Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kobe Bryant Isn't Up To Speed On Jeremy Lin, 'Linning'

The Case for Trading Big Al

The Timberwolves approach the February trade deadline with tremendous holes in its roster, but fortunately with an equal amount of assets in the holster to improve.  The deficiencies are agreed upon: (1) lack of interior defense; (2) lack of upper echelon wing player; and (3) lack of competent point guard play.  The trade assets at our disposal include: (1) two expiring contracts in excess of around $15 million in expiring contracts of non-contributors Marc Blount and Brian Cardinal; (2) extra first round draft picks from Utah and Charlotte; and (3) Big Al Jefferson

 

Virtually any player on an 8 win team is available for trade but there are several players that can be considered "safe."  At SG Corey Brewer and Wayne Ellington have both shown tremendous improvement in the past 20 games, and have become an effective duo at that position.  At PF Kevin Love has also shown substantial improvement and despite a recent five-game swoon where it appears his coach has become upset with him for lack of hustle on defense, Love remains the most complete player on the roster and has great upside.  Jonny Flynn is probably also safe for the time being.  While the past 20 games have exposed why it is highly unlikely Flynn is going to become an all-star point guard, he is still in his rookie year, and (similar to Corey Brewer two years ago) there is the potential still there for improvement. 

 

The stated justification for not making any moves is the anticipated salary cap space at the end of this season.  But one has to wonder how a team that will probably finish with less than 20 wins, and one which is located in the most undesirable winter climate in the league, will have any bargaining chips to sign a talented player at a reasonable price.  Most people agree that it will be impossible to sign a first tier free agent (LeBron, Wade, Bosh) or a second tier free agent (Johnson, Gay).  It’s questionable that even the next level of free agents such as Travis Outlaw and Ronnie Brewer would be available, as they are as valuable to their present teams as to us.  Thus, the salary cap space that will be there will likely be used on the marginal players that we have overpaid in the past, and even last year (see Ramon Sessions). 

 

There is an opportunity to improve with staying put, but it would take awhile.  The draft is rich in the type of talent we need.  It has athletic bigs who can defend the rim (Favors, Cousins, Ed Davis, Monroe, Lawal); talented wings (Turner, Wes Johnson) and a potential generational point guard (John Wall).  But we are only guaranteed one of these players, and it could be as low as a dreaded fifth pick.  As good as Turner and Johnson look, there’s no guarantee that either of them step into the starting SG position next year, particularly if the Brewer – Ellington duo continues to improve.  Apparently, Nikola Pekovic, another 6’10" post player that plays "on the ground" will join the team next year, giving us another asset that we already have.

 

Everyone has analyzed a potential Jefferson trade from the Wolves’ perspective.  Few people have commented on Jefferson’s perspective.  Al says and does the "right things," but there are ample reasons why he would want a trade at this point.  First, the Wolves have never truly shown a commitment to him.  Since his arrival, the Wolves have had the opportunity to add players to compliment Al but have not done so.  Instead, they added another un-athletic forward-center in Kevin Love, traded all of their outside shooters for Ricky Rubio (knowing he might not come until 2011), and switched a Foye-Telfair point guard combination for an equally ineffective Flynn-Sessions combo.    

 

Second, Jefferson may not have the time to wait for Kahn's master opus to fully play out.  Jefferson turns 26 halfway through the 2010 season.  If he is still with the Wolves at that time, he will have played only once in the post season (his rookie season with Boston).  He is entering his prime, but it’s clear that the Wolves right now do not have the assets in place to guarantee a playoff appearance in 2010 or even 2011.  He has already suffered a significant knee injury so he now understands how fragile and fleeting a professional sports career can be.  On top of that, there are several Western Conference teams that the Wolves clearly bested in 2009 which have now moved ahead of the Wolves in the rebuilding process including Sacramento, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Los Angeles Clippers, and arguably, the Golden State Warriors.  While the decline of Dallas, San Antonio and Phoenix are imminent, the Wolves are now on the outside track to pick up those playoff spots in the coming years. Acknowledging the futility of its situation, Wolves management even previously admitted earlier this year that the Wolves were probably at least three years away from competing.  Despite publicly stating a desire to be here, we would be pretty naive to believe his agent is not trying to get him out of this mess as quickly as possible (particularly since that agent represents Love and Pekovic as well, both of whom have more money to earn from the Wolves).

 

The necessity for a trade should be equally obvious for the Wolves, and it goes beyond his basketball ability.  Jefferson has provided some memorable individual performances, but the Wolves as a team have been atrocious throughout his two-and-a-half years here.  In the end, this is a business.  No one is coming, or is going to come, to the Target Center to see Big Al, as opposed to just seeing professional basketball.  That’s just the reality.  And if you can dump an 8-figure contract that’s not producing that much, I expect this organization to do it.    

 

The problem is that Jefferson’s trade value is limited.  It’s unlikely that a team would trade a big man of equal quality for Jefferson, so the trade does not present the opportunity to significantly improve our interior defense.  With our own SG situation improving, several SG draft prospects available, and a potential generational point guard on the way from Spain in 2011, we are unlikely to trade for a long-term PG or SG prospect. 

 

That is why the Granger trade offer was made public.  It just so happens that we could use a bigger SF, and there are some young, big SFs on some marginal teams that might be looking to deal.  Granger is one.  Luol Deng and Rudy Gay could have been available, had their respective teams not blasted back into playoff contention recently.  Andre Iguodala’s name has surfaced in rumors.  Galinari, Gerald Wallace, Jeff Green?

 

But Big Al would probably not be enough to acquire any of these guys on his own.  Our expiring contracts are no longer an asset after the February trade deadline, and it’s always been harder to trade those mid-first round draft picks on or after draft night when everyone knows exactly what their worth.

 

I expect the Wolves to seek a big move before the trade deadline to acquire a significant small forward prospect with using Big Al, and by taking on another contract for an expiring.  So if you want Granger, you have to take Murphy as well.  Galinari comes with whatever bad contracts the Knicks need to shed to have a new big three starting next year; Deng comes with Hinrich; Biedrins or Curry come with Maggette; and Iguodala comes with Dalembert.  Even with the cap relief for the other side, none of these deals are in any way guaranteed.  It depends on certain develops in the playoff race and whether any of the alpha dog free agents make it clear to their current teams that they are not coming back next season.

 

If you think the Wolves have a shot at a great free agent or think that the "savior" is in the draft, the extra contract the Wolves have to take would probably kill one of these deals.  On the other hand, the Wolves receive a "proven" wing player for an expendable forward-center.  The downside is taking a player (or players) that will eat up around 60% of the $18 million in cap space.  That may not be a downside considering the best the Wolves may do in free agency in 2010 would be overpaying Tracy McGrady.

 

Even if these trades are not available, I can conceive a fall-back that the Wolves would execute.  The Bulls have always sought a low-post scorer, and are gearing up for another playoff run.  While Deng, Noah, and Rose are likely not available, there is still sufficient assets there for getting some value for Jefferson.  Hinrich would be the offsetting contract.  We would receive a dependable point guard that could play significant minutes until Rubio’s arrival.  This would be a much better version of the role Kevin Ollie played last year and would allow Flynn more room to develop.  Hinrich's deal is through 2012, so potentially he continues to play that role to acclimate Rubio to the NBA.  In addition, we would want Taj Gibson and Tyrus Thomas.  Two young athletic power forwards that can defend the rim better than Jefferson, and can conceivably play alongside Kevin Love.  Love could spend more time playing center (as Kendrick Perkins does).  Thomas could defend those power forwards neither Love nor Jefferson could keep up with.  Gibson (and his 7’4" wingspan) can also play many of the minutes Al (and his 7’2.5" wingspan) currently plays at center.  It gives the Wolves more options to shuffle the front line to match up with opponents.  Would Chicago take Ramon Sessions contract?  Would it be too much to ask Chicago for a draft pick as well?  Even if Chicago is unwilling to take Sessions’ contract, I’d still do it because it is otherwise a cap neutral trade for Minnesota.

 

Certainly there are fans who believe Jefferson is all-star talent waiting to happen, and believe that these returns would be a pittance for Jefferson's value.  But even if Jefferson has all-star talent (a question that would be subject to unending debate), the Wolves simply aren't able to match sufficient talent right now with his to put him into the postseason, which is where he undoubtedly expects to be at this point in his career.   If the obvious differences between the team's long-term goals and Jefferson's immediate goals have not already created tension in the organization, it soon will.   




Comment 109 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

The more I think about it

I am no longer convinced the argument is to trade Love or Jefferson. Listening to cryptic messages from Rambis and the FO this season makes me think they may be more likely to trade both over the next year rather than just one.

A question though: If only one is moved, wouldn’t Love have more value (at least in the near term). Love has apparently fully recovered from his injury (unlike AL), and his contract is far cheaper. In a normal economy this may not matter as much, but if a team is looking to cut payroll Love is far more valuable. Also, if a team is preparing to start over, Love is more attractive because he is younger. I also get nervous that if Love stays while Jefferson leaves, this team may have too many passers and not enough scoring if Rubio becomes the PG and Turner and Brewer are on the wings.

