Wolves Updates 6/30
by SG on Jun 30, 2010 1:36 AM CDT
Email
Print
ESPN souces: Dallas inquired about Big Al, Kahn wants to bring two free agents to town, team adds O'Bryant to summer league roster and more
From Jeff Caplan/ESPN:
The Dallas Mavericks' search for help to support star forward Dirk Nowitzki included inquiries about Minnesota Timberwolves center Al Jefferson prior to last week's NBA draft, according to sources close to the situation.
Sources with knowledge of the Mavericks' thinking, however, told ESPNDallas.com that Jefferson is a "down the list" target for the team who is unlikely to be pursued further until after Dallas makes a series of sign-and-trade bids for top free agents.Two sources said the initial round of Mavs-Wolves discussions never got beyond the preliminary stage. Minnesota still wants more than mere salary relief for Jefferson...
From Jerry Zgoda/Star Tribune:
If Gay is one of their targets and if they should be able to sign him, either they're planning that Johnson and/or Gay can play shooting guard in Kurt Rambis' system or perhaps another deal would be in the works. Keep your eye on Derrick Favors, whom the Nets might have drafted just to trade if they can sign a star power forward (Amare Stoudemire, Carlos Boozer) in free agency.
Kahn said he wants to bring two candidates to town to see Target Center and meet team personnel, including owner Glen Taylor.
From Tom Ziller/Fanhouse: Wolves Target Rudy Gay?
From ProBasketballTalk: Timberwolves to make run at Rudy Gay
From Charley Walters/Pioneer Press:
Ex-Wolves coach Flip Saunders, who coaches the Washington Wizards, could be a challenge for Gay, though. The Wizards have $22.5 million in salary cap space, compared with the Wolves' $15 million, and also are interested in Gay, whose hometown is Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, if the Wolves trade power forward Al Jefferson, as expected, keep an eye on Golden State's Anthony Randolph. The 6-10 power forward, just 20 years old, perfectly fits Minnesota's needs in that he's a long shot blocker. Word is Randolph, who would complement Love's play, is expendable.
From Jerry Zgoda/Star Tribune:
Kahn said he has "no idea" how quickly this show plays out and whether it's best to spend early, hoping there will be more unspent money than good players available later or whether there will be great bargains later this summer.
Whatever happens, he uses one word to describe how his team must respond.
"Nimble," Kahn said. "You're not in control as much as you'd like to be. Right now, [the top free agents are] in control of the situation. There's too many teams with room, too many fine players out there. In those types of situations, it's best to be really nimble and change course as need be.
From Jerry Zgoda/Star Tribune:
The Wolves have added former lottery pick and Blaine's own Patrick O'Bryant to their Las Vegas Summer League roster.
They've also invited former Gophers Damian Johnson and Lawrence Westbrook and Southern Indiana guard Jamar Smith, who also played at Illinois, to try out for one or two Vegas spots when they begin three days of workouts at Target Center on July 8.
There's also a chance second-round pick Nemanja Bjelica will be added to the roster before the team leaves for Vegas and its first game on July 12.
From The Hoops Market:
Nikola Pekovic will have to decide his future before July 15th. The 24-year-old Montenegrin center could opt out of his contract with Panathinaikos, paying $1 million to the Greek club, and move to the NBA. According to the Greek media, the Minnesota Timberwolves, the team that own his NBA rights, would have offered a $15 million, 3-year contract to land Pekovic next season.
According to the person familiar with the situation, the Nets turned down Miami's offer of Beasley for Keyon Dooling's $500,000 non-guaranteed contract. (For obvious reasons. The Nets are trying to clear space for two max free agents, as well, and in fact dumped Yi Jianlian on the Wizards Tuesday to save $3 million.) Minnesota also turned down the Heat's offer of Beasley for Ryan Gomes, the person said.
305 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Quantity
but not necessarily proven NBA quality.
And Patrick O’Bryant eh!
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
We turn down Beasley for Gomes...
….Nets turn down Beasley for Dooling. I wonder if something is going on with the kid we don’t know about.
I thought Miami turned it down
because they didn’t want the residual of Gomes’s deal on their cap.
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
That would make sense
why trade him for the Gomes/Dooling buyout, when they can trade him for cap space in a week.
I put Patrick O'Bryant's name in Babelfish by accident
it apparently translates to Ekpe Udoh……
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
by Auswolf on Jun 30, 2010 4:32 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm all in for Gay
This is the only year we’d even have a chance at a player like him. Gotta take it, even for the overpay. He is a franchise SF. Maybe not a franchise player, but he is still 23. If we could SnT Jefferson for Amare, or move Jefferson for Randolph or Favors, we’d be set.
by John Wall on Jun 30, 2010 4:57 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeah when you can lock up
$15 million a year on a player that’s never played in a playoff game, you have to do.
In that scenario...
…we’d be all set up to win 30-35 games a year. Get your tickets now!
That would be such a disappointing ending to all the buildup, so I fully expect that is exactly Kahn’s plan.
You have an odd sense of what makes a franchise player
if you think Rudy is one.
He’s the Al Jefferson of wings.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
In all fairness to Al..
at least he rebounds in addition to being a selfish inefficient scorer that doesn’t play defense. Gay brings nothing else to the table.
f***k y'all haters lol
Gay is a baller. He absolutely is a top 5 SF in the NBA, and in my scenario we’re a perennial playoff team. I guess you want to keep tanking for lottery picks though. what a joke.
GAY ALL THE WAY
for the record
“GAY ALL THE WAY” just causes a mental image of a rainbow to pop into my head and I forget all about your point.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions
I just showed up after finding this site on a Google search
But it’s not what I expected…
by losDelFuego on Jun 30, 2010 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
YMCA...XOXO...Loring Park...Jazz Hands
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Was it the talk of
Gay Johnson Love that brought you here?
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
Not that there’s anything wrong with that
by BetterLaettnerThanRider on Jun 30, 2010 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions
not colorful enough
Think cartoon world style rainbow. Maybe with a skipping leprechaun.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Though the rainbow is more colorful
I’m not so sure about the ’chaun
by BetterLaettnerThanRider on Jun 30, 2010 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
if only we can photoshop that 'chaun and make him smile
but the rainbow looks right.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll go with GAY PART OF THE WAY
but look at it this way: compare the Griz roster to the Wolves roster, and see how they did with Gay.
Conley > Flynn (barely)
Mayo > Brewer (much)
ZBo > Injured Al
Gasol > Hollins/Darko
That team made the lottery (again). How is taking Gay out of that and putting him on the Wolves (especially if Al gets peddled for peanuts) going to be any good?
He probably doesn’t have much upside, but he’ll be an efficient, relatively low-usage scorer who plays good D and moves the ball. He’s definitely not the scorer Gay is, but he’s a nice player who’d probably come much cheaper than Gay.
Isn’t he restricted, though?
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
Salary
I think Gay is definitely a better player than Childress, but the disparity in perception of each player has got to be related to how much it would cost to get each player. It appears the majority of the board would rather spend $7M per year for Childress than $12M per year for Gay.
As much as I’ve always liked him (back to his Stanford days), my biggest concern about Childress is that he is a supporting-cast player and we’ve never really had trouble adding players like that. I guess I’d rather take the chance on Gay developing into a star than spend $7M or so on a guy who started a total of 23 games in his last three seasons on bad Atlanta Hawks teams. I’m sure he’s improved in Europe, but I just can’t see him as a guy worth spending a lot of cash on.
Eh
I think that if a guy with Rudy’s tools and opportunties was going to be a star, he’d have shown it by now. To me, he’s maybe 1 step up in that “supporting-cast” category.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
He's a supporting cast player
the same way Love is a supporting cast player. He may not get 20PPG but he is super efficient, plays defense, and does the things that win ball games. You get enough of those players on your squad and suddenly you are the Detroit Pistons of 2004.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 30, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
"does the things that win ball games."
Sort of an odd assessment, since Chilly’s departure coincided with a 10-win bump from 37 to 47, which was then followed by a 53-win season. Atlanta jumped from mediocre/below average to 50-win team when Chilly went to Europe. Maybe it’s coincidence, but I’d say he was at most a net-zero in terms of effect on his team’s winning. If he were doing things that win ball games, in the sense that he made his team win more than they would have without him, the rest of the Hawks made a ridiculous improvement from one year to the next. That, or Mike Bibby is way better in his old age than I ever realized.
To be fair
Childress jumped ship right when Atlanta’s young collection of talent was all coalescing and reaching its talent potential all at the same time. The latent inference that Childress may have been holding that team back is false. Childress led that 37 win team in WS (7.6), followed by Joe Johnson (7), Josh Smith (5.8), Marvin Williams (5.7), and Al Horford (5.5).
The next year (post Childress) they won 47 games behind Joe Johnson (7.6 WS, +.6), Mike Bibby (6.9, +5.2), Al Horford (6.8, +1.3), Marvin Williams (6.1, +.4), and Josh Smith (4.9, -.9). Total developmental improvement = +6.6 wins.
Last year they won 53 games behind Al Horford (10.9, +4.1), Josh Smith (9.3, +4.4), Joe Johnson (8.4, +.8), Jamal Crawford (7.3), Marvin Williams (5.7, -.4), and Mike Bibby (4.8, -2.1). Total WS improvement (not including Jamal Crawford) = 6.8 wins (or 47 wins to 53 wins).
So ya, I don’t think Childress was holding them back. I think arguably the Hawks would have won the same or more games had he been there, considering he’s improved in Europe (at least that’s what he says). He certainly hasn’t gotten worse. But the improvement in Atlanta’s win record is due to player development more than anything.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
I'm sticking to wins and losses, here.
Barring major injuries or major additions/departures, I think it’s fair to look at how the team did with him and without him. Bibby was an addition and the rest of the team gained experience. However, Johnson was 26 in Chilly’s last year in Atlanta. Read the comments around Canis Hoopus posts over the past two months and you’ll be convinced that 26 is the tail end of one’s prime — not the beginning of it.
