Everything you think you know about the Wolves is wrong, pt i: Al Jefferson needs to move to power forward
by Stop-n-Pop on May 31, 2009 11:25 PM CDT
Email
Print
In the time between now and the draft I thought it would be a good idea to throw out a few discussion topics that will...shall we say...spark a spirited discussion.
The first post in this series is what I believe to be the single biggest and most wide-spread incorrect take on the team: that the Wolves need a center so that Al Jefferson can move "back" to the 4.
No.
No, no, no, and more no.
The basic argument for needing a center goes like this: Big Al is really only 6'8" without shoes and because of his lack of size he is consistently lit up by opposing big men. If Al was moved to his "natural" position of power forward, he would get a better defensive draw and a) be more effective on offense, and b) would be able to defend better against opposing power forwards.
This is questionable for several reasons....which we will talk about below the fold.
First of all, this may come as a surprise to some of you but basketball players do not defend with the tops of their heads. It's true. Most near-the-rim defending is done with hands; hands that are typically raised above one's head. While there are other things to consider such as a player's vertical jump, how quickly a player can raise his hands, and how effectively he can use his body to prohibit other players from jumping, the best general estimate of a player's height is his standing reach. Big Al has a standing reach of 9'2", placing him well within the range of what makes for a serviceable NBA center. His standing reach is equal to or higher than the following players: Nene (+1), Aaron Gray (+1.5), Spencer Hawes (even), Joakim Noah (+3.5), Al Horford (+3), and Chris Bosh (+1). It is only -0.5 inches less than Andrew Bogut and Chris Kaman.
I know what some of you are thinking: But what about the Greg Odens, Yao Mings, and Andrew Bynums? The answer to this is simple: there aren't too many people on the planet who can combine this sort of massive length with effective basketball play. The next question is this: But what about Hasheem Thabeet? We'll get to that one a bit later.
Second, any talk about moving Al Jefferson to the 4 involves the implicit decision to move the team's second best player to the bench. What a fantastic idea for a 24 win team! Let's move the team's best rookie since Kevin Garnett to the bench.
Kevin Love led the Wolves with a 7.4 WARP in his rookie season. Despite some often-heard sentiments about him being a terrible defensive player, the 20 year old rookie actually held his opponents to 86.6% of their per-possession production. Love even led the team in defensive win shares. These probably aren't stats you want to write home about, but taking into account the fact that Love was the team's only legit front court player in the last 2-3 months of the season, that he was a rookie, and that he was often left cleaning up the mess left by one of the worst defensive perimeters in recent basketball memory, they are encouraging in a player as smart and talented as Love.
Third, as mentioned directly above, the Wolves were blessed with a truly pathetic crew of perimeter defenders. Horrid actually. Outside of Mike Miller, the Wolves do not have a single perimeter player with a whole defensive win share and with a full win above a replacement level player. Let that one sink in for a moment.
Their back court usage leader and point shooting guard of the future allows his opponents to average an entire 15% more production per possession than average. If you are looking for a single player to scapegoat the team's awful defense, search no further than Randy Foye.
For those of you hoping and praying for Thabeet, at least he would get a solid test of his rim-defending capabilities with the current crop of Wolves perimeter defenders. You should also take into consideration that Thabeet's success in college was tied, albeit with an unknown amount, to zone defense. He was also a nearly completely ineffective offensive player. I'm not really sure what people are thinking when they talk about putting this sort of player on the offensive end of the court next to a guy that posts up for a living. Jefferson needs to be paired with a guy who can, at the very least, draw his defender out of the paint on offense. Surrounding a guy who is ineffective on one end of the court with a guy who is ineffective at the other end of the court doesn't make for a complete situation; it simply turns both ends of the court into 1/2 effective messes.
Let's take a look at Jefferson's offensive and defensive ratings over the course of his career (OE/DE):
- 04/05 Boston: 108/104
- 05/06 Boson: 104/103
- 06/07 Boston: 109/103
- 07/08 Wolves: 109/108
- 08/09 Wolves: 109/108
While it's clear that Jefferson isn't a world class defender, he is capable of planting himself, even at an early stage in his career, in a middle-of-the-road defensive team (Boston finished 14th, 20th, and 16th during his three years there). Granted, he did so next to the ultra-long Kendrick Perkins, but he also had comparatively capable players around him on the perimeter. Whatever the case, Jefferson led the Celtics in defensive win shares in his last season with the club. It's nothing to write home about, but it's also just enough to highlight the significant drop in efficiency when he was traded to the Wolves.
In the interest of a full debate, this is one area where I wish I had more and better stats to figure out just how much Boston's perimeter defense led to Jefferson being a part of a modest defensive club. It could very well be that Perkins had a huge impact and that perhaps Jefferson does play better at the 4, but in the case of the Wolves--a team with a 2nd best player already occupying the spot; and a team with an all-around lack of talent that doesn't even stack up against the Pierce and Rondo-led pre-KG Celts--that option isn't as attractive as it might seem because it would trigger all sorts of other needed moves.
At the end of the day, Jefferson possesses adequate length to be a center in the NBA. Hopefully, he will show a natural progression towards proficiency that will be helped along by the addition of new (read: better) players and the continued (and hopeful) development of guys like Corey Brewer. Keep in mind that as a high school big man, Big Al probably had to play "defense" much in the style of how I defend the 5 foot 6th graders on my driveway court. This isn't an excuse; rather, a reasoned hope that 4-5 years in the league have left him with a solid inkling that he needs to focus more on that particular part of his game in order to take the cliched next step.
I will not deny that the Wolves need a long and athletic player to defend the rim. This, however, is more of a slave to function than position, especially on a club with Jefferson and Love being far and away the two best players. The addition of someone like Thabeet simply means that the Wolves will have to move one of their only effective players (perhaps their most effective player) off the court for long periods of time. That may be a winning recipe in some people's minds, but is certainly isn't an effective use of resources...unless, of course, you are comfortable with the 6th pick being a backup 4/5, which, I suppose, is a reasonable position.
Let's wrap this up by taking a page out of the Donald Rumsfeld play book and talk about going to war with the team you have, not the one you want to have. I'll repeat what I have said a hundred times on this site: The big decision with this club was not O.J. Mayo vs. Kevin Love; it was Brook Lopez vs. Love. For better or worse the Wolves went with Love and that is now the deck of cards they will have to play with. Sending Love to the bench in favor of a guy like Thabeet is simply another step backwards in the rebuilding process. It's another draft wasted on (possibly) incorrect past decisions. I, for one, think that Love was 100% the right choice and that they should march ahead looking for a set of long athletic players at the 2 and 3 that can guard multiple positions, rebound, and hopefully do a bit of rim-protecting. (I also think that they can't waste the 6th pick on anything other than a guard or wing.) Of course, these players are just as rare as guys with 9'5" standing reaches so that complicates the matter a bit, but the ultimate point here is that a) Jefferson has adequate length for an NBA center, b) he should show some form of career progression on the defensive end (hopefully involving better effort and awareness), c) the Wolves haven't done their big men any favors with guys like Foye and Sebastian Telfair on the perimeter, and d) Kevin Love is their second best player and has all the makings of someone who can be a legit #3 upper-level glue guy on a winning squad; you just don't draft an unknown big or bring in a defensive specialist to take away from the 35 mpg that this guy should be getting night-in and night-out. If a big man is brought in, it should be with the clear understanding that he is a backup 4/5 and that he will not take away starting quality minutes from the team's two best players. Ultimately, you have to hope that the positives Love and Jefferson bring to the table will outweigh the negatives and that the Wolves can find some perimeter players (and a wing) to buttress their relative weaknesses.
Let's get to finding two players that can man the 2 and 3 and give the Wolves some athletic defense while letting Big Al, Love, and hopefully James Harden or Stephen Curry do their thing on offense while doing the best they can on the other end of the court. Could this pairing be Corey Brewer and Austin Daye? What about Brewer and Andrei Kirilinko? Could Demar DeRozan be a defensive stopper? Could a pairing of Kirk Hinrich and Curry or Harden work at the 1/2? Could someone like Samuel Dalembert be brought in for 30 mpg at the 4/5? What about Javale McGee? I don't know. What I do know is that the let's-pair-Big-Al-with-a-monster-starting-center ship sailed with Brook Lopez.
What say you?
Until later.
194 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yes ! Yes ! Yes ! Yes !
I’ve been wanting to go on a really good rant on this subject for a while. The one issue that probably needs to be brought up also is that you don’t exactly want Al chasing guys around the perimeter either like Memhet Okur. Are Love and Jefferson limited Defensively? They’re not Kendrick Perkins and Kevin Garnett -at the same time this is a very solid rebounding Front-Court that makes up for defencies with on the Ball Defense. I think you’re right in that a Love/Jefferson Front-Court could at least be Middle of the Pack for Defensive rating. I really like the comparsion to the Utah Jazz teams of the last couple years as a example of what they’re building.
Lastly- If they had better than atricious perimeter Defense than you wouldn’t have these two also playing help-side defense which creates all sorts of problems. You’re right what they need is 1 Efficent Scorer with an outside shooter and 2 capable defenders who don’t bog down the offense.
Andris Biedrins
I wouldn’t say bon voyage to the big center ship just yet. Over in the fan posts, there’s been a great discussion (thanks to all who’ve taken part) about a possible deal with the Warriors: Kevin Love, Mike Miller, #28 for Andris Biedrins and Marco Bellineli.
The Warriors get Love, who could be a great in Don Nelson’s offense and he won’t get backed down into the paint. The Wolves get Biedrins who is more lithe and a better help defender.
As for the draft, I agree with you, especially since this draft is so PG heavy and the 1 is a need for the Wolves. Even if the Wolves had the #3 pick and Thabeet was there, I believe their best option would be to use Thabeet as a trade asset.
Thabeet Never!
I want no part of Thabeet, and I largely agree with the post that Al can be a center. BUT – I think he does limit how this team can build. Over the long run, I don’t believe Al and Love are compatible, but they do represent the best 4/5 combo going into next year.
The Wolves should be looking for an opportunity to make a killing by trading Al. I don’t think now is the time, and you certainly don’t do it under pressure or under the cloud of injury, but I think you keep an eye out and wait for a good deal that allows the team to get the kind of center they want plus other assets. For example, would I give away Al in a three way trade that brought back Chris Paul when the Hornets finally cry uncle – yes. Given the economy (my least favorite phrase ever), there will be a million deals like that to be had in the next year. The Wolves should be watching and ready to prey on those teams.
Trading Al
Only someone who got their MBA from a 2nd rate school like Notre Dame would offer such a foolish idea.
But at least I'm not...
A law student from a 2nd rate school like Notre Dame that would use the 28th pick on Harongody. Maybe one of our 2nd rounders – as Luke can be the heir to Rhino.
question
shouldn’t al be better at guarding centers than power forwards? one of the big knocks on him defending the 4 is all the quick, perimeter players who happen to play that position. there aren’t many of those guys playing center.
i agree that a shot blocker would be very useful for the wolves, but someone who can block shots and come off the bench at either the 4 and the 5 seems like an attainable player. i’ve said it a lot over here, but honestly, gortat should be very high on your shopping list. you bring him in for defense when you sit either love or jefferson and play him at the center spot. that’s a very good 3 man bigs rotation and then maybe you think about a power forward for the bench who spreads the floor or fills some other role could be a solid target too.
what it comes down to is that the issues with an al jefferson – kevin love front court should not be one of the main issues on the minds of wolves fans this offseason. there are much bigger fish to fry.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I think Gortat...
….ultimately will be too much to pay for with Pekovic overseas and with a backup 4/5 being the ideal spot to fill. I’m sure he will ask for quite a bit in the off season.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I don't think Gortat comes here
Because due to his play this season, I think he is going to want to go to a situation where he can earn more minutes. We talk a lot about needing about a backup 4/5 who can be a defender/shot blocker but I don’t know how important that even is. The common criticism when you talk of settling on an Al-Love frontcourt is that this team will never be a contender in the postseason due to defensive concerns and that adding a backup defender would do wonders; however, the minutes in the playoffs shrink the rotation down even further.
Look at Gortat. For how excited people are to add him to the rotation, in the playoffs with shortened rotations he is averaging 11.4 Minutes a game.
Further, look at the backup bigs on the final 4 playoff squads and the minutes they averaged.
Ben Wallace – 12.6 Minutes
Chris Anderson – 21 Minutes
Bynum – 16.9 Minutes (Starts, but Odom plays much more minutes)
This to me is why it doesn’t make sense to use a high lottery pick or give Gortat the mid-level exemption. It’s too much salary given to a niche position. We need someone to add to the rotation in the regular season to keep guys fresh, and to not suffer a huge dropoff in play when Al or Love on the bench, but if you eventually envision this squad as a playoff team, it just doesn’t make sense to invest a high value drat pick or a multi-million free agency contract on a roll player.
I like gambling on Mullens with #18 as a cheap backup post, but if someone like Daye is around and we have a chance to add somebody who has the ptoential to be more than role player at 18, I think I like that better.
I wonder what the L*kers are thinking about that Bynum contract now
That’s an awful lot of money to pay a guy for bench minutes. My guess is that he isn’t totally healthy but that’s a worrisome contract with a guy with that type of performance and that type of injury history.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Yep...
I remember posing the question, early this past season, whether the Lakers and Wolves should trade Bynum for Love. I thought Love-Gasol would be better for LA, and Jefferson-Bynum would be better for Minnesota. At the time, it seemed unrealistic that LA would part with Bynum. I think now, Love might have more trade value.
