Canis Hoopus: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Voodoo Five for South Florida Bulls Fans!

Executive Search: Randy Pfund

Hpg0708_pfund_072007_medium

via www.nba.com

You may have noticed that I've thus far skipped David Kahn in the Executive Search process. He is, after all, the longest publicly-known candidate for the Timberwolves' GM position. But after the dust settled on last week's Dennis Lindsey kerfuffle, Randy Pfund's name popped up. And he seems interested in the job. I think it was Stop-n-Pop (apologies if the attribution is incorrect) that made a very important point: if Kahn was so high on the list and a new candidate surfaced, odds are he's not a good bet here in the home stretch, otherwise why not just hire him? Ergo, Pfund is today's man.

The toughest part about judging Pfund's tenure in Miami (Executive VP of Player Personnel from September 1995 to November 1996 when he was promoted to General Manager) is the persistent presence of Pat Riley in said front office. Riles was hired as President and Head Coach of the Heat in September 1995, two weeks before Pfund was brought on, and remains today as team President.

In the 13 year reign of this duo (95/96 to 07/08), the Heat made the playoffs 10 times and won a championship, with only 3 losing seasons. Their effort was good for a 524-428 regular season record (.547 winning percentage). Not a bad run at all.

The most noticeable trend in their personnel strategy is favoring veterans over youngsters, no doubt the reason they continually made the playoffs. They traded their 1st round pick away 5 times in that span, with 4 of the moves targeting a veteran (Alonzo Mourning, Brent Barry, Brian Grant and Shaquille O'Neal).

A quick look at the 1st rounders they kept makes for an above-average resume:

  • Charles Smith at #26 in 1997,
  • Tim James at #25 in 1999,
  • Caron Butler at #10 in 2002,
  • Dwyane Wade at #5 in 2003,
  • Dorell Wright at #19 in 2004,
  • Wayne Simien at #29 in 2005,
  • Daequan Cook at #21 in 2007; and,
  • Michael Beasley at #2 in 2008.

The crown jewels, obviously, are Butler, Wade and Beasley. But these picks weren't exactly masterstrokes. Butler was known to be a tremendous talent, but fell due to "character issues" that he's obviously erased. Wade also fell after Detroit picked Darko Milicic and was far and away the best talent at #5 (yes, in hindsight, but also at the time), and the Beasley selection was essentially made for the Heat after Chicago took Derrick Rose.

They could've screwed up by taking gambles and there's really no criticism to levy against those 3 picks, but none exhibited creative or evaluative genius either.

The other picks are all forgettable, with Wright and Cook proving to be respectable NBA talents, but not starters on a contender. Simien was a Timberwolf for less than a week and only fell out of the league due to injury. And Smith and James never did much of anything.

As I try to make obvious to anyone who will listen, I'm not a fan of mortgaging the future for high-priced veterans in a win-now strategy. It worked for Boston for one year and it worked for the Heat in 05/06, but both teams look very run-down after their championship runs.

On the other hand, who am I to argue with success? They won rings, didn't they? Riley and Pfund were able to evaluate the proper talent to assemble a championship team and that definitely counts for something.

But that right there is the rub. I don't know how anyone can really parse out where in those 13 years Pfund deserves credit for the team's success. Maybe he saved Riley's bacon time after time, or maybe he was merely a vessel of Big Slick's desires.

The uncertainty as to what, precisely, Pfund has accomplished is why I'm not excited about the prospect of Glen Taylor hiring him. The Timberwolves are not a team that has an obvious core of championship-calibre talent to build around. Nor do we have a good number of high-value assets to parlay into veterans that could take us to the promised land. We've got some great potential cornerstones and a stable of middling assets, but nothing that looks like it could be part of or turned into a championship team in the next 2 years.

The guy I want is someone who will come in with a completely new strategy, drawing from the success of Poppovich's tactics. Going with a Pritchard, Ferry, Presti or Lindsey is a gamble too, of course. But this team has been mired in mediocrity for a long time and the only thing that saved us from utter irrelevance was one Kevin Garnett.

It's time for the new school to run the NBA (have you heard how many young starting point guards made the playoffs this year?) and we don't have that in Minnesota. Without it, I fear we're relegated to the middle of the pack for 4 straight years, instead of using each year to grow.

0 recs  |  Comment 86 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

A couple of things...

People forget this, but Wade was far from the consensus choice at #5. I remember thinking the Heat would either take Kirk Hinrich or Chris Kaman with the pick. I agree that Butler was an obvious choice at 10, but Wade wasn’t at 5.

The second thing that’s been implied elsewhere is that Pfund’s duties have been more pronounced when Riley was coaching. So maybe the best way to measure his impact would be during those times. For example, Riley quit in training camp of the 03-04 season and came back in the middle of the 05-06 season, finally quitting at the end of last year. Basically, that would mean Riley had his most pronounced impact in the ’04 and ’05 offseasons.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 5, 2009 2:01 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

In the last sentence, do you mean Pfund?

That would indeed be a better way to measure the record.

www.canishoopus.com

by wyn on May 5, 2009 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, I mean Riley...

Those were the only offseasons in which he wasn’t coaching. Therefore, the Shaq trade, the big 4-team deal that netted them Walker, Posey, and J-Will, and the picks of Wright and Simien would be more Riley, and all of the rest would be more Pfund’s work.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 5, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Great stuff, great stuff. (voting for Hinkie next; hehe).

Though I slightly disagree with the veteran strategy thing. Every championship has a healthy mix of young a-list talent and excellent veterans who mostly fill roles. Spurs, Heat, …

Only obvious exception (again) is the Pistons, but they’re an odd little team aren’t they.

Beater of the early Thabeet drum

by Wim (Belgium) on May 5, 2009 2:01 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Fair point.

Thanks Wim.

You’re right, Wade and Haslem would definitely count as key youth in the Heat’s run in 05/06. As would Kapono. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIA/2006.html).

But the average age of the top 8 regular season minute getters (lowest was 1302, and Kapono was 9th with 665, same top 8 for the playoffs) was 30. I think it is fair to say that strategy has dominated the Heat’s personnel moves, even to this day with sacrificing cap space for Jermaine O’Neal.

www.canishoopus.com

by wyn on May 5, 2009 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh wait, he did play 1 minute and registered a Mario in that season. And 4 games the next year. But all in all he got more playoff experience and success as an active player with Toronto last year after he got his huge contract.

by Norsktroll on May 5, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

All true...

… but being the 9th highest minutes recipient during the regular season means he played SOME role in the title run. But you’re right, “key youth” is not accurate.

www.canishoopus.com

by wyn on May 5, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Minny a bad fit for Pfund

If experience using the tools you have access to is a qualifier, than Pfund is a terrible fit in MN. God bless working for Pat Riley in Miami – a city and a coach that attract free agent talent – but could Pfund operate in an environment that actually repels free agents, draft picks (see the ESPN Beasley stuff – “man, MN is coooold”), and players (see Starbury)? Without this significant arrow in Pfund’s quiver, he may be over matched.

