Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: All Hail David Luiz

Juicy Changes

Mslk_tropicana_redesign_medium

From the New York Times:

IT took 24 years, but PepsiCo now has its own version of New Coke.

...

The PepsiCo Americas Beverages division of PepsiCo is bowing to public demand and scrapping the changes made to a flagship product, Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice. Redesigned packaging that was introduced in early January is being discontinued, executives plan to announce on Monday, and the previous version will be brought back in the next month.

Also returning will be the longtime Tropicana brand symbol, an orange from which a straw protrudes. The symbol, meant to evoke fresh taste, had been supplanted on the new packages by a glass of orange juice.

The about-face comes after consumers complained about the makeover in letters, e-mail messages and telephone calls and clamored for a return of the original look.

 

...

It was not the volume of the outcries that led to the corporate change of heart, Mr. Campbell said, because "it was a fraction of a percent of the people who buy the product."

Rather, the criticism is being heeded because it came, Mr. Campbell said in a telephone interview on Friday, from some of "our most loyal consumers."

"We underestimated the deep emotional bond" they had with the original packaging, he added. "Those consumers are very important to us, so we responded."

The only thing that changed was the box.   

Star-divide

One of the most remarkable things about David Kahn's tenure as POBO is that he has taken the 2008/09 Wolves, added 6 first round draft picks, Al Jefferson, Ramon Sessions, and over $12 million spent on Luke Ridnour, Darko Milicic, and Nikola Pekovic and turned them into the 2008/09 Wolves. The carton has been updated from Blueprint to United We Run, but the taste remains the same.  

How so? 

We have been keeping stats on the team since 2008 for every 20 games or so.  This year I am breaking it down to every 10 games.  The chart from above is a comparison of this year's team to 2008/09's squad after 40 games.

For the most part, the 2008/09 squad was the slightly better team.  There are many factors that can account for this fact (older personnel, more experience, etc), but it's fairly hard to argue with the results.  From free throws to turnovers to point differential, the 2008 squad was able to slightly out-produce this year's squad on a number of levels.  Even in areas where this year's team has the edge, it's not by a whole lot. Least of all not enough to really pick nits over. 

The other big caveat between the two teams (aside form experience/age) is pace.  The 2008 squad was much more deliberate (at least it was until McHale took over).  While this could be read as something of an equalizer between the two squads in terms of overall numbers, it also could be read as an indictment of a coaching staff that would choose to run an inexperienced team with the #1 pace in all of professional basketball.  

Let's take a quick look at how the two squads break down by position.  Here are the positional comparisons from 2008/09 after 40 games:

Position
FGA
eFG%
FTA
iFG
Reb
Ast
T/O
Blk
PF
Pts
PER*
PG
-1.7   -.070   -1.0   0%  -1.7   -0.3   -0.2   -0.1   -2.0   -4.8   -6.9  
SG
1.0   -.001   0.0   5%  1.1   -0.4   0.0   -0.2   -0.3   1.3   +0.8  
SF
-3.2   -.037   -2.7   -2%  0.3   -0.3   -0.0   0.1   -0.8   -6.4   -5.6  
PF
-0.3   -.044   0.5   19%  0.4   0.6   -0.6   -0.9   0.3   -1.6   -2.1  
C
7.6   -.046   2.0   -2%  1.0   -0.6   0.2   -1.2   1.4   7.6   +3.6  

Here they are this year:

Net Production by Position

Position
FGA
eFG%
FTA
iFG
Reb
Ast
T/O
Blk
PF
Pts
PER*
PG
-1.2   +.008   -3.2   -13%  -1.3   -2.0   0.0   0.0   -0.7   -3.5   -4.9  
SG
-3.5   -.042   -2.0   -2%  -0.2   -1.5   -0.1   0.3   -1.8   -7.0   -7.6  
SF
0.7   -.058   -0.4   -1%  -0.9   -1.7   -0.7   -0.1   -1.0   -2.0   -5.1  
PF
2.6   +.001   0.7   3%  5.8   0.5   -0.3   -0.6   1.7   3.5   +5.3  
C
4.4   -.050   0.2   20%  -0.5   0.1   -1.5   0.1   -0.4   3.3   -0.7  

It really is amazing how badly this team has been torn apart over the years at the point.  What is even more amazing is that the 2008/09 Wolves were able to break about even at the 2.  Randy Foye really shot the ball well for about a month or so. This year's team features some solid action at the 4.  You know who that is.  

How do things break down at the individual level? 

Unfortunately, I don't have good spreadsheet data on individual players from back in 2008 so we'll just have to roll the season-end stats into the comparison.  (I have overview stats on the players here, but not in spreadsheet form).  I also left out some end-of-the-rotation players because they're virtually meaningless to this discussion. 

What can we tell from these numbers?  First of all, this year's Kevin Love is really, really, really good.  Second, I've been selling Luke Ridnour short this year.  He is the best point guard this team has had since Sam Cassell, and that's kind of crazy.  Third, Al Jefferson was a fairly productive player, especially in comparison to this year's volume scorer.  Despite his ability to score from the perimeter and off the dribble, Michael Beasley is quite a ways away from producing on a level near what Al Jefferson did in 2008.  

Beyond that, it's pretty much a wash with anyone who played a significant amount of minutes.  Martel Webster and Ryan Gomes are in the same boat.  This year's Corey Brewer doesn't have anything on the 2008 version or Rodney Carney.  Bassy is Bassy no matter what.  The only big change is comparing Darko to Collins, and that doesn't take into account that Al Jefferson also played a fair chunk of time at the 5.  

Why bring all of this up?  The team is moving sideways.  It's offering its fans the same thing they had in 2008/09.  The only difference is that this time, instead of hating the new picture on the carton, customers seem to be happy with the shiny, long and athletic packaging.  It's a reverse Tropicana. 

This current rebuilding project is running out of time and resources.  It is being headed up by a guy who thinks that Jonny Flynn and Darko Milicic are potential All Stars and whose sole current basketball philosophy is that he needs to collect as many players who can catch Ricky Rubio ally-oops as possible.  Its cap space becomes more and more inflexible with each passing POBO Threshold. This year's draft is something of a last  hurrah for the assets accumulated in the KG aftermath.  Unfortunately, it is a weak draft that could be made even weaker by college prospects not wanting to lose a year of development should the NBA have CBA issues that cut into the regular season.  It could be heavy on upper classmen and European players and you should prepare yourself for Kyle Singler. 

To further highlight an obvious point: Kahn's rear-end is really on the line when it comes to how the cap space is utilized in a pre-deadline deal.  They absolutely need to add someone who matters and who is a known commodity. If they don't...oi. 

Does this team have more potential?  I honestly don't know what that means.  It's hard to believe that Kevin Love could play any better as a 22 year old 3rd year pro.  It's hard to believe that Wes Johnson is going to develop a handle that increases his free throws while at the same time lowering his turnover rate.  If it could be guaranteed that he'd play as well as Mike Miller, I'd take that bet immediately.  (FWIW, and to say something positive about the guy, I think he has a decent future as a solid two way player at the 3.  Do you think Beasley could be talked into anchoring the 2nd unit?)

At the very best they're a 24 or 25 win team, just like they were back in 2008/09.  Al Jefferson + the old Kevin Love is pretty much equal to Michael Beasley + the new Kevin Love.  (It should be noted that these two combos present similar defensive and positional problems. I'll do some additional digging on how these pairings worked together in a future post.)  Beyond that, it's a mountain of interchangeable average (at best) players (although, admittedly I am having 2nd thoughts about moving Luke Ridnour up a bit, as he's playing really well right now).  

I do think that they should have more wins than what they currently have and that this has a large amount to do with the system they run and the rate at which they run it at.  One of Kahn's promises to the fan base when he was hired was that the Wolves would lead the league in player development.  This simply isn't happening.  If anything, the coaching staff runs a system that highlights the weaknesses of its players.  

Oh well, now that Bassy is back hopefully I won't be as grumpy about the squad.  Maybe they can take advantage of a favorable February schedule to rattle off some unexpected victories, giving us something similar to 08/09's winning January.  It's getting really old watching this team only to realize that they're right back at square one.  It's getting really old hearing new marketing campaign after new marketing campaign telling us how the juice is somehow different and more fresh.  It's getting really old watching the POBO blow through draft assets like nobody's business while getting very little in return.  Something needs to change.  Here's hoping they can work some magic before the trade deadline because that's the last big window they have to add a known product that matters.  Otherwise, your fandom is at the mercy of Kahn's taste in draft picks and free agents, and nobody likes to root for stale juice. 

Comment 398 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Awesome spreadsheets

I’d really really like to see the Wolves with a defensive minded coach. I’ve joked about him mainly due to his hatred of young guys and his past with Darko but I would be really interested in seeing what Larry Brown would do with this squad.

My Best guess is we would start this lineup
Ridnour
Brewer
Webster
Love
Darko

-A.T. sees more playing time at both the 4 & 5
-Flynn doesn’t play and Bassy is the main backup point
-I can’t even predict what he would do with Beasely & Wes.
-How would he deal with Love’s shortcomings on D? Could he actually coach him into better play or would we end up with a new “free Kevin Love” campaign?

by zebano on Jan 31, 2011 10:16 AM CST reply actions  

That's not a bad guess.

Larry Brown puts veterans in tight roles, and shortens his rotations. By the Wolves’ standards, this lineup of yours is “veteran.” Tolliver would definitely be a Larry guy.

No doubt he’d long since have hung Jonny out to dry. Beasley would get so jerked around by Brown, he’d toke up more.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:28 PM CST up reply actions  

A few minor changes are all that we can expect at this point.

So I’d throw this trade out at the deadline and see if we could make it happen. Other than Glen Taylor’s money we’ve got nothing to lose in this deal if it is made at the deadline. We’d need to give up the Memphis pick to make it happen, but our POBO’s track record with draft picks makes that a more palatable option than it would inherently be.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 10:26 AM CST reply actions  

I threw up in my mouth

at the sight of Rip Hamilton and his 3-pound beard being added to this roster.

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 10:31 AM CST up reply actions  

I understand your sentiment, but you've got to admit

he would be helpful in the clutch and could actually be a major catalyst in Wes Johnson becoming an above average starter in the NBA.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 10:38 AM CST up reply actions  

I've got to admit nothing

especially the notion that spending $30 million on a washed-up player not named Wes Johnson will help Wes become an above average starter in the NBA???

Why not trade for Gilbert Arenas to help Jonny Flynn improve, too?

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 10:52 AM CST up reply actions  

OKAY! OKAY! OKAY!

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 11:00 AM CST up reply actions  

Got to agree w. PoorDick

Hamilton’s game is sliding fast – and a 3 year contract? No way.
Another thing – the guy has been in the league for several years and only finished 82 games one time.

"a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

by BaylorWest on Jan 31, 2011 11:37 AM CST up reply actions  

Here's my thinking (in addition to what has previously been stated):

It costs them little-to-nothing to explore this possibility leading up to the deadline. They should be exploring other options as well, obviously – bringing Iguodala to Minnesota would be preferable by leaps and bounds, but seems distinctly less realistic now than it was before the season began.

If no other deal materializes, then this is preferable to doing nothing from a team-progress standpoint – as has been pointed out before the cap space will basically disappear on July 1st, so if we add nothing before the trade deadline the only other chance is to add a piece immediately before or immediately after the draft. Acquiring Hamilton will allow us to effectively carry forward the trade value of our current cap space into the 2012-13 season when his fairly large contract is set to expire.

Webster has not been the steady veteran presence that this team acquired him to be. So what good is Webster to us at this point? Webster does not appear to have any truly valuable skill that he can impart on our younger players. So again I ask what good is Webster to us at this point? Hamilton should at least be able to provide a veteran presence to help close out games and help teach our young guys to use off-ball screens to get open for catch and shoot opportunities.

As I said before, Glen Taylor’s money is the only thing this trade really costs our team. The potential for long-term gains from this deal far outweigh the costs in my opinion. This wouldn’t be my first option if I was Kahn, but if this option presented itself I certainly wouldn’t let the trade deadline pass without pulling off this deal or a better one.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 12:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Well said.

But I think the primary factor driving anything involving this team right now is “Glen Taylor’s money.”

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 12:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Exactly

I don’t see Glen spending all that money on Hamilton when he has to pay Love, Beasley (and Rubio soon).

Hamilton is not a guy that Glen is going to risk paying luxury tax for.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 1:34 PM CST up reply actions  

He's never going to have to spend luxury tax money on Hamilton.

We move about $7M closer to the salary cap this season. We sit slightly over the salary cap next season. Then in the 2012-13 season we trade him for a player that we are comfortable paying luxury tax dollars to have on our team.
In the unlikely event that we can’t find a team that is interested in Hamilton’s expiring contract and are in danger of paying any luxury tax due to his contract we can find a way to reduce payroll by jettisoning third or fourth year guys – Flynn, Ellington, Hayward, etc …

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 1:52 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

+1

I’ve read Rip is a shadow of his former self + a major attitude problem to boot.

We need a SG, but not that one.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on Jan 31, 2011 10:54 AM CST up reply actions  

What???

no projectiles today?

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 11:06 AM CST up reply actions  

How many bearded players can we plausibly acquire?

What I would not give to add a James Harden.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:29 PM CST up reply actions  

"The team is moving sideways"

So . . . not getting worse? I guess I’ll settle for that.

Actually, sideways from 2008-2009 is okay by me, since I have low expectations for Rambis and below low expectations for Kahn.

Plus, this is the age at the time of the top eleven players(in minutes played) from that team:

1 Al Jefferson 24
2 Randy Foye 25
3 Ryan Gomes 26
4 Kevin Love 20
5 Craig Smith 25
6 Sebastian Telfair 23
7 Mike Miller 28
8 Rodney Carney 24
9 Rashad McCants 24
10 Kevin Ollie 36
11 Brian Cardinal 31

The Wolves kept the youngest and best of that bunch (plus Bassy), and now, other than serviceable Luke Ridnour, have a bunch of players getting minutes younger than almost everybody on that 2008-2009 roster:

1 Kevin Love 22
2 Michael Beasley 22
3 Luke Ridnour 29
4 Wesley Johnson 23
5 Darko Milicic 25
6 Corey Brewer 24
7 Martell Webster 24
8 Sebastian Telfair 25
9 Anthony Tolliver 25
10 Wayne Ellington 23
11 Nikola Pekovic 25

Plus (ahem) Flynn and KostKo, who are 21, plus that one guy from Spain, who’s like 12. So is the record better? No. Is the team better? Maybe. Is there more potential for this team than the one from 2008-2009? Definitely.

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 10:28 AM CST reply actions   2 recs

I can agree with the sentiment...

…in a vacuum, but not with the amount of resources they have blown through. That’s an awful lot to spend to go sideways while reducing the age of the top 8 rotation players by about a year….to say nothing of the idea that the POBO and coach have been talking about how they’re too young and that they need to add some vets.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 10:33 AM CST up reply actions  

Put it this way

The best thing Kahn and Rambis have done so far is not screw up the team for the next coach and GM.

Yet.

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 10:54 AM CST up reply actions  

Did 2009-10 disappear?

Or did it not fit the narrative?

When you throw in the 2009-10 cast of cast-offs, it makes the current crop look like NBA All Stars, I bet.

Let’s be clear, the 2009-10 was rebuilding at it’s lowest possible level.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 11:09 AM CST up reply actions  

Good lord

Cut the narrative nonsense. Last year was a fraud. They tanked. If you think I was running this out there for just a narrative, don’t you think that year would have fit into my grand plan to paint this regime as a bunch of incompetents?

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 11:12 AM CST up reply actions  

You don't even post, but to support your narrative

And frankly it is beyond tiresome.

…don’t worry about telling me I can leave…I just did.

by DougW on Jan 31, 2011 11:30 AM CST up reply actions  

Isn't "narrative" the same as "opinion"?

Would it be better if he kept changing his mind every other week?

He put together a well-supported case that the Wolves have spent two years making basically no progress. If you don’t agree with it, then make your case. But all of the whining about SnP not being positive enough is the think I find most tiresome.

In the first 3 full months of the season, we’ve seen win totals of 3, 4, and 3. When are you going to find THAT tiresome?

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 11:48 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Change his mind or

becoming open minded?

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 12:02 PM CST up reply actions  

What exactly should we be excited about from the last month?

We beat three terrible teams at home. We lost an absolutely awful game against a Charlotte team missing its best players.

I don’t see anything happening that should open any minds, except perhaps yours.

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 12:08 PM CST up reply actions  

With a club like the Wolves

It’s more of a rebuilding journey than juxtaposing two snapshots (i.e. 2008-09 v. 2010-11).

I’m hearing guys like Scott Brooks say the Wolves are where they, the Thunder, were two years ago. I’m reading that we are a team that leads the league in close losses (2-12 when the final score is within 5 points). The second leading team in close losses is the Miami Heat.

I’m seeing the current roster with the youngest and most NBA inexperienced players in the league, versus 2008-09 when that was not the case, and there is reason for optimism versus 2008-09.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 12:14 PM CST up reply actions  

I'll agree that there's some more reason for optimism

but not by much. The problems we’ve seen with many of the new players were foreseeable. Look at the DX scouting reports for Flynn and Wes. All of the flaws we’ve seen are right there, predicted before they ever played a minute in the NBA. That reduces my confidence that these guys will develop beyond many of these shortcomings.

It’s very flattering that Brooks makes that comparison, but I don’t think we have a Durant or Westbrook. We have Love and Rubio’s rights (and Beasley, but I don’t like him as much as many around here do), and that’s something to build on. But we’ve got a long way to go, and Kahn’s current batting average in the draft doesn’t suggest that he’ll be the one to take us there.

