Current Wolves vs. Hypothetical Wolves
by Blakeley on May 4, 2010 10:55 AM CDT
Email
PrintSometimes I think about last year's draft and I get depressed. Supposedly if Sacramento had drafted Ricky Rubio, the Wolves were prepared to draft Tyreke Evans and Stephen Curry at #5 and #6....which would have been sweet.
But how much better off would we have been? Lets discuss after the jump...
This is how our minutes were dispersed last year...
| Players | WP/48 | Minutes | WP |
| Brewer | -0.023 | 2482 | -1.19 |
| AJ | 0.115 | 2463 | 5.90 |
| Flynn | -0.03 | 2339 | -1.46 |
| Gomes | 0.027 | 2210 | 1.24 |
| Sessions | 0.07 | 1732 | 2.53 |
| Love | 0.34 | 1714 | 12.14 |
| Wilkins | 0.132 | 1585 | 4.36 |
| Ellington | 0.01 | 1384 | 0.29 |
| Hollins | -0.167 | 1223 | -4.26 |
| Pavs | -0.111 | 877 | -2.03 |
| Darko | -0.104 | 614 | -1.33 |
| Pecherov | -0.069 | 447 | -0.64 |
| Jawai | 0.036 | 412 | 0.31 |
| Cardinal | -0.139 | 267 | -0.77 |
| Tucker | 0.001 | 25 | 0.00 |
| Hart | 0.035 | 5 | 0.00 |
| Total Win's Produced | 15.09 |
This is how the minutes would have looked (IMO) if we had added Evans and Curry to the roster. I've eliminated Pavlovic and Flynn from the roster while decreasing the minutes of other guards/small forwards.
| Projected | WP/48 | Minutes | WP |
| Curry | 0.151 | 2600 | 8.18 |
| Evans | 0.159 | 2600 | 8.61 |
| AJ | 0.115 | 2463 | 5.90 |
| Gomes | 0.027 | 2210 | 1.24 |
| Brewer | -0.023 | 2014 | -0.97 |
| Love | 0.34 | 1714 | 12.14 |
| Sessions | 0.07 | 1400 | 2.04 |
| Hollins | -0.167 | 1223 | -4.26 |
| Wilkins | 0.132 | 1200 | 3.30 |
| Darko | -0.104 | 614 | -1.33 |
| Ellington | 0.01 | 585 | 0.12 |
| Pecherov | -0.069 | 447 | -0.64 |
| Jawai | 0.036 | 412 | 0.31 |
| Cardinal | -0.139 | 267 | -0.77 |
| Tucker | 0.001 | 25 | 0.00 |
| Hart | 0.035 | 5 | 0.00 |
| Total Win's Produced | 33.89 |
As you can see, this would probably mean a 19 win increase. Not good enough to get us into the playoffs, but good enough to put us in the #10-12 range for our first pick...which would mean that the Clippers would get our first pick. Assuming this, I would like to propose a question. Say this year we are able to draft Evan Turner, which combination of players/assets would you rather have?
Steph Curry and Tyreke Evans
or
Evan Turner, Rights to Ricky Rubio, and Jonny Flynn
Please vote and discuss...
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wouldn't it actually be...
Rubio, Curry, and Ed Davis?
Subtracting Evans and dispersing his minutes would mean that we had 25-29 win season, which would probably mean no Turner.
That would actually be okay
in my opinion. It at least shows progress eventhough I’m not an Ed Davis fan. Lots of viable options for the mid to late lottery.
Wow, I'm shocked
I just voted, and assumed it would be a blowout for Curry and ’Reke, which seems the obvious choice to me. And yet..no? Really?
I can’t understand the justification for going the other way. Let’s see, I can have a backcourt that went 1-2 in ROY voting, potentially securing my backcourt with size, shooting, handling, attacking play for the next decade, who have established that they can play at a high NBA level. Or I can have 3 guys that I don’t know if they can be good NBA players, one of whom could be years away from even coming to my team?
Look, as all of you know, I’ve been all over Rubio. I love that guy. But, really? How good do you really expect Evan Turner to be? How often does a rookie have a year like ’Reke did and NOT turn into a superstar?
Plus with the added bonus that I could have watched a decent team this year with two exciting, talented rookies? Yes please.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 11:32 AM CDT reply actions
Just because your the loudest
doesn’t mean that everybody agrees with you. LOL.