The wolves need a GM from a non-destination city that basically eschews free agency and uses their cap space to keep homegrown stars happy and acquire disgruntled stars via trade. Thus I like San Antonio, although I think that model is now too wide spread to be a competitive advantage. For the wolves, I’d go for someone from Houston, Cleveland or Detroit – and without a transcendent player – the Detroit model is the best fit. (Yes, Wim is right that they are odd and the prospect of anyone on the current roster being a defensive stopper is laughable… so maybe the offensive version of Detroit? Damn, that feels too much like Golden State or the Knicks.)

by gill0137 on May 5, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good points

and I’m starting to appreciate Upper Midwest winters even more, if it means players like Beasley and Marbury won’t come here.

by PoorDick on May 5, 2009 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Getting nervous

I too would love to hear something more about Hinkie. Seems like the best bet at this point for bringing in a new system (unless Blanks turns out to be more than just rumors). I still think that Papa Glen should call Lindsey back and offer him whatever he wants.

I guess the last thing that I’ll say is that I am a little heartened that Denver’s new GM just won Executive of the Year. He was a relative unknown (at least to me, despite his 18 years in various FOs), but he had a vision and executed it well. I guess the big thing in drawing a comparison between him and Hoiberg is that Warkentien had a lot more FO experience.

Point still remains, tho, that just because Hoiberg interned here and is as green as the leaves outside my office window, we can’t necessarily assume that he’ll be bad. He was always a smart and competitive player who did the little things to make everyone better. He understood his role and how the team needed to play in order to win, which suggests to me that he won’t let his ego or favoritism get in the way of doing what needs to be done for the betterment of the team.

Maybe I’m just rationalizing for myself what I think the inevitable conclusion to all this will be (a lackluster hire). I could live with Hoiberg as much as I could live with Pfund, and I think we’ll have to because Papa Glen won’t make the final tough decision: go with a clean slate and new system (Lindsey/Hinkie/Blanks) or go with an attempted revamping of the old system/strategy (everyone else). I think it’s 90+% certain that PG will go with the revamping route. It’s just how he operates.

by biggity2bit on May 5, 2009 9:03 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

While I agree that I would prefer someone more

“new school”—and Lindsay turning Glen down is a bitter pill, I think this article is pretty unfair. Wade and Butler were the last really good players chosen in their resppective lotteries; it’s not so easy to get that right.

Further, getting Wight and Cook “respectable NBA talents” with picks around 20 IS pretty impressive, actually. They gathered the talent necessary to make the Shaq trade, which resulted in a championship, then were able to unload his insane salary when he became an albatross. They came up with Haslem. Chalmers. They made the playoffs after a disaster year.

It is hard to tell how much is Pfund and how much Riley, but one should note that Riley was developing and using advanced stats in LA and New York before Sam Presti was born, so one assumes Pfund might have learned something about it.

by Eric in Madison on May 5, 2009 9:05 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I think the Houston model...

…is interesting for this reason: they are the first team I’ve read about where players are really soaking up the advanced stats/prep work. There are several articles in the past few months that have made note of this but here’s the latest:

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-40-15/Houston-Gets-Defensive.html

Is this a matter of personnel, coaching, front office work? I don’t know but I think that short of the SAS model, I’d be interested in getting someone from that organization, specifically the Morey regime.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 5, 2009 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Combination of all

I agree 100% on the advanced stats/prep work as being vital to a successful team. I think every team does a good job COLLECTING stats and I’ve even asked a member of Timberwolves management about some of the specific stat models you have championed on various sites. He actually gave me examples of what the team uses, and it is really not that much different from what the Houston and SAS franchises use (from what can be gleamed through media reports on their respective models).

I think the biggest difference between us and them is in the ability of the respective staffs to relate those stats to the game and then plan accordingly. I get the feeling that you have the ability to “see between the numbers” and understand how the stats play out on the court, but If the staff doesn’t really understand how to use the stats (and I have no reason to believe McHale and Co. are very stat literate), then the collection of them is useless. It sounds like the Houston staff really understands and believes in what their stat collection is meant to accomplish and the players, in turn, by into it as well.

I think the second, maybe overlooked, piece in the analytics puzzle is finding a coach and staff who understand what the stats mean and also have the ability to relate that information to the players.

by Minneapleseed on May 5, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i definitely think..

….this is the direction basketball is headed. I think it fits more so than even baseball.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 5, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Disagree about Wright and Cook.

Wright at #19 was followed by 10 first round picks including Jameer Nelson, Delonte West, Tony Allen, Kevin Martin, Sasha Vujacic, and Beno Udrih. All are “respectable NBA talents” or better and make 6 of 10.

Cook was #21 (swapped for Jason Smith at #20) and was followed by 9 1st rounders that included Wilson Chandler, Rudy Fernandez, Aaron Brooks, three proven talents and Jared Dudley, Alando Tucker, Aaron Afflalo (5 guys who still have potential to be rotation players in the league) and two well-regarded foreigners in Tiago Splitter and Petteri Koponen.

None of this is to denigrate Wright, Cook, Riley or Pfund, it’s just to say that I think it qualifies as “average” drafting.

Re: Wade, I recall him being mentioned with Bosh and Anthony as the can’t miss stuff after LeBron, but I could definitely be incorrect.

And, again acknowledging the possibility that I’m remembering this incorrectly, for 2002, my point about Butler was that at 10 he and Jared Jeffries were the only top-tier talent left on the, making the pick a bit easier than picking in the middle of the top tier.

Maybe I just like the shiny wheel-and-deal style of Pritchard and Presti, but my point about Pfund and Riley’s drafting is certainly not that it’s been “bad.” It just doesn’t show the creativity I think is necessary to build a talented young team quickly.

www.canishoopus.com

by wyn on May 5, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "creativity" in their drafts

they made the trades for Cook and Chalmers. I’m not saying there weren’t other players they could have drafted that might have helped, but getting help at picks 19 and 21 is a good thing. Look, obviously getting a transcendent star like Wade at #5 is a huge bonus and a bit of luck. But, unlike a certain team in the upper midwest, they were able to convert that luck at the #5 pick into a title.

I don’t know. I’m not entirely sure how it is that I’m defending Pfund, but what they did looks pretty good from where I sit.

by Eric in Madison on May 5, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're right

The Cook/Smith swap and Chalmers purchase were definitely creative. They decided who they wanted to draft and went after them. In one case they maximized the value of their pick while getting their guy, and in the other they found someone who was willing to trade them their guy.

What I had in mind, though, was more along the lines of OKC when they decided 2007 was the year to go get a 2nd top 5 pick and align their rebuilding moves, instead of taking a safer, one-step at a time approach.