FWIW, I am also not convinced a Dallas decline is imminent. Cuban has shown a willingness to take of salary to be competitive, and that Dampier contract sets him up to grab a big contract from a team looking to cut payroll (Wizards perhaps). That rumored effort to get Paul may not be over yet either.

by Rumblebee on Jan 16, 2010 6:34 PM CST reply actions  

dallas needs to do something with that dampier contract. there’s got to be someone who would need to shed payroll who’d be happy to take it from them. the wizards make sense and a dampier for jamison centered deal could work. dallas moves dirk to the 5 and goes small and forces turnovers, shoots 3s and plays good perimeter d. i like their odds with that team more than with damp. even if it isn’t a trade with washington, if dallas sits on that contract despite a willingness to spend to win, you’d have to think of that as a failure for the mavs.

another dampier thought, work out a 3 team deal with toronto to bring in bosh. damp goes to the 3rd team who sends longer contracts/good players to toronto who ship bosh to dallas. possibilities galore with cuban and a big 2011 expiring. they’ll be interesting.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 16, 2010 6:56 PM CST up reply actions  

One thing I'll 99% guarantee

Cuban won’t let that Dampier deal go to waste!

by Rumblebee on Jan 16, 2010 8:21 PM CST up reply actions  

You're a little confused on the Wolves' identity

The reason Minnesota would keep Love and trade Al is because WE’RE looking to cut payroll and preparing to start over (again). Cripes, we have two capable NBA starters on the team, a GM/POBO with 7 months of experience and a head coach with five months of experience. If that’s not the definition of “starting over,” I don’t know what is.

Also, since the only current offensive options are Al pounding the ball down low, Love’s put-backs, Jonny’s drives, and Brewer’s half-court heaves, I’m willing to consider “too many passers” moving the ball around for more efficient shots as a welcomed change of pace. And if Turner’s on the wing, I’m not worried about scoring—the guy can put up 30 in a Big Ten game, so I think the pace and spacing of the NBA will only enhance his ability to score.

by PoorDick on Jan 16, 2010 9:52 PM CST up reply actions  

I beg to differ as to who is confused about the Wolves identity

and frankly, I have become a little worried lately that the strain of a frustrating season is taking a toll on you. You have taken a stance that the Wolves are going to dump Jefferson to save money, and frankly I disagree with your premise. I give three names to support my thesis: Hollins, Pavlovic, and Sessions. If the Wolves were on an “all consuming” salary dump, none of these players would have been signed last summer. A back-up PG and C could have been had for half the money, on one year contracts (or just keep Telfair and Rhino). Also, if the team is desperate to save money, why pick up Brewer’s option? Even if the team makes no changes other than the draft before next season, they are looking at a payroll of a little over $40 million. If they want to cut payroll, then Gomes is gone before Jefferson, and I would guess Brewer would be traded to a team with cap space.
If you have inside info that the Wolves want a $40 million payroll next season, I will defer. But if this is just a hunch on your part, I think last summer should give you reason to believe they will keep payroll in the $45-50 million range. FWIW, with Taylor being the head of the Board of Governors, the union will be very skeptical giving concessions when the lead guy has a payroll far below the cap.
As to your comment on the passers, ultimately a team needs one, maybe two good passers. Beyond that, players who can put the ball in the hole are necessary. Also, as good as Turner appears to be, I hope you’re not implying he is going to be a 30 PPG player. Even if he is 25 PPG, if he is playing with Rubio, Love, and Brewer…scoring will be low.

by Rumblebee on Jan 16, 2010 11:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa

whoa. Calm down.

I appreciate your concern over my well being. However, I’m not the least troubled about this season. I expected the team to be terrible, and they are. I have never stated that they are in an “all consuming salary dump.” I do believe they are going to run the ship as economically as possible, but have never stated that I thought they were going to want a “$40 million payroll next season.” In fact, I think it may even be ABOVE your “$45-50 million range”—although not by much.

Their moves over the past few months are just what I thought they would (and should) do: build up a roster of young players, and see who blossoms. It’s a cheap way to field a team, and who knows—maybe one of the former 2nd rounders will turn in to a quality starter, or the team will get really lucky and land a game-changing player in the lottery.

I hope every one who seems to think that the Wolves are going to spend money to add quality players through trades and free agency before the beginning of next season are right, and that when offered the chance to play in Minnesota, this higher level talent will jump at the chance. I won’t believe it until I see it.

The team has admitted/claimed that they won’t be competitve for another three years. I don’t question their knowledge of the situation, so I’ll take their word for it. I’ll enjoy watching and hoping the team gets better over the long term, but it’s going to a long, painful journey for anyone hoping this team is going to the playoffs any time soon.

by PoorDick on Jan 17, 2010 12:52 AM CST up reply actions  

If you think the payroll may be above $50 million

Then how on Earth can you feel the team shouldn’t keep Jefferson because he is making $13 million? Even with AL, a high pick and Pekovic, this team will struggle to end up at $50 million in payroll next season. I don’t understand trading Al for 3 cheaper players and hoping one emerges in a few years (unless one of the young players is named Wall). Why not just keep Al in that case, or trade him for another player of similar ability who plays a different position?

 I’ve read much of what you have said about this the last week or so. You seem to advocate the Wolves trading Jefferson and bringing in three replacements for about the same amount of money, then hoping one emerges in a few years. So what happens next season if they do follow this strategy and have a $50 million dollar payroll?? They have 10 players making somewhere in the ballpark of $4 million. I think this is what you are suggesting, and then seeing which players emerge. Problem is, how do 10 young players get enough playing time to develop a few of them?

FWIW, I agree with your last few paragraphs. That does not mean they need to go into a total rebuild again.

by Rumblebee on Jan 17, 2010 3:56 PM CST up reply actions  

To clarify

I think they should save their money for a rainy day with a crappy young team, instead of going all-out to get back to 40 wins. My guess is their wins and their wages will actually be somewhere in between.

Go Vikes . . .

by PoorDick on Jan 17, 2010 4:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Definitely go Vikes

Great game today, fun season for that matter. Despite getting a lot of grief, I have always liked Favre, even in GB, and was hoping they would get him for a year or two.

I don’t think we disagree in theory so much as how far we want to go. I was one of the first posters on this site saying that I believe Kahn’s comments sounded like a couple payroll cutting seasons, not just one. I also have consistently posted that I approve of that plan. I think you have been there all along as well. I have never been one of the “We need to win this year or at least next season” folks. I wanted an awful team this season (mission accomplished), hopefully followed by a top 2 pick. Then next season, about 30-33 wins, securing one more top 10 pick before sending a pick to the Clippers.

Where we’ll have to agree to disagree is that I think they can keep Jefferson while being one of the lowest payrolls in the league. I’ll keep Jefferson and let Gomes go if necessary. I see low 30’s wins next year, followed by 40+ then high 40’s, which either requires keeping Jefferson or trading him for comparable talent. I definitely don’t think a restart on the rebuild is necessary.

FWIW, if you go back to my original post, I was trying to focus on what I am starting to feel Kahn and Rambis are thinking. As much as most of us on this blog praise Love, I don’t seem to get that same impression from comments I read from management, they basically seem to fight praising either Love or AL. Maybe this is an attempt at motivation, I don’t know. I am starting to think one or both will be dealt this summer. Trading them in separate trades, or in a complicated three team deal, could bring back ONE star to build around.

Our back and forth here (other posters too) is why I think nothing happens until summer. Too many questions still, and the lottery could have a major impact. Get #1, then trade a big and Rubio rights. Get #2, build around Turner and decide who goes around Turner…Love or AL & Flynn or Rubio. Need to try to figure which dynamic works best. This is also why I brought up the “too many passers” concept. If they get Wall and his scoring ability, then keeping Love makes sense. If they get Turner and his ability to do a little of everything, then he and Rubio might be the ball movers while Al scores 28 PPG.

FWIW, if you are still reading, I’ll ask you specifically a question (I hope you answer) – I know getting a big time free agent is unlikely, but play along….If the Wolves were able to get (LeBron, Wade, Gay), would you rather pair them with Love or AL, and who would they rather play along side? I think AL and his inside presence would be best for them…What do you think?

by Rumblebee on Jan 17, 2010 7:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Stop making sense.

My theory on the ensuing Love/Al Deathmatch:

Al’s a better player
Love’s a better value

As to your intelligent question about an FA playing with either/or, one back at you: Hasn’t Love already proven that he can flourish as a second-banana to Jefferson? We assume that if AlJeff were given a star wing player, that Jefferson would then pass out of the double team, have some energy for more defense, etc. But since he’s never had that type of player, we won’t know if it’s true.

by PoorDick on Jan 18, 2010 11:08 AM CST up reply actions  

I'll try to deftly answer your question

But first: Your Al/Love take is what has me thinking Love may be the more likely trade, since in an odd way he may bring back a better player.

