Let's Settle This: Grade David Kahn's first year (with poll!)
by PoorDick on May 14, 2010 10:03 PM CDT
Email
PrintWe're only three days away from the Bouncing of the Lottery Balls, but to fill up the remaining days we're solving the Wolves problems as a group. So far we'd prefer that Al be traded instead of Kevin Love, barely prefer Evan Tuner to John Wall, we'll take nothing less than top three pick or top ten position player for the rights to Ricky Rubio, and we overwhelmingly want the Wolves to win as much as possible next year, while giving their young players maximum playing time.
Today's question is an easy one. Give David Kahn a letter grade based on his first year as President of Basketball Operations.
111 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'll give it a D
1. The Flynn pick wasn’t bad because of the 2 PG’s. It was Bad because he wasn’t the best player on the Board (Stephen Curry). What makes it really bad is that Curry offered a much greater need skill-set than Flynn.
2. The Rubio pick was more based on Washingston’s stupdity than any sort of great evaluation by David Kahn.
3. Hollins was not an undervalued asset. Sessions is a poor fit with the rest of the roster.
4. Kahn was gung-ho for James Johnson.
5. The taking of Flynn then hiring Rambis to bring forth the Triangle.
Disagree with #2 on your list
it’s like saying the Vikings shouldn’t get credit for taking Adrian Peterson because six teams were stupid enough to pass on him. The fact is, Kahn put himself in position to get Rubio, and took advantage, he deserves credit.
Let’s not forget, going into last season about a quarter of the posters on this site were criticizing Kahn for trading Foye and Miller and thought Washington made a good trade.
Few Thoughts
1. The only person criticizing Kahn as far as I can remember for the Wizards Trade was Sid Hartman. Perhaps a few people said the Wolves would have been better this year with Miller and Foye- Hard to argue.
2. I guess making obvious selections inspires more confidence in you guys than in me. I’ll give Kahn credit for not passing up the opportunity. I was kind of harsh intially- I should have also given him credit for holding onto and being patient with Rubio’s Rights.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2010 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions
1. The only person criticizing Kahn as far as I can remember for the Wizards Trade was Sid Hartman. Perhaps a few people said the Wolves would have been better this year with Miller and Foye- Hard to argue
Hard to argue what? Of course we would have been better with Foye/Miller. Still bad though with much less upside. Can you imagine the discussions right about now as far as whether we need to extend Foye and resign Miller?
2. I guess making obvious selections inspires more confidence in you guys than in me. I’ll give Kahn credit for not passing up the opportunity. I was kind of harsh intially- I should have also given him credit for holding onto and being patient with Rubio’s Rights.
How did he get the pick? 28 other teams had the chance to get that pick, but didn’t do it. Kahn did with to borderline assets. It was a good trade regardless if Rubio was there or not.
Your original point on James Johnson: I really think that was all a smoke screen. If Kahn had shown anything last year it was that he wasn’t afraid to make deals. I really can’t believe that Kahn actually thought JJ was a top 5 player yet failed to move up 2-3 spots to secure him. It seems logical to me anyway that all that talk of JJ was for the cameras given the rumored Sacto deal contigent on JJ being there.
Even if Kahn really did like JJ, if we’re going to hold that against him, then we should also remember that Kahn also really liked Ty Evans.
This is an easy crowd
1. If shrewd talent evaluation consists of liking a Consensus Top 5 Pick (Tyreke Evans). I’ve never heard anyone in the know confirm this alleged Sac-Town Deal.
2. If shrewd trading consists of someone else overvaluing your assets.
3. There’s no proof Wayne Ellington is going to be a long-term NBA player. He’s 6’4 and doesn’t add much apart from scoring. Hence the reason John Hollinger refered to him as “Terrible” in a chat. An overreaction on Hollinger’s part but again no further proof Kahn is a great talent evaluator.
4. When you have 2 players on the team with PERS over 13. Yet you think the problem is these 2 players defense (Sorry I’m not more confident in Kahn’s Genius).
5. Kurt Rambis PLUS Kahn equals 15 wins.
I might be proven wrong on Kahn (I hope I am). I saw nothing to inspire any sort of long-term confidence.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2010 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
What is the opposite of spoiled?
Because after years of Kevin McHale, that’s what most Timberwolves fans are. I think Kahn gets a massive break because of this.
I also think the idea this Wolves/Kings trade is insane, and not much of a defense of Kahn. That would be crazy if he drafted a player at #6 only because he wanted to package him with another player that would have to drop in order to be available at #18. Here’s the Chad Ford mock draft of that day where James Johnson was predicted to go at #14
Also, the way it’s portrayed in the Infamous Wolves Weekly “Inside the Draft Room”, it definitely seems like Kahn outright definitively said “we’re drafting Jonny Flynn” in a way that implied others in the room disagreed with it.
Regardless of the Kings trade…did it fit Kahn’s M.O to leave a “top 5” player on the board into the mid teens and not trade up for him? If you think a GM who showed as much willingness to trade wouldn’t move up a few spots from 18 for a top 5 player, then you’re insane. That stuff about Johnson had to have been a smoke screen.
by Blond Ricky on May 15, 2010 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions
I hear ya...
But it just didn’t play that way on TV. Why include that bit 5 months later if it’s a smokescreen?
Also, I remember both Stop N’ Pop and Darren Wolfson hearing rumblings in the front office that Kahn was trying to acquire James Johnson before the trade deadline.
I WISH this old Wolves Weekly was on Youtube though. I know it would be a fascinating re-watch.
Um, maybe some are just willing to give the guy more than one fucking year
McHale’s first year was HoF-worthy. Did it continue? No.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 15, 2010 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions
I sense hostility PSR...
And I’m sorry if I said anything that offended you.
But just because I gave Kahn an F (57%) for his first year doesn’t mean he’ll finish with an F for his final grade. As I said below, the first year was just 30% of his total grade. This next offseason will account for 65% of his Official Blakeley Grade".
I’ve also given Kahn a 5 out of 5 on participation. This accounts for 5% of his grade. As a matter of fact if he gets above 74% this offseason, then he can still finish with a C!
No personal offense taken...
More of a general statement to the idea that he has failed so far because of issues with the rookies. At this point, I can understand concern about the direction of the franchise but take issue with people who make final judgments either way. I would’ve preferred Jerebko over Ellington at 28 or Curry over Flynn at 6 and will be more concerned if this talk about being an uptempo team doesn’t lead to at least a draft that includes guys who fit that style of play.
I’m just willing to give the guy until the end of the ‘11 offseason because he’s not getting shown the door until his contract is up and because rookies can’t be judged completely after 1 year. I was very loud at Britt’s old site and on here that first Wittman and then McHale needed to be shown the door because they had compiled too many mistakes in a long enough period to warrant their firings. If this team is still hovering at a sub-.300 record in midseason of Kahn’s final contract year, I’ll probably say that it’s time for the guy to go.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 15, 2010 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Way to put words in my mouth
When did I say Kahn was a shrewd talent evaluator? I said he made a good trade with Washington.
If the Washington deal was so obvious and the Wizards were overvaluing our assets, why didn’t someone step in with a slightly better deal? The Wizards were rumored to be shopping the pick for a while….shoulda been lots a teams in line to make such an obviously good move right? Was Kahn right on just how good Foye/Miller were? This wasn’t the Grizzlies dealing Pau without putting him on the market…the Wizards pick was out there for awhile. Kahn took advantage when no one else did. To say that it was the Wizards stupidity is completely shortchanging Kahn unless the other 28 teams were just as stupid to allow some rookie GM to make a move that was out there for weeks.
