Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Cowboys Draft 2012: The Big Board Version 3.0

Let's Settle This: How should the Wolves win next year? (with poll!)


So far we've decided resoundingly to trade Al Jefferson instead of Kevin Love, barely to pick Evan Turner over all others, and the majority of us think that if the rights to Ricky Rubio are to be traded, it should only be for a top pick, prospect, or player, or some combination thereof.

Today's LST is a little more esoteric: How hard do you want the Wolves to try to win next year?

Star-divide

The team could keep playing for more lottery balls, give the youngsters most of the minutes but still try to win, or pull out all the stops and add veterans to win now. Which way would you prefer the team go? Let's hear it!

Poll
What realistic philosophy should the Wolves adopt towards winning next year?
Continue "developing" their way towards drafting Harrison Barnes (20 wins?)
13 votes
Start and play the youngsters, but try to win every game possible (30 wins?)
136 votes
Screw the future! Win now by adding veterans, regardless of the cost (40 wins?)
11 votes

160 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 36 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:

hold on there...

we didn’t say we SHOULD trade Rubio’s rights for a top pick. We said that if POBO does, we wouldn’t pull out the tar and feathers (but would for anything less). At least that’s how I read the poll….

by deus04 on May 13, 2010 12:52 PM CDT reply actions  

Relax . . .

 . . . it’s a non-binding resolution.

by PoorDick on May 13, 2010 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

i know, i know...

it’s semantics, and all. Frankly, I’d be disappointed if we give up on Rubio at this point even if we utterly hose the other GM, just because we’ve been dreaming of him in a T-Wolves uni for ages (some of us since well before the 09 draft).

on a side note, kudos on the LST series. even if we disagree on how to interpret the results, it is interesting to get feedback from the whole CH community.

by deus04 on May 13, 2010 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

There needs to be another option...

Harrison Barnes territory is 10-20 wins, and “play the youngsters and live with their crunch-time ups and downs” is the 20 wins area.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 13, 2010 1:00 PM CDT reply actions  

Overall, this list seems too simplified

15 years ago, the Wolves added two veterans not for the purpose of winning now but for the purpose of helping develop their young high school draft pick. They need a vet or two who can play, no doubt, but that wouldn’t put them in the “win now” or “screw the future” categories.

by pagingstanleyroberts on May 13, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

I thought it went without saying

that the Wolves wouldn’t field a roster entirely comprised of 20 year olds, but I guess not . . .

by PoorDick on May 13, 2010 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

"Screw the future..."

sounds like trading Kevin Love for Kevin Garnett, so I chose Option 2. I’d like the guys we currently have + John Wall or Evan Turner to win as many games as possible, perhaps with a medium-salaried veteran added to the mix. In an ideal world, we’d win 35 games next year, lose our pick, but add Rubio the following summer, and become a perennial playoff team, after that.

If I had to guess what WILL HAPPEN… wait, I’ll stop. That might be the next “LET’S SETTLE THIS” topic.

by Andy G on May 13, 2010 1:03 PM CDT reply actions  

Kevin Love for KG...

might actually COST us wins at this juncture in da kid’s career…

by deus04 on May 13, 2010 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Did you watch the game last night? The kid was moving, jumping and playing great D while adding in a double double for good measure.

by zebano on May 14, 2010 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions  

i stand corrected...

i admit i didn’t think he had that kind of game in him anymore. I could counter that it’s unlikely he has enough of those left to make a one-year difference next season, but I’m going to let it go, and just enjoy the fact that KG is only kinda washed up.

by deus04 on May 14, 2010 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions  

Yeh

I don’t think you want to form your team around him right now – he is in a great position to pack it in at the end of his contract. It would be nice to have that kinda washed up performance in a younger body…

by Breaking Ankles on May 14, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

i choose option 2

we’ve sacrificed how many years to rebuilding. If we ruin our financial picture for the sake of the short term and 45 wins (good for #9 or #10 in the west), I give up.

That being said, I’m not against bringing in a vet (Prince and Battier being two such names mentioned previously around here) to work on implementing a winning atmosphere. I’m not sure either of those guys would actually vault us up the win column anyway, so maybe that’s still part of option 2.

by deus04 on May 13, 2010 1:10 PM CDT reply actions  

Well, you invited the answer number 2, which is the only reasonable answer

the way you phrased it.