I get your points, but let’s be reasonable, here: without a doubt, Atlanta got better at the exact same time that Childress left. If you think they would have done the same with him (10 additional wins) then you basically concede that Childress didn’t matter. If you think they would have won more than 47 games that year (or 53, last year) then you think the Bibby addition and/or development of 27-year old Johnson & Co. was very signficant in 1 off-season, to way-more-than overcome Chilly’s departure, like they did.
In any case, I think that when a collective group is growing together over multiple seasons, and they experience a win-spike after the departure of one of these players, it’s hard to argue with a straight face that that player is a special type that does the things needed to win games. If anything, he probably does the things to boost efficiency ratings at the expense, or at best, without affecting, the win-column.
(Childress drafted) -> 13 wins → 26 wins → 30 wins → 37 wins → (Childress leaves) → 47 wins ->
not really a win spike.. more like continuation of improvement.
I suppose...
but two things:
- It’s harder to jump from 37 wins to 47 wins than it is 13 to 26, 26 to 30, 30 to 37. 37 to 47 is a jump from mediocre/irrelevant to a 4-seed. Wouldn’t you be surprised if, say, Memphis wins 50 games, next year? It’s not necessarily a logical jump in wins, based mostly on developing the same players you’ve had for a few years. It usually takes a budding superstar (Durant) or major free agent acquisition, to make that step into the serious playoff picture. In Atlanta’s case, none of that happened. Johnson turned 27, if that mattered. They had Horford, who didn’t do much more in Year 2 than in Year 1. Marvin remained a role player. J-Smoove remained an enigma or sorts (though he did improve substantially in 2010, when they bumped another 6 wins up). They added Bibby, I guess.
- If the trend continues, doesn’t that suggest Childress was a non-factor?
I don’t think Childress is bad, by any stretch, but I think he’s overrated by stat-types.
whoops...
I guess I just think that team wins is such a weak statistic to use for player evaluation. If you look at a metric that tries to take apart individual contribution like Wp48 08 09 it looks like the difference was due to a small to moderate increase in productivity by Horford, Johnson, and Smoove, above average play by Bibby, and a drastic improvement by Marvin Williams. None of these improvements are surprising given the projected potential and ages of the players involved.
If we were talking about LeBron, it would not fit expectations if the team continued an upward trajectory after he leaves, but nobody is arguing that Childress is anywhere near that level. Childress is an above average player, all that is needed to more than compensate for his absence (especially when he was the 6th man and thus logging less minutes and having less of an impact on the outcome of games) is small to moderate improvement by several other players. This should not be a surprising occurrence on a team with numerous young high lottery picks.
I guess
I think we’re kind of in agreement about it. Basically I think that Atlanta’s improving win total is due more to allowing a group of young, talented players to get better together over a number of seasons versus the product of just one or two guys. I simply don’t believe that Atlanta’s improving win total after Childress left is a causal relationship. That’s the essential point that I was trying to illustrate. To be perfectly honest, I think it’s all speculative as to whether they would have won more or less had Childress been there. I think he’d be a good acquisition for us, but not at $10 million a year.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Jun 30, 2010 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Let's look at Atlanta's trend during Childress's tenure
13 wins → 26 wins → 30 wins → 37 wins → (Childress leaves) → 47 wins
I guess this successfully makes the argument that Childress was not a superstar without whom the team could not function, but this was clearly an up and coming team, with lots of young talent in addition to Childress, some of whom (Joe Johnson in particular) that were somewhat redundant with Childress. The team didn’t get better because they dropped Childress, the team got better because of the improved performance of Joe Johson, Al Horford, and Josh Smith.
Mavs trade
I think Jefferson for Kidd and Najera helps out both teams. They get a low post scorer and relief from their PG logjam (Terry makes $11m). We get a Obi-wan Kenobi to mentor Flynn and Rubio, plus Najera’s $3 million is not guaranteed if we don’t want his toughness as a combo forward.
Dallas Trade?
I can’t see any way that Jason Kidd is included in that deal – he makes very little sense here and I can’t see why a championship-contender like Dallas would ship out their starting PG.
More practical Dallas swap...
Don’t you think Erick Dampier’s expiring $13.1M contract would have to be included in a Dallas trade? Why not Jefferson for Dampier, Dominique Jones and Dallas’ 2011 1st-rounder?
That...
…is the type of trade Kahn would make to give away Jefferson for .10 on the dollar.
Yeah, could be.
I actually agree with you on that. We could probably get more for Al than that.
I’m just not sure what else we can get for him and he’s such a poor fit at this point. And, I’ll be the first to say that I’ve been a pretty big proponent over the last few years…
I would probably say that patience is the best way to go with Al… see who comes up short in free agency, then act.
forgot
to add that Kidd’s contract runs $8.5m for this season and next only. Jefferson’s runs $13m, $14m, $15m.
So crazy how things can change in just two years.
Right up until the 2008 draft, I was hoping and praying for Beasley to fall to us at number 3. Ha. Beasley is a good reminder that even immensely talented players are not worth the risk if they’re a headcase.
Just imagine if the Heat had taken Mayo, Love, or Lopez instead of Beasley. Hell, I’m sure they’d take any of the top ten taken behind Beasley in 08, anyone except Alexander. Makes me more optimistic about passing on Cousins
There is no question they regret passing on Mayo
Remember how the story came out that Riley was leaning toward Mayo, but was convinced by other Heat staff members to draft Beasley? Mayo could have easily played PG with a playmaker like Wade at SG. Riley has been kicking himself ever since.
by Rascal Flatts on Jun 30, 2010 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions
In a way, that decision was the opposite of Cousins/Johnson...
Taking the guy with more value as opposed to the “safer” pick.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 30, 2010 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions
At the time, wasn't Beasley supposed to be the sure thing and Mayo the risk at 2?
Also if I remember correctly, Randy Pfund was supposed to have encouraged Riley to make that pick. The same Randy Pfund the Wolves tried to hire before Kahn.
Riley wanted Mayo
There was just pressure to take Beasley because he was the “Clear No. 2 Player in the draft.” Miami didn’t want to reach… even though it would have been a better pick.
If the Wolves could add Favors or Randolph to the roster I’d be more optimistic. I’d think that Randolph could possibly be gettable for less and would prefer that route. I wonder if Al and Brewer for Biedrins and Randolph is workable, or a 3 way deal with Al going to Dallas and Dampier/Brewer going to GS? Favors would likely require Love or Wes.
The interest in Gay is strange. The idea that Wes and Rudy could play together at the 2/3 is nice on paper. We would have awesome size/length on the wing, but can that combo defend well enough? Even on paper though, Rudy Gay is about to become an overpaid volume scorer.
Gotta get Gay
Overpaying for Rudy Gay makes Minnesota relevant and gives us more wins. If he was in his late-20s or something, it would be a totally different story. But he’s 23 and exceptionally talented. BTW, the holes in his game (dribble-happy, too in love with his jumper, a bit indifferent defensively) have nothing to do with smarts, attitude or character. He seems to be a really good guy with the right mindset… he just needs to develop and has lots of time to do it. I think Rambis is just the guy to reach him. Again, if he were older with a bad attitude, I’d want nothing to do with him. But as a young guy with upside and a good attitude, he’s just the type of guy to spend big on. I think adding Gay and bringing back Darko and Pekovic (in addition to the previous pick-ups of Webster, Wes, Lazar and Bjelica) makes Minnesota a 40-win team next year. But Gay is the key.
No, you don't
“gotta” get him.
Dude’s been in the league for what, 5 years now? He doesn’t need to develop. He’s not a max player, or anywhere near one, and the team that pays him as such will regret it. I guarantee it.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
GORTAT?
One of my favorite targets for a couple years has been Marcin Gortat, who is now on the trading block. Moreover, Orlando seems like one of the most-likely destination for Brad Miller and they just drafted Daniel Orton. Rashard Lewis is a SF maskerading as a PF, so why wouldn’t a trade based on Jefferson FOR Gortat + filler make sense? A 50-50 split in the post between Darko and Gortat would be nice. Why not trade Jefferson to Orlando, where he would slide right in and be The Magic’s best low-post scoring threat? A package of, say, Gortat, Bass, Stanley Robinson and their 2011 1st-round pick?
Redick in that package please.
The last guy we need now is Brandon Bass.
Gortat would also be cheaper than Darko in the short run.
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
I like Redick
But he’s a restricted FA and redundant with Ellington. Could Ellington go back to Orlando in that deal? And wouldn’t Orlando still be over the salary-cap in that scenario. Methinks we’d still have to find a way to take back some salary – Bass or otherwise.
Redick's QO is about 5.8m
Eh, Orlando aren’t a good trade partner for us. We seem to be ready to move Al with indecent haste. I’m going off the idea rapidly.
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
Jefferson move
I’ve been a big fan of Jefferson. He’s obviously one of the very best low-post scorers in The NBA and I’ll say that he’s an under-rated defender (especially when he plays PF). But I just don’t think he’s a good fit and he dominates our salary cap. I think Gortat is a starter-quality starter and an excellent defender. If The Wolves can get Gortat and a couple of other assets (Stanley Robinson, future draft picks), I’d do it.
Rudy Gay--
So, we’re trying to overpay a volume scorer and indifferent defender and passer at the three (after we just spent one of the highest draft picks in team history on a vastly similar player, and traded another first-round pick for another similar player), while we try to trade a volume scorer and and indifferent defender and passer at the 4 for pennies on the dollar?
Actually, that’s not fair to Al Jefferson—despite his well-deserved reputation as a “black hole” on offense, he actually has a better chance of getting an assist playing PF than Rudy Gay has at SF—even though Jefferson was passing to teammates who were wildly inferior offensively to Gay’s fellow Grizzlies.
