Too close for comfort
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 7, 2010 7:58 AM CST
223 comments
-By Marlin Levison, Star Tribune
For a moment there it looked like the Wolves' 2nd year player curse was in full effect and that Kevin Love and his knee were going to follow in the footsteps of Rashad McCants, Randy Foye, Corey Brewer, and Al Jefferson of going down for an extended period of time with a lower-body injury in their 2nd season with the team.
Thankfully, it appears that the Big Piranha's injury was more Paul Pierce than Al Jefferson and not only were we fans spared the sight of crying and wheelchairs, but the thought of a non-Love remainder of the season as well. I can't tell which idea is more terrifying.
Since this is a shoveling morning here in southern Minnesota, today's game wrap will be a short affair. Last night's tilt started out dangerously close to a Korean cooking game. As the game inched towards a 20 point differential in the first half my only thought was whether or not I would roll with a bean sprout or a fernbrake side dish recipe.
The only thing that kept my interest was that Al Jefferson appeared to be having something of a game and no matter how far the Wolves were behind, they were a) playing the Warriors and b) playing Nelly's Warriors. The Wolves suck but so does Golden State.
I suppose this gamble paid off as I was (I guess) treated to two decent 2nd half runs that knocked the score well down into the single digits but ultimately the Wolves were done in by poor shooting (no surprise), turnovers (surprise), Corey Brewer fouling out with 6 minutes to play (surprise), and Jonny Flynn's worst game as a pro (not really a surprise).
Flynn had no good, terrible, awful, horrible, close-your-eyes-and-look-away performance last night; missing his first 10 shots from the floor, facilitating for no one, not hustling back in transition, and playing matador defense that, along with crippling 2nd season injuries, is becoming something of a tradition for Timberwolf guards.
I think I've made my thoughts about Flynn pretty well known on this site (wrong pick and he's showing very little promise as a point guard) but I think last night's performance was soooooo horrible that it can't be looked into too much because its level of stinkitude transcended anything relating to his game rather than simply providing outsized examples of what he does (and does not) bring to the table. Rookies have terrible nights, especially point guard ones. Ultimately, Flynn is probably with this team for the long haul and I hope he develops and I hope that I am wrong about his selection and his potential at the point. Last night's game was, thankfully, an outlier....so far.
As bad as Flynn was, Al Jefferson had his best game of the season, scoring 26 points on 18 shots, mostly from within 10 feet of the basket. Once again, a good game by Big Al raises just as many questions about the team as it answers. The Wolves lost the game, they were down by significant amounts throughout the better part of 3 quarters, the offense wasn't exactly bursting with movement, and...did I mention that the Wolves lost the game?
Jefferson is clearly improving as a defender and a willing teammate in a 1/2 court setting. By all accounts he's working hard to fit into Kurt Rambis' offense and he is working to overcome a horrible knee injury (also a 2nd year curse injury). That being said, I can't remove the thought from my head that he simply isn't the type of player that was meant to play in a motion-based offense that rewards creativity and solid wing play. He's a pound it down to the low left block kind of guy and even in situations where he does end up passing the ball, it typically comes after a few seconds of jab steps and tunnel vision. I want it to work but, like I have said before, the action this season has finally convinced me that the Love/Al partnership is not long for this world. For a football analogy, Big Al is Brandon Jacobs to Kevin Love's Brian Westbrook and the Wolves are trying to run a pass-first attack rather than a run-dominated offense. Unfortunately for the Wolves (and this analogy), the NBA is not a league where a two man/change of pace attack really works out.
OK, jumping aside from the game wrap, I wanted to point everyone in the direction of Kelly Dwyer's excellent article on Gilbert Arenas:
It should warn people that guns aren't cool, aren't needed and a borderline anachronism at this level. I don't want to hear the nonsense about "protection." A gun wouldn't have helped Sean Taylor, caught half-asleep and in the darkness. It wouldn't have helped Eddy Curry(notes) and Antoine Walker(notes) as they were caught by surprise and by a hoard of criminals all at once. And it certainly didn't help Gilbert Arenas, in any way.
I don't want to hear about history. I don't want to hear that Karl Malone can shoot pheasant without complication, what Mel Daniels and Roger Brown did in some tiny locker room over 35 years ago, or any continued junk about "where we came from."
You know where Gilbert Arenas comes from? One of the more affluent neighborhoods in the Washington, D.C., area. He's been there for a while. That's his reality. If he tries to tell you anything else, it's because he doesn't think that much of you.
And, no, I don't feel sorry for Gilbert Arenas. I don't feel sorry for the lack of income, or for his inability to find solace in the game that has given him and us so much. If he doesn't know, at age 28, what it takes to be able to continue to find solace in that game under the terms of the three different contracts he's signed, then we should have no sympathy.
If the man wants to make the whole world go away and find shelter on a court, I'm sure there's a gym somewhere that could use someone worth listening to. If the Wizards eventually dissolve his contract because of the moral turpitude clause, there might be a European team or a minor league team in which he can easily find personal refuge.
Would the price be to Gil's liking? Probably not. And based on what little I know about Gilbert Arenas, I'm sure that might be enough to sway him to stay home and wait out this suspension. Pity.
There are two things that really get me about the whole Arenas episode. First, imagine if you will that there existed a team called the Washington Gropers. Unfortunately, due to the large number of sexual harassments in the metro D.C. area, the team's owner decided to change the name of the team to the Wizards along with donating a lot of his own money to help combat the problem of sexual harassment. A few years later the team formerly known as the Gropers signs a young man to a $100 million contract. 1 year after signing this huge deal, this former Groper was caught in a sticky situation at a strip club where he admits to grabbing the behind of an exotic dancer.
After a few days of trying to play the situation off as a joke, the player's lawyer issues a statement assuring all of us that the $100 million dollar face of the franchise understands the seriousness of the situation, the history of the organization, and the importance the former owner (who just passed away, btw) had placed on eliminating sexual harassment. A few days after issuing this statement, the $100 million dollar face of the franchise gets his teammates to play along in a pre game ritual that appears to include a mock up of a pole dance.
AND CUT!!!
Second, the gambling angle is getting completely glossed over in this story. The reason why guns were involved in this little incident is that multi-millionaire athletes were betting tens of thousands of dollars on a card game. Not only that, but the multi-millionaire athletes on the team formerly known as the Bullets seem to think that the mixture of gambling and guns is something of a joke:
Hooray felonies!!!
As if the people in the stands didn't have enough to relate to (and I'm giving a wink-wink to class, not race), the good people of Washington D.C. now have to pretend that they root for fully functioning adults when they shell out their hard earned money to watch a game. They have to pretend that they don't think one of these clowns has ever bet on a basketball game. They have to pretend that multi-millionaire athletes who live in gated communities need guns for protection, and not for the maintenance of some ridiculous behind-the-scenes image. They have to pretend that other franchises haven't caught other players with guns in their locker rooms.
I love professional basketball. I'm finding it harder and harder to root for a league where stuff like this happens. From contracts to cap space to unmovable assets to guaranteed deals to a lot more, I'm finding it very hard to relate to a league that is thousands of miles removed from my pocketbook and tax bracket, and not the color of my skin.
Until later.
PS: I know that other sports have multi-millionaire athletes but they don't have the NBA's toxic combination of guaranteed contracts, cap rules, and overall economic forecast. What other sport has fans who track expiring deals with more interest than box scores? Last night the Wolves did not dress an expiring contract who makes over $80,000/game. Looking at the empty seats in the arena, I wondered how a league that had to line up an additional $200 million line of credit is going to continue on its present course. Oh well, I suppose if anything this just proves once again that the NBA is more like real life than any other sport. The gap between rich and poor is expanding by the day and bubbles are being impossibly inflated. Whatever it is, it makes people who make less in a year than what Mr. Expiring Deal makes drinking Gatorade for a single night nervous.
0 recs |
223 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Deep Stuff for 8:00 am...
I agree though, these types of displays are embarrassing and hard to watch as a fan.
Your Big Al take? I just don’t understand. I think that no matter what system the Timberwolves run, it will not matter if they do not have SHOOTERS. This team, particularly in the half court, just does not have ANY shooting ability. I think that Al and Love looked great last night, but when the wing play is so inconsistent it really hurts them. Brewer, as scary as it is to watch him on offense, was making the Warriors pay until he got fouled out. Think of what a true scoring wing could do with Al and Love on the block. It’s all about the players, the system is secondary in my opinion. Al and Kevin are not as effective without the ability to have confidence in who they dish the ball too.
by TSAX on Jan 7, 2010 8:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
guess I'm very old school - you go at a mismatch until the opponent adjusts, even if the offense isn't pretty.
The ball should have been pounded inside to Jefferson, Love and anyone who could drive and make a layup {brewer}. Rambis’s said after the game, we should have done in the first half what we did in the 2nd half, pound it inside.
Better to win ugly than lose “pretty” in my view.
I think Rambis chose this offense because of Jefferson and Love. I wouldn’t expect that either will be going anywhere until we bring in a couple of – wings – shooters, who can defend and we see how the team does then. If in 3 years the Jefferson/Love combination is shown not to work, then we can change. But I’d hate to add jefferson or love to the pantheon of players who the wolves have “let get away”.
A quick comment on interior defense. People have endlessly complained about Jefferson’s and Love’s defense inside. But our interior defense has been good in recent games. It’s been our perimeter defense that has let us down.
I think if G.S. could have stopped Jefferson he would have passed it. They couldn’t stop him. We should have kept feeding him until G.S. adjusted. If not jefferson then Love or Brewer driving.
Many woulda’s and shoulda’s, but if Brewer doesn’t foul out and Love leave the game for those 2 minutes we probably would have won. We had the momentum and the better players.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 8:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
We tried to pund it inside in the first half
We just couldn’t take care of the ball long enough to get it there. 14 turnovers in the first half….that’s what killed us more than anything.
by Oceanary on Jan 7, 2010 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Perspective
Your strip club analogy – which you’ve used three times now – misses the mark because Gilbert didn’t physically harm anyone or violate anyone in a sexual manner. He (playfully or not playfully, depending on what account you believe) threatened a teammate with an unloaded gun. I agree that he obviously showed terrible judgment, and even agree with Stern’s suspension, but I don’t think we should be talking about Arenas like he’s John Gotti or even like he’s Pacman Jones.
People decry the NBA when stuff like this happens, but its no different in any other sports league. For every Gilbert Arenas or Stephen Jackson, there’s an Ugueth Urbina, a Leonard Little or a Marty McSorley. And Pete Rose aside, I’d be willing to bet (no pun intended) that just as much gambling happens in those sports as happens in the NBA.