Or Portland’s 2006 where they went in with #4 and walked out with #2 & #6.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs or over-using 20/20 hindsight. And you’re right, what they did was good overall, 10/13 seasons to the playoffs and a ring is very good. It’s just not an apparent fit for my ideal Timberwolves rebuilding direction.

www.canishoopus.com

by wyn on May 5, 2009 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Was Pfund Involved..

.. in the Ricky Davis, Mark Blount trade with the trade where McHale & Stack completely fleeced Miami. If so, I want nothing to do with him.

by Biff Cooper on May 5, 2009 11:26 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

If so,

Pfund could have been a victim of reverse psychology.

“This doesn’t SOUND like a good deal for us, but if I’m making it with Kevin McHale, it MUST be!”

The Wolves can only play this card so often.

by PoorDick on May 5, 2009 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am worried that he is not actively engaged in this years draft. Fred is a better option than this guy.

by revprodeji on May 5, 2009 2:39 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

yep

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 5, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

let me ³rd this. I’d like to have someone from the outside but Freddie sounds better than Pfund.

Beater of the early Thabeet drum

by Wim (Belgium) on May 6, 2009 4:10 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

we don't know

anymore about Hoiberg’s role in the Twolves than we know about Pfund’s role with the Heat. At best, we know a tad more about Pfund because Riley stepped down from time to time, but how can we be sure that Riley was not still a strong presence in the front office when he was coaching?

Bottom line: We don’t know that much about Hoiberg or Pfund.

I see no reason to trust Hoiberg at all, nor do I see any reason to trust Pfund. How do we even know that Hoiberg is smart? I have no evidence.

But yet, I’ve gone from worrying that Taylor won’t make any changes to worrying that he’ll make a bad change in a lame attempt to appease fans like me. God damn you, Taylor.

by littleboxes on May 5, 2009 3:03 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

It could be argued

That any change made is positive change for this franchise.

by biggity2bit on May 5, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agree completely with littleboxes

I would not argue that any change made would be a positive change for the franchise. We are sitting in pretty good overall shape right now. We just haven’t quite amassed enough quality talent to start winning. That will come if we stay the course. The last thing we need is someone coming in and changing just for change sake and screwing everything up.

by Biff Cooper on May 5, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I should define

bad change.

By bad change I mean the hiring of a Pfund or Kahn, who has not been involved in basketball decisions this year or recently. As stop-n-pop has pointed out, it would be great to hire someone who actually knows this year’s draft class.

I still have a hard time accepting a Hoiberg led front office though. Accepting Hoiberg makes me feel like an idiot blinded by Iowa charm and a nice back story. I am not saying that people who like Hoiberg are idiots, I’m saying that I worry about Hoiberg, because he seems like a non-entity to me.

Suppose, in a tragic chemical accident almost the entire Front Offices of San Antonio, Houston, and the Lakers are killed. Only one key high-level decision maker remains in each front office(let’s say RC Buford in SAS, Daryl Morey in Houston, etc.). This decision maker, however, only has one month to live. Thus, each decision makers must pick a new leader for its front office. (Let’s just assume this is how they want to spend their last month alive).

Would RC Buford even entertain the idea of hiring Hoiberg to run his club? We can ask the same question of Pfund or Kahn. Of course, if Lindsay had not been killed in this tragic chemical spill, Buford would select him, that’s something we know, since he hired him as assistant GM.

Why can’t the Wolves hire a candidate that would be a competitive candidate in a search directed by RC Buford. That would be nice.

by littleboxes on May 5, 2009 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

I agree with you completely. Very well put (better than my ramblings anyways.)

by biggity2bit on May 5, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreed....

…but I still view Hoiberg as a lesser evil than Kahn or Pfund; two guys who are out of the league and would have significant roadblocks with hitting the ground running. Hoiberg at least knows this draft. I’d be disappointed but continuity (however bad) is preferable to bringing in someone from the Heat or Pacers….actually, formerly of the Heat and Pacers.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 5, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Devil's advocate

I don’t think this is what you’re saying, but would you be happy then if McHale stayed on as GM? The fact that we’re in “good position” now is credit to McHale, however much it pains me to admit that. Again, I don’t think this is the sentiment you’re trying to raise, but it does beckon the question.

For me, the biggest gripe I have with the Wolves FO is that they have given me absolutely no confidence in their ability to consistently improve the team. KG covered a lot of ills for a long time for this FO.

Glen Taylor also was not stingy with this team, signing KG to a ton of money, signing T-Huddy, Joe Smith, and Wally World to big contracts, not to mention Olowakandi. They took on Blount, Ricky Buckets, and Marko to mention just a few, and bought out how many? Glen Taylor has hemorraged money on this team for a long time—so why suddenly become cheap now?

The crux of the issue is that the management and development structure as in place now for this team is just not up to the challenge. The Wolves historically draft terribly, sign mediocre players for far too much money, and fail to make timely adjustments with personnel. They rolled the dice and got very lucky three times in my mind—first with Flip (who at least put players in a position to succeed), second with KG, and third with Spree and Cassell. Everything else has been mediocre. I think there are plenty of management structures in the NBA that can and have done better on a similar budget over a long period of time.

If Papa Glen is serious about returning respectability back to this franchise, then he needs to abandon the system (of which Stack and Hoiberg are a part) and get one that is proven to work. I think that the current “assets” the team has isn’t indicative of FO mastery. It’s easy to take on crap contracts and trade for future draft picks if you only want to win 20 games a season for awhile. If McHale/Stack/Hoiberg were the solution, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s my opinion anyways.

by biggity2bit on May 5, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

assuming this question is directed at me

I don’t think McHale would be competitive in a national/international search for the best front office talent conducted by a quality organization. So, no, I would not be happy if McHale stayed on as GM.

Would I prefer McHale over Kahn? Yikes. Both seem scary.

Hoiberg gives us continuity and some positive probability of being capable. yet this positive probability is paired with a large amount of uncertainty, thus there’s a good chance he’ll be a complete and total failure. I mean, the dude could think trading our draft picks for Shaq is a great idea. I’m not saying it’s likely, I’m just saying it’s possible.

Kahn does not give us continuity and but he also has some positive probability of being capable. He’s not familiar with the draft and also comes with all that uncertainty.

It’s sad that this is turning into a lesser evils kind of decision. That’s usually what happens though when you don’t want to spend any money and good stuff is expensive.

McHale just needs to go away for awhile. I’d absolutely love to see him on TNT.

by littleboxes on May 5, 2009 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s no proof of any kind but the moment we started going in a better direction was the same time Hoiberg got more involved. No proof of any kind but well…

Beater of the early Thabeet drum

by Wim (Belgium) on May 6, 2009 4:12 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Way, WAY too much thought is going into this,

by Taylor and everyone else. Despite testaments from statiscians and the beleif that teams like San Antonio and Portland are run by geniuses with plans, I will never buy it. Its like that old saying that coachs (or quarterbacks) get way too much credit when a team wins and way too much blame when the team loses.