So I’ll ask you a question I asked someone else yesterday: what has to happen and when does it have to happen to get you pissed off at this team? Does the Thunder comparison buy Kahn two years before you think he’s screwed up?

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 12:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Agreed there is room for optimism, but it depends on setting

If you were the fan that said OMG the Wolves have Kevin Love, Al Jefferson and something in the ball park of 6-7 draft picks in the next two drafts including the 5,6 and a likely high pick he following year or two years plus they have the financial flexibility to add additional FA talent or take on a salary dump. I think if they use these assets well we could build from the draft a team that will be competitive fairly soon and may become a playoff fixture for the next decade. Then optimism probably isn’t warranted. This dream is dying draft pick by draft pick and mediocre FA signing by mediocre FA signing.

On the other hand if you are the fan that says. I like the players. The games are pretty entertaining. We are close to competing most nights and will start winning soon. We’re definitely in better shape than we were. I think we could still make the playoffs with this squad in a few more years. Optimism is warranted.

I came back to Wolves because I saw the window of opportunity for creating a Oklahoma/Portland (pre-Roy fall out) like playoff fixture was wide open. It doesn’t feel that way any more. I don’t doubt there’s still room for improvement, but the ceiling keeps coming down.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 12:50 PM CST up reply actions  

Our ceiling is okay...

but the floor stays down very low with every botched draft pick.

Our ceiling will begin to come down once we commit big salaries to less-than-elite players, or aging players. Right now, there is nothing to say we have a low ceiling. There is no ceiling on a team this young and cheap. That will change once Love, Beasley, or other players are up for new contracts.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 1:14 PM CST up reply actions  

I suppose I'm jumping the gun there

But I can see that big salaries on the horizon.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 1:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Imagine...

that we have:

Curry
Webster
Beasley
Love
Cousins

I’m not sure who gets paid and how much out of that lineup. Can we keep them all, and what are the odds we pick the best of the group, long-term? It could be a little bit Grizzlies-ish, where we’re forced to choose between good-but-not-great players, and probably lose out on others, all while barely making (or NOT making) the playoffs.

That isn’t to say I like blowing through lottery picks—just that there are scenarios where good-but-not-great picks put teams in difficult positions, financially. To state the extremely obvious, it’s a lot better when you have a clear-cut superstar or two.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 1:36 PM CST up reply actions  

So you're now advocating taking risks in order to find great, as opposed to good, players?

Wouldn’t that be a natural inference from your last paragraph? ‘You don’t want to get so-so good players on some level’?

Shall I fire up the time machine and set it for draft night?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Fire it up....

and see what you can find.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 2:02 PM CST up reply actions  

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 2:05 PM CST up reply actions  

Seriously, though...

my issues with Cousins were pretty specific to him. I don’t generally have a problem with high risk/high reward, but I caught more Kentucky games last year than I normally do of a non-Gopher team, and I hated the guy just from watching him on tv. We don’t have to go back and forth, beating dead horses about what we actually know/don’t know about him—just that this was a special case where I would have been scared off by what seemed like a collosal prick that I would never want to have to play with or coach. If he does well in Sacramento, I’ll be proven wrong. He’s had an up and down year, and so far I’d have to say he’s doing more good than bad. Lately, it hasn’t been close. But the concerns about him are such that they could all blow up at once. So until the Kings are winning playoff games with DMC, I’ll reserve some judgment about that pick and whether we screwed the pooch on it.

I will say, and I think I said this before, that the Jefferson trade took away the basketball-related issue I had with Cousins. I thought his upside was Jefferson or Z-Bo, and I didn’t understand drafting him with Jeff on the roster. With Darko filling that spot, it would OBVIOUSLY be better to have Cousins at the 5. This is even clearer when you factor in that Wes Johnson was essentially replaced before his first game by Mike Beasley. So, unless Cousins proves me right by misbehaving his way out of Sacto, this pick could end up looking like a big mistake. If the draft were held after the Jefferson trade, I think I would have been closer to 50/50 on what to do with it.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 9:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Didn't we all pretty much know, though...

that Jefferson was going to be on his way out? I remember that as one of my bigger reasons for advocating him. I thought, at that point, it was pretty much a certainty.

by LoveTo on Jan 31, 2011 10:08 PM CST up reply actions  

What do you mean

“was”?

(heh heh—I keed because I luv!).

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Feb 1, 2011 12:19 PM CST up reply actions  

What else

is there to talk about?

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 11:49 AM CST up reply actions  

Just as I get annoyed whenever someone calls me a 'troll'

despite having logged over 5,000 comments and countless FanPosts on this site, it’s likewise annoying whenever good and thorough analysis is disregarded with the “narrative”-type comments.

I mean, it doesn’t take more than a cursory read of CH to understand that SnP and I have two very different philosophies when it comes to analyzing Timberwolves’ basketball. But I really think that we both want the same thing and have the same end goal: the success of the Minnesota Timberwolves. And we can respect each others’ opinions without having to agree with them.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 12:01 PM CST up reply actions  

Watch out though

you risk getting the SnP admonishment if you raise a differing perspective.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 12:03 PM CST up reply actions  

It's been said before

but who do you think decided to increase the role for Tim and Oceanary on the site? I think SnP is striving for differing perspectives on the site, but there’s no reason he has to adopt them as his own.

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 12:09 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Exactly.

The idea that Stop-n-Pop is somehow running opposing opinions out of town is past ridiculous.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Where would this blog be?

Without all the former posters telling us we overrated- Kevin Love and should have taken OJ Mayo.

by Jose Cordoba on Jan 31, 2011 2:09 PM CST up reply actions  

My favorite line

was teaming OJ Mayo with Brandon Roy would have been “amazing”.

by Jose Cordoba on Jan 31, 2011 2:10 PM CST up reply actions  

Because clearly, if we'd kept Roy and he'd blown up,

the team with KG and Brandon Roy would still have gotten the #3 overall pick to use on Mayo.

My research librarian side wants to go back and look at that draft night – I wasn’t around here yet – and show people’s reactions. My compassionate side does not.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 2:12 PM CST up reply actions  

I hoped for a long time that Foye would justify that trade

then i hoped for a long time that he would make it not laughable

and then I felt shame.

I haven't written an insightful post in years.

by littleboxes on Jan 31, 2011 11:38 PM CST up reply actions  

As you write that...

he ices the win for the Clips over Bucks. He’s putting up respectable numbers in Gordon’s absence, so far. I’ve never considered him the bust that McCants and Flynn are/were—he’s just hated because of Brandon Roy (who now happens to be one of the worst contracts in the league.)

by Andy G on Feb 1, 2011 12:00 AM CST up reply actions  

awesome

hopefully he’ll get a multiyear deal out of a nice performance when Gordon is out. Although it’s February now…

I haven't written an insightful post in years.

by littleboxes on Feb 1, 2011 12:16 AM CST up reply actions  

Redemption won't come for Foye because Roy is injured.

Even if Brandon Roy never plays again, he would still have been a better choice than Foye. But dead horses and all that.

Randy Foye is a great guy. I worked out with him a tiny bit, and know his legs were never right past his rookie season. (He was scared to death of the Bosu balance stuff as a result.) But even fully healthy, his profile as a prospect was not that of a potential breakout player. He was a 6’4" ’tween guard whose vision closed down when he drove, and projecting him as a point guard was an against-the-odds proposition, particularly because he was already 23 years old in his rookie season so asking him to add an entire new set of PG skills was poor thinking.

(I haven’t watched the guy play lately. Has he ever figured out pump fakes by his opponent, really?)

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Feb 1, 2011 9:02 AM CST up reply actions  

It won't come for Foye...

but it sort of has for McHale. Not because Foye was the right pick, but because Roy will probably never be the same and if that’s the case, he’s incredibly overpaid and a burden on his team going forward. That is in contrast to what we thought we missed out on, which was a dozen or so years of contending with B-Roy as our anchor.

Foye is an off-guard and he fits in okay with Baron and Blake running the show. He got two open treys in the final minutes last night, and buried the second one to ice the game. Interestingly enough, it came from Baron Davis CRASHING THE BOARDS (when is the last time that’s happened) saving the possession and creating a scramble that left an open Foye. Clips are an exciting group. If you didn’t see it already, look for the DeAndre Jordan-Jon Brockman sequence. Brockman is probably the most physical, if not downright dirtiest player in the league. He was holding DJ, who managed to get free and alley-oop dunk on his face, then walk over him the way Pippen once did to Ewing. Of course, on the next possession, Brockman plowed over DeAndre for the rare off-the-ball charge.

by Andy G on Feb 1, 2011 9:29 AM CST up reply actions  

Has it really come for Maccers?

‘Cause Roy had four years of something like All Star performance, which in theory he’d have been doing alongside KG, right?

How good does Randy Foye have to be now to make him the better pick, and for how long? And given that we all probably share the “If Cousins does come through it might be with a second team” worry about DeMarcus, does it even matter given that Randy’s with his third Franchise now?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Feb 1, 2011 12:08 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, it's still bad...

but I feel better about it (not better in general, because I like Roy) knowing that Portland came out with a horrible contract that will prevent them from contending and we got the rights to Ricky Rubio in part because of that stupid trade. Crazy how that worked, in some ways.

by Andy G on Feb 1, 2011 12:46 PM CST up reply actions  

If they are former posters...

then wouldn’t this blog be right where it is now?

I think some of us are still here and continue to tell you that you overrate Kevin Love and his career record of 47-141 (.250).

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 2:22 PM CST up reply actions  

I always find this argument odd

coming from you. If memory serves you were fairly consistent in your support for Jefferson, and his need to be surrounded with complimentary talent so that the full repertoire of his skills could start producing wins.

by dropstep on Jan 31, 2011 2:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Every argument is a little different...

and I probably contradict myself to an extent. But as I recall, a lot of my staunch defense of Jefferson was in response to people who took every opportunity to blame him for the losses, rather than recognize the flaws around him. You will rarely, if ever, see me blame Kevin Love for the losing on this team. But, I am open to recognizing the losses as they continue to happen, and in most cases, refuse to put him in the category of the league’s upper-elite forwards. I think that on a winning team, Love’s role and production would be different. He could easily help a good team, but his numbers wouldn’t look so disproportionate to his actual impact on a team’s chance of winning, rather than just being competitive in a loss.

I don’t really have THAT different of a view of Love than Jose’s. I think a few weeks ago, we went through a ranking of sorts and I had him Top 25 or 30 in the league and he had him Top 15. I’m just responding because I was in the Mayo Crowd, and when a trade happens, and one team gets better while the other gets worse, I laugh when the crappy teams fans mock the deal as a huge win for them. If the Love Trade was a huge win the Wolves it will be because it proximately led to the Rubio acquisition and he becomes a star.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 3:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Well....

some disagreed with that, but I know that was your take from the beginning.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 3:34 PM CST up reply actions  

I didn't mean that as a shot at Andy G

Whose takes are solid and well-thought through.

  I think it’s worth noting the Margin of Error between Bad Teams and Good Teams isn’t that huge.

If Kevin Love was on a team like Portland with League-Average Starters (Matthews, Miller, Batum) versus Below-Average (Wes/Brewer, Darko) then Love looks a lot better as a player.

by Jose Cordoba on Jan 31, 2011 3:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Tennis example:

A professional tennis player who wins 40% of the points she plays is only going to win a bit more than 25% of her games. Conversely, the opposing player who takes 60% of points is going to take a bit less than 75% of games between them.

The 60% player will win essentially every match they play.

Sports have different structures, but at the professional level the separation between consistently winning and consistently losing is a tight thing.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:20 PM CST up reply actions  

In baseball

If a player gets to bat 600 times in a season, the difference between a .275 average and the vaunted .300 mark is 15 hits, or 165 and 180 respectively. That’s around 1 hit per 10 games. It makes a pretty big difference in what we think of the player, but the differences in what actually needs to happen for them to look so good is somewhat minor.

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 4:33 PM CST up reply actions  

I love that example

Especially as it calls into question our ability to critically gauge outcomes through pure observation. It sure does seem like that .300 hitter gets so many more than the guy hitting .275, and I’m sure that most folks, along with me, would swear we could see the difference just through observation. But in fact, while you might be able to distinguish differences in mechanics and plate discipline that would suggest different skill levels, there’s really no way to differentiate those outcomes by observation.

by dropstep on Jan 31, 2011 11:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Not having followed Baseball for a while,

I’m surprised to see that a typical BABIP sits around .300. Probably I’m just conditioned despite all my Bill Jamesian history, to think of .300 as a magical wonderland of effectiveness.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Feb 1, 2011 9:05 AM CST up reply actions  

David Aldridge

used those exact words at the time. He called it one of the most lopsided trades of the last 20 years. I did too, but for some reason people care more about Aldridge’s opinions than mine, and yet I’ve never been fired by ESPN.

by rickyp on Jan 31, 2011 4:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Hollinger had Love rated much higher than Mayo.

He put Love a bit below, ta-dum, Beasley as the clear two best players, and had Mayo among the also-ran guard prospects.

Given that he also could see the financial implications, he obviously loved the deal for Minnesota too.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:54 PM CST up reply actions  

I bet at least half the GMs in the league

would have better job security if they just went off Hollinger’s rankings as their draft boards.

I know ours would…

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 4:56 PM CST up reply actions  

I'd say he outperforms 2/3 of the teams GMs

in any given year. And that’s with some huge flaws in what he is doing and the fact that what he is hoping to predict for the player (his NBA PER) isn’t highly correlative to winning

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 4:59 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't want to have *anyone* just go off one perspective, personally.

It would be so nice for the folks in charge of the Wolves to at least listen to that perspective, though.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 5:00 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree that would be the smartest thing to do,

but I think it still stands that Kahn (and many other GMs) would’ve done a better job if they did nothing but draft the next available guy on Hollinger’s list.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 5:06 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, we did get rid of Marko Jaric

That’s gotta count for something! :)

I have no idea what we're yelling about!

by SoDakHmr on Jan 31, 2011 5:53 PM CST up reply actions  

We now know that TA's ability to count

has a gap somewhere between 60 and 5000. This could explain some of our disagreements ;)

Whenever I'm about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing.

by Mplax on Feb 2, 2011 6:18 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't think you have any kind of agenda

And this was a really good post, I think what frustrates some people is that, this being your blog, your opinion sort of naturally carries a little more weight, so when you continue to bang away about how hopeless this situation is, acknowling very little concessions of improvement/positivity along the way, it gets to be a buzzkill, even if you are right.

by MoreJuice on Jan 31, 2011 11:54 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Same opinion

I do not have problem with snp’s negative opinions. I haven’t always agreed with the front office decision making either. It’s just that he continually posts the exact same opinions/views. In this post he has the same views but simply adds stats to support his opinion. However, his opinion has been stated several times over and over and over. The same is true for chuckd. What frustrates people is repeating your opinions/view over and over again.

by rickyrubio10 on Jan 31, 2011 12:07 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree with MoreJuice

Almost all of us have nothing but respect for SnP’s basketball mind.
However, his posts have become tiresome.
The relentless pounding of the regime is being painted as a black and white affair, while reality probably has much more gray involved in it, and a final grade on them really can’t be cast for a number of years.
Rubio is unresolved.
Cousins vs. Johnson is unresolved.
Flynn vs. Curry is technically unresolved, although at this point extremely easy to bash (or boo on draft night, like I did.)

It all just seems so joyless and counter to why I come to this site.
The real breaking point for me was Saturday night.
After coming home from enjoying the rare pleasure of watching the Wolves win by double digits, I was treated to a write-up from SnP that made it sound like beating a fellow bad team was a travesty we should be ashamed of.

I love talking Wolves.
I just don’t want to do it daily with this SNL character- http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/70bf1f8630/debbie-downer-lindsay-lohan-snl-sketch-full-of-outtakes

Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV

by HumdingerTV on Jan 31, 2011 12:23 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Injuries alone..

sometimes this gets forgotten (by me, at least) but think about these:

  • Rashad McCants – Microfracture Surgery 2006
  • Randy Foye – Kneecap (stress fracture?) Injury 2007
  • Corey Brewer – Torn ACL 2008
  • Al Jefferson – Torn ACL 2009
  • Jonny Flynn – Hip Surgery 2010

Those are 4 of the last 7 lottery picks and the primary piece of the Kevin Garnett trade.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 1:06 PM CST up reply actions  

Kevin Love - Broken Hand 2009

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 1:34 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah...

I only left that out because it likely had no serious effects, once he returned. In the leg injury cases, it’s possible those changed careers, for the worse. In the case of Jefferson, it brought the first sign of real progress to a screeching halt.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 1:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe that glove had a serious *positive* effect.

But in all seriousness, I feel compelled to note that Portland’s injury history has been much worse than the Wolves’. Houston’s litany of injuries, too.

(I wish I felt like Corey Brewer’s game has somehow been negatively affected by his surgery, but he’s the same Corey. McCants and Foye, there may be a case on them.)

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Narrative

I won’t accept your admonishment and I’m comfortable with my word choice. I do question your self-impression at times.

Comparing 2008-09 with 2010-11 is in my view a complete distortion if not consideration of the full story.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 11:59 AM CST up reply actions  

I think the gyst is...

..That like New Coke and the new packaging for Tropicana, that SnP wants Randy Foye, Al Jefferson, and so on back. Classic Wolves all the way, yo.

by Grover M on Jan 31, 2011 12:01 PM CST up reply actions  

He'd want Terrell Brandon, natch.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:42 PM CST up reply actions  

It's not like Stop-n-Pop scolded you out of turn, here. He responded to your criticism.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:42 PM CST up reply actions  

The narrative

As far as I can see, is that SnPs numbers based team building is MUCH better than KahnRambis’ trapezoidal vision scheme. AND the numbers bear this out, OF COURSE.

