Asset Maximization
by Mplax on Jul 26, 2010 9:52 PM CDT
Email
PrintSo Kahn has certainly taken a lot of crap over the past year for his moves now. I don't think it is deserved, though I do think he has done a poor job. I really can't find any deals that blow me away, though I can find plenty of deals, even knowing the plan, that are questionable.
Simple solution for those of you who don't want to hear about this stuff again: Don't keep reading. Some of us want to make sure we don't forget this stuff so we can hold Kahn accountable for his mistakes (and believe me, this isn't on the level of the "KAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!" BS. I'm just trying to hold him accountable for the stupid trades he has made and point out how easy (yes, easy. I'll try to back that up, but some of the deals are tough without being able to talk to other teams in the league) it would have been to do better.
Instances where Kahn has maximized assets:
- Second rounders for Beasley (easy)
- Brian Cardinal for Darko Milicic (easy, I was wishing we could have traded QRich for him immediately... woulda saved us quite a bit of money)
- Signing. Ramon. Sessions. (easy)
- Tucker and second rounder for Hart (easy)
- Staff hirings (so far so good, but we still need proof of this)
- Foye and Miller for Rubio et al (hey-o!)
- Daniels and a second rounder(?) for Songaila and Brown (Loved this trade, too bad Daniels didn't want to be here... %I hear he really helped out on that championship contender that he signed with though...)
- Pavlovic (WHAT?! Seriously, he wasn't a bad signing, especially at one year when we needed vets and we needed that spot filled. He didn't pan out, but I'll give him credit for listening to Rambis here... also it's not his fault that Rambis continued to play him)
Instances where Kahn has NOT maxmized assets:
- Ramon Sessions, a second rounder, and buying out Telfair and West for Cleveland taking Hollins' contract (more below).
- Jonny Flynn at 6 (take Curry and hold a team hostage)
- Wes Johnson at 4 (See above, Cousins)
- Lazar Hayward at 30 (unless they were really high on him and knew a team right after them was too... which I doubt)
- 23 and 56 for 30 and 35(?)
- Etan Thomas and 2 (one very high) second rounders for Damien Wilkins and Chucky Atkins' contract (Look what Presti just did with that pick...)
- Buying out Chucky Atkins when there were teams looking for salary relief (See again, Presti)
- Holding on to Gomes past the trade deadline (his only value was in cap relief, why hold on to him until too many teams can offer that relief, thereby diluting his worth)
- Al Jefferson for cap space and mid to late first rounders (Still think he sold low... and apparently most people agree, though they seem like they just wanted another reason to jump on Kahn)
- Hollins getting a player option (Was confused about him at the time, but hadn't seen him play so I gave him a chance. I still think it's a good signing, but poor performing upside players should be team options)
- Henk
- Calathes
- Telfair, Smith, Madsen for QRich (easier to dump smaller contracts than all at once, especially if a team needed a backup PG/PF at the deadline... just let Madsen expire and let him continue to write letters to Rubio. If nothing else, don't you think we could have gotten Darko from Memphis before NY got him for this same deal? They needed to get deeper, after all. More below)
- QRich for Blount (we needed vets and he would have been more valuable, albeit not much, at the deadline than Blount)
- Cap space (He got saved from himself on multiple occasions)
For the record, I'm still hoping that we are getting the second rounder from Cleveland otherwise this doesn't make any sense. Sessions has positive value and this is not realizing it. This trade is just using a second rounder and $2.5M to get erasies on our signings last summer. Buuuut.... only about $2M more than that is "bad" cap space. So tell me how a second rounder and getting rid of Sessions' +value contract is worth that. I don't see it. Better be a bottom 10 pick...
On the Telfair, Smith, Madsen trade: Like I was saying, the only way we can't figure something out with Memphis for Darko is if they already had a deal in place for ZBo and really thought he would turn them around (I'll let you judge how likely that is). But ZBo was given in a salary dump anyways. Three team trade and just cut NY out of the deal woulda been so easy. SO. EASY. AND. AND! We would have saved having to pay Blount to sit on a couch and instead gotten a full year look at Darko, plus we wouldn't have been paying them both for a couple months. Out of all of these deals, I find it kind of funny that this might be the one where Kahn did the worst with maximizing our assets (not including the draft, which we won't know for a few years yet). I guess the one advantage is that we really didn't lose out on quite that much money since we would have paid Darko or Blount either way. But we would have paid a guy who was playing and who we ended up getting anyways. Ugh.