I won’t say, screw the future, add vets at any cost, but I would like to see them add a vet or 2 that can still play, and try to win as much as possible. Not at the cost of the future, but if Flynn is no longer starting, they get a small forward that can make some shots and do some things, those are good things.

We Are the Washington Generals

by Eric in Madison on May 13, 2010 1:27 PM CDT reply actions  

I am with you on this.

Even if we win enough to get us out of the good draft picks we still have a good chance of getting a new top pick added to the roster with Rubio in 2011-12

by Timberwolf i.e. Albatross on May 13, 2010 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t we lose next years draft pick or is it the 2012 pick we forfeit?

by zebano on May 14, 2010 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions  

The 2011 pick is top 10 protected

The 2012 pick is unprotected.

We Are the Washington Generals

by Eric in Madison on May 14, 2010 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions  

"Well, you invited the answer number 2, which is the only reasonable answer"

According to you, any way. I happen to agree, but I don’t think the Kahn and Rambis felt the same way this year, and there’s no guarantee they’ll change their goals next year—especially if the team starts out as organically crappy next year as they ended this year.

by PoorDick on May 13, 2010 1:38 PM CDT reply actions  

True

But I was mostly referring to the impossibility of choosing answer 3 when “screw the future” and “no matter what the cost” are in there.

Just busting your chops.

We Are the Washington Generals

by Eric in Madison on May 13, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

My chops,

they are already smashed to smithereens.

by PoorDick on May 13, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

Time for a pulled pork sammich

Though I dunno if Jefferson was big into BBQ.

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

by Wile E Coyote on May 13, 2010 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

Good posts!

Your Let’s Settle This posts have been great – this one just didn’t have a strong challenger in your poll.

by Breaking Ankles on May 13, 2010 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm kind of surprised

not that #2 is the winner, but that it’s so far ahead. Maybe if the team has seven wins at the trading deadline next year, we’ll run it again to see if the other options are more popular.

But, thank you for your kind words.

by PoorDick on May 13, 2010 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

I dislike how the NBA's entire system seems to lead to mediocrity
  1. A team bottoms out, starts losing a lot of games
  2. They get high lottery picks for a while, leading to a major influx of talent
  3. Team shrinks payroll as cheap, young talent replaces expensive veterans
  4. Team starts to improve and flirts with playoffs
  5. Team no longer has pipeline of high draft picks providing influx of additional talent
  6. Team makes a few free agent acquisitions to add talent. Payroll increases.
  7. Team’s young talent matures and needs to be paid. Team’s payroll balloons.
  8. Team no longer able to sign any impact free agents due to salary cap and luxury tax
  9. Team now mediocre and locked into high payroll. Few avenues for improvement.

I realize teams avoid this scenario through very savvy trades or draft day steals. But both of those require a certain amount of incompetence by other teams as well as lots of luck.

Seems like a bad system. Even if your team does everything right, you very likely may be on a collision course with ‘perennial playoff tease/8th seed’ until the team ages and starts stinking again.

For the Wolves, the above list is compounded by the mind-blowingly bad decisions made in the past. A long sequence of blown drafts and bad trades have trapped the Wolves in the lottery phase.

Unless the team has a grand slam of a summer, there is going to be a certain amount of pressure to lose next year too. One more year of top 10 protection of our pick = one more year of a potentially major talent addition. Rubio not here yet anyway. Need to play Flynn and maybe Jefferson or Love a lot to boost/retain their trade value since they will likely be moved.

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

by Wile E Coyote on May 13, 2010 1:43 PM CDT reply actions  

Is the issue Max Contracts?