Wayne Ellington? I never mentioned Ellington in my posts. BTW…Hollinger completely ridiculed the Darko deal without reason too only to recant later…he’s not a fountain of objectivity regarding Kahn.
4. When you have 2 players on the team with PERS over 13. Yet you think the problem is these 2 players defense (Sorry I’m not more confident in Kahn’s Genius).
What are you talking about? My ptoblem is Al and Love’s defense? Are you responding to my post above or someone else’s post? I don’t understand.
I’m not saying Kahn is great or even good at this point. He made a good trade with Washington though. You think if McHale were GM we’d have Ricky’s rights presently?
by Blond Ricky on May 15, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
100% agree. The Washington deal was a home run in my book. For a team that was obviously going nowhere, you always look to find ways to add higher ceiling players, which is exactly what Kahn did. The fact that he did it by finding someone who overvalued his assets, i.e. he was able to fleece them for more value than he should have gotten (I mean seriously, Miller and Foye are the definition of mediocre) is a feather in his cap.
There have been questionable moves, although I find them very minor and refuse to take much from them at this juncture, but quibbling about that trade is ludicrous.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Obvious choices?
You think getting a trade for a high lottery pick done a few days before the draft was obvious? Nobody else seems to do that. Kahn talked specifically about why he’d pulled the trigger early on it, at the time, and then on draft night he collected a player of great value there.
There wasn’t anything at all obvious about that set of decisions. We all follow the league dang closely, here, and I personally was pretty shocked at both the trade and then the way the picks fell. Both of those moves were roughly ten times more aggressive than anything the Wolves had done in a decade, barring the KG deal.
"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE
by feral on May 15, 2010 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
To be fair
Ricky Rubio hasn’t played a minute for the Timberwolves and Adrian Peterson won the ROY.
BetterLaettner
by BetterLaettnerThanRider on May 15, 2010 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Few Points
1. Would we have Ricky’s Rights if McHale was the GM? Hard to say- I’m more confident we would have had actual production from this draft in the form of Stephen Curry.
2. Where did Hollinger say anything other than Darko’s a generic Back-Up center? He might have recanted in saying “Darko is terrible”. He never said “Darko is any sort of long-term solution” at Center.
3. The issue isn’t “Whether Kahn made a good trade with the Wizards”. The issue is whether Kahn has any skill in evaluating under-valued assets and coaching potential. Looking at a 15-67 record- it’s hard to answer this question in rosy terms.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2010 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
1- good point about Curry. McHale probably would have taken a guy like him although who knows with Miller and Foye on the roster. Hmm…a joint McHale/Kahn draft would have netted Rubio and Curry?
2. I’m not sure why you brought up Ellington in the first place. You need to read a little more carefully. I never said that Hollinger said those things. Hollinger was pretty harsh on the Wolves for getting Darko, but later said that Darko could actually help the team in the role you described, a backup center. I brought up Darko to illustrate that Hollinger’s take can be reactionary after you brought up Ellington out of the blue.
3. How can you separate the Wizards trade from being a good GM? We’re rebuilding so there’s more to it than just the record. Let’s say Kahn took Curry…would the 8 wins (est. from win shares…I think someone did this before) from taking Curry over Flynn have made Kahn still been a fail given our poor record?
My point is that we were going to be bad last year regardless and we need to look past record in this kind of evaluation give our timeline as a franchise. Kahn has made some big mistakes (Flynn and Hollins), but he’s also made some really good deals (Washington and Sessions to a lesser extent). The Rambis hiring has been less than stellar at this point too, but I still think Kahn gets the 15 months before getting a grade.
I agree with pretty much all of that, but considering that the Wolves are sitting on a lot of cap space as a result of his moves, I think a C+ is a bit more fair. I’m not sure he made a single move that did the team very much good in the short run (if Darko was your best “win now” move, you aren’t trying to win now), but trying to make a subpar team that happens to be hamstrung with dumb contracts better right away is a fool’s errand anyway.
Flynn was a bad pick, Hollins is useless, and Sessions is struggling to fit in, but outside of Flynn, none of that is really a problem down the line. Sessions and his reasonable contract are very moveable, Hollins isn’t making enough where he’ll make the difference between a great free agent signing here and being stuck with Joe Johnson. All in all, he did one really good thing (cap space), one pretty stupid thing (Flynn), one obvious thing (Rubio) and a whole lot that doesn’t really matter. How he drafts this year and how he uses all that cap space will determine his legacy as the Wolves’ GM. The jury will be out on Kahn for a while, so don’t hold your breath waiting for reasonable judgements—we’re a long way from that.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 15, 2010 2:21 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is untrue...
considering that the Wolves are sitting on a lot of cap space as a result of his moves
Kahn has overall decreased our cap space rather then increased it.
2011 contracts Kahn got rid of…
Sebastian Telfair: 2.7 million
2011 contracts Kahn gained…
Ryan Hollins: 2.33 million
Ramon Sessons: 3.96 million
Rubio’s Cap Hold: 2.72 million
Right, I was under the impression that Foye/Miller had longer term deals, my mistake. The point remains the same, we won’t really know much of anything until this summer is over and we won’t be able to make many real judgments for a year or so after that (unless, of course, he does something incredibly stupid or somehow lands LeBron). I guess, maybe lower my grade to a C-, but really, we don’t know much of anything yet.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Don't Forget
The fourth year option for Brewer being picked up. I suppose we could debate that move in and of itself, but it did decrease our 2010-2011 flexibility
I hated that move.
Frankly, at the time, I attributed it to Kahn listening to Hoiberg and getting tied up in “sunk costs.” Freddie H. was Corey Brewer’s biggest booster. I’d place money that Hoiberg was behind the Brewer pick to begin with in a big way, and when he was asked on the radio to explain 08-09 the first thing he mentioned was Corey’s injury.
Whatever got decided is on Kahn, of course — but to me that’s an example of why holding onto the past regime’s front office people en masse was a problem.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Giving that Sessions doesn't appear to be a big piece of the future, I would have greatly preferred to ride out Bassy's last year.
It goes without saying that the Hollins move was wasted $ as well.
At the end of the 08-09 season, Wolves boards and those of many other teams
loved Ramon Sessions, and fretted that Milwaukee would match any decent contract offer. The glut of drafted PGs and the looming 2010 summer FA season kept his contract quite reasonable, and the Wolves collected him for a quite reasonable spread of salary.
Fast forward maybe 15 months, and you’re saying you’d have preferred Sebastian Telfair at $2.7 million for another year.
In another 15 months, whether Sessions is here or has been traded, I betcha you’ll think differently about that. He’s actually a decent trade chip, I think, and for that matter he stands a good chance of being an effective starter for the Wolves next season at least.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Boards can love him, but our coaches and/or other teams have to.
It’s not signing him that I have a problem with. It’s signing him to be a backup to the guy who is going to be the backup to Rubio (if/when he comes over). I liked the signing at the time, but we did not know how he would end up being used.
Sessions production drop here cannot help his trade value either. If anything, his decrease and Jennings’ good first year makes Skiles look like a great coach.
