Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Best College Football Recruiting Stories

Let's Settle This: Trade Love, or trade Al? (with poll!)


Okay, Rubio's season is over, and there's a week until the lottery balls start bouncing. Nature and I have one thing in common: we both abhor a vacuum. So to keep the conversation moving, I'll be putting up a discussion topic that has been bandied about over the past few weeks/centuries, and we'll come to an ironclad conclusion. I'm not going to spin the questions with a whole lot of background, but feel free to add it in the comments (also feel free to suggest any future topics for Let's Settle This. Or you can, you know, post it yourself).

 Today's topic is an easy one: Should the Wolves trade Kevin Love, or trade Al Jefferson?

Star-divide

Assume that if the trade is made for either player, it's for a player similar in age, pay, and talents. Maybe somebody like Mayo or Harden for Love, and a Kevin Martin or Danny Granger type for Al. Let's hear it!

Poll
Assuming a player of similar age, pay, and skills is received in return, should the Wolves trade Kevin Love, Al Jefferson, neither, or both?
Trade Al Jefferson
227 votes
Trade Kevin Love
53 votes
Trade them both
39 votes
Don't trade either Love or Jefferson
41 votes

360 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 227 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Canis Hoopus

So close/So far

Feb 2012 by Stop-n-Pop - 470 comments

Jonny, Wes and Sasha

Feb 2012 by Stop-n-Pop - 323 comments

Comments

Display:

get rid of them both

Love is going to be outta here as soon as his contract is up anyways. We should have gotten David Lee for cheap last summer.

by JiveLive on May 10, 2010 1:24 PM CDT reply actions  

With our Mid-Level Exemption? Doubtful that Lee would have accepted that when he could have made more with the Knicks this season (which he did) and be an unrestricted free agent in a summer with many more teams having cap space. So without factoring in Lee wanting to sign with a team with both Love and Al at the PF spot, it was likely not possible anyway. Good straw man though to help disparage the Wolves.

by Ebomb on May 10, 2010 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ashamedly on a re-read, he did not. Good Call Out.

by Ebomb on May 10, 2010 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

For those of you scoring at home,

that’s how a man apologizes and elevates his stature at the same time. For what it’s worth, you have my respect. You’re a bigger man than many.

by PoorDick on May 10, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Definitely a man who gets riled up at the mere mention of David Lee. Subliminally there must be something to this…

by Ebomb on May 10, 2010 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

This insinuation is my appropriate public shaming

by Ebomb on May 10, 2010 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just more fodder

for Google bombing the Gay-Love algorithm.

"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright

by uncle rico on May 10, 2010 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

If this is the kind of stuff

that brings you back here to comment, I"ve got a couple of gigs of photos and vids that I’d be more than happy to forward

(you’re not a cop, are you?)

by PoorDick on May 10, 2010 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

I tried to stay away, really,

at least until 5/18, then draft day. I was on step 8 of my 12 pace road to recovery from internet addiction before falling off the wagon. But all the mirth and astute analyses brought me back (that and the mystery of Mayn’s real identity. You can surmise about the other reasons). Your prodigious memory is most impressive, and I was hoping nobody would notice that I had snuck back here (or provide a link to my profile). But I’m busted.

In any case, since your bailiwick would appear to now extend beyond mere Archiver of Images to include Canis Constable, could we nominate you to the more elevated position of Site Factotum?

"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright

by uncle rico on May 11, 2010 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

In that last paragraph,

you used about nine words that are above my Hooked on Phonics level of education.

But in spite of (or due to) my ignorance, I agree to all of your proposals.

by PoorDick on May 11, 2010 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

False modesty

becomes Poor Richard.

As to my issues, I’m probably just overcompensating for a small BBIQ. That said, I’m learning a lot here (how do sportswriters even keep their jobs these days; few can hold a candle to the CH regulars), and will even play some hoops tomorrow outdoors with lads far younger than me. Not a pretty sight for me.

As to the original poll, I must confess that I did abstain. For the right deal, trade either one or both. After watching a little post-season play, it’s obvious what big, athletic, mobile men can do for one’s squad. I can see, then, why SnP may be so impressed by Cousins.

"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright

by uncle rico on May 11, 2010 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

I voted for keeping both of them

They’re different enough players that we don’t need to move them. Let’s get Turner, bring over Rubio, keep Flynn as a spark, resign Darko, trade Sessions/Pek/Gomes for some other pieces and call it a day.

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 1:36 PM CDT reply actions  

Same.

I think it won’t be too hard to keep both of them and have them play at the same time. The Timberwolves are a dominant rebounding with Al and Kevin, don’t know why we need to take that apart.

by KGMN on May 10, 2010 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Isn't the Triangel offense the issue here?

It seems from what I have read that the real reason to move either of them is that they don’t gel with the Triangle offense very well.

Like most posts…could be wrong.

by Timberwolf i.e. Albatross on May 11, 2010 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yep

Had there been a Trade Rambis option, I would have chosen it instead. Neither our personnel nor our system really benefits either of Love or Jefferson.

by John Doe on May 11, 2010 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

I still think

that Love and/or Jefferson need to be moved eventually. It’s not that I think we can’t find success with both of them, I just think they will really hinder us in terms of $/production. I like the Triangle offense. As bad as it fits right now, I really like the concept of having everything based off of positioning and motion.

What I don’t like is using an offense that absolutely does not fit our personnel. We are lowering our team’s production AND trade value. I really REALLY hope that Rambis is smart enough to swap out of the Triangle before the trade deadline. It would help the value of all of the guys that will probably be gone when we are competing (Jefferson, Hollins (who is actually an ok pick and roll player), Flynn or Sessions, and maybe Gomes if we don’t move him before then). The Triangle absolutely needs to go at least until we make some moves to get personnel who better fits the concept, not dribble drive, post-up, or pick and roll players.

by Mplax on May 11, 2010 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't think it's impossible for Kevin Love and Al Jefferson to co-exist

But I do think it’s impossible for them to co-exist under Kurt Rambis. Which sucks because out of the Love, Jefferson, and Rambis…Rambis is the one that still has the most to prove and we know he’s not going anywhere.

by Blakeley on May 10, 2010 1:36 PM CDT reply actions   1 recs

Agreed

I thought they looked good next to each other under McHale.

by Punisher#8 on May 10, 2010 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dangerously close to picking

trade them both… but I went with Jefferson in the end. I agree with JiveLive that I would much rather have gotten what we could for Love and Jefferson and then sign David Lee last summer for 5 years at $8-10M or so (The Sessions effect of realizing that no body is really looking to sign you). As Ebomb mentions above he may not have signed with us, and that’s definitely something you figure out before moving Love/Jefferson, but it’s also something you absolutely have to look at. The money could have been found during the offseason (cut Atkins and possibly Gomes if it wasn’t too late, don’t sign Hollins or Sessions if absolutely necessary, and save a bit of money when you are moving Jefferson). I guess for me it’s the difference between Love/Jefferson or Lee/Martin/Mayo (kind of). Have to at least try, right?

by Mplax on May 10, 2010 1:38 PM CDT reply actions  

Is it sad that my opinion of Kevin Love improved ten-fold

after I saw him in one of those NBA Cares commercials during the playoffs? I thought it was great that one of our players is getting national exposure.

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

YES! Someone else!

I was so jacked when I saw that commercial. Ever since KG left, I’ve seen those commercials and wished a Wolf was on one. It almost literally made my day.

by LoveTo on May 10, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

Agreed...

When did they do that?

It seemed like Kevin “The Big Twitter” Love was geared for a national profile last summer, but that all went off the rails. I wish the Wolves had been a little more flexible with his tweeting. I would have loved to see that continue.

by Blakeley on May 10, 2010 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

Agreed

that really was bad marketing not to let that go… just tell him to avoid sensitive issues like who got fired and when.

by Mplax on May 10, 2010 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Actually

I think it was the league that closed down most everybodies “Twittering”, or clamped down enough it wasn’t worth it anymore.

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

by frankenhoops on May 11, 2010 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions  

Not really though...

considering all these other players in the NBA still do it.

by Blakeley on May 11, 2010 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions  

Maybe not so great

All of those other players are All-Stars. This guy has been the golden boy since a young age; does that really bode well for a guy who will have to have the mentality of a role player to reach his potential?

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 10, 2010 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

Selfishly

I want to see Big Al play on a team where he is choice 2A or 2B banana offensively. If he was in that situation, chances are he’d be a happy camper as he would be surrounded by some outstanding players. You wouldn’t have to worry about his attitude, it would always be up. I just think this whole Love/Al thing comes down to what we prefer as fans. I like Al’s offense, especially in the right situation. I just think guys like Love are more easily had out there. Call it a proposterous statement but I bet Leon Powe, a guy burried on Cleveland’s bench, could do a lot of what Love does on the court given playing time on the wolves.

Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside

by wolfen on May 10, 2010 1:50 PM CDT reply actions  

I think Leon Powe is probably undervaluing him just a tad

but I agree with the general sense of your comment, in that I think guys like Al are a lot rarer than guys like Love.