This is definately true, in my opinion with the recent tenure of Kevin McHale,d espite all the evidence you can compile of mistakes he made. I will continue to believe that the Timberwolves have been more victims of bad luck than bad decision making. I especially cringe when I hear pundits (Dan Barriero) say that the Wolves need a GM hire that injects enthusiasm to the Fan base (yeah, just like Jack McCloskey once did). No, the WOlves need to stay the course. They’ve assembled draft picks, set up their roster and salary cap position, and have a core player to build around with some role players to boot. They don’t need a new GM star to come in and move these pieces around. They need some luck.

I don’t know how smart Hoiberg is either, but we shouldn’t forget that the man making the decisions the last time Minneapolis had a world Championship basketball team was Sir Sidney — do you think Sid accomplished this with brains or a bit of good luck?

No saviour is going to come and save the day with stats in hand from SA, Portland, Indiana, Houston or wherever. WHatever happens with the Wolves, success or failure, it will be a result of what has already been laid in place and luck. Hell, hire me as GM and let me read Canis for my evaluation of players, rosters and coaches and with a bit of luck, I might be able to emulate Sid and build another Minnesota basketball dynasty.

by Andy B on May 5, 2009 5:01 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Still,

when probability is a large factor in decision making, you want statisticians running things or at least giving a lot of help.

by oblivionspocket on May 5, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't

I want statisticians working for me, not running things. Every investor in mutual funds read it on every yearly statement he or she ever recieved and yet ignored it until the last year or so - “Past investment returns are not an guarantee of future success,” or something along those line. Statisticians explain the past, they are not very good at predicting the future. Probability has a small role in decision making. There are many more important factors.

The most important for Glen Taylor to realize is that GMs play with his money. They will be rewarded for taking risk and if they fail, Glen Taylor is the one that takes the loss — kind of like taxpayers and the financial industry.

When Glen Taylor said to McHale, “hey, we are going to do this as a team from now on” he didn’t say to him, “I know as much about basketball as you Kevin and I will decide who we draft and sign.” No, he told Kevin that he would have to convince several people about the future direction the team will take and, by committee we will all decide. Glen doesn’t have to know basketball or statistics to make the final decision. Like, the current president, he just needs to sit down with many people and listen to all sides. Let them explain the possible upside and also the downside. The risk of hiring a GM is that many will want to be the prime decision maker and will want to get away from the committee approach that Glen had with Babcock, Hoiberg, Stack and McHale. I think that is a mistake.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 6:42 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree...

But wonder if there’s any other way to go about it. The assumption is that the new guy will have the final say.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 6, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think it's fairly hard...

…to defend an organization that has been beyond the first round of the playoffs once and has put together several consecutive losing seasons, a majority of blown drafts, overpaid free agent signings, awful contracts, and several other questionable decisions with this line of argument.

I do think you make a good point about the committee approach being different from the McHale-led disasters of the past but, to me, that doesn’t exactly say much about the captain of the ship’s ability to properly judge the correct basketball path going forward. However, it is his toy and he gets to play with it how he wants.

I don’t know that any of us really know enough about front offices to say whether or not your last paragraph is all that different, structurally, from how decisions on successful franchises are made. What input does the owner of the SAS have? I don’t think the business approach, bottom line, or market analogy comes and goes from franchise to franchise.

What they have going on at 600 First Avenue hasn’t worked. Period. They’ve made some nice moves since KG left but how could they have done things much differently? The reason for hiring a new GM would be to get a fresh set of eyes. To find out how other organizations go about their business and to figure out where, if any, gaps are located between how the Wolves do things and teams that actually win games do things.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course, it is hard

But that don’t mean I won’t try. ;)

I think the “fresh new pair of eyes” is a horrible reason to hire a GM. They can hire a new player development of an assistant GM. But giving the reigns to someone with a fresh new pair of eyes, just because they have a “fresh new pair of eyes” is not a prudent decision making.

My worry about the new GM they hire is what they manage to extract in a contract from Taylor. If Taylor feels that he has to get someone with a name and then gives away the farm and allows this GM to make all player personal decisions, and turns 180 degrees away from the team approach he had with Hoiberg, Stack, Mchale, Babcock and others, then I think the Wolves are taking a great risk.

Whoever, they hire, I hope some of the people in the FO remain (stack, Hoiberg) and these people continue to have a role in influencing what Taylor and the new GM decide to do with the future roster.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't understand this remark

that the Wolves would be taking a great risk by hiring a new person and giving them control to change things—even everything.

What, exactly, would they be risking? They have a 20+ win team, terrible attendance, a lousy national reputation, a marginal roster, a dwindling fan and season ticket base, and no real history of success. It’s not a risk if there’s nothing to lose. I think it’s imperative that they bring in someone from outside and give that person significant control. They absolutely need someone not wedded to the current roster or the current, unsuccessful, methods.

by Eric in Madison on May 6, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't get this at all..

….if one of Taylor Corps businesses was performing bad and they didn’t know why, they’d bring in someone else to consult them on the problem. If his presidents aren’t performing up to specific metrics, I’m sure there is a process established to make things better. No one is saying that you make a hire just to have someone new. There is a reason attached to the motive and whoever fills the job has to fit a certain bill of goods.

I simply do not get how a 24 win team can be taking a great risk with bringing in a new GM. I think that’s a fundamentally flawed concept. A great risk from what? This isn’t to say that they shouldn’t do their due diligence, or that someone like Hoiberg isn’t qualified (hell, he may have fantastic ideas), or even that Lindsey was the answer, but something is wrong with one of his businesses, he hasn’t been able to fix it and he will have to pay a premium to someone to come in and clean up the mess.

I do think that any argument based around the risk associated with making changes on a 20 win team is a losing one.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Patience

It really has not been that long since the KG trade and the shedding of an awful lot of deadweight contracts while accumulating draft picks. The best example I can give is the Twins. They won world series in 1987 and 1991, then GM Andy McPhail went to the Cubs. They hired Terry Ryan and went on a horrible streak of losing through the remainder of the 90s. Tom Kelly had nothing to point to over this span that could justify them keeping their jobs as we started a new century. They were as inept during the mid to late 90s as the current Wolves are.

However, you could point to some young talent that was coming up in the system and there is something to say for the loyalties the Pohlads showed the FO team they put together. They allowed mistakes to happen as long as learning and progress was being made off of these mistakes. There were no wholesale changes in the organization, other than a third-base coach here, hitting coach there and a minor league instructor over there. Incremental change.

It is not that hard to understand or argue for. Many people, of which Fans are the most prone, want huge changes but don’t acknowledge the risk that comes with it. There is learning that happens over time in an organization. “new fresh perspectives” that wipe away past intstitutional knowledge is often distructive in the world. Its fine to argue for change, but to not be aware of this risk, or simply pretend it does not exist, is very foolish, in my opinion.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No wholesale changes for the Twins,

Well….other than Carl volunteering them for contractionin 01, but….

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But

the folks in the Twins front office had been hired by a capable person (McPhail). The coaching stuff had one two World Series, thus they had signaled their quality.