Still, though, you’re right that Bynum is probably not back to 100%, and he is more rusty than anything. He looked pretty solid in the regular season, before he went down with (another) knee injury.
By the way, good post. I am an advocate for a bigger center, but I’m not quite as opposed to Love-Jefferson as I used to be. The future for this team and its roster is very uncertain, right now. Just looking at the likely roadblocks to the Finals in the future Western Conference, there is a lot of size.
I cannot remember who was talking about this (for some reason I think it was Darryl Morey on Simmons’ podcast, but that might be wrong) but it had to do with drafting to strengthen your strengths, as opposed to filling “needs.” As much as I want a good guard, and I really do for this team, a part of me likes the idea of making a move to get Thabeet, and establishing the hands-down best front line in basketball for the future. If teams had to say “How the hell are we going to contend with Minnesota in the paint?” I’d feel a little better than if we fill in the blanks with solid but unspectacular players at each position, and hope Love and Jefferson can defend well-enough inside.
Also, I think that whatever guards we do end up with will look better (on both ends of the court) if we have a major strength inside. It’s good right now, but I think that establishing a situation where Love or Jefferson is on the floor for 48 minutes and a shotblocker is out there for 25-30 would help create a situation where our guards feel less pressure and can operate more freely—which would hopefully lead to better production. Rather than assume that these teams remaining in the later part of the playoffs have better benches than the Wolves, I think a decent assumption is that those players feed off of the great players around them. The more the Wolves establish a bigtime strength (inside play) the more we could draft medium-level talent and watch it develop into a quality roster. Just a thought. (Part of it would require Jefferson to improve as a passer, which I think he began to do, last year.)
I completely agree with the strengthening of strengths
Rebounding, in-and-out, fast pace…they have a nice core to a fun style of ball and they need to upgrade around it, not tear it apart.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Another excellent post, SnP
I don’t think anyone can overstate the lack of perimeter defense with our current group of players. Many of the best centers in the game have/had a 1, 2 or 3 whose D made the job easier: Duncan/Bowen, Walton/Bob Gross, Abdul-Jabbar/Cooper, Malone/Bobby Jones, Parish/DJ. The Wolves haven’t really had an adequate defender out there since Malik Sealy (well, Spree had his moments). Too often, Jefferson and Love were forced to stare down the bull while our perimeter matadors called out, “Ole’!”
As for Thabeet, no way should we draft him. There are more reasonable options for a backup 4/5 out there. Gortat, McGee; heck, even Channing Frye is available. Or draft somebody like Mullins or Josh Heyveldt with our late first rounder or our second round picks.
Good post
my stance is still that Jefferson is a combo.
Combo being a player that has the necessary skills/physicals to play multiple positions. Whereas a tweener is someone who has some of both but not all of the requiered skills.
(Combo = combination of both positions; tweener = falls between two positions).
Since he’s a tweener and Love is not (he’s a PF), combined with the fact that Love indeed is the 2nd best (already) player, it’s obvious to me the minutes should be spread like this:
Love (35) – Jefferson (13)
Jefferson (23) – ??? (25)
In soccer, there’s 11 players on a team and there’s about 2, max 3 subs per teams in a whole game. They only replace the guys that seem to have a bad day (in general). In basketball, it’s a whole different story. That’s why I wanna move away from the word “backup center”, “starters”, etc…
I’d just as well start with a Love – ??? backcourt if we’re playing the Rockets while I’d start Jefferson-Love against the Bulls …
I’ve always been a big fan of what I still think was the Spurs’ biggest strength in that semi-dynasty periode: the toolbox system. They had a few very important cogs (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili) but the rest of those guys were really all tools in a toolbox. Whatever the opponent was throwing at them, they had a different strategy to counter it.
Since I love that I think we should go for a more defensive orïented Center to fill that “???” position. Do I think Thabeet would fit nicely? YES HE WOULD, do I think we should pick him with the 6th pick .. are you CRAZY?? No way. That guy is gonna slip to nr 12 with the workouts, there’s just no way he will remain top 10 with the workouts, if he does I’ll be baffled.
I do like some of the names been put out here, first choice is Mullins (from seeing him play I think he does have ‘it’, just needs to come out) McGee, Dalembert or we wait for next year and see what happens with al the Lebron sweepstakes, the ultra-draft and all the radioactive outfall that is gonna produce …. it’s not our biggest problem right now!
As for Foye, it’s probably getting more and more clear who won the deathmatch … nobody did, they’re both not gonna be cutting it playing big minutes for a good team. So yes, I agree, we need to upgrade our perimeter.
I’m really in favor of somehow changing our 3 picks from 6-18-28 to 12-13-14 (we’ll need to throw assest) and picking up Lawson, Mullens and if we get really lucky DeRozan or else Earl Clark. (or throw in Henderson)
Would anyone go for a Lawson, Mulls, Clark draft right now?
Hope this is what you were asking for SnP :p. Keep ’m coming.
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
*radioactive fallout
and if Thabeet indeed sleeps to the 12-13-14 He’d be a choice of Mullens off course :).
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 1, 2009 2:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Good point about Foye...
….he (and the team) will continue to be held back by the decision to keep him in the starting lineup. He can be a fantastic backup guard. It’s what he’s destined for…a Jason Terry-esque fireplug with better rebounding and (hopefully) play making.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
The Upside
…is to high with Thabeet to pass on him if he’s still there at six. But he won’t be, so it’s academic. There are 96 minutes at the 4/5 and Thabeet wouldn’t need to start right away. Ultimately Love and Jefferson are redundant and that’s water under the bridge, but if you have the chance you take Thabeet and hope he pans out so you can trade Jefferson or Love in a year or two and get good value back.
Thabeet will be gone, though, so here’s hoping the Wolves go with Jennings or Curry at 6 and then try to get a guy like Mullens with the later picks.
I'm not sure..
….I agree with the idea that Love and Jefferson are redundant. Their games are going to end up being very, very different. They are similar in the way Rip Hamilton and Kobe are: in height. I do think there is an argument to be made about a team this bad taking the bpa at 6 and that could be Thabeet.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
A better comparison to Love-Al might be...
Rip and A.I. instead of Rip and Kobe. You can play them 2-3, but you’re small. You really can’t go 1-2 with them, both are decent starters but with very different games, and their existence in the same rotation causes friction.
Whereas with Rip and Kobe, you play them 2-3 and don’t even worry about it. Hell, you could play them 1-2 with Kobe at the 1 and be just fine.
I don't buy...
…the upside hype with Thabeet. I think he is what he is, a very large man with slightly above average athleticism and a limited understanding of how to play basketball. There are also age questions with Thabeet, much like with Yi Jianlian a couple of years ago. This age discrepency is another hit to the upside arguement. He could/should be serviceable in the NBA, but do you really settle for serviceable with the 6th pick?
I’ve never agreed with the “we need a shot blocker” argument because I think it takes focus away from perimeter defensive errors. If the perimeter players would stop getting beat into the paint all the time, a shot blocker as one of the 4/5 combo really isn’t necessary. Add this to the fact that a majority of blocked shots end up in the crowd which results in an easy set play (which any competent NBA team has in spades) and a shot blocker really becomes almost neutral.
What the Wolves need is length/grit on the perimeter combined with a better understanding of defensive spacing more so than a “shot blocker” at the 5.
by Minneapleseed on Jun 1, 2009 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I completely agree on the upside argument with Thabeet
I think people see a huge large man who played rover in a zone defense in college and think he is going to come into the pro’s and be a solid defender who can be a weak side blocker. I don’t see that at all.
First, his extreme high center of gravity is going to kill him in the NBA. His legs are too long, when players take it to his chest, which is what your taught to do against a shot blocker, he loses his balance, fails to adjust quickly and can be pushed around. People cite the Blair game as evidence, but just look at the Michigan State performance in the final four. MSU didn’t attack him with a bruiser like Blair, instead they do what MSU does, phsycial box outs on every rebound, and 7’3" Thabeet pulls down 6 boards in 36 minutes. With such a huge physical advantage, performances like this against teams that know how to box out and rebounding are startling to me when considering Thabeet as a Top 10, Top 5, or now Top 3 prospect.
His offensive game is even more suspect. Chad Ford’s puff pieces on draft prospects talked of Thabeet being able to hit the 15 foot jumpshot, and his learning hwo to shoot, and when I read this it was a further downgrad for me. He is going to have one of the biggest wingspans in the NBA, he is a clear 5 with little developed offensive game and instead of working on Post Moves, ading Strength, and learning to use your god given advantage you have work on his 15 foot jump shot? Ridiculous.
If we had any player worthy of starting minutes at position 1-3 on the court, (not counting Miller since it’s likely he’s gone this offseason or next year), I could see the team taking a gamble, but under no circumstance is drafting Thabeet a defensible position for the new FO IMO.
For our second pick
we should take eric maynor out of virginia commonwealth
PURE point guard
hes going to be a really good player
Would you
still go with maynor if we got with Jennings or Curry at 6? Nr18 all depends on nr6 as far as I’m concernd, no? That said, Maynor is high on our board
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 1, 2009 6:43 AM CDT up reply actions
I think they'll have to move up to get him
The Bucks, Suns, and Sixers will all probably want a point. With the bpas in the whole draft likely being Griffin, Rubio, Hill, Harden, and Thabeet, the Wolves will pretty much have the first crack at the best non-Rubio point in the draft. If they are looking for a point, they’d have to be pretty sure that they get the guy they really want later down the board because they’ll likely be in a position to turn down every non-Rubio point.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
My thinking on the PGs in the draft is this
There is a wave of very good young PGs in the league right now — CP3, Paul, Rondo, Rose, maybe Westbrook. Assuming Rubio isn’t a bust (let’s just say that for a minute), you have somewhere around a quarter of the teams having an outstanding young PG in the league that now bans hand checking and is very favorable to slashers. While I agree with SnP on the athletic 2/3s being a great addition to the Al/Love frontcourt, and I definitely agree that we have to take the BPA (whatever that means/whoever that is) at #6, I think the single biggest thing this franchise needs to do between now and the 2010 trade deadline is figure out who our PG of the future is.
While I’m not knocking Bassy, who has been a good player and a great teammate since joining the Wolves, short of him finding 4-5% on his FG%, I think he’s a very good backup/capable starter in a pinch. We need a PG that can control the tempo, get the ball to the bigs, play good D on the other great PGs in the league, and finish near the rim and/or get to the line. If we can find that PG, I’m all for overpaying for guys like Ariza or Childress or whatever athletic 2/3 we can find.
Here’s hoping the Wolves are doing LOTS of homework on Jennings and Holiday (who Ford is now projecting to be this year’s Westbrook). Those two have the size and athleticism to compete with the Rondos and Roses of the world (but do they have the skills?).
I'm all about the Holiday
Right combo of natural PG ability and leadership, scoring when necessary, and size and athleticism on D. We don’t need an upper eschelon PG—we just need a competent one. Playing with Al, Love, and a shooter will make a competent one look really, really good. Also explains why I’m high on guys with natural ability—who’s the last good point that ‘learned’ the position after coming into the league with great athleticism but somewhat suspect decision making? (I actually would like to know, if anyone out there has any ideas).
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
I wouldn't be surprised
To see the Kings take a PG if Rubio doesn’t fall to them. There have been a lot of rumors about Holiday and Flynn that make me think there’s some fire to this smoke.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 1, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Spot on, as usual
but I think a good portion of the trade-Love-and-move-AlJeff-back-to-PF speculation comes from the frustration with a team that doesn’t have a single player other than the current PFs who would be lusted after by any other team. Maybe Mike Miller, but that’s due at least as much to his expiring contract as it does his talent.
Even AlJeff’’s value has been reduced by injury.
The other “assets” we talk so much about (picks, tradeable contracts, eventual cap space) are only “potential assets.” That is, the picks are only valuable if they are made by someone with basketball knowledge and information (and luck). The tradeable contracts are only valuable if the Wolves are willing to take back a better player with a worse contract. And the eventual cap space is only valuable if the team is wililing to scout and pay a good free agent or two.
So far, there is little evidence that the potential of any of the above three assets are going to be realized—other than the words coming out of David Kahn’s mouth.
Yup
They’re only assets if another team views them that way, or trusts us to make a killing off of keeping them.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
I agree that, based on the current makeup of the team and the head coach(who? Never mind. . .) that moving Jefferson back to a 4 would be disastrous to this team. Not only would you bench the second (currently) best player on the team, but now you are giving minutes to some stiff who’s only good point is defending the rim?? No! This team will not stop many people. We need to outrebound and outscore them. Granted, that may not be viable in the long run ( eg: Phx Suns/D’Antoni), but if we can improve and continue to fill the holes in our team then we can draft/trade for a player that would put us over the top.
I am really hoping to see the beginning of this process with this draft/FA period of the year. GO WOLVES!!
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
Did anyone read the Kahn interview?
I read it last week, and so may be a little hazy on the precise particulars, but I thought it was very interesting that 1) he talked about needing to use and perhaps upgrade analytics, and (by extension) 2) he talked about Moneyball and [me reading between the lines] the need to improve pro scouting and player+Twolves analysis in terms of signing FAs.
The Moneyball thing was especially interesting because it focused on using rookie scale contracts to maximize your spending ability for necessary free agents, assuming that you hit on your rookie selections. And the whole Moneyball belief is rooted in using statistical analysis and good scouting to find players that will work in your system—players even that your particular system will make better than a different system.