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

I disagree respectfully.

The way I see it is that guys who score a bunch of points are much less rare than guys who so ideally compliment those point-scorers, like Love does.

by LoveTo on May 10, 2010 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

I like Love...

I do. I just like Al better. Frankly I could live with trading either one as long as we get some value out of the trade. And I do see your point as well. If Love was paired with a legit center like Howard, Gasol, Bynum, etc., the other team would rarely get a rebound!

Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside

by wolfen on May 10, 2010 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

And pair Al with a legit center

and…wait, who’s going to guard the opposing PF again?

by dropstep on May 10, 2010 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

It's probably a moot

point as I think Al will be the one traded. Are you saying Love is better defensively than Al??

Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside

by wolfen on May 10, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yes, I am saying that

and am surprised anyone would argue with me. Note, I am not saying that Love is a very good defender. He does some things well on defense and some things not so well.

by dropstep on May 10, 2010 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

I would definitely argue with you on that

Love’s Defense: Things he does well: allows opposing players to score at will, allow passing lanes wide enough for Robert “Tractor” Traylor to slide through untouched, (oh yeah, that’s a Robert Traylor reference – I went there!), stand flat-footed and get blown by driving players, etc.

Things he doesn’t do well: play man defense, help defend, limit scoring chances, keep players out of the lane, etc.

I think Love is a great rebounder, but has anyone done the numbers to see how many times we’ve actually scored after a K Love offensive board versus how many times he tries to go back up with it and get denied by the rim, the backboard, a defender, or the mop up guy? lol Watching K Love trying to score in the post is like watching the YouTube video of the hoodrat kid – great amusement unless he’s your kid!

by wolves_fan on Jun 4, 2010 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's legit, and I do see the reasons for preferring Jefferson.

But I saw somewhere else in this thread the point that every team left in these playoffs has a sound interior defensive presence, which is true. But what I think is also true is that none of those teams run their offense through a post player as an A1 option (Amare in Phoenix maybe, but he largely lives off Nash). The talk about Big Al being rare because he’s a pure low-post scorer is valid, but I don’t think, in this case, that rare = desirable.

The way I see it, the Wolves need someone like healthy Jefferson in that they need someone who can consistently put up 20+ points a night. But I think if they’re going to go anywhere, that player is going to be a perimeter star who can create for himself. And when that player is on the roster, and we no longer need our power forward to carry the offense, then I think Love fits what we’ll need from our big man (rebounding, passing, off-ball movement) better than Jefferson will.

by LoveTo on May 10, 2010 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

Agree

We need a scoring wing no matter how you slice it, so the question is what does Al do for you when he’s not scoring? The answer is not a whole lot. He’s not a good passer, not a good defender, and his rebounding has slipped over the past couple of seasons. And offensively he has zero versatility. While Love has his weaknesses, he’s a better complimentary player than Big Al.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

You're implying that just because we have a scoring wing

we won’t need scoring from anywhere else. Teams need more than one guy who can be a consistent scorer. Why not get the scoring wing while keeping the one consistent scorer who we actually have?

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't necessarily disagree

My point is that if I had to make a choice between the two, I’d prefer Love. But if we can’t get a decent return for Al or Love, I’d prefer patience on Kahn’s part.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Right, I agree with you there

I’d prefer we only trade one of them if we get a tremendous offer. Let’s not short sell either one for a Hinrich/Gibson offer or something like that which will not improve the team even a little bit

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

Points in the paint

are more important than points from the perimeter because it forces the defense to collapse, forces double teams, and forces fouls. Al is good at two of those three and could work on the last. I think that Al Jefferson is the better player if he is fully healthy.

by PGNation on May 10, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think you need to really WATCH some games.

Al Jefferson is a me first player who will never be a good teammate.

by Adam Chandler on May 10, 2010 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think that it's hard to label someone a bad teammate without

any inside information. The body language from his teammates don’t suggest that he’s a bad teammate. You don’t hear any mention from anybody in the organization that indicates that Al is a bad teammate.

There are a lot of good me first players. ie Kobe!

by PGNation on May 10, 2010 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

It's all about the W's

I hope you catch the aburdity of ’ie Kobe".

All AL does is show teammates when he is the one not making the defensive rotations.

by Adam Chandler on May 10, 2010 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

What?

When you are the #1 guy on a teen win team……you suck. Also all of this talk of knee injury is bunk. The statute of limitations ran out on that excuse 6 months ago.

by Adam Chandler on May 10, 2010 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

I was responding to your claim

that “All AL does is show [up] teammates when he is the one not making the defensive rotations”. I don’t view Al as that guy.

There have been a lot of good players on teen-win teams

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

A partial list of players on teen-win teams

Dwyane Wade, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Elton Brand, Chauncey Billups, Baron Davis, Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Brook Lopez, Tracy McGrady, Rip Hamilton, Antawn Jamison, Latrell Sprewell, Glen Rice, Jerry Stackhouse, Mitch Richmond, Gail Goodrich, Nate Thurmond, Bob McAdoo, Wilt Chamberlain

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

The injury thing

I think PGNation makes a pretty compelling argument about that. With as many injuries as I have sustained in the last few years (knees and shoulder), I can say with 100% certainty that healing from an injury is not a process to be rushed. You’d like to think a professional athlete who is paid that much should be healthy by now, but it’s just not realistic. More so than any pain that is stopping him, he has a mental block somewhere that is stopping him from doing some things he used to without a second thought. It takes some time. Guys like Brewer don’t have these issues as this is what their entire game is predicated on and he really really needs to earn another contract. Al Jefferson’s game is predicated on skill and ability and if he doesn’t exert 100% effort, he is still going to get paid and will still get another contract… a better contract than if he tries hard right away and hurts himself again. I’ve obviously never had that money motivation, so that part is all speculation, and I agree that his time is running out for using that as an excuse, but I still think you have to cut the man some slack with an injury like that for a size of person that injuries of that nature are no joke (hope that made sense).

I’ll write off that injury excuse completely in about mid-December of this year. After that, I just think the mental block becomes second nature and injury prevention supercedes his will to improve…. hopefully he can find the common ground!

by Mplax on May 10, 2010 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

This coming from

a guy who isn’t a big al jefferson supporter. Just wanted to be fair to the guy. I remember watching Stoudamire after his microfracture surgery. It took him a whole season to get back to form. Hope Al does the same.

by PGNation on May 10, 2010 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

Agree, the knee is a difficult injury to come back 100% from in less than a year and you will still have that mental block that you have to break through. Pain isn’t the major problem as much as the mental part, especially if you tore it up pivoting or jumping. I look for Al to better next year.

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

by frankenhoops on May 11, 2010 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions  

More importantly

Recovering form a major knee injury would be hard for anyone but at 6-10 I would imagine the difficulty would escalate a bit.

by Timberwolf i.e. Albatross on May 11, 2010 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

The injury thing meets the eye test.

But by game, by the minute, or by the percentages, however you want to consider it, he really wasn’t that far off his game. The main difference came in the number of attempts, or in “usage” in a broader sense that accounts for things like how many turnovers he had.

One could attribute his lower “usage” to his injury, but the Wolves were also running a very different offense this season.

Per minute this year, Al Jefferson scored .528 points. For his career, he’s scored .535 points per minute. That’s a difference of something like .2 points every 36 minutes.

Per shot attempt for his career: 1.20 points.
Per shot attempt this year: 1.15 points.

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 11, 2010 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think it was more how he got his points, wasn't it?

Haven’t checked so I could definitely be wrong, but by the eye test he took a lot more jumpers this year and was near the basket a lot less. I’d also imagine that he dunked the ball a bit less (not that he was ever a fiend in this regard).

Defense is a whole ’nother issue.

by Mplax on May 11, 2010 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Actually his rate of jumpers

has changed less, over his career, than I used to think. Someone corrected me on that early this year, when I said he seemed to have been working it in more the previous season. Al’s always taken a fair amount of those “keep ’em honest” Js.

According to 82games, though, he went from about 51% jumpers to 60% under Rambis.

(Which explanation works to account for taking more jumpers better, injury or offensive scheme? I’d say scheme, by far.)

And yeah, defense…. “By eye” gives way to “by smell” at some point.

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 11, 2010 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

Trend

I don’t know about his advanced stats, but his raw scoring productivity had a steady path of improvement from his rookie season up through the ACL tear. That trend dipped, last season, for the first time in his career. I thought (and maybe still think) he had 25+ PPG potential, with the right backcourt in place.

by Andy G on May 11, 2010 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

We can be hopeful.

My hope would be that he could play defense well enough to make a 20-point performance worth putting out there, and that the team could assemble shooters to add the extra kick, whether or not Al ever got there.

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 11, 2010 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree that it's about the Ws

but to state that a player sucks because his team doesn’t win isn’t fair. As good as people thought Kobe was, he didn’t start winning until he got better talent around him such as Gasol, Odom, etc. This was after he was already an NBA champion mulitple times.