Obviously if McHale had steered the team to repeated playoff success (as opposed to repeated appearances) we would have evidence that he was excellent at his job.

The Twins had evidence based on past performance and thus were correct to exercise patience. There is no such evidence with the Wolves.

by littleboxes on May 6, 2009 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't get the post-91 relevance of the Twins...

…vis-a-vis the Wolves. Why are they a better organization than what the Wolves were with KG and how is the Wolves’ current downturn any different than the post Knobby downtimes? If anything, this new GM is doing his best to ruin the team, right? Letting the best pitcher in baseball go for basically nothing, trading away the only starting power arm in the organization for a whole lot of nothing (this is his Marko trade) and…well, I can’t say that I know a whole lot about the Twinkies but I don’t see them being a shining example of what the Wolves could be….especially in the Ryan/Smith era.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Twins have a winning record

since Gardenhire. They do it with modest salaries and in a professional league that has no salary cap. They win their division and get to the playoffs. They have two of the top five players in major league baseball. They consistently develop young pitchers…

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

where are these developed young pitchers?

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Mistake Taylor made

That I have most fault with was letting McHale talk him into firing Flip. Flip and McHale had success you could point to at the time that rivaled the Twins WS run from 87 -91. Firing Filp took the wheels of the wagon.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

the risk is standing pat

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, there is a GM search going on

McHale is out of the FO, so standing pat is not an option. Taylor is willing to change. My fear is that he will make too big a change. I think Kahn is probably the way he wants to go. I think Taylor is looking for someone specific who he can give the title of GM to, but who really only handles the contract stuff, while keeping a lot of what the Wolves already have in place in the FO, meaning Hoiberg and Stack and possibly McHale coaching. I think this is a conservative and prudent move if he can pull it off – incremental change.

But, if Kahn turns it down and he has to bring in someone who wants his own ship to run with his own assistance and new coach, that is change I do not think is prudent.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Something about....

….rearranging deck chairs comes to mind with the stuff about McHale. They had to do something.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree.

Taylor did have to do something. WIttman had to be fired and Taylor could not justify keeping McHale as the GM as they searched for a new coach.

But, I don’t think Taylor ever believed, or believes right now, that McHale is not an asset to the organization if he can figure out how to use him while keeping him interested in a position. Letting him decide if he wants to be the coach is the perfect comprimise for Taylor — still is. I don’t think he wants to force McHales hand by hiring a GM that will replace him, but he will do it if he has to. Like me, idiots that we are, I think Taylor wants to see McHale vindicated as a coach. I think he believes in the blueprint and sees success a couple moves away and he’d, ideally, like McHale to be around to enjoy the success when it happens.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here's the thing with McHale:

He is an asset. He will always be an asset. The problem with McHale was that they couldn’t reproduce his good results while diminishing the bad ones. This is why stuff like stats are important. He’s a basketball genius but even guys like that miss the mark from time to time. When something works, you need to know as much about it as possible and look for additional situations that fit that isolated good as much as possible. You need to study other teams. You need to have outside advice and examples. McHale seemed to be the type of guy who had a gut feeling and went with it. Since he knows so much about basketball, it worked from time to time.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Again, I agree,

I think Taylor even learned this. For that matter, I don’t think McHale would even argue against it. More on Scola below

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It seems like you're saying that it doesn't matter who the GM is.

And I can’t agree with that. Yes, it’s the only Wolves-related story going on right now, so we’re talking about it a lot. But that doesn’t mean it’s not an important topic. I think the Minnesota fanbase is very fragile and the Timberwolves are at a crossroads in their Minneapolis tenure that will significantly impact the future of the franchise. Hiring a new GM is a big part of that.

I’ve definitely over-reacted about Lindsey’s removal from the process, but it’s only because I feel very strongly about the leadership of this franchise. I’m actually starting to come around on Hoiberg based on some reasoning ‘round these parts, but like some other candidates, he’s simply an unknown commodity.

www.canishoopus.com

by wyn on May 6, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Its a great topic to discuss

and I understand the passion some fans feel about it. However, there has been a running monologue about the Timberwolves for the past 5 years about the failures being the result of an inept FO and hiring a new GM will save the day. I think that is bs. In fact, I think hiring a big name GM is the worst thing Taylor could do for the future prospects of this team.

The worst argument for it is to do it for the fans. Fans won’t come back until the Wolves start winning. I actually think they do have a blueprint for success and I’m serious that they need some luck for making the blueprint a success and not a new GM. All hiring a new GM will do is put the Wolves on a new blueprint from scatch that is the vision of the new GM. There is a probability that this GM will take the big risk and make the big trades. Maybe they land a Kobe, KG, Lebron or Melo and we can say “yes, all it took was a new GM who trusted Stats and had a plan.” there is always that probability that taking a risk will lead to a reward. There is also a probability that taking a big risk will ultimately fail. Without luck, and a lot of it, the bigger the risk the higher the larger the failure. The Wolves are best playing it conservatively and putting out as much possibility fto be ready when luck does come their way. Stockpiling draft picks, being in good salary cap position, having young talent on the roster — all things the Wolves currently have done — is the way to the future. Don’t hand all that to some GM out to prove himself who will want to take big risks, knowing Taylor and the fans will suffer the loss.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 6:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

sure

luck helps and can be an important, but it’s also an excuse.

More importantly, as in everyday life, the FO should make the most of its luck. That is the challenge and that is what takes talent. We could give any lucky idiot a great job with a great salary, but will he be able to keep it? Will this depend only on luck?

Sure, the Wolves got lucky by drafting KG and having him turn into a hall of fame talent. But what did they do with that luck? It pains me to contemplate that question.

So yes, the wolves need luck, but in order to parlay that luck into a championship contending ball club they need serious front office talent.

Bottom line: luck is not the only thing that matters and the importance of luck does not diminish the value of a smart front office. Luck is much less valuable when it is paired with incompetence.

by littleboxes on May 5, 2009 6:29 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

It's too close before the draft

No idea why we didn’t start this GM search in December. I’m to the point where I don’t trust anyone from outside the organization that they would bring in this close to the draft. With a few minor exceptions, I’ve liked the moves the Wolves have made since they fleeced Miami in the Ricky Davis trade. As an outsider, I have no rational explanation for this, but I’ve associated the good moves of the past few years with Stack (and/or Hoiberg) having more of a say in things. I probably do not believe that Stack and/or Hoiberg are the best long term options, but I trust the two of their decisionmaking enough to think they’re not going to screw up the draft – which is more than I can say for Pfund or Kahn who likely haven’t been scouting the draft any more than a fool like myself.

by Biff Cooper on May 5, 2009 8:17 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

How much does a former player's career...

Impact their chances as a GM? The good players (Jordan, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, McHale, Thomas, Bird, Mullin, West) haven’t had that much success (except West). The role players have had more success (Ferry, Paxson, Otis Smith, Ainge, Dumars, Kerr); not all of them have, but generally they’ve had more success.

