Cheers
Wyn and I are very appreciative of the community here on this site and we hope to grow this event in the future. Thanks again to those who came, and to those who had to stay at home, for making this site what it is. It is very much appreciated. Thanks to the Wolves for accommodating this event.
A few game notes below the fold.
- Before he left the game with a Jamaal Magloire elbow to the jaw, Darko Milicic was playing
some ofthe best interior defense the team has seen since the days of KG. The highlight of Darko's defensive play was a block of a Dwyane Wade dunk attempt. Amazingly, this play did not make the NBA's top plays of the night. Darko was actively intimidating Heat players throughout his 13 minutes on the court. Any time a Heat player came inside, Darko was there. The second he left the game, the lane was wide open and the Heat were able to get what they wanted when they wanted it against the Minnesota Smurfs. - Quentin Richardson set the most blatant moving screen I think I have ever seen at a live NBA game. You can watch it in the NBA.com recap of the game. They called the play a "great" screen. It was laughably illegal.
- Speaking of laughably illegal, it really is amazing how much the Heat got away with last night. Kevin Love was getting manhandled all night off the ball and there were several times down the court where the look of frustration on his face was visible in the top rows of the upper deck. Any time Udonis Haslem got near him he would give Love an extra grab or elbow and it really was over the top obvious.
- Dwyane Wade is a little you-know-what with the refs. He is a phenomenal player but lordy, lordy does he complain. I am convinced that if he was Dwyane Wadovic from Belgrade he would be villain numero uno in the NBA and the word "he pulled a Ginobili" would be removed from the NBA lexicon.
- The Wolves had a nice stretch of ball near the end of the 3rd and at the start of the 4th. Love, Damien Wilkins, Sasha Pavlovic, Ramon Sessions, and Ryan Hollins were able to get up and down, attack the rim, dominate the boards, and make an 11-2 run to get the Wolves to within 6 or 7 points. At this point, the joint was as rocking as I have seen it in quite a while. During a Heat time out the Wolves promotion team pulled out all the stops with free t-shirts and mini-basketballs being tossed into the stands with pump-me-up music going on in the background. The energy at Target Center was (relatively) amazing. The Wolves then came back out and watched Ramon Sessions get fouled on a no-call drive to the rim (one of those drives Wade gets bailed out on 9 times out of 10) only to watch the Heat quickly put the lead back up into double digits with two straight scores which led to a Rambis timeout. It's hard to get a sense of this sort of change on the boob tube/internet stream, but the Wolves actually had a point in the game where they could have used one or two more baskets to really send the crowd into a (relative) frenzy.
- Thanks to Twitter/YouTube, I was able to dial up the Andrew Bogut injury about 5 minutes after it happened. Actually, that's no thanks to Twitter/YouTube as the injury was horrific and I really hate to see one of my favorite non-Wolves go down like that. The point here is that this sort of connectivity was unimaginable 10 years ago and it's really a fascinating way to view a game.
- Speaking of in-arena action, the "highlight" of the night was watching a guy from Iowa in a tucked-in Wally jersey crush a bunch of cans to be recycled for the team's NBA Goes Green Week. The guy was totally into the can crushing.
- Wade had a fantastic night but there's something that's a little different than his dominance in years past. Something is missing/wrong with his game and they're going to get waxed in the 1st round of the playoffs. Just a hunch with nothing else to base it on.
- Last night's game was one of the slowest paced tilts of the year.
- Corey Brewer had a completely forgettable game with virtually no positive impact.
- Flynn did not see the floor in the 4th quarter.
- The Wolves shot 12-23 from the line.
236 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks
Will we be getting a recap of the Kahn Q&A sometime soon?
by Eric in Madison on Apr 4, 2010 11:07 AM CDT reply actions
I'm thinking not (much)
From the CH twitter feed:
We were asked not to write about the talk with Kahn, but there are definitely some things we’ll have in a recap.
Perhaps Kahn has figured out that anything he says in these ‘private’ meetings with fans has a way of making it around the interwebs pretty quickly.
I’m hopeful it was heartening, as SnP, Wyn, and the others their haven’t announced that they’re moving to OKC yet. Also there are no pitchforks or torches in the pic above, so that’s something.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
He's very candid...
….and everyone who wanted to ask a question was able to. He spoke very frankly about the current roster, last year’s draft, how they want to go about their business in this year’s draft, and what they will be doing with Pek and Rubio. My big take away was that he hinted that if they identify a guy as being The Guy, they’re going to “go get him”. This is especially interesting in light of them kind of hinting that Evans was their guy last year and that they didn’t fire everything they had to get him.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Assuming that this response is an affirmative answer to biggity's post
that Kahn “asked” you not to write about it, and that you aren’t actually going to, I have to say, that pretty much pisses me off.
SnP, you know how much I like this blog, and hopefully contribute to it. I hope you keep that in mind when I say that I think it’s absolutely dead wrong of you not to write about the Q&A. Here’s why:
You write a FREAKING BLOG. You advertised this event on YOUR BLOG. The event was under the aegis of A BLOG. Running a blog means writing about your subject. And so you are going to have Canis Hoopus (A BLOG) night, meet with the GM, and then not report on that meeting on the blog?
That’s ridiculous. I’m severely disappointed in that decision. You have no debt to Kahn. You’ve been providing free publicity for the Wolves since this blog started.
This isn’t right.
by Eric in Madison on Apr 4, 2010 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions
It's like he's really giving "insider" info...
If any Joe Shmoe off the street could participate. That being said, I understand if SNP and Wyn want to preserve the sanctity of the Q&A in an effort to maintain relationships with the Wolves…
That being said, I would love to ask anyone else that attended last night about the Imperial Room, papa johns, and anything else that comes to mind via e-mail as opposed to talking on this site. My e-mail is stevenboghurtz@gmail.com. Any non attendees are welcome to join this e-mail thread as well.
My offer to discuss Hoopus Night not on this website still stands...
Anyone that can fill me in on “food prices” would be forever in my gratitude!
The Imperial Room...
… was HOPPING. Myself, SnP, TMiss, SG and SLAM writer/Hoopus friend Myles Brown drank Bell’s Two Hearted and Jack and Cokes. We ate quesadillas and chili.
Then we walked to the game.
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Apr 6, 2010 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Agreed about the Bell's
It’s even available outside the Cities. One of my favorites.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
Nice
I found it when I lived in Michigan, and it seems to be increasingly available in Madison. I just didn’t know how widely they’re distributed.
Doesn't seem available much past points West of the Mississippi
Haven’t seen it out in LA. So I enjoy my fix during trips back home.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
That's when you start drinking Lagunitas.
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Apr 6, 2010 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't mind if I do.
Pliny the Elder, too. Hmmm, this is reminiscent of an earlier thread some months ago.
Cheers.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
"You have no debt to Kahn"
Though I’m pretty sure, and correct me if I’m wrong, Kahn owes us quite a bit?
If Kahn honestly thought there was a chance of this info not getting out, he would have said, “We are going to get Evan Turner no matter wha tit takes.”
I hope not
because that might suggest that you equate getting Turner with getting titties, and I hope one will always hold supremacy over the other, no matter the orientation.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
Actually my girlfriend told me
that if we get Turner, that’s exactly what won’t happen… As I’ll be spending even more time following the Wolves ;-)
Inverse relationship maybe? GO TURNER! Haha I kid… None of this happened. Thank !
Dang auto corrections...
Supposed to be “Thank [insert higher power of your choosing here]!”
You know what's right?
Use of the word aegis, meaning
3 a : auspices, sponsorship; under the aegis of the museum
I guess I understand EinM’s frustration, as I’ve been looking forward to the recap of the Q and A for awhile (first real chance to get the questions and concerns circulating on this blog actually posed and answered by the POBO), but I can also understand Kahn’s wanting to keep it under wraps, sort of. I guess in the end, though, if there was a piece of information so important or so sensitive that it shouldn’t be tossed around on a blog, well then Kahn simply shouldn’t give that piece of information out. That’s his responsibility, not ours.
Now then what if it comes down to a trust thing – as in Kahn will share some info to see if the Hoopus people can be relied on not to spill it. Well, OK, but again going back to EinM’s point it kind of defeats the point of writing the blog – you get the information but can’t do anything with it?
I personally would love to know what was said at the Q and A, but I hold no animosity towards those who were there and choose not reveal too much for whatever the reason may be. Just know that there’s a waiting audience ready to take it and run with it to wherever it is we run with such things.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
Guys..
…a few things:
Kahn is not a stupid man. He’s not going to go into a room full of bloggers he doesn’t know and drop something that’s crazy. He’s also not in a press room. That aspect, not the fact that he’s asking us not to write certain things—which, honestly, is not something we’re obliged to agree with and he knows that—is a fairly big reason why I didn’t record, transcribe, etc the conversation. It’s our big highlight of the night for people who are able to show up. That’s the big take away here. If you think that is unfair to our online readers, then that’s something we can address for next year’s event and I will be more than happy to post as close as a transcript as I can. We wanted this to be a special and singular night for the people who showed up. That’s the motivation here.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I get that, and lord knows that if there were any way for me to have been there
I would have been. The value is in meeting online friends and putting faces to names.
But that’s the point. Do you really think that less people would show up if they didn’t have this “added value”? Which certainly was not clear going in; part of the frustration expressed in my earlier post was surprise; there was no indication that there would not be reporting on this session. I assumed we’d get to hear about it.