It’s comforting to me to hear that Kahn has at least identified one of the biggest pitfalls in NBA free agency (overspending on the THuddy’s of the world), and seems earnest in at least being smarter and more strategic about it. My question is, do you think he keeps all three picks? And would you agree, given the above stated importance of rookie contracts and productivity, that this year’s draft will go a long way towards revealing how Al and Love will be used, and in what kind of system (assuming both stay in MN)?
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Good points
But I think the revelations about the future of Love and Jefferson will be limited by:
1. Uncertainty over whom the head coach will be
2. A lack of quality big men in the draft
It’s also been interesting that although Kahn’s words are just that (those? them?), what he’s said so far has been wayyyyyy more inspiring than anything we’ve heard or seen from Glen in the last few weeks months.
Now, when Kahn backs up the words with action, I’ll sing his praises from the high heavens. Until then, he’s just the “Kahn Man.”
Kahn seems to be halfway there
Kahn’s comments on budget restraint seem pretty basic to me – essentially that, (1) due to the salary cap and tax, you want to avoid wasting money on unproductive players, and (2) veterans are more expensive than rookies so the risk goes up. At least, recognizing that explains the motivation behind improving the pro-scouting, so that’s good.
What was absent, which bothered me, and what is the key is the next step in the analysis, the ‘moneyball’ step, if you will – knowing what the league over-values and under-values, and exploiting it, i.e., the league over-values and over-pays for scoring, but that a player’s scoring alone does not account for winning and losing. So the trick is avoiding overpaying for inefficient volume scorers (particularly those who do not contribute in other ways) and targeting efficient scorers who do contribute in other ways, because these are the players who are likely undervalued because they are not volume scorers.
I just hope Kahn knows this and just left it unsaid, perhaps believing it to be an important insight and a strategic advantage over the less-enlightened teams. However, considering this is a topic that gets discussed here all the time (and at places like the Wages of Wins) I seriously doubt any NBA front office is ignorant of this stuff, but you never know, I suppose.
The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness
by Victor Mature on Jun 1, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree
His answer about ‘analytics’ was quite short and vague, especially in comparison to all the other answers he gave. My hope is that he’s hoping to catch some or a bunch of teams sleeping, and that he does have a clear plan for employing the other aspects of Moneyball you point out.
The other response I have to what you’re saying about his budget comments being pretty basic is the observation that I’m so relieved and exciting about hearing a TWolves GM talk about the budget and free agency in this way, and it just reveals how non-existent or inept this point of view was for so long with the previous regime. That says something when basic comes across as awesome compared to what was here before.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Totally -- "Buy low and sell high" is not the whole Moneyball story
That’s how Kahn described Moneyball in his response. The key point is that Billy Beane was not afraid to assess “low” and “high” differently than other teams, using analytic techniques.
Kahn’s responses amounted to a willingness to use techniques of that sort, but not a doctrinaire one…. On balance I’m okay with that answer, but as always everything comes down to results.
Incomplete grade
Sorry, but the evaluation really left me wanting to have seen more depth.
You really do not address the issues.
You do address one, the team defense stinks. But, that does not entirely account for all of Al’s problems on D. He is not interested in defense and does not try to make himself better there. That is a problem. It should be recognized.
Additionally, you do not address the other problem. Can Al and Love start in the front court on a Championship team. Say our perimeter defense improves, can we win with them being the PF/C combo. Answer: NO.
The few times both players started together last season, the defense in the paint got worse. Even against teams not known to have good front courts.
Moreover, the team itself has basically admitted they need another player in the front court to be part of a rotation. One who is sized well and plays defense.
Al is a great player and Love will be as well.
The question still remains will they ever be able to defend adequately enough to field a winning team.
I think that's a flawed way of looking at building a team
You don’t look at this group of guys and wonder if they can be a front court on a championship team. You look at the roster and figure out how to best upgrade the available talent at every step of the way. You do so with a clear playing style and identity in mind. You have no idea whether or not they could be a starting front court on a championship team and neither to I. Let’s say they luck into the next D-Wade in someone like Harden or Evans. Suddenly, they’re a championship quality team, regardless of anything we think about them now.
Love and Jefferson are the two best players on this club. It is what it is and unless they can upgrade one of the two, or until the arrival of Basketball Jesus, you are about a million steps ahead of yourself wondering whether or not these guys have what it takes to win a championship. What we can do is say that they are the only two guys on the squad who are legit NBA starters (maybe throw in Miller here) and that the majority of their teammates cannot start on a championship team. The roster needs to be filled with as many average to slightly above average players as possible; as many as possible playing at or above replacement value. That, by itself, will lead to better play. Moving Telfair, Gomes, and Foye to the bench by the inclusion of better talent will do wonders for this squad…on both ends of the court.
Also, what exactly do you propose the Wolves do with one or both of their best players in order to get this undefined championship front court? Give one away? Give both away? For what? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Success in the NBA is averaging between 45-55 wins in a season. Anything extra (i.e. championship level) is dependent on landing upper-level talent, not the pairing of front court mates who have yet to break into the upper-level stratosphere. Does this mean that the Wolves are destined to be, at best, a team like Denver, Utah, or Phoenix? Probably. Anything more would require luck.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
very good points Terrell Bran--I mean SnP
I think everyone also agrees that a defensive minded, athletic 5-4 is something that the Twolves need, just not at #6 in the draft, and only as a backup or situational starter for 6-10 games a season. Am I right on this?
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
No...
I don’t agree at all that the Wolves “need” a defensive minded, athletic 5-4. Who are these mythical creatures anyway? I can count on one hand the players in the NBA that match this description. Yes, the team needs a capable player to take the backup minutes. Anything more would be a bonus.
I posted above that if the perimeter defenders would stop getting beat into the paint on a consistent basis, the need for a “shot blocker” is neutralized. Most blocks come from weak side help after a defender has been beaten and the ball ends up in the crowd for an easy out of bounds play. Outside of the intimidation and highlight factor, I think blocks are really not that helpful.
I feel that the focus of upgrades on this team is at the perimeter, where the Wolves are criminally undersized. Length, grit and team defensive concepts really nullify the “need” for a defensive minded 5-4.
by Minneapleseed on Jun 1, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions
I couldn't decide whether or not..
….to go with the Big Al can play center route with this post or the “backcourt is criminally undersized” route. I went with option a but you bring up the flip side of the coin: the Wolves’ size problem is at the perimeter, not the front court.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
OK -
I’m nitpicking here, but a good shot blocker doesn’t usually block shots four rows into the stands. A good shot blocker keeps the ball in play so either his teammate gets it or the other team is scrambling after a loose ball losing time on that shot clock. The A’mare blocks look pretty, but are worthless. The Howard blocks ( and to a greater extenet, when he played Russell) are the better kind. Yes, Howard does occasionally slam one out of the arena, but most of them are still playable. THAT is the kind of shot blocker I would like and Thabeet isn’t it.
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
by frankenhoops on Jun 1, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Defensive 5/4
My take on that isn’t that we need a defensive shot-blocker, rather a solid man and help defender at the 5/4 to take on and limit the Bynums, Duncans, Yaos, Odens, etc of the Western conference. By guarding the other good bigs, it helps keep Al and Love fresher, and hopefully allows them to maximize their games and create a good +/- matchup (more +, less ‘Al score 25, and Duncan scores 27’ or whatever it is). That’s why I suggested a part time starter, most of the time backup.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Agreed 100% SnP.
For better or worse, the team is where it is. You can always keep an eye on options to move around the talent, but by and large you have the talent you have because it’s very rare that you’ll ever get back more (or even equal) talent that you trade away.
I’m definitely not ready to say you can’t win with the front court we have, or at least a team built mostly around those guys. I think another rotational big is necessary, someone in the mold of a Noah or Turiaf, but you can’t just up and assume a core of Love and Jefferson can’t take you anywhere. Until I see a team with an identity and some talent that fits that identity built around those two it’s kind of ridiculous to close the book on the 20 and 23 year old pillars of your team.
Personally, I want to see the team built similarly to how you laid it out a few posts ago SnP. They need a 2/3 duo who can stretch the floor, play some D and make good on transition opportunities (think Lewis/Lee in Orlando) and that dynamite pick and roll PG to drive the half-court offense. If the team fails to make noise once a system has been designed and some talent acquired that fits the system, AND it’s obvious that it’s the Jefferson/Love combo that’s holding them back, then you look at moving them. Until then, you’re just jumping the gun.
No it is not too early
It is not too early to ask that question. If the foundation is flawed on the team, the rest of the building is not going to matter. Yes, they are the only legit starters on the team. But, they both ideally should be playing the same position.
That is why my response was incomplete.
What should the team do, admit the mistake made by McHale/Taylor. And then find a way to correct it.
Several options to do that:
1) Obtain a C who is great defensively and not in need of the ball on offense. But, enough of a threat on offense to keep teams honest on Love/Jefferson. So no Eddie Johnson or Mutombo type that have no offensive game. Gortat would also fit into the same mold of a very limited player offensively.
2) If the above move does not work, one player will need to be moved. This is the most likely scenario because someone in a rotation eventually is not going to want to be a bench player.
That is the problem when you have as much redundancy on a team as we do. How many players can you say that we have that should not be playing PF or SG?
And because a player is adequate does not mean they should stay there.
So your solution is to find...
…a a great defensive center who doesn’t need the ball and if that fails, trade away. And I’m the one who is lacking depth in his take? Gortat is not a great defender. He allows backup competition to average more than what they normally do per possession:
http://basketballprospectus.com/card.php?id=gortama01
Now what? Basketball Jesus?
It is beyond too early to ask that question. You only ask that question when you have a guy like LeBron or Wade and you have to ask yourself if guys like Ilgauskus or Beasley can cut it in the front court. Until then, you collect guys like Ilgauskus or Beasley if and when they are the best players you can find for a reasonable amount to upgrade this, that, or the other position. No one is arguing that being adequate means the status quo should remain. Upgrade whenever possible but do it because it fits an identity and style of play and do it to increase your strengths.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Well if anyone sees another, younger Marcus Camby lying around, please let me know. Last I checked, legit defensive C’s with nice midrange J’s don’t grow on trees. If waiting for one of those guys instead of working with what we have is your plan for rebuilding, you’re going to be waiting a long time.
I’d rather actually work around the talent we do have and see what happens before calling the whole thing a failure.
just to clarify...
….because i stated it kind of confusingly: gortat faces subpar competition as a backup and only holds them to modestly less than average levels than their average. in other words, his competition is about 80% of league average production and he holds them to about 92% of that average. He’s above a replacement level player but no defensive genius.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
That is reality
When McHale/Taylor traded away Mayo for Love it created a problem on the team.
I say begin with the foundation and if it does not work cut ties early not late .The earlier we can figure out if Love/Jefferson can be a duo the better for the team.
Waiting around to fill all the other holes on the offense will only hinder the future of the team.
We have two legit starters on the team who play the same position. Committing to making it work if it is not possible, will mean we are in the basement for a long long long time.
Wolves should go strong after Varejao in FA. A good rotational player who can defend and be a threat to score.
Rob
the more you say our two best players play the same position
Does not make it true. The only reason I have heard for moving Al to PF is because he doesn’t block shots. By all accounts the WORST part of his defense is lateral quickness and guarding perimiter bigs. By every definition of positions, a Power Forward is usally more perimiter oriented than a center, so that means that Al should guard Dirk instead of Dampier. Al should guard KG instead of Perkins. Al should guard Pau instead of Bynum. I don’t think so. Al is a C.
Just to clarify
Al had a block rate of 3.5 percent which if healthy puts him around 15 in the NBA in this category. This is actually pretty in line with Career averages and quite respectable for a NBA starting center. I’m not trying to make the argument- Al’s a good defender only that he’s a more than capable shot-blocker.
by Jose Cordoba on Jun 1, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions
Excellent Point
So just to clarify, Big Al wingspan is solid for a C, his offensive game involves mostly the low post, back to the bakset moves, and little passing, and defensively he has problems matching up with Mobile bigs.
What are the arguments for Making Al a PF? Is it only the height issue? Besides height I don’t think their is a single logical argument for making Al a PF.
It's pretty much a height issue
We’re a short team with Jefferson at center and a smaller player next to him at PF.
The question will get answered whenever (hopefully soon) we’re playing meaningful games in April and May, but a lot of us doubt that Love-Jefferson is a contending front line, and it’s mostly due to being too short and unathletic. If either Love or Jefferson played the 4 next to a bigger center, it would be a better situation defensively, and on the glass.
On the glass?
If there is one area Love and Jefferson should receive zero heat about it is rebounding. Also, are they really functionally undersized or just poor defenders? Al’s standing reach is pretty average for an NBA center and he’s strong as an ox. Love is an averaged sized power forward in his first year in the league. Al may simply be a bad defender.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
The Mayo thing is so far overdone
It was Lopez vs. Love. This team needed front court help and they got Love. Had they drafted Mayo we’d be sitting here talking about how the Wolves have a hurt power forward lining up next to Mark Madsen and Brian Cardinal with 2 combo guards, neither of whom can play the point. Love and Jefferson do not play the same position. They are completely different players and the only reason people put them together is because they are listed at the same height. That’s it. They compliment each other wonderfully on one end of the court and there are some indicators that they can be average at the other end.
What are you going to cut ties for? Who? It’s nice to say it in theory, but in reality, who is this person? Varejao? Gortat? Thabeet? The problem for the Wolves is that talented bigs don’t grow on trees. They had a choice between 2 of the most talented in recent years and they went with Love instead of Lopez.