“I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
As for the game, somebody needs to make a thread talking about how badly Rambis is coaching this team. He’s rarely been blamed for any of the Wolves’ losing, using the ‘he doesn’t have the talent’ excuse. But at least a healthy portion of the Wolves’ problems are coaching-related.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 9:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The analogy isn't that flawed
While Arenas didn’t hurt anyone, he allegedly did commit a crime.
The NBA’s gambling issue is worse than the other leagues due to the fact a referee has legally been found guilty of associating with organized crime. At this time it is a credibility issue with the NBA. It also doesn’t help when one of the leagues greatest players had supposed gambling issues then decided to retire for a year to play minor league baseball. Again, the league loses credibility in the eyes of the public.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not all crimes are the same, obviously
I’m a lot more concerned about crimes that have real victims than crimes that don’t.
Oh, and you need to stop taking Bill Simmons so seriously about the Michael Jordan conspiracy theory.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have rarely read anything from Bill Simmons
It’s been my own personal conspiracy belief since the day it was announced.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me guess
Before Monica Lewinsky saved the stained blue dress, you never believed Bill Clinton was a philanderer??
Probably would have asked what the allegations were based on, right!
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 2:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I tend to need a thing called 'proof' to believe that something happened
It’s a silly compulsion, I know.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I say
If not for the blue dress, you would apparently criticize anyone who claimed Bill Clinton was a philanderer.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If the blue dress was the only proof of his philandering
and that blue dress was not discovered yet, then I probably would disagree that Bill Clinton is/was a philaderer. Yes, that’s fair to say.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW, I respect the attitude
If I’m ever on trial for something (knock on wood) I hope the jury is made up of people who think like you.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No analogy...
…is perfect and I understand that part of making a good one is that people get where you are going with it, so, in the interest of making sure I’m clear on this point, the reason I use the sexual harassment analogy isn’t to compare a gun felony charge to sexual harassment, but to highlight the ridiculous nature of someone joking around about a crime, victimless or not. I’d go further to note that the forgotten partner of legitimate disgust is discretion and I think you go to far to suggest that anyone is comparing Arenas to an Italian-American crime syndicate boss and one of the most notorious criminal athletes of the past decade. Arenas’ legal crimes are admittedly minor in relation to the deeds of these two gentlemen, but they are, as David Stern rightly acknowledges, grave offenses against the image and recent past of the league as a whole.
The NBA is different than other sports leagues. The way and proportion in which its players are granted primacy over coaches and ownership has a very unique relationship with the way in which its salary cap is structured, the CBA, and they way in which many fans view many players as little more than cap space and/or contract obligations. No other sport has this combination of factors and while I can certainly sympathize with the notion that there is very little for your average fan to relate to when it comes to millionaire athletes, the NBA throws additional fuel on that fire and, once again, discretion is needed to address the nuanced differences in the league that bring it to a level above and beyond average bitching about rich athletes and their other-worldly life styles. There are structural problems with the NBA that go hand in hand with the problems of the players. Pac Man Jones in the NBA would be a far worse situation than Pac Man Jones in the NFL and it has to do with how contracts are handed out and how teams are allowed to be put together.
Also, I noticed that this discussion has broached the broad constitutional question of the 2nd Amendment and things like gang culture and the general rights of people to carry firearms. This is not a 2nd Amendment case. This is a case involving DC gun laws and the CBA. It is also a case of image and public opinion. Conduct detrimental to the league and/or team is not something that has to cross legal boundaries, only ones defined by the CBA. Conduct detrimental to the league’s image is not something that has to cross legal or mutually agreed upon boundaries, only ones defined by TV ratings, jersey sales, and turnstiles. Again, discretion is very important here and this issue touches a lot of different subjects in a tangential manner. Do NBA players have a legal right to bare arms? Of course. Do they have restrictions put on them by the cities in which they play? Of course. Are firearm issues explicitly addressed by the CBA? You betchya. Will fans be turned off by gun play? Si.
When people say that they don’t think NBA players should carry guns, it doesn’t have to mean that they are talking about the Constitution, DC gun laws, or even the CBA. Ultimately, a league in financial trouble with a history of gun incidents will pay the price at the ticket window for stuff like this and, by way of things that do not fall within the range of legal action, they (and their fans) have a vested interest in wishing/hoping/whatever for a league where the players don’t carry guns. There is a self-awareness/anti-stupidity angle here and ultimately, that component will weigh more heavily on the league than will a single court case. Gilbert Arenas is, at least in this case, a very stupid man who probably does not have a temperament that warrants $100+ mil in the eyes of most observers. Stupidity transcends some of the legal/cultural issues at play here and that, for me, is one of the big take aways. It’s more general idiocy than “can’t tell me nuthin’”.
BTW: I see that Chris Kaman was referenced below. He shoots beat up cars with .50 cal rifles. One man’s hillbilly is another’s gangster I suppose.
BTBTW: extra points for the Casablanca reference.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 7, 2010 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At the end of the day
it is all about personal awareness. Awareness of how society works, what makes your business run and that you have the ability to consciously choose how serious you want to be viewed by society and how serious you view your business.
I live by the mantra of “take what you do seriously, but don’t take yourself seriously.” Those who take themselves, or in otherwords their persona, more seriously than what they actually do end up getting into trouble and wondering what’s the big deal.
Many people don’t understand the difference between the perception and the substance of an issue.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 8, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Curry and
Lawson late first round? Sessions? All with Rubio in the Wolves back pocket. Hmmm.
by A.K. Agikamik on Jan 7, 2010 9:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Narrow assessment here, no?
While Flynn had a horrendous game I can’t help but chuckle when people make these kind of comments in the aftermath of one particular game. When Flynn has a triple double down the road and Currie has a bad game I’m sure we’ll see the opposite happen.
by Facial on Jan 7, 2010 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually we've been quite consistent.
Give me Curry, rain or shine.
by John Doe on Jan 7, 2010 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Arenas is a lot more clueless than I realized. Hopefully that contract can be voided.
Wayne Ellington should be starting over Brewer or Wilkins. Probably Wilkins.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 9:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thoughts
Last night the Wolves did not dress an expiring contract who makes over $80,000/game. Looking at the empty seats in the arena, I wondered how a league that had to line up an additional $200 million line of credit is going to continue on its present course.
This is exactly why I don’t want the wolves to go out and cram money down some FA’s throat. Because the salary/luxury levels are going to continue to go down and when they renegotiate the CBA, those salaries will be going down for all new players. Why lock in now and get pinched without ever having the chance to be good?
I just don’t see the point in rebuilding only to hamstring yourself by signing bad deals when you finally get the chance to sign whoever you damn well please. I say acquire as many draft picks as possible in anticipation of the lockout that is surely coming.
Let’s not forget that Taylor is on the CBA negotiating committe and is losing money hand over fist.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 7, 2010 9:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
apparently I can't use Block Quotes
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 7, 2010 9:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get down on yourself
I believe in you
by Blakeley on Jan 7, 2010 9:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is all part of my new approach to commenting
by Blakeley on Jan 7, 2010 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't be bound by the block!
Viva la Che!
by Boss10 on Jan 7, 2010 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tend to agree
In the eighties, the popularity of the NFL was closer to the other pro leagues. Today the NFL is king. I think the lack of guaranteed contracts plays a major role in this fact. NFL players who become bad attitudes and slack off usually don’t last long (unless they have top tier talent to compensate). Also, one or two bad contracts doesn’t keep an NFL team down for five years.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not all bad
Sure, playing in the NBA seems to be associated with obnoxious, illegal, dangerous, and histrionic behavior, as well as poor motivation, but at least playing in the NBA isn’t correlated with long-term brain damage.
by oblivionspocket on Jan 7, 2010 9:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For half a second...
I thought Al was going to draw the first charge I’ve ever seen him take.
by Bahlgren1 on Jan 7, 2010 9:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Al has been doing a better job
this year trying to take charges. But he seems to always end up on the wrong end of the call. I definitely see more effort from Al defensively, but it will always be a weakness.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s really stepped up (hahahahhahahaahha PUN!) this year in that area, but you’re dead on: he’s never rewarded for his effort even when he does it right (which he’s getting good at). I hope he keeps the effort up and doesn’t let the lack of calls sap his desire, because eventually he’ll get some calls (I think.. he has to, right? The refs can’t hate us forever..).
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Jan 7, 2010 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
While I also applaud his obvious effort at improving his D and taking charges, I will have to disagree that he’s doing it right.
I’ve seen more attempts in the last month than I think I did in the past two years, but he still usually gives his ground and commits a handsy foul, or tries to feign a charge as the guy moves around him. The blocking call he took in the 4th from Maggette (which my first comment originates from) was the first time I’ve actually seen him stand his ground and take the fall on direct contact…sadly, he was called for a foot in the arc.
by Bahlgren1 on Jan 7, 2010 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Another look, not necessarily a realistic one.
I feel we should trade Jefferson and two of our latter first rounders for a sign and trade with Bosh. Convince Bosh to sign by saying that we’ll try and get Wade up here too. Total long shot. But it’d be sweet to have Bosh, Wade, Love, Flynn, Brewer (now that he’s shooting better, and can still defend well) and our low first rounder come out to play for us next season.
by Dupey on Jan 7, 2010 9:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
This is a pipe dream WITHOUT including Wade.
If you don’t include Wade, I could see trying to convince Bosh to play here by telling him he’d fit perfectly next to Love, we’ll end up with a good wing player in the draft this year, and then sit him down and show him all of Rubio’s highlight tapes. Still not gonna happen, but I think it at least has almost a snowball’s chance in hell.
by LoveTo on Jan 7, 2010 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette got away with a few calls and crashed into Love...
….but he played a hell of a game last night, particularly in the second half. Really carried the Warriors with his scoring and ability to get to the free throw line, and played pretty unselfish ball as well.
Personally, I could live with him for a couple of years if it means getting Randolph and one of the Warriors’ shooters.
by Oceanary on Jan 7, 2010 9:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I dig
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Jan 7, 2010 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He plays well against the Wolves...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200803170MIN.html
I remember this game pretty well — I was one of the 500 or so fans in attendance and decided to sit close to the action. We had no answer for Maggette that night, but Dunleavy was tanking and ran way too many Cuttino Mobley isolation sets, so we won anyway. I don’t watch enough Warriors to know what holds him back there because he’s very strong, very athletic and very talented. You don’t hear that much about him having a bad attitude or screwing up off the court, either.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Of all the unintentional comedy provided by the NBA
nothing rivals this figure from the link you provided, especially in light of your comments:
Attendance: 10,034
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good call.