Well I won't go into too much analysis of these trades, I just wanted to list out his poor asset maximization. He only "found" two good trades (IMO, and one of those was a minor trade and was a stretch to call "good") and a few good staff signings (which really haven't even panned out yet), other than that all he did was do the obvious deal. So many trades that he left value on the table and considering we were going into last summer with "assets" as our only hope for the future, it hurts when those assets don't get used well.
Well what did I miss? Where does he deserve more credit or more blame? What would you have [realistically] done in his position since hindsight will affect very few of these trades?
71 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How many fans go to Target Center
to watch Maximized Assets? Take this shit to a financial planning seminar where they serve free coffee and danish and hock annuity plans.
How ridiculous.
No wonder the Wolves have such a shit reputation around the NBA.
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
by Flagrant on Jul 26, 2010 10:14 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
You can get propeller heads
to attend the Wolves game equipped with their abacuses.
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
You must have never
run a payroll. I’ll bet you know nothing about those!
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
I eat payrolls
and crap 1099s
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
by Flagrant on Jul 26, 2010 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Your starting back court:
Cap Space and Max Assets.
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
Mark Twain
by uncle rico on Jul 26, 2010 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well, just because a deal like the Beasley trade was "easy" doesn't mean Kahn didn't work hard to make it happen
It was easy to trade Kwame Brown for Pau Gasol, but Kupchek still worked hard to make it happen
And the reason we didn’t trade for Darko sooner was because the Knicks were hoping to use his contract in a blockbuster trade
by Oceanary on Jul 26, 2010 10:32 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
I didn't say anything about trading sooner with NY
I said we should have cut them out completely.
I’d also never say he doesn’t work hard. I’d just say that he doesn’t work hard well. Also, the Beasley trade was nothing like the Gasol trade.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Random....
but FWIW, I was riding the trade Al bandwagon with DougW and PD, among others (but they were the most vocal from who I remember).
Although I also didn’t want him to trade Jefferson when he did… I thought it was bad timing. Sooo… I would have done the opposite of what Kahn did with Jefferson at every turn. I can understand him not trading Jefferson if the offers were similar to what we ended up with, and I also would have been thrilled with the deal if we had Cousins, but as things went down, I was underwhelmed.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
I meant that's why we didn't think to make a deal with Memphis for Milicic
He did what he did, and we have a pretty solid team together at this point. Could be better, but eh
by Oceanary on Jul 26, 2010 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
"we have a pretty solid team together at this point"
You certainly could be right, but methinks you are not.
The Wolves are likely not improved at PG. They are worse at PF. They may be better at C, but who knows with Darko, and Pek is MIA. They should be better at SG, but not dramatically so. They could be better at SF, but if Johnson is as successful in his first year as Flynn was in his, they will not be (although Brewer off the bench may be an improvement).
Assuming no tanking (at least for the first part of the season), they should do better than last year. But “trying” will be offset at least by the loss of their highest-paid player and scorer, as well as (let’s see) five new starters in the line-up compared to the beginning of last season.
“Different”? Sure. “Better”? I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
What are you basing that on?
They could be better at SF, but if Johnson is as successful in his first year as Flynn was in his, they will not be
How is that remotely comparable? What does Flynn’s ability to assimilate one of the toughest offenses in basketball have to do with Johnson’s ability to shoot? Are you implying that they will do similarly because they’re from the same school or something?
I’d say we are for sure better at C, better at PG (or would be if Flynn were healthy), better at SG and better at SF. PF is probably a step back, but hard to say for sure. Many consider Love to be a better player than Jefferson.
Can we acknowledge
How a lot of the hypothetical a lot of what is stated in this article is? We don’t know that Wes Johnson won’t be awesome. We don’t know that Rubio will be awesome. Quite frankly I think we’re all just itching for some actual basketball. I know I’m done worrying about what Kahn is gonna do next. I don’t care what he does with our backup players. I want to see what our new core looks like. That’s all that’s gonna matter in 2 years. Not whether we got max value for our backup PG. I like the new core a lot and think the future potential for the Wolves is really high. We just need to see what’s true. If only one of our new players becomes an all star then I think the team is looking better than they have since KG suited up.
No we can't
because that’s not what the point of it was. It was about asset maximization. It was NOT about how bad our talent is.
Curry had (has) more value than Flynn. Pick Curry and trade him to NY or GS for Flynn and, if nothing else, cash.