So if you aren’t going to use him and his trade value isn’t much of anything – then riding Bassy’s contract out for one year would have been the better move.
Two provisional assumptions there:
One is that Sessions won’t get used. (We just heard from Ramon himself that there’s going to be an open duel for the starting job in training camp.)
The second is that his trade value’s not much of anything. He’s a decent player on a decent contract. I’m pretty sure it would be easier to deal Ramon Sessions than it is to trade, say, Corey Brewer. He has value. It’s probably not easy to trade anyone at this moment in the summer cycle, and people with multi-year deals are momentarily taboo, but if the Wolves should land Wall they’d be able to move Sessions for a useful player of some value.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Sure they are assumptions. But Sessions’ year one usage playing behind a rookie PG (who projects to backup the proposed franchise player) leads me to believe he is not seen as a long-term piece. I would be skeptical on the open duel – why for the coming season if not for the last?
As for trade value – we’ll probably get to find this out by next summer if Rubio comes.
My guess about this
is that Kahn and Rambis realized about half way through the season that starting Flynn was a terrible idea, but by holding out until the end of the season they made it seem like a “plan” and that they knew from day one rather than admit their mistake and start Sessions and make Flynn earn his time like almost all rookies should.
#4
So now we’re grading people on hypotheticals? Kahn was also gung-ho over Tyreke Evans and would’ve traded the aforementioned guy he was gung-ho over with the #6 to get Evans at 4.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 15, 2010 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions
You're probably right
It’s speaking to a broader point of Kahn’s ability to evaluate talent.
by Jose Cordoba on May 15, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Gave Kahn a B
Maybe the Flynn pick was bad, but too soon to know for sure. If Flynn is eventually good, the grade moves to an A, if Flynn stinks and Rubio is good, the grade is a C, so I split the difference until we know more.
I can’t see how Kahn can get worst than a C, even if he missed on Flynn over Curry. If Kahn gets 2 out of 3 in the draft (Rubio and Ellington), that is a pretty good draft. I don’t think any of his other moves were really good or bad, but he set a course to cut payroll and did so, so say he accomplished his mission in year one.
I really don’t think there was anything Kahn could have done to make this a 30 win team last year, so he admittedly gets a bit of a free pass from me.
C
I think it’s pretty easy to cut payroll if you don’t care about how many losses you pile up. If he’s accumulating assets, then boy did he screw up with Flynn over Curry and Jennings. And he brought in a coach, albeit one with a good credentials, who coaches one idiosyncratic style that (a) doesn’t fit the players he has, (b) takes months or years to learn while the roster is young and in flux, and © doesn’t need or highlight great point guards, one of which being what the Wolves are banking their future on. I do like Kahn’s approach and get a kick out of him, but he’s made some bad choices thus far.
I feel incomplete is the only grade you can give him
Because free agency combined with the draft plus trades during the summer will be the culmination of all his moves.
It seems that majority of his moves we not to make the team a winning team now, but to put the team in a position to be able to make good moves and take advantage of teams in a bad situation (like taking a good player for a bad contract).
This puts a lot of pressure on Kahn to finish things in the near future, but I just don’t see how one can give him a grade when he is only halfway through a plan.
C+
Could be talked into a B-
Postives:
- cleared cap space
- didn’t take on any terrible contracts
- traded dead wood to get the #5 pick
- drafted Rubio with the #5 pick
- Darko (minor positive, but a nice rescue pick-up)
Negatives:
- Flynn, critical miss. Not a total loss, but seemed like a bad pick at the time and has proven to be one that high in the draft.
- Confusing the fudge out of Love. This may be resolved over the summer, but I don’t get why the team is using Love so weirdly and it isn’t good to have your best player feeling under-appreciated.
- Rambis. Again, not a total loss, but I’m underwhelmed so far. We’ll see how he does with more talent next season.
The Flynn pick is a big negative. The Rubio pick is a big positive. Not taking on bad contracts seems like an easy thing to do, but many GMs can’t resist, so some credit for that.
Can’t wait to grade him again 1 year from now.
Have to agree with you.
I gave him a “B”, but your points about Flynn (that pick confused the heck out of me) and Rambis got me thinking. Upon further reflection, I wish that he would have made one more move at the deadline (Gomes or Sessions).
interesting...but I respectfully disagree
technically the Love confusing issue is a Rambis issue – or an issue with his staff. I realize Kahn hired Rambis…but I don’t think Kahn can be accountable for Rambis’ decisions.
Also, the Flynn pick isn’t necessarily a miss. I think Jonny is actually decent – he’s absolutely in the wrong system. It’s a draft. If it were easy to predict how these guys game would translate into the NBA game, every team would have at least one superstar and there would be not draft busts. The main reason Jonny is a “critical miss” has to do with taking a small quick scoring point guard and then hiring a coach who runs the triangle and has no use for a small quick scoring point guard.
If you follow this logic…his only questionable decision thus far, was hiring Rambis…or not knowing who his coach would be before the draft…depending on where you consider the problem’s root.
I would add...
that Sessions was an excellent move at the time, and remains a positive one. He is easily movable, and I think that if he really does get some PT this year he will make Flynn look silly.
Fleecing Washington for Rubio was a serious coup. Between that and picking up session at a very decent price, I was really feeling Kahn after last summer (this all in spite of the Flynn pick which I hated.) Nothing has really changed since then. The things that bothered me this year, overplaying Flynn at Sessions’ expense and underplaying Love (to get Hollins??? on the floor) are not really Kahn’s fault. Except of course for the fact that he hired Rambis.
To summarize. Really liked Kahn before the season started, but he lost some points because of the way the team he put in place was run.
I gave a "Fail!!"
But it’s not all Kahn’s fault. Taylor signed him up for a class that he wasn’t ready for. \
In spite of the F that Kahn just received from me, the first year only accounts for about 30% of his grade. For better or worse the 2010 Offseason will count for 65% of his grade. Here’s hoping he does a little better.
I also will give Kahn a 5 out of 5 on participation.
hahaha
nice. Love the participation bit.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on May 15, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Me too
What can he do for extra credit?
"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have." Steven Wright
side project
otherwise known as scouting. Needs to prepare an acceptable scouting report to be signed off by Ronzone. :)
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on May 15, 2010 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions
I would say his best bet for extra credit...
Would involve throwing Ryan Hollins into a tar pit Dinosaurs style
Participation, so true.
How much more active were the Wolves last summer than at any time prior to that? Kahn made 10 years’ worth of news for this franchise.
"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE
A
I gave him an A. First of all he cut a lot of mchale’s dead weight. Second he said out loud what I would say 99.9% of loyal fans were thinking; Al is not your number one on a championship squad. He has identified that we need a true go to #1 guy. He knows Al and KLove can’t coexist. Even if Rubio never plays a minute here, Kahn knows his rising value. He has a very intriguing bargaining chip in him. This draft will speak volumes about him because right or wrong, we’re poised to be major players in this draft. He learned from Donnie Walsh in a similar market to here. Lets hope he learned to indentify talent. For what its worth its a change from the mchale years, and that itself is a relief.
I have many leather bound books...my apartment smells of rich mahogany...
C
-Taking Rubio at 5 was a no-brainer, but he did make the trade to get the pick – so that’s a major positive.
-Darko is a small positive
-Cleaned house, another small positive.