I’m calm now, but I maintain my position. You have a ton of readers who are not in the Cities; you don’t owe anyone anything, but I would think that you would want to engage the readership that makes this blog vibrant and popular.
by Eric in Madison on Apr 4, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
well put
And point taken. I’d just like to stress that sometimes we don’t really plan what happens on the site other than an I M or two back and forth. We could have definitely done this part of the night better and that will be taken into account next year.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Apr 4, 2010 12:58 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Ya
I hope I’m not giving off the impression I’m upset or anything – I’m not – I’d just love to know what he said. If anything I’m glad that everyone went there and enjoyed the experience as fans because, honestly, how great is it to have the chance to sit down and chat with the head decision maker of your favorite team? That’s, like, ultimate fandom experience. I say enjoy it.
Perhaps the solution we seek is to invite all the posters/readers of the blog to submit their favorite questions and send them to Kahn in hopes that he’d be willing to respond to the top ten or something.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
we will definitely
Take on line questions next year. Very good idea.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Apr 4, 2010 3:38 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'll be honest
I interpreted putting this Mplax Fanpost on the main page as an open forum for people that may not be able to make it. I know Mplax wrote it, but the fact that it was placed on the big thread led me to believe we’d get to hear answers even if we weren’t able to attend. I don’t think that interpretation is way off base.
The more I think about the situation, the more frustrated and disappointed I get. We’ve heard that Kahn was very “candid” and we’ve also heard people summarize his arguments in a way that makes them sound very basic and non-enlightening. Something’s missing…
Once again, I’m willing to discuss whatever is missing via email at stevenboghurtz@gmail.com
Hey keep me out of this! :-p
To be fair, I think SnP and Wyn were planning on posting some of this stuff until Kahn asked them not to? I never expected a straight transcript from the conversation, but I was hoping to hear some of the answers to the questions. It is pretty disappointing because I think most people who didn’t go had a conflict, yet this strategy is being used to get more people to go. Not exactly intelligent marketing/planning/communication by any means (especially considering the last time this situation happened, the same reaction occurred), but maybe next year they will get a few more people to fly in from around the world because of it. Who knows.
Though I don’t really believe they would have put my post (specifically addressing people who couldn’t go) on the front page if they didn’t assume [at the time] that they were going to share some info. Could be wrong, and it sucks, but I’m guessing none of the information was too telling anyways. Kind of makes you appreciate what Just A Fan does all the more, huh?
If we're choosing lies/unthruths...
I’d choose for you guys to just lie to me and say he wasn’t “very candid” as opposed to being untruthy and say “he was candid, but I don’t really remember much”. No collective group of people have that bad of a memory.
If that was directed at me
you should know that I couldn’t make it.
Yeah
well I completely agree it sucks getting left in the Darko because we couldn’t make it, I guess it’s not something I will get too upset about. They paid their money, and certainly not for a good game! It’s not like they have any better of an idea of how the Wolves future is going to turn out (actually, if anything probably less so ;-) ) because they were there and we weren’t.
Here's the truth (as I heard it)
Kahn didn’t actually show up at all. After drinking numerous free rum and cokes, the whole Hoopus group was led ‘through Target Center’ (which was actually the skyway system) over to the Graves Hotel by a team ‘rep’ – might’ve been Tom Penn. Once there they were sequestered in a conference room and listened to a presentation from Bill Simmons about what he would have done if he had been hired here, only to have the team ‘rep’ – probably Tom Penn – suddenly interrupt the presentation and leave the Hoopus group, stating that the W Hotel had called and offered a larger conference space at no extra cost. Confused, the Hoopus group eventually used their iPhones to make it back to Target Center and find their seats and enjoy Dwayne Wadevic.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
I understand...
but a LOT us us don’t live in or near MN any more (maybe some never did). Crap, I go see the Wolves when they come to Dallas (I’m the only guy in the place wearing Wolves gear). Since they entered the league, they have been my favorite team, but it would cost more than just a game ticket for me to come to a Hoopus night. Kahn might want to remember that the team has fans who are not within traveling distance and therefore are not ever going to hear his “private” chats. I would to get season tickets, but the airfare and hotels of flying to Minneapolis would kill me. I think this kind of info SHOULD be available to ALL Wolves fans. I am not annoyed with anyone who feels to need to be loyal to Kahn’s request; just annoyed that he would ask something like that to begin with. Kahn and the team have asked al ot from our patience with the junk they have put out on the floor this year and could at least give us hope through information.
To point out...
Long time reader, first time post here:
I attended Hoopus night and appreciated Kahn’s comments. I now believe that he has a direction for the team and is not “in over his head”.
I’m not 100% sure if someone hasn’t already intimated this about hoopus night, but remember that if SnP or Wyn blog something that Kahn didn’t want us mentioning, I doubt Hoopus night would happen again.
i view it...
…In two ways:
1- We have to have a “catch” for our Hoopus Night. This along with a few other things are what we would eventually like to have on a yearly basis for those people who can actually make it to the event. We were able to raffle off some items as well. We want the night to feature some things that are not available on line and the q and a is the biggie. This isn’t to say that I’m more than happy to discuss whatever he said for those who were unable to make it.
2- There’s only so much “reporter mode” I’m willing to engage in on a night out with friends. I went as a fan last night and I had a good time. I’m fairly certain we will have something with Kahn on this site in the future and it will not involve a situation where I’m 3 burbon and cokes into the night.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Apr 4, 2010 11:54 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
quick overview:
They liked Evans, Flynn was their top pg, rubio is excited to come over, they will go after the guy they want in this years draft if they can’t draft him on their own…I think that’s it. I wasn’t really writing anything down.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Apr 4, 2010 11:59 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
There was no mention of the Love/Jefferson death match? None of the CH folks asked Kahn about it?
If accurate, I’m glad Kahn identified Evans as his guy…he may regret not pulling out all stops to get him for a long time. A rebuilding team can’t afford those mistakes with high picks.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 4, 2010 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions
we asked...
….and he answered in a very obtuse way. The question had to do with Love’s minutes and he mentioned that he had something of a long view of the situation. The “death match” was more like this: Love is someone who has a very diverse game. Jefferson is one of the best low post scorers in the game and we’ll use these assets to the best of our ability.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I wouldn’t expect him to answer this, but any sense of regret re: Flynn over Curry.
While I’ve been a Flynn supporter, it is troublesome that Kahn said Flynn was their top PG (over Rubio?) when there might be a handful that are better.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 4, 2010 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions
No one asked
Because frankly, what’s he going to say? I’m almost positive he privately regrets taking Flynn over Curry, and I’m twice as positive that he’d never admit it to anyone.
Wow on Flynn as their top PG....Just wow.
It scares the hell out of me that SnP nailed that pick (Curry) and David Kahn wasn’t even close.
by Rascal Flatts on Apr 4, 2010 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
What else was he gonna say?
Flynn wasn’t our top PG but we picked him anyway, just cause he’s such a nice guy.
Well to be fair,
Flynn would be a lot better in another system. Him and the triangle mix about as well as (insert something that doesn’t mix well, can’t think of anything right now)…
by Bad News Wolves on Apr 4, 2010 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions
I would say
that Flynn was on top of the PG list the same way that Kahn was the 1st choice of Taylor to be GM. Some revisionist thinking going on there.
I have posted this before, but Flynn was not the top point guard on the list. As I recall, the scout’s board went Rubio, Evans, Holiday, Lawson, Flynn, Jennings and Teague. When Flynn stood up to Evans in the tryout, (a tryout that Evans dominated) Kahn pushed Flynn up over Holiday and Lawson. He was enthralled with Flynn’s competitiveness. But that was not the consensus of the staff.
The best “mock” plan was Evans at 5 and Curry at 6 with the expectation that together they would balance off each others weaknesses. When Evans went 4 dropping Rubio to 5, we had to take Rubio – he was a consensus rated tier 1 talent. You simply can’t pass that up. But the surprise was Kahn’s call to take Flynn at 6. Several FO members felt that Flynn/Lawson (or both) could still be on the board at 18 to fill the point guard need. (They had Philly properly pegged to take Holiday)
The rest is history.
by Just A Fan on Apr 4, 2010 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
thanks for the background
makes sense. Do you know if there actually was a potential deal to send Flynn and James Johnson to the Kings for Evans?
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Apr 4, 2010 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Not that I am aware of
The Kings loved Evans – I was told better than Rubio. (One of the few, maybe only, team that did)
Thanks…fascinating. Also, interesting that they completely missed on Collison, who is playing as well as any rookie right now.
Since your scout’s board doesn’t have Curry in PG list, did they have Curry pegged at SG? If so, it makes the Flynn pick even more peculiar following the Rubio selection.
While we should have taken Curry, I’m not convinced that Lawson or Holiday will be better pros than Flynn.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 4, 2010 9:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Curry
Was considered an undersized 2 defensively and was considered to have too weak of handle to be a 1. He was a 2 on the board.
That is why the Evans/Curry things was so perfect – Evans had the size to guard 2’s and had enough handle to help out Curry. Meanwhile, Curry covered for Evans lack of mid/long range shooting.
by Just A Fan on Apr 4, 2010 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Taking another point guard was not a bad thing
the FO never had Rubio dropping to 5. So, our due diligence was not exactly perfect on his contract situation. (Recall all the early confusion and Kahn’s 1st trip) I don’t blame anyone for that.