Rinse, wash, repeat with Cousins.
Think we could trade Rubio for Foye and Miller today? Yes. Doesn’t matter if he’ll be better. He’s worth more right now.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Fair enough on the players who've played in the NBA
but I just think there is too much made about players who have yet to log minutes. Also, I’m just ready for actual basketball. I like our new team and want to see them play.
The more I watch this guy work..
…the more I get ready for their move to Vegas.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
My thought as well
Nice way to package a deal is to pare payroll.
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
Keep in mind
that likely this move is mostly about how much Taylor is shelling out this year. Keeping the owner happy is a good thing if we want to keep our team.
This is the flip side of "Pay the Pick"
When tickets are $4 apiece, that’s also the level of personnel you’ll be watching play. I just went to the Wolves Caravan appearance in Brainerd. Sessions was professional and engaging. He has youth and talent. No wonder the Wolves don’t want him around. So, in the last few weeks we have cut loose three players (including our most talented one) who played considerable minutes for the team and gotten back, what? Fans do NOT pay to see draft picks or cap relief. This is pathetic and disappointing.
by ogishkemuncie on Jul 26, 2010 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I would guess that's a flip response
but if you’re serious, don’t the Maloofs practically have a lock on that town? And isn’t Vegas in one of the worst economic slumps in the country? Other than casinos, they don’t have a lot of big corporate headquarters, and I just don’t see a huge fan base of NBA-type fans among the residents.
Now, Seattle—that makes more sense.
Semi-serious..
…about Vegas, but completely serious about them being gone in 5 years.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
PS:
I think I finally get the Kahn hire. He’s the Dick Cheney of the NBA. He has an amazing talent to blow up everything he touches and that, for some, is a fairly good thing to have.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Kitchen job
Sounds like the remodeling is getting to you. These last few posts have the sound of frustration about them.
by Adam Chandler on Jul 27, 2010 7:43 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't know if it's the kitchen or not..
….but I have a bad feeling that all the cap space they sold season tickets on for the past 2 years is going to be nothing more than Papa Glenn getting the lowest payroll in the league before he puts the team up for sale.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Lemons & Lemonade
If the group here bands together and starts putting together “shovel-ready” redevelopment plans for the Target Center real estate (it will come down like the Met, right?) with a Twinstown focus, that should be able to pay for League Pass and then some.
As with most of these discussions...
it probably comes back to Rubio.
At least in the beginning, the Wolves will be a hot ticket when Ricky comes to town. We’ll have serious attention from the national press and probably a few TNT appearances. Let’s hope that is the ’11 season and many after that.
I sense
a pretty clear move toward saving money (and cutting Taylor’s losses) as the primary focus rather than building a basketball team.
I found it ominous when
Kahn said “we’re going to lead the league in player development.” With this, I think they stated a strategy that is consistent with (or a cover for) saving money. They get young, cheap players and see what they can do with them. In the meantime, they have the lowest payroll in the league. The funny thing is that it could work (in the sense of building a decent team in the long run) if the organization has a good eye for talent. That’s a very big “if” at this point, though.
It's the Memphis Grizzlies
Plan.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Jul 27, 2010 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
I think you mean..
…“plan”. ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
It's in his track record as well.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4193432
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=6189
If the Wolves start slow paying vendors…
Funny
I see Kahn more as Joe “gird your loins” Biden.
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
Lol especially with the public speaking "slips".
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Jul 27, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
yeah, but we were probably looking at...
gone in three years when McHale handed over the reins.
I still say potentially incompetent and diligent is an improvement on clearly incompetent and overtly lazy.
On the plus side, the economy is so bad, no cities are willing to build an arena and poach our team.
I dont think Glen will sell the team....
At least not to an out of towner. Glen is ’Sota through and through and owns a business here. While Glen may not be the best owner…I do believe he is a pretty loyal guy. He wont sell the team to an out of town interest unless he cant sell it locally.
Plus, I dont think the team is for sale.
Glen has other things to worry about these days
http://mankatofreepress.com/local/x1037668449/Glen-Taylor-assumes-CEO-duties-at-Taylor-Corporation
I’m not sure what to make of it. There’s not even good rumors about why this happened at the Y (which is where all the good local scuttlebutt happens here in Kato). I think there may be more money issues on the horizon for the guy. Just a guess from a place where neighbors have been getting laid off from the guy’s companies for a while now.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Good thing
he’s one of the richest owners in basketball, right? %
"Styx might be the mullet of bands."
by biggity2bit on Jul 27, 2010 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
I hope not.