-Wasted 6th pick
As for the BIG things, those are still pending – but at some point he needs to make his defining move. Cleaning house last year was a good necessary step – but the BIG move needs to be made if he wants more than C’s and wants this team to return to playoff contention or more.
D
Perhaps a C- at best.
He has a small amount of credit in the bank with me for the Washington trade, signing Sessions and giving us a flexible cap position.
However
He has essentially traded for cap space since Rubio fell in his lap, he should have done better with pick 6 and could have done better in the 2nd round (Norel? please…..). He got nothing for Blount’s expiring, which is almost as bad as when we bought out Ratliff. And drafting without a coach has proved to be a poor move also.
But the biggest problem is he aimed much to low with the 09-10 squad. By all means stay in the top 10, but the 15 win squad we had was inexcusable.
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
i gave him a "c"
and i’ll tell you why. :) as i eluded to in my reply to SoDakHmr above, in my mind, kahn has three questionable decisions: 1) firing mchale as a coach. sorry dudes, but i liked his coaching style, and his rapport with the players. he is a “bring your lunch pale” kind of guy and i think our young guys learned a lot from him. we can debate this somewhere else, but that’s my opinion. 2) not having a coach before the draft, so he couldn’t draft a player that fit the team’s system…because we didn’t have one. 3) signing hollins to a 3 year deal. the guy is ridiculously athletic – so i can see signing him to a one year contract…even 2. then again, we paid mark blount 8 million this year to sit at home and eat cheetos and wack off…so maybe it isn’t so bad…but i digress.
as others have already pointed out, he dumped salary, drafted rubio (at minimum there’s hope in that pick), maintained 3 picks in this year’s draft, brought in milicic, brought back cardinal, and hired a coach who has the credentials to be a good coach in the league (obviously the jury will be out for a while). for me, the fact that he actually did what he said he was going to do – which is evaluate the team. he didn’t pull the trigger at the deadline in order to “fairly” evaluate all his “core” players. oddly enough, i’m cool with that. i give him props for sticking to his guns. having said that, if indy offered granger for big al and he didn’t take it because he wanted to “fairly” evaluate his “core” players…get the guillotine!! however, i have no proof (from ny news sources or otherwise) that there was any reasonable deal offered…so that is not factored into his grade.
i too am wondering why blount wasn’t auctioned at the trade deadline…but then again, who wants an over the hill, out of shape, washed-up big with orange…fingers… for a pro-rated 8 million? i’m going to take an educated guess that he tried like mad to dump blount and there were no takers. either way, i can’t let my own lack of knowledge affect his grade.
Incomplete.
Seems to me, all of Khan’s major moves were made to put us in position to do bigger and better things during these last three “windows of opportunity” — the 2010 draft, this summer’s free agency period and next year’s trading deadline. Given that, I think it’s impossible to fairly grade his performance until we see what he does in terms of using and acquiring assets this summer.
Like pretty much every other GM out there, Kahn’s minor moves (Milicic, throwing in our 2nd to OKC, Hollins, Pavlovic, etc.) have been hit, wtf?!!!, miss and ugly miss. In the big picture, I don’t see these moves as worth grading because none are going to have a meaningful long-term negative impact on rebuilding the team.
Ever hopeful and stupidly devoted, I really want to believe that we are about to witness a revolutionary shift in the T-wolves’ fortunes beginning next Tuesday night with a little luck, and continuing over the next three months with a series of shrewd front office moves. Having been here before, however, I know better than to expect this will happen.
Time will tell.
by ol' weird harold on May 15, 2010 7:45 AM CDT reply actions
And I was preparing a fanpost making the anti-Kahn argument
But PoorDick anticipated my needs, as usual. What a guy.
My concerns with Kahn include things that he’s done, things that he’s said, and impressions that I have gathered from various sources about his thinking and how he works. I admit up front that some of this is speculation, and some of it awaits events this summer.
Choosing Flynn. It was inexplicable at the time, and it continues to confound. Curry is a better player. We knew it at the time, and we were right. Kahn was not.
We’ve heard that Flynn might not have been the choice of other front office personnel, which leads to the next thing. Kahn, apparently, is not a consensus guy; he makes the decisions. This might be OK, but he also doesn’t seem to be a guy who listens to those who disagree with him. The problem is, then, that it isn’t clear that he challenges himself with alternative views. That, my friends, is scary.
This idea is reinforced by the apparent lack of awareness and use of advanced stats. Like them or don’t, they have the the benefit of challenging your ideas. If Kahn has decided that Jefferson is a better PF than Love, and he’s the one to keep, I disagree, but I can live with it. But I damn sure want Kahn to know that Love has better on/off court and other advanced stats. Because I want him to be challenged, and to be forced to think his position through, and justify it in the face of evidence to the contrary. I don’t get the sense that’s happening, when he brushes off advanced stats as being “useful to good teams.”
Harping on the need for a star. Yes, the team needs a star. But the truth is, a star isn’t always available, and I fear that if he gets too focused on that, and/or fails to get that guy, it becomes an excuse not to do the other necessary work to build this team. Regardless, you have an obligation to build the best team you can given the resources on hand.
And finally, 15-67. I made a big deal at the start of the year that while I didn’t expect them to win, being truly terrible was not a good thing for development. I think that position was proved right. What got developed, really? I guess Brewer got a little better. But Love, if anything, regressed. Flynn didn’t seem to move forward one inch all season. At some point, even the rhetoric changed from “development” to “evaluation.” Really? A whole year for evaluation? To come to what conclusions? That these guys are capable of losing a ton of basketball games? That there isn’t one player that’s a no doubt keeper on the next good Wolves team? That you need upgrades everywhere?
To say nothing of the fact that, apparently, the one evaluation that really did need to get made—at the power forward, there are indications that he has gotten it wrong (in my opinion, of course).
So now here we are. He blew off the trade deadline, so this summer has the last of his windows. And I ask: what’s the plan? Luck? Yikes.
I ask: who is he listening to? What tools is he using to make decisions? What has he done to make this even a remotely interesting destination for free agents?
And that’s another thing—remember last summer when he insisted that FAs would consider MN? That was a joke. Not so much after putting a 15 win team on the floor. Then in the middle of the year he said if they finished well, it would make MN more attractive. Sorry, no answer. Then he was forced to suggest that the stability of coaching and management would be attractive? Uh…not so much.
Anyway, he obviously can improve his grade this summer. But more than anything he’s done, the way he approaches his job (as far as we can tell) makes me worry that barring a ton of luck, it isn’t going to work.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 15, 2010 8:14 AM CDT reply actions 4 recs
Rec'd
This is a great take and I completely agree.
I don’t know your feelings on Kurt Rambis, but I would also say that giving him a 4 year contract is another pretty big blemish on Kahn’s resume.
You know a Coach is bad when his best defense is that he’s “tanking”.
Hard to argue. My criticisms of Kahn are much of the same. I loved the move for #5 last year, but it’s a pretty easy thing to tear up someone else’s mess. It’s much harder to acknowledge your own mistakes. We’ll see how far Kahn will go to support Flynn. He’s already brought out several excuses regarding Jonny’s lack of freedom etc.