Well, no, obviously not
I’d be really interested to hear an argument for the alternative, though. Usually I can understand the reasoning even if I don’t agree, but I just am having real trouble seeing it here.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
It wasn't meant as a personal attack but
reading some of these post, (not necessarily you), I get the feeling that some people are screaming their opinions while others are just more reserved. My only point is that there are a lot of readers who don’t post or don’t post often that can also vote. Whether I agree or disagree with their assessment doesn’t matter since everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.
I didn't take it as such
I’m not much of a yeller or name caller. And of course everyone can participate to the extent that they want to.
I’m just trying to stimulate some discussion, because I’m actually fascinated by this. The answer seems so obvious to me, and yet the other position is winning handily in the poll. Why? What am I missing?
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
My opinion
is that those who voted for Turner, Rubio, Flynn over Curry and Evans probably felt that Rubio is a star in the making and that Turner and Flynn would complement him well. Additionally, it is possible that they devalue Curry and Evans because Curry played in a free flowing offense that allowed him to get good stats and they saw the flaws to Evans’ game. I get your point and agree for the most part that Evans and Curry are a known commodity that has produced and would have made the wolves better.
Ideally, it would have been Rubio and Evans but that only works in fantasyland.
Lastly, there should have been a few more options since I think many people would have picked a third or fourth option if it was available.
So how do you rank the main 4 players...
Rubio, Curry, Turner, and Evans.
To me Turner/Evans seems like a wash. Different type of players, but I think both could be great wing players for the next 10 years. Potential top players on a championship contending team.
Rubio vs Curry…well I think that’s close to a wash as well. Once again, both are different types of players, but I definitely think they could play a pivotal role on a championship.
And at that point…one side also has Flynn. So while I don’t really value Flynn that much, I value him enough to pick the Turner/Rubio/Flynn combo.
I guess this is the issue
I can’t call Evans and Turner a wash. Not even close. Evans was the rookie of the year. He went 20-5-5 with good peripheral numbers as a 20 year old. And he’s a year YOUNGER than Turner. I hope we get him, and I hope he’s great, but there’s no way I can put the same value on those two players right now. It isn’t close. The chances of Evan Turner being as good as Evans can’t be better than a relative long shot. 20%?
I’m more willing to call the Rubio/Curry thing a wash, in that while I have high hopes for Rubio, again, Curry has established an impressive level of play. I think Rubio can get there, and maybe even beyond, but Curry can get better too. That one is closer, but valuing Turner at the level of Evans is something I completely cannot buy.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
I still like the young Grant Hill comparision...
For Evan Turner. Look at what Hill was doing during his first few years in the league
I’d take a well rounded game like that over Tyreke Evans. Anyone know how to find Grant Hill’s college stats? I’d like to compare that to Evan Turners.
But
Turner plays a very different role for OSU than Hill did for Duke (hence more assists and turnovers). Also, people question Turner’s athleticism. I don’t recall anyone questioning that for Grant Hill (all I remember is the crazy, famous, alley-oop play against Kansas).
Still, you’re right that the stats are in the same ballpark. I didn’t realize that Hill took so few threes — only 17 in his first three years!
I may rescind my Grant Hill Comment
Statistically he compares, but check out this highlight reel.
I forgot how athletic he was, and at least in the reel he appears to have a much better handle then Turner (although Turner’s handle could get better)
This is where it goes off the rails for me
Sure, if he’s the next coming of Grant HIll, great. But how likely is that?
I’ve said this before, but I believe we overvalue draft picks because we haven’t yet seen these players fail at the NBA level. So we can dream on them to be anything we want them to be.
But realistically, only a tiny number are anywhere near that good.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I voted for Turner/Rubio
because first we have no idea if Tyreke or Curry would have finished 1 and 2 in ROY here. But more to the point is that I just don’t buy into Tyreke being a winning catalyst yet. Or perhaps put differently, I expect that Tyreke will always score more points than Turner but I expect Turner’s teams to win more (as a result of Turner). Does that make sense?
Similar thing with Curry and Rubio. Curry will score more and facilitate well. Rubio will facilitate even better and score less. Of the two I’d rather have Rubio because I think he has a higher ceiling than Curry, will be a bigger star (a complete aesthetic argument for what I want to watch on the floor), and I think he will be a better defender.