Case closed, there is nothing that can disprove the numbers,
UNLESS the trapezoidal vision thingy can produce a new data set sometime down the line.

by WinTheLottery on Jan 31, 2011 12:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Sliding sideways?

If you look at Ws and Ls. I see improvement in individual player deveopment that will translate into more wins in future. I think Wes has been working at adding to his game; he’s not just a catch-n-shoot player anymore. Pek is getting more acclimated to the American game – less stupid fouls that impeded his flow, Martell may be turning the corner, and Jonny has shown some improvement. Darko is still a question mark game to game, and Tolliver hasn’t come back a the way yet, but I see things starting to coalesce.

"a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

by BaylorWest on Jan 31, 2011 11:55 AM CST up reply actions  

Trying not to make too many excuses for him..

but I think Beasley could have somewhat better numbers if he didn’t battle the ankle injuries and initial adjustment period of “go-to scorer small forward.” You know I was a big fan of Al Jeff in 08-09, but Kahn inherited a different Al Jeff than that one. He was crap last year, and by some accounts, he isn’t a whole lot different this year, either. As Hollinger often notes, Jefferson is a good player but needs a certain system that neither Rambis nor Sloan utilizes.

I’m glad you pointed that out about Ridnour, because he’s been very adequte this year, even if not dominant in any way. It’s obvious that you can win with Luke Ridnour as your point guard, provided that the other pieces include some difference makers.

Wes could probably lower his turnover rate considerably ONLY BY cutting out the foot-shuffling before he puts it on the deck. That’s a sign of nervousness. You’ll see college freshman do it a lot. I don’t expect that to continue, but he hasn’t shed it from his repertoie, yet.

As with the 08-09 team, this group needs to hit the lottery jackpot. It just hasn’t happened for this franchise, which best explains why the Thunder, Bulls and Clippers have the brighter futures. I agree with you about the next draft—it doesn’t look like a good one to bank your future on. If he keeps his job long enough, Kahn will have to deal with Clippergedden one way or another. He didn’t create that mess, but hasn’t done a good job of solving it yet, either.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 10:32 AM CST reply actions  

Speaking of Clippergeddon..

…I have been trying to find out if the Wolves can simply hand over this year’s pick to the Clippers. It really doesn’t make sense that they couldn’t simply choose to ignore the top 15 (or whatever) restriction whenever they wanted to. This would be like you owing a bank some money and them refusing to take an early payment. If they could hand it over this year while bringing Rubio over in the fall, that’s a minor coup. I’ll see if I can get a solid answer.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 10:35 AM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, that could be the best option...

particularly if, as we sort of expect, guys like Barnes and Irving stay in school. It would be very uncool to be sitting at #4 or #5 deciding between Kemba Walker, Jared Sullinger, and a handful of Duke upperclassmen.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 10:43 AM CST up reply actions  

I realize there's a ton of speculation about it being an artificially bad draft class.

However, I’m not convinced the uncertain labor situation will actually deter the top-end players from entering the draft. As much as not being able to play organized basketball scares these kids – I think that would terrify them more than not getting paid for a year – their agents could find a way around this problem. When you factor into the equation the highly likely possibility that future draft classes will be raked over the coals by the next CBA, all of a sudden getting into the league this season becomes a very appealing prospect even if it means relying on an agent to support them until the lockout is over.
Think about it, both the players’ union and the owners have an interest in reducing the amount of revenues that are dedicated to paying draft picks. The players that are already in the league have an interest in making more money for themselves, but that money has to come from somewhere and the owners aren’t just going to give it up. So why not squeeze the next guy? The owners are obviously interested in cutting payroll wherever possible, but the current players aren’t going to just give it up. So why not take away from the only group that isn’t involved in the negotiating process?
Both sides have an interest in screwing the incoming players in the next CBA, so if you’re a first-round prospect you’re best bet is to get in before it’s too late. As the immortal Bob Dylan says “The Times They Are A-Changing.”

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 11:17 AM CST up reply actions  

The problem is

that it looks like a pretty bad draft class even without any labor issues.

I still don’t think the Wolves would opt to give up their pick this year, if only because of the PR hit. It’s an admission that they know they’ll suck next year, too.

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 11:20 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree it's not going to be 2003 or even 2007 or 2008,

but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be 3 or 4 guys really worth having out of this class. Long term I think Irving, Barnes, both of the Joneses, Burks, possibly Kanter, and the 2 or 3 top end European guys will probably be solid-to-above-average starters at the very least – with one or 2 of them becoming bona-fide all-stars.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 11:32 AM CST up reply actions  

"worth having"

could describe most of the Wolves roster, right now, though. Many drafts have a player or two that teams would kill for, and I’m not seeing that guy in this next draft. I guess Kanter hasn’t played at all, so maybe he’s one. If Barnes can play the last 10 like Saturday’s game, he’ll jump back up the boards and look like a stud. Irving needs to get healthy.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 11:38 AM CST up reply actions  

Perry Jones is the player that intrigues me the most

Of course, who isn’t intrigued by an athletic big man who can do it all? He’s got the highest upside, but there’s the “motor” problem we often hear about big men with his talent, in addition to the fact that his size lends itself more to the PF position, where our best player is already set in stone. I suppose if he had the height to play some C, that would be nice, but it’s too bad the highest-upside guy isn’t the best fit for us. I suppose Jonas and Harrison would be nice fits as well as talented players, though.

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 1:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Haven't seen him play...

but also haven’t heard any sort of real buzz to make me WANT to see him play. He’s a little like Derrick Favors in that regard: the kind of guy I can talk myself into between April and June, but not necessarily a guy that we should be super-excited about. Maybe Jones is very good and I just haven’t paid enough attention.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 3:21 PM CST up reply actions  

No

Perry Jones is a athletic, versatile player that lacks a killer instinct. His game is similar to Anthony Randolph.

by kramshom on Jan 31, 2011 4:24 PM CST up reply actions  

True

But I don’t think he’s better than Beasley or Love. Do the wolves really need to spend a top pick on a bench player?

by kramshom on Jan 31, 2011 4:35 PM CST up reply actions  

Out of the last 10 "top picks" the Wolves have had

how many of them weren’t bench players? lol

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Feb 1, 2011 1:27 AM CST up reply actions  

It speaks to the sadness in my heart

that when I skimmed this post, my immediate thought was that you were referring to players who couldn’t even sit on an NBA bench. Rashad McCants, for example. Hopefully not Jonny Flynn.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Feb 1, 2011 9:11 AM CST up reply actions  

Can't do it

per my FO friend. (Twolves asked already – +1 to them for think about it)

by Just A Fan on Jan 31, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions  

really?

really really?
I believe Cleveland removed the protection on an owed first in the Jiri Welsch deal. If someone at hq told the wolves that, they may have been wrong. It’s a pretty interesting case.

by rickyp on Jan 31, 2011 2:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe...

it was a term in each trade deal, negotiated differently.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 2:27 PM CST up reply actions  

It wouldn't be too surprising...

That the Clippers can decide whether or not to take and they are not interested in taking it now since the upcoming draft might be quite weak.

by Grover M on Jan 31, 2011 2:32 PM CST up reply actions  

Grover M

said it better than I

The Twolves can’t unilaterally decide to force the pick on the Clippers this year. If the Clippers would want it – than a “new trade” could be made to remove the protection. But as it stands, the Clippers have no interest – the draft crop looks poor and the CBA questions loom large.

by Just A Fan on Jan 31, 2011 2:40 PM CST up reply actions  

the protection

is for the wolves, by intent; it’s a limitation on an asset conveyed. I’m not convinced they can’t give up that protection, though I’ve no doubt you were told what you were told. As I said, Cleveland unilaterally stripped the protection off a pick they owed, and there was no separate transaction with the team holding the pick. There’s nothing in cba that I know of that would give the Clippers the power to refuse the pick, but of course all our glimpses of the cba are 2nd hand through people like Larry Coon, so you never know I guess.

by rickyp on Jan 31, 2011 3:16 PM CST up reply actions  

well

I’m not a lawyer, from my view but the “intent” of the protection doesn’t really matter, trades are negotiated contracts made at a certain time with certain stipulations.

Removing the stipulation changes the contract, which would be difficult to do retroactively. It changes the contract, whether or not it would be beneficial for either party.

But i’m glad that we’re at least being cognizant and asking about it.

Any actual contract lawyers in the house willing to add in?

by TwinATL on Jan 31, 2011 3:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes

My assumption is that you are correct—the Wolves cannot force them to take this year’s pick instead of next year’s.

They can offer it in exchange, but the Clippers don’t have to accept.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Jan 31, 2011 4:19 PM CST up reply actions  

If "intent" mattered, Kevin McHale would have said "Muggins" about ten times during his tenure.

That would look a little like when Michael Scott “declared bankruptcy” on The Office.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:21 PM CST up reply actions  

I cannot believe all of you

are deciding against my personal speculation vs the reported position of the league office. These are the same guys who took all those first round picks! Besides, I have yet to hear a rebuttal of my ‘Cavs did it already’ argument.

Okay, fine. Hmph. Thanks, by the way, to Just A Fan for posting that, if my appreciation of the post wasn’t clear.

by rickyp on Jan 31, 2011 4:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Here is your response

In exchange for Jiri Welsch, the Cavs traded their first round pick in the 2007 draft, which meant that their 2005 first rounder, which had been lottery protected, immediately lost all protection.

This means that if the Timberwolves really want to lose their pick this year they have to trade their 2013 first rounder.

by PhoenixWolf on Jan 31, 2011 10:31 PM CST up reply actions  

The Wolves did this when they acquired Cherokee Parks back in the day.

They had an earlier first owed to Dallas that was protected, and in exchange for removing the protection on the pick if it landed from 2 to 6, the Wolves took Parks off their hands.

But yeah, separate transaction, and obviously not forced on Dallas.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 5:53 PM CST up reply actions  

This seems silly

isn’t the whole purpose of the protection to ‘protect’ the team? So basically what was meant to protect the Wolves is actually doing the exact opposite of that? I understand that we can’t do it, I just think that this is a massive flaw in the rule book that should be changed ASAP.

Whenever I'm about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing.

by Mplax on Feb 2, 2011 6:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Tough One

the 2012 Draft will be way stronger. Although I see the Wolves winning more games next year as teams like Phoenix, Denver, and Utah take steps back.

by Jose Cordoba on Jan 31, 2011 2:24 PM CST up reply actions  

I see Phoenix and Denver

but why would Utah take a step back next year? Don’t see it unless Sloan retires or Williams leaves.

by Dumbhead62 on Jan 31, 2011 3:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Interesting

The only guys I feel could help the wolves (with their current roster) would be Enes Kanter or Kyrie Irving. But there’s a chance neither of those two would be available in the draft.

by kramshom on Jan 31, 2011 4:22 PM CST up reply actions  

I think this point about the lottery jackpot ...

… is a great one. We haven’t used our draft picks well or wisely and yes, we could have gotten Curry and Lawson and the jury’s still out on DMC, but none of those players is the home run that Durant, Rose, and Blake Griffin are. We could have had Westbrook, but at the expense of Love. We need to draft smarter (which who knows how we’re going to do that with this front office), but it’s simply a fact that we haven’t had the chance to draft in the first or second slot and get that superstar player.

by Ghostwolf on Jan 31, 2011 10:50 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree that there probably wasn't the opportunity for Kahn to put together a title-contending team.

But that’s a really high standard that’s rarely achievable. So I’ll downgrade your “great” point to “good” for me, because I still want to complain that Kahn could have done a lot better with the assets he’s had.

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 10:56 AM CST up reply actions  

The fact

he could have randomly pulled out of a hat almost any other point guard taken after Flynn and come up with a better player is quite damning.

by Rascal Flatts on Jan 31, 2011 11:36 AM CST up reply actions  

Or just the fact...

that he took a point guard right after taking a point guard. That move was and is indefensible.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 11:39 AM CST up reply actions  

I dunno...

Had he taken Stephen Curry (like I was screaming at the time) I would not have had that much of an issue with it.

by Grover M on Jan 31, 2011 11:49 AM CST up reply actions  

He's a much, much better asset than Flynn...

but it still would have made no sense to draft two point guards in the Top-6 of the same draft. Not unless an immediate trade could be worked out.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 11:54 AM CST up reply actions  

Based on value...

…You do it anyways, I say. Curry could slide in the 2 at times, can shoot and pass. We also would not be fretting about Rubio whatsoever at this point.

by Grover M on Jan 31, 2011 11:59 AM CST up reply actions  

This.

Rubio would become attractive trade bait, at that point. Which would be a nice luxury, rather than depending on a guy who probably has about a 10% chance of being as good as we need him to be.

by LoveTo on Jan 31, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions  

He's a combo guard anyhow

You can play him at either guard spot, whereas Jonny is, was, and always will be a PG. Flexibility (in addition to well, actual talent) can be very valuable.

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 1:09 PM CST up reply actions  

Lawson

He also drafted and traded Lawson, who I think is better than Flynn.

by kramshom on Jan 31, 2011 4:26 PM CST up reply actions  

same old same old

Stop and Pop no disrespect but why do you constantly post the same views and opinions. Both you and Chuckd post the same opinions every single time. You feel the front office, coaching staff suck, and currently players aren’t any better than the 2008 squad, and poor draftng. Chuckd posts Kevin Love is unathletic and should be traded for Josh , Klove can’t paly defense, Klove can’t create his own shot and Klove does not fit a running team. Please post something different you have made your opinion known over and over and over again.

by rickyrubio10 on Jan 31, 2011 10:42 AM CST reply actions  

Do you really think this is the same as one of Chuck's posts?

I really liked this post. It’s one thing to simply declare that the Wolves haven’t improved over the last two years. It’s another thing to put together these statistics that illustrate the point pretty starkly. It may be the same point he’s been making lately, but the stats are new, and pretty revealing in my opinion.

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 10:50 AM CST up reply actions  

Isn't Kevin Love's incredible improvement and superstar-level play

this season an example of Kahn’s player development at work?

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:44 AM CST reply actions  

An interesting point, since

almost everyone (and I don’t mean just on CH), seems to credit his emergence with either (1) playing on Team USA, or (2) his inherent “Love-ness”, finally unshackled from Rambis’ idiocy, or (3) a combination of both.

by PDGirl on Jan 31, 2011 12:22 PM CST up reply actions  

I mean, certainly improvement rarely ever comes from just one source

but I do find it funny when on one hand, people say, “Wow, Kevin Love and Michael Beasley should both be Most Improvement Player candidates!”

…and then a few minutes later, say “Our team is terrible at player development!”

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 12:24 PM CST up reply actions  

*Most Improved Player

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 12:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Patience

It’s about people wanting to see immediate improvement and not having the patience to let players learn to play at the professional level. Pek is still learning the NBA game, Flynn is coming off an injury, Martell is new to the team and coming off an injury, Beasley is still learning, Wes may be 23 but he’s still a rookie, Darko is playing hurt.

by kramshom on Jan 31, 2011 4:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Love isn't improving on some untypical arc though

So it is nearly impossible to attribute that to the Wolves’ player development being especially good. He entered the league young and very good and now he’s two years older and even better. That tends to happen across the NBA unless injury is involved.

And, anecdotally there is a fair amount of evidence that the Wolves decisions over two seasons to sit Love behind radically inferior players has slowed his progress not accelerated it.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 3:17 PM CST up reply actions  

I disagree that he's not improving on some untypical arc.

National guys, and even guys like SnP who liked Love from the beginning, have expressed shock at how good he is playing this season. I mean, sure, Love has always been a good rebounder and that is probably progressing pretty naturally. But his outside shot? His post defense? I think that has improved pretty dramatically over the past couple of seasons.

And what is the “fair amount of evidence” that his progress has been slowed?

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 3:20 PM CST up reply actions  

A contributing factor in a player developing is actual on court minutes. The Wolves artificially limited his on court time for two seasons + ten games in favor of sub-mediocrities and piles of absolute suck. Now even as he plays the minutes he should play (finally as a third year player) the Wolves are still unwilling to run the offense through him. This despite him being the league’s most efficient scorer on a per possession basis. Instead they have elected to run the offense through known sub-mediocrity and board pet cat, Darko Milicic.

The notion that on a team as bad offensively as the Wolves are Love is using 15% of the possessions (which when you factor in minutes played he is actually using less than 1/5th of available possessions when he is on the court) is absolutely absurd. In a more critical fan base this would be a consistent topic of conversation. Here, not so much.

So Love had two key factors in his development limited by coaching and personnel decisions – his minutes and his offensive touches. Contrast that with any of the young elite players for reference. Just as a start Rose and Durant spent the better part of their first season being force fed minutes while absolutely killing their team.

As for career arcs, Love is far more typical than not. Entered the league with an elite skill and then honed another part of his game – his shooting stroke. Is someone on the Wolves responsible for the work Love did on his stroke?

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 3:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Okay, but does development happen in games?

Can you really improve from playing more in games? Or do you improve from hard work in practice and non-game situations? I agree that Love should’ve been played more earlier. I am still skeptical about how much good running an offense through Love would do, but I understand your point. However, unless Rambis and Kahn are limiting him in practice/training camp/etc. situations, I ’m not sure that Love playing too few minutes or receiving too few touches is going to hold him back all that much.

“Is someone on the Wolves responsible for the work Love did on his stroke?”

I, like you, have no insider knowledge of the Wolves’ practice strategies. But I would like to believe that the Wolves would encourage players to work on differing parts of their games. Like Brewer did with Thorpe last season.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 3:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Wait what?

I, like you, have no insider knowledge of the Wolves’ practice strategies. But I would like to believe that the Wolves would encourage players to work on differing parts of their games. Like Brewer did with Thorpe last season.