I'm refreshed
That the sentiment on this board is mostly negative regarding Kahn and Rambis. It was a really rough year at the Target Center this year. I found myself throughout the whole year nostalgic for McHale and what someone referred to above as his “lunch pale / hard hat” attitude.
he only hope for this season was that guys like Brewer, Love, Jefferson, and Jonny McCants developing that attitude because that’s the team this town will love. A basketball team that plays like a hockey team. Instead they had some nerdy Hollywood triangle guru leading the way. It was a disaster. NIce to see Brewer shoot straight, but to trample on Love when he was starting to show he was a “doin’ the dirty work” kind of guy is unforgivable. I hope they run Rambis and his West Coast lazy ass out of town, and run this double-talkin’ no good lawyer out of town with him.
+1
I don’t get Rambis at all. Fire him and put Lambeer in his spot, I say!
by princelyfrank on May 15, 2010 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Rec'd
15-67. Nothing good comes out of being that bad. At some point, wins becomes a proxy for development. Well, we got worse as the year went on and that to me is on Rambis and Kahn.
I gave him a D.
by Rascal Flatts on May 15, 2010 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
"Regardless, you have an obligation to build the best team you can given the resources on hand."
Well put. I understand to a certain extent the idea that you have to hit a homerun with a Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, or Lebron-type star to win a title. But not a lot of those guys come around. What do you do to the franchise if you punt on trying to build a team until Kobe shows up?
I am all for giving people time to succeed – I voted incomplete. But my guess is that we will have a good feel for what Kahn is or is not able to produce by the end of summer.
Incomplete
But it’s really a boom/bust setup. By the trade deadline, he’s going to have a high B or better, or a low D or worse.
I gave him a B.
Well first of all he has to get credit for the trade with Washington, that trade was great, I don’t care if you said it was Washington being stupid, after that trade there were 28 other teams kicking themselves for not getting in on that.
Than the drafting of Rubio, again not a hard decision but doesn’t mean it isn’t a great one. And than he withstood countless blasts from the media and kept Rubio which is something McHale never would have done.
The drafting of Flynn was bad, for this team anyways. I really don’t think Flynn is a bad player. Is he as good as Jennings or Curry, no, but if he played for the Warriors or Bucks and not under Rambis I have a feeling we would be looking at a very solid starter in the NBA for a while.
The signing of Sessions was good. Even if he hasn’t fit in here very well he has a nice contract and is a nice asset.
The Darko trade. At the time it seemed like Darko would just be a guy we could see how Al and Love worked next to a legit sized big man, turns out Darko is not only a legit sized big man but a legit skilled big man as well. Getting him for free is nothing to complain about..
The Suns Tucker trade. I know the second rounder isn’t much but anytime you can get a free pick it’s never a bad thing.
Negatives
My big negative is drafting withtout a coach, now this has to be part Papa Glen’s fault as well because Kahn was signed late but still not having a coach for the draft led to a wasted 6th pick on a player that’s about the worst player possible for the system we run.
Also Hollins, ouch. At the time seemed okay, a young guy who could jump out of the gym but well that’s about all he can do. Oh and he can dunk. But Rambis gave him way to many minutes and made the signing look worse than it was.
I actually think Rambis is the biggest mistake so far. I really don’t like the guy as a coach at all. He seemed like he would be good at the time but I don’t think he has any clue how to run a terrible team. I still think Sam Mitchell should have been the choice. The guy is a great coach, knows Minnesota, knows about young teams, great teacher and understands the concept of proper rotations.
So in short Kahn gets a B, Rambis gets a huge F, and not one of those 59% F’s, I’m talking like a 30% F.
by Bad News Wolves on May 15, 2010 10:09 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Blakeley and Eric Own This Thread
Excellent and Astute Points. Especially because I agree with them, but I can’t write all smart-like the way they can.
Many of the Kahn-maniacs project all these wonderful things he’s going to do in the years to come. I know it’s only been one year. But can only judge what we see, what I see is not a coherent plan for going forward.
Not to be rude, but I would request for enough of the “I blame Rambis, not Kahn for this” the choice of coach was Kahn’s biggest move as a GM. Who else’s responsibility would that have been?
by Son of Gerald Green on May 15, 2010 10:31 AM CDT reply actions
Not to be rude, but I would request for people to not use “many” when referring to the Kahn maniacs as there’s been a total of 3 votes for “A” at this point.
by Blond Ricky on May 15, 2010 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Some people are so sensitive,
they can feel oppressed by the existence of a single opposing viewpoint.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Well by that logic...
You can’t blame Kahn either, because Glen Taylor’s the one who hired him.
Also, agreed with Blond Ricky above. Talking about all “Kahn-maniacs” on the site seems like a classic exaggeration of an opposing viewpoint.
I give Kahn a B...
….but so far I would give Rambis a D. His handling of the team is far more suspect.
We're not up to a year yet.
David Kahn’s hiring was announced at the end of May last year.
The difference here isn’t trivial. Last offseason the Wolves made significant news every 2 weeks or so, almost on a schedule. So far this offseason we’ve had Hoiberg’s departure and Ronzone, and the lottery will come before the two-week mark after that…. I figure we have the lottery outcome, at least, and possibly one other chunk of news from Kahn and company before I will pass judgment.
"People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." RWE
You can’t blame Kahn either, because Glen Taylor’s the one who hired him.
Also, agreed with Blond Ricky above. Talking about all "Kahn-maniacs" on the site seems like a classic exaggeration of an opposing viewpoint.
haha. No problem, I was making a joke which probably didn’t come across well on a message board. But if I had made the joke to you in person, you would have died laughing. I mean, you would have said, that Gerald Green is side-splittingly funny. Just about positive of that. How does he come up with such nuggets? Is what you (perhaps) would have said
I blame Taylor, Kahn, and Rambis for the team’s horrible showing last year. And I hope they do better this year. And in 2011 no one ever says: “it’s only been two years for Kahn, much too early to judge”
by Son of Gerald Green on May 15, 2010 5:58 PM CDT reply actions
Incomplete
I feel it’s too early to judge. People seem to expect that he hit a home run on every move or identify a sleeper/all-star with every draft pick, but the reality is that the sample size is too small to accurately judge much of anything, especially his ability to evaluate talent. Name me one GM who always gets the best player available with every pick. I bet you can’t.
I want to see what he does with this draft and the off season before I’ll feel like I have enough to even start forming an opinion on the guy, as I think the big world-altering moves have yet to come. I want to see that he’s capable of continuing to make at least solid draft choices, i.e. not botching the obvious ones and hopefully picking up some sleepers along the way. I don’t expect a home run every time, but I do want one or two at some point. Most importantly, I want to see that he truly has a vision as far as assembling a successful team that 1) makes sense and 2) is doable.
This isn’t a defense of Kahn, which is exactly why I voted incomplete. It’s akin to trying to evaluate a half-finished painting. Only the artist knows what it’s going to look like when it’s finished, so why not relax and hope for the best until we can see enough to truly begin to evaluate the job he’s done. I think he’s positioned himself well thus far, so I hope he makes good on the opportunities he’s given himself.
If, by halfway through next year this team isn’t making strides in the right direction and we don’t seem to have a core philosophy of play style as well as a core group of players worth going forward with who actually fit together, I will be pretty disappointed. Until then, I think there isn’t a whole lot to truly evaluate him on yet as far as moves that could have a huge impact on the team’s future outside of 1) the Rubio deal (which was great) and 2) Flynn pick (not great, but not apocalyptic, as some would have you believe) and 3) hiring Rambis (undecided, I think he was tanking and had an incomplete roster to work with last year).