I will add one other note – I have greater faith in Turner’s ability to learn how to play without the ball than I do in Tyreke’s.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
Well, I'll stop repeating myself after this
but I just think you are radically underselling ‘Reke—he was 20, a rookie with a year of college ball, and was the best player on his team by far. It takes time to learn to win. And it isn’t as if he was surrounded by a ton of talent, either. He did a lot of things, in my view, that speak well for his ability to be a big part of a winning team; he was a relatively efficient scorer for a rookie, he got assists.
I also think you are underselling the risk discount you have to take on Turner. Yes, he might be all that; I love the guy, and I have hopes too. But it isn’t beyond the bounds of possibility that he won’t be that good.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Before you stop repeating yourself :)
Let me ask you this. And before I start, let me say that I have not voted yet as I have not really made up my mind. But do you think Tyreke would have done better with Curry than he did with Kevin Martin? I think Tyreke will always be an issue when playing with another dominant guard or wing, but I could be wrong. Maybe it was just something about the chemistry between Evans and Martin.
That said, I think I am leaning slightly towards Turner/Rubio than Evans/Curry as well. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a pretty close battle right now. But I think that Turner and Rubio fit the Pistons championship mold of acquiring *team*mates with roles rather than acquiring players with talent. I also think that Turner and Rubio have more defensive potential than Evans and Curry because I think Turner > Evans and Rubio > Curry. As you have pointed out though, it’s tough to say having never seen either of those two guys playing in this league. But I think Curry is a below average defender and Evans is slightly above… not a game changer or a lockdown defender. Turner has that capability and Rubio could just be a defensive ballhawk.
On another front, the length of Turner and Rubio is slightly greater than Evans and Curry. As much as people say Evans can dominate his position, I don’t think that will be as true once he is a fulltime SG compared to a PG. I might even go so far as to give the dominant size advantage to Turner here. Evans obviously still takes the athleticism edge, just not enough to sway my vote.
Yes, I can absolutely imagine a terrific pairing of Evans and Curry
Both can run the PnR, both can handle, tons of drive and kick opportunities. Plenty of size, chance to run with either guy handling. I ultimately think it COULD have worked with Martin, but his injuries were a problem, and I do think the fact that he was around and the star for a while, then Evans came in, was a bit of a problem. I don’t think Evans would have a problem with a shooting talent like Curry. Plus, Curry is a better handler than Martin.
Evans, I think, is probably the best defender in the group because of his strength, body, and athleticism. I’m not clear on why Evans all of a sudden has this reputation of not being a good teammate, did I miss something? He’s not really a shot hog, he plays hard, he sets up others. His game is clearly improving, something else you want.
Again, it’s easy to project guys who haven’t played (and struggled) in the NBA as whatever we want them to be. But you know, it isn’t impossible that Evan Turner is a disappointment. Or Rubio.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions
I think they would work well together too
it’s just that I have reservations about why Martin and Evans didn’t work out together. To me it really seems as if they compliment each other perfeclty… except that maybe they just needed a better ball handler? I don’t know for sure why they didn’t work, but Martin seems similar to Curry in a few ways so I’m not going to say for sure that they would work together. Then again, it’s easy to project two guys who haven’t played together (and struggled) in the NBA as whatever we want them to be :)
I think Evans has more defensive potential, but I don’t think he will reach it. Turner I think will be a great defender in this league the second he steps on the floor. I don’t believe I ever said Evans was a bad teammate? I said I think Turner and Rubio fit the Pistons model of teammates with roles rather than stars with talent… I still think Curry and Evans probably fill the latter half better. That’s not saying they are bad teammates. They are good teammates on all accounts, just not in the same way that Turner and Rubio seem to be or to be capable fo being.
braces
You have to admit that since Turner got his teeth fixed he looks smarter than Reke and his crooked chicklets
by Adam Chandler on May 6, 2010 7:38 AM CDT up reply actions
And what's ironic is that Tyreke Evans
actually put up quite similar numbers to Grant Hill as a rookie. (Compare their rookie years). And Hill’s Pistons team went 28-54 as a rookie.
I could argue it’s really "Reke who is looking more like Grant Hill at the moment than Evan Turner. And Hill was 2 years older than Evans as a rookie.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions
I guess it's mostly a matter of the eye test...
But it just seems like Evans’ first inclination is to score while Hill and Turner’s first inclination was/is to set someone up to score (whether it be himself or a teammate)
Maybe
But the numbers say otherwise. As rookies, Evans had more raw assists/36, more assists per FG attempt, and a higher assist percentage.
