Game Wrap Open Thread
What do you say about a team that played like dogs against a squad that appeared to shut it down somewhere in the 2nd quarter? I've got nothing. I was tempted to turn the channel to a football game right around the time the camera pulled away to show KG joking around with Pierce on the bench with about 10 minutes to go in the 2nd. It was over at that point. The Wolves clawed their way back into the teens against the Boston scrubs, but the only reason this tilt wasn't a 50-point blowout was because Boston took their foot off the pedal...early.
I would like to point out two things. First, at no point during this game was Jonny Flynn ever in danger of setting up a teammate for an easy shot. Never before have I seen someone with more than 20 points get taken apart like he got taken apart by Rajon Rondo. Flynn spent the game about 10 feet off of Rondo begging him to shoot. Rondo did not take the bait and he still found ways to torch Flynn for 13 points (on .500 shooting), 15 rebounds, and 3 steals.
Second, I'd like to point out this fanpost from Rumblebee:
David Kahn about a month ago implied he may not make any significant moves (beyond the draft) to improve the team before next season (such as using cap space). I just saw another comment that gives me the same impression:
Sam Amick: Wolves content to wait for Rubio in the Sacramento Bee.
In the article about Rubio, Kahn mentioned he thinks the Wolves are three or four years away and will then explode as a contender (I'm paraphrasing). This is not the kind of comment someone would make if he were planning on using cap space to bring in a dynamic player this summer, or at the deadline in February. I am sure Kahn would pull the trigger if offered a ridiculous deal, but otherwise it appears the cap space will not be leveraged for at least another year.
That's my read on it too. I know the team will not turn up its nose at a target of opportunity, but this fan base isn't going to wait 2-3 more years with this type of product. It's not. There's not that many of us left. I'd like to think that they have the time to be patient but they don't. On a night where the Wolves played the team that turned itself around faster than any other team in the league, I think most fans are hoping for a Boston-esque approach rather than the Portland plan.
Oh well. It was a bad game and the late game "effort" was only brought about by playing a team that didn't give a rat's you-know-what and passed on beating them down by 30+.
What did you notice about the game?
0 recs |
134 comments
|
Comments
Bad Teams Get Blown Out By Top Teams
There’s nothing more or less to it than that.
No easy answer
I don’t think Kahn plans too keep us this bad for the next two years, and certainly don’t think Glen Taylor would tolerate it. But I don’t know how much he plans to improve us either.
It should be noted though, that one stellar draft pick, even one that isn’t in the top 3 or even top 5, can take a team like ours to near .500. So it might not be THAT bad.
But if Kahn decides a guy like Rudy Gay isn’t worth the money, I can most definitely see him holding the cap space and trying to improve the team next summer in the draft alone.
Also, I think there are a number of trades that wouldn't turn us into contenders, but would help immensely
Anthony Randolph being one, if we can avoid taking of a deal like Maggette’s in the process (or maybe we live with Maggette for a couple of years, if we aren’t planning to spend the money anyway)
Deals like that are the ones I expect Kahn to be making between now and next season.
As for the game...
….no surprise. Again, too small in the frontcourt, no playmaking from the backcourt…it’s a broken record at this point.
Expect another ugly game like this on Tuesday when we play the Hawks.
So bad...
Flynn and Sessions combined for 3 assists tonight. The Wolves were dead coming out of the gate. Had to watch it to get my League Pass moneys worth…
Contender is one thing. I’m just hoping they do something so I don’t think to myself “blowout” before games like tonight even start.
Trades/Free Agency vs. Draft
I think Kahn would be smart to keep the slow play going, and pass on any offers that are not no-brainers.
We need superstars to contend for a championship. John Wall will probably be one, Derrick Favors might, and Ricky Rubio might. In any case, we don’t have any on the current roster. The only way the Wolves are going to get one, is through the draft, the way we got Garnett.
We should keep swinging in the draft, and once we have a couple of marquee building blocks, start thinking about free agency and trades that could fill out the roster. Our incredible lack of depth is a major reason why we lose so much, but at the same time, if we added a little depth with a Rudy Gay or somebody like that, we’d be seriously jeopardizing our long-term “ceiling” and could very easily find ourself in the Charlotte Bobcats scenario, which is worse in my opinion, even if they are the 8-seed in the East this year and the next couple.
This game was not a surprise. 0-2 against Boston this year — one blowout, one barn burner. I can live with that, out of this group.
Didn't expect to win or compete.
Like Andy G says, competing in one of these two games is a welcome surprise.
Kahn
I’m not sure I’d read too much into these Kahn statements. It’s hard for me to believe Kahn pulled off so many trades last summer, with no real added value to the team beyond freeing up some cap space, if he planned to sit on his hands.
You don’t trade Craig Smith and Telfair for Q-Rich unless you’re hoping to capitalize on the added space getting rid of Telfair’s contract gives you. Also, the main reason for trading Songaila seemed to be to get out from his 2010/11 salary.
Kahn also seems to love the action…can’t imagine he won’t be aggressively calling at deadline and before the draft.
Finally, Kahn said repeated that team was endanger of becoming irrelevant in Twin Cities so he seems aware that we can’t sit back and suck for 2 more years.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Dec 20, 2009 10:30 PM CST reply actions
Don't forget Taylor's role in spending money
I didn’t mention it in the fanpost because I’ve brought it up before, but a primary reason I don’t expect the Wolves to use the cap space next summer is Taylor & Co. want the payroll at $50 mil or less to try to break even or even make a little money. Based on current attendance and discounts given to draw fans, I cannot necessarily blame him, of course much of this is management’s fault. I don’t think the green light to add to payroll will be given unless they think the additional player(s) will fill a lot of seats (a major reason they tried so hard to bring in Rubio this summer).
I don’t know how many people saw this, but McHale just went on record saying that Taylor ordered him to trade KG. Saving money as attendance was starting to fall was a major reason for the KG trade. Until this team is ready to contend and fill Target Center, I see minimal payroll increases. The non-Taylor partial owners who are not billionaires are trying to avoid more cash calls.
by Rumblebee on Dec 20, 2009 10:41 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
That's why I think the team should be all over trades for guys like Anthony Randolph
It’s a chance to significantly improve the team, or at least make it more exciting, without making any huge cash commitments.
I mean, Randolph was the 14th pick, and is still on his rookie deal for another 2 1/2 years, and could possibly be a 20-10 player by that last year.
