The Offseason: Wrap It Up
Contrary to what the title might suggest, this isn't an offseason wrap-up. It's actually a preview to the end of the Wolves' offseason. Confusing? Well, consider the blurb Sid Hartman had at the Star Tribune (thanks to Sonia at TWolves Blog):
"Now that I'm back, what will [sic] be doing over the next few days is try to assemble or finish the roster," [David] Kahn said. "There is still a lot of very fine players [sic] out there that are free agents, and now we want to address some of our needs, now that the [Ricky] Rubio situation has resolved itself, at least for the next couple years. I think that there will be several moves. I wouldn't call them major moves, but I think that we still have some things to address on the roster in advance of training camp."
While the "Rubio situation has resolved itself" may be a polite way of saying it, the fact remains that there are loose ends for Kahn and Kurt Rambis (you've all already ordered your shirts, right? RIGHT??) to tie up before training camp starts on September 28. Despite poor grammar and sentence construction.
- Ramon Sessions. Milwaukee has until Friday to match the Wolves' offer to Sessions (Marc Stein had the details first) and all signs point to them letting him come to Minnesota. There's valid debate about his effect on Jonny Flynn and Rubio, but it's an undeniably high-value signing. If it turns out the 6'3" 3rd-year guard can play the 2 spot, all the better.
- Chucky Atkins. Old Stickem's contract is partially guaranteed ($760k to be precise) and could give Glen Taylor some financial relief after opening his purse for Sessions and Ryan Hollins. Alternatively, it could be very attractive to a luxury tax team in a trade. As far as I know, his contract isn't guaranteed until January 10, when all contracts become guaranteed so there's no rush. Atkins' value as a contract, though, is inarguably higher than his value as a player.
- Bobby Brown. With Flynn and Sessions on board, it seems that a veteran point guard in the hole would be a better option than Brown (in the Kevin Ollie vein). I've read quotes from Kahn indicating that there is some interest in Brown around the league, and that his agent has been in touch with the Wolves (but of course I can't find the links right now). That could mean a trade is in the works and given Brown's minimum salary the Wolves wouldn't have to take a contract in return. It may end up being an insignificant transaction, but Brown's roster spot would be better used on someone else.
- Mark Blount. The Wolves can't seriously be considering keeping Blount on the roster, can they? With Al Jefferson and Hollins ahead of him on the depth chart, there isn't a good opportunity for the man's contract year (which, incidentally, tends to be the type of season that Blount plays best in). The only reason to keep him is as an expiring contract for trade at the deadline. Again, his roster spot might be better spent elsewhere.
- Rodney Carney. The perimeter rotation already includes Ryan Gomes, Corey Brewer and new arrivals Wayne Ellington and Damien Wilkins, but Kahn has expressed an interest in re-signing Carney (again, can't find the links), which certainly seems a possibility considering the lack of interest Carney's drawing elsewhere. Hot Rod grew into a bit of a fan favorite last year with his 3-point surges and electrifying dunks and with the win total likely to be low this year, fans could use a little of his brand of excitement.
- Other Free Agents. As Kahn mentioned in the above quote, there are some good players out there still looking for contracts. If the Wolves are in asset-gathering mode there are a couple of low risk/medium reward players still on the market. The depth chart might be getting a bit crowded, but the Sessions and Hollins signings show that Kahn pays attention to and knows how to work the market.
- Trades. Kahn has shown that he's interested in building his team and thus has little loyalty to McHale's bunch. It's not to say that Ryan Gomes and Corey Brewer have targets on their backs, but if Kahn can get something more appealing to him in return he wouldn't hesitate to move either one. Then there are the Brian Cardinals and Damien Wilkins' of the roster. It's most likely that they'll merely provide some minutes this year and cap relief next summer, but if any team decides to fire-sale young up-and-comers in exchange for financial relief, the Wolves are ready to accommodate them with expiring contracts and draft picks immediately.
Anyone want to offer an over/under on any scenario? Anything I've missed?
0 recs |
34 comments
|
Comments
Other free agents....?
The pickings look pretty slim. Carney is probably the best out there. Joey Graham and (gasp!) McCants could probably have some value if they are willing to take a one year deal to show that they belong in the NBA.
by DougW on Sep 8, 2009 11:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Carney
The wolves are not resigning Carney, Rambis did not want him….
by Deandra on Sep 8, 2009 11:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Do you have a source for that? I didn’t read it anywhere.
Carney reportedly wants more than the minimum and a guarantee, though.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/126/2009/august/11/last-roster-spot-up-for-grabs.html
If there’s anyone on the current roster than Rambis “doesn’t want”, it’s gotta be Mark Blount.
by levi_mn on Sep 8, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a little late in the game for that...?
I just don’t see Carney getting more than a one year deal, but I guess that explains why he finds himself among the riff raff of this unsigned list. McCants must be suffering from the same delusions. They’ve both shown too many flashes to be unsigned at this point otherwise.
by DougW on Sep 8, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd repeat the request from others:
Do you have a source? I haven’t seen that anywhere before and can’t find it anywhere now.
