Just got back from Target Center.
they had a party for season ticket holders who had perfect attendance. Anyway, Hoiberg spoke and took a lot of good questions about the roster and draft. I tried my best to read between the lines, and here’s what I gathered…
First (and most importantly) he emphasized that Taylor has offered GM candidates full control for personnel and coaching staff decisions. He wanted fans (and specifically, the blogosphere) to know that Taylor isn’t insisting anything related to he or McHale. How much truth there is to that, I haven’t any idea.
With respect to the roster, he made clear that he knows they are small and unathletic. Everything that he said involved getting a shotblocker and getting a guy to break down the defense. The two names that he mentioned, without solicitation from a fan question, were Thabeet and DeRozan. When a fan specifically asked about Curry, he raved about how great of a shooter he was and how tough his dad (Curry’s dad) was to guard. However, everything Fred talked about was athleticism and the need for a perimeter slasher. Given his ties to Tim Floyd, I think that could easily mean DeRozan (if he falls to 6).
He said it’s a very weak draft for centers and mentioned that, outside of Thabeet, Mullens is really the only guy. He talked about Mullens upside. I got the feeling that Fred probably understood the need for that type of a player, since he kept repeating the point that we need a "rim protector." When asked what happens to Love, he talked about a 3-big rotation, since they can’t play 48 minutes each.
Fred spent some time talking about Pekovic. He said he’s the best center in Europe and we expect him no later than 2010.
Also, he mentioned that Rubio has a $7 Million buyout, this year and that it’s far from certain that he’ll be in the NBA, next year. This contradicts Chad Ford’s reports, but Fred sounded pretty serious about this. Given that Memphis has the 2-spot, it might be a real issue heading forward to the draft.
Anyway, it was a pretty good event. It was fun to hear Hoiberg talk somewhat candidly and extensively about this coming off-season.
From Andy G in the lotto open thread.
over 2 years ago
Stop-n-Pop
104 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I would like to offer a silver lining to help ease our pain in these troublesome times: We can pretty much write in stone that we won’t be taking a transcendent rookie who will improve the team by leaps and bounds next year. Combine the logical extension of this, which is to say that it’s very likely we wind up keeping our pick next year, with the mass exodus of talent from this year’s draft and we could find our favorite team having another shot at a very good player next year. Curry/DeRozan/Evans/Harden this year and whoever falls to the 8-10 range of Aminu/Turner/Aldrich next year? Things aren’t as bad as they seem all the sudden.
Tomorrow, Tomorrow The Sun WIll Come Up Tomorrow
Tomorrow, Tomorrow
it’s always a day away…
by Eric in Madison on May 19, 2009 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Aldrich would be great
But he would’ve gone 6-10 this year. Next year he’ll be top 5, and hopefully out of our grasp (unless secret mad-genius Hoiberg engineers a trade this year that ends up netting us a top five pick next year. The lotto gods can’t screw us if it’s technically another team’s pick, right?)
If he's going top 5 next year
He probably would be a top 5 pick this year. I mean, how could Jordan Hill be picked above Cole Aldrich. It would even be hard to pick Thabeet above Cole. And, Thabeet and Jordan HIll are widely projected as top 5 picks.
by oblivionspocket on May 20, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, Aldrich might be a bit optimistic, but he was just an example of one of the upper classmen who went back. My overall point is that next year will be very deep what with the returnees who pulled out of this year’s draft (add to that Ed Davis and Greg Monroe) and all the highly touted freshmen like Wall, Xaviery Henry, Lance Stephenson, Derrick Favors etc. Some will fall and some will rise and I’m sure the draft board will change, but next year is shaping up to have a lot of talent, which could make a pick in the 8-10 range better than the 6th pick in this year’s draft.
I'm going to say this again and probably again
Re-Sign Shelden for a few years at low dollars if you’re looking for someone to protect the rim. He’s long enough to help protect the rim and has the best defensive instincts of anyone on their roster by far. I don’t think they’ll have the opportunity to waste a pick on Thabeet- I’d almost rather be 6 than 3 for this reason. The type of player they need here is way easy to find than A Terrific-Shooting PG (Curry) or an Athletic Marvel Slasher (Derozan) or a unique finisher (Harden). This is Moneyball strategy all the way.
I'm not sure about Shelden's defense...
… I saw certain stretches in which he really struggled. I know that there were times when he looked okay, but I’d rather bring in a bona fide shot blocker than bank on Shelden’s defense, especially given that he’s undersized like all of our other big men.
Few Points
1. Shelden’s clearly the best interior Defender this team has had since KG has left. I’m not the only one to make this observation- Britt Robson and SNP have also made this observation. The Golden State game the last week of the season made this point abudantly clear.
2. Shelden had an Incredible Plus/Minus during the minutes he played. He also put up an out of this world rebound rate during his minutes with the team. I’ll grant you the sample size was limited but this is where the value comes.
3. Shelden’s not really undersized he’s got a 7’5 foot wing span. The idea that you need to be Hasheem Thabeet’s size is to be an effective NBA defender is laughable when you look at players like Anderson Varejao, Ben Wallace, Chuck Hayes, and Kenyon Martin. None of these players are great shot-blockers yet their terrific defenders because of their use of positioning and ability to frequently contest shots.