To your question: I don’t know that Al would necessarily be second banana. I see more of a banana-split at the top(a la Mauer/Morneau)! Two guys who do things in a different way but complement each other. I don’t see Al passing the ball back out very often (which may actually be OK because a great outside scorer will eliminate some double teams). Hence, I want to keep Rubio. Basically, it will be up to Rubio to determine which matchup looks best, and get the ball to the right guy. It’s also why I like Turner, he would be a third option who will also move the ball. I know it’s a bit of a weasily answer, but not impossible.
I do agree Love will play better with others. The problem is the team will still need to find an inside scorer. It would be great if they could find a legit center (decent inside scorer and defensive presence) to match with Love, but who is that guy and can the Wolves get him? Maybe it is Aldrich, but every time I bring him up half the posters puke.

If you told me a year from now, AL would be gone, but the Wolves would have Love, Turner, Aldrich, Gay, and Flynn; with Rubio a year away, I would be all for it, just seems unlikely.

by Rumblebee on Jan 18, 2010 2:30 PM CST up reply actions  

Heh

we’re back to the age-old question:

Your Al/Love take is what has me thinking Love may be the more likely trade, since in an odd way he may bring back a better player.

It’s precisely because Love is a better value that I think the Wolves will keep him. As much as we might not want to believe/admit it, the Wolves are squarely in the “have nots” category in terms of talent and revenue. Therefore, they would be more likely to want four young guys making $3 mill per year, rather than one guy making four times that much. A contender would see things with the opposite take.

Again, I’d love to be proven wrong. But keep in mind, even if they do trade Jefferson, and his replacement isn’t as good, it’s not like the team will automatically lose 24 18 points and 9 rebounds per game. His replacement will pick up some of that, and the wing player that the team would presumably add in return would hopefully make up more than the difference by getting more than what the Wolves are getting on offense and/or defense on the perimeter.

by PoorDick on Jan 18, 2010 2:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Try this take

I don’t disagree with you per se….but ask yourself this: Is Love and his value more important to a team going below the cap (like the Wolves), or to a team trying to bust out of luxury tax hell? When you factor in luxury tax expenses, Love would actually have a higher value to a team like the Hornets than he has to the Wolves. I will concede that this only makes sense for the Wolves if they get back a player who makes them a contender…not likely.

Your last paragraph ties to the reply I made on your post about a certain Portland center. I mentioned at the end Kahn may consider this deal to save money, knowing that even if the deal sort of flops, he will probably get some value in return while saving money.

We aren’t that far apart here. My take is more trying to keep open the slim possibility Kahn can make a move with Love that makes the team instantly a contender when combined with whoever they draft this summer. It also requires taking advantage of a team looking to shed payroll. Would the Nets give up their #1 for Love? Maybe so, if they really believe they can combine Love, LeBron and Bosh or something similar.

by Rumblebee on Jan 18, 2010 7:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Not to interupt the conversation you guys have going here

but what kind of deal do you think they are looking (if they are looking) to make for Love? I can’t think of a realistic way to make us a contender by trading Love away because I don’t think there are any stars on the trading block that coudn’t be had for Jefferson (not that I can think of any that could be had for Jefferson either). Just wondering if you had something in mind?

by Mplax on Jan 18, 2010 7:29 PM CST up reply actions  

A couple

the Nets scenario I wrote in the last post could be one. I would also ask, if the Hornets finally decide they have to move Paul because the don’t have enough money, would they rather have Love or Jefferson? I really don’t know, just speculating. The deal below works on the trade machine, saves NOL over $20 million next season, and about $10 million this season when they go from a tax payer to a tax receiver. Meanwhile, the Wolves become an instant contender pairing these guys with AL and after drafting Turner.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine

by Rumblebee on Jan 18, 2010 8:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Heh

The best way to Guarantee that the Wolves get the first pick (to draft Wall) and to make Rubio allofasudden want to come to the NBA is to cash in all chips to trade for Chris Paul.

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 9:37 AM CST up reply actions  

Very interesting

I’d have a hard time believing NO would ever go for it, but it’s certainly interesting. I guess Cardinal could definitely push them over the top though ;-)
I’m guessing they would prefer Love over Jefferson though seeing as Love would fit better with Okafor and David West and he is considerably cheaper going forward (at least until his contract comes due).

by Mplax on Jan 18, 2010 9:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Cardinal's big 3 pointer this afternoon

must have been on my mind when I did the trade. I tried to max out the salary savings for NOL to show value…I actually think they would want Flynn instead of Gomes, or in addition.

by Rumblebee on Jan 18, 2010 10:03 PM CST up reply actions  

I hope every one who seems to think that the Wolves are going to spend money to add quality players through trades and free agency before the beginning of next season are right, and that when offered the chance to play in Minnesota, this higher level talent will jump at the chance. I won’t believe it until I see it.

The team has admitted/claimed that they won’t be competitve for another three years. I don’t question their knowledge of the situation, so I’ll take their word for it.

You seem to read into any little hint that Kahn and Co. have made about delaying the use of cap space or keeping a lower payroll while downplaying the concrete stuff. Kahn has talked repeatedly about a 16 month rebuild with 5 periods of activity. He’s talked many times about free agency and the coming summer. I’m not saying that you’re not right, but if you are, Kahn has done a HORRIBLE job of preparing the fanbase for minor or moderate moves. He’s been touting this summer as some kind of hope. Silly to do that if Taylor has put the kabosh on spending up to the cap. I don’t think it wise to further test what remains of the Wolves fanbase so I would hope that Kahn is being truthful in his many previous statements about this summer. Getting a FA is another story, but I am thinking more a trade using our cap space than an outright signing.

by Blond Ricky on Jan 17, 2010 9:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Agree.

He promised a 16-month roster overhaul, with a young core in place by opening day next season. I expect that to be at least largely true. If it’s not, then it’s time (for me, at least) to question why I invest so much into cheering for an entity that is simply trying to avoid financial losses instead of improving the product.

by LoveTo on Jan 18, 2010 2:33 AM CST up reply actions  

Heh heh
it’s not, then it’s time (for me, at least) to question why I invest so much into cheering for an entity that is simply trying to avoid financial losses instead of improving the product

Well, that’s a question we all should be asking, right? I’m okay with it . . .

by PoorDick on Jan 18, 2010 11:10 AM CST up reply actions  

Maybe Kahn is trying to keep his leverage

If he comes out and says they will try to trade for a big contract this summer, or at the deadline, he loses some leverage. I doubt this is the case, but it should be considered.

by Rumblebee on Jan 18, 2010 2:33 PM CST up reply actions  

That's why this "Kahn said" stuff is so ridiculous

He’s a complete idiot if he’s publicly stating what the team intends to do. And even if he intends to do what he says, it takes other teams and other players to accede to his wishes.

by PoorDick on Jan 18, 2010 2:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Agree

I think he was upfront last summer when there was little to lose, and that he did so intentionally to throw other FO personnel off when it matters.

by Rumblebee on Jan 18, 2010 7:01 PM CST up reply actions  

Sometimes more truth lies in

what someone does, instead of what he says.

Just a Fan is a poster here whom I trust. He alluded to the notion that Kahn has been surprised at the lack of interest among players in coming to Minnesota. If that’s the case, it may hinder the ability to sign FAs, restricted or otherwise.

Which would leave a trade using our cap space, which involves giving up something (picks or players), or taking back something they don’t want (a bad contract).

Other than Love and Jefferson, and to a much lesser extent Gomes, Brewer, Sessions, and Flynn, there are no players that would be desirable to another team (other than as expiring contracts). Giving up picks doesn’t make a lot of sense for the team, as more picks increase the chances of getting lucky in the draft, at relatively little cost/risk compared to the upside potential.

So then the other option is taking back bad contracts—something that a team losing $20 milllion or more per year is understandably hesitant to do, especially when the extra fan interest and revenue is neither close at hand, nor guaranteed.

The truth hurts, and sucks. And as I’ve stated before, I hope I’m wrong. But when it comes to events beyond my control, I would rather assume a bad case scenario and be pleasantly surprised, rather than pin my hopes on an optimal outcome.

by PoorDick on Jan 18, 2010 12:02 PM CST up reply actions  

What I'm slightly confused about...

Isn’t taking on a bad contract essentially the same as signing a player? If you’re under the cap, you can take on extra salary in trades. So if we trade for Gallinari and take on Curry’s contract, or Iguodala and take on Brand’s contract, we’re essentially giving up our cap space (to Curry/Brand) in order to add a talented player who actually is in our future. Right? I guess I fail to see how it’s different than throwing money at a free agent.

by LoveTo on Jan 18, 2010 12:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Good point

I mean weighing the total cost of getting a player, vs. the value provided. In your good example, what’s the total cost of Iggy and Brand’s deal, vs. the value Iggy (and to a lesser extent Brand), would provide? If it’s say, $90 mm over the next four years (50 for Iggy, 40 for Brand), that’s almost half of the 200mm or so that I think the Wolves would want to pay in salary over that same period. For what? I could see it if the Wolves were on the brink of a championship with no clear front-runner in sight, but that’s certainly not the case.