As you drool over his raw simple stats, keep in mind that Gay played the 3rd most minutes per game in the NBA last year, has a PER that is barely above average, and shot 33% from the “3” last year—a figure in decline over his short career.
by PoorDick on Jun 30, 2010 8:01 AM CDT reply actions 3 recs
Gay clearly has some developing to do...
But he’s got some excellent traits and an excellent attitude. Further, Kurt Rambis will be the best coach he’s ever played for. Further-further, he’s never played with a PG like Ricky Rubio. I think the holes in his game can realistically be developed when playing for Rambis and with Rubio. You can see why Kahn is targetting long, athletic wings – those type of players flourish with a running, facilitator-style PG like Rubio.
Cart before the horse there with Rubio, foobee.
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
Yes, but...
If you’re running The Wolves, YOU MUST assume that Rubio is gonna play here. If they build it, he will come!
I dont think
assume is the right way of putting it. They are clearly trying to create the most favourable environment for him; but the prettiest run and gun team in the NBA won’t matter much if it only wins 25 games.
Gay looks massively redundant.
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
What are his excellent traits,
and how do you know is his attitude is “excellent”? I like Kurt Rambis, but I would have a difficult time proving he’s a better coach than Hollins. Further-further, if the Wolves are dumb enough to sign Gay, he will be playing with a point guard like Jonny Flynn for at least the next year, and maybe longer.
Further, we’d be signing him to an 8-figure contract in the face of a new more restrictvie CBA. Plus, as a restricted FA, he’s more difficult to sign than a UFA.
If there’s one thing on which we agree, it’s that the holes in his game will develop after he signs his big contract. I think we’ll be talking about his holes for many years to come.
Is Rudy Gay a bum?
They way some of the anti-Gay folks on here are talking, you’d assume that he’d be lucky to get the mid-level exception this off-season.
He’s clearly gonna get paid this off-season because I believe there’s some consensus that he’s got quite a bit of upside to him. I guess my question for you is this: if Gay isn’t worth $10M-$12M per year, what is he worth (and what are the odds that he doesn’t get near-max money someplace)?
I’m just dying for Minnesota to make a bold move for a top-level, young talent. It’s the type of move that teams make to become relevant.
It's not that he's a bad player
but you bring up one of the main reasons to shun him: It’s a sellers market for free agents right now. Why pay an artificially-high price for an above-average (at best) player who plays a position that has been well-addressed on draft day, when there are so many other holes to fill now and in the future?
He's done nothing
to prove he deserves more than $10 million per year. No playoff appearance, never played on a winning team, has a career .329 team win %, never made an all-star game.
I’m not trying to bash him but to overpay (and likely massively overpay), for a guy that could possibly turn our 15 win team into a 25 win team. That makes no sense. Not to mention we just spent 3 first round picks on 3 guys that play the same position.
10-win improvement?
If one player is worth a 10-win improvement by himself, I think that supports the argument for signing him. 10 wins in The NBA shouldn’t be some kind of after-thought that is dismissed.
And BTW
Don’t miss the forest for the trees on our current depth chart. Are you saying that Brewer and Wes Johnson couldn’t EASILY be flipped in another trade?
You're confident that Kahn could get fair value
for either of those assets? Because I’m not. I gave him credit for the Washington trade last year, and gave him the benefit of the doubt on some of the things that have happened since.
But he utterly failed to exploit last year’s trade deadline and the buildup to this year’s draft, when so many teams were looking to clear out players for cap space. (And yes folks, that includes failing to get full value from Gomes’ contract, for which I still do not apologize just because a GM-less Portland couldn’t get anything for it in the 6 days they had it).
The fact is, if we can sign Gay (a big “if” as it is), we’ll be the laughing stock of the NBA (and rightly so) unless and until we can make another trade to balance the roster. Kahn drafted a low-cost SF who has the potential to play well with Rubio. Stick with him and use the cap space to fill other needs.
Gomes
Any team trading for Gomes was gonna have to embrace losing $1M of cap space for the each of the next three years. You’re saying NBA GMs should have been lining up for the right to lose their cap space on a player not on their roster? I mean, I think it was a coup to move him to Portland. Even at only $1M of cap space per year, Gomes was a TOXIC contract because dead cap-space is like an anchor.
Other than Gomes, what other trades should he have made last trade deadline?
I don’t see many areas where he could have gotten much value. I guess he could have moved those smaller expiring deals like Pecherov, Pavlovic and Wilkins. But I’m assuming he wouldn’t have been able to get much of an asset in return for them. I just don’t see what obvious, had-to-do-it trades would have even been viable…
As a mere fan
it’s really, really hard to evaluate trades because we don’t ever know the set of options. Here’s what I know: Kahn closed up shop last trade deadline and nothing happened. I would expect that he could have found something that would have been better than the nothing that happened. WWPD? (P=Presti).
Mad-Dan, I ask again...
What desirable assets did Kahn have to flip? Kahn clearly has no problem making trades, but I think in the case of last year’s trade-deadline, the cliche holds that “sometimes the best trades are the one you DON’T make.”
According to you, Brewer.
And he didn’t move Jefferson then, but will now. And three first-round picks. And Pekovic’s rights. And Gomes’ contract (I’m sticking with that one, you’ll notice). And Sessions.
As Just A Fan (who is distinguished from most on this site by having actual information) has pointed out for us, Kahn said he wasn’t making any major moves, so the calls stopped coming.
That would have been OK with me if he’d make big moves during the draft, but he didn’t. If he can pull in a semi-big FA and/or trade for Favors and end up with a balanced roster by the end of this, I’ll change my tune on Kahn. But the draft took away any hope I had for his ability to make big, transformational (in a good way) moves. I think he improved us in the draft, but not by as much as I’d hoped he would.
by Madison Dan on Jun 30, 2010 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Those are assets
I will agree that Brewer, Jefferson, 1st-rounders and Pekovic are assets. I for one will admit that I’m not privy to any actual offers for those players (and I’m assuming you don’t have any real inside information on that either, right?). On the other hand, Gomes was a toxic liability because of the unique circumstances in his buyout clause. I’ve never seen another contract that mandates salary-cap hits in each of the next three seasons once he’s bought out. I mean, it’s not like he was a traditional expiring contract or anything.
What about the Darko trade?
The trade that brought Darko to the team last year was made just before the trade deadline.
You've got me there
Who knew how important that would end up being?
by Madison Dan on Jun 30, 2010 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions
There were no "Had to Do" trades
but Sessions, Gomes and Big Al all had trade value with at least 1 team that was not fully explored.
Any more info?
Were all 3 part of the same offer?
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 30, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
No - different deals
A playoff team who just happens to run the triangle offense had some interest in our back up point guard (who looked pretty comfortable running it, I might add)
There was Big Al interest in Dallas prior to their trade with Washington.
I have no specifics on Gomes. My guess is that several playoff teams near the cap would have been interested in his playing ability / contract.
Returns?
What were LA and Dallas offering in return? Kobe and Dirk?
Again, why do so many folks see Gomes’ contract as an asset? Most NBA GMs have a little vision. If Gomes’ contract completely came off the books after last season, I fully expect he would have been traded. But he wasn’t an expiring contract. An acquiring team would have to face the difficult decision of either paying Gomes around $5M per year or reducing their salary-cap space by $1M per year for the next three years. Especially in an off-season where teams were slashing payroll any way they could, I just can’t see how any team would be interested in either of the two options that Gomes’ contract presented.
No idea
because Kahn did not pursue these inquiries at all.
How in the world do you know that?
Was he spending time at the trade deadline at McHale’s cabin on Sturgeon Lake?
Ahhh, the good old days
at the Strib. Too bad they changed the format. But you are new around here (at least posting), so you may not know that JAF has a front-office friend.
by Madison Dan on Jun 30, 2010 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Ahh, the terrible old days
Thank god for CH, I remember the strib boards. Who was that one $%#&^ who always trolled the boards and started fights? His icon was a guy with a gun (of course).
Just the memory of it makes me hug our moderators here a little more closely. I also smell like strawberries. Just saying.
Logical Thinker
I’m pretty sure you’re referring to Logical Thinker, who last season said The Wolves should have kept Miller and Foye and then gone out and signed Allen Iverson…
Yes!
it was going to kill me trying to remember that. LT made an appearance on CH for a while last year, I think as “Conned” or something like that. Things did not tend to go well for him.
by Madison Dan on Jun 30, 2010 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Kahn was quoted
in several new papers, including the Star Tribune, that he was “not going to move his core players” at the trade deadline. He was further quoted as saying that “he was not making phone calls”.
I wish this was truly “insider info” but I just confirmed what the papers said.
do you think “core players” included Gomes though?
I’ve long wanted to trade Al, but so far none of the confirmed offers for Al have been very appealing. And since he was coming off an injury (and not playing very well during the season) I don’t fault Kahn for passing on mediocre offers in the hope that Al got/gets healthy and started/starts playing better.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 30, 2010 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions
the best way to get value out of Gomes
was to package him with another player to trade to a contender at the deadline for another player. that way the team got both the use out of him and could cut him after the season. The extended cap hit aspect of his deal really diluted his value.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions
One GM had vision..
…he turned a duplicate part time wing player with a nearly $5 mil salary into the 16th pick and a minimal cap hit.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
What a brilliant move.
Isn’t life easy when you have Brandon Roy, Nic Batum and Rudy Fernandez in your reserves? Give me a “part time wing player” on that team. Cripes.
SnP…could you and JAF (with some inside help) put together a post on the trade offers Kahn shot down in the last year?
We’re dealing with so much conjecture and it would be very helpful in CH’s current parlor game of choice (assessing Kahn’s competence) to have a relatively accurate sense of previous trade offers.
I understand the default complaint is that Kahn wasn’t being pro-active enough after saying “we wouldn’t be trading our core players”, but I’m sure GMs were still calling (apparently they were for Sessions and Al near deadline). And it’s pretty clear Kahn was active (perhaps not effective) leading up to the draft.