4. The idea that just because someone’s a shot-blocker makes them a good defender is also wrong. For example if shot-blocking was all that made a good defender Andrea Bargagni and Shaq would be examples of great defenders. To use a team example look at a team like the Golden State Warriors that led the NBA in block rate yet was 28th in Defensive Rating.
by Jose Cordoba on May 19, 2009 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the best option for them...
Is Marcin Gortat from Orlando. He’s young (24), 7’, mobile, good standing reach, and played well enough to become Dwight Howard’s main backup. He could be had for less than the MLE and would be capable of playing the leftover minutes at the 5. If they’re willing to spend on a free agent, he’d be a low-risk/high-reward pick.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 19, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions
I love the idea of Gortat. I read somewhere that he’s unhappy about his minutes in Orlando and will be looking to go somewhere he’ll get more minutes. If I’m not mistaken, he’s unrestricted too, so he could probably be had for pretty cheap if he likes the situation. Also, I’m now recalling Hanny saying that he was close with Gortat personally (don’t ask me, I have no idea why). His per minute #‘s are great and he’s really produced when he’s had the chance.
He is unrestricted, according to ESPN.com. I think they could get him for 3 yrs/$10 mil or a longer deal that’s close to those numbers.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 19, 2009 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Hanny buddied up to Gortat
so that he could have a big bald white guy to be with when JPete was busy helping out with the Lynx.
Gortat would be great...
…based on his numbers this season, which were excellent both offensively and defensively; he’s exactaly the type of C the Wolves could give 20-30 min/game to. I agree the Wolves should have him on their short list of FA’s; if nothing else, the “Polish Hammer” should be able to help the Wolves sell tickets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mowy0KQQaAk (skip the first minute of ads)
I feel like the line “thank you for waiting, I am appreciate for your patience” can be put to good use somewhere, I’m just not sure where. That video is hilarious. “Oh, Charlotte has no superstar? I’m sorry to hear that.. but there will be Dwight Howard, and the Polish Hammer, obviously.”
Yeah, I’m definitely behind bringing in Gortat. He’s got legit size, is close to Hanny, has produced when given the chance and wouldn’t break the bank. You have to think he could be enticed with the opportunity of big minutes due to Al recovering. Even with Al back, this team should have 24+ mpg for a 6’11 true C.
I've come to believe
that blocking shots relates to defense in a similar way that steals do—high risk, for questionable reward. A successful steal usually gives you an uncontested lay-up, and maybe even the “and 1.” But if you fail (and you do, more often than not), you get either a foul on the perimeter, or, more likely, leave a 5-on-4 situation for the rest of your defense.
Blocking shots means the shooter got the ball, and in position to take the shot. Even if the blocker swats it away (rarely), it usually goes out of bounds, and the offense keeps possession. But someone who is skilled and big enough to keep the shooter from taking the shot, or even getting the ball in position to shoot, is a more reliable, and favorable, outcome.
Not to mention that high shotblocking #‘s don’t tell if a guy will chase anything that goes up, leaving the offensive glass wide open. The importance placed on shotblocking is one of my big pet peeves.
Shotblocking is nice, but it’s nowhere near as important as having a guy who knows how to play smart overall D. I mean, would you rather have Varejao or Samuel Dalembert? Dally blocks way more shots, but he’s nowhere near as effective a defender as Varejao is overall.
That’s why I like the new stats. Most coaches would rather have Varejao or Noah than Dalembert, but his gaudy blocks numbers set him up for life.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 19, 2009 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Shelden had...
…the best DRtg on the team at 104, and was in fact the only Wolf with a better than average rating on defense. He had great numbers in his limited time, and is just the type of effective option the Wolves should be looking to use more often. Despite the wingspan I think he’s best suited at the 4, unfortunately for him the Wolves have an abundance of options there.
Gortat's
Numbers across the board look quite good. I would be quite surprised if 3/10 is a reasonable amount for a contract. I would tend to think- he would be a min. MLE. Shelden you can probably get for 1/3 of this amount. Looking at Gortat’s stats he’s clearly worth this amount of money.
It is also worth noting that the Wolves don’t have the Cap Space on their own to make such an offer when figuring in draft picks. So they’ll have to give up a pick plus an expiring to make something like this work outside the MLE. I’m not disputing Gortat is a better player- I’m just unsure if they’ll make an investment like this.
by Jose Cordoba on May 20, 2009 8:39 AM CDT up reply actions
getting gorat...
…is spending the money and minutes that would have gone to pekovic. i’m not making a judgment on this one way or another, but i do think that if they get gorat, pekovic is no longer a viable option.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
True. Although, unless Fred knows something we don’t (certainly possible), Pek is an unknown both in terms of how he’ll fit in the NBA and, more importantly, if he’ll ever even come over. If you can sign Gortat, then he’s here, and it’s a reasonable assumption that he’s capable of producing given his past and his prorated #’s.
I’m more of a fan of going for the sure thing. If Pek is really that highly regarded, bringing in Gortat would allow us to shop him as trade bait.
You're right
about the lack of cap space after the picks are paid. If Freddy is as confident as he appears to be on Pekovic coming over next year, maybe they could do a sign-and-trade for Gortat now, and include Pekovic’s rights to Orlando?
He'd probably get a little more because he's a big...