“Making it work” is surrounding your best players with as many average or above average players as possible; constantly upgrading and making your strengths better. It’s not throwing your hands up and saying that the two best players can’t possibly work together 4-5 years down the road so we better blow it up now. That’s a recipe for perpetual disaster.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
You're implying
A Gomes/Al or a Rhino/Al front-court couldn’t work long-term.
by Jose Cordoba on Jun 1, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Talk about going undersized. . .
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
by frankenhoops on Jun 1, 2009 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm implying..
…that Gomes and Rhino aren’t very good.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Thankfully we went with a Big Last year
I think both Lopez and Love were far better prospects than either Thabeet or Hill. And with the draft being so perimiter oriented, we wouldn’t have very many options for post improvement if we’d stuck with Mayo.
Further, even if we would have lucked out into the #1 Pick, Griffin Measured out at a 8’9" standing reach taken together with the fact that all three NC players from last year measured out a 1/2" at this year’s combine due to the measurements being taken in the morning and the daily gravity shrinkage had yet to sit it, Love’s wingspan is 1.5" taller than Griffin’s. Griffin is far more athletic and without seeing the numbers probably jumps higher than Love; however, a Griffin – Al frontcourt would be just as undersized.
The first year with the new group...
the biggest complaint among Wolves fans was that Jefferson was playing out of position. The Mayo Trade cemented that position. Never (until today, apparently) has Jefferson been considered as a “true center” let alone to the point that the idea he’s a power forward is just dismissed. Somebody researched the length of his arms and decided that, all visual evidence to the contrary, he’s a bona fide center and doesn’t get his ass kicked by bigger players. Sorry, but that’s just not the case. He and Love both had a really hard time with bigger players.
Nobody in Minnesota wanted Brook Lopez, and more than a few wanted OJ Mayo. It was an unpopular trade, by any definition.
I don’t advocate for trading Love or Jefferson (unless the right deal came along, which is unlikely) but it doesn’t mean that we don’t need a significantly better defender to play pretty big minutes. Since Thabeet’s one of the better shotblocking prospects of the last decade, he might be the guy—only we’d have to trade up to get him.
I just don’t understand the logic that because Al couldn’t guard Yao Ming, he must be a power forward. Because Al can’t guard Dwight Howard, let’s make him a Power Forward. Your claims that he is going to be a more effective defender at the 4 are conjecture, especially with the small ball lineups the Wolves have had. My thought is that if Al was played strictly at 4, he would get lit up by KG, Odom, Nowitzki, Jamison, etc., i.e. players with more lateral quickness and more perimiter oriented games.
Just because Al is not an elite post defender, doesn’t mean that if you move him to PF he is going to defend better. I would rather Al use his strength and length to get physical with opposing Centers, even if he’s not the most effective, than watch him chase Dirk around the Perimiter.
True that.
Al’s a slightly undersized center. Barkley was an undersized PF. He made it work.
by Princely Frank on Jun 1, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
What is more common: a 7’ center or a 7’ power forward who runs around and jumpshoots as well as any player in the league?
I think that, when we play Dallas, we would have to adjust the gameplan to keep Jefferson from spending too much time on Dirk.
But, when we’re playing the 29 other teams in the league, I think we’d do well to have an additional big man that matches up more favorably than Love or Jefferson does with a true center.
You're missing the point...
More teams have a mobile 4/5 in their rotations than a back-to-the-basket 7 footer who is difficult to guard. There are no Shaqs anymore; heck, today’s Shaq was guarded decently by Jefferson and Love this year. If Jefferson and Love can’t guard in the post, that’s a problem. But I think the assumption is that those guys are more physically capable of guarding post players than guarding guys like Josh Smith, Joakim Noah, etc.
Look at the two Finals teams: Orlando’s 4/5 rotation is Lewis, Howard, and Gortat (one perimeter-oriented player, one post-up guy, one guy who’s not an offensive threat); LA’s is Odom, Gasol, and Bynum (a perimeter-oriented player, a mobile post-up guy, and a post-up guy). The point is that more teams have an Odom than a Bynum. One big reason the Cavs lost to the Magic is because they had too many guys who could’ve guarded Bynum and not enough who could’ve guarded Odom.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 1, 2009 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions
In a perfect world, we’d have 7’ players that run around like Dwayne Wade or LeBron James. Right now, we have sub-7’ers that run around pretty slow, even for big-man standards. So, I guess you’d prefer we add speed and I prefer we add size. That’s not me missing the point—it’s just a disagreement.
I mostly prefer that because I watch playoff basketball and see a ton of contested shots and rebounds happening right around and above the rim. Love and Jefferson are not very effective in that part of the court, unless you count Jefferson following shots, which he does pretty well. I think we’d benefit from having a vertical presence in the lane.
With regard to the more mobile 4’s in the league, and there are some, I think Jefferson (were he playing the 4) would have every bit the advantage on offense as that player as on him. Give me Jefferson vs Lewis in the low block before Lewis vs Jefferson at the 3-line.
That's assuming
That the opposing PF is the one to D up Jefferson. If we get another big guy who is tall and more mobile, what’s to stop teams from guarding that player with PF and guarding Jefferson with the C.
I’d hope that whatever center we added would be too much of a mismatch for a mobile power forward. If not, then yeah they could stick their center on Jefferson and not pay for it.
Not everything is pure, clean matchups, either. It’s nice to have size in the aggregate, especially down low. When a shot goes up or a guard breaks down the defense, much of the rest comes down to size and athleticism. That’s where I think Love-Jefferson is lacking.
It's all true.
We could use some more size and should consider that when deciding who should backup the fellows. Al and Love are our best players and we’d be well advised to not trade them rashly. We’re all geniuses.
by Princely Frank on Jun 2, 2009 1:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Andy G..
…that’s why I’m calling this series of posts “Everything you think you know about the Wolves is wrong”. ;)
I think people wrongly tag Jefferson as a 4 and he may simply be a bad defender rather than playing out of position. He has the length and strength to play the spot.
Also, I can’t speak for the majority of Wolves fans, but we had Lopez right after Love on our draft board and made it quite clear that Love and Lopez (and Speights if they traded down) was the big choice for a team that needed a front court player. All visual evidence does not point to a problem with size; most of it points to a problem with effort and know-how on that end of the court. When Big Al puts his hands up in the air, he’s as big as guys that are not questioned as tweeners in this league. What he is questioned for is his amazing ability to not stay in front of guys or hustle over from the weak side. Both of these issues have very little to do with his size…if anything at all.
Finally, while the Mayo/Love trade may be unpopular in general, don’t forget that it was called highway robbery around these parts. I think we’re being consistent on this front, as well as the Jefferson being a center one.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Right...
I guess I don’t recall there being any kind of push for Lopez, either on this site or any other avenue for Wolves discussion—this was especially true after the reported ass-whuppin’ that he took from our very own Jim Pete.
And I’ll never forget that you have always supported the Mayo/Love Trade. I just meant my remarks in response to “It’s always been about Love vs. Lopez.” To me, and I think more than half of Wolves fans (all 15 of us) I think Mayo was the guy we were happy to hear called, and furious to hear was traded.
I think that Mayo is a rarer talent, in terms of being an impact backcourt player for years to come, than Love is as a frontcourt player. This has been debated here ad naseau, but if it’s being revisited, I feel like the people here have somehow come to accept that the trade was proven to be a good idea, despite Mayo finishing 2nd in ROY voting, and Love failing to make the Rookie Team or Rookie Game. You can save the rebuttal points for that, because I understand them but they’re just a quick way to demonstrate that, clearly, the Love Trade hasn’t been PROVEN a wise decision—not when interior defense is the same problem it was in 2007 and our backcourt is still a glaring weakness. From that clear vantage point, it seems that we could use a dynamic backcourt player and have done little or nothing to improve defensively in the paint.
I Loved the trade at the time
But was severly dissapointed after November and December. Thankfully Love continued to improve and Mayo regressed once defenses realized they didn’t have to respect his ability to drive, and his shooting % dropped where he become what I thought he was, a ball-dominant, defensive minded, undersized 2 guard, who can shoot, can’t drive, can’t draw fouls, and isn’t an efficient distributor.
I was the guy posting on the STrib board last year arguing we should take Love at #3, however it worked out even better with the Salary Dumps. I have season tickets to University of Washington basketball so I get to watch a lot of Pac-10 games and was horribly unimpressed with Mayo, Love on the other hand being Freshman palyer of the year cotinually amazed me.
I come down on the side of...
…Mayo being the type of player that comes out every other year or so. Love is the type of guy that comes along every 8-10 years. I really think he’s that unique of a player (as do I with Curry). Despite the ROY voting (which has been historically tied to scoring), I think most people would place him a few spots back on the list behind guys like Westbrook, Lopez, and Love. Even head-to-head it’s hard to argue for Mayo vs. Love. Love was 3-1 vs. Memphis with 14/8.5 in 27 mpg. Mayo was 1-3 with 20.3 and 4.3.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/psplit.cgi?player=mayooj01&year=2009
Overall Love was top 10 in the NBA in total rebounds, rebounds/game, defensive reb%, total reb% and #1 in oreb %. OJ Mayo was #1 in total games played and #3 in minutes played. Per 36 or possession it gets even more tilted in Love’s favor:
This year the Wolves will (hopefully) pick up a real honest-to-Pete starting point guard. Memphis will likely take Thabeet or Rubio. If ever there were a fantastic test for the polar camps in Mayo vs. Love and pro and negative Thabeet and Rubio, the Griz and Wolves are it. Even going back to some folks wanting Rudy Gay over Foye, the Griz could end up being a team that is composed of should-have-beens for many Wolves fans. That, at the very least, will be fun to talk about. I’m hopeful that the Wolves can land Curry and head down the river with a healthy Brewer and Big Al and take that challenge head on. I’m really hopeful they can find a way to move Cardinal, Smith, Foye, and Madsen to Utah for Kirilinko and Miller to Chicago for Hinrich…and then walking away from the draft with Curry, Austin Daye or Earl Clark, and Nick Calathes or Patrick Mills…ending up with this (and a re-signed Sheldon Williams for 2 years):
1- Curry/Bassy/(Calathes/Mills)
2- Hinrich/Brewer
3- Kirilinko/Gomes/(Daye/Clark)
4- Love/Williams/(Daye/Clark)
5- Jefferson/Williams
They still keep things in line for Pekovic and they upgrade their entire perimeter operation while moving Bassy and Gomes to their proper reserve roles and while bringing along 3 promising rookies. Ideally, they find a way to keep Foye as a 6th man but I’d spring him for the first chance of getting another top 10 pick or a 3 like Kirilinko.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I guess I don’t know exactly what you mean by “type of player that comes out every ____ number of years.” If you mean quality of player, then I strongly disagree. Jordan came out in the 80’s, Kobe in the 90’s and LBJ in the 2000’s… so that’s the “quality of player that comes out every 10 years or so” and I’m not going to interpret your remark as putting Love in that category. But if you mean the “type of player” by being a passing, rebounding big man or something, then I guess it makes sense. But OJ’s “player type” which to me is a scoring, defending and pretty good passing guard, is every bit or more valuable than passer/rebounder big men and was needed more by the Wolves than Love’s type was.
Mayo played on, possibly the youngest starting lineup in the history of the NBA, last year—Memphis needs to get older, that’s all there is to it. They were starting 3 rookies for quite a few games.
Skewed data
True, Marc Gasol was a rookie, but he’s 24 played in Euroleague Final Four, Spanish Olympic team, he’s a rookie in the sense that Ichiro won rookie of the year. Memphis had probably the thinnest front line in the league, citing that seems more apt that clinging to the youngest team argument.
Memphis was almost all young players...
Rudy Gay is hardly a seasoned vet, and he was their best returning player. They were ridiculously young and inexperienced.
They weren't any younger than the Wolves two years ago...
Most of their vets were dealt to them by the Wolves.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 1, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Not sure what else to say. A team that starts three rookies is ridiculously young. It’s a legit excuse for Memphis struggling so much.
That..
….and their players are terrible ;)
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I mean a combo....
…of type and quality. This year teams can get a larger (and probably more effective) version of Mayo in James Harden. Rodney Stucky probably fits most of the bill in the 07 draft. Ben Gordon is another guy from a few drafts back. Next year there will be the kid from Oklahoma. OJ hasn’t shown the defensive part of the game yet. I don’t know where that is coming from. He was billed as a defender coming out but he hasn’t shown it yet. Memphis needs more than to get older. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see on that one. I view Mayo as a slightly above average shooting guard who is given way above average duties. I’d also disagree with lumping in Kobe with MJ and LeBron….but that’s another argument for another day.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
So make a comparison for Love, in terms of pure quality...
and make it to forwards. If he’s a once every 8-10 years player, then what does that make him?
Larry Bird? Charles Barkley?
I feel like you’re making a bold statement here, but I don’t quite understand exactly what it is.
Think of it another way...
Dennis Rodman. Not a perennial all-star or a go-to guy, but was a key part of contending teams for 10 years because his contributions couldn’t always be measured on a stat sheet. There was no one else in the league like him. I’d say their quality is similar; they have a similar instinct for rebounding with other useful skills (Rodman’s defense, Love’s outside shooting and ability to draw fouls).
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 1, 2009 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions
One Disagreement
The Wolves were 3-0 vs Memphis.
One point in response to OJ Mayo despite adding Marc Gasol and fairly decent improvement in Mike Conley the Grizzles only improved by 2 games same as the Wolves. The one difference is Al’s injury and the Wolves young players regressing (Gomes, Shaddy). This seems to be a pretty decent argument that Love helped the Wolves more than Mayo the Grizz.