I’m not the biggest Jefferson supporter but I try to be fair with the player. He hasn’t done anything to warrant the insults. We see flaws in his game and hope that he fixes them. The athlethicism issues will always plague him but with health, the hope is that he will be a better player than what we saw this year.

In any case, he still wasn’t a terrible player. He may not be a star player but he isn’t terrible either.

by PGNation on May 10, 2010 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

The economic argument for dealing Jefferson, in a nutshell, is there:
The talk about Big Al being rare because he’s a pure low-post scorer is valid, but I don’t think, in this case, that rare = desirable.

The scarcity of his major skill, post-up scoring, gives it value on the market. If you think that skill’s overvalued relative to how much Al as a complete player actually helps you win, then it becomes advantageous to deal him.

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 10, 2010 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

Style of play factors into how he helps (or doesn’t help) you win and the demand for his skills team-by-team.

by Punisher#8 on May 11, 2010 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

I voted for keeping them both...

but it really depends on what trade opportunities are out there. I would probably trade either player for Derrick Favors. The potential of Rubio-Favors just seems higher than Rubio-Love or Rubio-Jefferson. But, I would not trade Al Jefferson for Kevin Martin or Tayshawn Prince, and I don’t think Indy would trade us Danny Granger. I would probably trade Love for Mayo, but I doubt Memphis would do that for another big man. I would not trade Love for Harden.

As between the two guys, in a vaccum, I’d rather have Jefferson. I think that he’ll bounce back next year and look like his old self. I found the old Big Al to be fun to watch, even if he sometimes made his opponent fun to watch as well. He was a consistent producer in the paint, and while Love is a better rebounder, I don’t think he’ll ever be the all around player that Jeff is. But, both are and will continue to be good players — the only good players on the current roster, so I wouldn’t trade them away in anything that resembles a panic decision.

by Andy G on May 10, 2010 1:53 PM CDT reply actions  

Agree that the real answer is "it depends"

meaning that neither should be traded at firesale prices. They are still our two best players and young, so Kahn needs to be patient. If the right offer doesn’t come along that gives us decent value in return, than so be it. We’ve got bigger fish to fry over the next year or so. But eventually something will have to give, because it’s tough to see these two co-exist on a contending team for all of the reasons previously discussed.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

I voted Trade them Both

But really not because I think they should or would, but because both of them should be available on the trading block for getting the right package. Ultimately the Wolves, like 90% of the league, are looking for a defensive big man. Unfortunately that breed of player is extremely rare. Both Al and Love have strengths on the Offensive end of the floor and both are good to elite rebounders. Darko is a start, but we need a defensive anchor as a third big in a playoff rotation. Every other lottery team has “Post Defense” as a need, with the Nets and Brook Lopez having the best situation at internal improvement, but he currently has no help. The Wolves are not some unique team looking for a defensive big, we only get one chance to get this type of player and its in late June every year.

Every team in final 8 of the playoffs has strong post defense, and is a necessity to a championship contending team. I don’t think the Wolves are in a position to get one of these type of players either in free agency or in trade because they just are rarely available. We have to draft this player. Hopefully the team can snag Turner in the Draft with a little luck or maneuvering, but if you can trade either Love or Jefferson in any deal to get a chance to see if Favors or Cousins can develop into a two-way big, you have to take it as it’s clear to me that Love and Jefferson are both limited as two-way players. If you think some guy in the mid lottery has that potential you trade Love or Al to make that happen and roll the dice, I have no complaints. The status quo does not currently work and the current frontline does not have deep playoff run potential.

by Ebomb on May 10, 2010 2:06 PM CDT reply actions  

Whatever it takes

If they could come out of this draft with a core of Turner, Favors, and Rubio, and whatever is left after the trades we would need to make, i’d be very very happy. All 3 of these guys will be two way players that would form an outstanding foundation for the team. With the right role players around them, now we can start talking about being a potential contender in 2-3 years.

by fan44 on May 10, 2010 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

I voted to trade both

but really just want one moved in a package deal for either a better PF or SF. I don’t care who is traded, as long as the guy received instantly becomes the best player on the team (excluding Rubio and their 1st pick this summer).

by Rumblebee on May 10, 2010 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

The playoff teams argument is bunk.

Someone’s going to have to explain to me who provides the “strong post defense” for Phoenix and Utah. If you get that one, you’ll have to show me how a one year, 8 team sample tells us anything at all long term.

by John Doe on May 10, 2010 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'd argue it's the main reason those teams continually fall short

Boozer and Millsap go through the same drill every year: face the Lakers and watch Gasol/Bynum/Odom play volleyball on the glass. And the reason Robin Lopez emerged and Jarron Collins sees the floor at all with the Suns are because they are strong post defenders. In addition, the demise of the Spurs is mainly due to their problems defending the interior.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 10, 2010 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

Age

The Spurs problem is all to do with age. The good ones are old, and the young ones are short.

by Adam Chandler on May 10, 2010 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Age ain't nuthin' but a number

The Spurs lost for a lot of reasons but age is far down on the list behind lack of 3-point shooting, lack of a shot blocker/interior defender.

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

Shaq

Right…..now who do we offer for Shaq????

by Adam Chandler on May 10, 2010 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

You just admitted that size was an issue

They used to play Duncan at the 4 with 6-10 and 7-foot guys at the 5. Since their last title, they’ve replaced those guys with 6-7 and 6-9 guys like Blair, Bonner, and McDyess. They used to win because of dominant interior defense and now that defense is average to above-average. It’s not a big difference, just enough of one that they’re out in round 2.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 11, 2010 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

one reason

I would really kind of like a Darko Favors frontcourt. They would be really good defensively…sigh.

A Darko Fan since 2010!

by TheEvilProfessor on May 11, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions  

I also voted trade both

But they can’t sell low on either player. Besides lacking perimeter scoring, the team’s biggest problem was lacking the type of role players who fit an uptempo style. Both guys would look better if they were surrounded by athletic guys who are good enough to be in any team’s rotation (sorry, Ryan Hollins and Damien Wilkins). Ultimately, that might also serve to boost their value.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 10, 2010 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Unless Lary Bird resigns

we will not get Granger for Big Al. Been there and we were soundly laughed at. There seems to be rather limited (if any) market for Big Al.

There is definitely a market for Love. But the teams that really want him (contender types looking for a 6/7th man) don’t have a lot of assets that make sense for us.

So, I don’t see either one traded.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 2:22 PM CDT reply actions  

Package...

Al or Love PLUS a pick. Or another player. You’re right, either alone won’t nab Granger.

Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside

by wolfen on May 10, 2010 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

Spurs

Kevin Love + Rubio’s rights + filler (gomes, etc) to San Antonio for Tony Parker, who according to Marc Stein may be on the block.

Big Al tries to be Tim Duncan… ha!

by littleboxes on May 10, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

no thanks

I’d rather have Rubio’s rights than Parker.

by TWolvesFanInLA on May 10, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

No doubt

Parker’s not that good. Duncan carries that team.

"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."

by biggity2bit on May 10, 2010 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

Parker is underrated in my opinion

and I’d rather have a proven Finals MVP instead of Ricky Rubio, who may or may not be as good in the NBA.

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

Parker is very good

but has only 1 year (at $13.5M) left on his deal. Do you want to trade 5 years of control of Rubio, plus 3 years of control of Love, for 1 year of Parker with the opportunity to pay him a huge salary going forward?

Not me.

We Are the Washington Generals

by Eric in Madison on May 10, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

If they're really considering dealing Parker, I wonder about the Knicks

NY could deal for him as a way of enticing LBJ (or whoever else). “Look, we’ve got a PG of note to play D’Antoni ball with you.” The contract would mean they could get out in a year if it didn’t work out.

I sort’ve expect New York may try something like that before the FA window, to get some established talent on their roster. LeBron’s not going to sign into the void.

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 10, 2010 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

I heard

from an agent (who mainly deals with Americans overseas) that the expectations are that LeBron will NOT sign immediately – that he will take several weeks to make up his mind. If so, that will make things very interesting. Can’t imagine everyone waiting on LeBron – someone will pull the trigger immediately.

I am guess it will be Chicago and Bosh.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

That'll be great, watching them squirm. All the more reason

for teams who’ve gutted their rosters to add another signing first, as a demonstration of purposeful action. The Knicks’ sell can’t really be “We let our team lay fallow for three seasons, but now we’re ready to plant,” can it?

(SFs in that next tier or two of FA talent, like Gay, would presumably be the ones left out in the cold as LeBron weighs his options.)

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 10, 2010 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

Cripes, if LeBron's going to capture the

nation’s attention with this waiting game, I can’t wait to see what Favre’s going to do to try to top him.

by PoorDick on May 10, 2010 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm guessing he walks on the field at halftime versus the Saints

makes a speech puts on a purple uni and comes back, only to retire in the postgame.

by Bad News Wolves on May 11, 2010 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

Saw a scenario where the Bulls sign Joe Johnson

and then sign and trade for Bosh. Seems like a plausible move that gives them a big 3.

by Rumblebee on May 10, 2010 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Plausible how?