But this year’s market is worse than last year’s, and Gortat’s value isn’t 3x higher than Gomes or Telfair. My assumption was that they’d use part of this to make such a deal. I think he’d be worth the whole thing considering how much Varejao gets (and ‘Gana Diop gets). As for Pekovic, I guess part of this is hope that the one in charge finally sees that Pekovic is more valuable as a trading chip than with this particular group of players because he and Jefferson don’t have complementary skills.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions
Few more points
1. Just because you, SnP, and Britt Robson say something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. This isn’t physics. No disrespect, but that’s a comical piece of evidence to provide, especially as your “lead bullet” in support of your overly-defensive argument.
2. If Shelden is such a great defender, why has he been such a big bust and passed around teams like a five dollar hooker?
3. If Shelden was such a great defender, why wouldn’t he have played more for the Timberwolves?
4. I saw other games last season when he struggled. I can say with confidence (especially referring to points 2 & 3) that the evidence is much more mixed than you’re letting on.
5. Shelden’s “incredible” plus/minus was likely influenced by the fact that he was usually playing against the other team’s worst players during meaningless minutes.
6. Chill out.
RE:
1) So the best Basketball writer (Britt) in the Twin Cities making an observation like this isn’t what you consider evidence.
2)Shelden’s issues have always been on the Offensive End of the court. He’s not a very good finisher around the basket or have any sort of jumper. I never made the argument he’s a Starting 4 or 5 on a good team because of these limitations. I’m making the point that John Hollinger made in his pre-season scouting report that Shelden gives enough in regard to rebounding/defense to be a 15 minute a night option of the bench. If you’re going to pair a player with Rhino or Al he’s the type of player that makes sense.
3) I’m stumped why they played Collins as many minutes as they did. I can only assume that the reason they didn’t play Shelden had to do with his contract status.
4) I think a thing worth pointing out is when guards are able to get to the basket at will- this is going to have very negative effect on post defense. When players have to rotate over to a guard a foot from the hoop
5)Shelden’s best games were at Utah and at Golden State. These performances weren’t coming against scrubs especially the Utah Game. When looking at the 4 games- Shelden got his most meaningful minutes the time went 3-1. I think it’s fair to argue sample size here (But this point generally isn’t accurate)
6) I never called you a name or directed an insult in your direction. I made a different observation in regard to your Basketball Opinion. I apologize if you took this in a manner other than that.
I know Wyn made the point about how the Wolves could be better off getting someone that’s more of an athlete that can guard 4’s and 5’s that play away from the Basket (Okur, Wallace, Barganani)- it’s fair to say that Shelden isn’t really this player.
The argument you made was some desire for an interior shot-blocker- which I made the counter argument that this is highly overrated as evidenced by the previous Bullet Point.
by Jose Cordoba on May 20, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I should add...
that I’m drawing an inference or two with the DeRozan thing. I just thought it was noteworthy that he mentioned getting more athletic on the perimeter and a “rim-protector” and mentioned Thabeet and DeRozan, by name, before being asked about them. He discussed other guys, like Curry and Evans, after fans specifically brought them up.
I'm not Anti-Harden
I’m just not loving the idea of acquiring non-expirings to get him. I’m all for trading 18 or 28 although 28 has no value. Could 18 plus 6 maybe move you up to 4/5- perhaps but it would probably be predicated on Wash/Sac liking a player for sure to be there at 18.
by Jose Cordoba on May 19, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I've heard him bring up the slasher....
…wing thing too.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Sounds like the Vikings
Or put more simply, like disinformation. My guess is that Freddy knows who they’d love to fall to them, and who everyone thinks this team needs (Thabeet or Derozen), and so he’s just adding a little fuel onto that fire to draw attention away from whoever it is they hope falls (Harden? Lawson? Curry? Someone else?).
Also gives me hope that Freddy’s looking at how to build a ‘new’ core for this team—one where Al and Love are the foundation, and Foye and Brewer are complimentary but not prescriptive pieces (meaning, basically, that Foye is expendable until he proves/plays otherwise.) If this is the case, than where Freddy goes with this pick is anyone’s guess—I think there’s a lot more flexibility there from the Wolves perspective than just “we need a shotblocker.”
Does Hoiberg sound competent...
as a decision-maker? It’s tough to tell in any situation, but is he feasible as a GM based on that session?
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 19, 2009 11:16 PM CDT reply actions
Hard to say...
He covered a lot of ground, seemed to be prepared for all types of questions and gave in-depth answers about the upcoming off-season. But, I don’t know that the substance of his remarks was anything beyond the typical discussions on this board, day to day. I guess, he’ll be judged by whatever moves he’s allowed to make in the front office. He’ll have the luxury of watching guys like Curry, Lawson, Holiday and Evans play one-on-one and perform all kinds of drills. From the little I heard from him, I guess I trust that he would make good decisions.
For what it's worth
As a limited (athletic-wise) role player, he always seemed to be in the right spots at the right times when he played, which suggests to me that he understands the game and how players want to or can play it. I’d rather have that in an ex-player GM than a guy like Rhino who’s good at one thing and does it to the detriment of his team and scheme (not to pick on Rhino, but I needed an example).
Or a former star...
Who bases all personnel decisions on what worked for his team 25 years ago.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Any star from the 80's should probably be avoided
McHale, Thomas and Jordan were/are terrible. Dumars and Bird have been up and down.