So, with no Foye, and no confidence in Telfair, we needed a starting 1. The issue is more of, in a point guard rich environment, with several candidates rated in the same tier, why use the pick so early on a player (Flynn) who was really not a consensus top ten pick when the shooting issue could have been addressed. There is your Kahn question.
Didn’t the Knicks offer Chandler and #8 for #6? If so, did Kahn think Flynn wouldn’t be there at #8?
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 4, 2010 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions
It was for 5
That’s what’s always been reported.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Apr 4, 2010 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions
That FSN "inside the war room" backs this statement up...
The way Kahn said “we’re taking Jonny Flynn and it’s going to work” was very authoritative. You don’t see anyone disagree (obviously), but in that context it makes a lot more sense.
As I’ve stated already…we’re paying David Kahn to “learn on the job” when we had other candidates that wouldn’t have had to. There would be a far bigger outcry about this in Minnesota if the whole state wasn’t so apathetic about the Timberwolves.
But I wonder if any of those other candidates would have swung the Miller/Foye for #5 pick. That move trumps all of Kahn’s other moves (good or bad) so I’m reserving judgment until after draft and FA this year.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 4, 2010 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Good point
I really believe too much focus the last few months has been on the Flynn pick, and other moves have been forgotten or pushed to the back burner. As a whole, Kahn probably hit about 60% since being hired, with several “to be determined”, including perhaps his two biggest moves (Rubio and Rambis). What I find funny is that if Darko signs an extension, I think many people would criticize Kahn then trading Darko for Curry, yet Kahn gets skewered for taking Flynn over Curry while forgetting he got Darko for nothing. Miller/Foye for Rubio and Darko for Cardinal may go down as the two most significant trades in the NBA this season, yet people can’t get past Curry.
I doubt very much that the Darko move is that significant
and frankly, I’m a little nervous about it. He’s been…sort of OK. We’ve just been so bereft of big men that he looks like a revelation to us, but the fact is, he hasn’t played that well.
I’m not sure using up any of the cap space on him is the right move. He pretty much sucked his whole career, and make excuses for him if you want, but it’s true. He deserves a Ryan Hollins contract (as opposed to Hollins, who didn’t), but he’s going to get a lot more than that, which is likely to be a mistake.
by Eric in Madison on Apr 4, 2010 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not trying to sound snippy here
but none of us know what it will cost to get Darko to re-sign. I also fear he sees this as a chance to get another contract, although he has value in Europe as well.
I personally will assume if he re-signs the contract will be fair for each, and probably contain some sort of option for the Wolves combined with a Euro opt out for Darko. I don’t advocate overpaying Darko, but a team looking at a forty million payroll for next season can certainly afford to add salary. If they can’t risk $5 mil or so on Darko, then I am actually worried about the long-term viability of this team.
As to Darko talent, I agree he has had bad stretches, but I’ve also seen flashed of brilliance.
I agree with Eric in Madison
This team needs to improve what they have- not maintain. Mchale’s downfall came on account of giving bloated contracts to role players on the Wolves lone Championship contender (Hassell, Hudson, Jaric-Trade).
by Jose Cordoba on Apr 4, 2010 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Short of getting Cousins
it’s going to be very hard to improve what the Wolves have at center beyond Darko. I’ve posted numerous comments on this in other threads, but the gist of it is that 90-95% of all centers are flawed, they are all overpayed, and 90-95% of them ‘underproduce’ when compared with other players on the floor. The fact that Darko is a net positive on the floor, despite a low PER, combined with his per36 numbers place him solidly in the middle of NBA centers this year who are good enough to average 20 minutes a game.
Drafting a center is certainly a possibility, but the question becomes – is it better to sign a ‘known known’ in Darko and target other positions at the top of the draft, or do you want to spend your top pick on a center prospect (or trade up to get one). Of all the centers worth anything, most (if not all) were taken in the first 12-15 picks. That is, near as I can tell in my research, the reality of the center position in the NBA today.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
Without disputing anything you say
You left something out: financial cost and opportunity cost. The point I was trying to make is that the Wolves have cap space this summer, but it’s limited. How much of that cap space is it worth to commit to Darko? What moves does signing him prevent you from doing?
by Eric in Madison on Apr 5, 2010 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions
That's a very good point
Basically, when I looked at the salaries of centers playing 20 mpg or more this year, by far the best values are from guys still on their rookie contracts. However, if those guys continue playing well enough to sign another contract and maintain their 20 minutes a night, on average their salaries range in the $9.5 million-10 million a year range.
So on the one hand it’s a tremendous value to draft a rookie center who can do what Darko does (again, Darko – with us – has been solidly in the middle per36-wise between centers who have earned 20 mpg or more a night). However, the realistic draft slot for a guy who can give us what Darko does is either our first pick or packaging our last two picks together to move up (in other words, after pick 12-15 you just don’t see many centers who are good enough to do what Darko does, which defeats the whole point of drafting one to replace him).
For our team and where it’s at, and given the FAs available to come here (basically Rudy Gay), I would rather preserve our pick flexibility for trades or picking BPA’s who slide and resign Darko and have between $6-10 million left over to get a specific value signing starter (a la Sessions) or a couple of veteran mentor bench players than drop Darko, sign Gay, and roll the dice on a rookie big who pans out. Or perhaps put more simply, I think there is more value in terms of overall wins in going for a sign and trade (or just trade) including some of our draft picks (and keeping Darko) than in trying to outright sign Gay, waive Darko, and hope that we get lucky with a rookie center at 17-18. I think it comes down to more of a values preference on how you want to do things than anything else.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
If Darko keeps us from getting Lebron
I don’t want Darko. But if Darko keeps us from getting Rudy Gay for a max deal, thank you Darko! I’d love to get Gay for around 10M per still, but he is simply not worth a max and I think I can say pretty confidently that he never will be. At some point we will have to overpay, but not on a 6 year max contract for a guy many suspect is playing for a contract year.
I’d also like to see Darko’s numbers, once the season is over, for his last 15 games compared to the first 10ish games with us (don’t remember exactly how many games we will have him for once the season is over). Hopefully he doesn’t need to sit out any longer because of the concussion, or that is going to make our decision a lot harder to make. If JAF’s situation comes to be, I would be thrilled to have a legit defensive center with offensive upside for MLE.
First 10 vs. last 9
Darko over his first ten games with us:
21.9 mpg, 5.1 ppg on .489 shooting, 5.8 rebs, 1.5 asts, .4 steals, 1.2 blocks
Darko over his last nine games with us:
26.3 mpg, 10.2 ppg on .512 shooting, 5.1 rebs, 1.8 asts, 1.1 steals, 1.6 blocks
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
The cool thing about the last nine games
is that one game he was doing absolutely terribly (don’t remember who we were playing, but he was like 3-12 or something… but that’s what Love was last night so many that influenced my guess) and last game he only played 13 minutes and put up some monster numbers in that time.
Might be the best nine game center
stretch in Wolves history, how isn’t that worth a shot for a couple years at $5 mil per season?
I don't see us drafting a center
There is going to be a huge push to sign Darko. Rambis really likes him. Thinking maybe a 3 year, mid level exception range deal. (He is only in his mid 20’s)
Resigning Darko will have a interesting impact on Love. Be interesting to see if he is mature enough to handle 25-30 minutes off the bench.
Turner is the key. We need to hold at #2 and have Jersey take Wall. Resign Darko, look for another longer wing player – and play season #2 of the Kahn era.
Fact 1st, opinion 2nd
It has been widely reported that Rubio does not have a buyout option this summer – so he will be in Spain for 2010-11.
After that, it is my opinion. Most folks expect a 2011-12 labor contract lock out. If that happens, I see Rubio resigning in Spain – he would really has no other option. I further see whatever team in Spain that signs him will again prohibit any buyout for the 1st 2-3 years of the new contract. In this scenario, I don’t see Rubio here for 4-5 years.
Now, if their is labor peace and a new contract in place before the summer of 2011-12, I see the TWolves having a shot to get him. It will depend on the terms of that contract and what the TWolves can offer. If the Spanish economy is still hurting (theirs is FAR worse than ours – unemployment !20%), it will really help us.
Thanks
Certainly sounds challenging, objective challenges.
Rubio's contract
is a buyout after the 10/11 season, but that doesn’t mean he will buy it out if he isn’t coming to the NBA. Unless he gets a ridiculous deal offer and the Wolves aren’t looking any better, he will just wait another season and then go through with the buyout. I think 11/12 is a reasonable timeline assuming no labor lockout. If there is, there is little reason that he wouldn’t just go through with his buyout the next year (he has a first buyout option as mentioned, then I think one every year after that for slightly less each year) and be here for 12/13.
And that would be OK with you?
My god, the patience some people have is that of a saint. I already am crabby that he wasn’t here this year; if he isn’t here in 2011-12 I’ll be off the deep end.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 5, 2010 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
I can take one more year
to hopefully see what we can get out of Flynn or Sessions and to help them develop for once Rubio does get here. Rubio is still very young and I don’t know how well he would do as a 19 year old anyways. Plus, maybe it’ll be a Spurs type turn around where we get a legit star in a draft and then Rubio comes over and is a star too and we have a massive turnaround. Plus, the lockout year is a throw away anyways (if it happens), so really I am only expecting to wait one more season without him.