They don’t have enough cap space for both, and the only way to clear up more is to get rid of Deng or Hinrich. If you think Toronto is moving Bosh for a Deng + Gibson package, then we have very different definitions of the word plausible.

by John Doe on May 10, 2010 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Why wouldn't Toronto?

Toronto isn’t going to get anything better than Deng back in a Bosh S&T. I’d say the package you mentioned will easily be the best offer they are going to get.

by jama on May 11, 2010 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions  

I very much disagree.

In fact, for Toronto, an offer of nothing back in return for Bosh would be superior to receiving Deng. If Bosh leaves, Toronto should be looking to cut costs first and foremost, because what’s left of that team is expensive and lousy, and their tickets sales are going to plummet. Adding Luol Deng and his payroll-bloating contract is the last thing they’d need. Besides, Toronto already has an overpaid, underperforming small forward locked in for 4 more years, and it’s not like they could play Turkoglu and Deng together.

I also reject the idea that they wouldn’t be able to get anything better than Deng. The rumored Andrew Bynum deal, if true, is way better. Plenty of other teams would offer younger guys on rookie contracts. Miami could give Michael Beasley + this year’s draft pick. OKC could offer Jeff Green + James Harden.

by John Doe on May 11, 2010 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Good golly.

Adding Bosh to the Lakers would make them truly frightening. Bosh and Gasol and Odom. What a ridiculously skilled frontcourt.

by princelyfrank on May 11, 2010 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

And yet

Some Laker fans I’ve talked to on RealGM are such homers, they say they’d rather keep Bynum.

If LA gets Bosh, I’ll be so pissed.

by John Doe on May 11, 2010 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

As much as Wade and Lebron

get talked about. I think it’s Bosh who will end up shifting the tides of power with his decision.

by Mplax on May 11, 2010 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

Different Spurs trade

Since the Spurs are desperate to win in the next couple years, what about a Jefferson for Jefferson swap (Al for Richard) with a couple other parts? Get SA to swap their pick this year for the Utah pick, then also add an unprotected SA pick in three years. I’d throw in Gomes if necessary.
The Spurs save a couple million next year (about $4 with luxury tax included), and are not happy with Richard Jefferson, plus Duncan needs help inside. This move would make SA a real contender for a year or two, which doesn’t hurt the Wolves because they are at least three years from being a real contender. The Wolves pay a little more for Richard next season, but then are out from the Big Al contract the following couple seasons. They can use the #20 and #16 to move higher than the #26 and #16. Then the Wolves keep their fingers crossed and hope that when Duncan’s run ends, they end up without a decent 1st rounder in a few years.
This trade is inspired by PoorDick, who I believe wants Big Al moved for younger, cheaper players with potential.

by Rumblebee on May 10, 2010 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

I also wondered if the Wolves would have much interest in Richard Jefferson. I wouldn’t trade Al Jefferson for him but he is a veteran wing player who has playoff experience.

by jama on May 10, 2010 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

??????

Have you watched him play in the last 3 years?

by Adam Chandler on May 10, 2010 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

Don't really think I'd do it either

but my idea (unstated above) is that the Wolves could use the money saved to attract a decent player a year from now (an Al Jefferson level player) to a more reasonable contract. San Antonio doesn’t have that option because they would still be over the cap. So basically, try to re-acquire Big Al in a year thru free agency, then hope for luck on the draft choice in a few years.

by Rumblebee on May 10, 2010 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

I can't endorse this

Richard Jefferson is, I think, toast.

We Are the Washington Generals

by Eric in Madison on May 10, 2010 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Depends on the system

It turns out Richard Jefferson was a horrible fit with the Spurs. His best years were obviously with the Nets when they were a running team. Again, I wouldn’t give up anything worthwhile to get him but I do think he’s another name to throw out there. Plus his contract expires after next season so all it would cost the Wolves is cap space next year, which I don’t think they are going to be able to sign anyone big with anyway.

At the very least the Wolves would have another trade piece as Jefferson turns into a large expiring contract.

by jama on May 11, 2010 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions  

Laughed at?

Seems an extreme reaction. It’s not like granger is a superstar that has taken that team anywhere. Is Al’s defense so bad that nobody is interested in him except at a cut price? If so, I hope Love is not traded just because he’s the only guy with value. He has value because he’s damn good and so should be kept. I have a bad feeling that Kahn could give away Live in a dumb deal

The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness

by Victor Mature on May 10, 2010 2:49 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

Yea

the Twolves staff was surprised at the Pacer’s reaction too. Sometimes, people just over value their own players.

Al’s contract is deemed excess for what most people regard as a 1 dimensional player (low post scorer). Now that one skill is very valuable, and is in very limited supply. But its seems that the pendulum has swung in favor of athletic bigs who play defense. That hurts Big Al’s market.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yup

The NBA has sort of passed Jefferson by these past few years. These athletic bigs may not have the slick post moves, but what difference does it make if they can just as easily explode past their defender for a dunk or ally oop? It’s a lot more efficient than Al’s game, that’s for sure.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

It seemed to pass him by...

right around the moment he tore his ACL. Not sure if that’s coincidence or not. I hope he looks better next year.

by Andy G on May 10, 2010 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think Big Al

actually showed far more interest in playing defense this year, than in years past. And used a lot more effort.

I agree, the physical limitations coming back from the ACL sure hurt his mobility. But I think, in some ways, he had already been painted as "offense, no defense) before the ACL happened.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

He showed flashes

but it wasn’t consistent. We’ve been there/done that with Al in the past. I remember a year or two ago where Wittman benched him early in a game against the Seattle Sonics (must have been two years ago…) because of lax defense. When he came back into the game he played with great effort and helped lead us to a win. And over the next week or so, he did much the same, blocking shots all over the place. But eventually he reverted back to his inconsistent effort and poor defense. Even this season there was a stretch where he was making an effort to take charges. But sure enough, after a few weeks he gave up on it and just went back to his usual strategy of trying to swipe at the ball on the way up as opposed to going through the hard work of moving his feet and getting in front of people. He’ll never be a good defender.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree with the inconsistency part

and also agree that it is doubtful that he gets a whole lot better. Not that it is impossible, history just says it is highly unlikely.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

Not really related, but a question for you nonetheless

do you have any idea if Kahn is looking at moving up to get two picks in the top 4? Or is he waiting to divulge that kind of information until the lottery and workouts have given him more of an idea?

Basically, does Kahn have any interest in acquiring Turner AND Favors/Cousins?

by Mplax on May 10, 2010 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

I’d suspect that to acquire another top 4 pick on top of (let’s hope) their own would require giving up Rubio, right? I think Love + picks maybe gets teams to listen (depending on where they lean on the “eye test” v. “stats” continuum), but if someone like Favors or Cousins is on the board, they’d probably just rather take the prospect (with 2 more years of rookie salary), unless they’re totally spooked by Cousins attitude or something.

I’m starting to think if Evan Turner is their mark in this draft, then Occam’s Razor suggests that for all this Al/Love talk, Rubio’s the most likely to depart (or at least, the first to depart). Despite the underwhelming debut of Flynn and Sessions, both are under contract for 3 more seasons. Moreover, Turner’s been the primary ball handler at ohio state for 2 seasons and, presumably, would be given the keys to the offense if he becomes a Timberwolf. Are they then going to tell him to play off the ball when Rubio comes over in 2011? Finally, I think time’s a luxery this team can’t afford. They’re hemorraging money, and that clock keeps ticking on that owed pick to the Clippers. I think going all-in this offseason and nabbing two high picks plus maybe some action on their cap space is going to be on their minds.

Or I might be wrong.

by jianfu on May 10, 2010 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hmmm

never seen Occam’s Razor used as a justification for a trade before. I like it! ;-)

by Mplax on May 10, 2010 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

The simplest solution...

is to trade Al or Love, not the rights to Rubio. Kahn won’t sell low. If they trade Rubio, it should be for a top 5 pick, and who would give that up for a player they can’t have for a year? Possibly the Nets, if they’re going to tank until they’re in Brooklyn, they don’t get Wall, and possibly the new owner makes them very open to foreign players.

Interesting thought, though. . . what if the T-Wolves won John Wall, and the Nets could draft Evan Turner. Would you trade Ricky for him? Ricky and #16? Might they?

by Neumms on May 12, 2010 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions  

The draft board

will not take shape until the lottery is over. Lots can happen with those ping pong balls.

I think the most realistic view is to get one of the top 4 – if we fall out – we will need to use assets to move up. In this scenario, I see us overpaying a bunch. But I don’t think Kahn has any other choice.

If we stay at 2, I see us moving up to get in the 8-12 range. Turner will be #2, and I think they see value in several bigs that would be available in 8-12.

I see no realistic way to get Turner and Favors/Cousins because I don’t see willing partners – unless we are willing to give up Rubio (which I personally am OK with, but Kahn has been so on the record as Rubio being the key, that I don’t see it happening). Everything else we have just will not be enough.