9,500 fans must have been in the upper deck. It was empty by the floor.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a plan for the Canis Hoopus meet-up at the Heat game
once the Wolves get down by 15-20. Each CH’er picks a section or two, and physically counts the number of people in the seats. Total up the figures, and then have a pool to see who can guess by how many thousands the announced attendance the next day will exceed the hand-counted amount.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait until alcohol kicks in, seeing two of everyone
will at least make the actual count closer to the announced attendance.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good catch
It is funny/sad to watch home games and see the upper corners of the lower level empty for every game.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette - $8.9M in 10 (this season), $9.6M in 11, $10.3M in 12, $10.9M in 13
He turned 30 in Nov., so he’s 33 in the last year of his contract. Plus he’s a bit of a head case.
would rather have good character guys.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 10:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure he's been a model teammate for GSW
Especially this year, he’s really been adapting his game to pass more, probably for the first time in his career.
As for what’s been holding him back, for one it’s the glut of wings on GSW. Call him an SF and he was battling Stephen Jackson and Azubuike for minutes at the beginning of the season. Now, not so much. He also has never been a good outside shooter, making him less a fit for Nellie’s system. His driving and ability to draw contact and to finish has made him a highly efficient player, however. But it works best with a team like the Warriors that aren’t as deficient in outside shooters as the Wolves.
by dropstep on Jan 7, 2010 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The only "behavior problem" I've ever seen Maggette really have...
….was when he kept complaining about not starting for the Clippers. And when the team is starting Tim Thomas and Quentin Ross….well, he didn’t handle it as well as he could have, but Maggette did have a pretty good argument.
Plus, he has since ceased those complaints, even though he comes off the bench most of the time for the Warriors.
He’s a good scorer, a great slasher, great at drawing and hitting free throws, a solid defender, and improving facilitator, and a hell of a lot better than anything we’ve had on the wings since Spree’s first season here. He’s not terribly priced for what he does, and again, I’d be more than willing to have him here if it means getting a player with Randolph’s sheer potential and a couple shooters like Morrow, Azubuike, or even Curry maybe.
by Oceanary on Jan 7, 2010 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the 1st year
in 16 years I don’t have season tickets, was bummed at first, but am glad not to feel the financial need to go to Target Center or let tickets go to waste. I read this blog from time to time because I miss talking b-ball with people who sat around me at the Wolves game. I get a different perspective here, seems that either you’re for Wolves, no matter what happens or you’re against team no matter. My biggest concern is Rambis. He ran that triangle for 20 games before he changed to fit players strength. I know from my old front office contact, who’s trying to get me back as a ticket holder, that Rambis was told by assistant coaches in training camp to change and refused until the team was being beat by an average of 15 POINTS a game over one 12 game stretch. The post feeding and spacing is worse than the Wittman teams by far. The defense is worse than any Flip team and I know for a fact Flip seldom stressed D. Team defense is no where to be seen. Sprinting back and matching up, building transition D from stopping ball, flooding paint then firing to close out shooters, with bigs sprinting a head of their man to help plug paint, is no where to be seen. I could go on and on but will stop. The players are young and don’t know much about NBA, I don’t blame them for the play. Rambis however has been in NBA for 30 years, he should not only know better, but take responsibility for effort and basic fundamentals that are missing. Players will improve I hope Rambis does also.
by Conned on Jan 7, 2010 10:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like Rambis is a defensive specialist (so says Phil jackson)
maybe he needs to focus on the defense and bring in an offensive specialist. The way things are going Flip Saunders may be looking for a job soon, and lead assistant in charge of offense may be best he can get.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A Jekyl-and-Hyde game
My quick thoughts from the game:
The first half was brutal, because of turnovers and NO defensive effort. The second half was a lot of fun until Love banged knees with Magette.
Flynn was so bad, and Curry was so good, that I now wish we had not picked Flynn. Swap those two players, and the Wolves would have won easily. Are you listening, Flynn? You suck.
I do not understand the notion that we should trade Al because he plays best on the low block. If the choice is Al or Rambis, I say kick Rambis’s butt out the door and bring in a coach that LIKES good low-block players. WTF was Kahn thinking, anyway? Al is a great offensive player and he likes to play for Minnesota. How many of those do you think we can find?
In summary, that was another game that our frontcourt almost won single-handed. Get a good wing player and we’re in business. If the coach think we needs more than that, get a different coach.
P.S. Who gives a f*ck about Gilbert Arenas? Talk about a random segue.
by Dave T on Jan 7, 2010 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The trainer on Love's left
is adding insult to Love’s injury by giving him a snuggie when Love can’t even defend himself.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 10:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
At least it was not an atomic wedgie
Now, where did I leave my copy of Tropic of Cancer?
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 8, 2010 12:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And yes, Kevin,
Your ass does look fat in those shorts.
by dropstep on Jan 7, 2010 10:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
SNP, your comments below the Wizards photo are spot on
How much longer is this league going to be able to get law abiding citizens/business owners to shell out $50,000 per year for a suite? Or a realtor who’s most serious crime is speeding and spends $5,000 per year to be able to bring a client to a game?
The season will be half over in a few weeks, and all I read about or see on TV/ hear on radio is off court talk about the NBA (Donaghy book, Arenas, expiring contracts and free agency). The on-court product is being totally overshadowed – DURING THE SEASON! The side stuff is normal and often beneficial in the off-season, but the game itself has been almost irrelevant this season.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I sort of disagree. Minnesota is in rebuilding mode, so our on-court product sucks. After the first couple months of watching the new rookies, and getting used to Jefferson being pretty good again, we don’t have much to get excited about, besides next year’s draft lottery.
Most other teams in the league are trying to compete for wins, this year. It’s actually a way-better year than most recent ones, with Memphis and Sacramento joining the ranks of competitive teams. If and when Blake Griffin joins the Clips at full strength, they probably will, too. (Or just if Baron Davis decides to play every game like it’s against the Lakers or Celtics — he killed LA, last night.)
In any case, I think most teams’ fans are interested in their teams’ games. I like watching our games, but when we’re losing all the time, the transition to “watch out of curiosity to see what the other teams’ players look like” and “who should we take in the draft next year?” is a pretty quick and easy one.
If anything, the Arenas-type stories make the league more compelling and the games more fun to watch in person. I don’t mean because guns are cool or gambling is good for the spirit of the game. Just that the NBA has the rare ability to expose its players in very close proximity to fans. No masks, no pads, and a relatively small playing surface that the wealthiest fans even get to sit right on. If Arenas is bring his artillary to the game or Artest is busting his head open on Christmas, those are just added layers of discussion. Arenas should be suspended and his contract should be voided — nobody should be able to bring guns to the office, and then either joke around with them or threaten with them — and expect anything less. But I don’t think the incident will hurt the league’s marketability or fan interest.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree for the most part
although reading national publications the non-basketball stories IMO are still dominating discussion the first half of the season. Knicks fans may love the LeBron, Bosh, Wade talk, but this isn’t good for fans in Cleveland or Toronto, especially during the season.
You bring up a good point about the proximity to fans. Fair or not, NBA players are closer and more visible to their fans than any other league. This makes their behavior more important to fans because they are more visible.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you don't have enough fun
watching Kobe, LeBron, Howard, ‘Melo and Wade in their primes, along with a dominating Celtics team, then I don’t know what to tell you. There’s plenty of on-the-court stuff to talk about.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You are missing my point entirely and your response makes my point
Instead of commenting on a post about the positives in the NBA, you are here reading and responding to a post about the negative PR in the NBA overshadowing the great things happening on the court.
If the NBA didn’t have so many awful contracts, and guys weren’t bringing guns into the locker room, the focus would be on the good things happening during the season.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay...
so you’re saying that if someone makes a comment on a negative article, then it is overshadowing all the positives? That’s short-sighted. The Arenas thing is a big topic right now and it was brought up by SnP in the original article, which is why I responded. But that’s just right now. I also read a lot and write a lot (here and elsewhere) about basketball-related topics. Just because Gilbert is the flavor of the day doesn’t mean he’s the only flavor.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't usually do this, but you are pissing me off!
Why don’t you go back and read what I have written, not just on this post but the few others the last couple days regarding Arenas, Donaghy, and bad contracts!
Please, do us both the favor!
Oh, by the way - “A” negative article. I’ve seen at least a thousand negative articles since this season started relating to Donaghy, bad contracts, and Arenas.
The Donaghy thing is so tough on the NBA even Rasheed Wallace has been able to use his book to criticize the league without being fined.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say there weren't bad things happening
I’ve been quite clear that bad things have happened. Donaghy, Arenas, what have you. And yeah, it hurts the NBA’s image. We’re in agreement there. But you’re talking about those things like they’re going to destroy the league. And you say that all people focus on are negatives.
Well, part 1 is false. In a few years, Donaghy will be another fading punchline and people will have forgotten about Gilbert Arenas just like they forget about Chris Mills or Bassy Telfair’s gun incident.
Part 2 is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think I have written that all people are focusing on
is the negatives. What I have tried to say is the negatives are overshadowing/taking away from the positive things happening on the court. There are always going to be some negatives, even during the season, but this season seems to be about 50-50 in terms of negative off-court stories and positive on-court stories.
Try this take – Since September, which league has had a better media image, the NBA or the NFL. Yes, there have been negative NFL stories, but the positive stories have been much more prevalent on SportsCenter, or SI, etc.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
On a lighter note
there really haven’t been too many on court issues… that I can think of…
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree with that I guess.
I don’t mean to imply that everything is all rosy and nothing bad is happening. But rarely has there ever been a time in any of the major four sports leagues when there hasn’t been some sort of scandal. I think it’s the “the sky is falling” attitude that I have a problem with.
As SnP said: “I’m finding it harder and harder to root for a league where stuff like this happens.”
I’m just saying that this “stuff” happens a lot in all of the leagues. It’s not a reason to quit watching basketball.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not a reason to quit watching basketball at all
But a great reason to tune in to the WNBA!
Seriously though, all the more reason to be thankful for our current bunch of seeminly outstanding gentlemen.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Two words and a number...
Diana Taurasi (and) .17.
Just kidding. But you’re right. From all accounts, it’s nice to root for upstanding citizens.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I pretty much agree with you here
I’m not so much saying the sky is falling, as I’m saying these leagues are generating a lot more money than they were a few years ago, and as people are required to come up with more and more cash to watch they are not going to be as tolerant when it comes to player transgressions.