Not the most accurate analogy, but I’d say it’s better to get 2 picks near the top of the Lebron lottery than to get one pick and then a pick around 15 the next year. Rubio coming over later is kind of like that if hopefully whoever we get this year is a star.
"can-tankerousity"
posted on a thread about remembering and remonstrating MM. Love the double-entendre there. To avoid future confusion, perhaps there could be “eminent can-tankerousity” and “imminent curmudgeonliness.”
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
Ah, fitting for such a forum
I missed that one entirely. Need to play Scrabble more often! Triple word score for Mplax.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
First Annual Hoopus Scrabble Night!
Disclaimer, Hoopus dictionary words accepted.
agreed
I can try hacking, I mean modifying, the official Scrabble database if the official Hoopusaurus is available anywhere in electronic form.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
I can wait one more year (until next summer 2011). I’m not sure this franchise can afford to wait two more, let alone potentially 4 more years.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 5, 2010 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Depends on how you define
the next year and patience. I have patience for next year, but not 15 wins, has to be 25-30 wins, which will still be bad but seem pretty good to us.
doesn’t sound like you think Al or Love are getting traded. Based on inside info?
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 5, 2010 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Did Flynn + Johnson for Evans factor in?
Because that is the rumor I keep hearing on this board. Is there any insight into whether Kahn jumped up and told the war room Flynn was being taken gambling on getting Johnson so they could be swung for Evans who was #2 on the board?
If so, maybe he knew the offer was on the table moreso than the FO?
I have no idea, it just seems like this potential deal affected the Flynn pick at #6 as well.
I have a slightly...
..different take. I don’t know what the composite board (to include scouts takes, front office takes, etc…i.e. Kahn’s board) looked like other than that Evans was numero uno and that Flynn was 4th or 5th overall. I have never been able to exactly pin down Thabeet or Rubio in the grand scheme of things.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Can you at the very least tell us as many of these answers as possible?
Anything about stats? This one should hardly matter to Kahn if it gets out, especially if he gave the right answer ;-) Are we going to get someone eventually to follow this kind of stuff?
Did he even say a single word about FA/Darko? i.e. focus on the smaller-name guys or does he think we have a chance at a tier 2 guy?
When is the last time he talked to Rubio?
Glen Taylors expectations?
In terms of statistics
Kahn didn’t give any specifics. When asked how he balances conventional player analysis and statistical analysis (in regards to players) Kahn’s answer was that he uses ALL available information. He didn’t mention any specific metrics that he uses.
Charlie Walters
column contained some quotes from Taylor indicating that the pressure is on. I heard that Taylor was not thrilled that all the pre-season trades left us with a lower talent level and that we did not really get into the trade deadline moves.
Taylor needs a 3/4 house of mainly full price tickets to make this thing work financially long term. He is not feeling any buzz right now making that need unlikely to be met in the near term (2-3 years).
I say the pressure is on.
100% agreed...
…the business side of the team feels like they have put the basketball side of the house in a perfect position to succeed. We’ll see if they can pull it through.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I was surprised Kahn didn’t make more moves (beyond a solid Darko trade) at deadline. He highlighted that as one of his 5 key windows.
I wonder what realistic options were out there at the deadline.
Good for Taylor to put some pressure on Kahn.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 4, 2010 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions
my guess..
…is that they’re keeping their powder dry until they can unload on a single guy they really want
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
No one will ever know
because Kahn was very public about not trading any cornerstone players. As a result, I heard that our phones did not ring very much.
My opinion is that Kahn blew it. I guess that his comment was made to calm some fears of some younger players nervous about all the change. Yet we had what – 12 wins? Everyone should have been available. Kahn’s public statement should have been = we are open to any move which improves our team toward the goal of being championship competitive in 3-4 years.
although don’t you think most NBA execs see through that “we’re not trading our core” stuff? It’s thrown around a lot and seems to be simply posturing. Remember Kahn has said a few times that with the exception of a few guys (Kobe, LeBron) everyone is tradeable.
I agree with you completely…no one on our team should have been or should be untouchable.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 4, 2010 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Why would Kahn's public statements keeping a rival GM from at
least calling? Any competent GM around the NBA is going to call and at least ask what Kahn wants for Jefferson (assuming they have an interest in Jefferson).
I believe you posted a week or so ago that many FO folks at the Country Club are going to leave on their own or not be invited back. Frankly, any insider who would let the public pronouncements of a rival GM keep him from at least making the call should be fired. The worst the other GM can do is say no, so what. A good GM is going to view Kahn the same way. Would KG be in Boston today if Ainge hadn’t picked up the phone?
No offense to your friend in the FO, but I want the Wolves to be a winner. IF your friend would avoid a two minute phone call because a rival GM tells his fans he doesn’t plan to make a trade, then I hope he finds a great job in another organization.
If the Vikings only went with what is said in public, they wouldn’t have had Brett Favre last season, I for one am glad he was a Viking.
I believe JAF
says it’s his opinion not the opinion of his source that the phone did not ring because of Kahn’s quotes.
Rumblebee
My friend is not in a position where he would be getting that type of phone call. Obviously, if he did, he would have talked.
Teams are labeled as “active”, “willing” or “disinterested” at the trade deadline. For whatever reason (I don’t have any insight), it seems we were labeled disinterested.
As littleboxes said, it my opinion, that Kahn’s public comments resulted in the lack of phone calls. I have never asked or explored a more fact based comment.
Perhaps
it’s because the only player teams were interested in trading for was Love, who was, at that time, as close to untouchable a player as we had.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
OK
Actually, “your” opinion may be correct here. I was more responding to your saying you heard the phones didn’t ring much because of Kahn’s public statements. I still find it shocking that a rival GM wouldn’t at least call if he was interested in a player.
Perhaps it’s my sales background, but you have to ask, often more than once. Most people put on a public face, for a variety of reasons, even when interested in making a deal.
"Taylor needs a 3/4 house of mainly full price tickets to make this thing work financially long term"
Thank you for adding this. Every time the subject of the Wolves financials comes up, there are plenty of people who pooh pooh the notion that Glen wants to at least come close to breakeven on an operating basis. Or they say, “HE’S A BILLIONAIRE!!!!” to answer my contentions that he doesn’t want to lose 20 some million a year for the foreseeable future.
I’m purely guessing, of course, but I think Kahn (as you’ve mentioned) is surprised at the lack of interest in free agents in coming to the Wolves. I also think Kahn was disappointed in the lack of interest in Al, and may be a little nervous as to how easy it’s going to be to add a Star to this team—especially if he told Glen it could be done without just spending a ton of money.
So he and we have two chances for instant, low-cost improvement: Turner/Wall and Rubio. It should be a fun 17 months for all of us involved.
Good points re: free agents and lack of interest (presumed) in Al. If both are the case, it’s going to be very tough to overhaul this roster.
I still think there will be a market for Al, but it might be for someone like Deng not Granger or Gay.
Although it would not surprise me if Al or Love are traded for a high pick instead of a player. I’d certainly rather have a top 5 pick in the draft than Deng.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 4, 2010 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Really? People say this?
Every time the subject of the Wolves financials comes up, there are plenty of people who pooh pooh the notion that Glen wants to at least come close to breakeven on an operating basis. Or they say, "HE’S A BILLIONAIRE!!!!" to answer my contentions that he doesn’t want to lose 20 some million a year for the foreseeable future.
I think what people say is that they expect the Wolves to use their cap space this off-season. I don’t think anyone expects Taylor to fund large losses for years into the future.
by Eric in Madison on Apr 5, 2010 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, there's this one guy
who seems to think that my contention that the Wolves are losing $20 million a year is baloney . . . name escapes me at the moment . . . Rick in Racine? No, that’s not it . . . Kenny in Kenosha? . . . no, he didn’t seem like a “Kenny” . . .
I got it! Navin in New Glarus. Yep, that’s the guy. Anywho, JAF’s guesstimate of needing 14,000 paying full price to make the financial thing work (and my guess that they’re substantially short of that number in both number and price), seems to lend some credence to the idea that they could be losing $500,000 at every home game.
May I ask a simple question?
What does make the financial thing work actually mean? Does that mean with a $60 mil payroll, higher or lower? Or just being at the salary cap? The reason I ask is that maybe 14,000 is needed to meet a $60 mil payroll, which obviously is going to happen. But can they make ends meet with the current ticket deals and a $50 mil payroll?
I agree with your two posts here, especially the Wall/Turner and Rubio reference. I think everyone in Wolves management agrees, which is why they are doing the season ticket specials. Forget about this season, even with 30 wins the current roster is a tough sell to fans.
Well, that's a lot different than your original comment
I like that Navin in New Glarus guy already.
What I think he’s said is: prove it. Why should we believe what comes out of the mouths of owners without question?
I have little doubt, really, that the Wolves are losing money this year, (though for some bizarre reason attendance appears to be up).
I’m frankly not sure what that has to do with this off-season, and the draft has always been the most logical place to get a star player, if not the only place.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 5, 2010 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Objection!
I’m not saying that we necessarily need to see if Taylor’s losing x million per year. I’m saying that if he is (and I think he is, and JAF says as much below), that it’s not surprising that he would try to spend less until wins and/or revenue picks up. The revenue egg is going to have to come before we see the salary chicken.