But, alas, Corey didn’t ever actually improve. If he had improved I would credit 1) Him for putting the time in with Thorpe and 2) the work Thorpe did with him. Maybe the Wolves should hire a Thorpe type but despite writing quite well Thorpe hasn’t actually produced a whole lot of “much better after working with him” cases.

And, yes, on court time matters in development. I think rather than just grant a pretty obvious point and admit you made an error you are about to walk yourself out on a pretty far limb here. If on court time and touches don’t matter why was there optimism from you for the development of players like Webster and Darko? What does it mean to say Darko hasn’t had a fair shake (again, an absurd claim but one his defenders make relentlessly) if it doesn’t mean that he hasn’t been given the requisite time and touches?

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 3:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Notice how Corey's improvement wasn't a part of my argument

but it can’t be disputed that he at least worked on his game. Whether that work produced any actual improvement is up for debate, but that’s not the point. The point is that if the Wolves put in the resources to help Brewer, they’d likely do the same for Love.

I’m not saying in-game time is meaningless. Just that its not as important as practice time and out-of-game development. Darko has improved and I credit the Wolves’ for helping to spark that improvement well before this season began. When I first saw Darko at Media Day, he was in much better shape than he was at the end of last season. I felt that was significant and was an example of the work that he was doing off of the court.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 4:01 PM CST up reply actions  

but it can’t be disputed that he at least worked on his game. Whether that work produced any actual improvement is up for debate, but that’s not the point. The point is that if the Wolves put in the resources to help Brewer, they’d likely do the same for Love.

But the Wolves didn’t put any resources to help Brewer re: Thorpe. Before the draft Corey’s agent paid him. Since the draft Corey has paid him. Corey is doing that work.

I’m not saying in-game time is meaningless. Just that its not as important as practice time and out-of-game development. Darko has improved and I credit the Wolves’ for helping to spark that improvement well before this season began. When I first saw Darko at Media Day, he was in much better shape than he was at the end of last season. I felt that was significant and was an example of the work that he was doing off of the court.

But Darko hasn’t improved at all over his career numbers. He’s just putting up more (ill advised) shots. And to get those shots up he is putting up an incredible amount of TOs.

But the point is pretty clear here. You have decided to take issue with a pretty simple observation of mine re: Love that you yourself have echoed in your near chronic excuse-making for the rest of the roster – that players need minutes to develop. Pretty plainly a bad faith argument on your part.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 4:15 PM CST up reply actions  

When did I say that players need minutes to develop?

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 4:17 PM CST up reply actions  

I am not interested in digging through your posts

If you aren’t suggesting that all of these long shots on the roster you constantly advocate for need minutes to develop what exactly are we waiting on when you preach “patience”.

Regardless, if you don’t understand players need game situations – both minutes and actual plays to develop – you’re, as I initially suspected, too far gone to have an intelligent basketball discussion with.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 4:28 PM CST up reply actions  

I believe

that most development happens in practice. I think players utilize what they learn in practice/film sessions/etc. in games. Then, after those games, they want more film to see what they’re doing wrong, and put in more time in practice. Of course, game minutes are important and can help that development. But I think players can develop quite nicely even without game minutes. Kurt Rambis has consistently cited that Wayne Ellington and Lazar Hayward practice well, but doesn’t have minutes to give them. Does that mean they can’t improve? I don’t believe it does.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 4:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Been meaning to post this before
Corey improvement // but it can’t be disputed that he at least worked on his game. Whether that work produced any actual improvement is up for debate, but that’s not the point. The point is that if the Wolves put in the resources to help Brewer, they’d likely do the same for Love.

Prior to the 2009-10 season, Corey spent his time training at David Thorpe’s academy in Florida. Last year, he trained exclusively with our staff. Here is the data (intentional ignoring 08 when he only played 12 or so games before injury)

FG% 3P% FT%
07 .374 .194 .80
09 .431 .346 .65
10 .374 .244 .72

So, in ’09, coming off injury, training with an outside group, Corey was a significant more effective shooter than he is today.

Its obvious. Look at his form today verse last year. This year, his right foot is way forward of his left leaving him, in my opinion, with less balance. Last year, his width was better and his feet more parallel. Either Corey has changed it himself or someone on staff has encouraged the change in the form. Either way, it is not positive.

There was only 1 player (non injured) who did not spend significant time training with our staff this summer – the guy who played on Team USA – K. Love. Is it just coincidence that he is the only player having a break out year shooting the ball?

This from the team that was going to lead the league in player development. One of my biggest bitches about the current state of affairs – our players just don’t seem to improve at the rate expected.

by Just A Fan on Jan 31, 2011 5:38 PM CST up reply actions   2 recs

Corey shot better last year

but he was still absolutely atrocious.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 5:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Depends on what you consider atrocious

Last year, his fg% was 18th out of 34 for shoot guards (with enough attempts). His 3P% was 33 out of 48. Not great – but probably not atrocious either.

His regression this year has certainly moved him into atrocious land – in my opinion.

by Just A Fan on Jan 31, 2011 6:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Well last year he basically stopped rebounding

and became a TO machine.

Berri wrote a piece on it explaining that he was actually as bad last year as he was as a rookie.

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/corey-brewer-misperceptions/

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 6:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Obviously you count every month,

but I wonder what 09 would look like without his month and a half hot streak in the middle of the year?

I know every player has ups and downs, but he started out the year shooting like ‘career Corey Brewer’, and he finished the year shooting like ‘career Corey Brewer’. And since we’ve only seen him shoot like that for one nice stretch of games, it screams ‘outlier’ to me.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 6:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Corey Brewer TS% by month, 2009-2010

- Nov: .429 on 210 FGA
- Dec: .514 on 172 FGA
- Jan: .561 on 202 FGA
- Feb: .494 on 135 FGA
- Mar: .517 on 154 FGA
- Apr: .501 on 76 FGA

Overall, if you throw out the “hot streak” in January and the “cold streak” in November as outliers, he still had a TS% of .509 on 537 FGA. Compared to the rest of his career, in which he had a TS% of 0.448 on 949 FGA. With this kind of sample size (949 FGA) the standard deviation should be around 0.033, so the odds are fairly small that the difference is due to random chance.

Whether “Corey shooting better” must also mean “Corey rebounding like crap” and “Corey being a turnover machine” is an interesting question. But it does appear that working with Thorpe as opposed to the wolves coaching staff had a positive influence on his shooting.

by hopps on Jan 31, 2011 10:30 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Hmm, I didn't know that. Interesting.

Thanks for the info.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 8:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Love and Brian Cardinal spent Love's whole rookie year shooting threes during warm-ups.

The team absolutely was encouraging Love to get his range shot down…. Well, okay, Randy “He shoots from three when he can’t make layups” Wittman may have discouraged it, but at least someone did the obvious thing and told him to work on his stroke out there.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:24 PM CST up reply actions  

That'd be great

Ailuridae would probably rip Kahn’s heart out by the end (in frustration), and then we’d have a new GM (presumably Ailuridae for slaying the prior GM?).

by WolvesFan03 on Jan 31, 2011 4:37 PM CST up reply actions  

Hail, King of Scotland!

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:37 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

I don't enjoy watching debates

between people who don’t ever respect the opposite side’s right to an opinion.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 4:39 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Just imagine

 the first time Sid asks Ailuridae a stupid question. It’d make Sid and Trader Jack look like Bosom Buddies.

by Jose Cordoba on Jan 31, 2011 4:42 PM CST up reply actions  

To paraphrase one of my heroes

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts

Something you should take into account the next time you think about typing something like “Kevin Love is a souped up version of Brian Cardinal”. That wasn’t a difference of opinion; you were clearly, empirically incorrect. You want to couch everything as opinion A vs opinion B but there is actually a set of data and results to look at regarding the Wolves and the NBA and you, consistently, get it wrong.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 4:44 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Find me someone who talks about sports on a regular basis

who hasn’t been wrong before and I’ll show you a liar.

Of course I’ve been wrong. I was wrong about the Love/Cardinal comment (although as SnP pointed out once, a sooped up version of Cardinal is not exactly a bad thing). But we’ve all been wrong. I’m confident that there is no one on this board who, with a proper search (coordinated by feral, the CH Historian, of course), doesn’t have some comment that would like kind of silly now. I post quite a bit, so I have quite a few comments that are wrong.

But when people are wrong, does that mean that they are incapable of making good judgments in the future? Does that mean they should be treated without respect? Does that mean they deserve to be looked down upon?

I say no.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 4:51 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

*would look kind of silly

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 4:52 PM CST up reply actions  

I regret

Saying the Wolves should take Ricky Rubio before Blake Griffin.

The Wolves should consider Gerald Henderson with the 6th Pick.

by Jose Cordoba on Jan 31, 2011 4:57 PM CST up reply actions  

But you aren't occasionally wrong

You, and for that matter, Oceanary are consistently wrong in evaluating players. To pretend that record isn’t there is silly. Further to not acknowledge it the next time you talk about a draft pick or a player acquisition doesn’t make any sense.

And more importantly you routinely defend things you assert with “It is just common sense” and by claiming you have “seen” it. But you couldn’t have seen that Love was a souped up Brian Cardina – they weren’t remotely similar players. Again, not an opinion – wrong on the facts.

We can dig through your various overly optimistic takes on most of the roster but really what’s the point?

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 4:57 PM CST up reply actions  

You're really missing the point.

It’s not about right or wrong. It’s about respecting people even when they are wrong, as long as they are being respectful in return.

For what it’s worth, I still think Cardinal and Love are pretty similar in terms of style. They both shoot well from downtown. They both are pretty solid rebounders and decent low post defenders, despite a lack of vertical leap. They both struggle with perimeter defense.

Love can obviously rebound and score the basketball substantially better than Cardinal. And there are things Love can do that Cardinal can’t. But it’s not like comparing Love and Usain Bolt or something. There is a basis for comparison as far as player archetypes go.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 5:11 PM CST up reply actions  

See here's the thing

They both are pretty solid rebounders and decent low post defenders

They’re not “both solid rebounders”. Love is one of the premiere rebounders in NBA history (and, yes this was known when you wrote the comment) and Cardinal was a consistently below average rebounder.

Its a completely nonsensical and indefensible comparison completely divorced from reality.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 5:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Fair enough

I’m more savvy to your views of how discussions should work than my post likely put across. Completely agreed on the confrontation of intellectual dishonesty. I doubt we disagree on the seriousness of wrong and misguided takes; I think the disagreement stems from when we think too much argument is too much. I find that there are times when continued pressing is not going to do anybody any good. Though it is better to press too much than not at all, I suppose. Agree to disagree; just thought I’d air out my thoughts at some point.

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 7:09 PM CST up reply actions  

You need to stop saying I troll your comments

It’s ridiculous.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 8:58 PM CST up reply actions  

It's a message board.

These aren’t 1-on-1 conversations you’re having with other people. Posters can interject whenever they’d like.

Trolling is when someone posts messages that are purposefully inflammatory or off-topic to one person or a group of people on a consistent basis. That’s not what I do.

I stick to talking about basketball. I address your basketball points. That’s not trolling. That’s conversing. There’s a big difference.

So, please, I’m asking you nicely to cut out the name calling. Not just me, but other posters, too. Please.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:18 PM CST up reply actions  

Nope

You troll my comments. End of sentence.

I don’t care that you do it but I largely ignore you as you have nothing meaningful to add. You routinely interject with unrelated points to the discussion at hand and when you realize your outclassed in the argument resort to accusing me of “bullying”. My description of your behavior as trolling is far far more accurate than my description of yours as bullying.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 10:53 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not sure why you act the way you do.

I’ve been trying to get along with you lately. I would really like to appreciate you as a poster, as some others do. You make it very difficult. It makes me sad.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:56 PM CST up reply actions  

So what would you have me do?

I’m gonna get my LeBron on and ask you…what can I do to make you happy? What can I do to get along with you? Please, tell me. I’m serious.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 11:01 PM CST up reply actions  

You can stop constantly doubling down

on your bullshit. Brian Cardinal by any reasonable person’s standard is a bad rebounder. You are making a long elaborate argument to the contrary that is plainly bull shit. Just admit you got it wrong both with Cardinal and Love as rebounders. You’re insulting the intelligence of everyone else in the conversation when you insist on putting forth arguments that you know are bull shit and they do too.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 11:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, I disagree.

I don’t think Brian Cardinal is a bad rebounder. I don’t think he’s good, either. I think he’s average to slightly-below average.

I was wrong about how much better Love is than Brian Cardinal – even a sooped up Brian Cardinal. That I was wrong about and I admit it. If someone disagrees with me about Cardinal’s rebounding prowess, so be it. But this is my honest opinion.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 11:26 PM CST up reply actions  

You keep on trying to make this an "opinion"
It isn't. You are asserting something, repeatedly, that is plainly false. You're in effect lying. We don't have differing opinions - I am pointing out facts and you are asserting falsehoods.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 11:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Nope, sorry.

The facts are the number of rebounds Cardinal pulls down, whether you go by rate or by per game. Those are the facts.

But calling someone a bad, good, average, great, etc., rebounder is not a fact. That’s an interpretation of the facts, which is otherwise known as an opinion.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 11:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Again BS.

Cardinal was the worst “big” in the NBA by rate. Average has a meaning. It means 50%. Close to average has a meaning. Slightly worse than average has a meaning.

You lack of integrity and dignity is astounding.

by Ailuridae on Feb 1, 2011 12:22 AM CST up reply actions  

Tim Allen

you’ve been very good at pointing out and even creating flaws in others. In yourself, in which there are plenty? Not so much.

Whenever I'm about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing.

by Mplax on Feb 2, 2011 6:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Hah, I love how you go from

“Cardinal was a below average rebounder”, which means they’re still alike in a lot of ways, to “Its a completely nonsensical and indefensible comparison completely divorced from reality.”

You start making a solid and productive argument and then you come in with your “Anyone who disagrees with me is either stupid or dishonest!” take and completely blow.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 9:01 PM CST up reply actions  

*completely blow it

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 9:01 PM CST up reply actions  

How do you assert

that two players share a similarity in an area when one of them is an absolutely elite player at that regard and the other is substantially below average. Do you know what similarity means?

There was nothing substantial to the comparison except the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 9:38 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not 100% confident Love is balding

and Cardinal is bald. he may also be balding but the damage is done.

I haven't written an insightful post in years.

by littleboxes on Feb 1, 2011 12:00 AM CST up reply actions  

Cardinal isn't a substantially below average rebounder.

I’d say he’s about average. His rate is 6.6 this season. That’s in the same class as Ron Artest, Corey Brewer, D-Will, etc. Not great, but not terrible. And I said, “Love can obviously rebound and score the basketball substantially better than Cardinal.”

You conveniently left out the fact that their both good outside shooters (both 37% for their careers), both are about equally as good playing post defense and perimeter defense, and both are decent but not great passers who don’t turn the ball over much.

The implication of racism is just pure bunk.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:15 PM CST up reply actions  

"His rate is 6.6 this season. That’s in the same class as Ron Artest, Corey Brewer, D-Will, etc."

You compared him to a PG, a SF and a wing that looks like he’s built out of pipe cleaners.

For a guy his size, he’s below average. The most minutes he’s ever played is 24.7 and he averaged 3.9 rebounds.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 10:22 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Agree to disagree on that I guess

Maybe average to slightly below average, but I don’t think he’s terrible.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:30 PM CST up reply actions  

This isn't something that's hard to check you know.

Go to BB-ref. Search for players 6-8 or taller since your favorite season to start including as the “modern era”, and order by TRB%. I chose 2000, just because it’s a nice round number. Cardinal is 453 out of 562 players on the list, at 9.9% for his career. I’m pretty sure any non-Garrison Keillor definition of “average” would have to put Cardinal well below average for his position.

by hopps on Jan 31, 2011 10:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Mark Blount has higher career rebounding%s across the board.

I think its safe to say that a fair barometer for below average rebounder is "a big that rebounds less than Mark Blount.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 10:45 PM CST up reply actions  

I was looking at ESPN's

rebounding rate for this season only.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:48 PM CST up reply actions  

I think of it this way:

There are 10 players on the court at any given time; therefore, everybody on the court should be getting 10% of the rebounds.

However, when you factor in that some players are more likely to be positioned close to the basket when a shot is attempted and some are more likely to be positioned far from the basket, the players that are closer to the basket should be getting more rebounds than the players that are farther away – because the ball is first available for rebounding at the basket. Power Forwards are usually positioned closer to the basket than any group other than Centers.

The height of a player also must be factored in when determining what percentage of rebounds a player should collect – taller players have an advantage over shorter players when collecting rebounds because the ball is first available for rebounding at a point over every player’s head. Power Forwards are usually taller than any group of players other than Centers.

So when you account for floor positioning and height it would seem fair to expect a Power Forward to collect closer to 15% of the available rebounds rather than 10%. If Brian Cardinal is collecting a mere 6.6% of rebounds when he is on the court, then he should be considered a well below average rebounder.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Feb 1, 2011 2:08 AM CST up reply actions  

It is these kind of arguments that I categorize

as either intellectually dishonest or lacking intellectual integrity from TimAllen et al. And it is plainly obvious why – they are!

comparing a PF’s rebounding to a substantially below average rebounder for a SG and then declaring them both slightly below average is, simply, dishonest.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 10:48 PM CST up reply actions  

It's really not dishonest at all.

If it were dishonest, I would’ve made up numbers or tried to represent them for something they weren’t.

No, I provided the number and the source. It’s easy to check. I said Love is substantially better at rebounding than Cardinal. If you want to call Cardinal average, below average, whatever, its semantics.