Let me ask you this: if you offered the number 2 pick to Petrie for Evans, is there any chance in the world he says yes? Would anyone over at Sactown Royalty even consider that? There’s no way the Kings even consider that deal, IMO.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't know who you are comparing Evans to here
but I’d hope he has more assists per 36 considering he played PG and had the ball for the majority of the games in college and a large amount of the game in the pros. Of course both the other guys did too, but they also weren’t PGs and in Hill’s case, he had a lot more talent that demanded the ball a fair amount as well.
I’m not trying to discredit the fact that Evans got more assists, I actually agree with you that he is not a ball hog, Jonny Flynn type score first PG. I’m just trying to point out that his numbers might not be perfectly comparable to either of these guys (definitely not Hill’s).
Sorry, that wasn't clear
Those numbers refer to Evans vs. Hill. And Hill was sort of the point his rookie year on that Detroit club. At any rate, it was a repsonse to Blakeley’s post about them.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I see Rubio vs Curry as close also
I’d love either or both. I really just don’t value Evans that much which tips the scales toward the Rubio Turner matchup. Sure he had great numbers, but how does he complement the team? I essentially see Corey Maggette with a better handle and the full offense run through him. And even at 20 Corey was a better scorer. The league has plenty of stars, and even more good players. You can’t fit them all on one team, and providing we get some good talent here I’m plenty happy letting Evans be someone else’s star. Not only would I take Curry over Evans a draft redo, I’d take him in a head to head matchup on the court.
I am trying to picture Evans fitting into or leading a contending team, and I can’t yet. At this point, we know he can stuff a stat sheet on a non-contender but not more.
But that's true of a lot of great young players until it isn't
Durant’s teams were awful his first two seasons.
We don’t even know if Turner is capable of doing that.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
I think your opinion is biased because you have the luxury of hindsight.
Suppose the following players (Wall, Turner, Cousins, Rubio, Evans, and Curry) were in the lottery at the same time. How would you rank them? In what order should the Wolves draft board be? Without the benefit of hindsight! I would place both Turner and Rubio above Evans and Curry.
That's silly, though
We know things know that we wouldn’t know in your scenario. Like Evans and Curry are really good NBA players. We don’t know that about the others.
I’m still having a hard time with this. The question posed by the fanpost is essentially: do you want a backcourt of two almost guaranteed star level players who are young? Or do you want to take the risk on two guys who might both be good, or one of them, or neither, and even if they are both good, that doesn’t mean they will be better than the guys you already know are good?
I don’t see how you answer that question with: I’ll take the risk. There’s very little upside payoff to taking that risk, it seems to me, because the guys you could have are already very good.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions
I had them paired differently
I don’t think I would trade Turner for Curry, so the second option wins for me on that end of the deal. (I would trade Turner for Evans.)
Then it’s a comparison of Evans to Rubio/Flynn, which is surprisingly close to a coin flip for me. Eric makes very good points about proven vs. unproven players. But I think this part of the trade is a close call for me because if Rubio pans out, I think I’d rather watch him play than Evans.
So I might pick option B, even though I’d hope Kahn would be smart enough to pick option A.
"How often does a rookie have a year like ’Reke did and NOT turn into a superstar?"