Tiger Woods didn’t “hurt” anyone with his affairs, but most of his sponsors bailed on him as the bad news kept coming. Fifteen years of image building and being on top of the world came crashing down in a month. The NBA sky isn’t necessarily falling, but I bet a lot of owners are praying another shoe doesn’t drop before the end of the season.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One other Arenas/gun point
The article mentions Arenas lives in a high end, safe neighborhood. Probably true. But beyond that, even if the higher paid NBA guys don’t feel safe, don’t walk around with a gun. Hire a security guard. For the money Arenas will lose in just one game he could have hired a retired FBI/Secret Service agent to provide far better security than he could ever give himself carrying a gun.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mailman
I read Karl Malone’s opinion piece on SI the other day, and I thought he had a great point: anyone, especially athletes, who say they need a gun for protection is lying. As Malone puts it, you only need a gun for protection if you’re planning on using it at some point. As you stated, hiring a body guard offers far better protection for these guys than guns do. I also recall one other Malone point: don’t draw a gun on someone unless you’re willing to go there (I’m paraphrasing), as it’s their right (then) to pull a gun on you to defend themselves. I wonder if this is why we haven’t heard much about the other guy (Crittenton?) who supposedly also pulled a gun.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Jan 7, 2010 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate this argument
As long as its done legally, NBA players have as much of a right to carry a gun as anyone else. The 2nd amendment applies to them, too.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to get all legal on this, but...
…the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) only applies to government actions. Private entities (such as the NBA collectively or individual teams) are free to regulate the conduct of their members as much as they like, including prohibiting players from carrying guns in a locker room.
by BVP on Jan 7, 2010 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what I'm talking about
I agree that the NBA can and should restrict people carrying guns into their facilities. But people have used the Gilbert Arenas thing to suggest that NBA players shouldn’t carry (or even own) guns at all, even when they abide by the NBA’s rules, state and federal laws.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What they are really saying is that NBA players should disassociate from "gang culture" sometimes found in the city
Remember Pierce getting into trouble for “gang signs” – crips and bloods etc. – a couple of other players did the same. Some rappers are involves with the same groups. A number of rappers have also died in gun violence.
The NBA gun culture is a part of that…. and a number of NBA players [some would say many] are peripherally involved with that……if you are hanging around guys “carrying” you want to have protection.
Its a difficult problem because many of these players grew up in that environment where guns were prevalent and you are really saying – turn away from your roots, your friends growing up, etc.
its a no win situation.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"Gang culture"
I wonder how this thing would’ve played out differently if Chris Kaman had brought a gun to store in his locker room and pulled it out after an argument with Steve Novak. Would we be talking about “gang culture”? Would we be saying that Kaman shouldn’t own any guns or carry them around in a legal fashion?
I’m very skeptical about that.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In these articles its been discussed that "many or most" NBA players carry guns at one time or another
Except for places like Texas that is unusual in the U.S. today. [These aren’t rifles used to go shooting ducks or deer, these are hand guns.]
In major U.S. cities, most people don’t carry pistols. But in the rapper/gang culture in the city it is much more common. I don’t mean to be disparaging in any way. Just calling it like I see it.
When people complain about NBA players carrying guns, this is the underlying issue.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the rapper/gang culture *can* play a part in this
but there’s no evidence that the Arenas situation was influenced by that gang culture anymore than it was influenced by a Wild West movie.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and I'm not saying Arenas was influence by any of these things either - there is no evidence to
support that…. all I’m trying to do explain the criticism of NBA players carrying guns [and again, I think they have the right to do so].
The criticism is because different cultural norms. In the city where many of these kids grew up, the norm is to carry. That norm is criticized because of the implied association with Gang Culture etc.
Doesn’t make that criticism right. But I do think thats the basis for it.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't mind the point you are making
But the fact is, Chris Kaman did not store a gun in the locker room and pull it out during an argument. Apparently (hopefully) Kaman knows better.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily directing this at TimAllen
but I don’t think we have to make this into a race issue. I don’t think KLJ was implying anything about race (and even if he thought it, he kept it out of the conversation). It’s a touchy subject (unfortunately) and it’s only going to lead to arguing instead of debating and conversing.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
gang culture
premeates all cultures and nationalities. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with how you (plural) choose to interact with others.
When an athlete is paid that kind of money, the expectation is that you will choose a different path to interact with others. A little less raw emotion and a little more detached businesslike focus.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 7, 2010 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Gang culture may not have anything to do with race
but the perception of gang culture has a lot to do with it.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess my point is that
it has to do with how NBA players view how they can act that is the real problem. I would be all for non-guaranteed contracts because it would give all players an incentive to actually act like adults.
If I acted like that, I would be fired from my job, charged by the police and then jailed. In quick order I would imagine.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 7, 2010 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your last line is somewhat overlooked I think
This whole thing seems to be about the locker room and NBA property and all that. But, for the janitors, security guys, public relations people, vendors, etc….this is their workplace too. If I knew some jackass was bringing a gun to work – much less a loaded gun – I would be pretty adamant that they never step foot in here again.
'Because there are no fours.' Toine
by CaliWolf on Jan 7, 2010 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The big part here is
“As long as its done legally”
I have no dispute with them owning guns. I am on the same page as you there. But I do also agree with Rumblebee that if they really are worried, a security guard would be a lot more effective. Not only can they focus more on their job, but they are also much less liable for anything that might happen. Though it would take some lifestyle changes to get a security guard. I wouldn’t like it much, personally. You’d really have to get someone you get along with because they would be with you a lot.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, a security guard might be more effective.
But that’s a personal choice and not something that anyone should be deciding for them.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
by the way I'm not saying that NBA players should not carry guns
I’m just trying to explain what is going unsaid in this discussion because of fear of being called racist.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just as I (or at least as I tried) pointed out
It’s definitely up to the player as it is a huge lifestyle change. But it does make more sense than going through what Arenas is right now. By no means am I saying: no guns, just body guards. But I do think it’s an option that should be weighed more often and encouraged by the league (granted I don’t want there to be 20 bodyguards at every NBA game… but I would rather 20 trained guards than 20 untrained basketball players with guns).
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
About the Wolves
To make the 1st QTR even worse last night, I heard the Warriors played the night before. This game was not as close as the final score indicated, and the Wolves got schooled by a bad team, on the road, in the 2nd game of a back to back. Brutal!
Agree with SNP’s Love/AL take, although I would like to see what these two could do with a guy like Evan Turner and less emphasis on the Triangle.
Lastly, I am really hoping Kahn wasn’t fooled by a good talker who he sees as a floor/team leader. Flynn may have great leadership potential, but he still needs to be good enough to play first and foremost. Gotta wonder if Kahn ever considered trading the 5th and 6th pick for the 3rd pick to select Tyreke.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 11:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Al's scoring would be sorely missed
and would have to be matched by any player(s) the Wolves returned in a trade. But, reading comments from Rambis after the game, it’s obvious he’s frustrated by the young players inability to read the defense, which is the basis for his offensive strategy, and instead to force their will on the game. Of course he was mostly talking about Flynn in this game, but, as young as Big Al might be, he’s really the veteran rock out there. So how could it look to Rambis when he sees Al completely absorbed in his own game, bulling his way through double teams, regardless of how effective the outcome in terms of points. From that story on Jefferson on SI.com, it’s obvious Jefferson is working on revising his game. I just can’t believe Rambis can be happy with the example Jefferson is setting for the other players.
by dropstep on Jan 7, 2010 11:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
A point about AL
I commented last night how he seemed to refuse to pass out of double or triple teams. A couple replies said they didn’t blame AL because no one else was scoring. I can’t disagree with the take, but the problem is that when he refuses to pass, it sets a negative tone for his teammates, even if they are struggling. Why keep hustling on offense once AL gets the ball, you can set picks or get open for a perfect shot, but it doesn’t matter. Sets a bad tone.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
There was one point where Flynn fed him the ball and Flynn’s man doubled Al hard, leaving Flynn wide open behind the arc. Al saw him and just flat out refused to pass to him. That does more damage to the trust and chemistry of the team than Al passing the ball right away and Flynn missing the shot (which may or may not have happened). As it turned out, the possession ended badly.
Besides that particular play, Al has done a better job trying to pass out of the doubles. But he is so methodical and uncertain in his decision process that unless it’s a basic handoff out of the pinch post, he still puts a stop to everything.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
his comment was CLEARLY directed at Flynn - Rambis also said he wished the young wolves had done in the 1st half what they did in the 2nd half
force feed the ball inside to: Jefferson, Love and corey driving the hoop.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mini Game Summary
Since I live in Santa Cruz, I finally got to see the Wolves in high definition last night since they played the warriors. Here are some thoughts:
1. Flynn did have a terrible game. His slow starts are hurting the wolves right now. I think Rambis has every reason to give the starting job to Sessions to help prevent these horrible beginnings for the wolves.
2. Flynn vs. Curry: Obviously Curry had a much better game last night. It is interesting to me how different their games are. Curry is controlled, not very athletic, high basketball IQ type player. He’ll be a solid player in the league. Perhaps never a star, but a productive complementary player for sure. Flynn on the other hand is undisciplined, but super athletic, and looks terrible on one play and amazing on the next (though last night was mostly terrible). The play at the end of the half is a microcosm of Flynn right now, slashes past Curry like he isn’t even there, gets in the lane before anyone can react, goes for the amazing slam over everyone and…. clanks it. Still, as a Wolves fan, I can see why you take Jonny Flynn, as his upside is much higher than Curry. However, his downside is much lower…
3. Kevin Love is a pretty special player. The guy defies the laws on nature when he and Anthony Randolph battle for rebounds and Love gets 80% of them. That tip in he had near the end of the game with Randolph all over him was amazing. Also, Love did a pretty good job defending Magette and had a definite mismatch when Magette had to guard him.
4. I disagree with SNP that Love and Jefferson cannot play together. Last night they were a devastating combination. Any semblance of decent guard play would have had the Wolves winning by double digits. That being said, the Wolves really missed Hollins last night, never thought I’d say that. Pecherov was absolutely terrible. If the wolves can get a defensive oriented 7 footer to rotate with Love and Jefferson, the frontcourt is set in my mind.
5. Corey Brewer has really improved. He still has his ups and downs, but he is definitely the Wolves 3rd best player after Jefferson and Love. I was surprised at how well he runs the offense and how unstoppable he can be when he’s attacking the basket. He is a disruptive force on defense though occasionally takes too many risks. To me, I see him as an important guy for the Wolves future, I’d like to see the wolves sign him to a multiyear contract perhaps in the 3-4million a year range.
6. As I stated earlier, any semblance of guard play last night (classifying Brewer as a forward) and the Wolves certainly win. Ellington needs to play more. He is starting to look much more comfortable out there and making positive contributions on both ends of the floor.
7. Al Jefferson should not be traded. (Unless the wolves can get a superstar in return). Al is really showing improvement on the defensive end and also as a passer. As I was watching last night, everytime Al got it in the post, I got this warm feeling that the wolves were gonna score. He was nearly unstoppable last night. The offense does slow when Al goes into his low post moves, but I don’t have a problem with that if when Al gets the ball, the wolves end up scoring 80% of the time. Al’s value will go way up if the Wolves ever make the playoffs, because the game always slows down in the playoffs.