While you and JAF seem to be in the anti-Kahn camp, I trust you’d put forth a fair report.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 30, 2010 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I think we'll have plenty of evidence..
….without conjecture to make that determination by the trade deadline. His 5 moments of change will have expired and the team will have cashed in its chips. I’ve heard a ton of stuff over the past year but I don’t like putting anything out there unless it is in my own voice. I’m not going to say “sources told me” or something of the like. This isn’t to say that I don’t throw stuff into what I write here…it’s just blended in with everything else and I stand behind it with it being said by myself. I can’t speak for JAF but this is an editorial decision that I’d like to keep going on the site for myself.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
The ratio of complaints here
regarding negative opinion and conjecture on the Wolves is about ten to one versus complaints about positive opinion and conjecture.
I'd say...
..it’s about 50 to 1 with Kahn.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Have we forgotten the "%" convention already?
I liked that idea.
by Madison Dan on Jun 30, 2010 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I know..
….we need a super-dry sarcasm button. It should have read “%!!!!! of course”
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
SB Nation Upgrade
How don’t they have a sarcasm tag or button yet?
Right before we fell asleep last night...
… I mentioned to my gf that she had started an online revolution with the %single %greatest idea ever. Response: “Oh good, I’m really pleased…. (five second pause) … Which is more than I can say most nights.”
by TheH on Jun 30, 2010 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Since you're obviously not married,
when you’re talking with your girlfriend before you go to sleep, isn’t it difficult to yell from your bedroom into hers?
Funny you should mention that...
… I was telling her mother that just the other day.
Fair enough, but I, for one, am not going to fault Kahn for rejecting offers that may not have existed. Nor do I think it’s entirely fair for others to do so without citing evidence of blown trades.
Happy to fault him for drafting Curry over Flynn and maybe eventually Lazar over Whiteside and Wes over DMC. And I think he’s made some PR gaffes (“we’re not trading our core players”, “3 player draft”, “Favors is out of shape”, his explanation of Portland trade), but I doubt any of these lead to a single additional win or loss.
However, on balance, I think he’s gotten the better end of more trades than not in the last year.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 30, 2010 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
to put a button this thought, the jury is still out for me on Kahn. I like 1/3 of the moves (Foye/Miller for Rubio’s rights, drafting Ellington, trading for Darko) and don’t like the other 1/3 (Flynn over Curry, Hayward over Whiteside, Wes over DMC) and the jury is still out on 1/3 (eventual Al trade, Webster trade)
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 30, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
The kicker with Gomes..
…is that it doesn’t matter if other deals existed or not. The status quo was using 16 plus waiving Gomes with the buyout. The fact that a team could convert 15 or so mil over 3 years into less than 3 mil over 2 should have been worth enough by itself for a player like Webster.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
While I’m optimistic about Webster, I’m not suggesting it was an equal value trade.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 30, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions
It doesn't matter
He costs more over time than what the Wolves sent out or could have kept with the status quo. It’s the type of deal that makes you wonder if Kahn is the type of guy street vendors in Chinatown can’t wait to see.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Gomes = Webster?
I could understand this if Gomes was the same type of player as Webster. I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth, but I assume you think Webster is better than Gomes or at least has a significantly higher upside in Minnesota’s system of play, right?
I don't know how..
…he’ll react at the two, but I don’t think his improvement over Gomes (I do think he’s slightly better) is enough to justify the money and the pick. Not by a long shot.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
The sense I get
is that Rambis wants Webster and believes there’s a lot more upside there. From a schematic/talent standpoint Webster probably does more for us than Gomes based on his athleticism and length alone. Gomes is perfect for a playoff team and miscast on a rebuilding team. FWIW acquiring Webster is all about Rambis wanting one of his guys to anchor the perimeter defense, in my opinion. I still have high hopes for Brewer, but I think in the FO’s mind this trade was about getting a solid guy who they think has more to show and getting rid of an efficient but ultimately limited tweener who is a pro’s pro.
Also interesting to note – both Gomes and Webster were drafted in the same year. Bizarre, huh?
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
Gomes v. Webster
Webster: 4 years younger.
Webster: +athleticism.
Webster: +upside.
I may be “drinking the Kool-Aid” (as I’ve been accused of before!), but I think this trade was heavily-slanted in The Wolves’ favor. We acquired Martell Webster and $3M of cap space in exchange for Luke Babbitt, who could be the next Adam Morrison (and even if he’s better than that, he’s not gonna defend in The NBA). I also wasn’t enamored with anybody else that was available at No. 16. So I see that as a great use of the No. 16 pick.
No
We did not “get $3M in cap space”. Webster is a more expensive option. As SnP has pointed out the other day, we could have kept Babbitt and bought out Gomes and been about $7.5M ahead over 3 years relative to the trade.
It may work out that Webster is worth the premium, but let’s not pretend we saved any money in the deal. Rookies are cheap.
Two different ways of thinking: Vacuum vs. Big-Picture
Yes, Mad-Dan, I understand the balance sheet of that trade in a vacuum shows Minnesota taking on more cash. I don’t think anybody’s questioning that basic truth. (I would submit, though, that Minnesota got a better player than Gomes or anybody available at No. 16, but I digress…)
But you’re completely ignoring the “dead-cap” issue. In theory, Kahn could trade Webster tomorrow (he shouldn’t) for an expiring contract. But if we kept Gomes and cut him, that would be $1M per year off the cap for each of the next three years. That cap space would then be gone with no way to recover it, hence the toxic nature of Gomes’ contract.
You can’t just ignore the dead-cap money issue.
That still couldn't ever be recovered.
Once that $3M is gone, it’s gone. Regardless of how you look at it, Kahn retained his full salary-cap without squandering anything to “dead cap” money. I guess I can’t ignore that that’s a pretty big deal, especially considering that Webster is quite a bit better IMO than anything Kahn could have gotten at No. 16.
To me
the broader issue is that Gomes was not going to be on this team one way or the other. Either we cut him ourselves, and save some money, or we trade him for a prospect.
From the sounds of it there wasn’t much out there to trade for using just Gomes as a chip. Beasley, I guess, and that’s about it.
I don’t understand what all the fuss is about with Gomes. He was going to be cut – by trading him to Portland we save a little bit more.
Trading for Webster was all about the 16th pick and nothing more (hence Kahn’s statement that Portland took on Gomes as ‘a favor.’)
I can’t quite remember all the details about Gomes’ contract right now, but am I correct in that cutting him now means we essentially have a cap hold of $1 million count against our cap for three years? Whatever – the point is that 3 years guaranteed of Babbitt costs $4.42 million, and up to $10.2 million with the additional two option years.
Webster is guaranteed two years at $10 million, with a partially guaranteed third year (if I’m reading the Hoopus finance board right) making it $15.77 million overall. That’s a pretty big difference in money, but if cutting Gomes ourselves really does cost $3 million over three years, essentially you’re paying Webster $2.6 million more than Babbitt to be better than Babbitt (equation is: Webster for two years – Babbitt for three years – Gomes’ $3 million cumulative cap hit).
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
2 things that rub me wrong about Kahn
he just has that arrogant attitude about him that he knows just a little more about everything than anyone else. It’s a strange position for Kahn to take – everyone in the NBA knows Kahn was not on the personnel side of the business in Indiana. He has little 1st hand experience. It almost seems that he wants to make a name for himself, by himself, than to use all the experience he had at his disposal. (At which time, people will say that the staff sucked, blah, blah, blah, but the reality is that these are competent people who did reasonable jobs of objective scouting, evaluation, etc. Information at least that should have been used.)
The 2nd thing that bugs me is what SnP has been posting re: Gomes – very convoluted justifications for actions that, at least to casual fans, look on the surface to be head scratching decisions. I would have been thrilled to hear Kahn say “I traded Gomes and #16 because I liked Webster better”. The end. But we get strange rationals that lead us to wonder just what Kahn is thinking. (by the way, I am personally neutral on the trade)
I try an walk a fair line between rumor mongering and offering an inside look. I don’t think I want to go any further than what I have been doing – if for no other reason – to protect my friend’s future.
by Just A Fan on Jun 30, 2010 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I was at the cabin during the draft
Can you remind what Kahn’s rationale was behind acquiring Webster?
From a more removed perspective it simply has never appeared that Gomes had any long term future on this team, and considering that Portland just cut him and Dooling was bought out or released there doesn’t appear to have been much of a market for these kinds of contracts. As I see it, ya, we did take on more salary for more years in adding Webster, but we also found a young player with some upside potential left who fits our needs of getting longer, more athletic, and more defensive.
Again, Gomes wasn’t going to be here one way or the other, and short of getting Beasley I don’t know what else we’d get for him. If he was going to be cut anyways, trading him to Portland saved us an additional million dollars or whatever. Trading 16 for Webster will be determined in the future who won, but the player Webster is today would have been a great pick at 16 had he been in this draft.
As for JAF’s other points – I think the criticism that Kahn didn’t listen to the guys last year is a valid one. On the one hand I can understand why he might be a little distrustful of them (they’re McHale’s guys), but on the other hand at what point do you trust and believe in them as professionals who do their job regardless of who hired them? It’s a valid point.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
2nd Item
JAF – Didn’t Kahn say he liked Webster better, but acknowledged that the cash element was indeed a factor? I may have missed some other spin, but I thought it was a pretty candid, transparent explanation.
Kahn
started with he like Webster, but then quickly moved into a salary cap justification that made no sense.
Opps
lost the link
http://www.canishoopus.com/2010/6/25/1536704/kahn-attempts-to-explain-gomes
There you go.
Thanks
For that link – I just watched it. I’d read a lot of the quotes piecemeal, but never that whole clip.
I will note that Kahn only talked about the Gomes contract part for one minute and he seemed pretty comfortable with the rationale. I think what sums it all up (and what I’ve been clearly emphasizing) starts at the 2:02 mark when he says, “The trade in effect was for the 16th pick only. And then it was a little bit of a cherry on top that they were willing to take on Ryan’s contract.”