Judging by past NBA Rookies of the Year, not very often:
Year Player Team
2008-09 Derrick Rose Chicago
2007-08 Kevin Durant Seattle
2006-07 Brandon Roy Portland
2005-06 Chris Paul New Orleans/Oklahoma City
2004-05 Emeka Okafor Charlotte
2003-04 LeBron James Cleveland
2002-03 Amare Stoudemire Phoenix
2001-02 Pau Gasol Memphis
2000-01 Mike Miller Orlando
1999-00 Elton Brand and Steve Francis Chicago and Houston
1998-99 Vince Carter Toronto
1997-98 Tim Duncan San Antonio
1996-97 Allen Iverson Philadelphia
1995-96 Damon Stoudamire Toronto
1994-95 Grant Hill and Jason Kidd Detroit and Dallas
1993-94 Chris Webber Golden State
1992-93 Shaquille O’Neal Orlando
1991-92 Larry Johnson Charlotte
1990-91 Derrick Coleman New Jersey
1989-90 David Robinson San Antonio
1988-89 Mitch Richmond Golden State
1987-88 Mark Jackson New York
1986-87 Chuck Person Indiana
1985-86 Patrick Ewing New York
1984-85 Michael Jordan Chicago
1983-84 Ralph Sampson Houston
1982-83 Terry Cummings San Diego
1981-82 Buck Williams New Jersey
1980-81 Darrell Griffith Utah
1979-80 Larry Bird Boston
1978-79 Phil Ford Kansas City
1977-78 Walter Davis Phoenix
1976-77 Adrian Dantley Buffalo
1975-76 Alvan Adams Phoenix
1974-75 Keith Wilkes Golden State
1973-74 Ernie DiGregorio Buffalo
1972-73 Bob McAdoo Buffalo
1971-72 Sidney Wicks Portland
1970-71 Dave Cowens and Geoff Petrie Boston and Portland
1969-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Milwaukee
1968-69 Wes Unseld Baltimore
1967-68 Earl Monroe Baltimore
1966-67 Dave Bing Detroit
1965-66 Rick Barry San Francisco
1964-65 Willis Reed New York
1963-64 Jerry Lucas Cincinnati
1962-63 Terry Dischinger Chicago
1961-62 Walt Bellamy Chicago
1960-61 Oscar Robertson Cincinnati
1959-60 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia
1958-59 Elgin Baylor Minneapolis
1957-58 Woody Sauldsberry Philadelphia
1956-57 Tom Heinsohn Boston
1955-56 Maurice Stokes Rochester
1954-55 Bob Pettit Milwaukee
1953-54 Ray Felix Baltimore
1952-53 Don Meineke Fort Wayne
To be fair, Evans’ competition for ROY is pretty slim, since Rubio, Griffith, and Thabeet were non-factors. But still, it appears that a Rookie of the Year winner has been just as likely to be a future Hall of Famer as he is to be a bust.
I'm actually mildly surprised at how good that list is
ROY’s almost always go on to at least very good careers.
Still, it isn’t just the award; the stuff he did as a 20 year old is pretty rare. You’d be hard pressed to come up with a player who was that good at that age who didn’t wind up with a pretty great career.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on May 4, 2010 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions
The Worst Rookie of the Year
was the First Rookie of the Year, Don “Monk” Meineke, who only played five seasons, and after his rookie year (one in which he averaged 4.9 fouls per game and led the league in that category), never averaged more than 7 points and 3 rebounds per game.
I picked Rubio/Turner...
and its not because im underrating evans. Evans was the guy i wanted the wolves to draft and i think he is the best out of that group however i think curry is the fourth best in that group (i think the style he played hurts him especially when compared to the wolves style).
You mention all those good things about a Evans/Curry but i would argue the Rubio/Turner backcourt would have more size, better handles, and should be able to attack (effectively not to the evans level though). The only one Evans/Curry could have is the shooting and that is only because of Curry’s 3pt shooting, combined they shot about 45% from 2 and 38% from 3. With Rubio’s improved shot and from Turner’s last few games which leads me to believe he will become a decent shooter i dont think the Evans/Curry shooting numbers are out of reach.
Also i give the Rubio/Turner backcourt another advantage because Rubio has the ablility to improve his teammates more then Evans or Curry. Another semi-intresting point is you say Evans/Curry went 1-2 in ROY but the Rubio/Turner backcourt could have 2 ROY winnners (nothing is guaranteed, just pointing it out).
I picked option 2 because
I think that Rubio can have a higher celeing than either Evans or Curry. I love Curry but I would look good in Don Nelson’s system. Evans and Curry may be better than Turner in the long run but the team that always gets the better player wins the trade. Even though we aren’t 100% sure the highest celeing talent wise is Rubio.
What would you think of a potential Evans/Rubio backcourt?
OKC took Harden who was never a threat to go to Sacto with Kevin Martin there at the time. They would have seemed like a logical trade partner right? We give them 18 (or the Charlotte pick) and take Evans at 3. Sacto would likely have taken Flynn per rumors. OKC could have taken Harden at 5 or 6 (if they wanted to save a little money) and we would have picked Rubio at the other slot.
Could Evans and Rubio have worked? I think they could have pretty easily. Rubio’s 3 pt shot looks to be developing and how he’s more of a full court distrubutor vs. the half court ball taker like Evans.
Going by the win shares, we’d have won about 9 more games with Sacto losing more (depending how Martin fit with Flynn). That would still have us with the 3rd worst record in line to potentially draft Cousins or Favors.