Having one player making almost half of the cap of the team seems insane. Some teams are willing to pay multiple max contracts and lux tax if they are at the peak of their cycle, whereas the bottom dwellers can be caught overpaying just to keep the “best” talent. Just seems like there should be a hard cap on the top like football – this should natually drive down the max contracts and level out the playing field so the LA, Boston types can’t overspend and pay a tax for a shot at a title.

by Breaking Ankles on May 13, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think they should lift the whole matching-salary requirement for trades. I know they want to avoid the “salary dump” trades you see in baseball, but to me, the current system—where players are often more valued for their cap-filler contracts than their actual abilities—seems far more stupid and dull. To me, if one team is willing to take on salary and the other likes what is offered on the potential on-court merits of the offer (as opposed to how much expiring contracts are stuffed in), I don’t see a problem with it. Particularly since free agency movement is rather restricted in the NBA. For the tradors (e.g., the Wolves with KG), I think you open up more potential offers; for the tradees (e.g., Cavs/Lebron), you’re allowed to be aggressive if you have an open window. Would the Mark Cubans of the world acquire 5 $20 million guys to start? Maybe. But I suspect if they did it wouldn’t work out quite as well as the Mark Cubans of the world planned long-term, anyway.

Outside of that, I think the MLE has killed teams. It’s an artificial, and a lot times inflated, cost in a lot of instances, but since it’s one avenue allowed for good/capped-out teams to make a move, teams buy in.

by jianfu on May 14, 2010 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions  

The should get rid of the guaranteed contracts as well

You won’t have those inflated salaries sitting on your bench waiting for a potential trade chip if you got rid of the matching salary requirements and were allowed to cut players without being on the hook for the entire contract. The lock-out will change address some of these things and I don’t see the players winning any ground – I think the owners will come out ahead. I am not sure it will be this dramatic but the financial game will change in 2012.

by Breaking Ankles on May 14, 2010 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

let's play devil's advocate for a moment...

and consider option 3. this is basically what Boston did three years ago, and yes, I know there were unique circumstances that resulted in the turnaround. but what would their option 2 have been? let’s say they decided to deal PP (coming off a terrible season) for a high draft pick, thus investing in the future. Let’s say they moved PP to ATL for pick #3. Let’s say with picks 3 and 5 they take Horford and Corey Brewer (I doubt they’d have taken both Horford and Jeff Green). That would have given them a team of Rondo, Delonte West, Szczerbiak, Brewer, Gomes, Horford, Jefferson, Perkins.

In that scenario, they don’t get Eddie House or Sam Cassell on the cheap. Does Rondo morph into a point god with that supporting cast (possibly playing behind West)? Or does Perkins develop into a great defender? Even Tony Allen seems competent of late. Even ignoring the short term benefits of the 08 title run, it’s hard to argue against Boston’s moves. They’ll have some rough roster transitions ahead, but they get to rebuild around Rondo.

So what would our option 3 really be? basically choosing to stick with Jefferson and putting KLove, Rubio and our top pick on the table. Then we call up Denver and see how certain they are that Carmelo isn’t walking next summer. We check in with Dirk’s agent and see if he really will opt out, and start talking sign-n-trades. Or we overpay for Granger or Gay. And so on. Then hope that in a winning environment, guys like Brewer and Flynn, if they’re still with us, can really start to figure things out.

All that having been said, I’m still in camp #2 :)

by deus04 on May 13, 2010 2:34 PM CDT reply actions  

Chose option 2

I think ideally they win around 30 games (this will seem great in our minds), keep their 1st rounder (hopefully around 7 or 8). Adding Rubio and the 1st rounder in a year, along with continued development of the rest of the team, could bump them into 40 win range within two years while still holding some valuable assets, and having several young players with big upside.

by Rumblebee on May 13, 2010 4:01 PM CDT reply actions  

We should just tank it....

and get Barnes,work out a trade for Jefferso to LA for Bynum, and id say in another 3 years we would be pretty solid

PG-Rubio/Flynn
SG-Evans/Ellington
SF-Barnes/Brewer
PF-Love/Pekovic
C-Bynum/F.A.

It would be alright with me but i rather try and win a few games

by Micah Asleson on May 13, 2010 6:22 PM CDT reply actions  

dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood

bynum? seriously? he who can only stay healthy for 17 minutes at a time? no thank you.

by nodnarb on May 14, 2010 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

play your a$$ off...win 30 games

and we still have a decent shot at winning the lottery next year with the 6-7 slot in the lottery…how often does the worst team actually get the first pick? i’m just sayin is all. this way the fans don’t feel soooo disenfranchised that they start turning the channel to watch the thunder….or the gophers…or the lynx…or Barca!

by nodnarb on May 14, 2010 12:54 AM CDT 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