Yes please,

Wolves get the #1 pick (obviously). Then the Nets get the #3 pick. They probably shy away from trying to move up because it would just gut an already depleted roster. Since they have so much cap space, they might give up the #3 for Jefferson, and hope they can get a big free agent to pair with him. This would become a 3 team trade with whoever gets the #2 pick. The Wolves trade the #3 from NJ, along with an extra 1st rounder and Flynn to get the #2 pick.

They leave the draft with Wall and Turner. They join KLove, Brewer, Pek et al. The Wolves still have Rubio rights and cap space, which they hold for another year in hopes of drafting a legit center in the 2012 draft. Team nearly set, with a low payroll.

BTW, this is why I keep insisting they package Jefferson for a better player. They have enough assets to build a good team, they need impact players.

You’re right, he was 1-1 in the third.

When I ask “What gives?” it’s a genuine question, not some sort of piling on.

At the end of the yearly standings, good intentions mean little if they don’t bring about positive results. This doesn’t mean that I don’t laud Al’s intentions and dedication to the team – it’s questioned around here at times, though I feel that the general consensus is positive in this regard – but we’re trying to be realistic about what Al’s deficiencies are and how his style of play and contract affect his value.

Nearly everybody here appreciates Al’s scoring and rebounding, that he’s still in recovery from his ACL tear, that he is improving in areas of weakness, and that he maintains a relatively positive outlook despite a history of losing. He’s certainly a talented, valuable player who works hard. There’s virtually no doubt of that here. He’s definitely a top player in this league on one side of the ball, and his post-scoring skills are rare. His being a “good guy” is certainly good for the locker room and for marketing as well.

On the other side of the coin, to deny that his glaring faults aren’t a major concern and that a player’s “good guy” persona leaves him immune to tough criticism is naive and unproductive. Of course, a team does need good guys along with no team cancers. It’s the way team chemistry works. In spite of his good nature, however, there are legit concerns about if his game outside of scoring and rebounding will ever be good enough to lead this team where it wants to be.

I’m sure everyone would love for him to be that player, but you would have to be blissfully ignorant to not at least question his value in the context of finding something better. Pro sports are a business, and the business at its most honest is predicated on consistent winning. These guys, being good or bad people, are interchangeable as assets in this league. Good intentions matter, but there’s no injustice in honest criticism and the pondering of the overall value of a guy as an asset.

Sessions effort stood out last night because Flynn looked unmotivated.

It’s probably a rookie thing rather than a Flynn thing. Sessions has more experience preparing himself to play games over a long season and being a professional.

Chances are if Flynn came in and played hard it would not stand out because sessions was already playing hard.

…In my commentary on the site. My answer here is that I don’t know how I’d respond…mostly because a role reversal isn’t in any danger of happening anytime soon.

My more general answer is that I only comment on players’ broad characteristics after seeing enough data to back up the central focus of my critique about this, that, or the other guy. I then tend to focus these general points onto specific game examples. This is why, I think, I’m hard on flynn vis a vis sessions. The team plays better with ramon and I look for ways to tie season long trends in on/off plus/minus data that say as much to specific game action. I hope that more often than not I’m close to the mark. This is how I have approached things on the site for a while and It’s why flynn is more likely to get the massive negative writeup. I don’t buy into potential as something that should inform my writing about these guys and I’m a huge fan of efficiency. Love, kevin martin, carl landry, dirk…these sorts of players will always be viewed more favorably by me and I think I’m fairly open, honest, and consistent about that. That being said, I am about to start up the rudy gay chants here pretty soon ;) wolves off season 2010: bring me rudy, manu, and a big al for noah and filler trade!!!

PS: I hope this helps letting you know where I’m coming from on this front.

PPS: the manu chants will also start very soon

…I couldn’t figure out a charitable way to put it into family_friendly writing in the game wrap. Its going to suck even more when magic mike signs for pennies on the dollar wherever lebron ends up. Watch, he’ll take the vets minimum to go to cleveland next year if he can’t get the mle.

He always fails to mention how TERRIBLE the original deal was for Washington. If we offered to trade them expiring contracts and the rights to Rubio for Miller and Foye…how quickly would Washington say yes? 1 second? 1 millisecond?

Al and Love: At this point, it’s defense that’s the problem with the pairing.

Flynn: Jonny’s a rookie PG playing in an offense with large elements of triangle; his coach has deliberately withheld pick and roll stuff that Flynn lived off of in college. Big emphasis: he’s a rookie PG, and he’s had those rookie swings. Again, if the Wolves were seriously wringing wins from their schedule they’d be starting Sessions, who runs the offense far more smoothly. They’re completely about developing youngs this year.

In addition to their defensive liabilities, starting them together left us with almost zero talent to speak of on the second team. So splitting them up was a way of charging the subs, and it actually worked for a few games.

That’s what happens when you play against the Bermuda Triangle.

The reason why Phil said that Kobe will never be as good as Jordan, especially at finishing. Jordan had massive hands, especially in comparison to Kobe.

I thought large hands made it difficult to shoot, but I don’t remember the context in which I heard it. Am I making that up?