biggest weakness of our best player. Thank god I don’t have to figure this out. You’re up, David Kahn.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 19, 2009 10:47 AM CST up reply actions
I see one system where AL and Love work together on the Wolves
It requires the Wolves finding a GREAT outside shooting wing who is also a GREAT defensive player. Also, Rubio needs to be the PG because he looks to pass before trying to score. In this environment, Brewer is the other wing player, who looks to score in transition and getting some drives to the hoop. The offense would be generated primarily by three players, AL, Love, and whoever that great wing player is (this player would probably become the Wolves #1). Rubio and Corey would pass the ball, AL’s inside scoring will allow the GREAT outside shooter to get open looks, and Love just finds a way to score 15-20.
It works defensively as well, assuming Rubio can also play defense. The perimeter defense is so good in this scenario that the lack of size inside will be negated.
For what it's worth,
this scenario would mean the Wolves are only one player and a couple years away from a contending team. The assets then become depth, and maybe even get traded for future draft picks to keep the team building in five years.
Keep an eye on X. Henry – he might be your guy. Kansas is actually playing on ESPN as we speak, so check it out!
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
i like henry a lot
Great size for his position and he can shoot the lights out of it. Throw in rudy gay with him and I’m a happy camper.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 19, 2009 12:03 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
He does and Kansas plays both a zone and a man and I have not seen anyone blow by him. His length and strength is incredibly disrupting. I think he is going to be a 3 more than a 2 though.
3, 2, just so he's a wing
Xavier would need to beat out Damien Wilkins, then, or Pavlovic, or Gomes….
No, wait, Wilkins and Pavlovic are expiring, and Gomes may well be waived to make cap space after the (bad) decision to pick up Brewer’s option. If he’s a shooting forward, the guy would be walking into a positive vacuum on this roster.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
He's not paid like a #1 player
so I’m not sure why we all lament the fact that he will never be a #1 guy. At full strength, he is absolutely a solid value at his current paycheck. In Boston, he’d be the 4th highest paid player. In L.A., he’d be paid well behind Pau and Kobe. In Orlando, he’d be paid behind Carter, Lewis, and Howard. Most of us agree that at full strength he is a #2 or #3 type player. Well, if that’s the case, we have an excellent value in Al Jefferson.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 19, 2009 11:09 AM CST up reply actions
What I get a kick out of...
is that, for all of the team’s problems, a decent chunk of fans are preoccupied with Jefferson’s weaknesses. (not directed at this particular post — but past posts/comments) There are a lot of weaknesses on this team. I’d probably rank them like this:
1) Perimeter scoring/all-around play
2) Depth/bench play
3) Interior defense
Granted, Jefferson (and the decision to play him at center) is a contributor to problem #3. But if problems 1 and 2 are fully addressed in the next two years or so, Jefferson would be a 23 & 11 guy on a winning team. In other words, an All-Star — and as you say, he’s not even quite paid like one.
It's a fan perception thing
I’m as frustrated by Al’s defensive lapses as anyone, but concentrating on them seems to me a little like baseball fans after an 7-6 loss.
Pretty often you’ll hear fans walking away from a game like that complaining that the team couldn’t get that last baserunner home in the bottom of the 9th inning. The problem isn’t the team’s lack of offense, it’s pitching, but somehow our heads get turned around a bit sometimes.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Good point
and…in comparison to Z. Randolph, he’s not a bonehead. He might not have the highest BBIQ ever, but he’s not horrible. Off the court, he’s seemingly got his act together as well.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 19, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions
Al averaged 11.2 rebounds per game in 2008 — the year before K-Love was here. Love has no impact on Jefferson’s ability to rebound the ball. If we’re giving him credit for Jefferson’s rebounding, we might as well just say he’s a one-man team.
I don’t think Love or Jefferson can be the best player on a contender — and I’m not sure that anyone, except maybe a few posters here who grossly overrate Love — would disagree with that.
It’s just funny that every time Love has a good game, there is this need to repeat (over and over) that he’s the best player on the team. When he isn’t effective, his weaknesses aren’t pointed out, no matter how obvious they are.
Also, and this seems to be a major point of disagreement between myself and some of the other posters here, “volume” shooting/scoring/shot scoring whatever you call it, is an unbelievably important part of a team. I basically just call it “scoring” since that’s what it’s been called for decades. Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Tim Duncan, Carmelo Anthony, Al Jefferson, all these guys have shown in recent years that they can be counted on to give you 20-30 points every night. Yes, they have to take shots to get those points— that’s just how basketball works. Shots need to go up every 24 seconds and the best teams in the league have guys that can be relied upon to make a lot of them. This sounds elementary, but most of basketball is simple.
Al’s ACL tear and rehab have given the Love Cult a good sample size to support the notion that Love > Jefferson — but when Al is healthy, I think he’s probably the more valuable player.
Remember that if it weren’t for the butthole factor, Randolph is a pretty damn good player. By that I mean if he tried harder and at least made an effort to improve on his weaknesses like Al does. Randolph’s issue has always been his immaturity and attitude, which have never been concerns with Al.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Someone who could shed some light on this...
N. Pekovic.
Hopefully he’s willing to come over for next year. I’d like to see us scout him well, sign him reasonably and see what he can do. His scouting report reads similar to Al only he’s nearly 7 ft. He’s ranked with the highest PER (equiv) in Europe two years running. If he can provide 75-80% of Al’s low post offense for less than half the price, then trading Al makes much much more sense.
I really think that a lot of us undervalue Pekovic as an player. As an asset, his value hinges on his willingness to come over, but if he’s willing, trading him as a throw in would be underselling. If he’s not coming, we’re not getting anything in return anyway.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 19, 2009 11:20 AM CST up reply actions
Pekovic's euro numbers are freaky
He gets played for 20 minutes a night, so people are not seeing it here. But Pekovic is a bull down low. His numbers in the context of the Euro setting are those of a dominant post scorer and no mistake.