Remember when this team was perilously close to going to New Orleans? We were a miserable team at the time. No one in Minnesota seemed to care too much whether we existed or not. Sound familiar? Of course, I remember also when the Twins were about to be contracted by our current MLB commissioner and when the Vikings were almost out the door for San Antonio. None came to pass, but North Stars to Dallas did. Minnesota has more pro franchises than most cities. We’ve been lucky. I hope it continues. Minnesota has a surprisingly strong basketball tradition.
by ogishkemuncie on Jul 28, 2010 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions
The Big Problem is the Draft Picks
- I think the trades have generally been pretty good.
-They probably weren’t offered anything real great for Chucky Atkins
-The 23 for 30/35 trade was fine
-They weren’t getting more value for Sessions
-Presti added some bad contracts and moved way up in the draft.
-I’m unsure what Realistic FA singings they should have pursued.
by Jose Cordoba on Jul 26, 2010 10:46 PM CDT reply actions 3 recs
Pretty good... I might disagree with that
average at best? That I’d go with.
- Chucky Atkins to Utah for Maynor and a pick woulda been nice. Then give them some cash. Similar to cap space with how his deal worked.
- Atlanta got a better deal with pick 24… otherwise I like the trade
- Then keep him because he had positive value. I like Ridnour, but I would have preferred if no second rounder was included (I’m picky. I think we should have gotten it instead so I’m already making concessions here :( )
- Yes he did, but he also improved his team by quite a bit
- I wasn’t suggesting he could have signed better, just that he went after some questionable targets (alterior motives possible).
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
You keep saying that Sessions had positive value...
What? Because he’s a player that might see some minutes? He didn’t fit the system. He was set to be the 3rd PG being paid like a 2nd. The Wolves got LR because he is a better shooter and is an older vetern. The trade cleared both Hollins and Sessions off the books for pennies on the dollar.
Yes, Sessions would have played minutes while Flynn is recovering, but he’d be relegated to 3rd PG and little to no minutes once Flynn was back. During the season it isn’t easy to just snap your fingers and make a trade that ‘maximizes’ value for a player that is getting paid $4 million a year but isn’t even getting minutes. The Wolves would have even less leverage during the year.
It’s also a lot easier to suggest things that team could have done to get better value, but the reality of the situation is that you are just guessing at scenarios. Yes, we all WANT more… we WANT the Wolves to look like a playoff calibre team. However, trying to squeeze the hypothetical nickle more out of a trade will never make the Wolves better… and that is if there is even a possibility that there was more value to offered out there. That’s the thing I’m not too sure about with some of your items.
Totally agree with you on the draft picks.
by Krotz the Wall on Jul 27, 2010 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let's remember how long Sessions sat on the FA market
He was hardly a hot commodity a year ago, hence his signing to a reasonable contract. And he really wasn’t all that impressive last year.
Read what DougW posts above
then think about it logically: We signed him to a below fair value contract because of lack of demand at the time. Then he proceeded to play poorly in sporadic minutes/system with Rambis. I wonder what else we could have done to lower his value any more.
So you’re saying he doesn’t have value because we ran a bad system, we completely misused two of our best players (him and Al), and we signed a third PG? Sounds like all of your reasons that he doesn’t have value were Kahn’s (and Rambis) fault. How about the reasons he does have value? He’s young and has upside, he was better than the player starting ahead of him, he did poorly in a system that 28 teams don’t use (and apparently he learned it quite well, it’s just not suited to his game), he’s signed to an extremely reasonable deal, he’s said and done all the right things (which is more than you can expect in his situation), and oh yeah! He’s a good basketball player. Sounds like he has value over the things he can control, but he loses that value because of our braintrust that %leads the league in player development.
What it comes down to is that we can not keep running a system that only fits half of our players and then get rid of those guys when their value is rock bottom.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
I agree in principle.
However, I disagree as it relates to Ramon Sessions. We did diminish his trade value an absurd amount. We did run a system that highlighted all of his flaws and none of his strengths. But I don’t think we were ever likely to get more than a second round pick for Sessions under any scenario. Remember that this was a guy whose last team (Milwaukee) wouldn’t even match a very reasonable offer for him. Furthermore, the player they decided was more important to keep on their roster happens to be the guy we just brought in to replace him. I just don’t see a scenario in which having Sessions to offer another team at the trade deadline, to go along with the salary cap/luxury tax relief we can provide, is the difference between them deciding to make a deal or not. Maybe I’m just cynical.