Wow, SnP, great prospective lineup!
I think you’ve nailed it on what should be done, and possibly could be done. I think you should put that up as a post on its own.
I’d really be pumped if we could put that lineup together.
I think the key...
…is players playing at or above replacement value. Look at the salary breakdown vs performance of the main Wolves players…
Al Jefferson NBA Ranking: 61Salary Ranking: 50
Corey Brewer NBA Ranking: 344Salary Ranking: 223
Randy Foye NBA Ranking: 120 Salary Ranking: 219
Mike Miller NBA Ranking: 63 Salary Ranking: 74
Kevin Love NBA Ranking: 60 Salary Ranking: 207
Sebastian Telfair NBA Ranking: 175 Salary Ranking: 242
Ryan Gomes NBA Ranking: 123 Salary Ranking: 187
Outside of our injured players, Al and Corey, our main pieces are performing above their salaries meaning we are getting production for dollars paid. Now, this isn’t meant to imply that they are in the right roles, being as efficient as they can, etc. I’m just trying to show that the Wolves are actually getting MORE than they pay for out of these guys. Upgrade the last few spots on the roster from the dead weight of Madsen (I mean really, I can’t believe this guy is still on payroll) Collins, etc. and the whole team gets better. Looking at the state of the team in this light adds more weight to the suggestion that the roster needs to be filled with as many average to slightly above average players as possible, position be damned.
It might also give a little hope that this team is not as far off from a complete roster as possible.
by Minneapleseed on Jun 1, 2009 10:24 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
What that shows me is that 1) our guys are on great salaries at the moment and 2) most of our guys on great salaries are very average role players. It’s good to know we don’t have anyone vastly underperforming, but we seriously need a talent upgrade.
All I can say is that I really hope that whoever it is that we draft this year turns out to be an above-average starter. For all the whining some people do aobut Love and his issues, at least it’s pretty certain the kid is an above-average starting PF. If we can get that type of performance out of any of the 3 back court positions I’d be very happy.
great point about the salaries
Although, that’s kind of the sad thing about this roster: that they’re getting value out of it with 24 wins.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
sad...
but maybe a sign of hope. I just wanted to show that after the Marko, THud, Juwan, etc, etc, etc contracts, this team is finally getting production for dollars. If the team can upgrade the bottom of the roster (which, as you have pointed out, is much easier than finding the Baskeball Jesus), I think they can start reaching respectability again, maybe sooner than later…
by Minneapleseed on Jun 1, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Yep
Take away Shaddy’s Minutes, and Collins’ minutes this year- the team probably wins a half-dozen more games. Combine this with a healthy Al then you’re improved another few games. This isn’t even saying anything about upgrading through the draft and other assests. PG minutes are another big key. When you consider this the workability of a Love/Jefferson Front-Court increases.
by Jose Cordoba on Jun 1, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Exactly
It’s all about moving Telfair, Foye, and Gomes down with superior starting-level talent and then hoping like hell that Love, Jefferson, or whoever they draft this year turns into an upper level player (or two).
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
This ignores one very important budget item
Dead contracts that eat up cap space. Namely Juwan Howard and Troy Hudson. In all, I’d argue that with these dead contracts and the following non-performers (Williams, Cardinal, Collins, Madsen) – the Wolves have wasted $28.6 million – or half of their cap space.
In a league with a cap, the Wolves have turned their team into the financial equivalent of the KC Royals.
I mentioned...
those specific contracts above “I just wanted to show that after the Marko, THud, Juwan, etc, etc, etc contracts, this team is finally getting production for dollars.”
The dead contracts you mention are off the books as of this year. The others (Cardinal, Collins, Madsen) are either trade chips (the magical expiring contracts) or will be off the books next year.
They may have been the KC Royals, but they are quickly putting those mistakes behind them.
by Minneapleseed on Jun 2, 2009 8:07 AM CDT up reply actions
those...
specific contracts were mentioned in a reply above.
by Minneapleseed on Jun 2, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Flawed analysis
It is hard to say we are getting production out of our team right now because:
How do you go about ranking players by number… MVP is hard enough. And this ranking has Love better than Jefferson and Miller only 2 behind? Obviously flawed. Love might be in the top 50 in a couple years, but as of now he is no where close to Al.
We have no one taking over except for Al so obviously a player who wouldn’t normally produce on a winning team will now because no one else is there to pick up the slack (a slight twist on the “Ewing Effect:”).
Lets say for the sake of argument that the ranking is perfect, do you really think that they take qualitative evidence into effect?
I would be more interested in Team ranking vs. Team salary.
30 teams and we dont have 1 player in the top 50 in ranking? Most of the championship contenders have 2 or 3. This is probably where we are furthest behind. Al and possibly Love are the only two on our team that have a remote chance of being the star on a championship squad… extremely unlikely though. This year for example, they will never be as good as Kobe, Lebron or Dwight and only similar in skill to Carmelo (and I dont expect we will get Chauncey back any time soon to make our allstars look like super stars).
I’m sure I could go on and I’m sure a couple other people might in reply, but I think I have made my point of why this is a flawed analysis…. the only way it could be improved to make it slightly relevant is to compare the wolves with some of the contenders and where they were before they were in contention.
The rankings...
are not my own, they are from
http://www.realgm.com/src_playerrankings.php
The MVP vote is biased and media influenced and is always debatable. These rankings are based off the stats for the year and are similar to what the PER would say. I find them to be reasonably accurate.
Not sure what you mean by qualitative evidence… wins produced? win share? 15 pts in garbage time vs 15 pts in the 4th of a close game? There are other statistical rankings that take these things into consideration. The best teams have their own way of analyzing what a players worth is and the trend in the league seems to be heading in this direction.
The team ranking vs team salary is an interesting thing to look at as some teams are willing to attempt to buy a chance at a title now, which I don’t agree with as a philosophy. You can see from the list that this philosophy comes with mixed results. For the sake of argument, here are the salary rankings for the whole league (from hoopshype.com salary page)…
1. New York Knicks $94,842,168
2. Dallas Mavericks$92,758,122
3. Cleveland Cavaliers $91,650,943
4. Portland Trail Blazers $80,600,059
5. Boston Celtics $79,659,701
6. Phoenix Suns $75,626,030
7. Houston Rockets $75,469,051
8. Los Angeles Lakers $75,255,408
9. Sacramento Kings $73,129,886
10. Toronto Raptors $73,109,933
11. Detroit Pistons $72,076,423
12. Milwaukee Bucks $71,421,682
13. Washington Wizards $70,259,475
14. Indiana Pacers $70,036,797
15. Denver Nuggets $70,478,826
16. Miami Heat $69,788,231
17. San Antonio Spurs $69,299,039
18. Orlando Magic $68,713,618
19. Oklahoma City Thunder $68,533,648
20. Chicago Bulls $68,520,301
21. Golden State Warriors $68,461,515
22. Atlanta Hawks $68,012,336
23. New Orleans Hornets $67,866,515
24. Philadelphia 76ers $67,249,108
25. Minnesota Timberwolves $66,066,569
26. Utah Jazz $65,632,827
27. New Jersey Nets $62,609,434
28. Charlotte Bobcats $61,787,680
29. Los Angeles Clippers $60,775,937
30. Memphis Grizzlies $55,705,279
I’m not sure what can be gleaned from this other than some teams are really good at managing the salary cap and being successful on the court while other teams are really bad at both…
The whole point I was trying to make is that the Wolves are getting what they paid for from their core players, which is a step in the right direction after swallowing the horrible contracts that the team has had.
by Minneapleseed on Jun 2, 2009 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Damn this goes way too fast to keep following it.
Would like to emphasize that in Dean Olliver’s “Basketball on paper” (page 215) he states that all historically good teams had a good defensive man in the middle (except the 1996 Bulls); so this is arguement for the “a good defensive center allows the perimeter guys to tighten up and not worry so much about the penetration”
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
If the Lakers win the Finals
You can make that #2 unless anyone is willing to say that Gasol or Bynum is a good defensive man.
I need...
… to read this for sure. Never heard of it and thanks for bringing it to attention. My only question is how is “a good defensive center” defined by the book?
If you can expand further, what players in the NBA fit the description?
by Minneapleseed on Jun 1, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
It's a fantastic book
The guy is now with the Denver Nuggets as a consultant.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
dabs to Snp for pointing it out to me way earlier...
On the lakers winning the finals > it’s about the best defensive teams, not the best teams.
A good defensive team is a team that allows little points. He uses some more things like comparing it to the average of the like (to incorporate the changes of the rules over time).
He then has some kind of statistical stuff to distribute the defensive accomplishements between players. To be honest it’s really hard to get into since I’m only reading this for the first time and it’s really complex..
The big-guys in the middle on some of the best defensive teams:
Patrick Ewing on the 1992-1993 Knicks (with Doc Rivers, Greg Anthony and Charles Smith also contributing considerably)
Mark Eaton on the 1980s Jazz (especially with others to clean up the glass, the guy primarily blocked shots; Malone did this in the 89 team).
Other teams on the list with big mans: Duncan+Robinson (mostly duncan made the difference) in 1999, Alonzo Mourning on the 1997 Miami Heat and my boy Mutombo on the 1999 Hawks.
There are some other teams that just had a Big guy in the middle; not really a defensive oriënted Big in the middle. On example is Shaq; who isn’t known as a defensive center … but I’d sure like to see Telfair try to dunk on him in his 1995 season ;).
There are probably more teams that had defensive centers but I’m too young to know the guys ;). So the message really is, if you gonna read a book, make it that one ;)
He has some notes about "does defense win championships is there such a thing as the hot hand etc… rarely does he give a conclusive answer but his arguements for one or the other do make a lot of sense.
There’s a also a bit about coaching have more influence on defense than on offense. Really too much to say.
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 2, 2009 8:19 AM CDT up reply actions
average of the league; not like
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 2, 2009 8:19 AM CDT up reply actions
also
Olajuwon was mentioned as the difference with some other players. Some players like Dumars or Artest I think it was seem to have a reputation for being good defensively but they sometimes do appear on bad defensive teams. Someone like Olajuwon never appeared on a bad defensive team.
So that’s one point for saying that it seems that a defensive center seems to be more important than any other position. Though I’m going short through the bend as Mr Oliver explained it much more brightly.
Beater of the early Thabeet drum ... but not so much of the late one
by Wim (Belgium) on Jun 2, 2009 8:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Disagree with one assumption
That a Love/Jefferson Front-Court can’t work long-term. This assumption seems to be based on them not being good enough defensively to win a Championship. But a few other things need to be considered.
1. Playing with a lead generally raises Defensive Rating per 100 possessions. So a team like the Lakers that might be have less than ideal Interior Defenders (Gasol, Bynum) can still have a pretty efficient Overall Defense since opponents are playing from behind and having to force more on a PP Basis. The difference between playing with a lead more nights and from behind probably is probably worth 4 points per 100 possessions and a much higer defensive ranking.
2. Again- the Utah Example. Their 4-5 rotation has plenty of defensive holes in it. At the same time by controlling the boards and having good perimeter defense they were able to come in 10th in Defensive rating. This probably is the best role-model for the Wolves long-term. If you combine this with a more efficient offense than you have a model of something that might work.
3. Stop N Pop is 100 percent correct- the goal should be to build around what we have and adjust once we get closer to competing. Part of the problem is we wouldn’t be quite sure who our main competition would be if and when we do compete. So we need to keep options open in this regard.
Corey Brewer
Let me suggest a topic for your next post. “Everything you think you know about the Wolves is wrong, pt ii: Corey Brewer is not important to the Future of this team”
I think Corey Brewer is essentail to making this team a success since he is by far the best defensive player we have. A potential first defensive teamer. This supports your comment that having better defensive guards will make Jefferson-Love better defensive players.
The question with Brewer is whether he can become a adequate offense player. Will he ever be able to make a wide-open three pointer 50% of the time?
I look at him and see Shane Battier which means that Brewer becomes our starting 2 guard which means we need a starting SF and makes Foye and Miller reserves.
Anywho, I would like to hear your comments on the future of Brewer.
Such a bummer that he got injured so early in the season. I really wish we had a large sample size to work with, because to me, he looked much better offensively before the injury. He looked smoother, more confident and just all-around better at hitting his shots. His percentages certainly didn’t fly up, but they were better, and I bet they would have continued to improve as he adjusted to playing next to Love and Al for a full season.
3 point percentage
Long Time Reader.
First time Poster.
Brewer actually lead the team in 3-point percentage. Look it up. Something like 41%.
I know it was a small sample size, but it certainly gave me hope.
He just needs to not be an Offensive Black Hole.
And, yeah, he’s a legit All-Defense Candidate someday.
Having him on the perimeter would cover up a WHOLE lot of things.
With Curry shooting the lights out at the point, Brewer locking down the best offensive 2/3 on the opposing team, and a do-it-all Gerald Wallace type at the 3, we’d be in business.
Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV
Thanks..
….for reading and posting.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I give Brewer a pass because of the injury
He was showing some improvement when he went down. He was showing an ability to put the ball on the floor, get in to the lane, and distribute. He also is the only guy on the team who can defend the perimeter and multiple positions with anything approaching proficiency. If he is able to come back all the way, I think his future should be a starting 2 if the Wolves are lucky….which means, as you say, Foye and Miller are bench bound or beyond. Brewer + Derozan, Kirilinko, Daye, Randolph, or someone along those lines are the best this club can hope for. They need to have a ball-dominant one, Love and Big Al with the high-low/in-out game, and 2 long athletic guys who can get up and down the court, rebound, and defend. Hopefully Brewer can be one of those players.