I think Cardinal is average to slightly below average. You think he’s terrible. That’s a difference of opinion.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Bullshit

You are describing someone as an average to below average rebounder who ranks as 228th out of 327th for all players in the. That’s the 70th GD percentile. That is not what “average” or “slighly below average” means. So that’s plainly dishonest.

And then there is the separate business that you’re comparing him to all NBA players as if he doesn’t have an actual NBA position. He is the worst rebounder at his position in the league.

Rank intellectual dishonesty,

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 10:59 PM CST up reply actions  

I also believe he led Purdue

in rebounding for a while when he was there. I didn’t check on that – I’m purely going off of memory right now – but I’m fairly certain that he was near the top at Purdue.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 11:29 PM CST up reply actions  

("Pipe cleaners" made me smile.)

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Feb 1, 2011 9:16 AM CST up reply actions  

When you made the comparison this summer.

Cardinal had just finished two seasons with the Wolves where he was a little used reserve big man.

In the latter of those two seasons he was the worst defensive rebounding PF in basketball and the fourth worst offensive rebounding PF in basketball out of 75 qualifiers.

In the first year here he was the sixth worst out of a similar number of players in both categories.

In his best year ever rebounding the ball in Memphis he was still a bottom third offensive rebounder and a below average defensive rebounder.

Where is the comparison to Love who in his rookie season had already put up an elite rebounding performance? You insist your comparison wasn’t based in race. Maybe not, but they aren’t remotely similar rebounders – that silly. One is a horrible rebounder one is great. Just admit you made that part up.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 10:46 PM CST up reply actions  

Read my post again.

Rebounding is one part of the comparison.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:49 PM CST up reply actions  

But its a completely invalid part of the comparison

Just made up out of whole freaking cloth. This is ridiculous.

Just admit you made a stupid baseless comparison and tried to back it up with some hand waving and got caught again.

Have some integrity

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 11:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Caught how?

I don’t understand how you think I’m trying to sneak something by when I’ve been transparent about the stat.

We disagree. Why not just leave it at that?

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 11:08 PM CST up reply actions  

OK let's do this pretty simply

This statement is a plain out and out lie:"

Cardinal isn’t a substantially below average rebounder.

unless this statement isn’t a lie

Mark Blount wasn’t a substantially below average rebounder.

Is the statement Mark Blount wasn’t a substantially below average rebounder true or false Tim?

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 11:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Mark Blount was not a substantially

below average rebounder. Maybe he was for his position. But not overall.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 11:09 PM CST up reply actions  

Sweet!

I have a signature now.

By your reasoning Jonny Flynn is great at setting his teammates up for easy shots. He’s better than 92% of the league at it!

Rank intellectual dishonesty.

BTW, a nice time to start using rate and not per game stats. Doubly intellectually dishonest. You should be embarrassed for yourself.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 11:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Sigh...

its not intellectually dishonest. I stand by it.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 11:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Whether you stand by it

has nothing to do with whether it is intellectually dishonest. It is objectively dishonest even if you defend it.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 11:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Either way

it’s almost midnight, and to be honest, I really don’t care either way if Cardinal is or is not an average rebounder. I think he is, you and some others think he isn’t. Fine, whatever. It is what it is.

But regardless, I’m sick of these fights. I don’t mean to make you angry. I don’t mean to troll you. Honest.

I’d like to extend an olive branch. I hope you’ll consider it. G’night.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 11:39 PM CST up reply actions  

I avoid interactions with you

because i feel bad that I have made you lead the site and worse. But I simply can’t abide when you make stuff up. I don’t think an olive branch is necessary – once you start being more honest in your posts I will stop criticizing your intellectual dishonesty.

I think that event is unlikely. FWIW, I am calm as can be.

The fights don’t bother me – your comments and posts occasionally do I basically ignore you and will likely to do so in the future but there are certain whoppers that you write that someone needs to address.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 11:49 PM CST up reply actions  

souped up BC?

there are aspects of BCs game where he is a souped up KLove.

mostly on the end where you don’t have the ball.

I enjoyed watching BC, KLove and Mike Miller playing together. They
could really move the rock to fing the open man.

by WinTheLottery on Jan 31, 2011 8:58 PM CST up reply actions  

Hypocrisy

Didn’t you just complain about me a few weeks ago ‘taking a cheap shot’? And I don’t remember what I even said, but I am 100% positive that this was much more of a ‘cheap shot’ than what I said.

TimAllen, everyone!

Whenever I'm about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing.

by Mplax on Feb 2, 2011 6:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Good job tracking down the data; partially agree

I do agree that the Kahn era, like the McHale one before, has featured an absolute waste of draft picks. The fact that they would have done much better going off DraftExpress practically every single year is a travesty.

However, in regards to the current squad vs. the 2008/09 squad, I do see some important differences. It is not just a simple packaging change.

  1. 2.7 vs. 4.3. That is the average years of experience for the 2010/11 squad vs. the 2008/09 squad. The 10-11 Wolves have started (for most of the year) a rookie (Wes) and two second year players (Love & Beasley). The 08-09 Wolves did not start any rookies, their most important player (Al) was in his 4th season, and their best perimeter player (Miller) was in his 8th.
  2. Given the player pairings you have in the table above, if you got to form a new team by picking one from each pair, how many 08-09 guys would you pick? I think I’d have to pick 0. The only one I thought too much about was Miller vs. Wes. Miller was a more productive player than Johnson, but much older, wouldn’t shoot, and seemed very unhappy to be here. I’d rather have Beasley than Al since I think he complements Love better, is physically capable of better defense, is younger, and has a higher upside.
  3. How many players from the 08-09 squad seemed completely incapable of two-way play? Jefferson seemed to have no interest in D and is a 4/5 tweener in the bad sense on D (too slow to guard 4s, too small to guard 5s). Foye was too short to guard 2s and seemed to lack any interest. Gomes was too short to guard 4s and too slow to guard 3s. Collins couldn’t score in an empty gym. Craig Smith lacked the height to bother anyone on D. Clearly the 10-11 Wolves are terrible defensively too, but I think at least the raw ingredients are there for a better defensive team.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on Jan 31, 2011 10:50 AM CST reply actions   1 recs

Sorry - it took me a while to type this in

And I didn’t see PoorDick made the same point about age above.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on Jan 31, 2011 10:52 AM CST up reply actions  

Your comment was later

and better.

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 10:53 AM CST up reply actions  

Yup

This is the counter-argument…..That somehow there is inherent upside in this squad that just didn’t exist with the ‘08 squad. And I think you’re right. The problem is SnP is using actual results to prove his point. After all, upside doesn’t really exist unless it’s actually fulfilled. But the eye-test suggests strongly that there is more upside on this squad and that defensively Rambis is underachieving in a big way.

by Rascal Flatts on Jan 31, 2011 11:44 AM CST up reply actions  

That's always been my contention

I tend to agree with both SnP and the more optimistic of the CHers. Kahn and Rambis haven’t shown enough to actually make me feel good about our future with them at the helm, and the team doesn’t look that impressive. There have been many (crushingly similar) losses that we’ve been competitive in, but our record still sucks. We supposedly have a lot of upside, but more often than not the flashes of production are only that: flashes.

I do think the inherent upside is the biggest difference between the 08 and 10 squads, though that isn’t easily quantified. I can see why people are so optimistic about this squad, and there are quite a few good arguments for why they’ll make the proverbial jump. The problem for those who take this stance, however, is that they carry the burden of proof. SnP’s side has a wealth of evidence that the other side does not. He’s not running around telling everybody that the glass is half empty. He’s realistically pointing out that the glass is both half full and half empty (Math!), and that the glass should be a lot more full than it already is. You may disagree with this, but you can’t argue with the measurements.

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 1:21 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

I didn't think it was that pessimistic of a post

I made note of the two big caveats (age/experience and pace), said that I think Wes Johnson has a future, gave a homeristic nod to my favorite player being back in action (who is decidedly not good if you look at any sort of numbers), and even talked about the importance of the cap space being used before the trade deadline.

In a weird way, I think they’re at 11 wins in spite of the coaching staff and front office. That’s the angle I was going for here. I love watching the players go out there and give it their best. I just think they’re being done wrong (as are the fans) by the awful coaching and front office management. They tanked last year. They committed a fraud against their players and fans. They’ve installed a bogus system and head of basketball operations doesn’t know what he’s doing. I think that is a point that needs to be hammered home. This team is running out of time for a rebuild and they need a competent GM to draw a line in the sand and make the most out of what has been screwed up by the current regime. They have a very unique player in Kevin Love and a few guys that could work out to be decent players (Johnson, Ridnour and Beasley). I just don’t think the upside of this group is any different than the upside of 08/09 (especially since the main source of improvement—Love—exists on both teams) and that is problematic considering the number of high draft picks they’ve had in the interim.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions  

But look at the particulars of this squad

First of all, Love and Beasley are third year players, not 2nd-year players.

More importantly, the average years of experience on this squad are being brought down by players like Wes, Flynn, Lazar, Wayne, and even Koufos (3rd year player). With the exception of maybe Wes (and I don’t agree that he does), none of those guys has significant upside.

Average years of experience/youth are meaningless concepts in the abstract. Players who are young do not invariably get better, and they most certainly do not invariably get significantly better. Just saying we’re young is a weak argument for me—plenty of players are young and never become much better, and there are plenty of examples from our own teams to draw from (Foye? McCants? Will Avery? etc.). We have to look at the specific talent, and right now, I’m not seeing a lot of the so-called upside.

by WolvesFan03 on Jan 31, 2011 1:31 PM CST up reply actions  

First of all, Love and Beasley are third year players, not 2nd-year players.

Yes, I muffed the wording on that one. I was using basketball reference which was showing the years of experience at the time the season started. So at the beginning of the year, Love & Beasley were 3rd year players with 2 years of experience.

Re: your other points – you are correct. There is no guarentee that the young Wolves improve, especially significantly improve.

I am not all that optimistic in their current direction to be honest. Without a dramatically better draft and at least one major trade or FA signing, I don’t think the team will improve much. I will become more optimistic if the team can get Rubio here, add a top 10 SG, and add a C who can defend.

My point was just to avoid the “Everything totally stinks” kind of thinking that goes with depression. It is true that “long and athletic” does not equate to “good”. However short, stumpy, and defenseless, aka the 08-09 squad, has a limited ceiling.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on Jan 31, 2011 1:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, I understand that

I don’t like being/feeling down on this team. I want the Wolves to succeed. I just can’t really feel/get excited about this team outside of Kevin Love and sort of Beasley/Rubio. I agree that if the Wolves could bring in a solid NBA talent at the trading deadline (Iggy, Ellis, Curry, McGee) and if they could make a competent selection in the 2011 draft, I’d feel a lot better about this team. Hopefully they can do one or both of those things.

by WolvesFan03 on Jan 31, 2011 2:07 PM CST up reply actions  

this is it for me
Players who are young do not invariably get better, and they most certainly do not invariably get significantly better.

And, my god, you had to almost remind us that we’ve been here before with McCants, Foye, Brewer and to bring up Will Avery). Damn it, man! Soooo depressing.

It’s a bit sad and funny to see CHers contort themselves into believing that these guys are really going to get that much better. most players don’t get much better at all. Hope is not a bad thing. Hell, I believed in Randy Foye and Rashad McCants.

This should be a new Wolves’ fan t-shirt tag line: I believed in [insert failed franchise savior here]

I haven't written an insightful post in years.

by littleboxes on Jan 31, 2011 2:04 PM CST up reply actions  

The Wolves have been pretty bad for quite some time

I think the natural impulse for people is to believe that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and reading SnP and others probably undercuts that feeling somewhat. This thing isn’t beyond salvageable, but the next 6 months or so are pretty critical, and I’d feel better if Kahn and Rambis were either replaced or dramatically altered their approaches.

by WolvesFan03 on Jan 31, 2011 2:12 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

the change your last sentence hopes for will not happen this season

Taylor had his one glorious opportunity to remake this franchise and he totally screwed it up. He probably made it worse! Bring back Hoiberg. I just vomited a little in my mouth after typing that last one.

I haven't written an insightful post in years.

by littleboxes on Jan 31, 2011 11:35 PM CST up reply actions  

Statistically speaking yes

However, this does not take in consderation strength of schedule, ages of both rosters, current squad has reasonable short term contracts, cap flexability, and draft picks. It’s still an opinion and it’s the same opinion that has been stated several times.

by rickyrubio10 on Jan 31, 2011 10:55 AM CST reply actions  

I watched the 08-09 team...

And I thought it was garbage and had no future, I’m not the type of fan to just cling to whatever the team is selling and hope for the best, I never bought into that team. You make an articulate argument, and those stats don’t lie, but to me, the “eye test” still holds some water, and I really believe I can see the beginings of something with this group.

by MoreJuice on Jan 31, 2011 11:32 AM CST reply actions  

No one is more qualified than MoreJuice

to comment on a post entitled “Juicy Changes.”

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 11:48 AM CST up reply actions  

I knew Jack Kennedy...

I haven't written an insightful post in years.

by littleboxes on Jan 31, 2011 2:05 PM CST up reply actions  

You may want to talk to a HoF coaches about that

I found it interesting that Phil Jackson said the best person to replace him with the Lakers next season is Kurt Rambis. But he doesn’t know what the Lakers ownership plans are.

When it comes to coaching, I’m riding with Phil’s judgment thank you.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 12:07 PM CST up reply actions  

I think some legends

like replacements who make the legends look even more legendary.

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 12:21 PM CST up reply actions  

It worked for Jay Leno.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 12:22 PM CST up reply actions  

Define

Worked.

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 1:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Oh crap

You were talking about Leno and Carson. My bad. I shouldn’t have skimmed.

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 1:27 PM CST up reply actions  

That theory may be too zany

even for the Zen Master.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 12:29 PM CST up reply actions  

well

I’ll take that statement with a grain of salt.

Rambis and Jackson go way back and clearly have a good relationship, but the way that Rambis is butchering this season basically ensures that he’s not a viable option for the Lakers job. Jackson is saying something nice for his friend that won’t change their coaching search one bit.

You’ve never supported your friend for a job or an interview or asking a girl out when they had no chance of actually succeeding?

by TwinATL on Jan 31, 2011 12:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Rambis is not the only assistant Jackson has

In fact, some of his present day assistant coaches have been with him for years. I suspect Phil has “good relationships” with them too.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 12:39 PM CST up reply actions  

If I could I would.

First question would be about how he’d coach the Timberwolves. I doubt it’d resemble what Rambis is doing or if it was that it’d work all that well. I have no doubt Rambis’ offense and defense would work much better with the Lakers bigs taking over Darko’s role and Kobe replacing Corey Brewer as the defensive stopper on the wing. I have little doubt Rambis could be respectable with a title contending team that knows it’s roles. I also have no doubt that he’s taking the Wolves and teaching them the “right way to play basketball” as opposed to changing the game plan to individual match ups and player strengths. He’s not completely inflexible, but it’s a major weakness. So if it’d piss Phil Jackson off to say Rambis is clearly a bad coach I’d be happy to modify it to Rambis is clearly failing as the head coach of the Timberwolves.

PS if it sounds like I’m bashing Phil above that’s not the intent. I merely want to imply that any coach, no matter how good, that ran the team as Rambis is currently running them as far as offense and defense scheme would have trouble. I don’t believe it maximizes player output on either end of the floor.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 12:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Most if not all established coaches (or successful assistant coaches)

wouldn’t have taken the high risk job of coaching the Wolves. Although people throw out names all the time, who else would have liked a coaching job where the roster has been fundamentally made over twice in two years?

The ABC broadcast crew during the Lakers v. Celtics game likened taking the head coaching job for the Wolves like banging one’s head against the frozen tundra over and over again.

Certainly not an enviable job for a coach or assistant coaches with other options.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 12:43 PM CST up reply actions  

We've had this argument before so I'll say my piece and move on.

I still want Rambis to succeed with the Wolves. I’ve just lost faith this is at all likely.

The Wolves don’t need an established NBA coach. It’d be nice, but what they need is a coach that maximizes on court performance of the players on both ends of the court. There are no shortages of talented basketball minds. There is an extreme shortage of NBA head coaching jobs. The Wolves have a talent basketball mind and he is failing in his current role. It’s possible the next guy would be worse, but that doesn’t make Rambis good for the Timberwolves. It’s possible Rambis could coach another team with different players successfully, but he has this team and these players. Not everything he’s done is awful and I’ve seen some improvement from him, but his personnel rotations, defensive scheme, team pace of play and offensive philosophy are all a poor fit IMHO with his current players. I’ll give him more time and hope he proves me wrong because I have no ability to fire him.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 1:24 PM CST up reply actions  

No problem

you were wrong before and you’re wrong now.

You continue to play the limited demand (scarcity of coaching positions) against the supposedly endless supply of coaches, irrespective of my one qualifier: any perspective coach who has a choice in where their next head coaching job would not take a high risk project on (given where the Wolves are and have in recent history been).

“don’t need an established NBA coach” Says who? You. But any serious owner or PBOB is gong to try to hedge his bet with someone with prior successful head coaching experience.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:32 PM CST up reply actions  

This is pretty silly

There are only 30 of these jobs in the world. Byron Scott just took the Cavs’ job.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/scottby01c.html

After appearing in the Finals twice and then guiding a moribund Hornets team to great success Scott now took his third complete rebuild. The argument that if not for rambis this job would have gone wanting is utter nonsense.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 3:23 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Who is waging your self-created argument?

No one I’m aware of is suggesting that if not for Rambis this job would have gone wanting. That’s as asinine as suggesting “the Wolves don’t need an established NBA coach.”

If anything, the youngest and least experienced team in the NBA desperately needs a seasoned and successful coach. Scott was a good selection for the Cavs for that very reason.