I heard there are some doubts regarding how Cousins maturity level fits with our current roster/coaches. I think Favors will be higher on the board.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

I heard there are some doubts regarding how Cousins maturity level fits with our current roster/coaches. I think Favors will be higher on the board.

Cousins production, size and skills add up to one of the best center prospects in the last few years. Glad to hear we’ve crossed him off because of maturity issues before the process has really started.

by Blond Ricky on May 10, 2010 9:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think that's a pretty sizeable exaggeration on your part

between “there are some doubts” and “we’ve crossed him off”

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Your last sentence

is probably the understatement of the year….My god, if our coaches struggled with Love’s maturity level at times and Love in turn struggled with our coaches, can you imagine the battle royale that would take place with Cousins? Perhaps we could draft Cousins and outsource his first couple years in the league to another team, preferably a contender that he can contribute to off the bench. We retain his rights, split his salary with the other team, and throw in a second rounder for giggles.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

Trade Cousins

to Barcelona? I hear they have a young point guard who’s really something.

by PoorDick on May 10, 2010 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

i know you kidding

but wouldn’t it be great to be able to draft a guy like Cousins and then send him to Europe for a year or two to develop?

by Rumblebee on May 10, 2010 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm still working on the "Cousins is a screwed up kid" meme

Under scrutiny, it largely evaporated on me.

We all want the Wolves to actually pursue that rather than making assumptions.

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 11, 2010 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Interesting
Kind of what I figured. It'd be damn near impossible to move into the top 4 again without something like the Kirilenko deal (Jose Cordoba's post) going down in which we get another pick in the lottery... even then it would be difficult. But I would be more willing to overpay to get a second pick in the top 4 than to move up from 5. There's just so much more potential with a lineup of Turner and Favors with Rubio on the way than Turner or Favors, Cole Aldrich, Al Jefferson, and Rubio on the way. I don't think that really made sense.... but basically I'd rather guy our roster more to get picks 2 and 4 than to gut our roster slightly to move up from 5 to 4...

Does moving into the 8-12 range mean trading both of our picks (or Pek/other players)? Does that also mean no Euro stashing or wings apart from Turner? Would that imply we are looking at signing a starting wing in FA (like Childress)?

by Mplax on May 10, 2010 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Interesting insight as always, JAF. I’m now curious as to who they might target at 8-12 or so. Right now on DX they have Monroe, Udoh, Patterson, and Montiejunas in that range. Personally none of that strikes me as intriguing enough to bother. If that’s how it unfolds, I’d just rather stay put and roll the dice on a Kevin Seraphin or Larry Sanders later on at that point and still have one last pick to play with. Whiteside’s a guy I’d consider moving for, but he might be a complete doof, too, so maybe not.

I agree on Rubio: I think he’s their one hope to acquire a second top pick (if they wanted), and I don’t think it’ll happen, unless they land Wall.

by jianfu on May 11, 2010 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions  

Couple of points

The Twolves really don’t need 3 1st round picks this year. We don’t need 3 rookie contracts. If they could package the lower 2 and move up into 8-12 range, it would be well worth their efforts.

TimAllen has the right read on my statement – not the Cousins in off the board – but simply that, as of right now, some feel Favors is a better fit. Wait until these guys get measured – if either Cousins/Favors has an unanticipated drop in height (re K Love), you could see a totally different priority.

The odds of getting #1 are small (and when you factor in previous luck, they move to zero) but Wall at #1 could offer a chance to package Rubio + a later 1st round pick to get #3 or #4 for a shot at (Depending on who teams 3/4 are).

by Just A Fan on May 11, 2010 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions  

Fast Break Offense

I would also argue that in terms of leading a Fast Break Offense: Rubio vs Wall is a wash. A Wall/Brewer/Love/Favors combo would be just as exciting to me as a Rubio/Turner/Brewer/Love/E.Davis combo.

by Blakeley on May 11, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions  

Wall + Turner

would kick all kinds of a$$. There are starting to be reports of teams like NJ that might prefer Cousins/Favors to Turner if they get the #2.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on May 11, 2010 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

A mid-pick move up seems far more reasonable to me.

The lotto balls tell all, though.

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 11, 2010 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

More interest...

and way, way less ability. He couldn’t move last year. I’m hoping and sort of guessing that that had to do with coming back from the knee surgery a little bit too quickly. He wasn’t that bad of a defender in seasons past. Not good, and sometimes really bad, but usually average or slightly worse with All-Star offense.

by Andy G on May 10, 2010 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

Eh

His numbers weren’t that much different last year than the past couple of seasons. In fact, it was his minutes and shot attempts that went down the most. Even at his healthiest, he’s never been very efficient and never been a good defender. I don’t see those two negative attributes going away.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

I’m a broken record on this, but I think the Deng/Thomas offer is as good as it may get and one we should have taken.

by TWolvesFanInLA on May 10, 2010 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

Is Deng

any better than Corey Brewer?

by PGNation on May 10, 2010 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

What do you think

the reaction from Chicago would be if Kahn called the Bulls and said, “Hey, Brewer for Deng, straight up. I’ll send the paperwork by tomorrow morning”?

by PoorDick on May 10, 2010 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Trading with Chicago

I am wondering if you might be able to do a Big Al for Hinrich/Taj Gibson deal.

Hinrich has a unique contract that actually decreases in value for the next 2 years. Gibson is a tough post defender who can block shots – has a huge upside – but a somewhat redundant skill set next to Noah.

Not sure I want that deal – but I think that might be on the higher end range of what Big Al might land.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's my fear too

That this is Jefferson’s value. Frankly, I don’t think I could pull the trigger on that, even though I would like to trade Jefferson and move in a different direction. Gibson had a nice rookie year, but he’s an undersized PF who was a 24 year old rookie. Not sure there’s much more upside there.

We Are the Washington Generals

by Eric in Madison on May 10, 2010 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

Depressing

If that is all Al is worth, what did McHale trade KG for in the end? Crikey that’s a shoddy return. I would take Deng + Gibson from Chicago for Al but not Hinrich + Gibson

The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness

by Victor Mature on May 10, 2010 10:30 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions  

Ebomb

has been saying that there might be a little hole in Deng’s contract that makes it much cheaper in “real” dollars, vs. the cap space it takes up.

If so, that makes that trade more attractive to me.

by PoorDick on May 10, 2010 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Chicago's reaction would be

Hang up the phone and block the phone number.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

I would agree with that assessment at the beginning of the year.

At the end of the year, it seems much more plausible. Deng’s always hurt and has a huge contract. Brewer is cheaper and has been getting better.

by PGNation on May 10, 2010 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

Deng is much better than Corey Brewer

I think Deng gets radically underrated. He shoots over 45% from the field every year, 6+ rebounds a game every year, plays good defense, and is a full-sized small forward.

His TS% was .531 this season, compared to Brewer’s .502. His per 36 show more scoring, rebounding, and efficiency than Brewer. His PER is significantly higher than Brewer’s.

We Are the Washington Generals

by Eric in Madison on May 10, 2010 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

I guess

I’ve just never been impressed watching him play. They numbers look nice but they don’t really seem to mean anything when you watch the games. He kinda like Ryan Gomes in my opinion where he’s solid but unspectacular.

by PGNation on May 10, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't think...

Chicago would have to sweeten the offer too much for me to okay a Jefferson-for-Deng swap.

by LoveTo on May 10, 2010 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

If Rambis is still the coach this fall

I just don’t see how the Wolves keep both guys. What will be different than this year? They will still likely be poor defensively together, Jefferson will still be the highly paid pro that is tough to talk into a bench role, Love will still end up coming off the bench, and it is very likely Love will be complaining and talking to his agent about trades.

Pick one, rebalance the team, and move on.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on May 10, 2010 2:28 PM CDT reply actions  

I think either of them can and should be traded.

They are both good players but the wolves need to balance out the roster in order to start winning. I’m not a big fan of the Deng trade but Grainger would look real good in a wolves uni.

by PGNation on May 10, 2010 2:59 PM CDT reply actions  

We need to drop the Granger pipedream

Not sure why this keeps hanging around, especially in light of JAF’s comments above. Indiana already has a slow-footed low post player in Hibbert and a slow-footed floor spacer/rebounder PF in Murphy. Neither Love or Jefferson makes sense for them, even if they don’t overvalue Granger.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

Al, we trade Al. For two reasons. One, he will get us more. Two, Love is a better fit.

Trade Al for Detroit’s lottery pick and Tay. They would do the deal…unless they get really lucky in the lottery. Say they pick seventh. They won’t see huge value in any of the bigs at seven. Do the trade and they get a dominant big man in Al to build their front court around plus they move one of their logjam guys in Tay. We use the pick to take Johnson, Aminu, Whiteside, or Monroe plus get a defensive minded veteran to come in and start at the three, next to our star player (Turner). And, Tay’s contract is coming up so we dump salary too. Johnson or Aminu (and for that matter Brewer) will be much better for sitting behind Tay for a season. Win Win.

by DRuss on May 10, 2010 3:29 PM CDT reply actions  

From what I've been reading elsewhere

it seems like Al would get us less than Love would, not more.