8. Just to repeat: the Wolves problems are not in the front court, except for a long defensive center. Wolves need to focus on finding wing players and productive guards. Jefferson and Love are a lethal combination on offense and improving on defense.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 11:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Flynn
My observation with Flynn is that he has the swagger and confidence of a superstar with the game of an average player. Because of this he takes his PG battles personally and tries to do more than he is capable of executing. The more I watch him, the more I dislike the pick. Curry looks like a vastly more refined basketball player.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Flynn
I agree that Curry looks much more refined and will be a steady pro. But Jonny has more upside. Can he realize it? Will the coaches put him in a position to realize it? He is obviously struggling with the triangle. Curry would be a better fit for the triangle, it’s too bad Kahn didn’t have a coach before the draft…
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not buying the upside argument anymore when it comes to Flynn
Athleticism just isn’t that big of a deal for point guards. Flynn could have a vertical of 50-inches for all I care. His problems are all rooted in decision making and skill. Obviously there needs to be some baseline of athleticism and size required to be a great PG, but Curry as a PG easily meets that baseline and is perfectly capable of becoming an all-star. As a SG, his physical liabilities become more glaring, but not as a PG.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's fine
You can overvalue Curry to make your argument. I agree that Curry is a better pro right now. In fact, I would have preferred if the Wolves drafted Curry. But I can see why they drafted Flynn. He has more upside and is more athletic, and as was on display last night the wolves need athleticism in the worst way…. You can write Flynn off after half a season if you want. That’s your perrogative.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not writing him off
I’m just saying I don’t see some fundamental PG skills and instincts that would suggest he has the type of upside people think he has. I do see those traits in Curry. So I guess I am writing off the most rosy upside scenarios people have painted – especially Kahn, who just gushed over Flynn’s potential – but I’m certainly not declaring him a total bust.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey I feel the same way
Flynn is not gonna be a PG, especially with the triangle offense. Kahn drafted the wrong style of player for the triangle. However, Flynn can be an offensive force with his quickness. His game is suited to pick and roll or drive and kick…I agree with you that Kahn’s gushing looks ridiculous right now. However, the coaches are trying to put a square peg in a round hole by having Jonny try to run the triangle. I don’t see that ever working for him.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Curry outplayed Flynn by a wide margin last night, but Flynn has had very good games against Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams and Devin Harris — each in wins for the Wolves. I don’t know which rookie I’d rather have, but let’s not act like last night was a good representation of what each player brings. Flynn has had some games that Curry is not physically capable of having.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where is this ceiling thing coming from?
It’s like saying Gerald Green automatically has more potential than Brandon Roy. Yeah, sure, Green/Flynn could put in all the work to get the jumper, the play making ability, the intelligence that Roy/Curry has, but only then will his superior physical skills be the difference maker that makes him the better player. At some point you have to go with the production. As I recall, it was Curry who was breaking scoring records in college, not Flynn. Curry has the higher ceiling.
by John Doe on Jan 8, 2010 12:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not talking about production — I’m talking about the types of plays that Flynn made in those games. Physically, Curry isn’t capable of breaking down the defense, hanging in the air after he initiates contact and scoring off the glass. Curry could have just as productive of games, but I was just making the point that Flynn has shown the ability to do certain important things (and against great competition) that Curry will simply never be able to do.
If that makes Flynn’s ceiling higher, then so be it — but that wasn’t my point. Just talking about how Flynn is able to do what he does.
by Andy G on Jan 8, 2010 8:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The ceiling thing was aimed less at you.
Though the fact that you were replying to DR_JPK, who did explicitly say Flynn had more potential, made it seem as though you agreed.
I guess what I would like to reiterate is that what a player is capable of doing matters, but not as much as what a player does.
by John Doe on Jan 8, 2010 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Each player uses particular skillsets to
accomplish the things that make them a good prospect. Some just dont’ translate as well. it’s why a good college player can come in and do pretty much the same thing at the pro level, but some great college players merely become rotation players.
Some players don’t possess and can’t attain the skillset necessary to duplicate their previous accomplishments against harder competition. Others can perform better against better competition for numerous reasons.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 8, 2010 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I’m not just basing my judgment off of last night, but at this point in the season it seems like Curry and Flynn are living up to each other’s pre-draft expectations. Curry is playing like more of a true PG who facilitates within an offense and Flynn is an undersized SG who has trouble matching up, especially on defense.
I think Jonny can still be a good player but his expectations need to be readjusted. Chris Paul? Absolutely not. But he could definitely be an effective PG in a pick and roll offense or a great scoring guard off of the bench.
by jballer_13 on Jan 7, 2010 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like Randy Foye
Here’s hoping Flynn can shed that image with wolves fans, and develop into a Jason Terry type.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jonny...
…is still doing the head-down basket charging that had us all drooling in Summer League. Problem is, now his shots are being missed, blocked or otherwise turned over. Which is the crux of why we are all complaining of his lack of “facilitation”. When the defense figures out your game, do something different: Pass the ball!!
by Boss10 on Jan 7, 2010 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Big Al
I’m on board now with SnP on this one. Big Al has to go. Yes, our wings are absolutely the biggest weakness on this squad and yes we need improved play from the PG position. But if you take the long view, there are simply too many defensive matchup nightmares with an Al-Love frontcourt. They are both undersized and slow, which is a hellacious combo of liabilities to overcome if you plan on contending some day for a title.
I’m on board with keeping Love due to his versatility, but everyone else in the frontcourt needs to either be huge, athletic, or both.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 11:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Love Al Duo
I can see the argument to moving one of them. However, at this point that is the least of the wolves problems. Al is still improving, more than I thought he would. I’d give it the frontcourt more time and really focus on improving the back court.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 12:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No doubt we have bigger problems
But when a team is as bad as we are, now is the time to continue making overhauls, and nothing prevents us from working our wing issue and big issue in parallel.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If we try to trade AL now
The wolves will be selling at a low price. Al will have more value once he is 100% and if he keeps improving. That’s why I would wait. Also, Love & Al could work with that 3rd defensive big.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't disagree with the sell high argument
My point is less about rushing into a deal with Jefferson than it is that Kahn should resolve in his own mind that it simply won’t work. In the meantime, he and Rambis should do everything possible to spruce up Jefferson for the trading block come this offseason.
And the problem with the 3rd defensive big argument is that we actually need two kinds of added bigs to compliment Love and Jefferson. We need a true big man ala Brendan Haywood or Cole Aldrich. And we need the athletic pogo stick type of guy. Because Jefferson exhibit the undersized/unathletic combo, they need to be compensated for in two directions. I’d rather have Love + legit big man + athletic-pogo-stick big as my three-man big rotation. Surround those three with a much of shooters and athletes on the wings.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ask yourself
Can Love be effective if his role is upgraded to primary option in the post? Your equation is Love + legit big man (Al Jefferson?) + athletic-pogo-stick. I’d say the wolves already have 2 out of 3. Maybe Hollins counts as 1/2. I’d say get a true big man center and let’s see how it goes with Al, Love and true center…
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that Love and Jefferson
Can’t match up most nights defensively and that their defensive weaknesses are exactly the same – slow and undersized. I think you can really only get away with that with one frontline player if you ever hope to contend for a title. Yes, we can get complimentary pieces to come off the bench, but I just don’t think it’s enough to cover for them over a 7-game playoff series.
When I say legit big man, I mean they need a true Center with size. Jefferson is no match for a healthy Oden, Bynum, Shaq, or even Gasol for that matter. All of these guys can easily manhandle him in the post.
In terms of replacing his offense, Jefferson sports around a 52 TS% for his career. Love is far more efficient. What we would be missing is the shot volume since Love can’t create his own shot like Jefferson, but that’s part of our problem right now. I have no problem with having more shots come from 3-point snipers and slashers that get to the line. You don’t need a transcendant post threat to win titles. You do need interior defense though.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on interior defense
However, Love is far more efficient than Al because Al is usually facing a double team. Plus, a healthy Al I think can match up reasonably with the guys you mentioned, especially if he keeps working on his defense. It’s way too early to give up on Al Jefferson. He is not the problem with the Wolves. It’s the pieces around him, especially the backcourt.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jefferson has been in the league for 7 years
He isn’t going to get much better defensively. Call me a pessimist, but guys don’t suddenly blossom into great interior defenders after 7 years. Plus even with improved effort, Jefferson’s lack of elite Center size and strength make it an unfair fight when he’s trying to play a healthy Andrew Bynum, Greg Oden, or even Roy Hibbert for that matter. These guys can easily get deep post position and get their shot off on him anytime they want. That’s not Al’s fault, it’s just a reality of his ’tweener C/PF size.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree. Can't believe the calls for Jefferson's head after last night's game.
I don’t understand how, even after his best game of the season, one where he almost singlehandedly kept them in the game for stretches when nobody else’s shot was falling, everyone calls for him to be traded. How does that make sense?! I think there is a lot of value in having a player who can keep you in games for stretches when nobody else is scoring, and Jefferson is really, really good at that. I was at the game last night, and was completely impressed by Big Al. I thought I’d read on Canis Hoopus the next day about Jefferson demonstrating his value.
The two big-man spots are FAR, FAR and away the best things about the Wolves right now. I think, unless you can get a superstar Bosh-like player by trading Al, breaking up the frontcourt is the final part of the roster makeover. Get the rest of the roster set, have your long, athletic 1, 2, and 3, PLUS the 7-foot rim protector in place. And only then, if having Love and Jefferson is the last thing keeping us from a championship, do you break it up.
The thing that would kill me about giving up on Love and Al right now is what kind of potential they have as an offensive duo. They complement each other perfectly (offensively), and they really could soon be the most productive front court in the league by far. And we’re going to break that up before seeing if we can mask their defensive shortcomings? I think it would be a short-sighted, hasty move.
by LoveTo on Jan 7, 2010 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen
WIthout Jefferson, wolves lose by 30 last night and probably most of their games. Also, what many posters here overlook is how Jefferson really frees up Love for offensive rebounds with all of the double teams he sees. Love also won’t ever see double teams when Jefferson is in the game. They are a great duo, and people don’t understand how much more effective Love is with Jefferson next to him.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Very good point
about Love’s offensive rebounds. Love is much more effective with Jefferson in, and vice versa. They’re just a really good offensive tandem. It would make me sad to see that split up before we’re SURE that they can’t be adequate defensively, even with a good defensive team around them.
by LoveTo on Jan 7, 2010 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
in recent games I have NOT seen defensive problems by Jefferson and Love - problems are on the perimeter
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you watch the Orlando game?