Andy G
Thank you for the update. Perfect attendance? If I didn’t already have a lot of respect for you, I wouldn’t know whether to congratulate you, or offer up some pity (but regardless, thank you for supporting the team with straight cash).
God forbid that we’d actually have management competent enough to smokescreen their actual intentions.
Chad Ford...
Has the Wolves with the combo of DeRozan/B.J. Mullens/Patty Mills, even passing on Lawson at 18 to take Mullens. Um, Chad, the Wolves aren’t going to pass on Ty Lawson if he’s there at 18.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 19, 2009 11:27 PM CDT reply actions
But then why would they take Mills
with a guaranteed contract? Unless they would also peddle Bassy in the Hinrich trade? Okay, I’m getting a little ahead of myself here.
I guess I'm hoping...
They don’t trade for Hinrich. Overpaying for guys is what got them into a mess in the first place, and it’d be nice to see them not overpay for a guy who might not have been even a top-3 guy on a team that finished at .500.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 19, 2009 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Hoiberg
There’s been talk on the board that maybe Glen, having observed Fred’s suggested in in the past few drafts, has inside information on Fred’s potential as GM and that his might be a good thing.
I agree. I also worry, however, about Glen Taylor’s judgement.
Suppose Taylor likes Fred’s judgement because Fred would have kept Mayo rather than do the Love trade. Glen looks at the rookie of the year vote and says, Fred was correct.
Suppose Glen picks up some stats and looks at Al Thorton’s PPG. He says, wow, Fred wanted Al Thornton instead of Corey Brewer. Stupid McHale.
Just a thought. We’ll never know of course, but I hadn’t seen it discussed that Glen could have all the wrong inside information about Hoiberg.
Ouch!
Washington also ‘won’ their ‘coin toss’ (really, they reach into a cut open ball for a ping-pong ball? Really NBA? Really?) with the Clippers. And the Clippers also won the second pick! How can anyone believe in Karma with the slimiest owner and the worst franchise in sports winning it again?
NBADraft.net...
Has a DeRozan/Mills/Terrence Williams trio. I wouldn’t mind Williams at 28, but why are these sites thinking the Wolves would take Mills?
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 19, 2009 11:46 PM CDT reply actions
I was also amused...
that nbadraft.net had the Wolves taking Mills over Jrue Holiday. What is up with that guy. Chad Ford mentions that the Kings might like him at #4. Silly.
Holiday? Super highly touted coming out of HS, then hit a big wall last year. Thing is, he had to be rated that high for a reason, and there are legit concerns with how he was held back at UCLA. If he measures out well and impresses in workouts he could fly right back up draft boards. He’s my pick for this year’s “holy crap that guy went higher than expected” pick like Westbrook last year. I wouldn’t be surprised if he went to Washington or Sacramento, but it’ll depend on the combine and workouts.
Well, at least Fred can talk a good game...
let’s hope he can walk the walk. Draft issues aside, I think we need to consider available free agents. Gortat was mentioned above – I would love to have him in our rotation. There’s also a group of players who could fill our needs without necessarily breaking the bank : PG – Ramon Sessions, Jarrett Jack; SG – Anthony Parker, SF – Trevor Ariza. I know these guys aren’t superstars and they have their faults, but (aside from Parker) they are young players who are just beginning to realize their talent. Combine one or two of them with a promising rookie, some judicious trades and Big Al/K-Love, I think we have the beginning of a pretty good team.
Talk a good game? I'm not sure I agree with him on much, and he's no original thinker.
I hate to throw cold water on Hoiberg, who seems like a nice enough guy, but frankly the things he’s said over time have basically been conventional thinking. I’ve yet to hear anything from Fred that strikes me as particularly insightful or even interesting. It’s not like you feel you’re in the room with a great judge of NBA talent every time you hear the guy speak.
He said on the air with Paul Allen that he’d like to keep McHale on as coach because the players had already been through a lot of recent coaching change. Is continuity what we should be striving for?
He seems both to place a low priority on defensive ability — DeRozan being a poor defender, for example, doesn’t bother Fred — and to make conventional judgments about what makes a good defender. There are better ways of judging a center defensively than the blocks stat, as anything but the most casual fan would suspect. Is Corey Brewer a plus NBA defender? The team seems to think so based on how much energy the kid puts into it, but I’m not sure they’ve asked that question in any deeper way.
I really hate that the front office and draft situations have me this down, but at this point Hoiberg as our sole judge of talent is probably a mistake. The team is actively looking for numbers people to head things up when it hasn’t made a serious mistake that way in some time, and meanwhile the assessment of talent here is weak and needs much greater depth.
Talent assessment
I somewhat agree with you, but the only caveat for me is how they played under McHale last year, before Big Al got hurt. For a month or so there all these players that looked like marginal draft choices suddenly looked like legit NBA players. It was bizarre! Never before have I questioned my belief that McHale was bad at drafting players, but once he got the chance to play them how he wanted they performed a lot better.
So yes, I agree that more talent evaluation is necessary, but I also am wondering if the players McHale drafted sucked more than they should have because of the coaching/system? My mind is still a little blown from trying to consider that McHale might not have been all bad as a drafter.
That's the only positive in forever, feels like
> the only caveat for me is how they played under McHale last year,
> before Big Al got hurt.
