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?
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!
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
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….
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.
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 . . .
Yeah, I'm a moron for thinking it's not as simple as you make it
All I’m saying is the boundaries are too broad.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 13, 2010 6:27 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.
Kevin Love for KG...
might actually COST us wins at this juncture in da kid’s career…
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.
I think they have been saving KG minutes for the playoffs
He has looked fresh so far in the playoffs.
by Breaking Ankles on May 14, 2010 10:21 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
I dislike how the NBA's entire system seems to lead to mediocrity
- A team bottoms out, starts losing a lot of games
- They get high lottery picks for a while, leading to a major influx of talent
- Team shrinks payroll as cheap, young talent replaces expensive veterans
- Team starts to improve and flirts with playoffs
- Team no longer has pipeline of high draft picks providing influx of additional talent
- Team makes a few free agent acquisitions to add talent. Payroll increases.
- Team’s young talent matures and needs to be paid. Team’s payroll balloons.
- Team no longer able to sign any impact free agents due to salary cap and luxury tax
- 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
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.
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 :)
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.
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
dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood
bynum? seriously? he who can only stay healthy for 17 minutes at a time? no thank you.
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 




