But I agree that Kahn is going to have to spend at least incrementally over the next two years. No team goes from irrelevant to contendership in one season unless they do what Boston did and trade from a boatload of veteran talent. You can’t become overnight successes through the draft, so if that’s really the plan, then a lot of that money has to be spent somewhere along the line.
How are we getting Randolph?
From what I’ve read, GS will listen, but they’re not shopping him. Randolph would likely be part of a bigger trade with the term sweetener mentioned in the ESPN article I read. I don’t know what GS would want from us that we’d be willing to trade.
As far as when to spend: It’s got to be by the end of this offseason, trade or via FA. We can’t wait. You can’t expect quick fixes from the draft, but it’s the best place to get upper level talent. We’ll have our own pick and the ammo to get another lottery pick to increase our future ceiling.
I would hope for a timeline something like this:
-Draft a John Wall or X. Henry or maybe W. Johnson with our pick
-Move up with our other picks/Pekovic for a guy who might slip -E.Turner or Aldrich
-Make a big FA signing like Rudy Gay (not my first choice, but I’m warming -it wouldn’t be the end of the world)
-Sign a couple good role players -Brendan Haywood and Outlaw, Azubuike or Childress depending on our needs.
by Blond Ricky on Dec 20, 2009 11:12 PM CST up reply actions
They're definitely shopping him
Check this week’s Prowling the NBA. Most definitely shopping him. They’d probably want to dump off a guy like Maggette or Turiaf with him, but that wouldn’t be the most terrible thing for us.
I think we can definitely get Randolph for a fair price and not have to take on Maggette at least. Randolph does the team no good playing 15-20 minutes off the bench, and the team has made no secret they don’t think much of him.
what is fair price
what do the wolves have that GS wants? What if GS wants Love or Jefferson? I can’t imagine Nellie wants Sessions. What if GS wants Flynn? God knows why?
Are thinking that GS only wants to dump salary? So wolves trade Blount, Cardinal, and a pick for Randolph + trash? There goes the cap space. This would be a big bet on Randolph, no?
by littleboxes on Dec 20, 2009 11:23 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think anyone knows that the Warriors want
Which is why there’s no solid trade talk around Randolph.
If you look at the recent player history, it’s completely contradictory. They send Jason Richardson to the Cats basically for Branden Wright. So it looks like they want to rebuild. But then they sign Stephen Jackson to a deal, so maybe not. Then they cut Baron Davis lose for nothing, so maybe they do. Then they trade Jackson for veterans Raja Bell and Vlade Radmonavic, so maybe not. Turn down Amare to draft Steph Curry, so they do. Won’t play Curry or Randolph consistent minutes, so they don’t…..I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense what they’re doing.
So I think, at the least, you have to field an offer starting at the low end, gives-the-Warriors cap relief region, and go from there. With a team this dysfunctional, there’s no telling how badly they might rip themselves off.
what's the most that you,
Oceanary, would be prepared to give GS for Randolph + Maggette? For example.
Name the “fair price”, not the market price, which as you correctly point out, is a whole bucket of crazy when dealing with GS.
by littleboxes on Dec 20, 2009 11:36 PM CST up reply actions
In terms of just lining up talent
Fair to me would be something like Love, Gomes, and either Wilkins or Sessions for Randolph, Maggette, and a guy like CJ Watson or Anthony Morrow.
And that’s not me saying anything about Randolph versus Love or that it’s a deal I’d do. Just in terms of both teams getting about equal value.
Well, you’re probably right with that offer in that you usually have to give up more than most fans think in trades, but if they were asking for Love, I wouldn’t do it. He’s already proving he’s at worst a 15/11 guy who makes a team run, while Randolph is still ALL potential. Flashes of brilliance, maybe, but he’s proven little beyond that his talent is intriguing.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Agreed
Giving up Love, at this point, is a Jonny Stop as far as trades go. I’d be very curious to see what it would take to pry Curry from them. I do. not. want. Maggete’s contract, and if we were to agree to take him I would hope that Kahn would have a second trade lined up with a contending team who needs a scorer (an ‘all in’ type type trade from the contender). And I think the trade chip that I’d dangle the most for GS is Blount and perhaps Gomes (or Hart to make salaries work).
The sales pitch is “We’ll help you get completely out of Maggette’s contract, but the cost is Curry. You would then be free to do what you want in FA and the draft. Take it or leave it.” If they don’t want it, then that’s OK. There’s really nothing else that I think is really worth doing, because it’s all potential (Randolph) and injury risk (Biedrins) for absorbing a huge contract. If we could move Maggette or whoever with the bad contract to another team immediately following the trade, then I’m fine with that. But if I’m trading for talent with Golden State, then I think I target Curry.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 21, 2009 10:10 AM CST up reply actions
So you wouldn't be a fan of
Jefferson for Maggette, Randolph, and a pick swap? The money works out to be about even for the next couple years and we move up from either the Utah or the Bobcat pick.
I just think this trade takes care of so much for us. We decide on Love/Jefferson without taking an actual hit in talent. We fill in a 6th man wing spot, and still have 2 draft picks to acquire guys like Johnson/Turner and Henry… or even Favors or Aldrich with Al gone and then target guys like Brewer/Childress in FA. So many options if we up our pick and get Maggette’s scoring over Jefferson’s
I'd do that
But I seriously doubt the Warriors would. Jefferson is the worst possible player to put in that system.
Maybe
But you’re basically trading Jefferson for Randolph (and maybe a pick). Maybe if we ended up with Favors. I don’t know, I guess for me the more I think about a guy like Randolph the more I become more and more skeptical that he’s ever going to develop into anything. If he wasn’t 7’ tall what would the scouting report on him say? He becomes a ton more average, so let’s call a spade a spade until he starts showing everyone that he can make that size make a difference. Maybe I’m being overly negative as I’m ready to leave work already, but I’m just not sure if I’d do that trade.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Well, we have to give him time to develop
I mean, he’s only 20, and in his second year in the NBA.
For the record though, he’s currently averaging 20 points and 11 rebounds per 40 minutes of playing time, which would exceed Kevin Garnett’s sophomore year.
but
does he play defense like Garnett? Does he have the work ethic of Garnett? From what I hear he’s had serious attitude problems. Of course, he’s working for Nellie, so who knows. But still, some red flags here. And yes, clearly a lot of talent.