Also, Love had some problems with Maggette last night
by jballer_13 on Jan 7, 2010 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point
jb, I agree that there are defensive issues. That is the crux of Love, he creates beautiful mismatches on offense, but then struggles with his matchup on defense. However, I thought he held his own against Maggette last night. Both were mismatched against eachother. Love abused Maggette on offense and Maggette got the better of Love on offense.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It seemed to me that
Love got a spark of life back when they put Maggette on him. He got blocked once or twice by Randolph and or one of the centers, and it quickly looked like he was way too hesitant to shoot or try to initiate his own offense. Once Maggette was on him he was callnig for the ball in the post to take advantage of a smaller (but very quick and strong) defender.
by dropstep on Jan 7, 2010 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
maggette primarily plays small forward - thats our WING PROBLEM
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love and Gomes were the primary guys on Maggette last night
Watch the game again…. Maggette got 6-8 points off of plays where Love/Gomes would sag in too much, giving him an open look.
by jballer_13 on Jan 7, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Love is trying to cover Maggette then Maggette should be covering Love.
You put Love on the Box and let him eat up Maggette. Mismatches work both ways.
Also keep in mind that Gomes plays SF, when his on the floor with jefferson and love.
So that would be our Wing problem.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 2:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I see your point and I actually agree that Love and Jefferson can work out together as long as we have a third big who is a defensive stud but I was just trying to point out that any time we play a team that has a stretch 4 we will have matchup problems.
by jballer_13 on Jan 7, 2010 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, but Match Up problems can go both ways -
We have difficulty matching up with Lewis on the three point line (most teams do)
But Lewis has difficulty covering Love on the block – when Howard comes to help Love finds the open man (usually Jefferson)
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For the Warriors
He is quite often a PF.
by nja700 on Jan 7, 2010 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just as the Warriors' coach
is quite often the GM
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Most of Orlando's points were scored on the perimeter - Howard scored 9 points
That is a legitimate problem we have playing Jefferson and Love, if one of them has to cover someone like Rashard Lewis who primarily plays on the perimeter. But that wasn’t an interior defense problem and if we had a “bynum” we’d still have the same mismatch problem.
The way you beat a mismatch is to attack in on the offensive end. Feed Love in the post and let him muscle Lewis and when Howard tries to help out use Love’s passing to find Jefferson.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The logic in trading Jefferson
has less to do with him as a player than it does with where the Wolves are right now. I’m trying to put a post together on this for the weekend (damn work and family always getting in the way of what’s really important), but paying Al eight figures on a 20-win team is like having a $2,000 stereo in a thousand dollar car.
“Getting the rest of the roster set” can only be done one of two ways: drafting rookies and adding (and paying) veterans. The former is hit-or-miss (mostly miss) that takes years to develop, and the latter costs money that I don’t believe the Wolves are going to spend.
This whole notion that “OMG We would be soooo much worse without Jefferson!” denies two important factors: first, losing Jefferson may indeed be a net negative, but not 100% negative (i.e. other assets would come over in return). Second, depending on the night in question, this is either the worst or second-worst team in the league, with one good young player (Love), and one okay/improving young player (Brewer). I’d rather add three more of these younger guys than overpay Al for sevearl more 20-win seasons.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
I like the stereo analogy, but I don’t think we should trade Al (or Love).
First, I don’t think we can get equal value for Jefferson, because of the way he’s struggled for most of this year with the knee. He’s doing better of late, but we’re still not seeing the consistent 23 & 11 guy that we had in ‘08. If he were playing that way, and many expected him to be in this All-Star game as they did back then, then he’d at least have high trade value. Right now, we couldn’t get the kind of player that warrants trading Al.
Second, he’s relatively young. Just turned 25, and I know every player is different but low block scorers like Al can play into their 30’s with success. He should be good for a long time and beyond his current contract.
Third, he’s either our best or second-best player when he’s 100%. Regardless, we’re the second-worst team in the league and have nothing but a few ping pong balls to gain by trading him and further-gutting our roster.
Fourth, he’s never played with a good NBA guard. Foye was the closest thing to it, and he’s pretty average. The impact of low post scoring for teams with good guards is obvious. The Lakers went from pretender to champion when they added Gasol. People didn’t realize Gasol’s value until he joined Kobe. Now, he’s widely considered a Top-10 player in the league. The Bulls are still waiting for that player. If Al were playing like ‘08 Al, I imagine they’d give us their Godfather offer to take him from us. He and Rose could be a championship duo.
Finally, I don’t think the fans have the patience to get worse (again) before we get better. I’m all for the slow build to contending — but it’s getting close to the limit. We need to add perimeter talent and get better. If it’s slow improvement, so be it — but we can’t do anymore moves that make us worse. Trading Al right now would make us worse, and it might not do anything to make us better long-term.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 1:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All true, and good points.
1. I wouldn’t think he would be traded until the offseason.
2.
Trading Al right now would make us worseUm, this team is on pace to be one of the worst in league history. How much worse can they get, and is there a level of enjoyment you get from say, 18 wins, versus 12?
3. A good guard may come through the draft (Wall), but that will be a long time coming, if ever. If it’s a guy who comes via trade or free agency, good perimeter players get paid around what Al makes. If you believe that this team intends to spend no more than say, $50 million per year, that means that 40 to 50% of the payroll will be going to Al and this good perimeter player. How much wins/fans will that good perimeter player add over replacement value?
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well..
the 32 Al-less games last year were the worst Wolves games since the Jimmy Rodgers Era. There was nothing fun to watch. At all. I know Love has gotten better, so he’d provide some bright spots, but if we replaced Al with a defender-type, like Joakim Noah, I think we’d lose even more and the offense would be ridiculously hard to watch. Flynn would be the only player that commands extra attention, and his inability to find open shooters is well-documented. We don’t even have Mike Miller to penetrate and kick to Bassy anymore! We’re bad now, but there are worse levels of bad. When casual fans stop watching, that’s one thing. When die-hards stop watching that’s another.
I’m not sure exactly what my point is re: perimeter players other than that that’s where our focus should be. There’s no reason that we can’t keep Love and Jefferson, while improving our backcourt through the draft and/or free agency at the same time. If we get Wall, that’ll obviously be a huge step. But we also know we have Rubio in 2011 (unless we trade him first or he stays in Euro longer, which isn’t likely) and we can draft scoring guards in this draft, which should have more than a couple good ones.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Our focus should be both
I was of the same mindset too…Let’s focus on our wings and backcourt, then worry about the frontline. But I’ve come to the conclusion that if you know deep down (and I gotta believe Kahn does) that these two are not a championship pairing, then we might as well work to address it in parallel with overhauling the rest of the roster. The point isn’t addition by subtraction – we absolutely need to get value back in exchange for Al – it’s about accelerating the process for reshaping the roster. If we know long-term that Jefferson and Love won’t work, then why rule out making changesin the near to medium term? This doesn’t have to be a serialized process where first you fix a., then you fix b., etc.,
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
problem is that
in order to not get screwed you need to showcase players and play fun ball. If you blow it all up again you will get back peanuts. If you acquire talent and be patient, then you can wait for a well rounded deal between multiple teams. I think that was the overriding reasoning behind the just focus on the backcourt line.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 7, 2010 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree
that we need to keep sprucing up Al and doing everything possible to improve his game and get him his looks in the post. I don’t think he’s 100% yet, but he is gradually getting closer. I certainly don’t want to give the guy away, but I think this offseason is the right time to put out feelers.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 7, 2010 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If it's not addition by subraction...
then who is the big center next to Love?
Rather than speak in hypotheticals as we often do in these trade discussions, there should probably be some names thrown out to replace Jefferson at center.
Thabeet, Aldrich, Alabi, Oden, Lopez and McGee quickly come to mind as big young centers for the future.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Blow off the work and lock the kids downstairs with the PS3 for a couple
hours so you can put the post together. Priorities, damn it!
Question, aside from defenses having to respect his low post presence, what does AL do to make his teammates better? This is why I have switched from thinking Love has to go to wondering if AL needs to go. Love makes the guys around him better, not sure AL has that effect. In fact, offensively may be just the opposite.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
give it to the end of the season....
You will see a good interior defensive presence from Jefferson and Love.
You will see more talking on defense {noticed all talking more in the last game}.
You will see more passing (once the other team has proven they can stop him). There is no point for Al to pass it out of the low post even if doubled, if he is still scoring 75% of the time as has was in the last game. But if they stop him, then expect him to find the open man.
Watch Al dominate defenses in clutch situations at the end of games.
Those will all make his team and teammates better.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm actually prepared to give it another season
I really want to see AL healthy for a year, as well as what he does with a player like Evan Turner.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
But look at it from an economic standpoint. In theory you could pay three “Love” players for what Al makes. Yes, none of them may be as good as Al right away, or ever. But at least you have the chance of improvement, vs. the annual “hey let’s rank the upcoming draft” that seems to keep coming earlier and earlier in the season.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your assuming we can get 3 draft picks at #5 or higher instantly. it cost us Miller and Foye to get one of these
Love is cheap because draft picks are cheap per the NBA contract. Love is good because he’s a high pick.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Miller and Foye
are worthless. Ask any Wolves or Wizards fan.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lol...put your theory to the test - find 6 more players that teams will trade for 3 top 5 draft picks this season.
don’t think it will be as easy as you believe… but it can’t hurt trying.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I keep waffling on this one
At this time, I would trade AL and something else if Wall is the reward, otherwise it might be better to keep him around another year.
I disagree with you on one point. Why have three “Love” level players. They already have a few of these guys (Love himself, Flynn, Brewer)…unless they change the rules only five can play at one time. Also, payroll is low enough next year, so I have a hard time going for lower payroll unless a guy like Wall is the return.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you just categorize
Brewer and Flynn at Love’s level?
by dropstep on Jan 7, 2010 5:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Meant salary and
what PD said right below.
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 5:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather take a chance that two
very good players might emerge from the 08/09/10/11 draft classes, than to devote so much money to a player who leads the team to the lotto every year.
This front office needs to increase it’s odds of getting lucky, as in the very limited sample size has demonstrated no skill in attracting very good free agents to the team, or to sniff out a bargain in the draft.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Making teammates better
What if all five players each made their teammates better by passing quickly and appropriately. Would it make a bit of difference if none of them were good players with the ball? I know that teams need ball movement and unselfish players, but let’s not get carried away by this notion of “making your teammates better” as the be-all and end-all of a player’s importance to his team. It’s a cliche’ that has been used infinitely too many times when talking about Kobe Bryant. Kobe didn’t learn how to make his teammates better — Mitch Kupchak did. If Al played with a great guard or two, everything would look better. He’s only selfish to the extent that it gives us the best chance to win. I know Rambis is implementing a system, but I can’t blame Al for abandoning it in games like last night, where it wasn’t working and he had his way on the block.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In Rambis's comments after the game he said he wanted the team to pound it inside like they did in the 2nd half
for the whole game. He was PRAISING what jefferson, love and brewer were doing.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
by your logic if we had Lebron, and paid him the same as Al, we should trade lebron because it isn't worth spending so
much on one player when we are losing? Don’t think so!