That’s why I can’t understand why some folks continue to think we gave something up in Gomes. It was our gain because it saved us from having to take on dead cap space, which cannot be recovered.
it saved us from paying the 3M
upfront to buyhim out (or however it was structured) while also having to pay another player $$$ to actually play. I haven’t run the numbers, so I don’t know how likely it is that this production would be adequately replaced at the same cost.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
The trade couldn't have possibly been..
….for the 16th pick, which is part of the reason why his explanation doesn’t make a lick of sense. They can’t make a lopsided trade before the start of free agency and they can’t get the benefit of Gomes’ contract buyout after the start of free agency. For a GM to make that kind of nonsensical statement is kind of crappy. The trade was not, in effect, for the 16th pick. It was Gomes for Webster because of salary constraints and Kahn threw in the 16th for no apparent reason. If he wanted to save cap space, all he had to do was take 16 and cut Gomes. This would have cost them about $2.4 mil this year against the cap. Instead, he took on a salary that counts for nearly $5 mil against the cap.
If he likes Webster, that’s all he has to say, but he went with some BS explanation that makes it sound like he didn’t know what he had in relation to his explanation of his motive. That’s not good.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Cut Gomes and use No. 16?
So your suggestion is that Kahn should have surrended dead-cap space by cutting Gomes himself AND wound up with a lesser player at No. 16?
I seriously think you’re over-thinking this. I went back and listened to the link JAF just posted and he spoke about finances for just one minute (roughly between the 1:00 and 2:00 marks in that video). The other 2:30+ minutes were spent talking about Webster, Wes and basketball. So he did say he likes Webster (repeatedly). Your suggestion to not even address the money side of it is ludicrous. It seems like every NBA-related story I read these days is full of financial-ramifications of trades. So to say that part of it wasn’t significant seems to be ignoring the obvious. Can’t Kahn address the financial ramifications for literally one minute without rubes accusing him of spinning something? It’s not like he dwelled on it – I mean, that was an important part of the deal, so he addressed it and moved on.
I think you're underestimating...
…how much this makes the guy look like he doesn’t know what he has. He literally couldn’t put it into anything approaching a coherent motive that had anything to do with the facts at hand. My suggestion isn’t that he not address the money side, it’s that he correctly address the money side if he chooses to bring it up at all. It’s not that he spun anything; he got it completely wrong.
Remember when he was hired? He was supposed to know the CBA forwards and backwards and take advantage of small rules and loopholes to make the Wolves better. Well, with this trade, either he’s a liar or he has no clue when it comes to that aspect of the transaction.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
And yes...
…my suggestion is to do exactly what Kevin Pritchard did: draft at 16 and buyout Gomes. He also would have had more cap space to work with.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
You must not like Martell Webster then...
Hey, to each is own, but your suggested course of action doesn’t net the most important part of this deal – Martell Webster.
Just remember..
…that Kahn has now effectively moved Ty Lawson for the privilege of giving Portland additional cap room and Luke Babbitt. And yes, I know Denver asked him to draft Lawson. He was still the BPA when they picked last year. He also traded away the 32nd pick in a deal for Damien Wilkins. The guy has a growing habit of diminishing returns on draft trades.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I must be slow...
What did he incorrectly state about the money side of this trade? I’m not being antagonistic… seriously just want to be informed if I’m missing something here.
He said the trade...
…was Webster for 16 and that they did the Wolves the “favor” of taking Gomes. The implication here was that this would save the Wolves cap space. Not only was a 16 for Webster trade impossible, but it didn’t save the Wolves any money compared to the status quo (he said they would have waived Gomes if they didn’t trade him). The trade had to be based on Webster for Gomes and they failed to take the route that gained them the most cap space.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I can't do this anymore...
Kahn was referring to dead cap money.
I’m pretty sure that Kahn understands the balance of moving salaries in that deal – just a hunch there. Yes, Martell has a salary that is more than No. 16 and Kahn is indeed aware of that, believe it or not. He is referring to dead cap-space, not salaries, which is the reason why Gomes was so difficult to trade. Nobody wants to absorb dead cap space. Kahn is spending more of his cap in acquiring Webster, yes, but it’s a player that he and Rambis wanted as a likely starter next year. We got the best player in the deal and avoided creating dead cap space. It’s not any more complex than that.
Here's what bothers me
1. “Dead cap space” and “toxic contract”. The Gomes contract was not toxic. It just wasn’t as good as a pure expiring contract, or one with a “cleaner” buyout. It still provided a means to take on more salary than is sent out.
2. That we owe Kahn an apology for being so harsh on him right after the trade. Um, no. Gomes’ contract was an asset that he could have used anytime in the previous year, and he didn’t. The fact that Portland wasn’t able to use it in a few days is immaterial.
Now once Kahn is in the position in which he a) is still stuck with Gomes and b) thinks Webster is worth the 16th pick, his best move is to balance salaries by including Gomes. So there’s a good job by him on that particular day. But then there’s all the other days before that on which he screwed the pooch.
I actually don’t hate the trade, as much as I seem to be arguing otherwise. I’m just tired of assets (like our boatload of expiring contracts before the trade deadline) going by the wayside without anything “transformational” coming back. Kahn set the bar high and he’s not clearing it for me yet. And I can’t emphasize enough how galling I find the call to apologize.
There are assets and liabilities in life
Just because Gomes’ contract was “only” set to cost $1M per year if The Wolves cut him, that doesn’t mean it’s wasn’t a liability. It was going to cost us money, not make us money or improve the product on the floor. Therefore, it’s a liability. We may be splitting hairs on semantics, but to me any liability is toxic, no matter how big or small.
His contract is an interesting case study, though, because there are some folks on this board who argue Gomes’ contract as a wasted asset (like you), and others (like me) who consider it a liability. I just know that since Kahn has taken over, he has made a bazillion money-oriented deals. So I fully believe (on nothing but my gut) that he tried to move Gomes last year. I also firmly believe that nobody wanted anything to do with dead cap money, especially in a year when the bulk of the NBA was trying to open cap space. So it’s my belief that this recent Webster trade was the best possible deal. It may be an assumption on my part that this was Kahn’s best deal, but I hope you admit that it’s also an assumption on your part that dealing him at the deadline was even possible.
BTW, excellent use of the word, “transformational!”
Do you think that Portland would have taken Gomes
if the full value of his contract was guaranteed in all of the years? I don’t, and that’s why his contract is an asset. Here’s what you’re missing: Kahn actually used Gomes’ contract as an asset in the exact way that I was hoping he would. Portland sent out more salary then they ended up with. He just didn’t reel in a big enough fish to make me super happy about it.
Better than Webster
You really think Kahn should have milked more out of Gomes than Martell Webster? Uhhh, like who exactly did you have in mind? I mean maybe I’m drinking the Kool-Aid again, but I’ve always LOVED this kid. I think Webster has a ton of upside and think he’s gonna get votes for Most Improved Player this year. He’s gonna get big minutes here and will produce for The Wolves.
Not by himself
Kahn talked about how he’s learned to do what it takes to get his guy. Then that guy ends up being Webster. That was the big move of the night. It’s no big knock on Webster to be underwhelmed by that. And Gomes was one resource that got spent in the process.
Ironic...
That you were one of the regular guys that I seemed to agree with on the old Star Tribune board (along with Swan Dizzle and cnote) and I am simply shocked by how much I disagree with you on this topic (you’re either really stubborn or really getting a kick out of goading me), because you won’t come around on this idea that Ryan Gomes was some big asset that 29 other teams must have been dying to pry away from Kahn.
Gomes' value took a serious dive
after the trade deadline. Too many teams with cap space to make his contract valuable to anyone. Kahn should have had the foresight to send him to a contender like SA or Boston who would have then had the luxury of cutting or holding him if they wanted. What we would have gotten back? Who knows. Future picks would have been better than “Portland doing us a favor”
Buckeyes are red, Wildcats are blue,
I wanted Evan Turner, But DeMarcus Cousins will do.
Kahn disdain has closed your mind...
It’s frustrating to see SnP & JAF so closed minded with what Kahn says about the Webster deal, when what he says is not a lie at all! KP could have easily said “we’ll consummate the trade on July 8th”, making it 16 for Webster, without Gomes. Which would leave Kahn stuck with the Gomes buyout. So KP willing to consummate the trade on draft night by taking Gomes was a cherry on top…
And while I am at it, the argument that Webster’s salary is more than 16 and Gomes buyout is just as lame. Kahn views Webster as a starter (or at least a rotational player). He obviously didn’t view anyone at 16 in that manner, nor Gomes. So without Webster, Kahn would still have to find a starting SG somewhere. Salary for a new SG + #16 + Gomes buyout would likely exceed Martell’s salary. Kahn preserved more cap space with the Webster trade than keeping #16 and trying to acquire a new SG during free agency.
It wasn’t a lie. He just didn’t spell it out enough for you guys. (but I won’t argue about how arrogant he comes across!)
Sulu
I am not closed minded at all. Frankly, I have no strong feelings one way or another on Gomes/16/Webster.
None are the transformational player we need. Hope Rubio, or someone else that Kahn can acquire, is.
My concern was and still is Kahn’s know it all attitude. Kahn simply needed to say that he valued Webster more than Gomes/#16. He did not – he choose to embellish the transaction with financial information that, as SnP has so elegantly written multiple times, does not add up. It makes Kahn look dumb to the smart fans that, unfortunately, constitute the vast majority of the Twolves current fan base. That is not smart – Kahn needs to realize that and stop it.
My interpretation...
The trade was in effect 16 for Martell. In effect.
If 16 for Martell, straight up, is a reasonable trade (which I think it is) AND we were going to buyout Gomes anyway (which we all agree we were)…then it is absolutely reasonable to say both ‘the trade was 16 for Martell’ and it’s a ‘cherry on top’ to get out from Gomes’ $3M.