I agree with your theory of getting a young player
in a rookie contract, but I would not trade an assured good player (Love) to take a chance on someone with higher upside but also more downside. I would give up any of the other three you mentioned. Considering the Wolves even extended Brewer after two years of struggle, I get nervous taking someone back in a trade that a team apparently is giving up on so soon.
Your comments have made me think of an approach perhaps Kahn is considering. I think it has been assumed that Kahn was going to use the cap space to bring in a talented player with a long term contract. I suppose he could do almost the opposite. Bring in a talented young player on a rookie contract, and get him cheap by also taking on a bad contract with a few years left. In a scenario like you are discussing, the Wolves could bring in Randolph for a cheap two+ year look, and also bring in the 3+ years on Maggette. Payroll this season is basically a wash, next season the Wolves take on Maggette’s money but probably still have a lower payroll than this season. Do the same the year after and all of a sudden Maggette becomes an expiring contract to bring in the last piece. Not sure this is “The Plan”, but it would be logical.
I've been meaning to post this exact same scenario.
I think we use the cap space to acquire young assets and picks this summer, flip expiring contracts assumed in that process at the following deadline, or go for a game-changer with the newly freed space. I don’t think we try to sign anyone not named Lebron or Wade this summer, and we all know how that will turn out. It’s a formality. I think Rumblebee is absolutely right on his hunch.
If the outcome our cap space it to get a prospect like Randolph for taking a contract like Maggette, I’d be fine with that. The thought of trading good players like Al or Love for the risk that is Anthony Randolph while eating Maggette’s contract is not appetizing to me.
Randolph is tantalizing, but if he’s so great why would GS be willing to trade the next KG? I’d be against any kind real talent swap Randolph. If you can get him for financial reasons…that’s another story. Gomes, Blount and the Utah pick for Randolph and Maggettte is skewed towards us, but that’s the price GS pays for eating $30 million on Maggette’s deal. Swap Pekovic for the Utah pick (?) given the reports that GS wants a bruiser down low on ESPN.
Not sure what Randolph’s position is though. Is he a SF? Or a PF in the KG mold? He seems to be a more perimeter oriented player than KG was with a better drive, less shooting offensively.
Maybe we’d have enough cap space left to get Brendan Haywood?
Why would we want Brenden Haywood?
He’s very average at….everything.
As for Randolph, read my comments on Golden State. It’s fair to ask why they’d want to trade Randolph, but then you also have to ask why they do anything they do, and the answer is no one knows. What we do know is he’s on the trading block.
I think Randolph is a small forward who will ultimately develop into a power forward as he adds strength. Keep in mind, Kevin Garnett played his first 6 years as a small forward.
Disagree. If he’s healthy, Haywood is a very good defender and a rebounder. He’d be a great 3rd big in our rotation.
And I like this idea as a means of acquiring talent. It makes a lot of sense, and as mentioned above, Maggette’s deal becomes an asset in a few years, even if he isn’t playing well. If the worst we have to do is take on a deal like that to get a talent like Randolph, I am all for it – he has the talent to one day be a Gay level player (or better) and the financial implications wouldn’t be any worse than signing Rudy to the type of deal it’s likely going to take.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I just haven't seen Haywood do anything...
…that would lead me to rate him an above-average defender. He’s always been in that medium Erick Dampier/Brad Miller/Jamaal Magloire tier to me. Admirable job of “holding down the fort”, but not a guy who’s going to really change a game or anchor an elite defense.
You haven’t seen evidence in what sense? Do you watch him frequently? I’ll admit I don’t, and I’m not going to go to bat that hard for the guy, but he’s been known as a very good defender for a while on top of putting up solid production (10/10/2 this year). He’s not giving you a ton offensively, just a high percentage of finishes, but he’s good enough considering the things I hear about his D.
He definitely made life hell for Al the last few times they matched up, and I know Hollinger’s been praising his D for a while now, which is backed up by the #‘s at 82games. He was hurt last year and I’m not sure if they have their #‘s archived or not, but I’m pretty sure they’d back up that he really bolsters their D when he’s on the floor.
I wouldn’t pay a ton for him, but I really like him as a fallback play if we go the wing route in the draft and can’t get/don’t try to get a big $ guy in FA.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I certainly don't think he's a bad player
Just not a player I’d put high on the list of desirable acquisitions.
I’ve seen a lot of him over the last few years (minus that year he was out for, of course). He’s a typical “takes up a lot of space” player. Not patricularly skilled of physically gifted, just really big and hard working.
Not the worst thing in the world. But not ideal either.
Still can’t say I agree. That last description makes him sound like Jawai :)
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
And Jawai’s not exactly a great defender either.
Point being, if Haywood was above average on defense, the Wizards wouldn’t perennially rank as one of the worst defensive teams. If you’ve ever seen Dampier play, then you’ve basically seen Haywood play. There’s not much difference between them.
Well, there are 5 guys on a court. When the other guys getting big minutes are such defensive stalwards as Gilbert and Antawn Jamison, it’s going to be hard to stand out.
He strikes me as kind of a Brewer in that regard – a good defender whose true impact is overshadowed by his teams collective defensive stinkosity (yes, I made that up).
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Haywood
I think Haywood has more impact defensively than Dampier. Dampier is downplayed because of his contract, but if you could get Haywood for less committment (3 years at MLE type prices) it would be a better match.
I’d be lying if I said I broke down B. Haywood’s game, but by reputation, he’s solid defensivly. I don’t think that Erv Johnson ever anchored a bunch of defensive juggernauts either (I could be wrong) and he’s the type of strong man enforcer that I’d hope for Haywood to be.
You’re right on him being big though. The guy is huge.
One more thing…ideally we’re not paying MLE price on Haywood. He just seems like a guy that could be had for less money than that. There’s no upside like a Gortat for him and the economy isn’t great for owners to be spending freely on role players like him.
I’d like a scenario where we could find a way to shed Hollins $2.3 million salary and replace it with Haywood on 3 years of Sessions kind of money.
Randolph's Skill-Set
is a 4/5 Hybrid. I used to think he was a potential 3- Cap N Hack tended to doubt that one. Randolph has pretty limited perimeter skills.
by Jose Cordoba on Dec 21, 2009 11:41 PM CST up reply actions
Interestingly
Randolph has the played the Majority minutes at the 5 this season. Not only that, but both his Offensive and Defensive PER are better at the 5 than at the 4.