So help me, if I hear Glen Taylor mention that January record at some point coming up I’m going to blow.
I’m not as down on McHale as some. What I think about him is that he should have been part of a working system, and instead Glen Taylor just kind’ve waved his hand and told McHale to handle everything. He obviously was a disaster for at least half a decade as the team’s chief contract negotiator, and he himself said he was bad at it, but Taylor’s solution involved jumping in himself with stuff like the Joe Smith signing(s). Disastrous lapses were the result. Kevin McHale could be an effective member of a front office team, provided he wasn’t in charge. By now, of course, the Wolves badly need karmic change so he shouldn’t be in that role.
All that said, I’m not at all convinced that Hoiberg represents any improvement whatsoever over McHale as a judge of talent. We had some history of successes with McHale (Googs, Garnett, Marbury who was indeed a big time talent), whereas Hoiberg is basically completely unproven. He doesn’t show any signs of thinking in new or fresh ways about talent or anything else. Look at this post; nobody’s likely to say we have an edge because Fred Hoiberg values athleticism in a way the rest of the league hasn’t caught onto yet, are they? Asked about his qualifications on the radio, what Fred says is that he’s been here a while and he’s “always been the kind of guy who takes lots of notes.” That’s no resumé to hire by, not even for chief talent scout leaving alone VP of Operations or whatever.
If the team had named Penn two days ago, I could have had some glimmer of interest today. Now I’m mostly coming here out of bitter habit.
I love Hoopus but...
…you kind of nailed it:
“Now I’m mostly coming here out of bitter habit.”
by biggity2bit on May 20, 2009 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions
we appreciate your addiction
;)
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I still think they need an agile big guy who can work in space, moreso than a rim protector. Al and Love did better than I thought they would defending low. But they had no chance against the Rasheed Wallaces and Mehmet Okurs of the world (granted, those guys can be trouble for lots of teams, but the Wolves in particular, it just seemed cruel, and furthermore Al’s and Love’s strength down low was neutralized by being asked to play outside).
Big Al and Love will never be guys who swoop in from the weakside and swat the ball into the 8th row, but I think if the team commits to finding good perimeter defenders (the Wolves might have been the easiest team to “break down” in the league last season), then they should be okay. (I’d sort of look to Love’s UCLA team as a sort of blueprint: he had awesome athletes on the perimeter, allowing him to work his mayhem in the paint.)
I agree that Sheldon Williams would be worth bringing back if he came on the cheap, but I think a Brenden Wright type player would be more of a plus for them then, say, BJ Mullens (who isn’t even considered a defensive-minded player, Freddy!).
DraftExpress had an interesting take...
here. They think Harden could play in the same backcourt as Foye. I don’t agree, but it’s surprising to hear someone else mention it.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 9:20 AM CDT reply actions
People who aren’t specifically Wolves fans tend to have two misconceptions about Randy Foye.
1. He is a starter
2. He can play the point
Agreed
Foye’s ceiling (and I don’t expect him to reach this) is a Jason Terry-like 6th Man role. Undersized off-guards hardly ever make for good starting players. If Foye came off the bench and had half the confidence of a Terry or Eddie House, he would probably be in his most ideal situation.
Gonna show my age here...
but Foye reminds me most of Vinnie “The Microwave” Johnson from the 80’s Pistons. Like Foye, Johnson was too short to be a 2 and didn’t have the handle to be a point. But he was very effective as the first guard off the bench and had a nice career doing it (of course, the caveat is that the other two guards on that team were Zeke Thomas and Joe Dumars!).
This was based on the assumption that Harden passed well enough to be a combo guard as opposed to a 2, with Foye being able to guard 1s. I don’t agree that it would work either, but then again I thought Brook Lopez wouldn’t be a good fit next to Al Jefferson.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions
I’m not sure Harden has the handle to have the offense run through him like you’d want it to if he were spending major minutes next to Foye. He can break down the D, sure, but his handle is a bit shakey to be a ball-dominant guard right off the bat. I think Harden would be better suited next to a good PG because he’s more of an opportunistic scorer who would do well getting fed for open 3’s and finding seams in rotating defenses to get to the rack.
Personally, if we can’t get the PG we want with the Miami pick, I’d rather just draft a guy like Collison late in the 1st and start him next to Harden rather than play him next to Foye.
that last point..
…is a fantastic one. collison + harden is better than what the wolves currently have and it allows foye to go to the spot we all know he’ll end up at.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Harden has a better handle than you might suspect...
… he initiated the offense a lot at ASU and looked very good doing it. I hate to make these comparisons, but his “lead guard” role resembled the role Roy and LeBron play for their teams in terms of penetration defenses and either scoring or finding teammates. Harden is a very gifted passer, and if his handle is good enough to initiate the offense, you’ll see a lot of good things from him.
Oh, dont’ get me wrong. I love Harden’s game, especially ihs passing ability, I just don’t think his handle is tight enough to truly get the most out of it yet. I think he can get there eventually because he’s so young and he’s a very smart, but this year he seemed to be forced to pass a lot after probing around and failing to create something for himself. It’s a testament to his smarts that he rarely forced anything, but right off the bat I think he’ll need to do some work on his handle before he can be effective in that type of Brandon Roy role he’s capable of.