Why wouldn’t they instead spend that money on rookie contracts—some of whom will bust, but one or two of whom could develop into starters or stars?

by PoorDick on Jan 18, 2010 1:17 PM CST up reply actions  

well

If I may…I don’t think PD is saying that Mr. Taylor’s only goal is to dump salary. Dumping salary is only one goal and it competes with Taylor’s clear desire to have a winning team that actually draws fans and makes him money.

As you astutely point out, the signings of Hollins, Sessions and Pavlovic are not indicative of a “cut salary at all costs approach.” PD is saying, however, that Big Al is the Wolves most expensive player, that the Wolves really do suck, and that the Wolves have a much, much cheaper player that plays essentially the same position. The signings of Sessions, Hollins, and Pavs are all consistent with trying to cost effectively build a team. 7 foot defensive centers are very expensive and Kahn tried to get one fairly cheaply with Hollins. Pavs was once considered a solider contributor on a playoff squad why not see if he’s the shooter you need for one year. Brewer is relatively cheap, has promise, etc.

Any sensible trade of Al will be financially motivated. That does not mean, however, that the only thing the Wolves want back is salary. It simply means that it will be difficult to get back equal talent in a trade, and that the wolves do value extra picks, more cap space, and young players. Al has by far the highest salary on the team and he, for whatever reasons is not producing wins or fans. Perhaps he will produce both in 3 years or perhaps the POBO thinks that trading Big Al will save money now and that ….

ah, I see PoorDick has responded. I have yet to read…dueling posts… I will stop and let PD speak for himself.

by littleboxes on Jan 17, 2010 12:53 AM CST up reply actions  

"I will stop and let PD speak for himself"

You do it better for me than I could.

Now—I have a couple issues with my wife that I’m having difficulty in properly articulating. Would you be a dear and represent me?

by PoorDick on Jan 17, 2010 8:31 AM CST up reply actions  

Some day

you will really just have to sit down with her and explain to her what advanced stats are and how they help to clarify the picture painted by the boxscore.
Once she understands this, I think many of your issues will go away.

Unless of course you problems aren’t Wolves related… then your marriage is a sham!

by Mplax on Jan 17, 2010 2:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Ah,

this could be at least a small part of the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 18, 2010 11:09 AM CST up reply actions  

I am all in for moving on without Al...

I think a trade with Chicago for Deng and Tyrus would basically give us four postions after the draft…all except center and maybe even center. Rubio at PG, draft for SG (Wall /Tuner prefered ), Deng at SF, Love or Tyrus (Tyrus is the kind of defensive PF/C we need) at PF, and we may even be set at C with Pek coming over. That gives us:
PG Rubio, Flynn, Sessions,
SG Turner/Wall/darft, Ellington, Brewer
SF Deng, Brewer, Gomes
PF Love, Tyrus, Gomes
C Pekovic, Jawai
I’m hoping to send Hollins in the deal for Deng and we still have Tucker and Wilkins if we want to get rid of Gomes and Sessions. I think our statring 5 with the exception of center (if we get Wall or Turner would) would be set and maybe even at center. I think if we could be Gortat or draft a defensive center we would be set 1-5. Give Chicago the low post they want and it will get us where we want as well.

by Wolf21 on Jan 17, 2010 7:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Also...

I think Chicago will do it. They want a low post scorer and by trading Deng for Al they will have 3 of 4 positons set with Rose at PG, Al and PF, and Noah at center, with cap space to go and get a stud this summer plus they can’t wait to unload Tyrus. And of course Chicagp is a place that could attract a big name especially with talent already there.

by Wolf21 on Jan 17, 2010 7:08 PM CST up reply actions  

The time to trade with the Bulls

was last year, when I believe we could have had Deng and Noah for Al (and then the Bulls may have then resigned Gordon). Now there is no way they would do it, as the Bulls would have little else left besides Rose. No, no, no, to Hinrich, unless Deng and Noah come with—and maybe not even then.

If we really wanted Taj Gibson (and they should have taken him), the opportunity was in the draft. And Ty Thomas will be available this summer if the Wolves want him.

Otherwise, this is a very well-written and thought out proposal.

by PoorDick on Jan 16, 2010 10:03 PM CST reply actions  

I was really hoping for a Taj Gibson pick

during draft night. Produced very well on a good team and I believe it was just some health issues and some game-translation issues that kept him so low. He really is exactly what we need though. High energy, athletic and mobile big who can guard the guys who Jefferson and Love can’t.
He was second to Jodie Meeks, but after Ellington was grabbed, he quickly moved ahead. We seem to have a history of screwing up some very obvious selections. Chalmers, CDR, and DeAndre Jordan two years ago under McHale. Hopefully this trend wont continue.

by Mplax on Jan 17, 2010 2:30 PM CST up reply actions  

On the one hand

Gibson is exactly the guy many Wolves fans would have wanted, due to his shot blocking and rebounding ability in college. For that kind of guy I thought he was extremely undervalued in the draft. ON the other hand, he’s exactly Al Jefferson, PF height with the wingspan of a center. And if people can’t believe that Jefferson is a center, they know Gibson isn’t and for that mind set it leaves the Wolves with 3 PFs and no centers (to speak of). He could be a good compliment to Jefferson when sitting Love (say for the entire second half of a game, or anytime the team goes to OT) but not such a good match with Love. It was hard to see the Wolves drafting a PF in that spot with all their other needs.

by dropstep on Jan 17, 2010 3:18 PM CST up reply actions  

Why don't you think he would work well with Love?

I think the fact that he is a PF would be negated by his wingspan in many situations. It’s not like I want to put Taj Gibson on Dwight Howard (or at least I wouldn’t keep him there if the first few minutes didn’t go so well), but I think he would do better on guys like KG, Bosh, Dirk, Lewis, Dunleavy, etc that Love and Jefferson have the issues with. My thing is that I define players more by their matchup potential than by their position. Jefferson for example, I would say he is a PF or a C depending on who he is playing opposite of, not because he is 6’10 (or so). Against Howard and Lewis, he should be on Howard. Against, Dirk and Dampier he should be on Dampier. Against Camby and Kenyon Martin… I’d say I’d prefer him on Martin. So in most instances, I am actually ok with him at C rather than PF… though he certainly has weaknesses in either position. Wow… I went a little far with that, but yeah, so I think Gibson would be a pretty good fit next to Love or Jefferson, though with Love I see them having some issues with guys like Dwight Howard… then again, who doesnt

by Mplax on Jan 17, 2010 3:59 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not saying he can't play center

I’m saying that for those folks who think we need 3rd big because Jefferson can’t play center, I don’t see how Gibson is the guy. Do the Bulls ever play him at center? Not that the Wolves wouldn’t be a better team with Gibson on the roster, there are definitely matchup scenarios at the 4 or even 5 where he would help defensively. He does need to improve his overall game, though.

by dropstep on Jan 17, 2010 4:50 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah I agree completely

he is by no means the answer to our problems, but I think he would be the perfect 4th big to have and also a guy who can play bigger minutes when the matchup calls for it. I’m a fan of his hustle… not just his hustle but his actual productive hustle (production measured by the eye test and how much it looks like he antagonizes his guy).

by Mplax on Jan 17, 2010 5:09 PM CST up reply actions  

Now that you say 4th big

I can see the interest. I could see keeping Love and Jefferson and backing them with relatively cheap complimentary bigs, and I’d sign on for Gibson and let’s say Turiaf (an amazing fit in the triangle). of course, not much scoring from the bench, so we still need a huge wings upgrade.

by dropstep on Jan 17, 2010 7:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah I guess that helps

I don’t want Gibson playing 30mpg, just around 15ish or so. And we definitely need an upgrade at the wing position. Hopefully that will be taken care of this draft though! Or through FA with the guys who I constantly throw out there: R.Brewer and Childress

by Mplax on Jan 17, 2010 9:53 PM CST up reply actions  

I do too

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Rubio trade, too. I agree that the team was heading to a permanent status of mediocrity under a Jefferson / Foye regime. I like that we are trying to build a championship calibre team. But from Al’s perspective the Rubio trade has to be viewed as an immediate set back, and showed that the Wolves are not committed to “win-now” with a team built around Al. By the time Rubio’s finally in place and the other pieces are aligned and clicking, Al could be 28, 29 or even 30, with a lot of time on those tires already.

by Mike B. on Jan 17, 2010 8:05 AM CST up reply actions  

the net efficiency stats I quoted above are for December....