As far as Jefferson is concerned, I agree that our new system drove down his value. I also believe it was the best time for our team to move on in its rebuilding. He was our best player and we got chump change for him. But keeping him on the roster to allow us to reap more from a trade would be too expensive, not only in dollars but also in playing time for our two young power forwards.
How is this comment green with only 2 rec's?
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Jul 27, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
We're going to have to bump..
…it up again. We set it when the site got about 200 visits a day. I think that needs an update. I’ll move it to 3 or 4.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Might want to do the same with fanposts, too. Up them to like 4 or 5. I’d like to see the posts with more recs be rewarded with more time in the rec’d section than be pushed off by borderline posts.
Of course, when people are quibbling about the number of recs required to go green or be pushed into the rec’d section, you know the quality of the blog is good. Keep up the great work, SnP.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Forgive Casey for not being experienced with the SBN technology.
It’s embarrassing but he’ll learn.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Again who knows if Maynor was on the table at the time
The Wolves would have probably rather saved Money then acquired another PG.
I agree with you on the Curry pick
…but that’s the only real complaint I have on Kahn’s tenure here so far. Sure, you could nitpick that some of the minor trades didn’t maximize assets, but I also think that you have all the facts relating to player value that the front office and coaching staff have so its hard to back up some of the assumptions you make. You also aren’t present at the negotiating table so I don’t know how you can criticize a team for agreeing to a team versus player option.
- Sessions. A year ago he was an exciting young point guard we signed to a pretty reasonable deal, but he didn’t really distinguish himself during the year or make me think he would blow up some day and I’m guessing the coaching staff had a much better idea of his game because they saw about 90% more of his game in practice than we did on the court. I think a lot of that has to do with his lack of outside shooting. In the end, I’m guessing the consensus among league GMs was that he was solid, but unspectacular option at point guard and they weren’t willing to give up huge assets to take on his contract, but the casual fan doesn’t have that information.
- Gomes: In a perfect situation that contract could have been valuable, but I’m guessing those situations didn’t present themselves (unless you can give me concrete proof of a better trade offer) and in the end it was a negative asset. After all, he’s still owed 2.5 million.
- Hayward at 30. I think that was a solid move. The guy was off the draft radar, but he obviously really impressed in workouts and perhaps word around the league was that he would be gone in the early 2nd round, once again I don’t know and I doubt you do either. And the fact that he was picked at 30 could be a smart move because we have options on his contract for 5 years (see fellow alumni Wes Matthews) if he turns out to be a real player.
- Two first rounders for a player with poor defense, questionable knee and a slightly overpriced contract? No, I think it was a fair to decent deal. Even if he makes the All-star team, and he probably won’t, he just didn’t fit with the team anymore and would have caused problems.
- Henk: Wasn’t this all about getting Rubio over asap? A low risk bet on assisting the acquisition of a much higher asset that looks bad in hindsight.
Even if he wasted a couple of second round picks or didn’t completely maximize a role player’s expiring contract somewhere along the line, and I think those are debatable, I think the Rubio, Beasley and Darko steals far trump that. And I think Kahn and Rambis have a pretty solid idea of where the team is headed in the future and how to go in that direction. Go to RealGM and you can see that they’ve got a really tight salary structure compared with any other team, there are no ugly contracts. All the players (except Ridnour) are between the ages of 21-25, but even the rookies are pretty NBA ready. They have a lot of experience for a team with huge upside. The only contract that expires next year is Brewer, which means that we’ll be in a key position to acquire a prime time player at the end of next year or in the next free agency.
I don’t think the Wolves will be anything to talk about this season but I wouldn’t be blogging at the end of July I didn’t at least hope so, but I think their future is looking pretty bright.
by kiteman on Jul 26, 2010 11:54 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Great post...
I think people forget that we have no bad contracts and have definitly improved the team in the offseason. We’ll see how much.
I still think that the master plan has Kahn picking up that 1A player at the trading deadline this year with available cap space.
Do you think Steve Jobs
talks to his employees and tells them, “Hey, don’t worry if the smaller projects like the iPod Nano (no pun intended) don’t go over well! It’s the iPad we have to worry about!”