That being said, I think he is pretty close to being essential to making this all work. They need him to pan out so that they can focus on the point and the 3. I didn’t include him in the series because the injuries creates too many unknowns. I will have a post about Ryan Gomes and his usefulness to the club.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Great discussion
After reading all of the well-informed comments, I think there are a couple of conclusions that can be drawn:
1) This team’s first priority is to upgrade the talent on the perimeter. Everything else is secondary.
2) In terms of our length upfront, it’s more of a total team length issue. Yeah, Jefferson has decent length, but then it goes downhill from there. In that regard, I agree with SnP that this is more of a functional issue than positional issue. We simply need more all-around length, whether it’s a backup 4/5 or a 2 or a 3.
3) What if we could play Corey Brewer as a 2 more often? Now suddenly we get longer, as his 8"7 standing reach is pretty average for a 3, but quite long for a 2. It may be nice to see Gomes and Brewer on the floor together next year a little more, with Gomes at the 3 and Brew at the 2. This is where Brewer’s improvement with his handles and shot are so, so, so critical. If he ever developed those aspects of his game, it makes it so much easier to pair him up in the backcourt with a player like Stephen Curry.
That's the hope..
…with Brewer. If he pans out at the 2, this club lucks into something very productive….provided they can pair him with a ball dominant guard who can shoot…like Curry. I can’t tell you how much I hope they get Curry with the #6 pick. I saw a blurb earlier today about OKC wanting him and looking to trade down. He would be insane next to Westbrook and Durant.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
But boy,
Do they become a perimeter-oriented team at that point. At some point they have to go about filling the holes in at their PF and C, similar to our backcourt woes.
Curry doesn’t help with our team athleticism and defensive deficit, but yeah, if we deem him at the BPA at #6, then I’m sold. But somewhere along the lines we have to get some thoroughbreds out there. Although I’m generally with you on the whole Love-Jefferson can be a viable frontcourt combination, we are on the whole a team that was ridiculously overmatched physically too many times last season.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Curry
He doesn’t really help our 25th Ranked D a lot- but would be a god send for our 24th Ranked Offense. As a College Sophomore he had a TS of 65%- this would have led the NBA and he’s a guard. Even this year he had around a 1.2 ppp on contested jumpers. If you can surrond Al and K.LOVE with a PG that can shot like this- think of the increase in quality of looks they’re going to have. When watching Howard play in the ECF- the quality of shooters around him have really opened things up for him. This would hopefully be the case if you add Curry and another efficient shooter like Childress.
by Jose Cordoba on Jun 1, 2009 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't know
If you start Curry instead of Telfair at the Point, it definitely doesn’t hurt our Defense. Curry is taller and longer than Telfair. He sure can’t be much worse.
Any minutes...
….that move Foye, Telfair, and Gomes down with a rotation-quality player are good ones. I don’t know if the benefit will come all on offense or defense, but it allows these guys to play against competition they can succeed against (Foye and Telfair would be a very nice bench guard rotation) while avoiding getting torched against starters.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Don't disagree
We absolutely need to improve our offensive efficiency and Curry could go a long ways in doing that. However, he won’t move the needle much on the overall athletic/length deficit we have on the squad, which can translate to both Ortg and Drtg Dwight Howard is the poster child of how raw physical talent can translate on both ends of the court. He can’t touch Al’s superior footwork and touch, yet he destroys him based purely on his strength and athleticism. Nene is a more realistic example of how having a big man with length and mobility is extremely useful. He is what allowed Denver to let go of Camby without a hiccup.
So I’m fine with taking Curry at #6, but at some point we need to address the fact that we have a team full of guys with serious physical limitations.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm starting to think that Curry doesn't make it to 6.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
There were some OKC rumors and this
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=PreDraftTour-090601
2. Stephen Curry (avg. 2.4)
Curry was somewhat of a surprise as the second-place finisher, which speaks to how well he was received at the combine, where he shot the lights out, measured a little bigger than expected and looked like he fit in with the other point guards on the floor. He also was a pro in the interviews, and many of the older GMs feel the fact that he grew up around the NBA game will help him make a quick transition to the pros.
Three GMs had him ranked as the top point guard in the draft, and he received seven second-place votes, too. One GM had him ranked sixth.
This coincides with a number of things I heard at the camp that had the Thunder, Wizards and Warriors all looking at possibly selecting Curry before the Knicks draft at No. 8.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Also....
Isn’t there a little bit of a recency effect going on here? I noticed Brandon Jennings wasn’t at the combine. I wonder if he had been there and folks caught a glimpse of his blinding speed and athleticism, how he’d be climbing draft boards right now instead of Stephen Curry and Jrue Holiday. I mean, if scouts can use the excuse that Jrue wasn’t in an ideal situation at UCLA to explain away his very mediocre stats, I can come up with about 5 better ways to explain away Brandon Jennings numbers in Europe. I think we’re witnessing a bit of post-Combine honeymoon. Things will settle out in the next couple of weeks. Curry played one year as a PG. There is still risk with this kid.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't know...
…his stats are out of this world good and he made everyone around him better. Surely all of these GMs know about his pick and roll numbers and his usage vs. to ratio.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Rascal...
… where do you see Holiday ending up? Do you think there’s any chance we could get him at #18? I think that would be an ideal-case scenario. And who do you like better, Holiday or Lawson?
I don't think
we can totally discount the recent hype around Holiday. All indications are he’ll go higher than #18. I just think it’s ridiculous for him to be projected to be, say, #4 and going to Sacramento. I mean, at some point what you produce on the floor in a real 5-on-5 basketball game has to count and I believe he will settle back down the draft boards a bit to a more reasonable number, but probably not back down to #18 or lower. Other than defense, he was very underwhelming last year. And he wasn’t off the ball all the time either. He did play on the ball when he was in the game and Collison was out. And people that compare him to Westbrook are crazy. Westbrook is on a totally different level athletically.
As far as Lawson is concerned, he’s not a workout wonder that is going to wow you with his hops or knock down 50 jumpers in a row. But the kid had a season of historic proportions last year. All I know is that when the ball goes up and the lights are on, he gets it done. “The system” can only account for so much of his success. At some point you just have to say he’s a damn good point guar.
Bottom-line….I’d take Lawson, assuming he passes with flying colors the background checks and physicals.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Thanks for the reply...
… I’m not a Lawson fan because I can’t see how his body or game translates beyond “solid NBA player” status and I’d like to see the Wolves go after someone with more upside. I think Holiday’s body and workouts clearly demonstrate that his upside is higher, though his bust potential is probably also higher (though I don’t think it’s unthinkable to imagine a scenario where Lawson does not make much of an impact during his NBA career). So although I don’t have anything against Lawson, I’d much prefer to see us nab Holiday or Jennings (if we were to move up in a trade).
It’ll be interesting to see how the point guard crop gets sorted out in the next few weeks. There are just so many of them, and beyond Rubio (and even he is something of a question mark in some people’s minds) we’re able to project so little about their NBA prospects relative to each other. In such a weak draft, this is one thing that has my attention.
I understand the hesitancy with Lawson....
and generally agree with your upside comment on Holiday. However, the perceived upside of Holiday has everything to do with his size as a PG and defensive instincts and nearly nothing to do with what he actually showed on the floor as a floor general or shot maker at UCLA. That’s even scarier than DeRozan, who at least a) is a verifiable world class athlete, and b) actually did come on very strong in the last 8 games or so. I mean, at least DeRozan showed continual improvement as the competition got tougher.
If we don’t end up with a PG at #6, then I am really excited about the prospects that could drop to #18, like Lawson, Maynor, Teague, and who knows, may be even Holiday comes back down to earth.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions
My main hangup with Lawson is that he’s a transition player, through and through, and will never quite adjust to half-court basketball in the NBA.
From that standpoint, I like Holiday’s size to eventually lead to good pro point guard play and I could see Lawson sharing some of Bassy’s struggles when he penetrates the lane.
But yes, Holiday struggled to put up numbers at UCLA and Lawson certainly was an outstanding college player. Both relevant points when comparing the two.
From DX
“We thought that UNC’s transition offense might have given Lawson a decided advantage over some of his counterparts in terms of efficiency, but that wasn’t entirely true. He did get 10% more offense in transition than any of the other players we looked at (an outrageous 38.6%), but his transition PPP of 1.2 is the same as his PPP in spot up situations and not as far above the average as his PPP in pick and roll situations (1.19 PPP, +.29) or on isolations (1 PPP, +.16). Lawson was an incredibly prolific transition player (which is quite an advantage in itself today’s NBA), but he was comparatively better in other areas as well. When you consider that he only turned the ball over on 13.8% of his half court possessions (5th best) and can drive left and right equally well, it seems like Lawson could be an excellent offensive fit on virtually any team, regardless of tempo.”
I think he gets unfairly tabbed as a fast-break only guard because he is so good at it. The hard data suggests he’s more well rounded than that.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Interesting...
but I still don’t think that, just because Lawson was better at half-court offense than ACC point guards, that he’ll necessarily be a good half-court point guard in the NBA. I think his noticeable strength was pushing the ball in transition and that he may struggle to find other comparative advantages (or even hold his own) against the best 30-50 point adult point guards in the world.
Holiday may also struggle for different reasons, but his size might allow him to grow into a better player than Lawson in the next few years.
I find it pretty easy to imagine a scenario where Holiday doesn't make an impact.
It goes like this: T-Wolves draft Jrue Holiday. Holiday proceeds to play like he did in college. Holiday is out of the league in four years.
Man, I wish I had the kind of frame that could get me drafted in the top five without me actually having to play well against other humans at any point.
by Princely Frank on Jun 2, 2009 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Who slips then, Jordan Hill?
Yikes! I don’t even want our FO to be tempted to take him!
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions
The Whole "Constantly Upgrade" Idea...
Is one I strongly approve of. The best teams build around their best players but don’t overcommit to those players by paying them too much or thinking they’re irreplaceable. A team doesn’t even have to be perfect in this area; Detroit had a playoff team and traded two of the starters on that team (Clifford Robinson and Michael Curry) for backups (Bob Sura and Lindsey Hunter). They also blew it in the ‘03 draft and lucked out in the Rasheed Wallace trade (highway robbery) and Billups signing (not that he became good but that the Wolves didn’t realize the severity of Brandon’s injury and wouldn’t commit to him). They lost Ben Wallace and Mehmet Okur in free agency, traded Corliss Williamson (a good bench player for them) for Derrick Coleman (played in 5 games all season).
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 1, 2009 12:23 PM CDT reply actions
Al talked about coming in lighter
Corey Cove on KFAN interviewed Jefferson during the Lupus drive this weekend. Among the fairly benign questions, Humble Rumble did toss in that he’s looking to come in lighter next year.
Al explained that he’d bulked up somewhat to play center this season, but that he thought it would be better for the knee to get back down a bit. He said he’d talked to Kahn about that, actually.
Not sure how that plays into the position talk.
I heard that..
….and was glad Kahn mentioned he should slim down a bit. I can’t believe players want to bulk up after knee injuries.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Love
Is the guy that needs to get lighter. If our hope is that he can stay with the face-up 4’s, we need him to be as mobile as possible without losing the natural strength he has to hold his ground in the post and rebound. By lighter, that may mean staying the same weight but replacing fat with muscle. I don’t know what his ideal weight should be, but I do know having a body fat % in double-digits is unacceptable for a starting NBA 4-man these days.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Love also got interviewed, right after Al J.
Kevin L started the interview, almost, by saying “The leaner, meaner Kevin Love.” Then he talked about how cool yoga class was, because it gets you loose and lets you be around a lot of attractive young women.
(As a regular attender of health club classes, I cannot disagree. Men are afraid to attend ‘em. They’re fun classes.)
Congrats SnP on...
“…I thought it would be a good idea to throw out a few discussion topics that will…shall we say…spark a spirited discussion.”
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Thanks to everyone...
….for taking part in it. I’m hoping we’ll have some more good topics to keep everyone interested until the draft.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I think some of the disagreement about Al stems from style of play preferences.
Fans that like small ball, love Big Al at the C. Fans that like teams built on size from the inside/out want to see Big Al at the PF. The reality is that he can play both positions capably. So the question of is he a C or PF depends on the style of ball the Wolves want to play. With Love on the roster now, he is clearly the C on this team.
I for one would prefer to see him paired with a bigger player because I like to build with a lot of interior size, but I understand the small-ball arguments here.
With that said, I agree with the fact that the perimeter needs upgrading more than the PF and C positions on this squad. I also think that we need one player that can provide positive minutes off the bench that is bigger that Big Al so that we can match up with the longer teams in the league when needed. I don’t care if that player comes from the bench in some games and starts in others. Big Al and Love both need rest during games so I don’t see a problem with a three player rotation similar to what Wim (Belgium) explained above:
" it’s obvious to me the minutes should be spread like this:
Love (35) – Jefferson (13)
Jefferson (23) – ??? (25)"
I can get behind that minute rotations
As long as we don’t pay the ??? (25) player starter money to be a 3rd big in the rotation. A Mullens or Gibson in the draft developing into that role over time as this team matures seems a better bet to me than paying market value for a Veteran over the next 3-5 years when the window of success with the current roster isn’t quite open yet.
I do think..
…that Wim has the best idea in terms of how to divvy up the minutes. As long as Love and Al are getting starters minutes, I think they can be creative. That being said, they will likely have the first crack at the best non-Rubio PG in the draft. That’s tough to walk away from for a backup 4/5.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
My only concern with taking the “best non-Rubio PG in the draft” is that we won’t have any idea who that player is, on Draft Night.