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on May 15, 2010 11:55 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I like this outlook
One thing you can say about Kahn is that he’s pretty much stuck to his word thus far about what the team will be. He came right out and said as blatantly as a guy in his position can that the team would suck this year. It sucked by design so we could develop possible cheap rotation guys and rookies faster as well as hopefully get a superstar in this draft. We can start evaluating Kahn after next year as all his chips will pretty much be on the table. That being said he let us know from day 1 he didn’t think we’d be playoff ready until year 3. Its hard to be patient as a fan, but I think we’ll know where we’re headed after next year and I think we’re on track so far. FYI I gave him a B because the jury is out on Flynn. I’m still behind Rambis. Once he has a core that gets his style his teams should be tough to beat system-wise.
Incomplete. Thus far he’s razed the thing, hired a coach whose shown some concerning traits (albeit under questionable motives), made some spinning-wheel trades, and has one ill-prepared draft under his belt in which the jury is completely out. To be clear, I have very, very little faith in the guy, and while he should probably be able to go chalk at the top of this draft and be ok if he stays in the top 4, I suspect I’ll be peeking through my fingers over how handles his surplus picks (both of which, like most of the cap space, are thanks to Kevin McHale, by the way, not Kahn ) and free agency/trades. There’s been a long bloodletting period to reach this point of flexibility; and it can all be for naught with a bad decision or two.
I don’t know. For sure its go time this offseason, and so we’ll see how he fleshes out his vision. Here’s hoping.
Also
This will be Kahn’s team after this summer. What I mean is from the moment he took the job, he’s basically conceded a mulligan for a year and has almost visibly smirked over the state of the franchise. Soon that scapegoat will be gone, as after this draft/FA/trade period, this will likely be very much Kahn’s roster playing for Kahn’s coach (I mean, there might only be Corey Brewer and one of Al/Love left, maybe not even that). And I think he’s in a position where he needs not just a decent offseason but a very good one if he wants to avoid being “the guy” responsible for the mess. I’m not saying they need to win 40 games. But I think some tangible gains need to be made or the heat will be on.
I gave Kahn an incomplete, but like you, I’m skeptical of how he’s going to handle this summer. You’re right that McHale laid the groundwork for this summer, but Kahn stayed the course and should get credit for that part of it at least. Kahn gets a lot of credit from me for the #5 trade last year, but other than that he’s been more down than up. Here’s hoping he can rekindle that kind of trade this summer.
What would "staying the course" have meant?
Kahn didn’t cash in that cap space, no, but his tenure last summer couldn’t be described as staying the course, not in outline or detail….
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
I was implying that McHale started clearing salaries towards 2010 and Kahn stayed that course. I’m sure there were opportunities to cash in expiring contracts, but he didn’t. That leads us to this summer, the last couple phases of Kahn’s 15 months. I think he gets thru the start of the season before we’ll be able to see what he can really do.
I know what you're saying,
I’m just responding that, seeing the phrase “stayed the course,” my immediate reaction was that Kahn had been anything but passive in his first year on the job.
(Hoiberg, if he’d gotten the job instead, openly had said he’d have truly continued on with McHale’s team….)
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
It's interesting
For sure its go time this offseason, and so we’ll see how he fleshes out his vision.
This is true, he absolutely needs to do things this summer. And he clearly wasn’t shy last summer about making trades.
But part of me wonders about this summer. Will he find himself with a certain amount of flexibility but be unable to find palatable ways to use it? Last summer was about maintaining flexibility and small deals; this summer has to be something different.
Obviously, this awaits events, but I sit and try to envision what he could do to add pieces this summer beyond the draft. Is he going to wind up spending the cap money on backups like Milicic and Pekovic? (Frankly, I’ve come to hope that Darko signs in Europe. 20 games of substandard play is not enough to make me want to commit real dollars to him).
We (and he) talk about using the cap space to facilitate trades, which sounds good in theory, but what will be available in practice? The contracts teams want to get rid of are big contracts for overpaid players. Teams don’t give up appropriately priced players in these sorts of deals. The kinds of guys you can get are the kinds of guys who, when you bring their names up, everyone says: NO! Luol Deng being the example who has been discussed to death here on CH.
Kevin Love is the one player on the roster that I’m absolutely confident could be traded in exchange for something valuable. (And he’s the one guy I’m really hesitant to move). Other that that…Jefferson’s salary is going to be hard to move, Flynn, Brewer, and Sessions could be traded, but for what? They have limited value. Gomes has the waivable contract, but realistically you aren’t getting a great piece for him.
So I have this pessimistic vision of Kahn, expecting to be able to do things, being faced with the option of doing not much beyond the draft, or pulling the trigger on deals for guys like Deng, Richard Hamilton, Andris Biedrins, that type of guy. And while there are trades of that ilk that I would endorse, on the theory that you have to try something, and anything is better than this, I’m not sure whether he (and Taylor) will be willing to do so. Especially given that much of this will be in the “doing something just to do something” category, which so many (though not me) rightfully want to avoid.
These are my dark visions of the off-season.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 16, 2010 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Repeat my question to yourself:
How many new starters will the Wolves have by January next year?
I’d put the minimum at two. More likely three. And whether we think they’re long-term championship material or not, they are extremely likely to be significant improvements over what the Wolves sent out this last season. I mean, at the wing? Maybe Luol Deng isn’t the cat’s pajamas, but he’s a better starting three than Damien Wilkins or Ryan Gomes.
You’re fretting, but these are universal worries. This bit
Kevin Love is the one player on the roster that I’m absolutely confident could be traded in exchange for something valuable. (And he’s the one guy I’m really hesitant to move.)
is always true. Things with value are always hard to give up. That’s how life is.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Yeah, the Love thing is weak
I agree; I was trying to make the point that I think that Kahn undervalues him.
Look, I’ve been a proponent of a Deng trade—if I could turn Al into Deng+small added value I would do it in a second. I haven’t been able to convince many here, though.
I certainly hope we are looking at 3 new starters; preferably a star rookie, and two guys brought in via trades (or FA, I guess). Plus Sessions instead of Flynn would be 4 new starters, and if they go to 5, I won’t complain. That’s my point; I want massive, significant changes.
My point is: I’m not sure he’ll do it. Will he pull the trigger on something like a Deng trade? Not all trades are obvious “wins” talent wise—sometimes you have to shuffle the deck.
The concern I was trying to express is that, finding himself with assets that aren’t as valued around the league as he expects, will Kahn be able to recalibrate his expectations, and still make the major changes that this team needs? Faced with a situation where good free agents won’t take his money, will he find other ways?
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 16, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I'd rather do Al for Biedrins
If they threw in Brandan Wright and Azubuike and the Wolves could throw in Gomes.
by pagingstanleyroberts on May 16, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Can't see GSW wanting that
but I’d throw in Flynn for CJ Watson as a sweetener to make it happen. We’ll see if Flynn can put up Curry numbers in the Warriors system.
Watson is no longer under contract. And I’m not really sure how much sweeter that deal is anyway. Granted, I’m a pretty hardcore skeptic about Flynn, but I’m not sure Flynn is ever going to be much better than Watson.