I highly doubt that. It’s definitely something that should be nitpicked when it is Kahn’s job to make the best of what he has. Teams like ours can’t afford to “not do bad” on 75% of our trades. And keep in mind that Rubio will almost undoubtedly be worse than the average opinion here seems to be. Personally I doubt he ever makes an allstar game, but I think he will be a solid, game-changing PG. So unless Kahn strikes gold on a deal, he better be worrying about the small deals along the way.
Easily. I can easily criticize a team for a bad contract. Just like I criticized Mem for the Gay signing and Atlanta for the JJ signing. Need I go on? Did you think the Jaric trade/signing was a bad contract? But you never criticized it because you weren’t at the negotiation table?
What you said about Hayward seems to be exactly the caveat I put on there in the OP.
Two first rounders for a player with poor defense, questionable knee and a slightly overpriced contract?
Would you have given up 2 mid to late first rounders for Amare a few years ago? And it’s not Al’s issue that he doesn’t fit with the team, that’s something that our FO and coaching staff has to figure out.
Find a [legal] theory that would have made having Henk easier to get Rubio over earlier and then I’ll believe that. This was thrown out right when he was taken because it seemed like the only even remotely plausible reason that he would have been drafted.
Memphis and GS most likely saved Kahn from himself on that salary structure issue.
Do you honestly think that Kahn has this team in better current and future shape than any of the other GM candidates would have? Once again, I don’t think he deserves everything he is getting from national sources, but the man deserves to have his feet held over the fire for at least average moves. But like many are saying, we will find out just how good his moves were when the season gets going. The only real improvements I have seen this summer are addition by subtraction, so I really won’t even be remotely impressed with 25 wins (and anything too much more than that is just unrealistic). We’ll see.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Yes, he does
Do you think Steve Jobs talks to his employees and tells them, "Hey, don’t worry if the smaller projects like the iPod Nano (no pun intended) don’t go over well! It’s the iPad we have to worry about!"
All organizations prioritize, focusing resources on one aspect at the expense of parts they deem less important, some more successfully than others. To use your Apple analogy, they put releasing the Ipod 4 in a timely fashion in front of research and development and what they got was a faulty product and a PR debacle, so yeah, even Steve Jobs does stuff like that.
It’s definitely something that should be nitpicked when it is Kahn’s job to make the best of what he has. Teams like ours can’t afford to "not do bad" on 75% of our trades….So unless Kahn strikes gold on a deal, he better be worrying about the small deals along the way.
You criticized last summer’s trades which sent out a bunch of nice-guy bench players and 2nd round draft picks and only netted Blount and Wilkens. Could they have further maximized those assets? Possibly, but doing so might have taken time and resources from the main objective, which was to clear away the roster clutter and clear cap space for this year and beyond. None of those guys were game breakers and 2nd round picks rarely become that either. I’d take the cap space personally. You yourself use the Beasley example as a case of maximizing assets, I might even go further and say it was a steal, and a bit like ‘striking gold’, but that only happened because they had the cap space.
Easily. I can easily criticize a team for a bad contract. Just like I criticized Mem for the Gay signing and Atlanta for the JJ signing. Need I go on? Did you think the Jaric trade/signing was a bad contract? But you never criticized it because you weren’t at the negotiation table?
I never said you couldn’t criticize a team for bad contracts, I do that all the time. I simply said that I think the casual fan doesn’t always have all of the information available to them. Take Hollins as an example, you criticize the Wolves for giving him a third year player option, assuming that they could have just as easily offered him a team option, when he probably has a savvy agent who wants to get his client the best deal possible. What if Hollins was holding out for a four year deal and the third year player option was the compromise? Doesn’t look as bad now, does it? To further complicate the Hollins signing, he wasn’t the only entity they had to deal with, since the Mavericks could have matched any offer if it was too attractive.
Would you have given up 2 mid to late first rounders for Amare a few years ago?
No, I’ve never really thought much of Stoudamire. Without Nash on his team and health issues I think the Knicks are going to really regret that signing.
Find a [legal] theory that would have made having Henk easier to get Rubio over earlier and then I’ll believe that.
"Here’s a million dollars for buying out Rubio… and Henk (wink… wink)." Honestly, I have no idea and I don’t want to hitch my wagon to that theory, but I will stick to my point that it was just a mid second round pick.
Once again, I don’t think he deserves everything he is getting from national sources, but the man deserves to have his feet held over the fire for at least average moves.