Keep in mind the system the Warriors run
If you can’t shoot the three ball, Nelson won’t play you anywhere except center. Golden State loves that undersized lineup….Randolph is way too skinny to play center on a team that actually cares about defense.
That is also my impression, that is why I found the stats interesting that he played better at the 5. That is unless you think each and every team that plays the Warriors counters small ball with small ball.
Additionally the Numbers were significant.
At C
PER: 21.6
Opponent PER: 21.6
At PF
PER: 12.4
Opponent PER: 30.1
That being said, undeveloped Anthony Randolph needs to play better D no matter where he is on the floor.
Hmm, that is interesting
We’ll have to keep track of this for the next few weeks. Biedrins and Ronny Turiaf are supposed to return sometime this week, so Randolph will probably get a lot more burn at the 4 now.
Well, a lot compared to what he gets now at least…
It's been reported
That Randolph will be back at the 4. Having to play him at the 5 due to injuries was the primary excuse Nelson gave for giving him so few minutes, and mostly starting him behind Moore.
This several hundred word comment
should be required reading for every “Sign Rudy!” and “So What If We Have To Take Maggette To Get Randolph” comment. It’s really the driving force behind the vast majority of the decisions being made right now. I don’t blame the team for doing it—they are under no obligation to lose $30 million every year just so a few thousand die hard fans can get giddy over 45 wins.
What would you do if you owned a business like the Wolves? Or, take three zeroes off the numbers. Say it’s a little coffee shop that a lot of people like, but you’re still losing a couple thousand dollars per month, and it looks like it will fcontinue or the foreseeable future. Would you spend 60,000/ more per year to add a talented but overpaid barista and three new cashiers and wait staff? Or would you look to cut costs wherever possible and hope that business picks up enough to save your ass, after which maybe you’ll spend a few bucks prettying up the place?
Sorry for being such a downer, but the reality is that this is team that is looking to lose less money first and foremost. If wins happen to come after that, so be it.
Using that coffee shop analogy
We’re just now opening the shop. We’re not going to make money initially, nor could any brand new business expect to. We have to spend some money to spruce up the place and make it run well to get customers in.
Eh… My enthusiasm in waning, but hopefully the point is clear: the only way to consistenly make money in this league is to field a winning product. You can cut your losses by slashing payroll, but it’s only going to compound the problem long term. Unless you’re Donald Sterling.
Not to mention that most owners don't turn an annual profit anyway
Sterling actually is a unique case in that he was profitable even during all those years the team refused to take on payroll (I don’t think he’s turning a profit right now though…)
But for the most part, NBA owners (and sports team owners in general) make their profits when they sell the team for exponentially more than they paid to buy it.
Using the Clippers as an example, Sterling bought that team in 1981 for something like $13million. I think the last Forbes report valued the team at over $250million.
Same with the Wolves. Taylor bought the team in 95’ for $89 million, Forbes says it’s worth nearly $270 million now.
So….
Not to make money
I can almost gaurantee that Taylor didn’t buy this team to make money. It is so hard to make money in the pro sports industry. I like the coffee shop analogy so I’ll stick with it. As of now you have to remember that the team probably hasn’t turned a profit since the WCF run. That means it has been more than a few years of losing money, so if you owned a coffee shop that has lost money three years in a row you too would be very reluctant to increase expenses without a sure thing. If you want to take Oceanary’s view about how they sell the team to make money, as of now going only by the team’s worth he has only increased his money by 8.25% annually. Again, would you invest in a coffee shop if you were only going to make that return? I know I wouldn’t.
Basically what I am saying is that he has taken such a hit on the financial side now and thanks to McHale tossing money at stiff after stiff with very little to show for it his grip is now tighter than ever.
8.25% annual return on investment
Is damn good in my book, these days.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 21, 2009 10:12 AM CST up reply actions
Don't forget...
That doesn’t include the huge losses he took each year. That would be like a buying a stock with a price that increases each year but to own the stock huge fees are required, so actually that 8.5% is nothing more than air.
So you're saying that
Taylor has lost over $200 million dollars running the team?
I highly doubt that. Some years he’s turned a profit, and some years he hasn’t. Has he lost $50 million on this team total? Let’s increase it and say that the cumulative losses for this team is $75 million. OK, well to be fair then we should subtract any profits made. I have no idea what kind of profits he’s made, but the specific numbers won’t really change the broader point. Let’s say that he’s made $20 million in profit, so in the 16 years he’s it’s cost him $55 million extra dollars to run it. Subtracted from the growth in value of the team, and Taylor and his partners are still looking at a cool $156 million in profit from their investments.
So no, it’s actually not “air”, and it’s going to take a huge amount in losses to make it “air.” My guess is that Taylor wants to run a break-even organization over 3-5 year spans, meaning that some years he may lose money and some year he’ll make money and the net result will be a wash. This year is a break even/make money type year.
Finally, Taylor can suck it up and spend on his product. He dished out an obscene amount of money to buy out Juwan Howard. That was his choice. I have no sympathy for an owner who buys out players at obscene prices because of the failings of his handpicked GM, nor do I have any sympathy for an owner who hamstrung his franchise by signing an under the table agreement with a player. Taylor is swallowing his own bitter pill right now. I don’t think he’ll move the team, and I think he doesn’t want to sell the team and admit failure because in the end, the story of Glen Taylor f-ing up the TWolves through his own mistakes (and perhaps costing KG a championship while he was here in the process) will be one of the main narratives of Glen Taylor’s business life. And trust me, billionaires care how their business legacy is remembered.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
One thing to keep in mind
Taylor is not the sole owner of this team. That’s why I always try to write “Taylor & Co.” when I post about cost cutting for the Wolves. He has several partners (close to 10 I believe). When the team loses too much money the partners get hit up for their share of the losses now, not when they sell. A million dollar cash call is probably big money for a few of these guys. Taylor could say, “Tough luck, you bought into this team”, but many of these partners are also partners in other Taylor businesses. Also, if they sell their shares either he has to buy more of the team or take on partners he may not like.
Agree but
I agree that they probably didn’t lose $200 million over the years but they have probably lost enough money to make that 8.5% decrease rather than increase.
When I wrote my comment I was refering to Oceanary’s comment about how teams don’t make money annually but instead when they sell. Either way, all I’m saying is that from a strictly finacial point of view it is not a good investment.
Also agreeing with Rumblelee Taylor is in a position to be able to swallow a bad investment but his partners probably feel otherwise.