CJ’s statline/scouting report: 13.5 pp36 on .555 TS%, 3.6 ast to 1.4 TO, 3.4 rp36, soild free throw shooter, subpar defender, makes open looks from all over the court. If you got that out of Flynn, given what we saw during his rookie year, wouldn’t you be happy? Flynn gets a couple more assists and a few more points, but he’s WAY less efficient, doesn’t rebound as well and doesn’t have Watson’s range. Flynn’s young and will get better, but what have we seen from him that makes us believe he’s going to be better than Watson (a solid rotation combo guard)?
And for what it’s worth, Flynn can’t put up Curry numbers in a Warriors jersey. He isn’t the shooter or passer that Curry is. Not even close. Not trying to come down hard about that, but I just hate seeing Curry’s game knocked because it’s “the Warriors’ system” that helps him out. His game is what makes that stat line. He’s efficient, has unlimited range, grew into the point guard role beautifully, was impressive on the glass, and can pass. He’s not a mirage by the bay.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
"Sometimes you have to shuffle the deck."
Look back at last summer, and tell me David Kahn is afraid to do that. He was surprisingly passive during the year, but last summer? Anything but.
I’m in the “incomplete” camp here, and have serious questions about the Wolves’ front office on every level, but there’s one thing we know and that’s that the team is going to change.
(And I don’t think the Love thing is “weak,” exactly…. It’s just, we’re fans and we cannot wait for the shoes to start falling on this summer. Tuesday is the first domino. Among many.)
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
There are always deals that can bring in talent if you’re willing to take a financial hit.
One rumor I like in particular involves Utah and their reticence to hit the lux in order to keep their core together. I read on ESPN a while back that they may be flat out willing to move the NYC pick if it means they can get out of Kirilenko’s contract. Whoah, you say, would they give up the #9 pick just to save some money? Believe it or not, it’s feasible. They need to decide if they want to resign Boozer and Korver, and they’re going to be up against, likely over, the lux if they do because of Kirilenko’s 17.8 million albatross.
We could offer them something like Brewer + Gomes (promptly waived) for Ak47 and their pick, which seems like a disparate level of value, but when you look at the financials it actually makes sense. Assuming Boozer resigns for something starting in the neighborhood of 12 million and Korver signs for around 4-5, and the roughly $54 million base cap number for Utah next year from hoopshype is true, then it works out like this:
54 million base including AK47
2 million for #9 pick
12 for Boozer
4.5 for Korver
For a total of 72.5 million, incurring a penalty hit of 3.5 million because the lux is set at around 69 million. If we offered them the deal I outlined above, the savings would be mammoth.
Brewer + Gomes equals about 8 million for next year, but Gomes is waivable which cuts his salary to 1 million, meaning they only take back something around 4.7 million in exchange for Kirilenko’s 17.8. They save 13 million plus the 3.5 million lux hit by moving AK47 and that pick. If their owner is cheap, which I recall Shrink saying, and they decide that the #9 pick isn’t going to help them contend immediately and would thus rather keep Boozer/Korver, then I think there’s a possibility to get something done here.
It would give us a fairly productive veteran 2-way presence to take Gomes’ minutes at the 3/4 spots while allowing us to transition some of our cap space to next year in exchange for a short term financial hit because Kirilenko’s deal expires after next season. We also pick up another top 10 pick that we could use to round out our squad or improve our flexibility in trades. I’m not sure what our cap space would be reduced to for next offseason due to contract increases and rookie cap holds, but I think we’d still have enough to go after players similar to the type we’d be realistically looking at this year. There are decent vets who’ll be out there like Dalembert, Dampier, Azabuike and even AK47 himself who could probably be resigned to a much more reasonable deal.
If Papa Glen is really open to spending if it means positioning his team to improve, then I hope Kahn is talking to Utah. We could offer them mammoth savings if we think we aren’t going to big time FA players this year (the consensus opinion anyway) while picking up another pick to stock up our roster.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Hey, I'd do that
But…would Kahn? This is sort of my point—Kirilenko at $17 million is the type of guy you could get, and he has the bonus of only having year left.
I’d do it, depending on what else is out there. I’d like to have a guy like AK on the roster, and while I don’t value the 9th pick particularly, it’s something.
I question whether Kahn and Taylor would pull the trigger on this type of thing, though. They might, given AK expires.
As an aside, the Jazz owner can hardly be called cheap. He’s paid a lot of guys recently: Boozer, Williams, Okur, AK. He matched Milsap last summer when he had every excuse not to.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 16, 2010 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Sure, I don’t read up on Utah’s owner, but I do recall Shrink saying that they’ll be very hesitant to go over the lux and he’s usually up to speed on that type of thing. Probably because of moves like the Millsap one. I do know that that is a LOT of money, and they’ve been looking to move Ak47 for years. It’s logical that if they want to keep their core together to stay competitive, keeping Boozer/Korver makes more sense than taking on a rookie who isn’t a guaranteed star.
Would Kahn do it? I don’t know, it’s too early to say I have a great grasp of his MO as a GM. I certainly hope he would and I don’t see a good reason why he wouldn’t if Glen gives him the OK. I know McHale wouldn’t have, so I guess I hope that’s the difference between the two of them. Kahn certainly doesn’t seem scared to make deals, and he knows, or as at least stated, how much talent it takes to compete in the NBA. If he sees a way to speed up the process, I don’t see him as the type who’ll pass it up.
And the #9 may not be the best pick in the world, but we could get an athletic high upside guy like Whiteside or Aminu, or potentially package it in any number of deals to either move up or bring in more talent. I like that kind of flexibility.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
It’s conceivable we could turn around and spin Kirilenko. Hadn’t thought of that—if they could trade him for, say, Iguodala. (Although if they’d trade him for expirings and picks, they’d have done that last year.) Kahn’s not saving the room for Dampier or Dalembert. He understands what McHale didn’t, that he needs big pieces not small ones. AK-47 might be a nice improvement, but he’s not a building block for the Rubio era.
But the point is that we aren’t getting a big time impact FA this year, so why not transition the cap space to next year where we’ll be able to likely pick up a similar quality of FA and pick up a top 10 pick for our troubles? And, as you said, aside from the steadying influence of a quality vet, something we sorely lacked last year, there’s the doors that AK47’s contract opens as a huge expiring deal.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
trade AK-47 for another expiring and a pick
not sure who would do this, but there has to be some team where AK is a much better fit than player X and is worth a 2010 late 1st rounder or a 2011 1st round pick.
Trouble is
. . . convincing Taylor to essentially pay $17 million for a #9 draft pick. While AK-47 might help a little next year, he’s not going to put them in the playoffs, so his value is minimal. I don’t get the idea he’s a Sam Mitchell or Terry Porter “coach on the floor” type, either. If Taylor didn’t buy draft picks when he had to forfeit them, why would he now?
plus you can trade
AK47 to a contender at the deadline for something else as well. That is really the sweetner that gets hidden at first blush. I would be all about that trade. Especially if we get turner to play the 2. Maybe even a James Anderson type.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on May 16, 2010 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Kirilenko is among those "Terry Porter type" vets the team would benefit from, I think.
Defensively, and just in terms of having been around, he’d be an okay way to spend cap space. You’d have him on a one-year rental.
I’m just not sure I want all of the cap space to go that way. You’re essentially kicking that can along a year, becoming a buyer on a buyer’s market the next summer, perhaps….