Most trades should be average. All (or most) of the GM’s are very intelligent and have a bevy of qualified personnel backing them up determining what their assets are worth. Both teams can get better or further their goals in a trade, but it should be unusual to see severely lopsided trades, which is why getting Rubio, Darko, and Beasley for Foye, Miller, Cardinal, and two second round picks trumps the other mediocre trades and even makes the Flynn over Curry mistake palatable.
Do you honestly think that Kahn has this team in better current and future shape than any of the other GM candidates would have?
That’s impossible to answer, but, as I said in my earlier post , the team is poised to be really good in the next 2-5 years. We have a roster full of promising, but relatively experienced young players, only one over 25. All of them are on reasonable contracts. Only one expires next year and we have loads of cap space, which means we will be big players in the cap dumping trades later this season or in free agency next year. We have the rights to a guy who would have been a top two draft pick this year. We have a well-respected coach and an organization with a plan.
That (your reply to the Steve Jobs thing)
is absolutely false. And of course they prioritize, that wasn’t the question. But I can 100% guarantee you that he was upset about that, which was why there was a PR debacle in the first place. If he didn’t care he would have said, “Well f#@k it, the iPad didn’t have any faults.” Your view here is just…. false. And it’s not really what you wrote that is false, just the fact that you wrote it in disagreement with what I said. For further proof: If they didn’t care how the iPod Nano (which might be a bad example cuz I don’t know what Apple is doing with the Nano nowadays) went over, they would probably cut production of it. Simple as that.
By most accounts, Kahn already had his staff working round the clock, so where is the waste of time and resources if you redirect them to a more important task? I’d suggest that it’s a waste of time and resources to not focus on this. Yay for salaried employees.
The QRich deal netted us just over $2M in cap space (Bassy’s extra year)… which was quickly spent on Hollins. I’d rather have the 32nd pick in the draft plus one more and a few players that would have contributed a heckuva lot more than Blount did (and a lot more than most/all of their bench). The cap space for Beasley would have been there regardless. I think it was an easy deal to make, not really judging the value of the deal, I just think it was obvious and McHale might (though probably not) even have been able to pull that one off.
I don’t know how you can criticize a team for agreeing to a team versus player option
A player option made it a bad contract. A team option would have made it a only kinda bad contract. So I find it easy to criticize a team for signing bad contracts, no matter how large the contract is. Of course a bad contract looks better than a worse contract. But being better doesn’t make it good.
I simply said that I think the casual fan doesn’t always have all of the information available to them
If only the POBO had enough information available to them to realize that Hollins for 3 years was probably a bad contract ;)
Amare is definitely overpaid, but he’s still far and away better than 2 mid round picks. Not even close.
Haha yeah I’m not even gonna touch that theory. I think Stern might fine me.
I’m not asking for lopsided trades, and I also don’t want this to come off as me saying Kahn has sunk our future. I just don’t think his trades have been a plus or even a neutral for us so far. All of his targets have a lot to prove and it’s possible that they will and they will be good trades. But unless one person breaks out, his net trading average has been a decent amount below “average.” Also keep in mind that whatever Darko showed us last year, he was still average at best. Don’t get me wrong, I’m really excited about having him back and think it was a good trade, but I still think he has a lot to prove to consider him a good trade target.
“Do you think” questions aren’t impossible to answer unless you can’t think, which you’ve clearly demonstrated that you can :) I’ll leave it alone though as that is a lot of opinion.
I’m not editting any of this, hopefully it makes sense and flows alright. I tried to leave breaks where you had my quotes in there.
You're not letting natural selection take its course! You're like the guy who invented the seatbelt...
Sessions had good seasons at Milwauke
Where data would show he was a decent starting point guard. Why so little for him? Flynn’s chances of being good just went down also with the injury just when he had the off season to improve. Well at least there is no worry about Rubio being threatened .
Yikes!
In their entire history, the Wolves have never gotten a significant player drafted below the 7th pick (though Ellington might break that mold) so why even bother thinking about late first round and second round picks. Further, all the trades they made last year were about deconstructing the old team, not getting assets. The deconstruction of the old has been a great success — now that Hollins is gone, there are no bad contracts on this team — though I’m sure a few of the contracts will turn sour before the end of the year, as they always do.
As for the Flynn over Curry, which has been beaten to death, yeah it was’nt a maximizing of resources, but it isn’t as bad as made out to be — Curry is not that good, and Flynn is not that bad. During any draft, there are maybe 5 picks where there is not a better pick made latter — the draft is a crap shot. In the entire history of the draft, the first 5 picks have never been the 5 best players, not even close. It’s ridiculous to expect any GM to maximize every pick.