If, somehow, Harden or Thabeet falls to #6, I’d feel more comfortable drafting them and doing whatever it takes to get a decent point guard later…there might be a point guard sitting there at #18 that many thought would go in the middle of the lottery. In fact, it’s probably a good bet, considering the number of point guard prospects and the wide range in projections for each of these guys:
Curry
Jennings
Holiday
Maynor
Lawson
Flynn
Either 7 of the 17 first picks are point guards, or one of these guys will be on the board at #18.
I just use that term.....
….to not stir up a hornets nest. I think Curry is far and away the best guard in the draft ;) And the best point at that. In a pick-and-roll league I think he’s going to be an insane player and I’m worried he’ll be off the board before 6.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
SnP
If the big men hedge the pick hard, my concern on Curry is that he doesn’t have the speed to turn the corner, the handles to split the defenders, or the length to get the pass off to the roller. The pick and roll can be defended with a hard hedge and recovery. I’m fine with Curry at #6 but he isn’t infallible.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 1, 2009 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions
If big men hedge hard...
….they’ll have Love rolling towards the hoop (or popping) with Big Al waiting on the block. I know he’s not infallible but he’s got the quickest shot I’ve seen in a long, long time and Love can set picks like few other players in the league. A lot is made of his outlet passing but I think his best intangible is his ability to set a screen. It’s textbook. He gets low and eats up a ton of space and he always leaves the pick in a position that opens him up for a shot or ideal rebounding position. It’s uncanny how well he works it.
I’d argue that you don’t need speed to break a hard hedge with a split or a turn. You need hesitation, handle and the understanding of the angles at play. I think putting Curry with Love on the pick and roll puts together two of the most efficient and smart players in recent college memory together doing something where they can overcome a lot of physical limitations with their teamwork. Stockton and Malone were the greatest pick and roll duo of all time and they weren’t athletic dynamos. Not comparing the two (yet), but the pick and roll is an equalizer to superior athletic talent. It doesn’t hurt to be quick enough to take the corner no matter what, but you can get by with less.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
One thing is for sure...
He can shoot, and I’m good with that.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 2, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Birdman or Loon
I think the Wolves are set with Al and Love as the starting bigs. I agree that the pining for a “true center” is overblown, Al and Love complement each other well. What is needed is a third big that is good. Preferably you have someone with great length and a defensive mind-set, as this would complement Love and Al nicely in the rotation. Someone in the mold of Chris Andersen would be ideal – limited minutes, energy, defensive focus. Minnesota’s Loon?
Andersen seems to be an efficient and valuable role player and is FA this summer, but he probably earned himself a nice payday with his play this year into the playoffs and I doubt Denver let him go or that he wants to leave.
What I have been hoping for is a trade with Washington for a similar but younger player, JaVale McGee. He’s young, raw, very long, freaky athleticism, and seems to live to block shots and run the floor for dunks.
The Wizards are a viable trade partner because they need to shed salary to get under the tax and they are in a win-now mode with Arenas coming back. The Wolves have cap space to absorb a big contract and the patience to develop a raw player like McGee with limited bench minutes (and a tutor like McHale, maybe). Add in the chance to pry away the #5 pick in the draft as well (again, due to Washington’s horrible cap situation) and trade scenarios abound.
My preference, which I think is pretty fair value for both sides:
Foye, Smith, #18 pick for Thomas, McGee, #5 pick.
Wizards get veteran back court help in Foye, some front court scoring off the bench in Smith, still get a decent pick in the draft, and get under the tax by dumping Etan Thomas’s hefty contract.
The Wolves take on Thomas’s salary, but it’s an expiring (plus, maybe he can be a serviceable bench player again this season), add length in the front court and the longed-for “rim protection” in McGee, plus a rookie back court with picks 5 and 6 in the shape of Harden or DeRozan and Curry.
Winners all around, I say. Or is such a trade lop-sided one way or the other? Not viable? It seems like a good idea to me, but what do I know? Apologies for the length of this comment and the lack of humor in its title.
The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness
This trade isn't in the Ballpark
-Foye would be a 3rd guard at best with the Wizards
-Rhino doesn’t have a ton of league-wide value
-McGee would be a Top 10 pick if he was in this draft.
-The most realisitc option is a swap along the lines of Miller/18 for Thomas/5. This actually doesn’t hurt our 2010 Cap Space only our 2009-2010 on the court product.
-You have the right idea on McGee
-Birdman’s a much better help defender than on the ball defender. I’m not saying he’s not good but considering his age I wouldn’t exceed the mid-level for him.
-I don’t think the Wolves will use thier Mid-Level.
Also one point that needs to be stated their is a lot more to interior Defense than block-shots (Example- Golden State Warriors) (Example- Anderson Varejao)
I think it could go...
…with 18, Gomes, Miller, and Pekovic for 5 and McGee (and filler salary). That’s a hefty price to pay but they get 2 top 10 picks and a backup 4/5 without breaking the bank. It pretty much ends any idea of bringing on a big contract player but I suppose that’s ok.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Cash Money
I think that dumping the salary of either Etan Thomas or Mike James, or both, is of significant value to the Wizards, considering it saves them twice the money by getting under the tax.
I think Foye, while a mild disappointment so far, still has decent value around the league. Plus, the Wizards need some low post scoring (Rhino) off their bench, of which they get little to nothing at the moment.
Maybe if the Wolves can eat both the James and Thomas contracts, sending back Foye, Smith, #18, that could garner McGee and #5. It eats up all of this year’s Wolves cap space (which looks to be about $9m if the cap is at $60m), but none in 2010.
If the tax is at $70m (for arguments sake), effectively the Wizards get Foye, Smith, #18, PLUS approx. $15m in savings ($9.3m in salary savings AND $5.9m in tax savings (plus the difference in salary between #5 and #18) ).
That’s a lot of moolah the Wolves are effectively handing over (in addition to Foye and Smith) for McGee and the #5 pick. Plus, the Wiz will be able to use most of the MLE, if they wish, without incurring the tax. That’s valuable to a contending team.
In such a scenario, I think you can legitimately ask whether the Wolves are overpaying, particularly in this economy. Maybe Taylor would even balk at the price tag of one year of Thomas and James?
Plus, I agree, I don’t see the Wolves using the MLE this year.
The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness
by Victor Mature on Jun 1, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions
trade
this leaves the Wizards will one servicable big man with a history of injuries. I think the Wizards hang onto McGee. He’s inexpensive and he has some experience. They are much more likely to try to get back some actual talent and/or shed contracts by trading their draft pick not by trading young talent, unless it’s Nick Young.
I'm not going to expand too much energy into this debate
But Mike Pravda from the Wizards Blog thought most trade scenarios presented here seemed like a stretch. The only way a trade like this works is if the Wizards value Pekovic quite a bit higher than McGee or the Wolves take back Songalia and Stevenson’s contract. Although Songalia isn’t considered that overpaid by their fans.
Just want to clarify
That he though most of the trade offers including McGee were a stretch. He sounded agreeable to some kind of Miller/Gomes for #5 and Scraps.
I also agree with you on this S+P
Jefferson and Love are the two best players on the squad, and there’s no reason to limit Love by insisting Jefferson play the 4. I do have a question for you, though, because I can’t seem to find the information myself. I seem to recall regular discussions at Brtii’s place this season that Jefferson was significantly more efficient when he did play the PF, as opposed to being the center. Am I misremembering this? I can’t seem to find the stats that were thrown around about this…Do you remember?
Are you thinking about his positional splits at 82games?
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN15.HTM
Though they show that he only played 2% of his minutes at PF and was still more effective at C, so that might not be it.
yeah...
…it was an example of small sample size theater. Here’s a more even split from his last year in Boston:
http://www.82games.com/0607/06BOS13C.HTM
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Okay, people
if Rubio stays in Spain, the first five players picked could be:
1. Griffin
2. Harden
3. Curry
4. DeRozan
5. Evans
And at #6, we have the choice between Jordan Hill and Thabeet. If you have to pick one, whom do you take? If you get a trade offer, do you take whatever you can get so you’re not forced to pay 6th pick money to two potential back-up players?
Ugh
That’s a depressing thought.
The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness
by Victor Mature on Jun 1, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions
If that happens
and we take Thabeet, I will have learned all I need to know about the David Kahn administration.
Here’s hoping Memphis takes Thabeet.
That...
…is definitely the worst case scenario. I think at that point you either have some very good scouting on Flynn or Holiday (both of whom are gaining steam) or you trade the pick for an established player on a team that likes Flynn or Holiday, as I think they’re the guys who would go in that area.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
That could be worst case . . .
but not unlikely. Plus, don’t discount the stupidity of the GMs of the top five teams, or somebody trading up, but if you were picking for each team one through five, you probably wouldn’t draft Hill or Thabeet (or Flynn or Holliday), either.
Just making sure we’re all grounded in reality—
Also! In 20 more days, the days start getting shorter again.
we now have this to look forward to in november along with the nba being back for the bottom dwellers
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-left-4-dead/49968
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Good--you can get it for your kids
for Christmas. Post a pic of them playing it whilst wearing their matching Bassy jerseys.
;)
zombie killing is strictly an adult sport
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I think some middle schools in the rural areas have
“Zombie Killing Safety” for 7th graders.
BTW, before you puke up and out your Josh Childress post, I thought you might like this perspective.
Childress
1. They think he’s going to give them minutes at the 4. This could only work against extreme-perimeter oriented players.
2. Here’s a real good write up from Peachtree Hoops on Childress:
http://www.peachtreehoops.com/2008/9/19/617780/review-preview-team-offens
WOW drives home many of the same points
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/the-childress-revolution/
3. As far as being an average defender based on the numbers cited.
Here’s DX’s scouting Report on Childress’s Perimeter Defense from Spring 2008
“Atlanta’s most fundamentally sound defender. Doesn’t have ideal foot-speed, but has tremendous defensive intangibles and a great wingspan. Reads ball-handlers extremely well, and creates turnovers by getting into passing lanes. Length and effort make him a very good perimeter defender. Lacks the bulk to defend strong players in the post, but makes an effort to deny entry passes by working hard to take away angles. Gets beat off the dribble periodically, but doesn’t give up anything easy at the rim. Does a good job of rotating with the ball. Isn’t reckless when closing out his man off of skip passes. Still manages to block a few shots due in large part to his long arms and good timing. Has great timing and knows how to get his team extra possessions.”
So I think the stats cited are a bit like Al’s Plus/Minus last year- they don’t tell quite the whole story.
4. As far as the jump-shot numbers. His Incredible Shooting PCTS make the point clear that he makes some of the best decisions as far as what shots to take of any player in Basketball. He’s also quite capable of getting in the lane and creating for others. I honestly think he could serve in a point forward role next year.
by Jose Cordoba on Jun 1, 2009 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions
The real question is: Can you wield a shotgun and a chainsaw at the same time?
by Kevin Loves McHale's Navy on Jun 1, 2009 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I can't wait to see....
….Rami’s new one. I’m going this weekend.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
"Drag Me To Hell" was fantastic.
Highly recommended to all who like to laugh at hilarious dismemberment.
by Princely Frank on Jun 2, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
L4D is way fun.
Good times. God bless Valve.
by Princely Frank on Jun 2, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
defending Foye
It wasn’t the original topic of conversation, but discussion here and elsewhere on the terms of a trade package with Washington has got me wondering what people have been smokin’. While Foye has his faults and would need to share more time at SG, he is still two or three years ahead of any draft prospect we’d get (even at five) and would be a top flight 6th man on any NBA team. I understand that perimeter defence has sucked – even said so publicly during the January euforia – but don’t write Foye off so quickly that you’d trade him as part of a package for overpaid garbage that’ll never see playing time.
A good bit of that increased effectiveness by the opposition on the perimeter is that 3/4 of the NBA teams came in here expecting that they would win – even if, in the end, on many nights it took more energy than they’d expected. When an opposition team comes in with “swag” they’re much more relaxed about shooting the 3, and a 15% performance increase should not be unexpected. On the other hand, if the end result is in question from the get-go, the dynamic changes completely. Quite simply, a more potent T-Wolves offence – with healthy players and effectve backups through the gruelling 82-game schedule – would be an effective counter tactic.
why so horny to wheel and deal with losers?
People, first of all, you’ve got to understand that Washington has dug itself into a serious hole. They’ve got more than a few brutal contracts to dump in order to get under the luxury tax and a lot of the talk about how they “might consider” trading what basically amounts to their junk players for our good ones and future cap space, etc. is just so much bluff and bluster. Sure they’ve got themselves an interesting core (… though let’s see what happens with Arenas next fall) but it’s come at a cost of taking on too many and too fat other contracts. Minnesota, of all franchises, should be able to relate to this.
Anyway, seems to me that the writing is on the wall: Washington – to put it bluntly – is WASHED UP.
What they need to do to survive is to find some sucker organization that can’t even effectively evaluate their own talent (…sound familiar?). Otherwise, come luxury-tax deadline time, they’ll be frantically pushing the “just-take-him-off-our-hands… someone please!” route of Phoenix in 2007 who GAVE AWAY two future first-round draft picks to the organization that would be willing to take on the contract of one of the overhyped players. (Sorry, can someone here help fill in the details?)
It just staggers me that not only are some people thinking that Foye should go, but also that they would be willing to include Miller too, along with our 18th pick, all just to get a number five pick in a weak draft.
People, where are your heads?