Had Kahn waited until July 2nd and traded Babitt or Seraphin or Anderson for Martell straight-up after buying out Gomes he would be raked over the coals. I think you can criticize the trade of 16 for Martell, but IMO we can’t keep collecting rookies. And Martell is better, most likely, than anyone at 16 will be likely ever, and certainly for the next 2 years. So….maybe not the clearest choice of words, but…he’s also not speaking primarily to Hoopus people (i.e. the obsessed).
I'll hold your monkey.
I agree with this take
completely. I can’t see how it’s argued that the trade was Gomes for Webster, and the 16th was a thoughtful add on. How does Portland make that trade, unloading Webster for the provilege of continuing to pay Gomes for nothing? Webster was a long term target, a Webster for Gomes trade could have been pulled at any time before draft night, where Portland would have had time to shop this “valuable asset” before the expiration date, but no, the trade happened when the Wolves became disenchanted with what was available at 16. The trade was Webster for the pick, and Kahn got rid of the negative asset of Gomes at the same time.
Oh, we are single file
so I should specify that I agree with Caliwolf’s post.
But what would we have realistically gotten from Lakers? They were trying to peddle Sasha in proposed Hinrich trade, but I wouldn’t want him. Perhaps expiring of Morrison? I’d rather keep Sessions. Walton…ugh. Maybe Shannon Brown, but I think they liked him quite a bit.
Dallas might have been interesting, but Josh Howard isn’t a spring chicken and would Dampier’s expiring been enough for Al?
I completely agree on Gomes. I was shocked a playoff team didn’t want him. Would have been a solid bench player with agreeable contract.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 30, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Personally
I would have tried for Morrison’s expiring and a “top five protected” only pick from the Lakers in 2013. The Lakers realistic have 2 maybe 3 years max before they need to blow up. I think their 2013 pick would be valuable – especially if we were on the rise and needed it to make a trade.
That's a good thought
It’s only a matter of time before Kobe breaks down. I like Sessions, but with Rubio in the wings we could have afforded to take that bet. It would have gotten us out of Ramon’s deal and helped make up for inevitably losing our pick to the Clips in 2012.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
I'm a big Sessions fan
That Morrison-2013 pick idea isn’t bad, but with the historical track record of The Lakers, I can’t see that 2013 pick ever amounting to much. I think I like Sessions more than that package.
But Gomes could have been used
to bring back a desirable vet on a longer term contract, and by waiving Gomes, the other team would have reduced their salary in the long term.
As you said, "as a mere fan"
How do you know that some rival GM was interested in trading a longer-term contract for a DESIRABLE player just so that other team could chew up $1M from their salary cap for the next three years? I’m sure Kahn had opportunities to trade Gomes for some other toxic contract. But I’d say there was NO CHANCE anybody was offering a decent player in return. Teams don’t just voluntarily throw away their long-term salary-cap space with dead-space AND give away good players in doing so. No offense at all intended, but that just seems like trying to formulate a fantasy-basketball trade that just doesn’t work in real-life.
Exactly...
You’re 100-percent right that neither of us KNOW. So to assume that Kahn blew it by not trade Gomes is an enormous stretch on your part. You completely seem to be glossing over the toxic nature of Gomes’ buyout. Nobody was beating down The Wolves’ door just for the right to chew up their cap space on a dead contract.
$1 million per year
is still less than the trade/cap value of his contract. So a team could have benefited by trading for Gomes.
A failure to move Gomes for more is not my only reason for being down on Kahn (or even close to the biggest reason).
Here’s what it comes down to: I know what has been done. I do not know what could have been done, but I see what other teams do and I have a pretty good guess that we could be doing better than we are.
Presti went into the draft with a rubber band and a bag of chips and left it with a lottery-pick center (a position of need) who was a good value where he was taken. At this point, I don’t see any way Kahn pulls off something similar to that.
by Madison Dan on Jun 30, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Assuming that's correct...
So suppose I just concede that NBA GMs have no problem just blowing $1M of cap space for three straight years, do you think they were all beating down Kahn’s door to give him something of value as well?
I just think there are so many holes in this Gomes-was-an-asset logic.
Didn't OKC have three 1st-rounders going into the draft?
I didn’t check, but I’m pretty sure OKC was bringing more to the table than you’re saying.
They had 2...
And traded the for the other from Miami for taking on Daequan Cook’s contract.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 30, 2010 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
That was shrewd
I do wish Minnesota could have beaten OKC to the punch on that one. Has Presti made a single bad move yet for The Thunder? I think I’ve got some envy issues…
Jeff Green
Ya, he can play, but he was a damn high pick. Without Durant where would Presti’s team be?
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Jun 30, 2010 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
It's true everywhere
Almost all draft picks look like great picks when you’ve already got a Durant or a Duncan on your team (except, of course, if you’re drafting William Avery). Cole Aldrich looks like an outstanding pick for the Thunder, but if they don’t have Durant you’d have to wonder if they couldn’t have gotten a better player than Cole at that spot.
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Jun 30, 2010 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Which is why
We need a superstar. Picks are easier when you are trying to fill in holes instead of trying to build from scratch. Although at this point the BPA seems like a beat-to-death mantra, the track record of draft busts indicates that BPA isn’t always as easy as it seems.
I'm not a huge Kahn supporter
But I’d say that Foye and Miller was a rubber band and a bag of chips, and we got Rubio’s rights for them.
So saying there’s no way Kahn ever pulls off something like that isn’t quite true.
Relevant???
You get Relevant by winning games. Not by overpaying volume scorers.
by Jose Cordoba on Jun 30, 2010 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
"Above-average (at best)?"
To me, saying that seems like a gross overstatement. I get that you don’t want to sign Rudy Gay, but you really seem to be completely dismissing his upside and raw ability. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that he needs to do some developing, but you’d be ignoring the obvious to deny that he’s got elite (yes, elite) upside and raw talent. For an irrelevant, garbage-talent franchise like The Timberwolves, I think overpaying for a guy with that type of upside and talent (and a good attitude to go with it) is exactly who we should take a chance on.
Isiah Thomas thought it was a good idea to overpay free agents
who had “upside”, too.
Actively looking for red flags since my 5th grade traveling team
The difference
is that Rudy Gay has a somewhat proven track record of staying healthy and being a go-to scorer. It’s not a shot-in-the-dark possibility like he was just some work-out warrior at a combine or workout. I mean, he’s got over 300 NBA games under his belt.
But yet,
with all those games played, he still has Tremendous Upside? Why won’t the Grizz just match whatever the Wolves or anybody else offers?
Calling his agent
and offering a contract takes five minutes. I know David Kahn is very busy, but I think he can squeeze that in.
I do like Amir Johnson.
Think he’s a nice fit if The Wolves can move Jefferson for something of decent value. I think you can win with a Love-Amir Johnson tandem at PF.
The Wolves
would have to wait to see if the Grizz would match. Not that I have any sky-high expectation over what the Wolves will get out of free agency (in fact, my baseline hope has devolved to “DON’T SIGN RUDY GAY!”), but if they are going to do anything else, they would be frozen for a crucial week.
You keep talking about his "good attitude"
but my understanding is that his attitude is actually a slight drawback, rather than an attribute.
agreed
lazy and disinterested is no way to become a star.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions
Could be
But I’ve never heard of Gay as a pouter or team-cancer. I will concede that he’s had spells of being disinterested, but not lazy. And I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt with the disinterested part because he’s played on nothing but bad teams and disinterest has afflicted several good guys in the past who are stuck in losing situations.
you don't give the benefit of the doubt
and hand out 10M plus and keep your job. That’s my point. Gay hasn’t earned any of that and most likely won’t. I fully expect Rambis to want both Athletic and smart ball players. Gay is an athlete, not a player.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions
It's all benefit of the doubt with this guy
Rudy has “elite” upside and MIGHT reach it, so let’s overpay! Rudy’s apathy MIGHT just be due to playing on a bad team (even though it was a knock on him pre-draft), so let’s overpay! Yeah! We suck, so let’s just overpay and hope it works out!!
Just doesn’t work for me. Rudy’s a relatively known commodity at this point.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
If he was cheaper I'd agree with you foobee
But at Gay’s cost and with his record of not being a highly productive player, I’m afraid he would be less inclined to put int he hard work after he gets a mammoth contract.
Not a team cancer, not a pariah, but not a great teammate and not an elite hard worker either.
"volume scorer"
is such a cliche – should we rip kobe, MJ, and practically every other big time scorer in the history of the league for being a “volume” scorer too? gay plays a position that simply has to score in the nba. he’s proven he can do it, unlike the other wolves options at the position.
plus he’s been on a lousy team with below average point guards so he’s surely put up some awful shots at the end of the shot clock, which should be considered.
not sure if gay is worth the money or not, but dismissing him as a “volume” scorer is beside the point imo.
Rudy Gay
takes 40 minutes to get 20 points, 5 boards and 2 assists. I’m not overwhelmed by the Wes Johnson pick, but I daresay that if you give Wes “Three More Inches” Johnson those minutes on this team next year, he’ll get the same numbers at a third of the cost.
20 pts a game
isn’t an automatic. let’s not assume a rookie who hasn’t set foot on the nba floor is gonna do it his first year in the league. how many ppl on here assumed beasley was gonna throw up 20 and 10 every night just by showing up?
“volume scorer” is a stupid term because it tries to dismiss guys who take a lot of shots – and other than dominant low post scorers, it takes a lot of shots to score significant points from the shooting guard and sf positions.
No, it's not a stupid term
because it acurately describes his only attribute. He takes a lot of time and shots to get his middling amount of points, and doesn’t defend, pass, rebound or shoot accurately on anything more than an average level.
A nice player at 5-7 mill, a rip-off at the 10 to 12 he’s going to get.
he doesn't take
an inordinate number of shoots an he shoots a pretty damn high percentage from the field (higher than melo & kobe)
however, a big knock on gay is that he doesn’t get to the line enough, which is why i agree with you he’s not worth what he’ll get.
but .466 from the field for a sf that averages 20 pts per game is damn good and is highly, highly unlikely to be duplicated by a rookie.