I agree that Hoiberg is an unknown. As a player, though, he was one of the most aware and intelligent players on the court when with the Wolves. He was probably the fourth-best player on the 03-04 team because of his ability to take good shots, facilitate ball movement, and rebound defensively. It might not be much to go off of, but it’s something.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 5, 2009 8:30 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

The Problem

1. Is we ulitmately don’t know how to evaluating a potential GM hire. It’s a lot easier to evalute someone like Kirk Hinrich since their’s some tangible their to evaluate. In evaluating something like this-we’re basically just making guesses based on past association. For a guy like Pfund- we really have very little clue how much input he had on various moves as a GM considering the presence of Pat Riley. We can’t even really evaluate individual moves since-we don’t know what side he came down on in these moves. It would probably be a mistake to assume group-think on every move during Pfund’s time with the Heat.

2. I really like Andy B’s and Paging Stanley Roberts takes. McHale had all sorts of things going against him such as:

1. KG’s Contract extension before the switch in the CBA
2. Marbury Bolting
3. The Joe Smith Fiasco

The One Diastrous Decision was trying to reload the team at the end of Flip’s Tenure by bringing in: Marko, Ricky Davis, Mark Blount, and Mike James. The T-Hud Contract and Hassell Contracts while bad in hindsight where defensible considering their role in the 2003-2004 season (Hudson more of his 2002-2003 season). It wouldn’t have been well-received to let these guys bolt in 2004. Although one has to wonder how the Fan Base would have reacted with a KG trade in the Spring of 2005.

Prior to this McHale’s track-record was pretty decent given the limitations stated above. He did track down value from players not highly regarded such as: Chauncey Billups, Troy Hudson, Laphonso Ellis, Dean Garrett, Rasho, and Malik Sealy. Non of these players were superstars- but they all outperformed previous stops by quite a bit. The Big Mistake in hindsight was not resigning Chauncey considering Orginal SNP’s Injury History.

3. Hoiberg we really don’t know for sure. PSR makes the excellent point about what type of player he was on the court. This should have benefit in looking for what type of attributes seperate players besides being obvious physical freaks. We can’t say for sure what type of GM- he would be but neither can we about Lindsay, Kahn, or Pfund.

by Jose Cordoba on May 5, 2009 9:50 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Players as GM's

The biggest difference between the first three candidates (Lindsay, Kahn, or Pfund) and Hoiberg is that the first three ascended to their positions in spite of the fact that they aren’t 6’6" and can’t play gritty defense.

Player’s like Hoiberg (i.e. players that seem generally nice and don’t totally intimidate the 73 year old white owner of team “X”) are always deemed future Coaches or GM’s. But really when you think about it, what makes them qualified for the position. Seriously what makes him more qualified than me? I’m an avid basketball fan, and I tend to think I have a good basketball mind (like many of the people on this board). So here’s a hypothetical…If any of us had our own brains transferred into the body of a Caucasian post player finishing his career as a role player…would we all the sudden be deemed eminently qualified for the role of General Manager?

by Blakeley on May 6, 2009 5:21 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think

You’ve oversimplified it a bit, but I understand your point. For me your question comes down to all the things we don’t ever get to see or hear—what kinds of questions does he ask during film study, does he lead film study, what was his role in the locker room, was he seeking out other coaches and talking to them, etc. etc. If you’ve ever played organized sports, often there’s that one player on your team who isn’t the most athletic or talented but loves the game and figures out how to contribute—whether that’s as star, competent role player, or bench warmer. It’s that player that you know would transition well into coaching (or management, in this case) because they love the game, are desperately interested in how it works and how to make their team better, and even though they may not have had the physical gifts to play at a high level they can ‘see’ the game and coach others to play it a high level.

Maybe that’s Hoiberg, and maybe it isn’t. Either way, for me at least, the conversations and other evidence for that isn’t available, so I’ll never be able to find out. But simplifying it down to race or other physical criteria isn’t very prudent either. Kind of makes me question your claim of being able to be a GM candidate, actually, but that’s neither here nor there.

by biggity2bit on May 6, 2009 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Height, Afirmative Action, etc...

The physical criteria I made reference to would be the “ability to play basketball at a professional level”. I find the fact that so many GM’s being chosen from this pool of applicants to be troubling, because that pool is so frickin small when compared to the other pool… “people without the ability to play basketball at a professional level”. What makes this even worse is the fact that one of the keys to being able to play basketball at a professional level is a person’s height…something that obviously would have no correlation with executive level job performance.

I also believe that highlighting race is important here. While I have limited statistical evidence to enforce what I’m about to say, I will say it anyways…

Much like in college football, I think it’s alarming how few African American Basketball players ascend to upper level front office positions in the NBA, considering the large percentage of players in the league that are African American. Off the top of my head, the only African American GM’s I can think of are Otis Smith, Joe Dumars, and MJ.

So why’s this true? Well it’s cyclical. Owners are the one’s that put people in place, and many owners (like many other business managers) are more then likely to hire people similar to themselves. With 29 of 30 owners in this league being Caucasian, the disparity between African American basketball players and African American managers starts to UNFORTUNATELY…make more sense.

So forgive me if I’m a little skeptical when a Fred Hoiberg, Steve Kerr, Danny Ainge, Chris Mullin, Larry Bird, or a Kevin McHale come around and declared to be qualified for this position.

by Blakeley on May 6, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

There have been others...

In general, the NBA has been more progressive in this area. There were black coaches as early as the 60s and 70s (Bill Russell, Willis Reed, Al Attles, Lenny Wilkens). Reed, Wes Unseld, and Wayne Embry (former Cavs GM) were the lead decision-makers for teams in the 80s. I do see your point, though: lately, it’s been former white players getting the call a lot more than former black players.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 6, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No doubt this is true,

But, this does not necessarily point to racism. The problem does not necessarily start with hiring black coaches and GMs, but rather with having mostly white ownership (which might explain most institutional racism).

I really cannot fault Taylor for feeling a trust for McHale or Hoiberg. Taylor is from MN, small town MN, and McHale and Hoiberg are people who share a similar background and culture with. Successful business people form relationships with people they trust. Race doesn’t have to be a criteria for hiring, but when sinking large amounts of money into an investment, most people will follow their hearts. For Taylor, that means small town white boys from MN in key positions in his investments.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

To me, that's the bigger question...

Did he get into this because he was interested or because he had a career-ending injury and Taylor kept him with the team? Looking at how much Taylor accommodated McHale’s lack of desire to put in the necessary work to be successful, I’m wary of Hoiberg for that reason. At least Stack has a resume as an assistant coach and FO guy in other places.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 6, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good points.

Thanks for the excellent discussion. I’m going to veer hard in the other direction because it’s more fun for me and I actually believe it. I get a little sarcastic below. I believe I’m asking serious questions but, please don’t take them too seriously or personally.

the one disastrous decision is actually several disastrous decisions, but I understand that they all come from one big decision. however, even these bad decisions were compounded by exactly how bad they were.