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Sep 8, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
I remember it being in the Roster Report for Sept 4th on a TWolves official page. Would look further but have a class and gotta run…
by artreddin on Sep 8, 2009 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not an "official" page...
but a FOX Sports “Roster Report” from Sept 4 reported the old news that Kahn remains interested in Carney.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5027078/Minnesota-Timberwolves-Roster-Report
by levi_mn on Sep 8, 2009 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Carney was smart
he would just sign a one year deal. In an uptempo system he should put up decent numbers to sign somewhere else…maybe pheonix after this year?
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 8, 2009 12:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
For the Wolves to sign anyone (besides Sessions)
some heads will have to roll or some 2-for-1 trades must happen…the roster is full.
by levi_mn on Sep 8, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe
they can trade Brown and get nothing/noone in return if someone wants him. So how about an 1-0 trade?
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 8, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you'll have to `splain that one...
to me. Well, maybe there’s a team or two out there with trade exceptions remaining that can cover Bobby’s $736K salary.
by levi_mn on Sep 8, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please see below:
The “Minimum Salary exception” allows teams to acquire minimum-salary players without regard to salary matching under the Traded Player exception (see question number 68). For example, a team over the cap can trade a second round draft pick to another team in exchange for a minimum-salary player, even a 10-year veteran earning over $1 million. To qualify, the player can be signed for no more than two seasons, can be paid no more than the then-minimum salary in any season, and can have no unlikely bonuses.
When a team acquires multiple players in the same trade, it essentially ignores the incoming salary for all minimum-salary players, as they fall under the Minimum Salary exception. For example, a team is over the cap and trades a $5 million player, receiving in return a $6 million player and two players earning $1 million each on minimum-salary contracts. The team trading the $5 million player can accept only $6.35 million in return (125% plus $100,000 of $5 million), and the three incoming players combine for $8 million in salary. However, the two $1 million players are covered by the Minimum Salary exception, so only the $6 million player is traded with the Traded Player exception. Since $6 million is within the team’s $6.35 million limit using the Traded Player exception, the trade is allowed.
Teams trading away minimum-salary players do count their salaries (the portion not paid by the league — see question number 11) as outgoing salary when comparing salaries for trade.
I don’t believe that you need to get a draft pick back. I also believe the brown is a minimum salary player.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 8, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The minimum salary
for a player with 1 year of experience in 2009-2010 is $736,420…which happens to be Browns salary. So he does qualify.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 8, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well done, thanks.
Now all you have to do is find a team willing to give up a draft choice…I’m thinking that idea is a non-starter.
by levi_mn on Sep 8, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have no problem trading Brown
For a decently high 2nd rounder, if anyone would take it. I would rather “Eurostash” or grab another player (hopefully with upside) than have Brown as our 3rd/4th PG. Adding to our stockpile of pick assets always helps.
by nja700 on Sep 8, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overpaid point guard previously traded for protected 2nd round pick
We can trade Brown to a team for a protected 2nd round pick, much like the Spurs and the Wolves arranged with Beno Udrih (or however you spell his name).
by littleboxes on Sep 8, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea I would definitely take a top 58 protected draft pick
for Bobby Brown.
Then all we have to do is trade/cut Atkins and go after Bobby Jackson to be our veteran backup PG
by roundhouse on Sep 8, 2009 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How could you NOT
trade Bobby Brown for ANY pick!?!? I know I would…
by College Wolf on Sep 8, 2009 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overall wrapup take
Let’s run through the numbers.
1. Sessions. I just can’t see the bucks matching. Sessions got more burn last year because when Redd went down, his skill set made them a better team than Ridnour…with Redd back though…just not worth it from their perspective.
2.I think Old Stickem will be bundled with another player to a team trying to cut just enough salary space to not pay the luxury tax. If he wasn’t being packaged, he would have been traded by now. Will likely be used to acquire a player that will balance roster in short term and save both teams salary during year.
3. Brown…wolves trade him free and clear to another team.
4. Blount…I would hope buy him out…I am sure he doesn’t want to spend any time on the wolves and would like to play somewhere to earn another contract.
5. Carney…apparently not…see comments above.
6. Gomes/Brewer…will likely stay. That way Rambis and Kahn can see what they have. Every team needs some carryovers simply for fan interest. Plus they both seem pretty motivated to prove themselves worthy of either a new home or that they weren’t a bust (I will let choose which is which).
7. Trades…any promising D leaguers out there?
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 8, 2009 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
D- Leaguer
I know this is so last year, but what about Blake Ahearn? A nice 8,9,10 guy who can come in and bomb the three or get to the line. He can’t be all bad since the Spurs signed him to a ten day last year.
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Sep 8, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
A little less tumultuous than the article suggests
Atkins will be gone and but if they let Brown go they will need a third PG for backup.
They may yet keep Blount. Hope not.
And seeing we have Blount, would we consider Wally? Let’s get the band back together !
Panic stations turned into happy land after we beat an inferior opposition like God wants us to.
You gotta love it when 10 minutes into the match you turn to the Hawk supporter next to you and say: "What the hell were we worried about all week?"