.466 from a SF isn’t anything to write home about. What are his 3pt %‘s and FT rates? That’s what really counts, and that’s why he’s a fairly inefficient scorer.
He’s not terrible by any means, but he’s not worth the money that’s being thrown around.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
agree for the most part
As a scorer, the problem with gay is he doesn’t get to the line enough – overall 16 shots a game with a 466 % and 20 pts a game is very above average imo – and NOT indicative of a pure volume scorer
he’s not a three point shooter – he takes less than 3 a game and shoots a poor percentage.
his fg% as well as 3 pt fg % and attempts are all similar to melo’s – the only difference is melo took an extra five free throws a game and an extra three shots from the field.
Volume scorer = Inefficient scorer at higher PPG
That’s all it means. Eh, I suppose it’s not the best shorthand, but it serves.
And you don’t have to be inefficient to be a high PPG guy on the wing.
23 year olds
who have been in the league as long as Rudy don’t “have some developing to do,” they’re by and large what they’re going to be for the rest of their careers. He’s not going to suddenly become a lockdown defender and develop shot selection and a solid handle. That’s very wishful thinking, and not the type of thing I want to bet a monster deal on.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
Well, except for Jefferson
Who just needs to be surrounded by competent wing players to learn how to pass, and needed the experience of this past year to learn that playing defense is a good thing.
Al's case is special
He needed Darko to show him that passing is important.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
He'll learn that in Darko's basketball 102
It’s an advanced course.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
He says he learned that last year
at about the same age Corey learned to not fall over when shooting a jump shot. Now, when Flynn learns in 2 years how to play the point, our problems are over.
we just happen to lead the league in late bloomers.
+1
finally some optimism! Wait until Rubio comes over in 2012 (possibly). Flynn & Brewer will look like Nixon & Magic (or the exact opposite)
I hear we're giving up a 2nd rounder in 2014 and Cash Considerations for Sonny Weems! WOW!
by Son of Gerald Green on Jun 30, 2010 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions
New CH tag line
we just happen to lead the league in late bloomers.
I love it.
You know now he is destined to sign with us now, don’t you…..
Agree. Seems crazy.
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
It's one of those prospective moves
that has you thinking, “Hmmm . . . our GM is not only playing chess while everybody else is playing checkers, he’s also thinking four moves ahead.”
Then you remember that our GM is David Kahn.
Scrolls down reading ridiculous amount of comments regarding Rudy Gay
Starts skipping over a few because they are getting redundant to today and what we discussed like 5 months ago
Scrolls down more
A good 100-150 comments later get’s to the bottom annoyed with how much time was spent reading about Rudy Gay.
Clicks the last comments to see who started this thread.
Sees comment previously rec’d
“Crap…”
Buckeyes are red, Wildcats are blue,
I wanted Evan Turner, But DeMarcus Cousins will do.
IMO...
I think it would be a bad idea to overpay Gay. Not only is he redundant with the pieces we just acquired, but his deal is going to set us back. Right now we’re trying to trade our proverbial star (Al) because he’s a black hole on offense, doesn’t play great D, and his contract takes up a sizable amount of our payroll. I know that Rudy’s skills fit into what we’re trying to do, but I just see him becoming another Al at SF.
Let’s see how Wes develops this year. He seems like a Rudy clone with a better 3 point shot. And he’s much cheaper. If there is anyway we can take Favors from NJ without giving up Wes or Love, I say we do it. I’d be more than happy passing on Gay in favor of a PF/C that fits our system. Favors seems like the perfect piece. Any idea as to what it would take to nab him?
Agree
That Derrick Favors seems like the perfect fit in Minnesota’s system. It would probably take Wes Johnson plus another piece to get him from NJ though. Or, since they have so much cap space now (especially after dumping Yi), maybe an Al Jefferson for Favors swap would make sense if NJ isn’t able to get one of the FA PFs.
Disagree
That Rudy Gay is the same player at a different position as Al Jefferson. Similar statistical traits, very dissimilar athletic/upside/raw tool traits. As a whole, the ball-movement in Memphis has been dreadful over the past few years, so I believe Gay (at only 23) could very easily develop his ball-movement in Minnesota. Further, Memphis has been terrible for nearly Gay’s entire career… so Rudy Gay certainly wouldn’t be the first good player who grew a bit dissinterested after years of losing.
you is what you is
as the saying goes. Even Hollins (his coach) has mentioned that Gay is more of an athlete than a player. Paying a player like that over 10M a year is a massive mistake. Gay is a superb athlete with limited BBIQ. That player almost never develops past slightly better than average. If you are so behind Gay, how did you feel about Cousins?
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions
I hated Cousins...
For two reasons – attitude (Gay has a good one), and fit (Cousins doesn’t fit what we’re trying to build, Gay completely does). I don’t really see how Cousins and Gay are even remotely similar cases.
For starters
I think you are making alot of assumptions on Gay’s attitude. What about Gay screams I want to be the best? If nothing does, then you don’t pay them that kind of money. Cousins to me is a theoretical exercise. He has tons of upside for an organization, but with serious question marks about whether he has the discipline to ever reach it. At least cousins showed the drive to be the best. That alone puts him ahead of Gay in likelyhood to be a star.
I get the fit part, but I have no doubts that the team that pays Gay that kind of money will regret in within a year…or as soon as the lockout ends.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions
"Drive to be the best"???
I need more supporting evidence for this statement. A pouty, out-of-shape center who publically argues with his coach? What has Cousins ever done to demonstrate a “drive to be the best?” There’s a reason why the Derrick Coleman comparisons persist…
have you actually done any research on Cousins?
You know, like read his responses to interview questions, or writeups of him from other than National Media sources? Don’t sit there and quote rumors and lingering comparisons to make a point. What about Gay indicates to you that he has the fire or interest in being more than he is? The answer…NOTHING. The man wants to get paid. If I were him, I would do the same thing.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough...
But I’m also not going to go the complete other way and assume all the negative reports on Cousins were completely false. Where there’s smoke from a multitude of well-connected NBA sources, there’s usually fire.
What about Calipari...
…who said repeatedly he just thought that Cousins was a kid who needed guidance and that he isn’t a bad dude just needs a mentor?
Not trusting anything that Calipari or his crooked agendas have to say...
All I know is that every media outlet isn’t wrong about Cousins. I wish him well, but he would have been a terrible fit here.
"he would have been a terrible fit here"
But adding the 4th SF in fourteen days for 12 mill a year isn’t a terrible fit?
Well, if the several well-reasoned posters here haven't convinced you
yet about Gay, we have some good news from a prominent media outlet:
Where will Rudy Gay sign?
Abbott: Los Angeles Clippers. The Clippers are enamored with their starting lineup, but small forward is the issue. More likely than 50-50? No.
Arnovitz: New Jersey Nets. They have some room on the wing, while the Grizzlies drafted a swingman in Xavier Henry. More likely than 50-50? No.
Ford: New York Knicks. If the Knicks can’t land a star, they try the next best thing and sign a young guy who could be a star someday. More likely than 50-50? No.
Hollinger: Los Angeles Clippers. I think they’ll be left holding the bag in late July and will splurge on the last guy left. More likely than 50-50? No, way less.
Sheridan: New Jersey. The Nets are probably the only big cap-space team that can afford to wait a week and see if the Grizzlies will match, and if Memphis does, New Jersey will still emerge in a strong position as the team with the most remaining cap room. More likely than 50-50? No.
And lava
Don’t forget Blatche.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Not likely a Wolf
That stuff is all from ESPN Insider, right? I do think NJ or NY seem to be the front-runners.
I think this thread will be for not b/c I don’t see Rudy signing wit us. And at north of $10M per year, I think it’s a blessing in disguise.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Jun 30, 2010 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
Agreed
I’m not even so sure why I’m so big on Rudy… 10-percent chance at best that Kahn lures him. I would say, if I concede that Gay-Jefferson have similar warts that I’d be all for a sign-and-trade deal that moves Jefferson for Gay… it may be possible considering that Memphis will have a big hole at PF after next season with Z-Bo likely to bolt. If you’re going to have a player like Jefferson on The Wolves’ roster, I guess I’d rather have that player be on the wing like Gay.
if by bolt you mean...
gets sent to prison. Absolutely.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Gets bolted
behind bars
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
I'm not even sure
what it means to “get bolted” (especially behind bars), but it sounds uncomfortable.
maybe loosely related to the term cornholed?
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
After reading these posts
God bless the Internet!!!
Of all the posts on this post
getting another center like Gortat or Favors makes the most sense to me.
i think josh childress would be a better fit than gay.
gay is probably a bit more athletic than childress, but childress is a very efficient scorer.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
Childress
would be a fantastic addition to this team. I think he would be able to offer the young guys a ton, he’s super smart and with his Euro experience could teach our young ‘uns so much, and also given all the potential young Euro players on this team he might actually serve as a nice bridge/resource for helping them adjust here because he knows where they’re coming from (relatively speaking).
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Jun 30, 2010 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions
I think i can seriously say that..
I would be willing to pay Childress twice as much as I would be willing to pay Gay. Especially now that we have Wes locked in at SF. A player who I think could complement Childress really nicely. Both move the ball pretty well, but while Wes needs to be setup and focuses on outside shooting, Childress is more interested in attacking the basket and creating offense.
I agree
that Childress and Wes would be a great fit. Childress can attack the rim and pass a bit. He doesn’t solve our go-to scorer issue, but I don’t think Rudy really does either.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
The important difference between Rudy and Childress...
would be that neither can fulfill the go-to scorer role, but Childress knows that and Rudy doesn’t.