Take the Jaric acquisition. Talk about a fireable offense. You trade Sam Cassell and a #1 draft pick (top 10 protected) to the Clippers for Marko Jaric. Wow. I mean, that’s a trade where even at the time it was made, everyone was kinda like, what? It’s like McHale borrowed money from Taylor and then Taylor caught him spending the money on coke he was snorting off of Taylor’s wife belly.

Thud and Hasssell contracts are only mildly defensible. They absolutely make no sense when you consider that the organization then decided to play hardball with Sprewell and Cassell on extensions. If you’re going to overpay to keep role players why not overpay to keep your stars?

Look, McHale is not evil or idiocy incarnate. He made some good moves when he first started and he’s made some good moves throughout his tenure. You list many of them above.

But, we can make excuses for virtually anyone. Bottom line is this team is just not run very well.

You can also flip the Andy B PSR argument on its head and say: apparently any idiot could have done what the wolves have done the past few years. how hard is it to realize that you should shed bad contracts and accumulate draft picks? So, why the hell not change GMs? By change alone the Wolves pick up some disgruntled fans and since it’s mostly luck anyway, the only negative effects are costs to the organization. So why not pick someone who comes fairly cheap and won’t demand any change (since change doesn’t matter anyway). Better yet, let’s pick someone who is loved by Stern and get in good with the league.

Also, if it’s really nearly all luck and the Wolves actually have a decent FO, what does this say about Dennis Lindsay’s request for a FO overhual and more money?
1. Lindsay’s a whore, out only to enrich his friend’s and family. Right. He knows it’s all luck, so why not spend money on himself and his friends, live the good life, roll the dice, and maybe the Wolves get lucky and he gets the credit. [This is equivalent to the Spurs are stupid argument below]
2. Lindsay is just stupid and egotistical. He actually believes that he, just a single man, can actually make headway against the whims of Fate! Ha! And the Spurs, boy are they idiots. Wasting money on scouting, a D-league team of their own, coaches that don’t come on the cheap. When really, all the Spurs success is owed to luck. RC Buford and Popovich have taken their owner for a long ride on the money train.

We should also ask ourselves, what would constitute proof that luck was nearly all the mattered? What would constitute proof that the Wolves have a bad front office.

Really, what would need to happen to this franchise for us to conclude that, you know this a bad front office? Would a 10 win season do? Would it need to be five 10 win seasons in a row? Help me out here, because I really don’t understand how we can continue to make excuses for this group.

by littleboxes on May 6, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not making excuses for the whole FO...

But Hoiberg started in ‘06. He was still a player when they made those earlier moves, and McHale was still the final decision-maker on the Wally-Davis deal and Roy for Foye. Just because I have a below-average boss doesn’t mean I’m a below-average employee. Also, I get that shedding contracts isn’t a huge accomplishment, but adding draft picks and talent in the process is. The players the Wolves traded were considered untradeable; my guess is at least some on this board thought no one would ever want Jaric or Blount or Hassell. They not only got rid of them but got rid of them for better players and draft picks.

I’m not going to defend the way the Lindsey situation was handled. The Wolves need to use stats more to their advantage and should have their own D-League team (look at what a good farm system has done for the Twins). But my main point was about Hoiberg, a guy who had little input on the big gaffes and was an intelligent, hard-working, and tough player (more so than designated shooters like Kerr and Paxson).

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 6, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No excuses,

When I say luck, I mean that the top teams are built around star players. The Wolves got lucky when the landed KG, the Spurs when they landed Duncan (LA-Kobe/Shaq, Denver-Melo, Chicago-Jordan). The Wolves were also hampered by KG and his contract. The Wolves made some mistakes with KG and finding a supporting cast, but luck played a role in this with Googs, Starbury, Cassell, Spreewell, etc. By the end when the Jazric deal came along, the WOlves FO was desparate. They could have continued to sink investments in hoping to find a supporting cast around the aging great KG, but they chose to shed him in a trade, win back draft pick, get their roster in order and build to the future.

Now, I agree, there are no excuses, but I advocate incremental change and not wholesale abandonment of what they have done since they traded KG, despite being inflicted with an incredible string of bad luck with injuries to key players and draft picks. Still they have many pieces to work with. What they need is to find one more star player to play alongside a fully recovered Jefferson and a developing Love. That will require some skill in identifying this player in the draft, free agent signing or trade. It will also involve some luck.

Regardless of the stats that people pull out after the fact to demonstarte why some potential draftee emerged as an NBA star and another was a bust, the fact is that stats explain and when they are explaining they often tell a vvery good story, but as far as putting a cause with an effect (which is what stats do when one uses them to prognosticate), there is a tendency to use statistics and promote overcuasation when explaining. A good front office will listen to stats, scouts and their own hearts, before making a decision. And any decision they make when their trun to draft comes down to 1 to 4 players. They take their best shot and if they are lucky, they make the best choice, but the odds are not always with them.

No franchise or GM always makes the most prudent choice when making a decision. SA traded Luis Scola to Houston for Vassilis Spanoulis. SA’s run was built aroudn a great player in Duncan and they managed to put two other great players around him in Parker and Manu. Give them credit for this, but don’t make them out to be better than they actually are. The ones that deserve credit are Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Manu and their supporting casts. The WOlves need great players not a great GM and getting those players requires a bit of skill, but it is nothing that Taylor should throw the bank at.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 11:05 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

The Spurs had to trade...

…Scola for money concerns, not anything to do with talent. Their hand was forced on that one. It was a prudent financial decision.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Would they make that trade Now

with the benefit of hindsight?

If the roles were reversed and Mchale made that trade for money reasons, could he be defended? I understand what you are saying and agree that the Spurs can explain, but with the Spurs aging and a couple more explainable moves that become questionable with hindsight and soon the Spurs won’t be the model for up and coming franchises that everyone sees them as now.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No..

….their hand was forced by a number of factors. I kind of over-simplified it but Scola wanted to come over and the Spurs couldn’t afford the buyout. He felt like he was being held captive by the Spurs and it got to the point where he asked to be traded so he could come over. They traded him inside the division which says a lot about how they just had to take whatever was available at the time…or at least the best value.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But,

the point is that the Spurs let a very good talent go to a division rival. The media made no big deal over this either in SA (that I know of) or the national media.

With Duncan Aging, Scola seems like the perfect addition to the SA roster right now. If they knew at the time the player he would become, they sould have (or SHOULD have) made every effort at creating roster space for him and signing him to be in SA.

But, them trading him is still understandable given their situation and it is explainable to most given the Spurs success. If McHale had found himself in a similar situation with a buyout and demand from Scola and he tried to get best value for him and traded him to Portland…ahh, not so explainable. All I am saying, is give the Spurs a few years of rebuilding and see if people still regard them as the model franchise who other teams look to steal assistants from. Suddenly , explainable deals will not be so explainable.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't forget that..