Rambis hasn’t ever been a head coach for a rebuilding inexperienced team like the Wolves. He himself has stated that he has made mistakes, that in some respects he’s learning like the rest of the team.

But give Rambis credit. He has kept the team together and working their butts off in most games. The league-leading 2-12 record for losing by 5 points or under (second only to the Heat) is a reflection of a coach keeping his team motivated despite the overall losing record.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:40 PM CST up reply actions  

You are

Right here. Its why I responded to the post

Most if not all established coaches (or successful assistant coaches)
wouldn’t have taken the high risk job of coaching the Wolves. Although people throw out names all the time, who else would have liked a coaching job where the roster has been fundamentally made over twice in two years?

But Byron Scott and Avery Johnson both just took jobs in much worse situations. Paul Westphal took the job last year in SAC in a much worse situation. That’s three established successful coaches. Did the Wolves even interview the two that were available?

You’re asserting that established coaches wouldn’t take the Wolves job yet established coaches take comparably bad jobs all the time. it is, pretty plainly, a straw man.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 3:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Wrong again

Avery Johnson has a veteran team with endless owner bucks and a move to Brooklyn. Westphal took the SAC job loaded with vets and last year’s ROY.

Byron Scott took a coaching job with the Cavs before “the decision” was decided.

As I said before and continue to restate, "any coach with a successful record (scratch Westphal from your list) and a choice of would not want to replace Rambis as it stands. Check your ears for straw.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 4:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Paul Westphal isn't a successful NBA coach

Really? Oh my.

The Nets roster at the time of the Avery Johnson hire had just come off one of the worst seasons in a decade and a half. Their main star, Lopez, had a lot of the same warts as Big Al does. The only veteran of any worth on the roster was Devin Harris who Avery Johnson spent most of his time in Dallas benching and feuding with.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 4:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Flagrant I'll ask you this then. Who do you think Kurt Rambis' peers are?

Established NBA head coaches? Established assistants in successful programs? Proven college head coaches? Successful WNBA coaches?

I ask because if “That’s as asinine as suggesting "the Wolves don’t need an established NBA coach."” I would like to know if you are limiting this to head coaches, assistants or both.

If you mean head coaches Rambis himself really shouldn’t qualify and was a bad hire. His one season would hardly make him established. If you mean to include assistants that opens the field up quite a bit.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 4:34 PM CST up reply actions  

I've already set the marker numerous times

No one who has a choice in where he goes as a head coach would want to replace Rambis (or wanted the job Rambis took) as matters stand today or then.

The problem, as mentioned ad nauseam, is that taking a head coaching job with a team that goes through transformation change year-over-year and has not been in the playoffs for over a half a decade, and has the youngest least experienced roster in the NBA is highly undesirable.

A coaching prospect with a choice of where to go would want (1) an owner with deep pockets in a major market (2) a veteran team at the core that doesn’t require players to learn how to adjust to the rigors of an 82-game schedule and experienced enough to listen and learn, and (3) know enough about how to prepare themselves for coming off the bench, being role players.

You suggest the Wolves job would have equally been or even more attractive for Byron Scott or Westphal or Johnson. I wholeheartedly disagree, and I’ve given you very valid reasons.

Johnson – new owner with big bucks, a move to Brooklyn, a veteran team (experience counts to new coaches, irrespective of talent level. Coaches would prefer vets to rookies as has been proven by Pop and Sloan, etc.). Less headaches.

Westphal – close to being fired this season after 30 games and had to wait 8 seasons between Seattle and SAC hire. The market has a voice,

Bryon Scott – was hired by the Cavs while James was still on the roster and hadn’t yet made “the decision.”

(With the Nets and Kings, they follow the incremental rebuild similar to what McHale did. Incremental rebuild is adding rookies through the draft and surrounding them with experienced veterans. This is much different than the rebuild under Kahn where wholesale changes have been made to the roster year-over-year)

On the demand side, when the PBOB and head coaching vacancies took place with the Wolves, no one was thinking in terms other than a proven PBOB or proven head coach. Short of that, no one was thinking of anyone other than someone coming from a successful franchise, someone who could step into the PBOB or head coaching position who didn’t come from a successful organization (even if the Wolves job would represent a step up). This is on the demand side.

Few-to-no one was thinking in terms of an WNBA, an AAU or college coach when the search by Taylor and then Kahn was conducted.. There was much talk about the fellow out of Portland or the one out of Houston for the PBOB job. They declined.

Now, as you project the need for a replacement to your horrid Rambis, given a team that is the youngest and least experienced in the NBA, to suggest you don’t need an experienced NBA coach make zero sense. In fact the counter argument prevails, that an inexperienced young team most needs an experienced NBA coach.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 5:13 PM CST up reply actions  

Okahoma City turned the corner under a neophyte coach.

Scottie Brooks replaced PJ Carlesimo, who sure fits your “experienced” label – and the match with Rambis for that matter – far better than Brooks. This isn’t the only example we can mention, either.

I’m pretty sure your argument’s going to wind up being “always hire an experienced coach” when we get down to cases, either way. You say young teams need one, and I’m pretty sure you’d blanche at the idea of naming a rookie head coach to a team that wants to contend, too. Though again, there are some contrary examples you might want to think about there. Monty Williams this year, fresh off the presses.

Also, the argument here:

Few-to-no one was thinking in terms of an WNBA, an AAU or college coach when the search by Taylor and then Kahn was conducted…

“Inexperienced” doesn’t mean an AAU coach to anyone here; that’s what we call a straw man. What it means in any discussion about the Wolves’ coaching search is people like Mark Jackson or Bill Laimbeer (WNBA, anyone?) or Monty Williams – all of whom were on the short list of very willing last-cut candidates for the Wolves job.

You also seem to totally contradict yourself about Westphal. Not sure what that’s about. You start by saying you disagree that he’d have been willing to come here, and then you seem to want to just say he’s a bad coach so the market starved him out. M’kay.

The thing with Kahn’s search, meanwhile, is problematic for your argument because in order to accept it we have to accept a lack of full GM powers and a sub-par pay scale as part of the Wolves’ situation. By all indications a number of the league’s next generation GM types were interested, and the elite candidates like Dennis Lindsey and Penn turned it down partly because they couldn’t get the keys to the franchise. Those jobs are in very, very scarce supply, though, and guys like Randy Pfund were flying flags about being interested.

If we assume Glen Taylor’s got to be cheap and wants to keep the reins away from the head exec, sure, that’ll scare some people off. I’m pretty sure those objecting to the Wolves’ management are talking about exactly that problem, though.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 5:56 PM CST up reply actions  

You might be stretching it a lot

In my opinion, a team like the Lakers or the Heat need a proven experienced coach less than one who is the youngest and least experienced.

Why? Because you don’t have a newly thrown together group of youngsters. You have proven veteran leaders on the team like Kobe and Fish.

AAU coach a “straw man?” No, but sometimes you take things to an extreme to make a valid point. In this case, the point was that Wolves fans including CHers had a collective higher set of expectations for filling the PBOB and head coaching jobs. For example, the notion that we would have a WNBA coach in mind (not my example) is not what the majority of fans had in mind.

All this Westphal would have come, or Johnson would have come, etc. is really unprovable and de minimis. The fact is that none of them did come here and I suspect none of them offered themselves to come here during a well-publicized search.

As for Westphal, he was on the way out after 30 games, had a poor win-loss record last year after waiting 8 years for an opportunity to surface. Had to view that as a positive.

You make my point about the PBOB search. The likes of Penn and Lindsey saw a desperate situation with the Wolves and they felt they were in the driver’s seat, wanting the position only on their terms because it was an undesirable job otherwise.

But let’s be really clear here, with respect to Randy Pfund and others, none of us were really privy to the discussions. We rely on conjecture as to negotiating terms and compensation levels. We all assume Taylor is cheap, fine.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 6:32 PM CST up reply actions  

Let's see, did you commit yourself there?

Ultimately in my book you’re arguing an untenable position, which is that Kurt Rambis is indistinguishable from any other real options the Wolves have, so there’s no sense making a move there. In order to keep that position alive you’re going to all sorts of odd rhetorical expedients – ‘taking things to an extreme to make a point’, cough paraphrase of cough definition of cough straw cough man cough – to dismiss the possibility of other names.

Any NBA coaching opening will get a lot of interest, and even if the field isn’t completely wide open there obviously are other candidates who’d offer other, different qualities. It’s sort of ridiculous to suggest that the Wolves didn’t have other options who’d be better or worse at different stuff. We know they had three finalists, all different. We know the tier before that had some more.

Meanwhile you’ve gone on at length, over a few different threads, about this “decent experienced coaches (or GM types) wouldn’t come here” thing. Pressed, you say you think a veteran team needs a proven coach less than a team of young players – but you don’t quite say you’d ever choose an unproven rookie head coach over an experienced candidate.

Would you? If you were on a Miami board right now and for some reason they were having a coaching search, would you ever argue that a Monty Williams was a better risk than someone who’d been around the block twice before, like Doug Collins? Tell me: Do you think Dwane Casey would be a good hire for a contender? For a young team? Do you just think he’s a bad coach, period?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 7:18 PM CST up reply actions  

lots of ......questions

Okay, you are David Kahn and you are looking for a head coach. What criteria would you set for the search? Ideally a proven successful head coach would be the first choice, perhaps experience in rebuilding a team. If not, you would be looking for someone with NBA experience with a history on a successful franchise ready to move into the head coaching job. Someone with a good track record in developing young players. If I’m Kahn that’s the criteria I would set my search on.

Rambis fit the second tier of criteria, given that no head coach from a successful team was ready to risk all and jump to the perennial losing Wolves set to reboot the team for the umpteenth time. Besides did have some successful (limited) head coaching experience with the Lakers. Not a bad franchise to draw from, right?

“Any NBA coaching opening will get a lot of interest” is written with complete certitude. Problem is that when you go back to the likely criteria that Kahn set for the coaching search, a lot of interest is at best a ton of people who lack the background needed for the opening.

“we know they had three finalists, all different. We know the tier before that had some more.” Without names I really can’t respond to these statements. All I can say is that there is always a two-way street when it comes to recruiting. I doubt any of us know what the demands and expectations were for each of the currently anonymous finalists.

“Meanwhile you’ve gone on at length…..rookie head coach over an experienced candidate.” In any search there is two categories: (1) What characteristics I WANT to have in a head coaches, and (2) What characteristics I NEED to have in a head coach.

The WANT category is the desires, the wish list of characteristics. The NEED category is the characteristics you can’t do without.

Again, if I’m Kahn, I’m wanting to have a head coach who has experience as a player and as a coach or assistant coach (with a successful franchise) because I know that I am tearing down the team to the studs and rebuilding it, going young, trading present for future, and emphasizing player development. This experienced and previously successful coach (assistant coach) who is a former player has instant credibility with the players because of the rings. The experienced NBA coach (or assistant coach) from a successful franchise knows what the goal line looks like which enables him to move the team in that direction.

If I’m on the Miami board right now I would say the current head coach is perfect for them. The Heat is stacked with veterans, proven winners, and leaders. In fact, they may have too many strong egos on the team. The last thing they need is for a big ego head coach to boot. Eirc had his test earlier this season when his ability to coach the team was challenged by LeBron. LeBron complained that he was playing too many minutes. He and Bosh complained about too many practices, etc. The last thing the Heat needed was a big ego head coach attempting to “big foot” the egotistical players. When a team like the Heat or the Lakers have player leaders in place, it requires a different kind of coach. More a manager than a task master, someone who can channel the ego-driven players in the right direction.

Dwane’s head coaching experience is with coaching KG, Wally, and others. These are veterans will player leadership. He seemed to handle that setting pretty well.

But Dwane is unproven in terms of coaching a a young and inexperienced team, like the present day Wolves. So, I question if he would be a good fit today.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 7:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Interesting streak of "best of all possible worlds" to you lately.

Dwane Casey, conspicuously, was a player development assistant, having gotten a lot of credit for Rashard in Seattle. He also took it on the chin from Ricky Buckets, who went all Locker Room Lawyer and seemingly took the locker room with him. They said his tactics were too raw for close games. Probably not an ideal coach for a veteran team.

I actually was all right with the Rambis hire at the time. It made sense to me for many of the same reasons you mention. All very well. That doesn’t mean there weren’t other choices at the time or that there aren’t other ways to go now, if you decide you need to. Personally I’m not as down on the guy as some here, but you can go another way.

My main takeaway from what you say, here, is that you don’t think there were, or are, any meaningful other options. Set aside any defense of Kahn you’re making; that’s not the point, is it? The point is to decide if Rambis is the way to go right now. And there are other choices, sure. They’re not indistinguishable, no.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 8:14 PM CST up reply actions  

Its always amazing to me in the obituaries for

Casey’s time in MN Wolves’ fans neglect to mention that KG screwed him at the start of the season by insisting on going back to the flip offense wasting an entire training camp on the offensive side of the ball for everyone on the roster except KG, Wally and Troy.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 8:17 PM CST up reply actions  

I almost always avoid dissing KG directly,

and sometimes, you know, it’s a little embarrassing to still be nursing grudges from that long ago.

Again, though, perfect example of a young coach thrown to a veteran team whether the lead players undercut his authority. There are some obvious examples of this, and of the other phenomenon where the coach got respected – Lawrence Frank seemed like a pretty unlikely case, but Jason Kidd was on his side for a while.

Overall I just think it’s not particularly easy to spot when someone will thrive or not. You have to try people out in that role, and when things don’t work out you have to move on. Doctrines about wanting experience or whatever might help you make the initial decision, but you have to be willing to take in data and change your mind.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Feb 1, 2011 9:21 AM CST up reply actions  

Frankly I was shocked

when they let Casey go. I’m even more shocked that he is still playing second fiddle. But his experience was similar to what Eric is encountering in Miami.

Just having seen his experience as head or assistant coach in rebuilding a team with young inexperienced players. Like him or not, Rambis now has the requisite experience. Like Jeff Van Gundy said yesterday, an experience like banging your head into the frozen tundra.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 9:13 PM CST up reply actions  

Westphal took the SAC job loaded with vets and last year’s ROY.

Eh, I haven’t looked at each year’s roster, but I doubt the Kings have that many more vets than the Wolves do. And, like the Wolves, the Kings have played a lot of youth in their rotation.

I’m not sure arguing the Kings have a veteran team is wise. Just my opinion on that.

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.....

If Omri has 12 games with 85+ TS% (20+ mins only) on the season, I will send RikSmits a slice of Cherry Pie with real Californian cheese pasteurized locally in Washington state.

Sactown Royalty: Where 8 games played qualifies you as a future superstar.

by pookeyguru on Jan 31, 2011 7:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Do a side-by-side

Take a look at the Kings roster versus the Wolves roster. I can tell you that the Wolves are the youngest and least experienced, if that helps.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 7:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe you should do the side by side

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200910280MIN.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200910280OKC.html

Opening night rosters.

Sacremento ages

20, 21, 21, 21, 22, 23, 23, 23, 25 26, 30, 32

Wolves ages

20, 21, 22, 23, 23, 24, 25, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32

So it looks like you’re just making stuff up.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 8:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Your linky is screwy

It brings me to the 2009 roster for the Kngs.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 8:58 PM CST up reply actions  

here, try this one

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2011.html

I’ll await your apology.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 9:00 PM CST up reply actions  

If you want to have a discussion

you will stop making comments that only diminish your stature. I know who I am and I am not dense, so you’re wasting my time and your’s making such comments.

Of course, I am referring to this year’s Wolves roster, not the Wolves 2009 roster.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 9:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Why would this year's roster have anything to do

with your claim that

Westphal took the SAC job loaded with vets and last year’s ROY.

Westphal took that job in 09 on a younger team than the Wolves had when they hired Rambis. It was not a team as you have repeatedly falsely claimed was full of veterans. It was a young team than the Wolves

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 9:29 PM CST up reply actions  

And I'm referring to the entire roster

not selectively singling out the opening roster.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 9:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Consider the chronology

Westphal hired by Kings – early June 2009

(Rambis turned down the Kings offer beforehand)

McHale fired by Wolves – June 17 2009

Kahn opens head coaching search June 17th and hires Rambis in August.

Westphal was off the market, so your point is what?

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 9:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Okay

Everybody has a choice whether to respond or ignore certain posters. You are someone I’m gladly going to ignore.

Don’t need the obnoxious manner. You are nobody to me.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 9:38 PM CST up reply actions  

"Don’t need the obnoxious manner."

Coming from you, this got the biggest laugh from me since Ming’s Jesus comment. Good stuff, Ted Baxter, good stuff.

by Madison Dan on Feb 1, 2011 9:05 AM CST up reply actions   2 recs

The league-leading 2-12 record for losing by 5 points or under (second only to the Heat) is a reflection of a coach keeping his team motivated despite the overall losing record.

Couldn’t it also be the league-leading 2-12 record for losing by 5 points or under is a result of poor coaching?

That poorly designed plays down the stretch, and poor defensive strategies are to blame?

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 4:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Or chance

Couldn’t it also be the league-leading 2-12 record for losing by 5 points or under is a result of poor coaching?

Weird things happen when you flip a coin 14 times.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 4:24 PM CST up reply actions  

I think this is the most important factor

Though the fact that they have 2 wins when losing by 5 points or less is probably unique :)

I assume he meant a 2-12 record in games decided by 5 points or less. That’s a combination of being worse than almost every team they play and bad luck.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Jan 31, 2011 4:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Well the argument for Pythagorean Wins

is that no coaches consistently outperform expected wins. I’m skeptical of that claim and I wouldn’t mind having someone look at the established long term coaches in the league (Pop, Jackson, Sloan, Karl, etc) and see what the results are, When Basketball on Paper came out Oliver suggested that no coach had a significant repeatable impact on actual wins versus Expected Wins. I’m skeptical if that’s still true.

by Ailuridae on Jan 31, 2011 4:37 PM CST up reply actions  

It's unique..