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

Love

has limitations too, but is so much cheaper. He really does have more value.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

Your judgement is better than mine, especially on this

but I think in the absence of Rubio, Love is the marketing “face” of the franchise way more so than Al will ever be.

by PoorDick on May 10, 2010 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hopefully...

Love is the “face” for only another month or so…

by LoveTo on May 10, 2010 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

PoorDick is absolutely right

about Love being the face of the franchise. Which is why I don’t see either one of them moved.

(I should point out that Love was one unhappy camper at season’s end – being asked to be the 6th man then see the team lose like crazy. I think it was repaired at year end meetings. But that could become a bigger issue in the future.)

The draft board is not set, but the number of promising bigs in pretty good. I could see a Turner pick then an attempt to package 16/23 for a 9-12 range 1st being a reasonable strategy.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

What about this assertion

that Laimbeer was alienating Love and others on the team. Does that ring true with what you know?

by dropstep on May 10, 2010 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

Sorry - no insight into that at all

what I heard was attributed more to Love always being a big part of winning teams and being frustrated at being a “sub” on a losing team.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I would have assumed that was enough

As much as I disliked Laimbeer the player, I have a hard time believing that a team allows a minimally experienced assistant coach to stir discontent in the locker room. But I could be very naive.

by dropstep on May 10, 2010 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

While I get what you are saying

Right now, the marketing “face” of the Wolves is about as valuable as ice skates in the Sahara.

by Rumblebee on May 10, 2010 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well, you're talking about a team

that put Rubio up on the landing page of the web site the moment they picked him, despite no guarantee that the guy would ever play for them. So I think they’re pretty desperate for somebody to lead the way.

by PoorDick on May 10, 2010 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

Whether we want to admit it or not

the Twolves need to sell tickets next year based on something more than a promise to be better 3 years from now. Love is the guy that they are marketing. It is valuable in that it is the best they have to market.

by Just A Fan on May 10, 2010 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

Get what you guys are saying

just think Love sells at best about 10,000 tickets for the entire season. How many people walked up to buy tickets in March or April to see Love play?

by Rumblebee on May 10, 2010 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree he is the best we have now but...

assuming we get the second pick Turner would be more valuable for marketing purposes. He’s a big ten guy so even the average fan has probably already seen some highlights and knows how good he is. Then in another year we should have Rubio here.

by Gophers12 on May 11, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Trade Big Alkie

He has consisently played on losing teams, his defense is suspect, he’s a poor passer, poor defender, he doesn’t make his teammates better, he’s the original Black Hole, and we have Nikola coming over. Talk about redundant. Love has much more upside and is easy on the cap. Get what you can for him. Hurry!

by Mano on May 10, 2010 3:47 PM CDT reply actions  

Pau Gasol consistently played on losing teams until he didn't

Big Al hasn’t had a supporting cast worth anything. I don’t think you can blame him too much for our record

by TimAllen on May 10, 2010 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

Not that I completely disagree with the spirit of your post

but Gasol isn’t the best example. He dragged Memphis to the playoffs a couple of times. He got them to the playoffs when the 2nd best player on the team was James Posey.

You are correct that Jefferson hasn’t had good teammates; no doubt about it. But, he hasn’t, to my eye, made anyone better. He hasn’t shown that he can contribute to a good team (to be fair, neither has Love).

The question always comes down to: what can I get for either player? But if I had my druthers, I’d rather move Al, who I see as relatively one dimensional, keep Love, who I think has some upside, and move on.

We Are the Washington Generals

by Eric in Madison on May 10, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Um, that team was clearly tanking to get a top-2 pick

Pierce played in 47 games that season and often sat out due to questionable ailments. Their second-best player at the time, Wally, played in 32 games. They had 16 different guys average more than 10 minutes a game, which indicates injuries and serious roster flux on a nightly basis. That team wasn’t really that talented in hindsight. Gerald Green played in 81 games. Telfair started more games than Rondo. Gomes started 60 games.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 11, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm really skeptical about making a Big Al trade before the deadline

this season. Yes it would be nice to move him to make space for an athletic 4/5 or to move up in the draft again, but I don’t see that as a realistic possibility at this point. I’d also like to see what a full summer of working with guys like Hakeem will do for his defense. Also, if we get Turner, do you think Turner would yell at Jefferson after about the tenth time Turner plays about as good of defense as you can, but Jefferson is no where to be seen? Maybe he’d be motivated by getting shown up by a rookie!

by Mplax on May 10, 2010 4:01 PM CDT reply actions  

I dont think you guys understand..

Big Al is just FINALLY recovering from his injury, remember 2 years ago how good he was? He will be back around that level next year. If Kahn trades him, it will be a mistake.

by McCants is Bad on May 10, 2010 4:53 PM CDT reply actions  

+1

Al is also working extra hard on his defense this offseason with Hakeem the Dream. He will be a greatly improved player next year.

by NYCVike on May 10, 2010 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

We've heard him say the right things about defense for three straight years

At this point I no longer care what he says, but what he does when it counts. And he has a six season body of work that suggests he’ll never be a good defender.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Keep Al, Keep Love, Trade Rambis

Yes, in a perfect world we could trade either player and get full value and a better fit. But it’s quite clear that this is not the case. You keep them both until a fair trade presents itself. In the meantime, I’m not buying this “they can’t work together” line. Their whole is less than the sum of their parts, but they remain our two best players, the two players that are the greatest net positives when they play, even when together.

A lot of you need some serious education in trade value and cap management. It’s disappointing to me that a place that could be so basketball savvy in most other aspects can be so clueless when it comes to imagining fair trades. Giving Love and Rubio for a 28 year old Tony Parker on an expiring contract whose production went into the toilet this season? Trading Jefferson for packages centered around negative value contracts like Luol Deng or Kirk Hinrich? Insinuating that an overpaid Deng has more trade value than Corey Brewer on a rookie deal? I’m sorry to get on a soapbox, but these are terrible ideas.

by John Doe on May 10, 2010 4:54 PM CDT reply actions  

I'm not sure I understand

your point about Luol Deng being a “negative value contract.” Jefferson’s remaining contract is 13 mil, 14 mil, and 15 mil. Deng’s is about 11 mil, 12 mil, 13 mil, 14 mil.

If Deng is a negative value, then that makes Jefferson a negative value as well. Swapping the two would be essentially moving shifting Jefferson’s salary to a player at a position of need. Al’s probably a moderately superior player, so I wouldn’t do the trade without another asset thrown in from Chicago’s end. But whether or not one would make that trade, I don’t think it’s a “terrible idea” that warrants being disappointed in someone for suggesting.

by LoveTo on May 10, 2010 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

We disagree about their values then

Jefferson may well be overpaid, but at most, he’s slightly overpaid and still talented enough to have positive trade value, similar to Andre Iguodala or Kevin Martin. There aren’t a lot of big men in this league who can create their own offense, rebound, and even play some center. For all his warts, he’s still a commodity. I have Jefferson as worth roughly $12 million/year.

Unlike Jefferson, who can be a legitimate 2nd option on a contender, Deng is at best a 3rd. Unlike Jefferson, he’s not a big man and therefore less valuable. Unlike Jefferson, there’s not chance he’ll ever be an All-Star. Unlike Jefferson, he can’t create his own shot, yet he doesn’t make up for this by being any more efficient. He’s not a three point shooter, which means unlike Jefferson, his style of offense doesn’t result in open looks or open space for his teammates.

Add it all up, and I have Deng as an $8 million/year player. Jefferson is slightly overpaid. Deng is way overpaid. His value could be neutral in the right context, but not a team like us. To a team still looking for a 1st and 2nd option and trying to remain under the cap in the meantime, his contract would be an albatross. And no, adding Taj Gibson or Tyrus Thomas (read: backup quality PFs) is not nearly enough to make up the difference.

by John Doe on May 10, 2010 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

"He's not a three point shooter"

Bingo — and this is why I don’t really like Luol Deng for this team or consider him that good of a player. He shot 83 3PA’s last season in 70 games — combine that with his mediocre (non-existent?) slashing game, and he’s a mid-range jumpshooter. He is a great mid-range jumpshooter, which is worth something, but not his current contract and not as much as Al Jefferson. Wings in the NBA become great behind the three point line or at the rim — hardly ever is it somewhere in between. The great mid-range shooting wings (Kobe, Carmelo) do a ton of damage in the paint, and some behind the three point line, as well. The Wally Szcerbiak’s are not as valuable, even if they find themselves in a perfect situation every once in a while and really make things click.

by Andy G on May 11, 2010 6:29 AM CDT up reply actions  

Ewwwww!