The thing about trades
Is that both sides have to agree to them. Maybe you’ve got insider access to the Wizards balance sheet, but their owner has come out saying he’s willing to pay the tax. Arenas was their highest paid player last season and he didn’t play, I think they have more reason for optimism than you’re willing to give them.
Additionally, Miller is an asset that has to be used this summer otherwise he plays out his contract, leaves via FA, and the Wolves receive nothing of value for acquiring him in the Mayo/Love trade. Including him in any deal with Washington is essential because he is the exact type of player they need. As far as Foye, love him or hate him, he’s a polarizing player who will be a restricted free agent soon that will have be valued. What is he worth? I woudl happily prefer that Washington answer that question while we use the #5 to set up a backcourt at the 1 and 2 that make sense together.
Phoenix gave away picks outside the lottery, this is a top 5 pick. Washington may be in financial trouble, but they aren’t going to give away an assett like this, it wouldn’t fly with the fanbase, and it doesn’t make sense under any microscope.
Talking about #5 in a weak Draft
Check out the 2007 draft where the Sonics gave up Ray Allen to get the #5 and expirings. Ray Allen is a far superior player than either Foye or Miller, and that draft after esentially Durant was putrid. I don’t think Miller/Foye for #5 + Junk or Miller/Gomes for #5 + junk are bad deals for the Wolves at all.
What do I care what Washington needs?
Did the Sonics indeed do that? ESPN NBA Draft History lists Durant going to the Sonics at #2 and Jeff Green going to the Celtics at #5.
Maybe I can buy Durant being more valuable that Ray Allen for Seattle’s plans, but who the hell is Jeff Green (or maybe that should be “Where the hell is Jeff Green?”). I hardly think that dumb moves by other organizations hardly justify our doing something similar. Dumb moves are dumb moves.
The other illustrious standouts in that draft are, in order: Greg Oden, Al Horford, Mike Conley, Yi Jianlian (@ #6), Corey Brewer, Brandon Wright, Joakim Noah, and Spencer Hawes @ 10. In the remaining top-30, the standout names are Thaddeus Young (12), Al Thorton (14), Rodney Stuckey (15), Rudy Fernandez (24), and Aaron Brooks (26). Can’t say as I recognize many of the other names, even though we’re now two full years in.
In 2006 Sheldon Williams was the #5 pick, just ahead of Brandon Roy and Randy Foye. (T-Wolves fans crap all over the Roy-Foye trade but five other organizations gave him the pass too.) The next players of note are WAY down in the draft in the 21- (Rondo) to-27 (Sergio Rodriguez) range. LaMarcus Aldridge was drafted second after Bargnani.
2005 had a strong top ten draft with only Martell Webster and Ike Diogu not panning out. IMO, half of the rest of the top thirty worked out, which again showed it as a very good year. 2004 was also strong, with half the top 30 working out ok. You still could have picked up Anderson Varejao in the second round @30 and Trevor Arista @43 but the rest are no names.
2003 gets a lot of publicity, but after you get by LB James, C. Anthony, C. Bosh, and D. Wade you only have problematic or journeyman players in the top ten (Kaman, Hinrich, T.J. Ford, Sweeney, and Jarvis Hayes) and thereafter. There’s almost nothing in the second round. The number two pick? Darko Milicic to the Pistons.
2002 , with a very weak field, brought us only Yao Ming (1), Drew Gooden (4), Amare Stoudemire (9), and Caron Butler (10). Luis Scola was also drafted that year @57. Pretty much all of the rest are eminently forgettable.
My point is that the draft is a crap shoot and even having a top five pick is absolutely no guarantee of an exceptional-quality ball player. Every one of those that went high were thoroughly hyped by their agents and by fans anxious to find instant solutions. There were many, many more losers than winners, the handful of superstars notwithstanding. Maybe it’s time that GM’s and scouts started looking harder at D-League players (e.g., Blake Ahearn)… players who are dedicating their lives full-time to basketball with the hope of breaking in, versus overrated and pampered college jocks.
Foye is a RESTRICTED free agent (meaning, in our interest to continue developing); I like Stop-n-Pop’s assessment of his pre-hip point injury days http://www.canishoopus.com/2009/4/17/841317/looking-back-pt-ii-the-january. In my books he’s two or three years ahead of Harden at being able to share a SG or sixth man 1-2 role.
Finally, I don’t follow your point about Miller. He’s currently being paid about $10M and while that’s over valued by maybe $3-$4M, it came as part of the K-Love deal and we were able to dump a lot more salary than that. He knows he’s going to FA next year, so you can expect him to play his heart out once again this year. If the T-Wolves do well, he may indeed have a preference to stay and we’d have a preference to pay him according to market value at that time. In any case, to say we get nothing of value unless we trade him off now for junk just doesn’t carburate. Maybe you’d like to explain further.
I don't even know where to begin
The sonics did do that, they just couldn’t trade the pick until after it was made due to the rules of not being able to trade a draft pick in consecutive years (Not quoting the exact language of the rule here I’m sure), but if you look up the Thunder’s roster, you’ll see Jeff Green on it.
Thanks for the recap of recent draft history, I am not suggesting that whomever we pick at #5 is going to be the certain answers to our basketball prayers. My point in regards to Miller is that I don’t envision the Wolves resigning Mike after his contract expires. You disagree and that can be a subject of debate, but assuming we don’t resign him, letting him play out this year in order to win 5-10 more games while still missing the playoffs is not a valuable use of an asset.
Foye is a restricted free agent. What this means is that the wolves will tender him an offer based on the contract he signed has a rookie, Foye can go out on the open market and sign with another team giving the wolves the ability to match, or in the likely case, he will play out the year and become an unrestricted free agent the following year. I don’t disagree with your statement that he is 1-2 years ahead of Harden at this point, my thinking is that Harden with his superior length, better shooting, and better ability to finish at the rim will be a better fit as a starting 2 Guard. I certainly understand if you disagree, but as the discussion in this post shows, fans aren’t convinced we have enough length at other positions so replacing Foye with a longer player on the perimiter makes sense to me.
Finally, if you’ll read some of the previous posts from Wizards fans, they have absolutely no interest in attaining Foye who seem to imply should be untouchable, so it really is a moot point. The proposed trade as stated above is Gomes/Miller for #5/bad contracts. Yes we would be taking back bad contracts, but as has been stated, it may be best to use our cap space in this way acquiring young talent versus sitting with 20 Million in capspace trying to convince one of “the overrated and pampered college jocks” who actually became quality basketball players to come freeze their buts off in Minneapolis while receiving little national notoriety.
In addition
I apologize if my post was confrontational, that was not my intent, I wasn’t trying to minimize your takes on the current Wolves situation, I’m just passionate about the team and the draft.
run that by me again
Hey! I can appreciate the passion about the team …though not necessarily about the draft! I’ve read some wisdom here or from one of the other great T-Wolves bloggers (man, the contributions rock!) about finding value by looking at what other people overvalue financially (shooting vs facilitating, etc.; maybe it was a comment on what Presti is doing in OKC). My point about the draft is that it’s tremendously overhyped, but what the heck? If your team has not even made post-season it’s hard to get your fix otherwise. I don’t disagree that rookie scale contracts can be a good deal; I do seriously disagree that it’s worth giving away millions of dollars in game-tested talent in order to roll the dice with extra picks.
What was your point about the Sonics trade? That they got played, or that the Celtics got played?
I understand the bit about the restricted free agent, although writing it up the way you did, a person kind of loses sight of the essential: “sign with another team giving the wolves the ability to match”. Restricted means that the team gets to keep the guy by simply putting in a matching offer.
Also I’m not in the least afraid of Free Agency, though I would have been in the past. While it does make planning a bit uncertain, paying market value for your talent – from this season forward – means just that: paying market value. Considering the lowered luxury tax floor, corporate America’s inability or unwillingness to splurge on suites while at the same time they’re laying off people at all levels, cut-rate pricing and shakey season-ticket sales, ailing owner finances and a new CBA on the horizon, etc., etc. (see http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/02/16/how-a-lower-luxury-tax-could-kill-10-nba-teams/) – in other words, the effects of a recession that’s not about to end anytime soon, no matter how much we get caught up in fantasizing about sports teams – market value most likely will mean contract renewals running at 50 to 70% of former value. We’ll see come the Fall.
Again, you concede that Foye is 1-2 years ahead of Harden and yet you claim “better shooting, and better ability to finish at the rim”. This, of course, is unfounded – we have very little idea whether Harden can do this better than Foye at the NBA level, as there is no experience – and therefore no evidence – to base this claim on. Harden may have superior length. Does this automatically make him a better player? What percent of our total assessment should we give to this factor for this position? Foye plays with heart and shows brief periods of elite-level performance… how do we evaluate THAT? And an even bigger question: how do we evaluate players’ performance when they are playing hurt?
Ebomb, our agreement to disagree gets even worse, since I think Gomes is at least as valuable as Foye, and Miller moreso.
Finally, it really makes very little difference what fans think of potential trades. What matters is what the owners think of them, based on advice from their front office. You say that Washington’s owner has said that he’ll pay whatever it takes (…based on Arenas’ coming back? Wow!). Do you honestly think that ANY owner would freely turn over huge sums in fines at a rate of dollar-for-dollar for multimillion-dollar contracts in excess of the luxury tax to other NBA teams? Weakening yourself while strengthening the opposition is the epitomy of strategic stupidity… and I can’t believe anyone with the intelligence to earn the money in the first place would be interested in doing that. Read again what I said about bluff and bluster… and try not to get sucked in. The NBA franchises that will come out strong after the present shakeout are those like OKC where GM Sam Presti, with only $29M committed to salaries next year, could probably make money for the owners just on the luxury tax transfers alone.
And, no, there is no rush or reason to fill up the capspace unless you can get excellent value for your investment… something that we’ll probably see happening later in the summer.
Bottom line: I don’t want crap players on multimillion-dollar salaries sitting at the end of the T-Wolves bench. Bad enough with the current lot, but at least they’re on their way out and in the meantime, as veterans, they’re valuable as mentors and for practices.
My mind! It’s blown!
Nice post. I agree a Jefferson/Love frontcourt, while maybe not perfectly complimentary, can be adequate, and given some more time the hope is they make up for whatever they yield defensively on the offensive end (and then some). I think they need to commit to finding more length, athleticism, and D on the perimeter, and they should be fine. (Too bad Holiday’s rising up the boards; I was hoping he’d be there at #18; I think he has a shot at becoming the player a lot of people think Tyreke Evans might be.)
I hope they can find a long, agile guy to compliment what they have up front sometime in the next couple years. I’m keeping a spot warm for Al Farouq Aminu, a guy who might be able to play all 3 frontcourt positions for spots before settling in as a huge small forward.
I'm kind of upset...
…that he didn’t declare. He’s another guy that fits the physical profile of what the Wolves need.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
This is a Great Post
I really appreciate the discussion all-around.
My New Favorite Real GM Trade Proposal
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=909981
This could solve all the team’s issues.
Including my interest in the team
;)
Oy.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Don't you mean "my new random Real GM trade proposal"?
Al is a center that doesn’t play good defense. Trading Love for Dalembert leaves us with two starting centers. No thanks.
I can only wait and see...
I totally disagree with the take that Jefferson is viable at the center without surrounding him with larger (and better than) than average PF and SFs. Despite Kevin Love’s abilities, even assuming his development on offense, he doesn’t fit that model. And I don’t see Love being viable at PF without a dominant center. Playing them together limits the Timberwolves to a “mediocre at best” level. FIrst round playoffs, no more, and that’s assuming “best case” at wing/pg.
This team is in tatters and it will take years to recover from a decade of mismanagment. An already empty Target Center indicates that whatever “good will” may have existed has been exhausted. A new coach and a virtually new roster to match is the only approach that I see that could return the Wolves to competitiveness at the WCF level and bring folks back to the arena while it develops. I just don’t see an incremental approach working based on the players the Wolves have now.
I think that a couple of “major” three way trades might result in the base for a competitive team and that there should be no “sacred cows”.
Does Kahn (and most importantly Glen Taylor) have the gumption to get it done?
I can only wait and see…
I think the Wolves have years to draw back fans, if they can see a positive direction for the team. What I would be most afraid of, if I was papa Glen is the “few” remaining stalwart fans turning thier back on the franchise. If you can’t get this remaining fan base excited about who we draft and the direction the team is headed in, then hello Seattle. You don’t scrap the team and have no organizational “Face” that the fans recognize and can identify with if you want to keep the fan base. We do have the base for a competitive team, especially if everyone comes back healthy. I don’t see the wolves making the playoffs next year, no matter who they draft, but 35-40 wins is a healthy start and we can continue to winnow out the bad and the “almost” good enough for better players.
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
The face of the organization
is and will be Kevin Love, for better or worse.
Hence, the apt slogan “Nothing But Love” for the Wolves’ offseason marketing efforts.
The Wolves don’t have a “remaining fan base” that’s large enough to attract sufficient paying customers into the Target Center to cover Crunch’s salary. Much less the electric bill. Or the rent. Or the marketing department. Certainly not an NBA team.
If the team “stays the course” that it’s been on, then yes, it’s hello Seattle.
I do agree with you on one thing: If the Wolves take the incremental route, they won’t make the playoffs next year. Or the next, and probably the one after that.
really?
I might believe you if there weren’t hundreds of people spending so much time writing in T-Wolves blogs. Heck, even with inflated numbers (in order to avoid negative publicity), cross town competition, and the mausoleum that is Target Center, the team actually doesn’t draw that bad.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