If Jefferson was 30, you could say he’s too old for this core. But
Jefferson 25 [birthday on Jan. 4th]
Brewer 23 [24 in March]
Love 21
Flynn 20 [21 in Feb]
Ellington 22
Sessions 23 [24 in April]
Tucker 25 [26 in Feb]
Hollins 25
gomes 27
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 1:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I love your devotion and sunny optimism
but you are so wildly wrong about the near-term future of this team. If LeBron were on this team, they would be:
1. Much better
2. Worth spending money on
Al is so much closer to Elton Brand than LeBron that it isn’t even funny. And the list of players you put up (other than Love) have two things in common:
1. The average (at best) ones are old
2. The young ones have shown no inclination that they are ever going to be anything above average, much less key components on a championship team.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You argument you made was if we were a losing team its not worth keeping a highly paid player. - compare Bosch and AL
[I listed the ages just to show Al is in the age range of the rest of the young players]
Lets go by win score
Last year jefferson’s win score [prorated for 82 games] – 8 games
Bosch’s win score – 10 wins
So if we substitute Bosch for Jefferson last season, 24 wins – 8 wins plus 10 wins = 26 wins.
We are still a losing team. Do you trade Bosch? Or do you build around him?
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's Bosh
not Bosch. Sorry…pet peeve.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 7, 2010 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uhhh . . .
First of all, any point you’re making is hampered by your inabilty to spell a player’s four-letter surname.
Second of all, “Bosch” and LeBron are two very different players on two very different teams.
Third, I never mentioned Bosh. What does he have to do with the notion of whether or not the Wolves should keep Jefferson?
Fourth, I don’t think the Raptors should pay Bosh what some other contending team likely will pay him.
Fifth, trading Al for younger lesser paid players with less current skills and more potential is no different than what the Wolves did with KG. It didn’t work, and so they have to do it again.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the point you made was a general one - its not worth keeping high priced players if a team is losing.
I just asked if it applied to Lebron and Bosh
With Bosh we have 26 wins not 24
with lebron, by the same methodology as above we’d have 36 wins
I’m guessing there are many players of Al’s caliber [like Bosh (without the C)] who you might want to keep. So its not really a generally point but you just don’t like Al.
But maybe I’m wrong.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There's also a semi-clearcut difference between Al Jefferson and a franchise player
Jefferson is not (yet) a franchise player. Can he get there? I honestly doubt it, but it is certainly possible. Bosh is currently a franchise player, though he is proving to be quite a crappy one. I wouldn’t be too big of a fan of having Bosh on our current team either. He seems more like a player to push you over the top than a player to build around to me… but let’s not get into that discussion now, there is plenty going on in this thread as it is. Jefferson, to me, also seems like a player to push you over the top. Or at least I think Kahn has it right to call him the #2 on a winning (not even necessarily a contending) team. Very thin line that I am talking about here, and I’m sure most people would fall on different sides of it.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
why is Bosh with win share of 10 a franchise player but jefferson with a win share of 8 isn't ?
How do you draw the line?
One way to try to do it is quantitative. I’d say the franchise players are those in the top 10 in the list below. So Bosh is just below the “franchise guys” in my view.
Win Shares – [from Basketball reference]
1. LeBron James-CLE 20.3
2. Chris Paul-NOH 18.3
3. Dwyane Wade-MIA 14.7
4. Pau Gasol-LAL 13.9
5. Dwight Howard-ORL 13.8
6. Brandon Roy-POR 13.5
7. Kobe Bryant-LAL 12.7
8. Ray Allen-BOS 11.1
9. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 10.9
10. Yao Ming-HOU 10.6
11. Paul Pierce-BOS 10.3
12. Chauncey Billups-TOT 10.1
13. Tim Duncan-SAS 10.1
14. Rajon Rondo-BOS 9.9
15. Mo Williams-CLE 9.8
16. Chris Bosh-TOR 9.7
17. Gerald Wallace-CHA 9.5
18. Rashard Lewis-ORL 9.5
19. LaMarcus Aldridge-POR 9.5
20. Nene Hilario-DEN 9.3
FYI – Love this season is on a pace to get about 10.5 win share if he played 82 games.
Jefferson’s best season he was on pace for about a win share of 8.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd put Bosh at the bottom of the franchise players
and Jefferson towards the middle to the top of the next best contributors. Neither can play defense very well, and that’s a huge factor in my decision. But like I said, it’s a fine line and this is just my interpretation of it.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to repeat this once more
It’s not that I don’t like Al—I do. I just don’t like devoting a third of next year’s committed salary to him. He’s good—he’s not good enough to win games with the very untalented cast around him. If I thought the team could/would accumulate enough talent around him to win games, I would support keeping him. I don’t think the team can or will get those types of players while Al is on the team, so I would rather they trade Al for a better surrounding cast, and hopefully one or more of those players will emerge.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
by the win share formula Bosh gets about 10 wins and Al gets about 8 -
so 2 wins is the difference between keeping one and dumping the other?
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay,
when did I say the Raptors should keep Bosh?
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you said Bosh was a franchise player and jefferson wasn't
By implication keep Bosh but not jefferson. [Though you did say in Bosh’s case it was a close call…
The quote from you is below:
[There’s also a semi-clearcut difference between Al Jefferson and a franchise player
Jefferson is not (yet) a franchise player. Can he get there? I honestly doubt it, but it is certainly possible.]
It is posted about 5 up (at least now)
I thought a 2 game difference between keeping and not keeping was interesting.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your blind optimism
apparently extends to your eyesight, as I did not make that comment.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're chit chatting
with 2 different people here.
And I was actually just responding to something you said. You were the first to bring Bosh into this.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 4:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would the Wolves
trade Jefferson for Bosch? That makes no sense!
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The discussion started with "wanting to trade jefferson to save money" since we couldn't win with him.
I then asked if that person would say the same about Lebron. Trade him if the team isn’t winning to save money.
I then asked if the same would apply to Bosh? Trade him to save money.
Then we got into who is a franchise player.
From my standpoint the difference between bosh and jefferson is 2 wins per year if going by win shares. so if you keep one, you keep the other, and if you get rid of one you get rid of the other
Personally, I’d keep either of them as long as they aren’t paid extravagantly. jefferson’s contract runs from $11 m last year to $15 million in 2012/2013.
Bosh has a player option for $17.1 million next year [when Jefferson will be getting $13 M
So Bosh is being paid $1.7 million per victory
Jefferson is getting $1.63 million per victory. so he is a relative bargain. …lol…
[Assumed bosh is worth 10 win shares and jefferson 8 win shares.]
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 8:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you are paying any player
15+M on a 20 win team…. it’s probably time to start thinking about severing ties. Obviously there are exceptions. If Lebron is leading you to only 20 wins, I would be pretty damn surprised, but I would first look at coaching and the scrubs next to him. If it seems that you could replace Lebron and still get the same amount of wins, sure thing. It won’t happen obviously, but that’s your example and I went with it. Again, ticket sales matter and guys like Lebron and to a lesser extent, Bosh, attract fans. Fans yield revenue and make it possible to overpay these guys. Jefferson doesn’t really do that. So saving money becomes all that much more important for the same or less output. Warning! Crappy analogy alert!
It’s like starting a business where you make batteries. Your competitor makes batteries and pays $5 per while getting 10 hours of life, then they spend another $2 in marketing and sells it for $12. You make the same battery for $5 and get 8 hours of life out of it, but only sell it for $8 because you ignore marketing. You then realize that you can move over to the solar business and make more money for the same cost, do you do it? Even ignoring the output, your competitor is making more money on the same product. Obviously we might differ on our prospects in changing, but I think there is more to be had elsewhere.
On a sidenote, winshares can only take you so far. Not necessarily saying they are that far off here, but I wouldn’t rely on them in the future as much as you are now. Too many other factors.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying any of those stats systems are perfect including win shares.
I thought it helped to clarify some things.
sometimes players are “branded” to use your business terminology either better or worse than they really are.
I think in Jefferson’s case everyone thinks he is worse than he talent and stats say he his…..
Everyone has heard that he can’t play defense for so long, that they just assume it is true. I’ve seen jefferson play good team defense. I think he could be an ABOVE AVERAGE team defender.
so to fight the “negative brand” it sometimes helps to get statistical.
Just hypothetically, say Love can get you 10 wins and jefferson can get you 8 wins. Say Evan turner can get you 10 and Rudy Gay can get you 8, Rubio gets you 8 also.
So your starters get you 44 wins, your bench gets you 10 to 15 wins more.
Thats the type of thing I see happening.
So why wouldn’t you keep guys like Love and jefferson if you can add pieces to them.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 9:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree on almost everything
but I still think per dollar, we can get more production elsewhere than from Jefferson. Like I said though, I want a fair deal for him and I am not just saying we should trade him for expirings by any means. But we really are paying him to win games and he has very little use (relative to others of his similar production level) as a business product. He’ll probably never be a guy that other teams go to games to see play. Like Wolves fans go to see Lebron, Kobe, Wade, and even Bosh. Again, I agree with you 100% that he is almost as useful as Bosh, but I am not a huge Bosh fan either, but he just brings in bigger crowds. Not Jefferson’s fault, his game just isn’t marketable to a casual fan.
by Mplax on Jan 8, 2010 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Bosch. I always thought..
….Hieronymus would make for a fantastic NBA player. At the very least he could design some wicked looking unis.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 7, 2010 5:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How did trading Brand work out for the Bulls?
It set back their development for 2-3 years and left them with a player who they later moved for one year of P.J. Brown and the opportunity to cut J.R. Smith.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jan 7, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How did GETTING Brand
work out for the Clippers and Sixers?
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting counter point
I actually agree with you and PSR here. Is that actually possible based on your posts?
by Rumblebee on Jan 7, 2010 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't Brand have a catastrophic injury in there?