Correct me if I'm mistaken...
but off the top of my head I believe the year the Wolves went to the WCF they also lost the most money that season out of any this decade.
I believe Taylor lost like $20-25 million that year?
by College Wolf on Dec 21, 2009 10:21 AM CST up reply actions
Yes they do. They all do.
Also, I saw the Wolves operating losses posted here on Canis a little while back, for each season. It was a bar graph. Anyone have a link to that?
by College Wolf on Dec 21, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
No, they all don't.
Some writers might guess, or report rumors as to money made and lost, but since the teams are almost all privately held businesses, there is no requirement for them to announce their gains and losses. And between sensitive labor issues and the fact that most of them receive some form of public subsidy, there is little incentive for them to do so.
Ummm yes they do.
They are audited by the NBA and its released.
by College Wolf on Dec 21, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions
You might be thinking of
this report from Forbes, which is still just based on their estimates—no different from the Forbes 400 U.S. Gazillionaires, and all the other ranking pron they produce.
I don't think so...
but I admit I don’t have a link off the top of my head.
by College Wolf on Dec 21, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions
It's easy to misinterpret
the source of the figures, because Forbes et al. just say it like it’s so. And I certainly could be wrong, but I don’t see why and where these teams would feel the need to itemize their current financial condition each year.
I checked on a few items..
…and the nba does not release its financial data in anything approaching an open forum. There are some basic figures that are put together to estimate their worth and value but there’s nothing in terms of them coming out and saying “this is what we’re worth and this is what we make.” They’re protected on this front.
I would also add this: Don’t forget that the NBA had to secure an additional line of credit for a few teams to make it through last season. The NBA was approached by JP Morgan/Bank of America and offered this line of credit. This is in addition to the $1.7 billion line of credit that they already have.
The big problem the league has is that it is more likely than not that the majority of the teams in the league are losing money and that the formulas used to determine things like the salary cap and revenue sharing are broke to a point where teams can’t make money. We’ll find out how bad it is during the next CBA. It will be interesting to see just how much the players are asked to give up in terms of salary.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
My quick prediction
The MLE will be reduced, or at least the # of years allowed will be shortened by a couple seasons (Marko Jaric deals are done, count on it).
Something will be done to reduce the amount paid to the Craig Smith’s of the world. Nobody REALLY pays to see guys like him or Madsen, even if we like them. Five minute players are not going to get a million a year, and fifteen minute players are going to have to “settle” for a million.
The starters may not see much change, although my guess is owners will try to limit contracts and extensions to four years, ultimately settling for five years.
The stars had to agree to max contracts about a decade ago because marginal players were not going to continue losing money so a few guys could make $30 million a year. Now the stars are going to push to keep their money, and ultimately the bench guys are going to have to give.
Stern and the owners have made three things priority for the next CBA
1) Adjusted revenue sharing model to spread excess profits more evenly across the teams in the league
2) Shortened contract lengths. Stern has talked about 3-4 year deals similar to the ones LeBron, Wade and Bosh all signed
3) No MLE. Right, not reduced…gone.
Stern also wants to talk about upping the age limit again to 3 years, similar to the rule the NFL imposes, but that’s coming in a distant second to the financial side of things, for obvious reasons.
Star players are definitely going to be affected by whatever the new CBA turns out to be. If it comes down to players versus owners, the owners will win 100% guaranteed for one reason: they can afford to wait out another lockout season; the players can’t.
Especially in this economy
The last lockout about five or ten owners made money due to the lockout, in this economy half the owners may be better off skipping the season.
Hah! Well, too bad for the owners
because in the event of a lockout, the NBA players will easily replace their lost earnings with the money they’ll win gambling.
Wait a minute . . .
I believe the Green Bay Packers are about the only
major professional team that releases detailed profit/loss info, which is why you will never see another major professional franchise owned by the public. That being said, there are certainly leaks, some even approved by owners I would bet.
College Wolf is somewhat correct, the revenue numbers for the league as a whole are audited (due to the CBA and salary cap), and hard to keep secret due to the number of people who see them. P&L can than be guessed fairly accurately by subtracting each teams payroll and assumed front office expenses.
I think the long playoff run
that season lowered the losses to closer to $19 million. However, I think the next season when they missed the playoffs they lost about what you are suggesting.
stupid...
…voice of reason ;)
i suppose i should have been fair and noted the financial situation of the club and that it probably makes some sense for them to continue on 2-3 year plan if they’ve made the determination that they’ve bottomed out.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Just a little crabby sanity
The much bigger issue is that in previous money-losing years, the cash flows from businesses owned by Taylor and the minority partners could more than offset any losses and capital calls. Now? Not so much, and none of them feel like another Cash For Stuff You Probably Don’t Need And Likely Can’t Afford government program away from returning to glorious prosperity.
The businesses, of course, have to be run separately and sink or swim on their own merits. But I firmly believe that Glen Taylor is a different and better man than the Donald Sterlings of the world, and it will (and should) affect how he runs this team—for better or worse. I don’t think he wishes to send the following message to the people running the businesses that help subsidize the losses incurred by the Timberwolves for the past several years:
Dear Employees,
As you know, it’s been another tough year for the wedding invitation business. Therefore, it is with great regret that we are forced to terminate several hundred employees, costing many of you your jobs and your health insurance at a time that you can least afford to lose them, in a wonderful community in which you may have lived all your life and have no desire to leave, but which offers no other similar employment opportunities at this time.
However, due to the cost savings, we will be able to afford to pay millions of dollars with no guarantee of return on investment to basketball players who aren’t from this area, don’t share much with you culturally, and play a sport that you probably don’t follow. In fact, figuring annual salary and benefits of about $50,000 each, cutting just 160 of you will allow us to pay $8 million to Rudy Gay!
But that's the Donald Sterling approach...
…that you just said Taylor isn’t the same as. Cutting costs, maintaining a bottom line.
I mean, is Taylor in this to save money or win games? I’m pretty sure he cares a lot more about winning games, and the only way that’s going to happen is to bring in good players.
No,
typically the Donald Sterling ownership approach is to pay as little money as possible, regardless of the team’s prospects (it’s worked for him, just not the fans). He tried paying big money recently, it hasn’t translated to wins, and he’ll go back to scraping the bottom of the barrell as soon as the new CBA is signed.
As a businessman outside of basketball, the guy makes Tony Soprano look like Ben & Jerry. No business can exist without leaving a few pissed off people in its wake,. but Glen’s reputation exceeds that of most billionaires.