On the plus side, even if his athleticism doesn’t give him upside, I think the fact that he has an impressive skill base that’s missing just a few key ingredients gives him just as much potential.Even better is that hey’re skills that he should be able to improve easily through work, namely ballhandling and developing a midrange game. If he gets those two things down I think he could be as good, if not better, than Roy.
Totally agree...
… there’s a lot to like about Harden, and I’m really hoping he falls to us. I do think that a Harden/Foye backcourt could work, with Foye mostly playing off the ball but helping bring the ball up the floor and then passing to Harden to initiate the offense, sort of like how Blake does with Roy in Portland. After Foye would make the initial pass to Harden, Foye could float off the ball to be set up for open threes, which is one area where Foye is valuable. My ideal draft is Harden/Holiday or Harden/Mullens, but if Harden is unavailable I hope we’ll take a long look at Jennings and try to figure out if he has what it takes to be a top shelf point guard. He may have the most upside of any player who will probably be left on the board, and we obviously could use an upgrade at the pg position.
Trade Possibility
For a long time I’ve been an advocate of trading for Chris Kaman. When healthy, he’s in the upper tier of centers in the league. His contract is fairly large, so I would hope that they would look into his health status before commencing a trade. But given that we won’t get Thabeet and that there are question marks about Mullens’ ability to play defense (and offense), now might be the time to go after Kaman. LAC will be looking to trade a big now that they’ll be getting Blake Griffin, and Zach Randolph’s contract will not be movable. That leaves Camby or Kaman. I’d like to score Kaman or make an effort to steal Tyson Chandler from the Hornets. I bet he’s still available.
Kaman
Hmmm. The two main issues involved with this trade (as with almost any trade I guess)
1. Clippers have to take back salary
2. Wolves must take on Kaman’s salary
Given Kaman’s health issues, etc, the wolves probably don’t want to send all expiring contracts for Kaman. But, the Wolves really don’t have any big problem contracts left (do they?).
Wolves are also doing the Clips a favor by taking Kaman, so, they should get their protected #1 pick back.
What else?
by littleboxes on May 20, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
No overpaying for role players. He made around $9 mil last year. If they’re going to pay $9 mil for a frontcourt player it should be Varejao.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
And I don’t want them doing that, either.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Couldn't Agree More
NO OVERPAYING FOR ROLE PLAYERS
We already have Love and Al eating frontcourt minutes, we don’t need a $9 Million Dollar Center, We need someone where we don’t care about their offensive game, they can play 20-25 minutes, bang bodies, block shots, and HUSTLE.
This describes a role player. Don’t overpay for role players.
As an example
Ronnie Turiaf makes the Mid Level Exemption. He is the type of player we need at Center.
Kaman's numbers...
… from 2005 onward look a lot like those we can expect from Love. Does this mean we should not offer him more than the mid-level when negotiations commence? The difference between the two is that Kaman is a legitimate center and would fill a position of need. If he’s healthy (which would need to be verified), I think you’re underrating how good he is.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kamanch01.html
No
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay love. It mans we shouldn’t trade for a player at $9 Million a year when we are going to have to pay love in several years the same money to keep him. It means you may have to get used to a Love / Jefferson front court unless your willing to trade one of them. It means that “legitimate center” is something I view Al Jefferson to be.
Health
is the only issue with Kaman. He’d clearly be a guy we could use, if he’s healthy and racking up double-doubles at the center position.
There’s a hypersensitivity toward spending any money, amongst Wolves fans, it seems. I guess there will be some strong reactions when the inevitable Mike Miller trade happens, and we bring in a good, but not great, player that makes $10 or so Million per year.
If fans would like to see us in the playoffs, though, we’ll need more starting-caliber players than Love and Jefferson. Since the draft has been far from kind to us, we’ll probably seek it out in a trade.
It's not hypersensitivity toward spending money...
It’s making sure that too much isn’t tied up in guys who aren’t stars. I have no problem spending the MLE on guys with potential (Ray Felton or Marcin Gortat) or vets who are past their prime but still have 3 good years in someone’s rotation. Getting into contracts between the MLE and $10 mil/year is no man’s land because they’re difficult to move in any year but the last of the deal. The goal is to get All-Star-caliber guys through draft or trade; for example, would the Raptors rather have Gortat or Chris Kaman for Bosh if Kaman makes twice or three times as much?
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions
From what I've seen,
Hinrich is better than Felton and Kaman is better than Gortat. I’d rather spend more on a better player, given the favorable cap position that we’ll be in. If we could somehow get an All-Star talent like Caron Butler or Monta Ellis, that would be better. But, that’s not usually realistic. If we overpay a guy that will be a quality starter for us, by $2 or $3 million per season, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. What would be worse, in my estimation, is just recycling the Smith/Gomes/Telfair/Foye-caliber of talent into a new collection of reasonable salaries and poor performances. It’s not overrating Hinrich or Kaman to say that, when healthy, they are above-average starting players. Surround Love, Jefferson, and our new first rounders with above-average starting players, and we might (eventually) build ourselves a contender.
I wouldn’t give Love that. He’d be about 6 years/40-50 mil. Having two guys (Kaman and Al) who are best operating from the low post doesn’t work. Love and Kaman might have similar numbers, but they’re not similar players.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not saying they're similar players...