….and possibly unprecedented. I’m working on putting together as much data on the subject as possible and it really is weird. What’s really weird is if you open it up to 4 and 6 points, it becomes even more pronounced. In other words, no matter if it is 2, 4, or 6 points, the Wolves find amazing ways to lose…which suggests something other than bad luck.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 4:53 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Not to me

It seems to me that if the Wolves are truly an outlier on this, it is more likely luck. I mean, partly it’s because they are bad—bad teams lose. But to the extent that you would expect a better record in close games (which is something we would expect), I would have to be convinced with some powerful argument that it isn’t primarily a function of luck.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Jan 31, 2011 6:04 PM CST up reply actions  

I would throw out there that it is bad luck to get consistently

jobbed by the referees in games that turn out to be decided by a small margin. :-)

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Feb 1, 2011 2:40 AM CST up reply actions  

If Kurt Rambis' mask is pulled off to reveal Tim Donaghy...

… I guess I’ll still be surprised because they’ve been beating the spread.

by aarendsvark on Jan 31, 2011 7:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Considering that

the Miami Heat follows the Wolves for that lead, I would say we are in relatively good company.

I look at it as a team that despite its losing record stays in the hunt till the end.

Now, if you like, compare that with recent years where we were seldom in the hunt to he end.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 5:16 PM CST up reply actions  

And yet all the talk here in LA for years has been,

that Byron Scott is the clear #1 target to replace Phil – followed by Brian Shaw if Scott was unavailable.

Even when Rambis was here, he wasn’t seriously talked about to get a 2nd shot at the job.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 1:48 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

I think if Rambis really thought he was in line for the throne, he never would've taken the Wolves job.

He absolutely LOVES Southern California. And coaching the Lakers is one of the absolute premier jobs in all of sports.

And its not like everyone doesn’t know Phil isn’t long for the job. This is likely his final year.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 1:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Hard to put yourself in someone else's mind

don’t you think/ At the time Rambis took the Wolves job, Phil had not signaled he was vacating the head coaching job.

I find it fascinating that Rambis haters would take a relatively strong endorsement by Jackson and twist it to meet their preconceived perspective.

Talk about looking through a narrow prism.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:27 PM CST up reply actions  

I believe Phil maybe sincere

And that Rambis is a failing as the head coach of the Timberwolves. I maybe too hard on him when I say he’s a bad coach when I should be saying he’s terrible at his current job.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 3:33 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't consider you a judge of anything

No offense, but your opinion means little to anyone else with an opinion.

You say this and others say that, but in the end you change no one’s mind.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:58 PM CST up reply actions  

I get it

you don’t like Rambis. So what?

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 4:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Why

even make that comment?

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 5:32 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm a fan of the Wolves. This is a Timberwolves site.

When I like what I see I share it with other posters. When I don’t I share it with other posters. They can make what they want with it. You disagree with me on this point fine. Happy to make my case and listen to yours.

The reason I make my arguments against Rambis is that I believe he is failing as head coach of the Timberwolves and we could be much better than we currently are with the same players. I make my case. You don’t have to agree. Dismiss it, argue with it, agreed, tweak it as you see fit. I appreciate the info you brought up concerning Phil Jackson’s endorsement. I’m not sold. I believe Rambis is failing and I’ll listen to anyone who can argue otherwise, but HOF coaches say he’s good isn’t much better than just give him more time. Either way it doesn’t change what I’m witnessing. Failure.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 4:44 PM CST up reply actions  

I live in LA. I'm surrounded by Lakers news and Lakers fans (Its the one downside of living here).

No one out here expected Phil to coach more than another year or 2 when Rambis took the job, and no one out here thought Rambis was the heir apparent.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 4:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Yesterday

During the Lakers v. Celtics ABC asked Phil who he would like to replace him. He said he thought Kurt Rambis would be the best person to replace him.

He also said that he didn’t know if the Lakers management would feel the same way.

I grew up in LA with the Lakers and Dodgers. Then you had Mr. Logo, Wilt, Elgin, and company.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 6:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Even as we were looking into hiring Rambis

I remember the take being that Shaw has been the most likely to take Phil’s job for quite some time.

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 6:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Shaw did talk to Kahn, if I remember right.

It seemed to me at the time that Brian S. was among the candidates who wouldn’t sign on to Kahn’s short list: running team, etc.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Thank you

Rec’d because it fits my narrative lol

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:42 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

That is until yesterday

When Phil Jackson recommended Kurt Rambis as his replacement.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Dang!

For a second I thought it was the other way around.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Not unless

the Wolves move to Montana

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 5:31 PM CST up reply actions  

That might be Phil's opinion

but Kupchak strongly encouraged Rambis to take the MN job when he learned that Rambis was hesitating (because Rambis thought he would replace Phil)

So unless Kupchak goes too, Rambis is not going to coach the Lakers anytime soon.

by Just A Fan on Jan 31, 2011 2:22 PM CST up reply actions  

The future

is hard to predict. At the time Kurt took the Wolves opening, Phil (as I recall) hadn’t announced his retirement at the end of the season.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Completely agreed on the coaching angle

I took out a paragraph in the original post where I compared Rambis to Wittman. I guess I thought it was too much fuel to the fire. This team leaves games on the table with its coaching. Rambis may be good in practice but I remember Dwane Casey getting lit up for far less than what Rambis is getting away with in terms of game management.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 2:22 PM CST up reply actions  

Casey

had KG and vets.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Using Beasley

Airete’s point about posting Beasley up against SFs seems especially true to me. I love that Beasley can score from mid-range and deep, but I don’t think many SFs outside of LeBron and Carmelo have the size and strength to guard him in the post. He absolutely destroyed smaller players on the block in college, and it’s not like we have big men that deserve tons of post touches. Plus, Love is effective shooting the ball so it’s not like you take him out of the offense by giving Beasley post touches (if we could just substitute every Darko post touch for one by Beasley… sorry, now I’m dreaming too big). I actually made a post in the pre-season about why I thought Beasley should play Small Forward rather than Power Forward, and the post-up game was at the heart of it. It was my opinion (and still is) that his ceiling is higher as a SF that has a size advantage on the block than as a moderately undersized PF with a quickness advantage. My wish for him to play SF came true, except they don’t exploit his greatest advantage at the position very much. It’s baffling.

by Dumbhead62 on Jan 31, 2011 4:38 PM CST up reply actions   2 recs

Well, we've all seen Beasley at the 4

at least some this season. I don’t think it’s as much as 82games credits him with (25% of all game minutes), but the team has gone “small” with Love on the bench or at the 5. And honestly, I don’t see any aspect of Beasley’s game change. I think this goes beyond how Rambis “uses” him, and more to the way Beasley chooses to operate. It’ not like he’s a wing who has never really learned to operate out of the post. Still, his “post-ups” still end up with him receiving the ball well outside the lane, turning to face his man, and starting in nearly the same position as if he was playing Wes Johnson’s game. I might have serious questions about Rambis, but I don’t blame him for that.

by dropstep on Jan 31, 2011 10:08 PM CST up reply actions  

Pet peeve

You hit on one of my bigger pet peeves with Beasley…..The 20-foot post up.

by Rascal Flatts on Feb 1, 2011 10:13 PM CST up reply actions  

BTW:

Rambis has to go 12-2 over the next 14 games to match Wittman’s record with the team.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 2:35 PM CST up reply actions  

But you're including the full season Rambis spent evaluating players...

If we didn’t do that, how would we have known that Pecherov, Pavlovic, and Hollins all suck?

I wasn't swayed

by Blakeley on Jan 31, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions  

It really is comical...

…to think what they were able to do last year in the name of “development”. I can’t wait until Kahn tries the “Rubio needs 2-3 years to develop” bit.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 3:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Rambis

had nothing to do with bringing Pech-Pav+Hollins to Minnesota. He began as coach in August 2009, long after the deal was done.

He inherited last year’s roster.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Pavlovic signed with the Wolves in September.

based on Rambis’ recommendation, as the story goes.

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 4:51 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Correct.

Let me walk y’all right up to the precipice, too: From all we know, this was the clearest reaction Kurt Rambis had to last year’s incredible paucity on the wing slots. He looked over the roster, said “Gosh we probably need another veteran hand,” and the solution was Sasha.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:59 PM CST up reply actions  

As opposed to who?

Training camp started shortly after Rambis was hired. The roster was essentially set with boogers and boners.

Rambis inherited the rot he didn’t create it.

There is absolutely nothing worse than becoming a manager (or coach) and having to make due with people you didn’t choose. A new manager is eager to show improvement from the past but has to try to do it with the tools left for him.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 5:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Under those circumstances?

I say you do what Golden State did last year when their injuries came in bunches. You find D-league guys who’ll bust their humps to be on a roster. Those guys may never be better than Damien WIlkins in terms of their performance for you, but that’s already a higher standard than Sasha.

When Anthony Tolliver was going off on us late last season, the question on the minds of CH folks in attendance was “Why do the Wolves not give some burn to guys like this?” Especially with Kahn hailing from that league why did we not go that way?

Again with the weird fatalism, though. Do you really want to argue that Sasha Pavlovic was as good a choice as could be had?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 8:03 PM CST up reply actions  

As opposed to who?

Do you really want to provide the names of those who were available at the time other than Pav?

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 9:30 PM CST up reply actions  

Rashad McCants was available, wasn't he?

Latrell Sprewell probably still had a family to feed. … lol

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Feb 1, 2011 2:49 AM CST up reply actions  

This is the same "We can't know the absolute and complete list so we don't know anything at all" argument.

There are maybe 10 wings down in the D-league at any given moment who’d be energy defenders and who could provide the occasional bit of complementary offense. There’s a glut of that player down there, and has been since the league was going by a different name.

Golden State last year called up at least 5 D-league players. San Antonio called up 5 in the 07-08 season. The Wolves themselves have some history of going to that well, though not under Kahn. These players are out there, and would have been more constructive influences on the Wolves roster than Sasha Pavlovic.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Feb 1, 2011 8:56 AM CST up reply actions  

Oh

did Wittman have the youngest least experienced team in the NBA too?

Crazy talk

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:53 PM CST up reply actions  

(Taking the bait) Speaking of crazy talk...

….what’s Ricky Davis up to these days? How about Eddie Griffin and Rashad McCants. Is Marko still passed out in some downtown club? Anyone know if the Kandi Man has been tased again? Is Mike James still ignoring coaches that make less than him? Yeah, crazy talk.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 4:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Now, Nate

are you saying I have crazy talk while issuing me a warning about saying crazy talk? That’ s rich.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 4:33 PM CST up reply actions  

You do know...

…that crazy talk in my reply is in reference to the crazy talk that Casey had to deal with, right? I don’t think you are crazy. I respect your motives and your takes. I just would like to remind everyone here that when people disagree with you, it’s not because they’re stupid or crazy. Everybody comes here to talk about the Wolves and not have their motives questioned. Nobody has ulterior motives for what they are saying and if they do, they’re in the wrong spot.

That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 31, 2011 5:16 PM CST up reply actions  

You're crazy

I’m only here to spread the Pastafarian word.

Whenever I'm about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing.

by Mplax on Feb 2, 2011 7:04 PM CST up reply actions  

System coaches

coach systems.
IMO,
Rambis is working the players he has into the system he coaches. Then he will ask for players that better fill the roles in his system. Incremental improvement at filling the system’s roles is the goal, not incremental increases in win totals. Theoretically, there comes a tipping point, when the roles are filled by talented enough players, the wins will come.

Most system coaches don’t reach the tipping point.

by WinTheLottery on Jan 31, 2011 9:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Hmmmm

So, I have some questions.

The 2008-2009 Wolves, albeit the same relative team statistically, has a 24 year old Al Jefferson, a 25 year old Randy Foye, and a 20 year old Kevin Love, and has to make the following decisions:

1 – How much are we going to extend Foye for?

In essence, despite how you love to play the “inflate the Rubio bubble card” I don’t think it’s out of line to say that the Wolves absolutely maximized the value of the Foye and Miller assets. It was hard to argue at the time Foye was going to get any better, a fact confirmed in hindsight, so the team was faced with the choice of extending him (a bad decision at any price), letting him go for nothing, or trading him, and it’s hard to imagine getting a better value for those assets.

2 – How were they going to resolve Jefferson / Love?

I really like Big Al as a player and a person, and I think one of the reasons he hasn’t lived up to the hype is that he’s constantly being asked to play center when the dude is clearly a PF. One of the unfortunate byproducts is that despite their considerable talents, Love and Jefferson were clearly unsuited to start on an NBA roster together. I think one of the factors (of many of course) of Kevin Love’s success is that he’s frankly not playing with Jefferson, for better or worse. Unless you thought that the two of them starting together was going to lead the team somewhere, and I’m all ears in hearing how this wouldn’t be one of the worst defensive duos in the history of basketball, one had to go. And oh, by the way, Jefferson hasn’t exactly become Karl Malone on the Jazz.

3 – Who’s improving on that 2008 team?

I think it’s safe to say that the only person who had any room for growth on the 2008 team was Love, and even that would have been sort of stunted by the continued presence of Jefferson. Very little suggests that Al Jefferson at 26 and Randy Foye at 27 are any better players now than they were 2 years ago.

I don’t think it’s outrageous to say that on the current roster, Beasley, Wes and Flynn can all be better than they are now and have room to grow as players. I don’t think that means all-star for anybody except for Beasley, but I don’t think they’ve hit their ceilings. If you really want to be liberal with that argument, you could say the same thing for Darko and Martell.

by Neil Annwn on Jan 31, 2011 12:10 PM CST reply actions  

MIke Miller

was a better player than anybody not named Love on this team. And Mike’s not that good.

We can strip our protection on the Clip pick. I’ve advocated this in the past in combination with draft day deals. I believe Cleveland removed the protection on an owed first in the Jiri Welsch deal.

Neil: “Very little suggests that Al Jefferson at 26 and Randy Foye at 27 are any better players now than they were 2 years ago” and “Wes and Flynn can all be better than they are now and have room to grow as players.” Err, you do realize how old Wes is, right?

The thing that 2008 team had this team didn’t? A future to be built with 6 first round picks, multiple expiring contracts attached to useful players, and two young and talented big men.

by rickyp on Jan 31, 2011 12:53 PM CST reply actions   1 recs

The thing that 2008 team had this team didn’t? A future to be built with 6 first round picks, multiple expiring contracts attached to useful players, and two young and talented big men.

Ouch – that stings. And is accurate.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on Jan 31, 2011 1:28 PM CST up reply actions  

I know

Wes is 23. Older than most rookies.

There’s a real chance he won’t get any better than he is now, but really? It’s a foregone conclusion he won’t improve already?

BTW, I’ve asked this before but it seems to get ignored…can we ease the gas pedal on emphasizing the 6 draft picks as if we blew through 6 lottery picks with nothing to show for it? Two of these picks were in the late 20s where the odds of you getting a decent player are pretty remote (Hayward/Ellington) – One, despite how much hype you want to buy into, would probably be a high lottery pick if the draft was re-held (Rubio.) One is just now halfway through his rookie year.

by Neil Annwn on Jan 31, 2011 1:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Think about it

It would be ridiculous to say “If the Vikings knew what they were doing in 2005, they would have drafted Aaron Rodgers, Nick Collins, Marion Barber III, Trent Cole, Jay Ratliff and Joshua Cribbs instead of Troy Williamson, Marcus Johnson, Dustin Fox, Ciatrick Fason, and C.J. Mosley. Seriously, look at all the draft picks they blew through.”

You can totally pick on the Vikings for having a crap-tacular draft because none of those players in hindsight turned out to be starters, but it’s not fair to hold them up to my arbitrary, cherry-picked dream draft because no team comes close to drafting to that caliber ever. And you definitely couldn’t have come to that conclusion definitively a year and a half into that class.

I think you can grouse about Flynn/Curry, but I don’t think you get to really kill Kahn on drafting until DMC has definitively won the #4 pick debate and we reach Rubio’s endgame.

by Neil Annwn on Jan 31, 2011 1:40 PM CST up reply actions  

The DMC Train could crash at any moment...

the next time he and Tyreke decide to drag race in the streets of Sacramento after a late-night Burger King run, or if shouting matches with Westphal turn into something more Sprewell-ish.

But, if he plays like he did against the Lakers and Hornets, the basketball debate between he and Wes is over. Lately, Cousins hasn’t been booted from practice and is now posting big numbers in WINS. That’s the nightmare scenario that many (but not me) expected, before the draft.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 1:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Totally

I’ve said this before, I’m completely amazed how a fanbase who lived through Rashad McCants finds it seemingly inconceivable that this guy might flame out. There was some reason he didn’t get picked at #2 or #3. But absolutely, you have to acknowledge that he could be Moses Malone II. It’s just kind of early to call it.

by Neil Annwn on Jan 31, 2011 1:49 PM CST up reply actions  

How does it affect our judgment of that situation when Darko has a meltdown?

He’s got a history, too.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:50 PM CST up reply actions  

When you make your pick at #4 overall in part because of what you think you have in Darko,

somehow that doesn’t ‘count’??

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:56 PM CST up reply actions  

It should certainly count.

But the question then becomes how do you feel about paying Travis Outlaw $40M over the next 5 seasons? If we decide to take Cousins in the draft and let Milicic go back to Europe (at minimum a seemingly good basketball decision), then we find ourselves looking to fill a spot on the wing that would otherwise have been filled by Johnson. We were looking at Rudy Gay, but Memphis was going to pay him all along so you can throw him out. Who would be the next guy that we took a look at if we didn’t have Johnson? Probably Travis Outlaw. And we’d be having a bidding war with New Jersey to get him. Considering he received a 5-year $35M contract with virtually nobody but the Nets interested in him, I think $40M seems about right for what he would get with two teams legitimately interested and needing to add salary to meet the league minimum.
I’m a little frightened by that possibility actually.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 2:06 PM CST up reply actions  

"False dilemma."