Many people on this board seem to think that billionaires will spend whatever it takes to win games. Part of that comes from what we as fans want (and hope), and part of it comes from the bubble mentality that higher prices are always just a turn of the calendar page away.
That’s not true any more. Deflation, deleveraging, retrenching, the New Normal—call it what you want, but the notion that owners are going to throw their money down the drain year in and year out is gone.
I believe Glen Taylor very much wants the Timberwolves to win—he wouldn’t sit five feet from the bench most games if he didn’t have some emotional investment in the team and its success. But during much better economic times he lost lots of money paying too much for too few wins. He’s not going to make the same mistake during an ongoing economic malaise for the benefit of a couple thousand fans paying discounted prices at the Target Center.
Now, if the Wolves happen to get a hold of a player who can vault them into being one of the top five teams in the league, Glen will spend some money trying to make a run at a ring. But he knows how quickly the championship hopes will fade, and how fast the fans in Minnesota stop showing up when a team goes from contending to competing to conceding.
But you still have to build up in increments
Not team goes from worst to best overnight. I mean, if we’re only going to spend money on players who make us contenders, we’re going to be really bad for a really long time.
"we’re going to be really bad for a really long time"
Past performance = future results?
Some consolation can be gained in the notion that they will pay Love, they will pay whichever point guard is starting in 2011-2012, and the CBA will likely have some soft salary floor to go along with lower salary caps for the players.
Also, you can take heart in Dave Berri’s recent work finding that in all four major pro sports*, the lowest correlation between spending money and wins was found in the NBA.
*I was surprised to find out that in his definition, the four major pro sports are football, baseball, basketball, and hockey—Foxxy Boxxing was no where to be found.
I'm not sure Kahn will pay Love
I tend to side with Jerry Zgoda in that Kahn isn’t going to pay both Love and Jefferson to do 90% of the same things. One or the other.
But not paying anyone except star players is definitely the Clippers model. Draft high, pay their rookie deals, let them go at the end. No trades, no free agent signings, terrible record year after year.
Granted that has changed somewhat the last 3 years, but as a track record….
2 players in the last decade or so that have eligible for extensions were worth keeping. Chris Kaman and Lamar Odom. Odom was a headcase back then and that is understandable not matching the offer from Miami and Kaman got an extension. I think it is more of drafting terribly than Sterling not wanting to give them extensions.
PS Zgoda doesn’t know his head from his *. Kahn doesn’t like him very much (no scoops) and Kahn gives scoops to the St Paul Pioneer Press.
Does this coffee shop example assume
That I have a large trust fund that can cover my losses for quite awhile?
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 21, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions
I'm just saying
That Glen Taylor is really rich. A $25 million dollar loss, while large, still represents less than 1% of his worth. He may have well lost over a $1 billion dollars last year, but he’ll also make a ton of that money back once the economy rebounds due to either basic stock market growth or through improved worth/demand in his other businesses. I don’t know enough about financial stuff to get into specifics, other to observe that those who owned a ton of stock lost a ton of money over the past year or two. Assuming they held onto a lot of that stock they’ll make a ton of that money back due to nothing more than the market rebounding. Will he be as rich as he was? Maybe not. But it’s not like he’s going to be stuck on a permanently downward trend here.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
I wish I were as confident about "the market"
rebounding as you are. But a couple of things about that rebound:
1. If indeed his net worth does bounce back, it will mostly be in intangible book value of assets—not cash. However, the $25 million loss? That came in real money.
2. The historical economic model that Ibelieve most predicts what we’re headed for is Japan—whose stock market prices have been in a general downtrend for 20 years, and are still oodles of percentage points away from reaching those highs. Do you think Glen Taylor has a several decades long perspective on his business interest, going forward?
3. Most self-made billionaires don’t run around saying, “What difference does it make? I’M A BILLIONAIRE!!!” They pay attention to costs and revenue, and a $10 parking ticket bugs them just as much as it bugs you.
4. Even if/when the economy rebounds, no businessperson likes losing money on an enterprise indefinitely. Sooner or later team owners either get tired of the hassles, or run out of money, or get an offer that’s higher than they ever dreamed of. If the Wolves don’t get consistent fan support in the form of real ticket buyers, they’ll keep costs low and try to break even, only putting wins ahead of profits when luck strikes.
by PoorDick on Dec 21, 2009 9:45 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Some responses
In no particular order…
3. I valet part time, and we get our fair share of billionaires and people worth well into the hundreds of millions of dollars coming and parking with us, and most of them are quite generous. They get it that they are extremely blessed, and I can only think of one real tightwad out of the dozen or so that have parked with us over the year. The sense I get from them isn’t so much that they’re Scrooge McDuck with their money, but rather that they value getting what they pay for (or its inverse being that they’re willing to pay for a given service or product as long as they actually get it.) So in this line of thinking, if there’s one thing that should make GT go bonkers it’s all the bad contracts given to Jaric, Hudson, Howard, etc, because there was no way he was getting his value out of those deals. Interestingly Blount is a different story as he’s still an asset and part of a greater plan down the road.
2. Japan and GT’s long term perspective. If any of these guys (billionaires) are running a publicly held institution, then yes, they have long term perspective. There’s simply too much at stake in shareholder money not too. And as far as Japan’s economy going, I guess I’m not convinced (as a gerneral statement) of its use as a corollary to ours. Not that it can’t be, just that the Japanese cultural or institutional ways of trading stocks or valuing companies is very different from ours. I think it works, to a point, but not well enough to really conclusively help inform our current economic situation. I guess my broader point was that a guy like Bill Gates lost $7 billion dollars last year because of the drop in Microsoft stock. That stock goes up in price, and he might make $3 billion of it back in a month. So the value of these guys is kind of fluid. Which leads me to…
1. Box. While I’m sure GT has cash reserves on hand, I wonder if he’s tapping into a line of credit to pay off some of these losses. You can be a ‘millionaire’ based off of the value of your house, but that doesn’t mean you’ve got tons of dough lying around.
4. I respect the point you’re trying to make (I agree with it), and would only add that being a pro-sports owner is a little bit of a different business venture for most of these guys. I don’t think most of them go into because they see a great opportunity to make money (although there are the Red McCombs’s of the world). Red’s actually a good example: you can make money in terms of the increased value of the franchise, but equally as important for a lot of these guys is the eliteness of the club (only 30 owners) and the competition of trying to beat all these other highly successful type A business people who also happen to be owners. Some billionaires do what Richard Branson does, others own a pro sports franchise.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 22, 2009 10:19 AM CST up reply actions
Good points, expressed well.