The Net Positive in the pain efficiency was [plus 5 points]

The Net Negative “out of the paint” efficiency was [minus 19 points]

So far in January for “out of the paint” efficiency we are [minus 30 points]

MINUS 30 points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 17, 2010 8:45 AM CST up reply actions  

I'm not a high level stats guy

But I think when Sam Young drives to the basket and Al can’t even put up his arms to contest a layup, those two points count against our “out of the paint” efficiency. So, if our shot blockers are useless stopping other teams point guards, shooting guards and small forwards going towards the basket in transition or in the half court, it counts against our out of the paint efficiency, even on layups. Same when everyone collapses to help the paint and the ball rotates back out for the open three. In the paint and out of the paint are calculated by position. Fast breaks off turnovers (whether its Jefferson or Flynn turning it over) also count against our out of the paint efficiency if the layup is made by an opposing point guard, shooting guard, or small forward (which they usually are). Not sure these statistics reveal all that much on a team that is as uniformally terrible as we are right now.

by Mike B. on Jan 17, 2010 9:29 PM CST up reply actions  

out problems are not in the paint... they are on the perimeter...both shooting and defending.

People say we have a problem with interior defense. But that problem is more than nullified by our interior offense.

If we played on the perimeter as well as we play in the interior, we’d be in the top 10 in the NBA.

We need to add talent, not “give away” the little talent we have.

by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 17, 2010 8:54 AM CST reply actions  

perimeter defense, YES!

I agree with KLJ. We are unable to stop any team from outside, but we are also unable to score from outside. Also, a good point about the Miller/Foye-Rubio trade being a set back for Jefferson. Imagine Miller producing this year like he was supposed to do for us last year. How different of a team would that have been? I hope the people who have been so supportive of all the jettisoning of players that Kahn has performed are enjoying this season’s team. It seems their preferred recourse is, wait for it, more roster churning. Nothing the next “pie-in-the-sky” acquisition can’t fix. BTW, who’s our current longest-tenured player or coach? Corey Brewer? We’ve really taken time to see how things could work out with our present players, haven’t we?

by ogishkemuncie on Jan 17, 2010 6:52 PM CST reply actions  

I hope the people who have been so supportive of all the jettisoning of players that Kahn has performed are enjoying this season’s team.

Miller and Foye have done what exactly in Washington supposedly playing for an offensive minded coach? Telfair and Smith are bit players in LA.

These kinds of comments annoy me as it’s painfully obvious to me that even if we would have stayed the course with last year’s roster + Flynn we’d be marginally better…like maybe 4-5 wins. We’d be a higher lotto team faced with extending Foye and Miller vs cap space and be out the rights to Rubio. Additionally, Sessions is a better player than Telfair and we never would have signed him without the trade.

Am I enjoying the season? No, but I wasn’t expecting that I would. The few additional wins wouldn’t comfort me any more than the promise of eventually making something out of the Rubio chip and netting a higher draft pick this year. We were going to be bad either way (thank you McHale). At least this way we’ve got the chance to turn things around with top end end talent. (Rubio + Turner?). If we had kept Foye/Miller and resigned them we would have been looking at a D. Ebanks kind of draft (later lotto -if anything being that we give our pick to LA if above 10) plus no cap room. Those 5 extra wins don’t look so good giving up the higher pick, Rubio and a potentially good FA IMO.

by Blond Ricky on Jan 17, 2010 9:01 PM CST up reply actions  

I agreed with Kahn's decision to revamp the roster since they were not championship caliber and guys like Miller and Foye were free agents at the end of this season. So better off getting something for them, if they are not worth the money.

But I disagree with the premise that last years team, when you add Brewer and Flynn only wins say 30 games.

From late-December till Al was injured last season in mid-Feb, this team was consistently beating non-playoff teams. If they play at that level for a full season, they win about 40 games. To that we add Brewer and Flynn. We win at least 40 games. The team is respectable, but they are not championship caliber. Thats why Kahn blew it up.

by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 17, 2010 10:23 PM CST up reply actions  

It’s pretty speculative to take a small sample size when the team was hot and conclude they could keep it up for a whole season. That’s not how things usually work. Look at who those players are over their career. Foye is bench player, Miller has lost it, Smith and Telfair are bench guys.

Look at the Clippers this year. They’ve got more talent than last years Wolves team plus Brewer and Flynn and they won’t get very close to 40 wins this year.

I guess we’ll agree to disagree as the team your talking about is far from “respectable” in my opinion.

FWIW, I agree with your larger point that it’s unfair to judge Al as far as winning given the talent he’s had around him. I think we can all agree that Al isn’t a superstar to the level he can carry a team like a LeBron could… he’s still very good though. I’d would never sayl Al is untouchable, but the sentiment that we should dump him for spare parts is just silly IMO. We’ve got so many other avenues to improve, there’s no reason to trade Al for marginal talent even if it might fit better. I’d trade Al if we were getting a comparable talented big that fits with Love better (ex. Bynum) or a clear cut upgrade talent level wise on the wing. I wouldn’t trade him for equal talent on the wing.

Looking at Zach Randolph this year is enough for me to see that a team can be succesful with big Al as a major minutes guy. Zach is really similar to Al and I don’t think anyone could argue that he’s not a big part of the Memphis resurgence. They’ve got a much better supporting cast including more complementary bigs, but it’s success nonetheless. Al is younger, cheaper, a better shotblocker and has never had the attitude concerns that Zach has had.

by Blond Ricky on Jan 17, 2010 11:17 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree with most of what you said...after your third paragraph.... let me make my case for Wolves turn around last season another way.

This is wolves win shares last season

Love – 5.3
Jefferson – 4.9 (in 50 games)
Miller – 4.2
Foye – 3.1
smith – 3.1
Gomes – 2.5
Carney – 1.5
Ollie – 1.2
Cardinal – 0.9
Telfair – 0.8
Williams 0.4
Brewer 0.3
Brown 0.1
Mad dog minus 0.1

total 28.2 win share – shows we played better than our record.

Note: Left off McCants – since traded and collins since expiring.

What would change?

Love – 10 [rate for this season]
Jefferson 8 [full season]
Miller 6 [average for better years]
Foye 3.6 [prorated for full season]
Smith 3.1
Gomes 2.5
ollie – replaced by Sessions – and wolves “trying to win” ** – 6.7
Cardinal 0.9
Telfair 0.8
williams 3.4 [what he’s getting for Boston]
Brewer 1.6 [full season]
Brown – replaced by Flynn – 0.4
Mad Dog – 0.1

total 47 *

  • don’t think they get 47 wins, but since I’m being optimistic on everything but do think they get over 40. This is approx. how they do it. Most of the pick up, full season of improved Love, Jefferson healthy for full year, Sessions as starter and playing in “normal” offense not triangle, Miller returning to previous form,
  • Note Sessions is most controversial assessment – last year with Bucks playing 27.5 min/gm win share of 5.6
  • We are also playing “McHale’s offense” not triangle… so Sessions performance much better.

by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 18, 2010 8:37 AM CST up reply actions  

this is an exceptionally generous view of a lot of these players.

first, how does al magically get healthy for the start of this year? he’s on pace for a little under 6 WS this year. unless this is an assessment for next year, i think you should stick with his WS pace for this year.

miller hasn’t posted a WS over 5 since 05/06 and doesn’t look to be the same player anymore. closer to 4 seems like a much safer estimate.

you gave all the reasons why sessions would not likely hit that WS number. he’s been trying to win in milwaukee and couldn’t do that and that is all while posting a 2.1 defensive WS, which is baffling considering the defender i’ve seen throughout his career. he’s on pace for about 1 defensive WS this year, which seems closer to his actual level of play. if anything, i’d expect him to be closer to 4.5 WS if playing under mchale (and i’m not sure why they’re still playing under mchale in the first place).

that still leaves them sitting at about 40 WS, but considering this is a team that is a bit uninspiring defensively (and that i have no idea what the minutes breakdown is with this WS setup), my guess is that it’s closer to 35. again, not terrible, but not particularly close to the playoffs. it is borderline “respectable” depending on your use of the term, so to be Self Appointed Arbiter Of Neutrality in this discussion, i’d say the truth lies somewhere in between the 40 you’re suggesting and the 30 blond ricky suggests.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 18, 2010 4:54 PM CST up reply actions  

oh and, unless love’s hand didn’t break before the season, he’s on pace for closer to 8 wins. i understand that you want to give them the benefit of health to see where they could be, but really they are about the 11 wins worse that win shares would have guessed (assuming they finish in the low 20s for wins this year, a fair assessment with love’s return, i think) after trading smith, miller, foye and telfair for nothing.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 18, 2010 5:13 PM CST up reply actions  

To be fair

Pecherov would not have been here to break Love’s hand ;-)

by Mplax on Jan 18, 2010 6:33 PM CST up reply actions  

Then again

maybe he would have suffered a worse injury had he played…

by Mplax on Jan 18, 2010 6:34 PM CST up reply actions  

wait, have not heard the story of how love broke his hand? i just remember hearing that he broke it and had no idea that pecherov was somehow responsible.

but yeah, i guess i was mostly trying to get everything on a level playing field of healthiness as most injuries are pretty random and we were already ignoring miller’s injuries this year.

moral of the story, health being equal, the wolves sacrificed about 11 wins (maybe a bit more, considering the roster imbalance right now) from a non-playoff team this year to blow everthing up and add rubio and cap space. seems like a good deal to me and one that everyone seems to be supportive of.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 18, 2010 6:44 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm pretty sure he hit Pech's elbow or something

when he went up for a rebound… not 100% positive on that though.