… they obviously very different. What I’m saying is, if you’re unwilling to pay a guy like Kaman (again, assuming he’s healthy) who can give you a similar level of production as Love but do things that Love can’t do (defend centers and block shots) but are willing to pay Love that much in his next contract, then I don’t understand the thought process. I agree with Andy G. that we’re going to have to take back some contracts if we’re going to get back to the playoffs before 2020 since our chances of ever winning a lottery should diminish since we’ll start making marginal improvements each year. If Kaman or a guy like Caron Butler becomes available, you have to think hard about giving up expirings for them because there’s no way we’re going to lure equivalent free agents to Minny on the open market. No one wants to play here.
I just don't understand
How on a team with so many definincies, you look at a roster with only 2 Quality starting NBA players signed beyond next year, and your first move is to bring in a 3rd guy that would share minutes with our best 2 players. That seems illogical on every conceivable level of team building. Kaman may be a nice player, but what about 1-3 where we have tons of minutes available to give players who don’t deserve them.
I see your point...
… where we disagree is that Jefferson is a viable option at center. I feel like we’ve seen enough evidence over the past two years that he can’t defend the center position, hence Fred H. saying repeatedly last night that we need a “rim protector.” This was the problem with drafting Love in the first place. He and Jefferson overlap a lot, almost to the point of redundancy. If Jefferson at the 5 and Love at the 4 can’t be a winning duo because of their inability to matchup against taller front lines like the Lakers’, then we need a center like Kaman regardless of whether we like it or not and even if it means making Love a sixth man. I’m not saying that we don’t need help at the 1-3 positions, but I don’t see Jefferson/Love ever being a competitive tandem in the playoffs without a shotblocking center (which is why Thabeet would’ve been perfect for us).
I don't know what the facsination is with making Al a PF
But how the heck is Al going to defend anybody who can step out and hit a jumpshot from 15 feet. Power Forwards tend to have this as part of their game with higher frequency than Centers. Second, it’s unfathomable that people can lay all the blame for our poor defense on Al Jefferson when Telfair – Foye – Miller was the worst defensive 1-3 in the league in the past 10 years. Prove me wrong, mention a back court that was worse defensively. If our guards continue to be horrible defenders, what is Thabeet going to solve. What we learned last year is the Al Jefferson cannot defend everyone on the court. I think we already knew that.
Jefferson and Kaman overlap a lot too...
It’s just that one overlap is on offense and the other is on defense. It’s a lot easier to find a banger on the cheap than it is to find a dominant rebounder who can handle, pass, and shoot. We need skills, not positions. Sacramento has a true center and a true 4; would you rather have Hawes and Thompson or Jefferson and Love?
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions
This is a pretty fundamental disagreement here. There are a lot of Wolves fans who think we’re too small, up-front, to compete. There are others (basically, those who supported the Love Trade) who think 6’8 and 6’10 is sufficient in the West. Unfortunately, there are other problems on the roster that prevent us from discovering who is right or wrong, here. If we had guards and depth to get us into a playoff series, it’d be easier to see whether we get abused down low or whether the offensive skills of those two guys outweigh problems they have on defense.
Shogun, myself, and apparently Hoiberg, consider “rim protection” as a top (maybe not THE top, but near it) priority for the future. This is not ignoring the needs that exist at point guard and the perimeter as a whole, but rather placing emphasis on paint-protection as an essential element to building a winner.
You're right
We can’t fully evaluate whether the duo can work with the current trainwreck on the perimeter, and lack of evidence of success or failure due to Love playing limited minutes and frequently not with Al before he went down.
So until we know what we need, why not focus our assets on fixing problems we know we have on 1-3.
Further, finding a one dimensional rim protector who doesn’t need to score, as they wouldn’t with Love and Al, is a lot easier than finding an inside scoring presence or paying a complete inside player who does both. Verajao and Noah are tough for their teams to resign at 6-9 Million a year because if a team commits that to them, they don’t have resources to find an inside scoring presence which usually costs more than Al.
Only talking about Thabeet here—I think we would take him (if he were available) because he’s viewed as a future star on the defensive end. That’s not the same as your token banging post player. Scouts that rate him 2nd or 3rd in this draft class are probably thinking he’ll be like Mutumbo was, in his younger days. If we had the opportunity to add that kind of defensive game-changer, we would have to do it, and worry about guards with the 18th pick or in trades.
Re: Kaman, this is all speculation and just an idea…like others have said, the injuries will probably prevent us from even considering taking on his contract. But, if size is going to be a problem for us (whenever we reach the playoffs…) Kaman would round out a more competitive trio of bigs.
I think that's true...
But would ask: what’s most important in a game that allows moving screens and in which 4 of the top 5 players (CP3, Wade, LeBron, Kobe) are perimeter-oriented? Protecting the rim starts at the perimeter.
Further, if the argument is for Kaman, then why not Anderson Varejao? He’s better at guarding on the perimeter and is much more mobile than Kaman. Having guys who can challenge more shots inside is a main priority, but picking a lumbering center instead of a mobile one isn’t recognizing how much the game has changed in the last 5-10 years.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Verejao....
….would be fine. All I’m saying is that we need a guy who can provide a big bodied defensive presence around the rim, and if Verejao could do that, then he’d be fine. The reason I stirred the pot with the Kaman speculation is because he is likely on the trading block, according to LA newspapers, because LAC is already committed to taking Blake Griffin. Tyson Chandler would be another target.