You’re even smarter than I thought.
The Japanese thing makes sense to me as a predictor in that we assumed the Bubble world in which we lived was normal. Low interest rates and easier credit confused us that we were growing due to our brilliance, rather than what the truth would have been. Now we live in a more normal world, and will spend/save accordingly (until the next Bubble).
Thanks
My hope is that we’ve all learned enough that won’t be another bubble. Easier said than done, but that’s my hope.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
I'd be pretty surprised
if a guy as rich as Glen Taylor doesn’t have a portfolio manager that has at least earned his money back. There are just too many different hedging methods that make a ton of money in the market whether its going up or down, as long as it’s moving. If he doesn’t have someone working his money that has that figured out, he isn’t a very good business man in the first place.
Personally, I would relish a market as volatile as this one if I had more money to throw into it.
"There are just too many different hedging methods . . .
. . . that make a ton of money in the market whether its going up or down . . . "
These methods, could you list them, please? I and several million other investors thank you in advance.
If you are familiar with options
I believe there are two methods called the “long butterfly” and “short butterfly” depending on how you believe the market is moving. The “long” one is that you are betting both sides of the market, putting up the initial cost as your max loss, but earning money if the market moves in either direction. A lot of people made a lot of money doing this over the past year.
Spreads and straddles and ratios oh my!
I think you’re thinking of straddles, in this case. Max loss is the cost of the options involved, but money is made in a volatile market that moves significantly in either direction. So yeah, tons of ways to make money, and those are just the basic basics.. Once you start getting into more advanced strategies (like the IRON CONDOR!) and stuff like interest rate and foreign currency options it gets pretty nuts. I wouldn’t be surprised if some hedge funds out there made zillions off the market in the last couple years..
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Most definitely
I was just characterizing the thing as hedges to save on the typing. I love all of their crappy names like the iron condor as you said and the long and short butterfly… I am actually hoping to shadow/intern with someone who deals with this kind of stuff this coming summer. I know he made quite a bit of money over the past year doing this kind of stuff and it’s exactly what I hope to do in a few years. How are you so involved/knowledgable in the area? Work in/near the field?
When Kahn was hired, he talked about a 16 month period of rebuilding activity that went through free agency 2010. I think it’s a stretch to read any kind of deviation from that (delaying taking on salary) based off anything in that Sacbee article. The related parts were brief and pretty nonspecific.
Besides, delaying using cap space means less and less chance of us actually using it.
We’re going to add possibly 3 rookie contracts and some minor free agents (possibly) to along with the small yearly increases in our other contracts. Waiting for 2011 won’t leave much cap space left.
I agree. I think people misinterpret what "exploding into a contender" means
If you think about the last two teams that exploded onto the scene, it’s the Hornets and Nuggets. But neither of them traded or drafted or signed like, 3 or 4 big name players all in one season.
The Hornets spent a long time developing Paul and David West, and adding pieces like Chandler and Peja. They didn’t all the sudden massively adjust their roster in one season.
Likewise, the Nuggets spent a long time developing talent. Yes, they traded for Billups and he proved to be the final piece, but they spent a lot of years working with Melo, JR Smith, Nene, Kenyon Martin, etc. Then added Billups and Birdman to take them the rest of the way.
So that’s what I think Kahn is talking about. He still plans to build up a stable of good talent that can get to .500, get to the first round, and all that. Then the “explosion” he’s talking about would be us either having a season where it all clicks into place, or we add that one key player. Not sitting at the bottom of the league, then all the sudden picking up 4 or 5 great players all at once.
Agree
I think we’ve all become so used to “contending” meaning “for the playoffs” instead of “for a title.” Portland started their rebuilding a year or two before Roy/Aldridge (or Black Jesus, if you’re a Blazer fan) were added, and they’re not even to the point where they can be considered legitimate threats to the Lakers (neither can any other West team, though), and those two are in their fourth years.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Dec 21, 2009 2:27 PM CST up reply actions
I tend to agree a piece or two may be brought on board before next season
but what I was trying to say is don’t expect to see a player or two brought in before next season that will be in the All-star game in 2011. I think many fans are hoping all of these expiring contracts are going to be traded for a $15 million a year player and the team will win 45 games next season. I’m just saying they might want to temper the expectations significantly.
I’m pretty comfortable predicting next season’s payroll will be a lot closer to $50 million than the $60 million of this season.
Even if it's around $50 million...
….that leaves nearly $14 million to spend between now and next year. Plenty enough for a Rudy Gay deal.
Not that we will or should sign him, but just pointing out that it very much is enough to sign an all star player should we decide to pursue one.
I don’t at all think Kahn is planning to keep us a 20-25 win team for 2 more years. That’d be absurd, and not at all how successful teams have historically turned it around. To build a good team, you have to spend money on good players. There’s no way around that.
Depending on how Gomes contract is structured
they could be close. I don’t expect Kahn to try to only win 20-25 next season, but I think he wants to keep it in the 30-33 range to make sure they get one more top-10 pick before losing a draft to the Clippers.
I think Kahn’s perfect world is something like:
This season – 22 wins, top 3 pick.
Next season – 33 wins, #9 pick.
Season after – 45 wins, Clippers get the pick
Then the explosion into top 4 of Western Conference.
patience
I’m hoping Kahn and Taylor exercise patience in building the team. I hope that this patience extends to Taylor being willing to lose $$ and not move the team. I think it would be a mistake from a team building and fan perspective to short-circuit the rebuilding process for a quick fix. Not sure what the quick fix would be I guess. I’m imagining a collection of overpaid average players that grind out 35-42 wins.
That’s how this franchise loses me as a fan if they clearly give up on building a real team. This is what I see Memphis as doing this year. The are winning some games, but I don’t see them having any real long term success with that roster. But, I’ve been wrong before.
Memphis
That is the perfect example for the “quick fix” strategy. Z-Bo dropped 32 & 24 tonight against Denver, to up their record to 12-15. It would clearly be more fun to watch the Grizzlies roster than the Wolves on a nightly basis, but their ceiling might be a little bit low. They are done drafting high lotto guys, so I suspect they think that Mayo-Gay-Gasol-Thabeet is a core to build with, and that the short-term winning will help establish a culture.