But yeah it’s all conjecture about what injury would or wouldn’t have happened. But I am definitely with you that you can’t just say that these win shares would translate into actual wins for us in a completely different scenario.

Also, Shelden Williams would not be putting up a single win share for us…

by Mplax on Jan 18, 2010 6:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Pech was trying to take another

ill-advised three, and Love went up for the block.

In a game.

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 9:39 AM CST up reply actions  

Had them playing under McHale, because question concerned bringing back "mostly" last years team and system. Would they be five hundred team.

as I said previously, I do believe that last years team had turned a corner in late december. They were also developing some chemistry together.

That chemistry is lost if many of them are traded or we play under a new coach with a new system.

But as I’ve also said, I agree with Kahn’s decision that last years team couldn’t win a championship, so “blowing up the team” was the right one.

But I do think they were much farther along than most people realized. I wish people had seen 35 wins or so last season [though I’m glad we got the 6th pick] then they would have better understood how good jefferson and Love are…….I think people undervalue jefferson, in particular and to a lessor extent Love because they have seen them win enough games.

by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 20, 2010 7:10 AM CST up reply actions  

The NBA Landscape

Over the last couple of off-seasons, I’ve had this mental picture of the NBA, and what it would take to contend in the coming seasons. Basically, I envisioned the Lakers Kobe-Gasol-Bynum trio at the 1-seed in the West, and the Blazers Roy-Aldridge-Oden trio at the 2-seed, and the Wolves best-case scenario landing well short of either of those teams.

Well, I don’t think it’s quite so bleak for the Wolves, from this broad-brush perspective. Memphis is 21-10 since their 1-8 start (most of which can be blamed on the failed Iverson Experiment) and will fight for a high seed in THIS YEAR’s playoffs. Amazing, since they have been right with us at each step of the way in the last few lotteries. In fact, many Wolves fans would prefer to have Love and Flynn over Mayo and Thabeet. However, they have stayed the course, added one veteran terrible contract/high talent player and voila, they are winning more than anybody, these days.

Oklahoma City got lucky in one lottery, and made a shrewd and controversial decision in the next one, and they are now also in the playoff picture.

Both Oklahoma City and Memphis can realistically expect to challenge for the NBA title within two years. Who the hell would have guessed that 18 months ago?

The Wolves need to stop re-re-re-building, and start to commit to these high lottery players. I support(ed) the trade of Foye/Miller for Rubio, but that’s gotta be the end of the line. We don’t trade Al Jefferson, unless there’s an offer that we can’t refuse. That’s the Danny Granger trade. Or something very similar. We need to commit to Love, Jefferson, Flynn, Rubio, and whoever else joins in this off-season. If we can add a quality veteran, that would help even more. But in a shorter time than most people imagine, the West will be up for grabs. Oden is a bust until he proves otherwise, and that sure doesn’t look very likely. Kobe’s having back problems, and is probably on the downward trend at this point. Dallas doesn’t have age on their side. Neither does Denver, aside from Carmelo.

If the Wolves trade Jefferson or continue rebuilding over and over again, it will be pretty disappointing to see our old friends from the lottery battling it out in the West Finals.

by Andy G on Jan 18, 2010 11:52 PM CST reply actions  

Both Oklahoma City and Memphis can realistically expect to challenge for the NBA title within two years.

i can see someone making the case for OKC, but memphis really isn’t that close. if they win the lottery this year (and they will be in the lottery) or least end up in the top 3, then maybe they enter the conversation, but is a gay/thabeet/mayo core really a contending trio? i don’t see it.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 19, 2010 12:27 AM CST up reply actions  

Here are the ages of Memphis’ rotation players:

Conley (22)
Mayo (22)
Gay (23)
Randolph (28)
Gasol (24)

Young (24)
Thabeet (22)
Arthur (when healthy) (22)
Tinsley (31)

Aside from the Lakers, who is playing better basketball than Memphis in the West? And why would a team that is so young not make huge strides over the next few years?

I guess if you assume (which would be fair, in their case) that they let Rudy Gay walk or blow up the roster for financial reasons, then they won’t be a contender. But they’re well on their way to making the playoffs this year and possibly a Top-4 seed. Yes, they are 1/2 game out right now, but their 8-2 record over the past 10 is best in the West and they’re only 4.5 games out of the 2-seed. You can definitely “make the case” for Memphis.

by Andy G on Jan 19, 2010 12:55 AM CST up reply actions  

of those guys, who do you really see becoming a great player? gay strikes me as a best case scenario #2 guy, mike conley hasn’t really improved much from his rookie year, mayo is another complementary guy, young is a decent bench guy who i don’t expect to become much better than that, thabeet should be a decent defensive center who can rebound, zach randolph is 28 and having a career year (he is what he is and i don’t expect him to be this good next year), gasol is a very nice piece.

they’ve got a decent amount of “good” with almost no potential for “great.” great wins championships, good makes the playoffs and i don’t even see them as a playoff team this year. they’re probably going to stay in the race, but i just don’t see that much potential on that team.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 19, 2010 1:14 AM CST up reply actions  

I’m reading a fair amount into their 21-10 stretch that they’re on. If they slow down, they might not make the playoffs. But if they keep that pace or something close to it, they’ll win 48+ games and earn a playoff bid.

Great usually wins titles — but when they have 22 and 23 year olds that are already “good,” I’m not willing to foreclose the possibility that any of them will become “great.” I think between Mayo, Gay, Gasol and Thabeet, there is a pretty high ceiling. There’s no LeBron James or Kevin Durant, but 4 very good players is a lot better than 1 great one. I don’t know how long Z-Bo can play at a high level. That will play a factor, obviously.

by Andy G on Jan 19, 2010 7:26 AM CST up reply actions  

Great team vs Superstar players

With your statement of 4 very good players, you bring up the idea that great “team play” wins over great players. I can only think of Detroit where that actually worked in the last 30 years. I’m not saying that it can’t work again, but the current reality seems to be that you need at least one superstar to make and win championships.

Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)

by frankenhoops on Jan 19, 2010 8:10 PM CST up reply actions  

For Memphis it boils down to 4 questions

1. Does Gay want to stay there, and if so, can Memphis afford him. If Gay has any desire to play for a long term winner, he has to be nervous about an owner who essentially gave away Pau Gasol to save money.
2. If they keep Gay, can they afford to keep Randolph…if not is Thabeet good enough to replace him.
3. How long can they afford to keep the entire rotation you mentioned?
4. To really compete, they need about six young guys to continue to improve. What happens if a couple don’t improve (like Conley).

Until the prove otherwise, I really don’t see them committing to a long term $70 million payroll that will be required to keep this team together. In three years Gay and Mayo alone will be earning $25 million combined.

by Rumblebee on Jan 19, 2010 9:32 AM CST up reply actions  

Good points

and don’t forget the Wild Card owner. If there’s one guy who might trade away a young core for a star on the downside it’s him.

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 9:41 AM CST up reply actions  

My basic point...

is that if Mayo, Gay, Gasol and Thabeet improve over the next two seasons (fair assumption for 22-24 year olds), Randolph sticks around (you’d think he would have some attachment to the first good gig he’s had in his career), and the re-sign the relevant guys, they would be a logical choice as a contender in the West. They’re winning as much as any team in the league over the last 30 games — that’s a pretty hefty sample size to call a fluke. Even if they finish out the year at slightly over .500 (which would be qiute a bit worse than their recent trend) they’ll finish at about 44-38 or 45-37, which would be a massive upgrade over their recent seasons. In two years, could that team be up to 55+ wins? I don’t see why not, if the above things happen.

I think they’ll finish this season at about 49-33 and be a tough 1st Round opponent for Dallas or Denver. I thought I heard somewhere that they own 3 1st Round Picks, this draft as well. Granted, they aren’t high ones, but they might be able to add another decent young player or two, there as well.

by Andy G on Jan 19, 2010 10:59 AM CST up reply actions  

My basic point...

is that if Mayo, Gay, Gasol and Thabeet improve over the next two seasons (fair assumption for 22-24 year olds), Randolph sticks around (you’d think he would have some attachment to the first good gig he’s had in his career), and the re-sign the relevant guys, they would be a logical choice as a contender in the West. They’re winning as much as any team in the league over the last 30 games — that’s a pretty hefty sample size to call a fluke. Even if they finish out the year at slightly over .500 (which would be qiute a bit worse than their recent trend) they’ll finish at about 44-38 or 45-37, which would be a massive upgrade over their recent seasons. In two years, could that team be up to 55+ wins? I don’t see why not, if the above things happen.