With Childress, Wes, Flynn, Love, and then Webster and Pek off the bench, we may not have a “go-to” scorer, but we would have a lot of guys that are willing to score in different contexts. Everybody wants “Carmello” who you can just give the ball to and tell him to score… Honestly if that is what your offense devolves into, I am not impressed. I would almost rather not even have that option.
$4-5M per
I think that is his value. I value him slightly above Webster, who is overpaid.
I think Childress has a diverse enough skill-set to warrant $8-10M per, but we could probably grab him for cheaper.
Delusional?
I may be delusional about Rudy Gay, but $8M-$10M for Josh Childress? I’d like to see Childress here, but I really hope that’s not the going rate for a nice, complementary player.
It is less than people are assuming Gay will go for...
and there is no reason to see Gay as anything other than a “nice supporting player.” Childress left the NBA scoring 4 less points on 6 less shots than Rudy. I’ll take 16 ppg at 64 TS% over 20 ppg at 53 TS% in a second. Childress was getting more assists, more rebounds, turning it over considerably less, and playing better defense than Gay is now, before he left for Europe. By all accounts Childress has only improved during his time in Europe. There is no way that Rudy right now is the more valuable player. And if Rudy was truly destined to be the great player everyone wants him to be, he would have shown some signs of that after 4 years in the NBA. Rudy is more likely to improve than Childress at this point, but it is a serious leap of faith to think he will get enough better to close the gap between Childress and himself. Hell, Childress put up better numbers his first year in the league than Gay put up last season.
Anthony Randolph on the market still?
Anyone care to make some guesses before Stinky Fingers shows up to tell us what will happen?
Obviously we’d have to take a lengthy contract back. Biedrins or Monta?
Buckeyes are red, Wildcats are blue,
I wanted Evan Turner, But DeMarcus Cousins will do.
I don't think that sells GS
they lose a year I believe on Biedrins’ deal, but they also lose a young building block to do so. I’d be pretty happy if this happened though.
Buckeyes are red, Wildcats are blue,
I wanted Evan Turner, But DeMarcus Cousins will do.
Bulls have to trade Luol Deng
This from ESPN Insider:
Deng only way to two max contracts?
12:39
PM ETLuol Deng | Bulls Top Email
It’s been reported that the Bulls and Heat are rather close to being able to offer two max contracts to the soon-to-be free agents, such as LeBron James and Chris Bosh.
Some have surmised all the Bulls need to do is get rid of James Johnson’s contract, and they would have the available space to sign two max free agents.
But as salary-cap expert Larry Coon wrote for ESPN on Wednesday, that’s not quite the case.
In fact, even dealing other players in addition to Johnson, such as Taj Gibson, won’t get them there either.
In the end, Luol Deng’s contract is about the only thing the Bulls would be willing to part with to get them to the two max contracts threshold.
It’s possible the Bulls could send Deng in a sign-and-trade for Bosh, but as we told you earlier Wednesday, Deng doesn’t seem to be a want for Toronto.
ESPN’s Larry Coon
Best bet for two max contracts is to trade Deng
“Contrary to recent reports, the Bulls do not have enough cap room to sign two maximum free agents. To get to the elusive two-MC threshold, the Bulls would have to clear another $3.5 million from their books. Their best — albeit unlikely — bet would be to try to find a taker for Luol Deng’s enormous contract, hoping to slide LeBron James into his vacated spot. Dumping James Johnson, Taj Gibson, Chris Richard and Rob Kurz would not generate the needed cap room — the cap holds associated with the four vacated roster spots would consume much of the cap room that would be freed by their departure.”
So let's go get Deng!
As b2b suggests:
*Jefferson to Dallas
*Dampier to Chicago
*Deng to Minnesota
Minnesota saves about $2M in salaries from Jefferson to Deng, so The Wolves could potentially have enough cap space to re-sign Darko, sign Pekovic and bring in Amir Johnson, so…
PG – Flynn, Sessions
SG – Webster, Brewer, Ellington
SF – Deng, Wes Johnson, Hayward
PF – Love, Amir Johnson
C – Darko, Pekovic, Hollins
(Rubio, Bjelica and Prestes looming oversees as next year’s “rookie class” as LAC will get out draft pick next if we field this lineup!)
Deng..
….%now THAT’S dead cap space.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
should have said
%now THAT’s a great use of cap space
Hey... it's Deng or near-max money for Gay
I’m just operating on the assumption that Minnesota still wants to add a young-veteran to the perimeter.
Why can't it be neither?
Something to be said for being under the cap, especially at the deadline.
I just hope Kahn doesn’t feel obliged to spend the cap space.
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
Another thing that absolutely baffles me..
…is the utter lack of attention local media have paid to the actual cap number they have, especially when you consider Darko and Pek are in the mix. Yes, there are some creative ways they can still get it done but you’ll have to count this guy out as someone who believes Kahn is up to that level of creativity. My bet is that all the offers have suddenly dried up for Mr. Kahn and he’s left with some very large promises to his fan base and some very stark options. And at this point, it damn well better be neither Gay or Deng. I’ve been a huge fan of Gay over the past 2 years but you can’t get him now that you’ve brought on Webster and Johnson. That’s just stupid at this point. Think about how much money they would have wrapped up in the 3 and 4 if that were to happen.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
one word
ugh.
No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jun 30, 2010 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Money wrapped up, as well as a brand new “death match” between Gay and Johnson. (Implicit there is that Johnson is up to giving Gay a run for the position – he better be for the #4 pick.)
I’m settling in to the idea that for all the big talk about overhauling the roster, the net result will be the roster as it stands now with Al moved for insignificant pieces or simply the 2010-11 version of Mark Blount staying at home.
Punisher#8 is probably right
that this roster is largely what it is. I must say that the biggest reason I’m a proponent of acquiring Deng is because I agree with Punisher that Big Al is gonna get traded and I loathe the idea of getting a C+ player in return for him.
Deng is a player at Jefferson’s value level; and costs slightly less money with a more well-rounded game. I also believe that it’s easier to rotate wings through the lineup than it is to rotate two unathletic PFs (Love and Al) through the lineup. So I’m personally not at all put off my the idea of having four players (Deng, Wes, Brewer, Webster) share the lion’s share of minutes at the SG and SF minutes. Is there anything wrong with a rookie like Wes starting his career on the bench? Is Corey Brewer a must-start player? Do Deng and Webster need to get 35+ mpg each?
It’s also true that young, athletic, well-rounded wings like those four players aren’t difficult to trade. So if Minnesota dealt Al and somehow got Deng back in JULY, that certainly isn’t any reason to panic. Doesn’t the season start in Late October?
Plus, next year
we’ll only have three of the four available when Wes “Three More Inches” Johnson suffers the inevitable 2nd Year Season-Ending Injury.
Hmmm . . . we better start thinking about some point guards to back up Sessions this season . . .
The reason that the local media don't pay attention to the actual cap number
is because the local media do not have a very good understanding of the salary cap. I promise you that there are anywhere from a dozen of us here at CH up to 50 or more that have a more sophisticated understanding of the cap than anyone in the local media.
I can’t say I really blame them; they don’t have the obsession that we do. But that’s why. Kahn tells them a number, and they go with it.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2010 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Not just local media..
…I can’t even count how many (national) articles I’ve seen where we get lumped in as a team with room for a max offer. Insane.
I'll hold your monkey.
Interesting note
The Spurs just got a huge break. Richard Jefferson just opted out of the last year of his deal, which would have paid him more than $15 million. Incredible that he’d give that up, since he’ll never get close to that amount as an FA, but huge, huge bonus for the Spurs.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2010 7:33 PM CDT reply actions
Amazing.
I’m not sure he’ll get another contract that will total $15 million, much less on that will pay him anywhere near that amount annually.
I think...
RJ is looking to play for another contender. But, if he is looking for a huge deal, I cannot believe it is out there.
With guys like Pierce and Jefferson opting out..
….the writing must really be on the wall for the Players Union in terms of how salaries are going to drop. All of these guys are scrambling to get a multi-year deal before the hammer hits. Hell, even Matt Barnes did it.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Yep
In other notes, the Lakers are not extending a Q offer to Jordan Farmar, making him a UFA.
Also, perhaps of some minor interest to the Wolves, Memphis, after trading a draft pick for him, is apparently not extending a Q offer to Ronnie Brewer.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2010 7:38 PM CDT reply actions
Farmar wants to start...
I think he’s looking a gift-horse in the mouth. He wants to go someplace to start and I don’t think he’s good enough to. He could stay in LA, be an important rotational player and have a great life. But it appears he’d rather go to NBA Oblivion and sell out to start.
Well...maybe
but it was the Lakers’ choice not to extend him a qualifying offer, which would have let them match any offer. He might get better offers as a UFA, but it’s not as if they couldn’t have kept him if they wanted to.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2010 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think
the NBA would miss Farmar very much…
Buckeyes are red, Wildcats are blue,
I wanted Evan Turner, But DeMarcus Cousins will do.
Good news on RBrewer
That means not only are they saving up their money for Gay (which makes it less likely he’ll be Wolf), but the Wolves should use half the money they were going to overspend on Gay to sign RBrewer at 11:01 Central.
Other notes
The sense seems to be that the Hawks will resign JJ for the max, in which case, they probably wouldn’t be in position to match an offer to Childress.
Also, Linus Kleiza has not ruled out a return to the NBA. He can opt out of his Greek contract until the 15th.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2010 7:46 PM CDT reply actions
HEY SnP!!
Or anyone with the keys:
Can you put up an overnight FA open thread on the front page? I’ll make a fanpost you can promote if you want.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2010 8:04 PM CDT reply actions
Gay
So correct me if I’m wrong, but if we wanted to do a sign and trade for Gay, wouldn’t we have already done it? Gay can sign with his own team, right?
If our biggest hope is a RFA, that we’re just going to cross our fingers on, I’m pretty disappointing. That does not seem how Kahn rolls.
by Mac of the MIAC on Jun 30, 2010 8:41 PM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Adam Morrison looks great, everyone
- 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