Which, if true, is an absurd way to run a business
Usually business works like this:
1. Create a good product that people want
2. Market that product
3. Reap the revenue
Though I must say, he hasn’t really tried to go particularly cheap up to now. I know this is your mantra, but you really have no evidence to suggest he won’t spend the salary cap next season.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 5, 2010 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions
This isn't a usual business
in a usual situtation. I think the team is leaning more toward, “don’t throw good money after bad,” instead of the “invest for return” model.
Spending money just to get to the cap limit isn’t necessarily a good idea, either, as the number of players who are both willing to come to the Wolves or available in trade and are needed by the team is so small, that sometimes keeping future flexibility is more advantageous than just paying guys to pay guys—not to mention the money saved!
Really?
It seems to me that there are any number of players that would be helpful to the team. I also don’t know that spending to the cap necessarily reduces future flexibility, if you do it right.
As for not throwing good money after bad, sure, never a good idea. But the implication there is that the team should either move or be sold, or both. While that may be true, I haven’t heard that’s going to happen, and it’s really not worth worrying about as a fan. Further, if that were on the table, it seems unlikely that they would be so eager about doing things like the ticket discount.
If you don’t invest in your product, then you will never see the revenue. I’m not expecting nor asking that they go into the luxury tax or something. Frankly, they are going to have trouble NOT spending close to to cap, just to fill their roster as it currently stands. I can’t see them coming in at less than $50 million almost no matter what they do. My position is not particularly radical. .
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 6, 2010 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
"But the implication there is that the team should either move or be sold, or both"
What implication, and where? Who said anything about selling or moving the team?
I’m just saying that “spending” does not equal “wins,” and “wins,” does not equal “revenue.” So I would guess the plan is to try to get lucky in the lottery, start trying to win next season, and get Rubio to come over the year after. If that works and brings more revenue, then I would think they would open up the purse strings. In the meantime, I can’t blame Taylor for pinching pennies wherever possible.
That means no max or near-max contracts for free agents, no trades for effective-but-overpaid veterans, and keeping an eye open for anyone willing to offer something younger and cheaper in return for Al’s contract.
The ardent-but-non-revenue-producing fans may not like it, but it’s the financially-prudent philosophy for the team to take.
I wan't saying that you implied the team should
move or be sold, but that that’s the endpoint of “not throwing good money after bad.” If the investment is bad…
One thing you said is, I think, demonstrably wrong. Wins DO equal revenue. Not always linearly, but there is an absolute correlation between winning and revenue in professional sports.
We’ll have to see about the approach this off-season. Obviously, it’s going to primarily about the draft, and getting the star that can help start turning this abomination around. I still hope they show a little proactivity beyond this. Trading Al for significantly less salary is the only way they could be in a position to really have a low payroll. I’m not necessarily against that, but if it’s done ONLY to save money, as opposed to changing the talent mix (say, Al for a mediocre draft pick, then not reinvesting those savings), I’ll be surprised and disappointed.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 6, 2010 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions
"One thing you said is, I think, demonstrably wrong"
Actually, this table would lead me to believe that it is demonstrably correct.
I see teams with bad records and good attendance (Golden State, Detroit, the Knicks, the Bulls). I see teams with records better than the Wolves with similar or worse attendance (Hornets, Bucks, Sixers, Memphis, Clippers, Bobcats, Hawks).
Now, the actual revenue brought in by the Wolves and the other teams in relation to wins, well, I think there are only about 30 people on the face of the earth who know what those numbers are. But to say that “wins” = “revenue” is certainly tenuous at best.
Besides, you didn’t even address my contention that “spending money” does not necessarily equal “wins” . . .
You're looking at cross-sectional data
when you should be looking at panel data. That is, controlling for market, wins will tend to increase revenue (or at least attendance). I don’t have numbers on hand to prove it, but that doesn’t seem very controversial to me.
Granted, there are some markets where the elasticity (guessed my profession yet?) of revenue with respect to wins will be higher than others. The Cubs, for example, can suck and people still go to Wrigley. Here’s the table we need: Wolves attendance vs. wins by year. (Of course, attendance figures can be manipulated via discounts, etc., but I still think we’d see a positive correlation between the two.)
Found it
From 2001 through 2010 (assuming current average attendance and number of wins), the correlation between wins and average attendance for the Wolves is 0.84. That’s a really high number.
"Granted, there are some markets where the elasticity (guessed my profession yet?)"
Ummm . . . condom manufacturer?
I don’t doubt the correlation in the past. My question is for the future—if Glen spends money now, will it lead to wins in the future, and will those wins lead to higher revenue? (as I mentioned above, attendance are the only figures to which we have any access, but since players can’t be paid by “butts in the seats”, actual revenue is more an indicator to the value of wins. My belief is that this team is going to have to do much better with a much bright future before revenue gets back to where it once was).
Well...
If you won’t accept a future correlation between wins and revenue, I don’t know what to say. I don’t think you are exactly saying that, since you say they “will have to do much better…before revenue (increases)”. In other words, they are going to have to win.
As for this: address my contention that "spending money" does not necessarily equal "wins"
What do you want me to say? The Lakers spend, and win. The Knicks spend, and don’t. Intelligent investment leads to wins. I’m not suggesting they hand over the checkbook to a 16 year old girl with a shopping fetish.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 6, 2010 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Come again?
Yes, revenue matters more than attendance, but the team props up attendance in bad years and (presumably) not in good years. So I’d expect the relationship between revenue and wins to be even stronger than the relationship between attendance and wins.
On your larger point, I agree that just spending money doesn’t guarantee adding wins. But cutting salary for next year (by trading Al for a cheaper contract) because revenues were down this year would be crazy. I’m all in favor of using assets and cap space efficiently, but people need to see that the team is trying to win.
If the correlation is so high
it seems a man as smart as Glen Taylor would recognize this correlation, and spend every penny possible to generate a return on his investment, right?
So, why doesn’t he?
Well, they haven't been running
a Memphis operation here. When was the last time they had a payroll under the salary cap?
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 6, 2010 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions
This is getting kind of silly
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the act of spending money by itself generates wins.
But I think Taylor does recognize the correlation, which is why we hear rumors that he’s putting pressure on the FO to make moves that result in a better product on the floor next year. If we can find a way to get better without adding salary, I don’t think anyone is going to complain. But you suggested trading Al for a cheaper contract. Not a player who is better or fits the team better, but just a cheaper player. In my view, the Wolves would alienate a lot of fans if they did something like that. That’s different from arguing that the Wolves need to find a way to spend every penny of their cap space next year to make people happy, which I don’t think is the case.
Actually, it's getting kind of skinny
Where did I say Al should be traded for a cheaper contract? A younger, cheaper player with more upside? Absolutely. A cheaper player who can still carry the team to a 16 win season (and free up money that could be spent in other positions)? I’m all for it.
“Alienate a lot of fans”—are there a lot of fans left to alienate? Because based on the team slashing ticket prices and having to buy their own time on game broadcasts, I’m not sure that there are many fans left to lose.
I don't know how to do the fancy quote blocking...
so I’ll just use quotation marks.
“That means no max or near-max contracts for free agents, no trades for effective-but-overpaid veterans, and keeping an eye open for anyone willing to offer something younger and cheaper in return for Al’s contract.”
Am I taking that quote out of context, or did you just mean something other than what you typed?
I meant what I typed
younger and cheaper
Somehow, I believe if anybody would take Al in exchange for a mid-lottery pick, that the
younger and cheaperplayer would still be able to lead the team to the 16 wins that Al has led them to this year. And who knows—maybe they could spend some of the savings improving other positions on the roster.
To be really accurate
you would have to put together a table of all of the other MN sports franchises. MN fans are notorious for only supporting the hot teams right now. (may have one too many teams for the area). So if other teams were down when wolves were up, then the wolves would get alot of fans. But if all of the others are up at the same time, then a dollar doesn’t get you as far. Make sense? Or am I friggin crazy?
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Apr 6, 2010 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Franklin has found his Templeton
in the Madison Twins.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
Quick calc
I just did a really really rough calculation of what the ticket revenues for an essentially sold out Wolves game should be, and it’s very safe to say that it’s well over $750,000 a game if I severely underestimate my numbers. Probably closer to $1 million or more per game. If you take away the upper deck completely the numbers only go down around $125,000 or so. I’m not sure how many people can fit in the lower bowl of Target Center, but even at half off the Wolves aren’t going to be losing more than approx. $100,000 per game.
It’s actually more profitable, or at least more advantageous, for them to sell more tickets at half off in the lower bowl than it is to try and sell out the upper deck simply because even at half off you still need to sell at least 2 tickets upstairs to match one downstairs. In effect, then, selling 1200 new half off season tickets equates to well over 2500 upper deck seats sold in actual revenue.
By these very rough estimates, then, pessimistically the half off lower bowl ticket deal will ‘cost’ the team around $6-7 million in revenue next year, or less than the cost of sitting Blount for the year. I think the ‘real’ cost will be a lot harder to quantify, as the team will recoup some of the cost through increased concessions, etc., and if they can sell more seats in the upper deck and continue to sell out their suites then they might actually be in pretty decent shape.