Personally, I would not have taken in Z-Bo. Even if they earn the 7 or 8 seed this year and start becoming a fringe playoff team, I think that one more lottery season would have done them some good. But who knows.
Griz
I think the mistake they made was not going after David Lee…they could have signed him to a far more reasonable contract than what Z-Bo is getting paid.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Dec 21, 2009 12:03 AM CST up reply actions
They wouldn't have gotten the same scoring impact
Randolph, for all his faults, is one of the best post scorers in the NBA. Lee gets most of his points on fastbreaks and hitting the offensive glass.
It’s actually a very similar comparison to the difference between Jefferson and Love.
Because Lord knows they're lacking in scorers :D
Not that your post was incorrect, but the extra ~$7 million they’ll be paying Randolph over Lee could keep them from matching an offer to Rudy Gay. Hard to justify that.
It is Memphis
I’d find it hard to justify almost everything they do. Fortunately we’re not Grizzlies fans, so we don’t have to.
To be fair
they picked up Randolph with already existing salaries. So the short-term they are saving money over Lee, but after Richardson’s contract or Darko’s contract expired, they are losing that money that could have been saved on Lee.
...Oh I see what you're saying
Basically they would have had to pay an extra ~$8 million/year on Lee this year. If they can’t afford that ~$8 million raise to Gay next season, they couldn’t afford the $8 million hit of adding Lee to Darko and Richardson. That’s a good point.
OTOH, if the choice is Zach Randolph and losing Gay versus having one year with a garbage PF, then using your $16 million in expirings to pay for a raise for Gay and to target David Lee in free agency (he’ll be one again next offseason), I’d still go for the latter option.
Me too
I was just pointing out that they are now obligated for 3 years I believe (don’t care enough about Randolph to look it up) as opposed to 1 year with Quentin Richardson or Darko. So really if they kept Richardson and signed Lee, even to say one year, they are only coming out ahead by one year anyways. So it’s not quite the difference that was first suggested. Still, I would rather have had Lee as well.
Can anyone help me?
I’ve been posting everywhere that I can’t get Youtube videos to work on Fanposts, why is this?
yeah...
….that’s kind of weird. i’ll ask the tech folks .
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I'm kind of on board...
With the whole “Wait for Rubio” thing. The only thing that changes it in my mind is John Wall. If we get him, Rubio, cap space, draft picks, and either Al or Kevin become chips to acquire a super-dynamic Wing and a legitimate help-defending, basket-protecting 5. Our Big 3 going forward is Rubio/Wall, Wing Guy, and the winner of our newest Hoopus Deathmatch – Jefferson vs. Love. I guarantee we cannot be truly successful accommodating both of them on Defense
As I said during last night’s thread, I would take Love or Al eight days a week…for a variety of reasons: age, $$$, overall impact on the game, etc… Last night’s game made clear just how far away we are. I’d rather take 2 or 3 years and become the Spurs than “go for it” next year and become the Suns.
"I'm gonna make you cry...I'm gonna make you cry and dip my cookie in your tears!!!"
2010 & 2011 Draft Picks
Does anyone have a summary of the Wolves 1st & 2nd round picks for 2010 & 2011?
check out
the draft info link over to your right
by littleboxes on Dec 21, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions
Wes Johnson might be that dynamic wing with our lotto pick...
Then all we gotta do is draft J. Varnado (He’s only 6’9 but so is Ben Wallace) at the end of the first round and we’ve got our 25-30 MPG defensive big. Give em both a year to learn the NBA and our system and viola: Rubio arrives. Flynn becomes the dynamic, Jason Terry-esque 6th man, Brewer learns to make layups, and Ellington/Gomes fight over who gets to sub in for Wes Johnson first.
dream scenario
j. wall with #1 pick.
knicks own #2 pick. we trade flynn or rubio and get next best player at wing or center at the #2.
we trade the other for a wing/long player.
we draft other long athletes and or shooters with other picks.
i could go wall/sessions, an excellent wing or two, a good center, love, al, brewer, ellington, gomes.
Utah owns the Knicks’ first rounder this year I believe.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 21, 2009 11:03 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
So for those clamoring for Randolph
or anyone else recently. How do you interpret or respond to Kahn’s quotes in the recent Pioneer Press article, where he states, “I haven’t made one trade call since we started the regular season,” Kahn said Monday. “I really feel the players we have deserve to be evaluated on a season-long basis. I would be content if we don’t make a move.”
If the headline is an accurate synopsis of his thoughts, and Kahn really does “expect to finish the season with the current roster of players” Then I don’t see any of these deals come to pass. It’s not like Golden State is going to come pounding on Kahn’s door to pillage our talent.
I think it’s pretty normal that after almost 30 games that their has been no trade talk. As the season approaches the All-Star break and certain teams decide it’s time to throw in the towel and rebuild or other teams decide to go all in and get that last piece for a playoff run, trade talks will heat up.
Of course the people on this board that talk about Randolph don’t have some inside knowledge that Kahn is on the horn with Chris Mullin actively negotiating. I also think a potential deal for Randolph and many others will still be on the table before the draft, so what’s the rush to swing a deal in February. Especially because we won’t know the draft order until June so it’s tough to place value on the Bobcats and Jazz picks until we know we’re getting them and know where they will fall.
I think Kahn is not looking to make a deal, but I also think he’s playing the PR game a little bit too. He’s establishing a negotiating position for the trading deadline frenzy, basically saying that he’s not going to screwed by anyone because he’s willing to not do anything. He’s also deflecting potential fan unrest in the coming months by getting it out early that we aren’t going to be making any deals. However, given his track record this summer, my guess is that he’d be willing to help facilitate trades for other teams, or make a deal if a really good (read: high value, low cost) offer comes around.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 22, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions
I believe this to be reasonably accurate
Kahn and the staff has thrown the 1st 20 games of the season out the window as far as evaluation goes. Just too many injury/recovery from injury issues coupled with a new system to make any fair evaluations. So we have 25 or so games to evaluate prior to the trade deadline.
Kahn is spending big time $$$ and time on pro level scouting. No need to do that if you are “content” with your roster and you plan to build through the draft.
I believe Kahn when he says he is not working the phones. Too early. But I would be absolutely shocked if that remains the case at the trade deadline.
By the way, I like Kahn’s move toward a more conservative style when dealing with media than his early “openness”. Makes me feel that he is being more thoughtful.

by 