I think they’ll finish this season at about 49-33 and be a tough 1st Round opponent for Dallas or Denver. I thought I heard somewhere that they own 3 1st Round Picks, this draft as well. Granted, they aren’t high ones, but they might be able to add another decent young player or two, there as well.

by Andy G on Jan 19, 2010 10:59 AM CST up reply actions  

The Pau trade is bashed too much. This was the situation.

1) Pau didn’t like Memphis and wanted out. Wasn’t “shooting his way out”, but close.

2) Marc Gasol had gone to high school in Memphis and really liked the city. He wanted to play there.

Pau was more of a Power Forward, Marc more of a center. So Pau fit better with Bynum and a big rugged center is harder to find than a power forward.

With Marc more developed now, and wanting to stay in Memphis and Pau definitely wanting to leave… this wasn’t as one sided a trade as it seemed in the first year.

by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 19, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions  

These teams got lucky

something the Wolves have been woefully lacking in the past few years (at least, until and if/when Rubio comes over).

That said, there are multiple stories of young guns coming together at the same time and getting to say, 50 wins, only to implode shortly thereafter due to bad luck or bad decisions or bad timing—see the Run TMC Warriors, the Darius Miles Clippers, and so far, the Blazers.

I don’t deny the wisdom of giving the players time. But your example of “committing” to Love, Jefferson, Flynn, and Rubio doesn’t make sense. First of all, Rubio hasn’t committed to the Wolves, so they can’t commit to him. Second, he plays the same position as Flynn. Third, Love and Al Jeff are not complimentary players, and a less-charitable person would say they play the same position as well. Fourth, Flynn may be a good PG some day. So far, he seems like another vastly undersized 2 guard.

I would argue that despite the 20 win pace, this team is actually playing above its level of talent. It’s mostly McHale’s fault that Kahn and Rambis have to clean up, but they are soooooooo far away from the rosters of our former lottery brethren, that they need to either spend a ton of money to sign/trade for veterans, or remain in the lottery for many more years to build talent organically. Which one do you think they will do?

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 9:52 AM CST up reply actions  

We're not too far away

It doesn’t take much to get things going, and it’ll take even less now that the Western Powers are on their way downhill.

It will take some luck to get their quickly. Obviously John Wall would be the most realistic scenario of lucking into a fast-track to success. But with Flynn, Love and Jefferson looking like bona fide players for the long-haul, I don’t think any sort of demolition project needs to take place with this roster. That was the idea when Ricky Buckets and Marko Jaric were flanking an aging Kevin Garnett. This team is on the rise, so there’s no reason to get worse before we get better.

by Andy G on Jan 19, 2010 11:27 AM CST up reply actions  

Say "hi" to Kevin Love Jefferson

for me at the weekly Wolves Fans Sunrise Optimists meeting.

There’s really nothing to demolish here, but there is little in the way of building blocks other than Love or Jefferson. Flynn’s scoring is nice, but he needs to prove he can pass and defend before he can be called a “bona fide player for the long-haul.” Every other player on this roster is easily replaceable.

By the time the time the Wolves “get things going,” OKC, the Clippers, the Blazers, Memphis, the Nuggets, and who knows who else will have several years of playing together and developing their rosters—to say nothing of teams in the East. And although Kobe may have seen better days, I don’t think the Lakers are going to sit idly by with Gasol and Bynum and just fall into the cellar.

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 12:22 PM CST up reply actions  

Apparently,

more than two, as this team is not any better than they were at the start of the season.

Go down the starting fives of any of the younger, better teams in the West, and then compare them player-by-player with what the Wolves have right now.

As I mentioned, it’s mostly on McHale, but right now there is nothing other than two relatively overlapping players. Everything else is pie-in-the-sky: Rubio, Flynn getting better, draft picks, cap space.

Even the moves made by Kahn, and the coaching job of Rambis offer little in the way of hope, albeit over a very short time frame.

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 2:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Kevin Love is better than most young power forwards and Al Jefferson is better than most young centers. Jonny Flynn has shown the potential to be better than Mike Conley or Steve Blake, but not as good as Russell Westbrook or Tyreke Evans. Corey Brewer and Damien Wilkins are not good players. That’s obviously the weakness of the team and a large part of why we lose so much. The other major weakness is depth, which has little to do with “building blocks” and more to do with filling out the roster with decent veterans, once we reach a point where we’re trying to contend.

If you think Flynn getting better is “pie in the sky” then you’re a very pessimistic fan. He can legally drink a beer for the first time on February 6.

And generically referring to “draft picks” doesn’t quite do justice to what should be a Top-3 pick in a pretty solid draft.

by Andy G on Jan 19, 2010 2:32 PM CST up reply actions  

Oh, no

I like Flynn, and I’m certainly not on the HE SUKKSS bandwagon, and willling to give him time. I agree on Love, and although I like Al Jefferson, the man’s played 10,000 minutes in the NBA, so I’m not sure he qualifies as “young” in the sense that he’s raw, and will greatly improve over what he already is.

So we agree that Love and AlJeff are above average, and that Jonny has potential? That leaves half the starting line-up with a big fat “zero” where there should be a competent starter. I’m not saying it can’t or won’t happen, but the notion that we’re movin’ on up is ludicrous.

The “depth” issue is exactly right—the problem is that the players added by Kahn in the short time he’s had to do so (Sessions, Hollins, etc.) haven’t exactly been awe-inspiring. So maybe they’ll get better, or maybe Rambis’ input will make a difference when they fill out the rest of the roster. But so far, they get about a C minus for unearthing undiscovered gems.

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 3:35 PM CST up reply actions  

Is this a fair representation of our disagreement?

I prefer this roster:

Flynn (and Rubio in either 2011 or 2012)
(empty)
(empty)
Love
Jefferson

You prefer this roster:

Flynn (and Rubio in either 2011 or 2012)
Average SG X
Average SF Y
Love
Jefferson

?

I think the crater at the wing is the biggest reason why we are so bad, and it’s also why we’ll draft so high. A Randy Foye-type of shooting guard would definitely help us win more games, right now. But is that type of player and those additional wins going to be best for us in the long term?

by Andy G on Jan 19, 2010 4:23 PM CST up reply actions  

No,

I’m not one of those “Shoulda Never Traded Foye/Miller/Doug West” guys. I believe your roster is an accurate representation of where the team’s at. Call it “Two and a Half Men.” I think it’s the right way to go.

But to get any better, are going to draft correctly, trade correctly, and sign FAs correctly (and spend more money). I will believe it when I see it, and I hope it comes true, but it has not materialized so far.

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 7:20 PM CST up reply actions  

I would argue that despite the 20 win pace, this team is actually playing above its level of talent. It’s mostly McHale’s fault that Kahn and Rambis have to clean up, but they are soooooooo far away from the rosters of our former lottery brethren, that they need to either spend a ton of money to sign/trade for veterans, or remain in the lottery for many more years to build talent organically. Which one do you think they will do?

Memphis is a great example of why I think you’re thinking is too pessimistic. I’d take Flynn and Sessions over Conley and Tinsley. Now and surely for the future. Al and Love are flawed as a tandem, but they’re better players overall than Randolph and Gasol. Would you swap duos straight up? I wouldn’t even knowing that we’ve got some work to do as far as getting a complementary big.

I concede that our wings are barren, but this gets to the point where I think you’re being pessimistic. We’ve got a nice chance to land Evan Turner during the draft. He’s going to rank as a VERY good prospect (Brandon Roy/Grant Hill fusion?). I know that guarantees nothing, but chances are good this kid is going to hit. I’d take him over Mayo right now given Turner’s upside and low ceiling given Mayo’s nearly at his ceiling IMO. We miss on Turner (or Wall) and we’re looking at Wes Johnson or X. Henry, both very good prospects. Gay at SF is another one for Memphis, but we’ve got potentially $13 million in cap room and have been talking about signing Gay ourselves. There’s going to be many other guys talked about in trade as well that we could target. Iguodala, Deng, Butler…could be available. I know you believe that we’re never going to pay a ton of money, but if we just spend up to the cap next year we could trot out:

Flynn, Sessions
Turner, Ellington
Caron Butler, Brewer
Love, Pekovic
Al, Hollins

That’s without the Charlotte and Utah picks. Butler is the lower limit for what I think we could get with our cap space. If Turner is anywhere close to where many think he’ll be, we’re at a level of talent comparable to the Grizz this year given that they’re getting very little from their bench.