As for Johnson over Cousins, we’ll just have to wait and see. I predict Cousins will be a Z Randolph type player — good, but poisonous. I think Johnson was the better choice.
Good points, but...
Doug West was once their all-time leading scorer as a 2nd round pick, if I remember correctly.
by Madsen's 3-Point Barrage on Jul 27, 2010 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Didn't sell the farm for Rubio
Kahn doesn’t get a lot of credit for this, but before last year’s draft, a lot of people were discussing the wolves trading Love and the #6 for a higher draft pick to get Rubio. In this context, Miller and Foye for Rubio looks pure genius.
I would argue the opposite
Particularly if Jonny is a 6th man (or worse following the hip injury), what would it have done for team morale and the fan base to trade 5&6 for 2 and get Rubio here 2-3 years earlier?
I can rationalize him developing on someone else’s dime, etc. – but if Jonny isn’t significant, then why wouldn’t you want Rubio energizing the fan base, eliminating uncertainty, and working with his coach and in the offense?
I wonder if Rubio would have come right away if picked higher . . .
I wonder if Rubio will come at all. Kahn is certainly building the team around Rubio.
Would you rather have Rubio now, or Curry now and Rubio later? I think that is the more relevant comparison for asset maximization. I’d pick the second option.
by ThisIsForSota on Jul 27, 2010 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions
I’ll say the present value of Rubio last year v. the future value of Rubio & Jonny (or Rubio & Curry) is debatable, when it comes to team culture, butts in the seats, marketing revenue, etc.
Part of it depends on whether you think Rubio is going to be great. If you do, I think they should have done what they needed to get him here last year (including giving up the Flynn/Curry pick). If you aren’t sure, then you play it the way they did.
Al Jefferson trade, incomplete
If Kahn can get an all-star PG for the cap space from the Jefferson trade, then the move is a huge asset maximizer. If not, then the trade was a mistake. Of all the things Kahn is evaluated for, I would put the subsequent handling of this cap space as most important, and the make-or-break deal for me.
I would still be interested in taking on Brand’s contract for cap space and even throwing in another asset for Turner. If Turner doesn’t take off right away, i wonder if Philly would be more open to that sort of salary dump later in the season.
Flynn over DeRozan?
A lot of Kahn’s first criticisms was over picking a second point guard after Rubio. The logical choice for these Kahn-haters would have been to pick DeMar DeRozan with the #6. Not sure yet if this is an asset maximizer or minimizer?
+1
Has everybody so soon forgotten that Curry (like Cousins) wouldn’t even work out for us because he didn’t want to come here? And to all those who say that we should have drafted him and leveraged a trade to the Knicks or some other team, the Grizzlies tried that with a guy by the name of Steve Francis back when they were still in Vancouver. They got pennies on the dollar for him at the time –
bq. On August 27, 1999, the Grizzlies traded Tony Massenburg, Lee Mayberry, Makhtar Ndiaye, Rodrick Rhodes, Michael Smith, and the rights to Steve Francis in a three-team deal involving the Houston Rockets and the Orlando Magic, in return for Michael Dickerson, Othella Harrington, Antoine Carr, Brent Price, and a future first and second-round pick.
The first round pick was protected and eventually turned into … wait for it … you’ll appreciate this … Marcus Banks in 2003. At least with Flynn we have a guy that will play for us and hopefully his trade value won’t be too damaged by his lackluster production in an offense that he is ill-suited to run.
Curry didn't want to go to Golden State, either.
He was angling to get to the Knicks. I don’t actually care who wants to play for us at draft time. If we pick them, they will play for us under a rookie contract, and they have every incentive to play well to get a big contract after that.
I don’t think we can be in the business of predicting who will want to stick around after their rookie contract. If the team keeps sucking the way they have, no one will want to play here if they have a choice. So I think we should have picked Curry and kept him if we thought he was the BPA.
by Madison Dan on Jul 27, 2010 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
GoldenBoy Rubio don't want to play here either.....
He might like it in Seattle
by mnsportsjunkie on Jul 27, 2010 11:53 AM CDT reply actions
Nah it's too gray sky for him.
He won’t like dipping his feet in the Sound come January. Or, hell, July.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985...... On Twitter
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