The thing that will probably impact their bottom line more than anything else is their TV and broadcasting deals. If they can draw more people that way (perhaps by adding ‘the guy’) they might actually run a profit.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
the Wolves aren’t going to be losing more than approx. $100,000 per game
that is, that’s approximately how much they lost in revenue per game from the people who bought half off season tickets (as compared to if they had paid full price).
I should also note that I did not include the luxury suites in my calculation. If the suites go for, let’s say, $20,000 a game (around a $100/person), and they can sell every one out for the season, then Wolves are actually looking in very good shape regardless of how many tickets they sell.
The main conclusion for me is that if you add up all the numbers, even pessimistically, the Wolves are really going to have to work hard to lose more than $10 million next year.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
B2B
It’s a lot more complicated than that.
With the CBA allocating ~58% of total NBA basketball revenue to players salary, a low revenue team the Twolves is spending over 75% of their actual revenues on salary. That leaves 25% for everything else – from marketing, to training staff, to FO, scouting, rent, building up keep and, unfortunately for the Twolves, radio and TV.
The TWolves have been buying the TV time outright and selling the commercials for a couple years now. Ever wonder why we use to have those “uninterrupted by commercial halftimes”? Because they could not sell the time.
From what I have been told, the TWolves have only made money – real money – 3 of the last 10 years. The last 2 years have been historic losses.
The best gate ever in the Target Center was in the WCF – just over $1M.
The reason behind the 1/2 price sale was purely to get more people in the building to create a buzz. The atmosphere sucks with 7,000 people in the building. I know 1st hand – I had trouble even giving away tickets to my employees and clients. And I have really nice seats (4) for 1/2 the season.
I will ask what the projection for losses is for next year. Believe it or not, that is not a hard number to get. I bet it’s at least negative 15M.
by Just A Fan on Apr 5, 2010 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you, for the umpteenth time
this also casts some doubt on the “Hey, the Wolves are really cool to be giving ticket discounts out to the fans” meme that rears its silly head every so often.
Cut ticket prices in half during the playoffs—then I’ll call it “benevolence.”
I knew it
Couldn’t be that easy!
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
by biggity2bit on Apr 5, 2010 6:46 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
It was a great night
The Kahn session was fun and surprisingly well attended, and am I wrong to think that that’s my knee in the bottom right corner of your picture?
Hahahahahahha
That’s funny no Q&A stuff will be posted lol. Not that I really care what was said (I honestly don’t), but looks like WallyWorld was right.
by College Wolf on Apr 4, 2010 12:03 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Flipped back and forth between the game and the Final Four...
And the Dwyane Wadovic comment was spot on. I wish the Wolves had someone on the team who would’ve knocked him down on one of his drives, stood over him, yelled “THAT’s a fucking foul,” and taken the T in order to send a message.
The big issue in their offensive drought was lack of ball movement, but I think this was partially that Darko was out and partially the mugging on the other end. Good to know that some things never change with the Heat. Doubly good for any Celtics fans, because they probably don’t have to worry about getting knocked out in the first round if they play the Heat or the Bucks.
Other than that, does anyone else notice the difference in Pavlovic’s play when he’s in with Darko? They mentioned it in the broadcast, but there’s something functional about him on offense in those situations that’s not there otherwise. I never had a problem with his D and he’s never been afraid to give a hard foul, but his offensive game has been disjointed w/o #31 in the game.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Apr 4, 2010 1:22 PM CDT reply actions
"THAT's a fucking foul"
I know just the man for this job: Brian Zoubek
by Rascal Flatts on Apr 4, 2010 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Or
the Hanson Brothers. Oops. wrong sport.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
I can't explain why
but I thought the same about Darko and Sasha, of course Darko seems to make everyone on the team look better.
I am becoming a huge darko fan and feel my years of hoping he would turn the corner are justified.
I would have enjoyed hoopus night, but having it on easter vigil is difficult
by revprodeji on Apr 4, 2010 1:50 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
As another non-MN hoopus member, I too am disappointed that there is no wrap up of the Q&A. I was very excited to hear what Kahn had to say about the use of stats, etc.
I do, however, understand CH’s not sharing what Kahn had to say. If those were the conditions of the Q&A, then so be it.
I hope that CH can get an interview with Kahn where you can ask some of the same questions.
Thanks for organizing hoopus night.
thats another reason why we did it the way we did it...
…We fully expect a kahn interview a’al wright in the near future where we ask website questions
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Apr 4, 2010 5:04 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I think both sides have a point
I also saw the MPlax Fanpost on the front page and expected to see a recap on this site. However, if Kahn requested to be off the record, that also needs to be respected, especially by you if not necessarily some posters.
Next year, perhaps the best thing to say is a benefit to being there is a semi-secret meeting with Kahn.
I've been waiting for days for that Q&A
I figured the Chris Wright was a precursor to the Kahn one.
Very disappointed.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
I didn't go...
But how hard do you think it would be to guess what was said? He can’t get into specifics about players not whose rights are not owned by this team, remember.
There are like 5-6 answers I can almost be sure were given by Kahn, and probably 10 more which I would say have a decent chance of being some of his answers. I think going to it just to say you were there would’ve been the major perk, not so much in the information given. However I would’ve loved the chance to ask or hear if he ever frequents boards when he’s bored.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
we'll have a q and a ...
…with reader submitted questions for kahn in the future. we will put up a post about it in advance. you have very good questions for wright and we hope you submit them for kahn.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
OK - thanks
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Apr 4, 2010 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions
anything on Al and Love, will they be here next season?
did Kahn have any comments regarding those two players?
Oh I'll feed you, baby birds.
I was at the Q & A, and while Kahn did indeed ask that we not repeat certain tidbits, I didn’t get the impression that he expected a code of silence. I won’t go over everything, but there are definitely a few things I think I could let out that haven’t been covered yet:
-I asked him a question about Rubio. He gave a long, detailed response that covered both the history of what happened with him and his future expectations. My sense is that some of the details he gave were stuff he wouldn’t want in print, but I think I’m safe in revealing that he has an extremely optimistic view of the situation, and has no reason to think Rubio won’t be playing for the Wolves when the time comes.
-SnP’s account of Kahn’s description of Love vs. Jefferson is accurate. He was deliberately vague. Someone asked Kahn about Pekovic as a follow up, suggesting that Pekovic was similarly athletically challenged. Kahn agreed about the athleticism part, but said that Pekovic runs the floor much better, both offensively and defensively, than either of the other two. I didn’t know that.
-Kahn was very pleased with the developments of Darko and Brewer. Not that that’s a big surprise.
-Regarding statistics, Kahn said that they are indeed a part of player evaluation. One thing he said that stuck with me was that he thinks they are more useful to a good team than a bad one. In other words (mine, not his), the Dallas Mavericks might employ Wayne Winston to optimize their rotations and squeeze a few extra wins out of the season, but the Wolves are going to need better players before they can really bother to try to use stats to maximize their performance.
-His number one priority is finding a star. He acknowledged that the draft is the most likely way to find that guy.
Stop-n-Pop, I don’t think I crossed any lines with any of this stuff, but if you feel I did, don’t hesitate to edit or delete it.
by John Doe on Apr 4, 2010 11:06 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
And if that's not enough info...
…then screw you all off, you should have been there yourselves. I met some people, but it would have been cool to meet more of you.
How about putting together another get together of the CH faithful to watch the NBA Draft come June? Just throwing out ideas.
I was thinking this same thing
get a private room for their usual party at the Target Center or something? Maybe get a special greeting from a guy who didn’t go to the actual draft room (I think Hoiberg and someone else was there for the Love/Mayo draft).
Alternatively...
it just so happens that within the past year not one, but two of my friends have opened new bars in Minneapolis, so I could always try to get a private section reserved and some drink specials or something.
by BVP on Apr 5, 2010 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions
And here I'm not a fan of "networking"
Silly me! Look at what I am missing out on… Let’s get this going!
Um, thanks?
If I were single I would have come. Long drive + family responsibilities. I thought the beauty of the web was supposed to be information sharing and shrinking the global ;)
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Apr 5, 2010 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Shrinking the *globe* I meant
Something about CH causes me to author mass quantities of typos. That is when I actually remember to reply to the correct message. Doh.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Apr 5, 2010 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions
We're going to have to figure out..
…some sort of online equivalent to Hoopus Night for those who can’t make it. I think the longest drive we had was from NE Iowa….which was pretty cool.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Skype would work for me.
Just put a cooler in my study next to the computer. Cheers!
Still waiting for that group photo (or is it superimposed on the adult beverage shot featured above?).
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
Wyn..
…took a few pictures of the Kahn chat. I’ll check with him to see what he has.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Thanks
Is the “name that Khanus Hoopuster” contest still on? Any prizes?
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
Woops, can't remember why I forgot to post those...
As you can see, I’m a master of photography.




www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Apr 6, 2010 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Could you please "tag" these photos
so I can get a mental image of whom I’m arguing with talking to when I post?
would have been there...
but I had a friends wedding to go to. Not very nice of him to also have his wedding on my mother in-law’s birthday to boot (or was it nice of him?). Oh well, maybe next year.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Apr 5, 2010 6:47 AM CDT up reply actions
That's awesome
And if that’s not enough info…then screw you all off, you should have been there yourselves.
Textbook MN passive-aggressiveness. I love it!