Sure they’re a lot of "ifs’…but it’s not like we need a hail mary to put comparable talent to the 09-10 Grizz on the court next year. A team that is SOOOO far ahead of our previous lottery brethen.

by Blond Ricky on Jan 19, 2010 9:05 PM CST up reply actions  

This is a very good point

but can we please swap Hollins for Jawai? I kid, kind of.
The thing about the depth though, right now we have a ton of depth…. we just have zero starting talent ;-)
Our starters right now would make an average bench if we could add a PF/C backup and a couple starting wings. Rubio comes over (fingers crossed). We have Ellington and Brewer who, IMO, are very capable backups and actually complement each other pretty well. Flynn is a future annual Sixth Man of the Year contender. Jawai should be able to prove useful in a 10mpg setting. And then we have Sessions and Gomes as well as Pekovic or whatever they turn in to. We really aren’t that far away from the playoffs, just a couple starting-caliber wing players. Unfortunately, along with Memphis, we are probably quite a ways away from true contention. To get there, those two starting-caliber wing players would have to become all-star caliber wing players and Rubio would have to come over and pan out with Pekovic being everything we thought he could be and more… plus we would have to find some semblance of team defense in there somewhere… Again though, our future isn’t as hazy as it first seems by looking at this years record.

by Mplax on Jan 19, 2010 9:41 PM CST up reply actions  

I concur

good examples, too. It’s encouraging to see OKC and Memphis improve so rapidly after such dismal seasons last year. But the Wolves need major talent right away. The other thing in their favor is the non-Spenglerian “decline of the west.” There will soon be a changing of the guard. So now was a good time to blow up the team to lay the groundwork for a future squad that will fare better than anything McHale the Middler would dare to assemble.

We all know that art is not the truth, art is a lie that makes us realize the truth.--Picasso

by uncle rico on Jan 19, 2010 3:28 PM CST up reply actions  

How the wolves get more 7 or 8 good players to become a playoff team, most of them this summer!

1) Jefferson
2) Love
3) Lottery pick this season – most likely Turner, Johnson or Henry.
4) $13 million of cap space for free agent or take on good player with “badish” contract.
5) Rubio
6) Flynn – keep as 6th man or trade for equivalent talent.
7) Brewer
7) Pekovic – probably trade for equivalent of MLE type player
8) Ellington
9) Charlotte or Utah pick – get cousins or other defensive big man.

9) Lebron – just seeing if you are paying attention…lol…

Others – Gomes (probably traded for cap space), Sessions (could also be traded for cap space),

by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 19, 2010 3:05 PM CST reply actions  

How I wish we got them

I think we should use our current assets. Im no expert and dont have any idea if these work but if its possible we should do something like:
Al in the possible Bosh trade to get Bynum. If love is actually better then Al maybe we could get Granger for him. Then with some luck we actually get the first pick and use Wall/Rubio to get Beasley. Then use what we have to trade up to get Turner. I think that gives us a good lineup:
Wall/Rubio
Turner
Granger
Beasley
Bynum
Then off the bench: Flynn, Brewer, Ellington, Pekovic, possible draft pick

by Gophers12 on Jan 19, 2010 3:22 PM CST up reply actions  

I know how much you cling to hope and optimism

but the only “certainty” in your list are numbers 1 and 2, and maybe Flynn’s role as a capable sixth man. Everything else is not much more than a fan’s fondest wish. Mine, too, but still . . .

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 3:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Kahn really is in a great position

He can’t be effectively judged for at least three years. Until Rubio is here, we won’t have a final grade on his first draft. Then as you point out, they have two solid players (McHale guys) and a roster of young guys, a couple Euros, and three potential 1st rounders this summer. Really, all fans can do is hope, if he screws things up it will be three years before anyone really knows!

by Rumblebee on Jan 19, 2010 4:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes, but

although I’m not sure how long Glen will give him, judging by most of the posters on this board he better be real successful real quick.

by PoorDick on Jan 19, 2010 7:22 PM CST up reply actions  

In the spirit of Carnival

I propose an inversion of the normal order and a given day, once every year, when CH members can run the Wolves organization.

We all know that art is not the truth, art is a lie that makes us realize the truth.--Picasso

by uncle rico on Jan 20, 2010 1:28 PM CST up reply actions  

After reading all the comments here, I really think that some of us, though professing “We need to be patient”, aren’t really patient at all. Yes, this years team is not high caliber, but we have some decent players on it, as opposed to last years team. I admit that I am an optimist and I am willing to give this FO and team some more time before judging them. I have faith in Kahn and I am willing to give him the time he set forth after he was hired. While 2013 may be overly optimistic, I will proudly display it until it has been proved to me that it will not happen.

There is no reason to believe that Flynn won’t get better and that Rubio won’t get a better outside shot and that LeBron won’t come here. . . OK maybe the last one was a bit of a stretch. We have assets and the way it looks to me, we have a POBO who won’t just “spend” them to show that he’s doing something. I know almost all of us here are scorched from the McHale era and still flinch when a major (or minor) decision must be made on personnel. Let the healing soak in and bask in some optimisim.

Thank you for your attention. Now back to your regularly scheduled informed reading. . .

Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)

by frankenhoops on Jan 19, 2010 8:31 PM CST reply actions   1 recs

My comments have slowly become more pessimistic

the more KLJ posts. I just feel as if he swings the balance of power so strongly towards optimism that is must be balanced out. But I agree with you. We definitely need to be more patient (as if we haven’t been already) and give Kahn a chance to turn the ship around. I’m actually very optimistic about this team (not really saying you were talking about me, specifically or generally), but it’s hard to make comments sound optimistic when talking about the statistical output of a 9 win team. I believe our future is bright, but I can admit and accept that our present isn’t exactly something to brag about. I am extremely glad that we have a stand-up bunch of guys who (hopefully) won’t have any Gilbert Arenas issues. I honestly think I would rather have an average team of good guys than a Jail Blazer team that competes every year. Also, I don’t think that expressing a desire to trade Big Al is necessarily pessimistic, I just think it’s discussed as something that has to be done before we can ever compete (I’m not saying it’s fact KLJ, I’m saying that’s the basic viewpoint of the people saying he should be traded). I appreciate the optimism though whenever it is provided in safe amounts

by Mplax on Jan 19, 2010 9:51 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

One thing I think we tend to forget

When you get past the top 8 or so teams in the league, most teams only have a few really good players and have one or two significant flaws. The Wolves are not ready to hit the top 8 yet, but may really only be one or two good players from being in that second tier.

by Rumblebee on Jan 19, 2010 10:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Even with the influx of some major talent

it will take some time for all the pieces to mesh, if they ever do at all. That said, I’m impressed by the rapid turn around of OKC and, to a lesser degree, Memphis. Patience is a virtue but what this organization needs badly, of course, is some serious talent.

We all know that art is not the truth, art is a lie that makes us realize the truth.--Picasso

by uncle rico on Jan 20, 2010 1:32 PM CST up reply actions  

I do the same balancing thing...

when the Kevin Love “love” gets out of control. So I get where you’re coming from.

by Andy G on Jan 20, 2010 9:19 AM CST up reply actions  

This is a really good comment

And by that, I mean that I agree with it.

by PoorDick on Jan 20, 2010 10:43 AM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Canis Hoopus is straight T-Wolves straight from Minnesota.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Singing the Memphis Blues: Wolves Report Card 2/8/12
Img_2198_small
Not another Spaniard... hold up... wot?
George_mikan_small
I was there the Night Anthony Morrow scored 42 points
Small
Not 'yet another spaniard'...
Small
Another Spaniard fan! thanks for this forum :)

Recent FanPosts

Small
2/11 Knicks +7 vs Wolves
Me_small
Notes on the Night
Small
Absurd!!! TWolves being described as a terrible team...
Small
An Idiot Abroad
Small
D12? Welcome to the Island of Misfit Toys (With Poll!!!)
Small
2/10 Dallas -2 at Wolves
Small
My thoughts on the game last night
148822_1678175523391_1507601904_1661509_8222729_n_small
Austin Rivers?
Me_small
I'm Going to Friday's Game Against the Mavs!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Canis Hoopus Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Hoopus Features

    HOOPUS FAQ

    Salary Cap Info

    Draft Info

    Player Movement Flow Charts

    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
    • Despairy Home Companion
    • 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
    • Weird, unhealthy Darko mania
    • les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas
    • Basketball success makes character issues forgivable
    • Building the Boogie Bandwagon
    • Building the Dream....One Power Forward At A Time
    • Kids, Puppy Dogs, And Long Walks In The Park
    • SWITCH THE FLIP!!!
    • Team Red Pill.
    • December is Bunny Month. Survive it with insincerity and Merle Haggard.
    • Like having a really good seat at a beheading.
    • We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're Wolves fans, and Wolves fans are best at everything.
    • Getting Real Mythological
    • Trapped in Punxsawawney
    • BIIYYYOOOMMMBOOOOOOO!!!
    • Estoy llevando mi talento a Minnesota
    • Where sharks do battle with giant eagles
    • You don’t put a saddle and reins on a magical unicorn, you bareback it and put faith in nature
    • Toeing the line between nerd and loser

    Hoopus Recipe Book

    Let's Settle This:


    Self-Promotion

    BallHype Sports Blog Rankings


    Managers

    Dr wyn

    Journey_small Stop-n-Pop

    Rviy7fbgmhz5ht2dpgo6q0jfu_small TimAllen

    Editors

    Wolveslogo_small Oceanary

    Authors

    Small SG

    Hrbek_small Jon Marthaler