Rubio
Evans
Deng (or other Al trade target)
Love (and/or Al)
Cousins or Favors
The kings
would probably have picked Rubio if Evans wasn’t available. That would have been quite the coup though. I was proposing the same thing. #6 & #18 for #3. You could have drafted Evans at #3 and either Rubio or Curry at #5.
If we traded up for #3...
We still would have drafted Rubio, although with an increased salary it would have been more likely that he was here this year.
Great for us...
…not so great if you’re OKC. In a draft that many considered five players deep, it wouldn’t make sense to trade out of #3 and be left at the mercy of everyone else to see which one of those players you get. The #18 in a weak draft isn’t much of a kicker. Probably why it didn’t happen…
Boy, we better get pick 2
Because our hope of being lucky really depends on how May 18th works out. If we get pick 4 or 5, the question comes as:
Would you rather have Tyreke plus Curry or
Rubio, Flynn and another PF or middling SF.
Ugh
by midlife crisis on May 4, 2010 12:56 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I'll say that I thought this was a tough call
But I’m going with the Rubio, Turner and Flynn combo platter.
I agree that we f’d up not taking Curry (water under the bridge at this point, but until Kahn does something to make up for that, I’m skeptical of his powers of talent evaluation.)
At the end of the day, I agree with Kahn that you need a superstar if you’re going to win in this league. I think Reke is on the path to being one of those. Curry, I’m less certain — my guess is he’s more Ray Allen type (which means he’s still great) — in that can be the 2nd best option on a very good team or the 3rd best on championship team.
Personally, I think Rubio (somewhat) and Turner (definitely) have a chance to be those types of players. If Rubio’s ceiling is Jason Kidd (best player on two runners-up) or Turner is that level, then I think it’s going to work out fine. Of course, if we wind up drafting 5th this year . . .
I had to go with Curry and Evans
I think Timberwolves fans have spent this whole year looking into the future that they forgot about the here and now. We’re looking at one of the best young players at getting to the basket plus one of the best young shooters who will only get better as you saw how much Curry improved during the last 2 months of the season. Then look at defense we would have an undersized SG but an oversized PG so it works out on defense. And curry doesn’t have to shoot over who are guys that are 6 feet 6 anymore like we had to in Golden State cause they always played 2 or 3 small guards. As much I love Rubio and Turner you just can’t turn down a sure thing for a chance.
wow...optimism
I’m sort of shocked by the results of this poll. More than anything it seems to show that Wolves fans (at least the ones on this board) are really optimistic about the hand the organization is playing.
To me, a backcourt of Evans, Curry, & Sessions has a lot going for it in terms of size, versatility, scoring & defense, plus the simple fact that you are talking about known quantities is huge. Yes Rubio & Turner have lots of potential but they are unknowns at the NBA level. I think people are totally underestimating this for some reason.
Also, and I’m not sure if it’s fair to include this in the conversation, but the positive effect that winning 19 more games would have on the development of guys like Jefferson, Love, & Brewer would be HUGE, not to mention improving the culture of the organization as a whole.
If that offer was on the table I wouldn’t hesitate 2 seconds – Evans & Curry, plus 19 more wins. This franchise would be in a totally different place, fans would be checked in, not out, players might actually want to come here…
Yes but, it's all hypothetical
I think the voting reflects the desire of fans to go with what is possible rather than what is impossible. So the possible gets my vote.
it's a hypothetical question - that's the point
I don’t see how the poll question has anything to do with “possible”, unless you’re saying it’s just too depressing to vote for something that’s theoretically impossible. I think it’s an interesting question, as a hypothetical, and gets at how excited fans are (or are not) about Flynn, the rights to Rubio, and our pending lottery pick.
I mean, If people are “happy” with Flynn, et al just because there’s no practical way to get Evans & Curry, that’s a pretty low bar for the organization to clear. Glen Taylor should be thrilled to have such accomodating fans, though it’s a little hard to explain why next year’s season tickets aren’t flying off the shelves.
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
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Create-a-Caption: Tim Duncan puts some stank on it
- LeBron James won’t even give Lance Stephenson half a bar
- Let’s all hate the Oklahoma City Thunder shirts that take a needless shot at the team’s move from Seattle (PHOTO)
- The Golden State Warriors will likely move to San Francisco in 2017
- Chris Paul goes off the top of the backboard for one last Clipper highlight before losing to Spurs (VIDEO)