It’ll be interesting to see how Kahn handles his whole situation this next summer. Cap implications, his potential redundancy to Jefferson’s game, et cetera. You can’t go to sleep on assets like him.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I know this is asking for it, but...
…those W’s last January were some evidence that he can be a difference-maker in games. (I’m not a big fan of the #1, #2, #3 thing – too abstract for me.)
Yes, it’s a small sample size. But it was peaking where a guy should be peaking at his age, and a season and a half into being put into a key role on a team. Despite Wittman prior to that.
I think the answer is that you don’t dump Al, you don’t dump Love, I can see Flynn as a playing a role on a good team a la Jameer Nelson. What needs to change is finding an impact wing, so they need to get some luck and do their homework for the upcoming draft and FA/trade market.
How many bigs are cornerstones? There aren’t very many anymore. All contending teams use them as complementary pieces, so I think trying to make a bit man a corner stone is inherently flawed. But with that said, there is no one in the NBA that can score on the low block like Al. He is so talented and he consistently draws a double team every time he touches the ball. With that said, I would trade him for the right package. I would love to net James Harden. That kid would be unbelievable in the triangle offense. I also would love to get Noah, maybe there would be a three team deal that could net us both of those players.
Last night I thought Al had his best game of the season. There were no Jonny Stops and his defense was awesome. He constantly had an eye on the ball and his body on his man. He rotated perfectly and for once so did the perimeter defenders. It was hands down the best defensive game the Wolves have played all year and that usually turned into easy transition buckets. Al also played last night like he wasn’t the #1 option. It was beautiful. When he decided to make a move to the hoop he went into the teeth of the defense and drawing fouls, instead of spinning away. I was really impressed last night. I think he really is going to be special when he gets some great perimeter players around him. The only thing I would have liked him to do better last night would be moving without the ball, but the coaching staff is really teaching Al well and I can’t wait to see what he looks like at the end of the season.
It's not yet the point of either/or
The team currently should have both because they have so many unused assets that spending any of the current ones to balance the roster is shortsighted. The team should try to figure out what both could do with more talent on the perimeter and up front before making a decision like that. One can justifiably quibble that they should’ve added another decent perimeter player for the season, but why compound one mistake with another? That type of thinking leads to “Sam Cassell and a first-rounder for Marko Jaric.”
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 19, 2009 11:54 AM CST reply actions
Cole Aldrich
BTW, for all the Cole Aldrich fans out there, he went 0-3 for 5 points in 27 minutes against a team (Michigan) that started 4 guards and a 6’8" forward.
He's just sandbagging this season
so the Wolves can draft him with a late first-round pick.
Or at least, that’s what I expect to read in Sid’s column tomorrow morning.
I forgot one problem with Aldrich
as Sid says, if a guy leaves MN for college he can’t come back here. This curse of Sid is going to prevent Aldrich from being a top 5 pick.
I'm actually still a Cole Aldrich fan in spite of his scoring woes this year.
He still pulled down 11 rebounds and blocked 4 shots. Keep in mind he only shot 3 times.. Kansas just doesn’t use him as a scorer because they don’t need him to. His defensive ability and size make him a top 5 pick still.
Has anyone considered this trade:
R. Sessions & A. Jefferson to Indiana Pacers for their 2010 lottery pick, M. Dunleavy & J. Foster
Indiana gets a reliable PG who’s not injured every other month, and an all star scorer in Jefferson while only giving up Dunleavy who is redundant with D. Jones and D. Granger both in the Pacer lineup.
Minnesota gets a quality wing in M. Dunleavy (although he’s going to be 30 next year and isn’t much of a defender) whose contract expires (along with J. Foster’s) in the summer of 2011. Most importantly, Minnesota gets that lottery pick which right now is the 7th overall pick (C. Aldrich, X. Henry or possibly W. Johnson may still be available at the #7 pick.)
interesting
You’d have be nervous giving up Al Jeff and Sessions and not getting a proven piece of your core in return. Sure you get a draft pick, but Dunleavy is older, injury prone and likely not part of the future of the team and Foster is redundant on the Wolves. Dunleavy is actually a decent player, especially considering how awful he was his first few years in the league.
But the wolves can get more for Al Jeff.
I'm starting to lean more toward
getting X. Henry with the Wolves first pick, then trading a few assets (perhaps Pekovic, Sessions and one of the extra 1st rounders) to get Aldrich.
I don't understand
How can you lean toward anyone at this point? It’s way too early to declare who we should pick unless you’re talking about John Wall. I agree Henry is a guy to watch, but these guys aren’t even in conference play yet.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 19, 2009 6:43 PM CST up reply actions
Yikes
no.
As I have said before, draft picks, even lottery picks, are a lot more appealing in the abstract than they are in reality. I have no interest in giving up 2 of the best 4 players on the team, both of whom are paid reasonably, for the number 7 pick in a draft where the Wolves are already going to have a lottery pick themselves.
Not that 2 of the 4 best players on a 5-22 team is exactly 2 of the 4 best players on a good team, but still.
by Eric in Madison on Dec 19, 2009 6:32 PM CST up reply actions
Yup
It’s the same thing every year. We covet these lottery prospects on paper and they can do no wrong, but odds are most of them will underachieve their fans’ expectations and some will be out of the NBA 5 years from now.
by Rascal Flatts on Dec 19, 2009 6:42 PM CST up reply actions
Al AND Sessions all for a high pick? No thanks.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Yeah that is a ridiculous trade proposal--
Oh, but we get Jeff Foster in return? Sign me up (sarcasm).

by 