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
But remember, this deal isn’t built around just him, we would also get the #9 pick. If we like what Kirilenko has done when he was here, we can try to resign him next year for a reasonable deal. There will also be other useful players out there next year – not much in the way of stars outside of Melo (if he opts out), but players I would consider on a similar level to those we can realistically expect to sign this year.
but with the #9 pick we can possibly get a high upside player like Whiteside of Aminu or a solid starting-caliber guy like Aldrich to replace Darko, or maybe use it as part of a package to move up even further.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
(Figure in whatever cap money multiple firsts this year would occupy next.)
Kicking the cap money on a year doesn’t quite work out to be the same amount, though it would be more of a buyer’s market next time.
(Personally I find it hard to believe Utah held onto New York’s pick for so long just to give up their one break at lottery-type talent in order to clear salary and hang onto someone like Carlos Boozer.)
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Oh, the cap number decreases, but if the assumption is that we aren’t landing a big money FA and that we may make some minor moves like trying to sign Childress and/or resigning Darko it makes sense to just transition the cap space to next summer. As you say, fewer teams will have space and there will still be useful players out there. If you think the team can and will get Gay, then this isn’t the plan for you.
And I agree that it’s a lot for a pick, but my overall point, more than saying this is what they SHOULD do, is a response to Eric wondering about how we could use our cap space in trades. The deals will probably be there, it just comes down to if Taylor gives Kahn the OK to spend.
And hey, maybe Melo gets fed up and demands a trade, and here we are, fresh off drafting Wall, with Kirilenko’s expiring and assets like Rubio, Al/Love and another top 10 pick next year. Hmmmmm :)
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I have no doubt there will be deals available
But the point I was trying to make is that the deals that will be there will be for guys like AK, or Rip Hamilton, or Biedrins, or maybe Deng. In other words, flawed guys who have big contracts. Yes, these guys could help, but are they deals you want to make? Are they deals that Kahn will be willing to make? Should he? I hope he does, but there isn’t going to be a no-brainer, home run type deal probably.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 17, 2010 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions
The pick is a pretty important part of this trade, so it’s not just moving for an overpaid vet. If it were just for AK47, then it would be an obvious no. But, for a team like ours, one that’s an unattractive FA destination and that lacks star power of any sort, we need every chance we can get to pick up that type of player and the draft is the best means we have of doing so.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I love draft picks as much as anyone, but that’s a steep price for #9. I get where you’re going though. If there’s any truth to Beasley’s availability on the cheap, I’d explore that first. I like AK47 and the pick, but that’s all the cap space.
I get, and like, the thinking behind that, but man I dislike Beasley, as a person and his game. I think he’s SAR 2.0. A high-scoring, no defense 3/4 tweener who cares more about his own shot than anything worthwhile. He’s got talent, sure, but I don’t think this team needs distractions like that.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Jazz and Kirilenko
I apologize up front for formatting .. I’m traveling and trying to post from a pretty bad connection
I think its quite likely the Jazz would be interested in moving Kirilenko. While San Antonio gets more press, the Utah Jazz have one of the best business models for a small market in the NBA, and have been successful for many years both on the court, and on the books.
Last year was a rare one for them, going over the lux, but much of it was not their fault. They maintained their competitiveness on the floor by holding onto their youth (Deron Williams, Okur, and Milsap) at reasonable prices, but Boozer decided at the last minute to exercise his player option for $12+ mil. The Jazz still moved talent (Ronnie Brewer) to help the business, while still maintaining a good team. They walk a rare balance these days.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/14872/is-owning-a-small-market-nba-team-good-business
I’d also add that a poster on RealGM came up with an idea that seems to me to meet a lot of needs, and has been received favorably from fans of all three teams:
DET IN: Jefferson
DET OUT: Prince + #7
UTAH IN: Prince + Gomes + cap space
UTAH OUT: Kirilenko + #9
MIN IN: Kirilenko + #7 + #9
MIN OUT: Jefferson + Gomes + cap space
The DET side has been discussed often. For UTA, Prince was a decent player at the tail end of the season to maintain their competitiveness, but they get the cap space to get under the lux and save about $10 mil (though we’d still need to know what they’d do with Boozer). MIN gets picks that they could hopefully combine to move up in the draft, and meet their goal — trying to find a potential elite young prospect.
From what I have seen
a lot of Detroit fans are not fans of this scenario. From what we have seen, Detroit fans don’t want to move their pick at all and have countered with Jefferson and Sessions for Stuckey, Prince, and Wilcox…. yuck. A link to Gill0137’s post about the topic… as you can see it’s pretty evenly spread out over the grades, so take that as you will. Most of the comments were about how it looked bad though… and that was including Gomes and Flynn with Jefferson and taking back Villanueva’s contract as well.
(Hung onto their youth except Maynor)
They dealt a reasonably promising rookie PG to clear luxury tax money and lower the cost of hanging onto Boozer.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
B
Loved the moves to get Rubio, hated the Jonny Flynn pick (but wasn’t sure who else to take at that spot after drafting a point guard), liked flipping Ty Lawson for this year’s 16th, and like the fact that we have a Top-5 Pick in this draft. He gets a B after one season.
I just don’t want another 15-win season where the personnel is not even capable of winning many games. They need to add players where holes exist. Full-season tanking is not acceptable two years in a row.
Not with Brewer
I’d give them the Gomes contract (we’d have to, for the cap math to work), but not Brewer. Brewer has become a useful commodity and the NYK pick might be about where he was drafted. Utah’s idea would be, you take this stiff for the pick and don’t send more contracts back. The question for us is whether that pick is worth eating up every dime of the Wolves cap room for the year—I don’t think they could bring back Darko, for example. If they could get Josh Childress, I think I’d rather have him.
Gomes's deal, if it's tradeable, is probably worth more than Brewer right now.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
I just assumed they would probably want at least one rotation player out of the deal. Moving Brewer also gives us some cap room even if we trade for Kirilenko, allowing us to sign Darko or another minor FA. If Utah would do it for Gomes alone, then as you said, the debate is if we want to use up almost all of our cap room.
Personally, I’d rather take the #9 this year over Brewer. If he’s in this draft this year, with what’s known about him in the NBA, I bet he doesn’t go above pick 20. Remember, by any available metric, even with all his strides forward this year, he improved to merely “below average.” I’d like to keep him around because, well, I like the guy, but you won’t see me crying if he’s gone.
Just an option, though. Things to think about during the doldrums of the season.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
C
My one extra point:
He was too clever by half and pushed his luck with diminishing returns. I would like to have had Darius Songalia and Quentin Richardson on this team. Not because they are part of any long term plan but: (a) a 15-win season isn’t good for anyone (b) he got pretty much nil in return for moving those extra Wizards and Clippers pieces (e.g., Blount), © it would have provided a little more depth and ballast to see how our players would play with (a) an actual experienced wing and (b) a little more frontcourt depth.
by Rasho Revolution on May 17, 2010 5:18 PM CDT reply actions
With Songaila it was partly contract.
He has another year, so that’s 2010 cap space.
"No experience has been too unimportant, and the smallest event unfolds like a fate..." RMR
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
Related FanShots on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Video: JaVale McGee did another pretty dumb thing
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Patrick Patterson wants urine test prep
- Video: Please enjoy Jeremy Evans, dunk contestant
- Jeremy Lin finds himself a nice hotel to stay in, complete with a BLT bar
- Video: The Chinese Basketball Association’s All-Star game has the worst highlights ever
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