Have my rants taught you nothing?

by John Doe on May 11, 2010 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Taught me

that you overvalue AL

He will never play on a winning team. His points come at the expense of the team concept.

by WinTheLottery on May 11, 2010 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Be that as it may

I would rather give up Big Al for pure empty cap space than a package of Deng + Hinrich. I can see why some people like Deng even though I personally do not, but the unnecessary inclusion of Hinrich in the deal makes me seriously question your hoops knowledge. If the trade works and would be accepted as Jefferson for Deng straight up, why are you going out of your way to have them send us a 29 year old point on a long term, above-market-value deal that would eat up all our hard earned cap space?

by John Doe on May 11, 2010 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

word

i’d throw in a pick instead. Even if it was a far away first or current 2nd.

A Darko Fan since 2010!

by TheEvilProfessor on May 11, 2010 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

Heinrich

is perfect for the triangle, plays D, is aveteran, …

by WinTheLottery on May 12, 2010 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions  

+1

Good summary about Deng. He’s better than the options that we have on the roster right now, but I would be really happy to get Al for Deng if I were a Bulls fan – that is a lopsided trade.

by Breaking Ankles on May 11, 2010 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions  

Check with actual Bulls fans,

but my guess is that they would not be excited about an even-up Deng-for-Al trade.

by PoorDick on May 11, 2010 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

If McHale gets that coaching job...

that might be exactly the trade that they get. How fun would it be to watch McHale and Jefferson battle KG in the playoffs?

by Andy G on May 11, 2010 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

He can get the old gang together

Foye at the two, Wally at the 3, get KG as an expiring in a couple of years . . .

by PoorDick on May 11, 2010 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

Um...

I think you forgot Troy Hudson in there. He would take Rose’s job.

by Andy G on May 11, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

Sam Cassell

can ass. coach, Spree’s just up the road in Milwaukee, Rickert’s getting tired of playing in Australia—it’s all coming together.

by PoorDick on May 11, 2010 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

Or Mike James, I guess

Wasn’t he supposed to be the “final piece” that KG was always missing?

by Andy G on May 11, 2010 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

And then we used him.

Like a cheap prostitute. As James himself predicted!

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 11, 2010 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Considering that we overpayed and he didn't put out

I’d say he was a pretty lucky prositute.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on May 11, 2010 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah

but instead of being “good” he was “bad.”

by Mplax on May 11, 2010 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just saw a quote from McHale

he mentioned about five Bulls he would love to coach, and Deng wasn’t on the list. My guess is McHale would be in favor of this type of move.

by Rumblebee on May 11, 2010 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

My boss is a Bulls fan

I asked and he would take Al. His take was similar to John Doe’s – he is overpaid and getting someone to take his inflated salary would be worth it. He also said the local media has riding him for being soft. I am for trading Al, but I don’t think Deng is fair value.

by Breaking Ankles on May 11, 2010 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

Love + Rubio for Parker

was a joke. Hence the ha! at Al Jefferson trying to be Tim Duncan. My apologies for it not being funny.

It’s not everyday I get referred to as “clueless.” But, it’s quite often.

by littleboxes on May 10, 2010 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

It’s not everyday I get referred to as "clueless."

Really?

;-)

by Mplax on May 10, 2010 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

perhaps it's because I live in the midwest

on the east coast people would call me out more often.

by littleboxes on May 11, 2010 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions  

Well thank god

Sorry for lumping you in with the others. It speaks to my disdain for the other proposals in this thread that I wasn’t able to tell your joke trade from the real ones. I was also probably influenced by having read this non-joke RealGM Trade Proposal centered around Jefferson for Parker earlier in the day.

Regardless, my bad.

by John Doe on May 10, 2010 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think we're overvaluing Big Al -- right now

If you really thought you coudl get Martin or Granger for Al, wouldn’t you do it? I think the fact that he’s coming back from injury and looked pretty inconsistent last year (and what was supposedly “his” team, at least from an offensive standpoint, really SUCKED), means he doesn’t have a lot of value, especially when his contract is factored in.

if you want to get rid of one, keep your cap flexibilty and find someone reasonably young, it HAS to be Love that goes.

I’m not reccomending he goes, but if you want to help the team, then you trade Love, which I don’t think they will do unless they get a great offer.

If you want to get rid of one because you think you HAVE to, then I think the best you’re going to get for Al is a shorter contract. Prince + the Det pick would be a good result IMO, as would AK + Knicks Pick for AL + whatever else you need. Utah coudl probably use a backup PG, so you could include Sessions in that deal. . .

by Sterno on May 10, 2010 4:57 PM CDT reply actions  

I hope they don't trade either because they think they have to

They will never get fair market value if they appear desperate. I think they should have some targets and evaluate what they would be willing to give up to gain that target. It scares me when we see something spontaneous rather than calculated.

by Breaking Ankles on May 11, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

I voted ‘Trade Neither’ precisely because neither player is capable of bringing back proper value in a trade right now. The premise of this FanPost is flawed in a way. The poll’s conditions are: “Assuming a player of similar age, pay, and skills is received in return.” From what I can see, unless we’re willing to round down to Luol Deng or James Harden, that isn’t a realistic option.

by John Doe on May 11, 2010 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

"proper value"

is in the eye of the beholder, and won’t be confirmed until we’re long dead. There’s just as much likelihood that Love or Jefferson will become even less valuable in the future as it is that they will become more valuable. Besides, you have to consider what one would get back for either player before deciding which (if any) player should be swapped.

How would you phrase the question differently?

by PoorDick on May 11, 2010 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

The question is probably fine.

It’s certainly not flawed to the people who are voting for the trade options. My only issue is that there are probably some who are voting to trade without considering that they wouldn’t actually like any of the trades we could realistically get for Love or Jefferson right now.

I acknowledge that it would be better for the team if one of the two players could be traded for, say, Brook Lopez. I just worry about building up all this momentum toward getting rid of our guys without a plan in place to move them in a way that improves the team.

by John Doe on May 11, 2010 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

It's such an odd situation

with Al’s injury, Love’s youth, the team tanking last season away . . . as skeptical as I am of the abilities of Kahn and Rambis, I’m not sure what I would tell them they could do that would still fall in the realm of reality.

by PoorDick on May 11, 2010 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

McFail leftovers

Brewer, Big Al, KLove, Gomes, Pekovic. Gomes and Big Al can go. Keep the rest. Yes, Al will be better next year, a 20-10 guy. But he demands the ball too much. How many times have we seen him force up a shot when quadruple teamed? This team will never reach the next level with Al as the centerpiece.

by Mano on May 10, 2010 5:12 PM CDT reply actions  

I voted trade both...

i dont thing we should trade them just to trade them but i dont think either one is a starter on a championship team so if we can get a player/pick that could be a starter on a championship team i would trade both in a second. However both players would be pretty valuable off the bench for a championship team. For this reason i would first try to trade Al because his contract is too big for bench player.

I saw someone mentioned the interior defense of the top 8 playoff teams. I agree with this and would also add they all (even most playoff teams but not really any non playoff teams) have a longish, athletic 4 who can defend in the post and also stretch the D with a 3-point shot or long 2 range. The list of the top 8 teams’ PFs: Boston-KG, Cleavland-Jamison, Atlanta-Josh Smith, Orlando-Lewis, LA-Odom, Phoenix-Amar’e. The spurs have to best PF of all time so ill put them on the list. Then theres Utah who doesnt have the PF and is about to be eliminated. These teams have other good players but its no accident their best/most important players have similar qualities and play the same position.

by Gophers12 on May 10, 2010 8:11 PM CDT reply actions  

Well, you don't

have to have any specific type of player at a certain position on a contending squad. The issue is that Love and Jefferson have almost identical weaknesses when it comes to defense, thus making them extremely easy to exploit when on the floor together. But plug the right players around either one of them and it no longer becomes such a glaring issue. You can hide one defensive liability on the front line, but not two.

by Rascal Flatts on May 10, 2010 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

Agree...

…sort of. You could probably pick any player, add the right players around him and contend. I think an unathletic 4 is the easiest position to exploit but also having an athletic 4 (unless the center is Dwight Howard) is the easiest way disguise defensive weaknesses because they can switch to guard centers and stay with players on the perimeter for short times, and also change shots on interior.

Basically i would change what you said to: you can hide one defensive liability. If its at the PF postion then you need more specific players around him compared to if the liability is at other positions.

by Gophers12 on May 10, 2010 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Good points

I think it gets back to what we all have coveted ever since KG left: a long, mobile big man whose natural position is the 4, but who can also spend some time as a C in a smaller ball lineup.

One team that sort of bucks this trend is OKC. I don’t consider Jeff Green, Nick Collison, or any of their other “bigs” to be athletic marvels or display any sort of extraordinary length. However, on the perimeter they have three absolute studs in terms of length and mobility, with Durant, Sefolosha, and Westbrook. If we were to cut and paste those three and put them on the Wolves with Love and Jefferson starting, that might be the only situation where I could see the Love/Jefferson combo go deep into the playoffs with an existing trio of players. I suppose you could get two empty chair with LeBron, Kobe, Wade, or Durant and still have a chance, but you get my point…..

by Rascal Flatts on May 11, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

Definatly

we would be much better if we copy and pasted those 3. I havent watch enough OKC basketball to accuratly analyze their bigs but just looking at numbers i would say Jeff Green is much closer to that player we want then love or Al. He has decent size, 35% outside shot, and a 38" vertical. Also Ibaka seems like he could be that player.