I’m pretty sure drafting Cousins doesn’t obligate you to sign Travis Outlaw or any other so-so wing to an oversized contract.

Want evidence? Why, our very own front office spent all of last season with no NBA-caliber wings on the roster at all.

Also, that same front office dealt for Martell Webster, and is paying him less than $8 million a year.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 2:23 PM CST up reply actions  

I was trying to go for the "Kahn is an incompetent GM" angle,

but obviously I got so carried away with it that I forgot about the “Taylor is a tight-wad owner” angle.
I was speculating about an outrageous situation that had virtually no chance of actually coming to pass. But then again, we are talking about the GM that drafted Johnson and Hayward, traded for Martell Webster, and then targeted Rudy Gay as a possible addition via free agency. If he thought we needed another SF after adding 3 to the roster on draft day, then spending $8M per season on Outlaw after he only got 2 SF on draft day isn’t completely out of the realm of possibility, is it?

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Feb 1, 2011 2:59 AM CST up reply actions  

Heh. Point taken.

The Wolves under Kahn do create storylines for people to follow. You just know that ESPN will have its “What position is it this time?” talk before June’s draft.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Feb 1, 2011 9:08 AM CST up reply actions  

How about a name that was bandied around here by a few people before the draft:

Dorell Wright.

He’s outproducing Wes, is only 1.5 years older and signed a 3 year deal at 3.5, 3.8 and 4.1M.

by Simitar on Jan 31, 2011 2:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Just a question for anyone with actual knowledge.

Did we pass on DMC because of Darko, Pekovic and or a combo of the two? I can’t help thinking Pekovic might have played into this as well.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 1:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe a little...

but not too much.

Darko’s now a journeyman, in part because of those meltdowns and a general lack of mental strength toward his basketball career. If the Wolves get Cousins after he blows it with another team, it’ll be better than getting him before he makes his mistakes.

Also, Darko is older and seems generally more mature, even if still a mediocre player. Haven’t seen anything remotely close to the jersey-tear or the tirade about the ref’s family, since he came to Minny.

The closest he’s come is a story about getting mad during sprint drills in Mankato, and a few technical fouls here and there.

Cousins’ stories include nearly getting a D-League demotion (ridiculously embarrassing for such a talented player) and getting thrown out of practice, which certainly must have been preceded by a crazy exchange with the coaches. Like I mentioned above, those stories have slowed down and his game is improving, so things are tilting toward the way many CH’ers thought they would.

by Andy G on Jan 31, 2011 1:57 PM CST up reply actions  

I see what you're getting at, but I think you're being too kind to Kahn

No GM is going to get every pick right, but Kahn’s batting average is too low.

It’s pretty clear that we could have done a lot better with the Flynn pick, and with a variety of players (Curry, DeRozan, Lawson, Holiday). Comparing Wes to only DMC doesn’t consider the fact that we could have traded down and picked up more assets in the process.

I can’t fault the Rubio pick at this point, but Kahn could still screw that up if he can’t get him over here and/or doesn’t get good value for his rights.

On the later picks, sure the odds are low that they’ll develop into an impact player, but Kahn still could have used those picks as leverage to get the players he really wanted, or hit big with one of them.

So yes, each pick has its own excuses and the players we have may improve. But Kahn’s track record, in its entirety, is not very good at this point. That’s not comparing him to an impossible standard, that’s just looking for anything he’s added to the team. Getting the #5 pick for Miller and Foye and getting Beasley for 2 second rounders are about the only “plus” moves I can think of.

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 1:50 PM CST up reply actions  

You can't have it both ways

With the Hayward pick, the Wolves made two trades down, picking up assets if I remembered correctly. So, in that instance, he did what you profess he should have done.

But let’s say he didn’t do that, how exactly was he supposed to leverage that pick and the Ellington pick to get something impactful, other than just drafting better in hindsight?

I think people in general sort of understate how difficult it is to trade down and pick up assets, and minimize the risk involved. If it was easy to just slide down a slot or two and pick up picks, you’d be seeing everybody do it.

Not only that, there’s no theoretical limit to that argument. You can ALWAYS say the Wolves should’ve traded down one spot or two spots to get John Doe and pick up more assets.

The only one you get to call at this point is Flynn/Curry. His sample size is one with regards to drafting.

by Neil Annwn on Jan 31, 2011 2:04 PM CST up reply actions  

In the case of the lower picks,

I was thinking he’d use them to move in the other direction. That is, if Kahn wanted Favors or Turner, he may have been able to use them (plus other assets, probably) to move up. And I won’t give him credit for trading down to get Hayward, because I liked a couple of the players who were on the board at 23.

I don’t understand your “no theoretical limit” argument. I don’t think we could have traded down and still selected Rubio, for example. I was and am happy with that pick. I do think we could have traded down from 4 and gotten a player nearly as good as Wes plus other useful assets. But we have Wes, who I like (he could easily be my favorite Wolf if he played up to everyone’s hopes), but I don’t think he was good a value in that spot.

With regard to how hard it is to trade down, yes it’s hard/impossible to know what we could have gotten. (That’s true with any trade possibility, not just trading down.) For example, I thought we should have traded the 6th pick after we took Rubio, but I don’t know what we could have gotten. But I do know what has happened with Kahn’s draft-day trades, and I haven’t been impressed. (Trading the Lawson pick was the one move I kind of liked.)

The bottom line is, if someone had told you when Kahn was hired that we’d be 11-36 at the end of January 2011, wouldn’t you have been just a little disappointed? (That’s a sample of 47 games + an awful 2009-2010, not just 0 for 1 on draft picks.) You may believe it’ll get a lot better with the same players, but that doesn’t seem like the most likely outcome to me. I don’t expect Flynn to ever be a good defender. I don’t expect Wes to ever be a good ball handler. I don’t expect Darko to ever be a consistently good offensive player. Any of those things could happen, and I’d be thrilled if they did, but I don’t expect them to happen.

No one seems to want to answer this question: but if you’re not willing to criticize Kahn now, when will you be? One more month? One more year? Two more years?

by Madison Dan on Jan 31, 2011 3:11 PM CST up reply actions  

My deadline is this trade deadline.

If we do not add an immediate starter to the team with the cap-space, expiring contracts, extra draft picks and stable of bench role layers we currently have. I think the fan base as a whole should turn on Kahn. I don’t think he should last one more day at that point. We have too many assets to have Luke Ridnour be our 3rd best player. And we’ve used up so many it’s a shame that he is.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 3:24 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

No need for urgency

Kahn will probably want until summer before making any trades. The fans have lived through a hell of a lot in recent years and they still turn out.

The team is in audition mode. They are not going to the playoffs and are counting ping pong balls. The CBA hangs over all NBA franchises.

You are welcome to set your self-imposed deadlines and proclamations, but I don’t think you will have much of a following.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 3:49 PM CST up reply actions  

There is a distinct need

for a stretch of good basketball to refresh the interest the season began with. A trade for an established SG would help, but not as much as some good wins.

by WinTheLottery on Feb 1, 2011 6:18 PM CST up reply actions  

...

I think you have to go at least halfway into next season.

By that point, you should have a better idea on the DMC/Wes debate, we’ll know about Rubio with some level of finality, and we’ll have an idea of how Kahn planned to use cap space with the uncertainty of the labor agreement no longer a spectacle.

by Neil Annwn on Jan 31, 2011 4:01 PM CST up reply actions  

the sense of optimism

Stems from the fact that the 08-09 team had no foundation for any future growth beyond k love (sitting behind our “best” player). And for all of those talking about how much of a travesty wes over dmc is a whopping 4 months into each’s career, can you try your best to remember the timberwolf fan base’s response to the last time we passed up the consensus BPA with some shaky character issues for the unathletic nice guy??? Hint: one is being shopped at the deadline for next to nothing and the other has the best PER amongst PFs.

by tmbroom on Jan 31, 2011 12:55 PM CST via mobile reply actions  

I'm no advertising expert,

but how incredibly stupid is this?

Also returning will be the longtime Tropicana brand symbol, an orange from which a straw protrudes. The symbol, meant to evoke fresh taste, had been supplanted on the new packages by a glass of orange juice.

In PR terms, at least, the Wolves made that change in the right direction. “United We Run” is at least more specific than a “Blueprint,” however mistaken the underlying message may or may not be, at least it says something.

If you’ve got something distinctive about your brand, don’t move from that toward complete genericity.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 1:01 PM CST reply actions  

"The Minnesota Timberwolves . . .

 . . . a Team in the National Basketball Association!"

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 1:35 PM CST up reply actions  

I think you forgot to put the quotation marks around the word team.

It should look like this: “Team”

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Jan 31, 2011 1:43 PM CST up reply actions  

I recently learned

that frozen pizza often is not topped with the government’s definition of “real cheese.” So they have to call it “cheese food” in the ingredients. Yech.

So perhaps they should be

The Minnesota Timberwolves – an NBA Player Grouping (1)

  • 1: Note: The Timberwolves are classified as a grouping rather than a team due to containing less than 20% real NBA players.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on Jan 31, 2011 1:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Consumer culture does strange things with language.

E-mail ad I got this morning:

I appreciated the use of “may.” They’re sending me SPAM promoting a quack product, but somehow there was a moral qualm there. “Or maybe not.”

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions  

That guy is stealing

Corey Brewer’s defensive stance.

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Jan 31, 2011 2:38 PM CST up reply actions   2 recs

Let's do a study:

How many non-NBA-fans, presented with a picture of Corey Brewer, think his legs have been photoshopped to look thinner?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:02 PM CST up reply actions  

When I worked in an on-campus pizza joint

The “sausage” was, for legal reasons I’m sure, labeled “Pizza Topping Mix”

by dropstep on Jan 31, 2011 11:02 PM CST up reply actions  

It's also never a good thing

When your school cafeteria has to be dodgy about specifics, and make “Meat Sandwiches.”

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Jan 31, 2011 11:08 PM CST up reply actions  

Tropicana analogy

In 2008-2009 a “half gallon” container of Tropicana contained 64 ounces of OJ. Now a “half gallon” container of Tropicana contains 59 ounces. How does that fact fit into/affect this analysis? Food for thought……..

by skin5lv on Jan 31, 2011 2:57 PM CST reply actions  

Plainly, Tropicana needs to consider contraction.

The level of talent in their individual packages is lower and lower all the time.

I also appreciate the move from “No Pulp” to “Pulp Free.” Focus groups like “freedom.”

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Jan 31, 2011 4:30 PM CST up reply actions  

Quick quiz!

Okay, the Wolves are leading the league in close losses (losing by 5 points or less) with a 2-12 record.

Now, the glass half empty crowd will say; well that just shows the Wolves can’t finish out games, can’t close the deal.

The glass half full crowd will say; you know, despite their win-loss record, the Wolves hang in to the end, fight to the final buzzer, and don’t collapse like in prior years where they hung their heads and gave up.

I’ve mentioned the next team behind the Wolves is the Miami Heat in terms of close losses. I also heard that one coach, believe it was Sloan, describe the Wolves as no easy out. That playing them this season is like a playoff game.

What say you?

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 5:48 PM CST reply actions  

Seahawks?

At least you got to the wild card game.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 7:58 PM CST up reply actions  

That didn't come from me

that came from the opposing coach. I take that as a complement.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 7:57 PM CST up reply actions  

You may not be a fan of me right now, but I'll bite.

I think several things about this team are really strong. We have shooters. At least 6 players in our regular rotation: Love, Beasley, Ridnour, Johnson, Webster, and Tolliver have range out to the three point line. Love, Beasley and Ridnour are also pretty impressive with the long two. We have no awful contracts. We may not have an all-star center, but do have one defensive stopper and a rookie Euro prospect. Either way I prefer what we have to the Golden State, the New York Knicks or Houston’s big man situation. We have competed with elite teams several times this year and matched up with the league leading Spurs extremely well. It’s not that hard to envision things going differently and the Wolves something like 18 wins at this point. Wes Johnson is shooting the three well at high volume for a NBA rookie. Pekovic is fouling less and staying on the floor longer. Kevin Love has improved his game. Beasley when healthy has been impressive as often as not. Ridnour is playing better than career Luke would suggest he should be.

On the flip side
We turn the ball over and foul too much to have a realistic chance of winning many games. Worse it’s not just one or two players. All though we shoot the three well we defend it just as poorly. While we compete with many of he best teams we aren’t recording many upsets. We haven’t beaten a single team in our division. Some of our losses have been inexcusable given the circumstances (Bobcats at home for one).

It’s not like the future of this team is set in stone, but it’s much harder to remain optimistic unless you think the things are moving in the right direction. I have a hard time believing that Kahn has done a good job of maximizing assets. I don’t have faith in him at the moment. I do believe he’s done a great job of minimizing payroll. I likewise have a hard time believing Rambis is getting the most out of the unusual roster he has. I’m still impressed that he hasn’t obviously lost the players yet, but am disappointed in how often we hear things like “the guys didn’t show up prepared to play.”

All in all I believe the next 6 months could be critical in shaping this team into something special. Sigh, so I guess we’ll see. I’d like to eat crow on some of my complaints, but I don’t really get the feeling that we are the Thunder before the leap. It feels more like we are the Thunder that doesn’t make the leap.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 8:16 PM CST up reply actions  

No one is going to hold you to your opinions

some of which is pretty redundant with others’ comments on this board, including me.

I don’t even look to the score to see who is winning, I look at the PF and TO differentials and I know who is winning.

I wouldn’t take yourself too serous, as I suspect no one else does.

Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.

by Flagrant on Jan 31, 2011 9:34 PM CST up reply actions  

Consider yourself flagged

I have no problem with any argument you want to make, but your constant condescending and dismissive posts including cheap shots at the fellow posters do no one a service.

by Airete on Jan 31, 2011 10:18 PM CST up reply actions  

Agreed. Flagrant, you need to tone things down, man.

Name calling doesn’t get you anywhere. Even if you disagree, I think civilized discourse is important.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Jan 31, 2011 10:20 PM CST up reply actions  

Live every week like it's Shark Week.

by wallywagon11 on Feb 1, 2011 12:19 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Considering he ate buttered popcorn non-stop

it’s odd that he never gained much weight.

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Feb 1, 2011 9:47 AM CST up reply actions  

Considering he ate buttered popcorn non-stop

it’s odd that he never gained much weight.

Kevin Love is not the problem.

by PoorDick on Feb 1, 2011 9:47 AM CST up reply actions  

So the point here

is that reading Flagrant’s posts is like watching kiddie porn?

by dropstep on Feb 1, 2011 11:06 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't want to alarm you Stop-n-Pop

but according to it’s expiration date on the top, that cartoon of Tropicana orange juice went bad a few years ago. You might want to get that thing out of your fridge.

Live every week like it's Shark Week.

by wallywagon11 on Feb 1, 2011 1:19 AM CST reply actions   1 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Canis Hoopus is straight T-Wolves straight from Minnesota.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Rubio_wolfrider_small
Ricky Rubio: Probably not as good as you think...
Small
Around the League: Atlanta Hawks

Recent FanPosts

Small
Possible that Perry Jones = Paul George?
Small
Evan Fournier
557415_10101880206283470_13960869_76835255_1401292386_n_small
Poll: Do the NBA playoffs live up to their potential?
Rubio_wolfrider_small
PA100 Northwest Division
Rubio_wolfrider_small
PA100 Southeastern Division
Rubio_wolfrider_small
PA100 Central Division
Small
A Poem by Rashad McCants
Franklin2_small
Revisiting Rudy Gay (with poll!)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Canis Hoopus Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Hoopus Features

    HOOPUS FAQ

    Salary Cap Info

    Draft Info

    Player Movement Flow Charts

    Draft Boards

    Former Tag Lines:

    • In desperate need of an epic dose of basketball Viagra
    • Your source of radical left wing politics cleverly disguised as basketball fandom
    • Palin-Free since before statehood
    • Despairy Home Companion
    • The world's leading exporter of small area quickness
    • Sorry…I have no idea who is Joe Mauer
    • Home of the Peja deep douche
    • Vote McGrady!
    • Bork, bork, bork, bork, bork
    • Wir Sind Darko
    • Weird, unhealthy Darko mania
    • les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas
    • Basketball success makes character issues forgivable
    • Building the Boogie Bandwagon
    • Building the Dream....One Power Forward At A Time
    • Kids, Puppy Dogs, And Long Walks In The Park
    • SWITCH THE FLIP!!!
    • Team Red Pill.
    • December is Bunny Month. Survive it with insincerity and Merle Haggard.
    • Like having a really good seat at a beheading.
    • We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're Wolves fans, and Wolves fans are best at everything.
    • Getting Real Mythological
    • Trapped in Punxsawawney
    • BIIYYYOOOMMMBOOOOOOO!!!
    • Estoy llevando mi talento a Minnesota
    • Where sharks do battle with giant eagles
    • You don’t put a saddle and reins on a magical unicorn, you bareback it and put faith in nature
    • Toeing the line between nerd and loser
    • If Theo Ratliff’s Expiring Contract could see us now...

    Hoopus Recipe Book

    Let's Settle This:


    Self-Promotion

    BallHype Sports Blog Rankings


    Managers

    Dr wyn

    Journey_small Stop-n-Pop

    Rviy7fbgmhz5ht2dpgo6q0jfu_small TimAllen

    Editors

    Wolveslogo_small Oceanary

    Authors

    Small SG

    Hrbek_small Jon Marthaler