Like achilles tendon tear or something? He was a great player when the Clips first had him. He’s not tall-enough to play his old game without the old athleticism.
by Andy G on Jan 7, 2010 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't really prove your point or refute mine
Did Chandler really bring the Bulls back to the playoffs sooner than Brand would’ve or make them a title contender? My point is that giving up on any talented player too early usually ends up setting a team back and doesn’t improve their potential. Unless they’re clearly upgrading from Jefferson or any of their good players, they’re better off keeping him.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jan 7, 2010 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They have little to gain by keeping him
unless they quickly add more talent around him. They haven’t demonstrated the ability or willingness to do so. Until they do, they have little to lose by reshuffling the deck and seeing if they can get more face cards from a new deal.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree to disagree
Using one example probably doesn’t strengthen either of our points. I think he’s good player at a good price and don’t think those guys can be given up for unknowns, especially on a young team that’s trying to move up.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jan 7, 2010 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're probably right
but I’m going to hang on to this belief until the team gets better organically, or from some moves by the front office.
by PoorDick on Jan 7, 2010 7:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Summary
Love played great. Jefferson played okay . Everyone else played terrible.
by Menyun on Jan 7, 2010 1:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Check that
Jefferson and Love played well. Brewer played a great 2nd Half. Ellington played well in his 15minutes of court time, and everyone else sucked…
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For the Pacers game on Friday
I would really like to see a lineup of:
Big Al
Love
Brewer
Ellington
Sessions
Just to shake things up and start rewarding the players who are actually playing well. I would also like to see Ellington play on Al’s side of the offense for more than 8 minutes a game.
by jballer_13 on Jan 7, 2010 1:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Almost posted
That exact line-up in my game summary that I hope to see.
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Went to the game
noticed a couple things being there that I wouldn’t have on TV (and by TV I mean a really crappy and laggy internet stream)
1. I really liked that during one timeout, the first player off the bench giving everyone high fives was none other than… Alando Tucker!
2. Brewer really got things going last night, taking advantage of every single drive they gave (or didn’t give) him. He was full of intensity and he only let it get the best of him three or four times (one terrible foul on Maggette after he botched the catch, one bad foul after he just nearly missed a steal, one terrible post up at the beginning of the game where Monta put him in his place, and I’m sure there was something else I am forgetting). Overall he played decent defense and played incredible on the offensive end.
3. Despite how much Maggette scored, we played terrific defense on him. Whenever he got inside, he was met by Love or Al (and even Pech once or twice). He shot a decent percentage, but garnered a couple more free throw attempts than he deserved. Overall I thought we did tremendous on him, but were not rewarded for it. You could tell he was getting frustrated. Even Love and Wilkins did a good job manning up on him. Many of his points were also during transition or after a lapse of the rotational defense that he took advantage of.
4. Jefferson has definitely shown defensive improvement, both man and team. Though last night wasn’t the best time to watch when he was guarding Turiaf and Biedrins (both fresh off injuries).
5. Flynn looked truly terrible. I had to check the boxscore to make sure that wasn’t how he always played. He left Ellington open around the perimeter a few times and tried to score against his man, the help, AND a shotblocker. He really is destined to be Jason Terry v2.0
6. Ellington deserves more time. He was constantly open on the perimeter, but suffered by playing alongside Flynn (which is why I think Brewer and Flynn is a better combo as well as Sessions and Ellington). He still looks uncertain as to whether he should shoot or not, which as that gets better, he will become more and more productive. I think the best way to increase his confidence is by giving him the starting role right now.
7. Sessions put on a good Flynn impersonation by driving to the hoop every chance he got (mostly in transition). On the plus side, he also seemed to know when to pass and how to get contact. One terrible pass by him though, straight to Monta.
8. Speaking of terrible passes… Monta picked us apart. He was everywhere. I think it was because he is so small and just blends in and all of a sudden jumps out and tips the pass. Love gave him a few steals and Sessions one of his own.
9. Love should never have gone back into the game. He was still limping and stretching on the sideline when he was waiting to check in. Absolutely not worth the extra rebound or point we get during that 1.5minutes. He was cringing so badly when it first happened, I thought it was his knee and that he was done for the season. Seemed to be his ankle though, so that’s good. Maggette even appeared to say something to him (by Love’s reaction, I assume it was something of an apology or at least checking if he was ok).
10. I got so unbelievably sick of listening to the person next to me call Jefferson on a travel every single time he faked a shot or drive… I wanted to explain to him how a pivot foot works. Jefferson did a good job with that last night and the refs (the real ones, not the one sitting next to me) recognized that.
11. Brewer, Jefferson, Love, and Ellington have all shown marked improvement. Flynn and Sessions have both gotten worse than expected (Flynn with the passing, Sessions with nothing like his production from last year). Pecherov and Pavlovic seem to get along well, both in warmups and during the game. Jawai looks even bigger than he does on TV. Wilkins and Brewer played pretty good defense last night. They seem to be the most knowledgeable in rotational IQ. Too bad they don’t have anyone to rotate to their man.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 2:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If Flynn in Jason Terry 2.0
I would be very happy with that.
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As would I
unfortunately though, we need a little more than Jason Terry to get us anywhere.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
JT is a super-efficient sixth man for a championship-caliber team (even if that that team choked). Though I don’t really see the comparison with Jonny, if that’s the caliber of player Jonny ends up being then he was a good pick.
by nja700 on Jan 7, 2010 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on point 11.
The quartet you mentioned are the only bright spots on the team (unless Jonny is hot). I’ve been disappointed in Sessions so far. Doesn’t really seem to do much ever, at least to my relatively untrained eye.
by LoveTo on Jan 7, 2010 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he's running the offense effectively - something flynn doesn't do nearly as well.
so far plus minus
Sessions – plus 2.3
Flynn – minus 6.2
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He is a terrific PG on a good team
but on our team, he just doesn’t do enough to make us be uncrappy. Not his fault by any means. PGs don’t really have to do quite as much in todays game to really get to the top level. Look at Derek Fisher and what he has done for the Lakers. He does a terrific job doing what he does, but he doesn’t put up allstar numbers either. I see Sessions as this type of PG. A winner on a winner, but a nonfactor on a loser.
by Mplax on Jan 7, 2010 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hollins plus minus is [minus 13.5] a bust
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
When Hollins is on the court the team is minus 18.6 [by the comparison the team loses by an average of about 10 ppg]
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 7, 2010 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He'd be quite good in a fight.
No one can last long against someone with hands of stone.
You were a daydreamer, a sass-mouth, and, not infrequently, a bit of a gigglepuss. Somehow I doubt twenty years of amphetamines and failure have done anything to improve that.
by Kevin Loves McHale's Navy on Jan 7, 2010 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That dunk on Andray Blatche
was probably my fourth favorite moment of the Wolves season thus far behind
1. Brewer’s dunk on Fisher
2. Wilkins’ game winner
3. Pecherov screaming at the top of his lungs after making a big shot against Boston
by TimAllen on Jan 7, 2010 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Check out my photo
Flew through minneapolis over the holidays and happened to pass this sign on the way to our gate….
by DR_JPK on Jan 7, 2010 3:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Much of what I wanted to say has been said already
so I’ll keep it short.
I was at the game last night. I enjoyed myself a lot more once I got over any illusion of the Wolves possibly winning. A few thoughts, some of which will be reiterations of things I thought bore repeating.
-Even though we’re close in record, I think the Warriors are the type of team that’s built to beat the crap out of us. We have terrible wings, and we don’t defend the 3 point line well.
-Jonny Flynn has been regressing of late. He doesn’t run plays, ever. It’s either A) try to drive all the way to the hoop or B) cross midcourt, hand the ball off to a wing who is hopelessly incapable of initiating the office, and stand in the corner.
-Al Jefferson, Kevin Love, and Corey Brewer all played as good of games as we could reasonably expect to get out of them, but the putrid play of literally every other player on the team (save Ellington, I suppose) ruined the game for them.
-I really wish we had better crowds/fans in Minnesota. I’m envious of the atmosphere in places like Portland or Golden State.
-Rambis had some questionable rotations again. He’s well within the new coach grace period, but boy I wish he’d start Sessions/Ellington/Brewer/Love/Jefferson. Gomes in the place of Ellington would fine, though Sasha’s minutes should be going to Ellington or even Tucker.
-My most important point is that to use this game’s gamewrap as a place to talk about how Al Jefferson needs to be traded is ludicrous. Yes, in other games, it’s a problem if he’s ignoring the flow of the offense to look for his own shot. But he was unstoppable last night. If he can create offense at the .684 TS% completely irrespective of the actions of the other 9 guys on the court, that’s a good thing. It’s not like Golden State’s big men lit us up. It’s not like Big Al was stunting the offense of the wings. He did exactly what he should have done to give the team its best chance to win and for that he should be commended before anything else.
by John Doe on Jan 8, 2010 3:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with most of what you said but do partially disagree on starting line up. But not because the players you named are not the best on the team.
These guys – Sessions/Ellington/Brewer/Love/Jefferson. Gomes in the place of Ellington would fine, though Sasha’s minutes should be going to Ellington or even Tucker – with the exception tucker. All things being equal those who have played best should be starting. But all things are not equal.
First, we have no players behind those few you named [except for Flynn who you didn’t name] We need some competency on the 2nd unit also. So some of our better players have to play with the 2nd unit also.
Second, flynn is starting for developmental reasons, not because he has outplayed Sessions. I personally think Sessions is a much better point guard, right now, than flynn. He gets us into our sets much more consistently and runs the offense. flynn is a better scorer. When he is “on” offensively he helps. When he isn’t, as S&P said he doesn’t contribute much. But we are playing Flynn so he learns and overcomes these deficiencies (or at least we will see after a full year what his capabilities might be).
I agree with many on this board that Ellington should also be getting more playing time. Maybe try Brewer at small forward and Ellington at shooting guard. We don’t want to reduce Brewers playing time [Brewers shooting percentage has certainly improved to a workable level in the last month at 46 to 47% – Brewer FG% since beginning of Dec.]
I’d like to see what Tucker can do also.
As for those currently gettting playing who shouldn’t be:
Hollins I’m not impressed with – his on court numbers are awful. He is minus 18.6 while on the court – vs a team average of about minus 10. His plus minus is [Minus 13.5] Keep him on the bench and let him practice with the team. But he is SO BAD that I think its counter productive to play him. Its too bad we gave him a contract for multiple years, maybe Kahn’s biggest mistake to date, at least so far.
In my view Gomes is the most likely to be traded to get cap space for this summer [other alternatives are Brewer and Sessions who are needed more and have higher upsides] so there is no point creating chemistry with the “keepable” core. Let Gomes play with the 2nd unit. [I’d like to keep gomes as a bench rotation player but the potential to get a top free agent takes precedence.]
wilkins is another “short termer”. Unless we keep him for a cheap 10th guy off the bench. I’d rather see Brewer at SF and ellingon/tucker SG. And lets try more of Flynn and Sessions playing together with one of the other as SG.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 8, 2010 6:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If not Hollins then who?
Hollins hasn’t been great by any measure this year but we looked terrible in the game when Al or Love was out. Pecherov and Gomes at PF is not what I want to see.
by jballer_13 on Jan 8, 2010 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Similar to the point I was just going to make
Hollins would be the worst starter in the league if he had to, which he did for quite a few games this year. If he is playing against backup talent, he is still overmatched at least 80% of the time. But if he is playing solely against backup talent, I think you see his plus minus numbers at least move towards respectability.
by Mplax on Jan 8, 2010 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