I agree with what your saying though, non of their bigs are in that KG, Amar’e catagory. When you said: However, on the perimeter they have three absolute studs in terms of length and mobility. This also emphasizes my point that it takes atleast 3 players on the perimeter to compensate for one interior player. And their one isnt as unathletic as Love or Al.

by Gophers12 on May 11, 2010 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just say no to Jeff Green!

I know, I know, he just looks like he should be good, but he’s not. For all his physical gifts and hypothetical versatility, his actual production is essentially Ryan Gomes with worse defense. Your required reading for the day:

My 3rd annual NBA No-Defense Team, starring Hedo Turkoglu, Corey Maggette, and Jeff Green

The eye opening stat in this one: OKC allowed 10 points per 100 possessions more with Jeff Green on the floor than off, the greatest such disparity for any main-rotation player in the league this year.

Jeff Green vs. Ryan Gomes

Jeff Green definitely played more minutes than Ryan Gomes this past season, but compare them on the even playing field that is Per36 minutes stats and try to find one thing either player does better than the other. It’s uncanny how similar they are in every single statistical category, both in totals and percentages.

by John Doe on May 11, 2010 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

I agree about Green in most ways.

However, one of the reasons for that defensive swing with him on- and off-floor is Nick Collison, who played a very large and mostly unheralded role in the Thunder’s nice season. They subbed in a defensive mensch for Green.

(Collison, for example, led the league in charges taken. Playing 20 minutes a night.)

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 11, 2010 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

This is a perfect example

of why the eyeball test should always be backed up with statistics. Even if his true effect isn’t that bad, it’s a noticeable difference and should not be ignored. I’m guessing OKC could get a lot more value for him than they deserve. Never was a fan of that pick though.

by Mplax on May 11, 2010 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

Also

good work. And very telling.

by Mplax on May 11, 2010 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ugh

Jeff Green and Ryan Gomes – Not bad at anything, mediocre at everything. Yuck. Both were sort of meant to be bench forwards that come in on a championship team and play mistake-free basketball for 15 minutes a night.

by Rascal Flatts on May 11, 2010 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Let's trade everybody

and go with the Kentucky starting 5.

"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"

by Steven Ellingson on May 10, 2010 10:24 PM CDT reply actions  

Trade Al

Jefferson is a black hole on offense. He doesn’t make any of the other players better around him because he is an awful passer. It just seems to me that he hasn’t learned the fundementals – offensively other than on the post or defensively. His individual skills are solid – his team skills are less than desireable. He stays in the middle and gets rebounds and he is a outstanding post player, but to me a liability on O without the ball and anytime on D. Trade Al. Love may have peeked talent wise but I see him as a student of the game and one that has the tools to change and adapt. With Al, what you see is what you get.

by Breaking Ankles on May 11, 2010 10:26 AM CDT reply actions  

liability without the ball?

Not sure I understand this. Without the ball, he’s usually posting up, drawing extra defensive attention, or crashing the boards. If he played enough games to qualify in 2009, his 3.4 offensive rebounds per game would have tied Kevin Love for second best in the NBA, behind Dwight Howard. Rather than call that a liability, I’d call it a major asset. And 3.4 wasn’t a fluke, because he had 3.8 per game in ’08 and 3.4 per game in ’07. Recovering from ACL reconstruction last year, he had 2.4 per game.

by Andy G on May 11, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions  

He is not drawing extra defensive attention without the ball

He is being guarded straight up and being pushed away from the ideal low box position. He’s not really being denied the entry pass at all. The defender is just working to make sure Al gets the ball where the defender wants him to get it. And from a viewer’s persepective, this does not seem difficult to do. Al shows a willingness to give up ground readily, as he apparently wants the ball more than he wants the position.

by dropstep on May 11, 2010 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

When Jonny Flynn tries to enter it to the post...

his defender sags down on Al. That’s a two-part issue. Flynn is not good enough to command tighter defense, and Al is so good on the block that defenses don’t want him to get the ball. In any case, Al doesn’t have the ball, but he has two guys near him. Also, the times that Al does kick it out, which is a lot through the course of an entire game, he usually has a strong hedge, if not full double-team when making the pass. For that moment when the guard/forward catches the ball, there are two guys on Al, and zero on the would-be shooter. That is, would-be if the Wolves had capable shooters.

by Andy G on May 11, 2010 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

if the Wolves had capable shooters

Right. I don’t see how the team could render final judgment on Al and ship him out without supplying capable wings first. Inside-outside game is easy pickings in the NBA if you have a reliable 3-point shooter and post with Al’s post moves.

by Punisher#8 on May 11, 2010 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

This to me is the strongest argument for hanging onto Al, and it has little to do with Al.

During that January streak (and yeah, I know, it was a mirage), remember the game where he pitched it back to Foye and raised his arms as Randy got the game-winning three off?

This is also one of the strongest arguments against Kahn as a team builder, alas. Not having any wing play at all did hurt other players’ development. If you think last season was a waste, this is a big reason why.

"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE

by feral on May 11, 2010 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

One play

Al has terrible timing, poor vision, and a lack of interest in the passing game,
and defense.

by WinTheLottery on May 12, 2010 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions  

Yes a great rebounder

Your right – liability offensively was too strong. I meant that Al doesn’t have an outside shot and he is a bad passer. I understand that he can’t be everything and I really think he is one of the best post players in the NBA, but he is limited offensively to an undersized center. This is difficult for me to debate, because I do like watching him play, but at the same time he drives me nuts with the inability to recognize the defense and pass to a spot up shooter or someone cutting to the rim. I didn’t realize that his offensive rebounds per game were that high before he blew out his knee. Hopefully his game returns to the 2008 level when he was 21st is PPG and 6th in RPG. He needs to be at that level to justify for his faults at his salary.

by Breaking Ankles on May 11, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Canis Hoopus is straight T-Wolves straight from Minnesota.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Quarterly WP48 report for the 2011-12 Wolves (through 33 games)
163876_10150119418461233_643586232_7880033_197998_n_small
Timberwolves vs Denver Nuggets Card 2/20/12
Pr8or_small
Scrappy Report Card of .500 Again! – MIN vs PHI
Small
Deus PEK Machina: Wolves/Rockets Report Card
Dollar_sign_small
The Real Cost of Pau Gasol

Recent FanPosts

Dog-drinks-from-toilet_thumb_small
Stream of Consciousness Jazz Report Card 2/22/12
Timberwolf_small
Unofficial Jazz Game Thread
Dscn1266_small
If the Lakers are actually interested in Michael Beasley
Small
Wilson Chandler?
Images_small
3PT Shooting Problems: Exception or Rule? (With Poll)
127_small
Lakers, **** off, we're keeping Beasely
Img_0877_small
Shawn Marion?
Small
PEKSECUTION!
Small
2/22 Utah +4 at Minnesota

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Canis Hoopus Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Hoopus Features

    HOOPUS FAQ

    Salary Cap Info

    Draft Info

    Player Movement Flow Charts

    Draft Boards

    Former Tag Lines:

    • In desperate need of an epic dose of basketball Viagra
    • Your source of radical left wing politics cleverly disguised as basketball fandom
    • Palin-Free since before statehood
    • Despairy Home Companion
    • The world's leading exporter of small area quickness
    • Sorry…I have no idea who is Joe Mauer
    • Home of the Peja deep douche
    • Vote McGrady!
    • Bork, bork, bork, bork, bork
    • Wir Sind Darko
    • Weird, unhealthy Darko mania
    • les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas
    • Basketball success makes character issues forgivable
    • Building the Boogie Bandwagon
    • Building the Dream....One Power Forward At A Time
    • Kids, Puppy Dogs, And Long Walks In The Park
    • SWITCH THE FLIP!!!
    • Team Red Pill.
    • December is Bunny Month. Survive it with insincerity and Merle Haggard.
    • Like having a really good seat at a beheading.
    • We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're Wolves fans, and Wolves fans are best at everything.
    • Getting Real Mythological
    • Trapped in Punxsawawney
    • BIIYYYOOOMMMBOOOOOOO!!!
    • Estoy llevando mi talento a Minnesota
    • Where sharks do battle with giant eagles
    • You don’t put a saddle and reins on a magical unicorn, you bareback it and put faith in nature
    • Toeing the line between nerd and loser

    Hoopus Recipe Book

    Let's Settle This:


    Self-Promotion

    BallHype Sports Blog Rankings


    Managers

    Dr wyn

    Journey_small Stop-n-Pop

    Rviy7fbgmhz5ht2dpgo6q0jfu_small TimAllen

    Editors

    Wolveslogo_small Oceanary

    Authors

    Small SG

    Hrbek_small Jon Marthaler