…they were really aiming for Tiago Splitter. If they didn’t trade Scola he wouldn’t have come over anyway to them. I think you’re building up a strawman with the McHale stuff. No one is saying that just because McHale does something it has to be bad or unexplainable.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Strawman?

Are you serious?

I don’t think I have to try very hard to compile the evidence showing that says that fans, pundits and bloggers believe that any thing McHale does is bad and unexplainable. However, I’m not making that argument. I’m saying that people give the SPurs too much credit and give the Wolves FO too much blame. I think the Spurs FO should get some credit and the WOlves some blame, but it is out of proportion and the Scola example is evidence of this. The Spurs get no blame for losing Scola and McHale is roasted for trading Mayo for Love, Miller and better salary cap position.

btw, is it just me or is accusing someone of making a strawman argument the most overused philosphical argument tactic one can find on the internet. Not that strawman arguments aren’t often used, but people love to make the accusation even when its no where near.

by Andy B on May 6, 2009 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes...

…strawman. where else on this page is anyone making that argument? i’m sure there are some fans out there who are but no one here is seriously making that argument.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 6, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

We disagree on strategy

But, as I said, I’m not making the argument you say I am. You know what I have been saying from the beginning, and I won’t use the cheap tactic of implying you are building a strawman argument by mischaracterizing it. I say all of this, as I have all along, good naturedly. I enjoy your opinions and your site here. But, I also enjoy good discussion, although sometimes the good nature does not transcribe through the internet. Thx for letting me indulge in my little defense of McHale and the FO.

But, I am happy about the Kahn Signing. ;)

by Andy B on May 7, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good young pitchers

Lariano, Perkins, Blackburn, Baker and Slowey for the moment. There are a few in the minors along the way. In the past you can throw Santana, Radke, Guadaurdo, Hawkins, Erickson, Tapani,… in there as well.

The Twins have a way of playing ball they call Twins ball and everyone in the Major leagues knows what this is all about-Playing hard, limiting mental mistakes, throwing strikes, hustling out ground balls, having fun and staying loose in the clubhouse, etc. It started with Kelly and continues to this day. Its easy to make fun of (Dan B.), but that does not mean there is not truth in it.

But, Baseball is different that Basketball, because it is more team driven and much less star driven, so having a way that you approach the game can mean building a program that results in a long term winning percentages. In the NBA you need the superstar more than an approach or a plan developed from the FO. Its just the nature of Basketball vs. Baseball.

by Andy B on May 7, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i guess...

…i’m still burned by the lockout and the whole steroids thing. i haven’t been able to watch a game yet this year. i’m not sure i’d include the current crop of starters in the developed group yet. they seem to be pretty up and down and who knows how they could work out. wasn’t tap a mets guy?

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 7, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They're one of the youngest rotations in the league...

… and they’re one of the few rotations that was bred in the minors (whether via draft or trade) right now in MLB. Most rotations have 1-2 players that were internal pitchers and the rest are FA signings. They were solid last season… so far this season they’ve been iffy as a group, but there’s a hell of a long season ahead of them. That really is a testament to the system we’ve had in place.

I’m not saying they’re gods or anything, but we’ve developed a lot of pitching talent in the past and up until today.

by Kevin Loves McHale's Navy on May 7, 2009 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

well said..

…and agreed on the nature of the internets. nothing is meant in a bad way.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on May 7, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I understand what you're saying...

But it’s not like the NBA has a hard salary cap. They could’ve taken the tax hit for a year and then dumped one of their other players.
They probably wouldn’t have even needed to take the cap hit; they had reasonable contracts that could’ve been dealt. It’s not like Fabby Oberto/Francisco Elson/Brent Barry/Robert Horry were indispensable. Also, they made that move partially because they made a mistake on signing Jackie Butler and wanted to get rid of his deal. They later gave up a first-rounder to add Kurt Thomas; what if they’d thrown that first-rounder in on a deal to dump someone out of the previous group? Scola’s better than Thomas at this stage.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 6, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Strib reporting Kahn has been offered the job

By Jerry Zgoda
Sounds like we’re finally closing in on a new Wolves GM.

I’m hearing this morning that the Wolves have offered the job to David Kahn, the former Indiana GM since leaving the Pacers in 2002 has owned NBA Development League franchises and worked to bring major league baseball to Portland. I’m also hearing the only sticking point might be whether his wife will move to Minny.

http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/wolves/2009/05/06/kahn-could-be-the-guy/

by SeanTO on May 6, 2009 11:22 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Canis Hoopus is straight T-Wolves straight from Minnesota.
Start posting about the Timberwolves »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
All that has Kahn Before
Christinagivingthefinger2_small
Casper's 2010 Big Board and Mock Draft 3-08-2010

Recent FanPosts

Dsc00186_small
A reason why Wolves fans are so frustrated, we are not alone!
Small
My mock offseason: Medicine for the Wolves free fall.
Small
Should we consider trading Love?
Small
Cashing in the Chips?
Small
First overall pick scenario, what would you do?
Small
Unforgivable
The_dogs_small
It keeps getting stranger . . .
Small
Wolves fans NCAA Bracket
Small
"Assets"

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Canis Hoopus Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Hoopus Features

    Salary Cap Info

    Draft Info

    Player Movement Flow Charts

    EuroWatch

    Stats

    Draft Boards

    Former Tag Lines:

    • In desperate need of an epic dose of basketball Viagra
    • Your source of radical left wing politics cleverly disguised as basketball fandom
    • Palin-Free since before statehood
    • The world's leading exporter of small area quickness
    • Sorry…I have no idea who is Joe Mauer
    • Home of the Peja deep douche
    • Vote McGrady!
    • Bork, bork, bork, bork, bork
    • Wir Sind Darko

    Misc:

    Self-Promotion

    BallHype Sports Blog Rankings

    SPONSORS

    SBNation.com Recent Stories

    New Orleans Hornets forward James Posey, left, reaches in for the ball as Denver Nuggets forward Carmelo Anthony looks for a shot in the fourth quarter of the Nuggets' 93-80 victory in an NBA basketball game in Denver on Thursday, March 18, 2010. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski) link

    Nuggets Rout Hornets 93-80

    FILE - In this Jan. 14, 2009 file photo, Georgetown's Greg Monroe (10) celebrates while playing against Syracuse in the first half of an NCAA college basketball game in Washington. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson, FILE)

    Greg Monroe Says He Will Return To Georgetown Next Year

    Orlando Magic forward Rashard Lewis (9) shoots a three-point basket as Miami Heat forward Michael Beasley, left, defends in overtime during an NBA basketball game in Miami, Thursday, March 18, 2010. The Magic won 108-102. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky) +1 updates

    Magic Lose Lead Late, But Win In OT On Lewis Three-Pointer

    More from SBNation.com >


    Managers

    Dr wyn

    Img_2487_small Stop-n-Pop