Seriously though, thanks for the tidbits. That was good enough for me. I will say (re: Pek) that in watching some of Pek’s highlights on YouTube lately that I totally understand what Kahn was saying about running the floor better than Al or Love. Pek doesn’t seem as athletic as he is strong, but I am always surprised at how easy it looks for him to run the floor out there – easy as in he doesn’t look like a complete lumbering oaf. He has a bit of the Nate Jawai-lightness-on-his-feet about him.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
You're welcome.
The follow-up post was intended to come off as more whimsical than it appears to have been interpreted. Live and learn.
+1
Thanks for the info, that’s all I think anyone wanted. I know I don’t need to know Kahn’s exact words and I guess I would rather not have incriminating evidence on this website… or you know… information that might lower trade value or give away our goals to other teams.
Really interesting on the Pek bit. Thanks for that.
That actually makes sense about the stats, but I would still prefer if he had someone looking at stats for draft guys because that matters for every team. More so for worse teams even.
Thanks for the Recap
-This was just a awful weekend work schedule wise.
-I would hope Kahn wasn’t shooting his mouth off too-much to group of Hoopus Readers. So your information seems at the proper level of depth.
-I think the Interview with Kahn dealing with more stat related outcomes should be interesting.
Kahn...
Was fantastic. Me and a buddy drove 5 hours from Iowa for the Q&A and game — worth every minute in the car. Hopefully the CH staff can set up future events with Kahn next season (or whenever) so we can get an update.
Kahn is way more humorous than I ever could’ve imagined. He would’ve talked all night if he had been able to.
Thanks for the comments
What is it about this Kahn meetings that seems to give people such a strong feeling that he has a plan and can pull it off? If you can’t give details, at least what is the general reason. Like “He mentioned specific guys and it seemed doable?” Or “He didn’t mention specific names, but talked about an overall strategy that made perfect sense?” Or ??
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Apr 5, 2010 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Let's just hope
that he’s using those vampire charms on Rubio.
A few things
a- He’s a salesman. This is the guy who ran point on Conseco Fieldhouse and attempted to get a MLB team in Portland. He’s also got the D-League background. He is comfortable in a room and he does all of the things you’d expect a politician to do to work it. He’s very disarming in this sort of setting (leading out with a joke about how he hopes Canis Hoopus is pronounced “kahn-is hoopus” meaning “friend of Kahn”).
b- He provides plausible takes on hysterical opinions of his club. This isn’t as hard as it seems. Every national pundit in the country thinks the Wolves are some sort of crazy operation and it doesn’t take much to balance against Four Letter and Bill Simmons with a simple “no, that’s not what we were thinking; this is where we’re headed.”
c- He clearly knows the team sucks and is not unwilling to talk about its shortcomings. One of his takes on Flynn was essentially right out of a recent game wrap: He had a great 1st quarter, got some confidence, and then overplayed his hand.
d- He’s not Kevin McHale. I have heard from several ticket reps that the best part of this season is actually having a guy who will talk to fans….for better or worse.
e- Despite all of his shortcomings and my worry about his ability to pick outside of the A1 players in the draft (i.e. to get Lawson and Curry over Flynn), he gets the 2nd rule of NBA GMing (after the #1 rule, which is luck accounts for anything over 55 wins): you need to draft The Guy. He’s not coming via trade or free agency. Last year they correctly identified The Guy in the draft and they didn’t move up to get him. I don’t think they do that this year.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Thanks SnP
That is what I was looking for. Item a above tends to wear off after a day or two. That was one thing I was curious about. Whether most of the ‘everything is going to be alright’ was just salesmenship. That sort of feeling usually passes after a day or two and the bright light of reality causes the salesmenship memories fade. Items b-e are all longer lasting.
Re: Getting “The Guy”. I am really glad about this. It is hard to overstate how important this is. Everyone knows that just a handful of players and coaches have won championships. So signing 2nd tier free agents is practically useless if you are still lacking “The Guy”. You are just making sure you’ll use up your cap, starting flirting with the 8th seed as your ceiling, and lose the ability to dramatically improve.
Usually the fun part of watching a young team is seeing how the core blossoms (hopefully) into high end talent. You know there is a group of 1-4 guys that will be here for a long time and you can enjoy watching them improve.
That is what made this year hard to watch in some respects. IMO we don’t have a single player that is definitely in the core as defined by Rambis/Kahn. The two best fits so far (IMO) have been Brewer and Darko. And both of those guys are borderline starters at best.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Apr 5, 2010 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Begging the question
whether he thinks there is one (or more) of those “guys” in this draft. Not every draft has a “Guy.”
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 5, 2010 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly...
…and he carefully sidestepped that question but I get the sense (from Hoopus Night and elsewhere) that there is someone very specific in mind that does indeed rise to the level of The Guy in this draft. This is just my opinion, but I’d be very surprised if they didn’t do whatever they could to get Turner. Plus, they (hopefully) won’t have too many more drafts to be in a position to get The Guy.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Couple things
I totally agree on your Turner take. I’ve mentioned this a couple times, but I heard Chris Wright on the radio a couple weeks ago basically say without prompting that the Wolves aren’t going to settle for the 4th or 5th pick in this draft. I think they have more than enough assets to move up for the right player, and can afford to overpay. Turner is that guy, but won’t be a PG as many have assumed. I have also heard Trent Tucker’s take on Turner a few times, and he is convinced Turner can handle the Pippen role in the Triangle. Tucker isn’t saying he’ll be Pippen, just that he will fit perfectly in that role, and that Wall will struggle in this system, a la Jonny Flynn.
I’m also glad you are feeling better about Kahn. Is he perfect, no, but no GM is…I have tried to emphasize lately that I think Kahn was right about 60% of the time this season, which in the long run is probably what a good GM does. I also wrote about a week ago that I believe Kahn realizes he won’t be perfect, but also feels if he follows a smart strategy and has enough assets, he will succeed. Sticking to a plan vs. being wishy-washy (McHale), I’ll take the plan and strategy. Of course luck also helps, but Kahn is trying to control what he can.
They don't need...
…Turner to be a PG during the first 3 1/2 quarters of the game. They need him to be the big guy with the ball in his hand for the last 5-6 minutes.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
The big issue
is if Twolves get the #1 pick. Flynn had, in all honesty, had pretty poor rookie season. Rubio can’t come in 2010-11. So the point guard is still a huge hole.
So, do you draft Wall? Wall has a higher rating than Rose had in 2008. He also has a significantly higher athleticism rating than Turner. If you don’t take Wall, you run the risk of passing up a potential superstar. Could really piss off the fan base if Wall develops into a superstar elsewhere (Think initial Mayo vs Love angst x1000) . But if you do, you immediately devalue Rubio. Far less likely he comes, and other teams will know that too. Makes it harder to trade for equal value. You also devalue Flynn by making him a part timer. Wall is not going to play 2 to Flynn’s 1 and neither will be able to guard the bigger 2’s in the league. It’s a fascinating “what if” situation.
which is why, very privately, some FO members are hoping for the #2 pick, rather than #1. Wall will be gone, we get Turner, and we don’t face the critical questions about taking Wall.
You don't plan around Rubio and Flynn at this point though, do you?
Fallout from drafting 1 is much easier to deal with than fallout from drafting 3/4/5.
The answer is pretty simple for Kahn
although making the decision may not be so simple. If the Wolves get the 1st pick and Kahn believes Wall is a game changer, better than Derrick Rose, then he has to take Wall. Why it’s not so simple is that choice will lead to overturning half of what he did this season. Rambis will be replaced in a year, Flynn will be traded this summer. Rubio probably gets traded unless Wall can play half time at SG. Unless a coach is named Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, Popovich or maybe Nate McMillan, an All-Star trumps a coach.
Flip side, if Wall isn’t an obvious star, just take Turner and live with the decision. Portland still gets criticized for taking Bowie over Jordan, but as Trent Tucker just said again this weekend, nobody has ever said how Jordan and Clyde Drexler could have played together.
The coach point you made is very interesting
In an SI article I posted a long time ago that detailed the need for an MVP-type star to win a championship, it actually posited that it’s even more difficult to win as a coach. Most of the championships in the past few decades have been by a very small handful of coaches.This makes Rambis’ tenure intriguing. The coach may actually be just as important as the star (if not more so), yet even harder to find.
Of course, the only accurate method of identification for these coaches/players is almost completely defined by the actual achievements themselves. You can say that such-and-such a player or coach is or will be championship-caliber, but until they retire and you look at their trophy case, you can’t definitively give them that distinction.
By almost all measures, Jerry Sloan and Lebron James are of that quality in their respective positions, yet neither of them have held up the Larry O’Brien trophy. Even if/when we complete that long journey to that “championship caliber” level where those two men reside, we still can’t even be sure that we’ll win one. It’s gonna take a lot of patience to be a Wolves fan regardless of how good we will be.
the only response...
…to the question about simmons was along the lines of “he is what he is”….which is true.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I don't think that's an Earth-Shattering Revelation
That Championship Teams are generally based on around Hall of Fame type Franchise Talents. It’s also fair to say no one on the Wolves Roster is anywhere near this type of talent. This doesn’t indicate a plan- only he understands the nature of lottery tickets.
Or what Plan B is if they don't get pick 1 or 2 this year (and Wall or Turner).
Tank again and try in next year’s lottery?
Shudder
It is kind of the elephant in the room, isn’t it?
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
He would definitely..