GOLDEN GOD BIRDS --- >>>> PREMIERSHIP HEROES ---- >>>>> BROWN AND GOLD ARMY OF TOUGH WARRIOR MEN ----- >>>>> 4 LIFE
by Auswolf on Sep 8, 2009 3:49 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
I was with you until your 3rd point
I sincerely hope that we will never see Szczerbiak in a Timberwolves uniform again.
Of course, I feel that way about Blount, too.
by levi_mn on Sep 8, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't we need some 3pt shooting?
What’s funny is that last year we thought we had 3 pretty good marksmen (Miller, Foye and McCants) and now we have one unproven one (Ellington), and not much else (I don’t think Wilkins can shoot the 3 and I don’t believe that Brewer’s sample size was big enough last year to say that he’s going to be a real concern of opposing defenses).
To me, that means Carney makes a bit of sense, or SOMEONE from the D league or elsewhere that can shoot the 3. They don’t have to do much else even, assuming they’re getting paid the minumum or close to it.
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that this player would necessarily get consistent minutes (i’d say they’d average less than 10 per game), but I’d want at least one more guy besides Ellington who could potentially be a threat if you’re down 3 with less than 5 seconds left. Or are Gomes and (maybe) Love those guys? What happens if Ellington turns out to be a 30% 3pt shooter from NBA distance? Maybe that isn’t likely (from what I’ve seen, he can SHOOT), but as Miller showed last year, it doesn’t take much for your confidence to evaporate.
I get the counterargument: we aren’t going to be winning anything this year anyway, so what’s the use, but it’ll be frustrating (to me) if there are a lot of games where Ellington winds up taking a 3 with two guys in his face, or, even worse, Jefferson is triple-teamed while Brewer is open on the weakside . . .
by Sterno on Sep 8, 2009 5:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think this gets addressed
If more moves are made, which is at least a possibility.
But they also didn’t have a good 3 pt shooting team last year. Carney was very streaky — he barely shot better from 3 (35%) than Telfair (34.6%) and took about 1 more attempt per game. McCants was terrible (31%) and Miller wouldn’t shoot, which made the defense not have to prepare for him as much. Foye was a moderate threat if open (36%), but Gomes shot better (37%) in almost as many attempts per game (3.5 vs. 4.4). I also think Love will be a threat out there because of the PnP possibilities along with having Laimbeer as an assistant and that Flynn and Sessions could take/make enough 3s to keep defenses honest.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 8, 2009 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our 3 Point Threats...
are going to be Gomes, Love, Flynn, and Sessions!?! That is some wistful thinking!!!!
by College Wolf on Sep 8, 2009 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although, this post (and the one above it) does leave out Ellington, who hopefully will be the best 3-point shooter on the team, percentage-wise.
by LoveTo on Sep 9, 2009 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for putting words in my mouth...
I just think people are overstating the worth of a guy who shot 36% despite having Al Jefferson drawing his man away from him and a guy who refused to shoot a shot he could make with regularity. This team wasn’t good in that area last year; not being good in it this year isn’t going to affect their offense that much.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 9, 2009 12:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Further...
When exactly have the Wolves ever been a huge threat from downtown? Their career leader in 3-pointers made is Anthony “I’m going to suckerpunch the guy who kept my career alive to see if I can get him suspended for Game 7” Peeler. They have two guys with career percentages over 40% (Hoiberg and Wally). In the seven years they made the playoffs, here were their %s: 34, 35, 30, 35, 36, 38, 37, 36. Does it help? Yes. Does it always matter? No.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 9, 2009 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Foye and Miller were awful last year, yes.
But I’m betting they would’ve returned to their career averages this season. I’ll bet both of them have higher 3 pt % in Washington this year than anybody on the Wolves.
by LoveTo on Sep 9, 2009 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You might have to rethink Sessions' 3-pt contributions
Check his 3-pt stats: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4333/career . Nine made three-pointers total in his 2-year career.
Unless he magically develops a stroke out of nowhere this year, he’s not gonna take many threes, let alone make them. His ability to get to the line makes up for it, but he is NOT a 3-pt threat by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, I hate to bring up Rubio, but they did put in the request to Barcelona to at least have him developing a long-range shot as a top developmental priority. Just an interesting what-if to add to the intrigue.
by nja700 on Sep 9, 2009 1:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying he'll even take a lot
I should clarify: the original post was, “who’s going to take the 3 when the Wolves are down 3 with 5 seconds left?” My point is that if it came to that, Sessions could at least take and make that shot. KG wasn’t a regular 3-point threat, yet he could make them late in games with guys draped all over him. He hit two huge 3s in Arco against the Kings to turn a 6-point deficit with 30 seconds left into an overtime game. Sessions would likely be open, so it would be an easier shot. Frank of BrewHoop (Bucks blog) said he can hit the 18-footer (which also has the effect of opening up a collapsing defense) and has the potential to develop a 3-point shot.
It shouldn’t be overlooked that Sessions was in a very unstable position. Guys drafted in the 50s aren’t really developmental prospects, so they have to show right away they can contribute. It’s at least possible that Sessions knew enough to hide his weaknesses as much as possible and focus on showing his strengths because he needed to survive without having a guaranteed deal.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 9, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 