CATCH CLIPPER FEVER!!!!
From today’s Bill Simmons chat:
Bill Simmons: Example No. 2: Clips win the lottery last night, usually you get a slew of calls from people trying to buy season tix or packages, right? Whole sales office is in there celebrating and waiting for the phone to ring. Here’s how many calls they got…
Bill Simmons: Nine.
But that difference is important...
When it comes to fitting into a system. Also, I wouldn’t be willing to pay Love as much as Kaman’s getting.
Second, why do the Wolves need to take back contracts? What if they just let Miller and Cardinal expire if they couldn’t get an All-Star and just used their cap space smartly? The point isn’t to just get back to the playoffs; it’s to win a title. If they brought in vets to help the young guys out and added guys who they did their homework on, they wouldn’t need to take on a contract. That’s what Portland is doing.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions
The problem with just letting Miller expire
is that it’s going to be tough to spend well on free agents—getting star caliber players to come to the Wolves given the circumstances is tough.
It would be one thing if all they needed was a group of veteran role players that fit in order to become a contender, but they aren’t in that situation. They have a couple of good young players, but it’s clear they still need high level talent. Having Jefferson and Love isn’t like having LeBron or Wade or a young KG. It isn’t even like having Brandon Roy, sadly.
I’m not sure this is solvable other than getting lucky, but just letting Miller walk ins’t going to help; they aren’t going to be able to get anyone better in free agency. They need to use that contract to acquire more assets, one way or another.
by Eric in Madison on May 20, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
That's not the point...
I don’t think they’ll get better than Miller, either. But they can get someone as good as Miller for half the cost. Then, if they get a few guys like that, maybe some turn into All-Stars (like Billups did) or maybe they are added with a draft pick or a young guy in a deal for an All-Star. They have to think of it this way: the most efficient way to get an All-Star-caliber player is either through the draft, in a trade that doesn’t involve both Jefferson and Love, or by signing a guy who has the potential to become one (like Billups).
They need to stockpile tradeable assets to get an All-Star — that means expiring deals, draft picks, and young guys with reasonable contracts and potential. If they could spin Miller or Cardinal and some of their other assets to get that type of player, then good. But they can’t force it by trading Miller for Hinrich; that completely defeats the purpose of having an expiring deal on the team. It would be the equivalent of giving Cardinal back to the Grizz for Jaric.
Honestly, I don’t like seeing the Wolves lose. But panicking and trying to get back to the playoffs without long-term goals in mind would be just as bad in my opinion.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Isn’t kaman considered to be quite soft outside of being a decent shot-blocker? He’s a big body, which would help, but the thing we need to remember is that it is of utmost importance to not tie up money in players that aren’t worth it just because we have cap space.
My opinion is that there is little reason to bring in a Kaman or a Hinrich if we don’t have the rest of the team assembled, because all they do is kill your draft stock while costing you cap space. There’s a time for committing resources to a guy like Hinrich or Kaman, and that time is when you’re on the brink of seriously competing and a guy like Hinrich would push you over the top. If that’s the case, then by all means, be ballsy and make a play for a great complementary player, but until that happens I think we have to worry more about making smart cap decisions and trying to land the all-star we need to take the next step.
You made my point better than I tried to in the earlier part of the thread.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 20, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions
I've watched Kaman quite a bit...
… and been impressed with his toughness on defense, his rebounding, and his shotblocking. Not to mention his nice post game. I think Kaman is a piece you want as you’re building a team, especially when you don’t have a center and you need someone to protect the rim when Jefferson or Love can’t do so. Putting a good shotblocker next to Jefferson would nullify a lot of Al’s mistakes and save us a lot of points. Again, I think Thabeet would’ve been great for this. Kaman would also be great.
You’re right that you only want these guys if you’re a rising team headed towarded competitiveness in the playoffs. Let’s hypothetically assume that we add Harden or DeRozen and that player ends up being quite good. In a perfect world (and I have no illusions of this happening), you could acquire Kaman and run him out there with Jefferson (great low block scorer), Brewer (excellent perimeter defender and glue guy), Harden (rising star—again hypothetical), and Foye (playing off the ball where he is capable of playing well). Then you’ve got an excellent bench with glue guys Kevin Love and Ryan Gomes bringing energy and savvy. All of a sudden, you have a team that could be competitive in a few years. But without that center, I think you’ve still got a huge defensive deficiency and a very small front line that will struggle in the playoffs.
I was sort of arguing in a general sense before and not looking specifically at Kaman.. In regards to Kaman specifically, now that I think about it I do agree with you in principle because he is a pretty good player and he’s young enough to stick with the team going forward, but what worries me about him are the injuries. Taking on his contract is an awfully big gamble for a guy who’s played barely a full seasons worth of games (87) over the past two years. It could pay off, but it’s a bit risky for my tastes given where the team is right now. If we’re going to gamble on someone with injuries (which I don’t endorse), I’d rather we just went balls to the wall and tried to get Arenas or another recouperating star like that.
Yes, Kaman's relatively young age makes him more attractive...
… swinging a deal for Arenas (conditional on his being healthy) would also be interesting. I think he has a lot of good seasons left in him. I still think we need to address the rim protection issue to make this a viable playoff team, though.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