…be the best player from Ames in team history. ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Was Freddie H. from Ames or did he just play at ISU?
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
He...
…at least went to High School there. I tried to get an answer out of him during training camp about Barnes (“What is it like to be the 2nd best player from Ames?”) but he politely declined due to being unable to talk about prospects.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
At least he wasn't a "wrassler"
hard to be second-best at that sport in Ames.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
So Casper and other draft watchers
Say the Wolves get #3 or #4. Kahn’s mission is Turner or bust.
Do we need to #1 or is #2 enough? And how much does it cost us to move up?
Last year there were rumors that Kahn was trying to get the #2 pick from the Grizz and the price was Love. Would people be willing to trade Love to get Turner?
So much will depend on lottery balls, as usual.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
The Price
The Price wasn’t just Love, I’d guess it was Love AND the #5 or #6 draft pick. That would be pretty tricky. Love and the #5 pick for Turner I think I would do. Love and the #3 pick for Turner? Not so sure. I don’t think just giving up draft picks is going to be enough to move up. It obviously depends on who is sitting in the #2 spot but I think the Wolves would probably have to bring in a third team to make a trade work as they don’t have a ton of coveted players. I could see Rubio’s rights playing into this as well although everyone on this board seems to think there is no chance Rubio plays for anyone else. I don’t agree with that philosophy.
Yes, I guess i wasn't clear but
I meant Love + #5 or #6 to get to #2.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Apr 5, 2010 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Absolutely pull the trigger on that deal
Love will never be a game changer or go to guy. Great contributor but you need a superstar to build around, not a collection of solid draft picks.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
Hard to say until the lottery order comes out. Some teams will likely not trade Turner for what the Timberwolves would realistically offer if they’re at #3/#4. But, if a team really needs a big and a PG, but not a SG like Turner (say, Detroit), then #3/#4 and Flynn would be enough to get a guy who seems like the clear #2 player, but guys like Cousins or Favors are likely seen to have nearly equal upside (at minimum) by most. Same also would go for Indiana, even though Turner would be a nice player for them, I think Flynn and Favors would be too much value to turn down.
This is only if Kahn truly is on a mission for “Turner or Bust” however. I don’t think Love and the pick would be the right kind of package, nor would underselling the other team with like CHA 1st and Pekovic in addition to #3/#4.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Turner looks like the can't miss #2 prospect right now...
But so did Rubio at this time, and he dropped to #5.
Never doubt a GM’s ability to over analyze workouts/interviews (case and point…Jonny Flynn). There’s a very good shot Turner could fall to #3 or #4. Evan Turner’s stock is NEVER going to be higher then it is now. He won’t wow you in a work-out, and because his skills can only be seen accurately in a 5×5 scrimmage (much like Rubio last year) he’s not going to go head to head with Johnson or Aminu and risk hurting his stock. He has nothing to gain. Cousins and Favors on the other hand were considered potential #1 pick prospects before the season for a reason. They do everything that makes scouts drool.
This is what Chad Ford wrote about Derrick Favors back on Nov 10th:
Nov. 10 Update: Favors also has the talent to go first overall. In fact, if he has a breakout season, it won’t take long for him to leap past Wall and everyone else in college basketball on our Big Board.
Favors is a long, athletic big man who gets compared to everyone from Amare Stoudemire to Dwight Howard. While Favors doesn’t yet have the physique of either player, he’s getting stronger, and he has the size, length and agility to dominate the paint for years to come. His physical skills alone put him in the top five, but he’s more refined than you think. He has a jumper out to 18 feet, and is a terrific rebounder and shot-blocker.
Scouts want to see Favors’ handle this season. Can he create offense for himself, or will he be reliant on Iman Shumpert and others for his baskets? They’ll also be watching his passing ability and how he handles the relentless double-teams he’ll face this season.
He played with crappy point guards all year, and he was never able to actually show off what he was capable of. Unlike Turner, Favors stock will never be lower. So the #3 pick could be fine, we just don’t want Utah, the Clippers, Houston, or Memphis picking at #2.
Yep
You also hear people saying that Cousins is a #1 talent without taking his baggage into account. Favors is also no slouch. As much as I’d prefer getting Turner or Wall, the top two post men in the draft could end up being just as good. I’m getting it into my head that getting one of those two players at the 3rd or 4th pick talent-wise isn’t actually all that bad. It just creates a lot of roster uncertainty.
On Rubio, I don’t think anyone in his tier of talent in this draft has the same sort of question marks that led him to drop. Other players have question marks, but not the political maneuvering/roster needs/financial situation mishmash that Rubio brought.
I'm a huge fan of Turner
but it scares me that maybe he won’t ever become a consistent allstar at the next level. I don’t think this will happen, but it scares me enough that…. well…. sometimes I kind of wonder if drafting 3rd or 4th would benefit us in the long run… Almost as much as it scared me to admit this to such an audience :)
I used to have these doubts as well.
But then he just kept on dominating all year long. I think he’s pretty damn close to a sure thing. Seriously, who was the last college player as good as Evan Turner (in terms of the total package: stats, team success, intangibles, etc, — basically ruling out Beasley, who is a special case) who didn’t become an NBA star? It just doesn’t happen often,
There’s a reason he had the best statistical college season since Larry Bird.
Consistency
That and his competitiveness are the two things I love most about Turner. Even when he has an ‘off’ night Turner is still impacting and altering the game. He has the size and strength to play in the NBA, and while his athleticism might not blow NBA guys away he has the mental acuity and aptitude to be sneaky about it (a la Steve Nash). I also love that comment someone made about how Turner might not always be the guy taking the last shot, but he’ll be the guy getting it to where it needs to go.
I hope Turner is the guy, and I hope there is labor peace in the NBA so that we can get Rubio over here. A Rubio + Turner backcourt is one that I think can be competitive for a long time.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
Not disagreeing
I think he will be a good player. But it still scares me. And to answer your question, I’m guessing that there is an extremely high correlation between [really talented] college players having statistical seasons of this caliber and staying in school for more than 1 year. That’s not to say that every player who stays for 3 years will put up these numbers, but I am willing to bet it would be a lot more common. Healthy Oden would have dominated, Durant would have, Wall could, Cousins could probably blow Turner’s numbers out of the water, Lebron would have just been plain unfair… the list goes on. It’s really the 1 and doners that are making this a hard comparison and not necessarily a sure-fire pick. Though again, for the record I think he is a pretty sure-fire pick.
Good point..
but Roy’s junior year: 13-5-2
Derron William’s: 12-3-7
Duncan’s: 19-12-3
and Michael Jordan’s: 20-5-2, so… take from that what you want ;-)
But I do get your point. Perhaps it is a concern as to the absolute high-end of his upside (I’m saying maybe, while neither of them are likely to acheive it, Wall has a possible multiple-MVP gear in him that Turner doesn’t), but there are very good players who have played 3 years in college, and even they didn’t perform like Turner did. But we don’t really even disagree on this issue, so that will be all.
Thanks Again!
For having this Game Day! My Dad and I really enjoyed it, especially meeting with Mr. Kahn (!!).
Ski-U-Mah!
Just an idle thought
but are any of you this guy? Was he at Hoopus night? I’m wondering if he’d like a job with the Wolves.
Yeah--
that was interesting.
I’d be even more interested if he knew how to predict and control the placement of lottery balls.
He would have to factor in the
Eisenstern Uncertainty Principle however for the lottery balls.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
Not that I'd be ready to label him a genius
but he’s young and enthusiastic about basketball, statistics, new ideas, and Minnesota sports. Most importantly, he has absolutely no real world job potential, so he’ll be available for cheap.
That's better!
Look at you, flaunting your fancy blue boxes! So if we spend the savings, are you assuming that’ll make us better? I thought spending didn’t equal wins? ;-)
Really, I don’t think we’re very far apart on this. I just don’t think Taylor is going to look at financial losses from this year and pass up the chance to sign a player next year that he thinks will help the team. Will he spend money foolishly? I hope not. And if they can find a way to trade Al for pick(s) + player(s) that cost less without a net loss of talent , that’s fine with me. But cost cutting for the sake of cost cutting is not going to do Taylor or the Wolves any good. And I think Taylor knows that.
See the
B I S . . . series of characters when you reply to this? Highlight any text you want to put in the blue box, and then click the quotation marks sign between the S and the link icon.
I’m purely guessing, of course, but no extra money gets spent before the team gets better organically. That is most likely to happen, and next year, just due to less tanking player development, and more emphasis on wins (unless they don’t get Wall or Evans. Then the “Harrison Barnes Sweepstakes” begin).
Hey
Thanks for the tip!
I never noticed those before.
My guess is that if they don’t spend big money on a FA it’ll be because none of them passed a cost/benefit test, and not because the Wolves were unwilling to add to payroll if the deal was right. I think there’s a very good chance that will happen, and if it does we’ll never know which one of us guessed correctly.
You don't mind
if, no matter what happens, I remember it as me being right? It’s what I need to get through the day.
No problem
And I’ve already assumed that you’re wrong in my head. Why wait for facts? By then I’d forget to gloat.
On the one hand
I agree with Madison Dan. On the other hand, he lives on the west side, which is beyond understanding.
It’s clear that you’re both wrong.
I win!
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 6, 2010 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Madison and Franklin arguing
imagine that.
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright

by 


















