Copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by David Sherman/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #54, Home Game #29: Dallas 99, Minnesota 83
Season Record: 11-43
1. Really Kidding
As someone who was contemptuous of how much the Dallas Mavericks gave up to secure Jason Kidd, let me sheepishly report that the clearcut MVP of tonight's game was...Jason Kidd. Believe it or not, his line of 17 assists (versus 3 turnovers), 4 steals, 12 points and 7 rebounds doesn't do him justice. The dimes were doled with numbing regularity (the period totals were 6-4-4-3), but the most memorable were in the second half, especially a pair to center Erick Dampier early in the third, both touch passes as Kidd was falling out of bounds getting a rebound and receiving a feed near the hoop, respectively. All Dampier had to do on both occasions was lay the ball in (in fact he was 4-4 FG and every hoop was gift-wrapped by Kidd on a silver platter). This helped push the Mavs to their first double-digit lead, one they eventually lost as the two ballclubs matched quarter scores for three straight periods--a tie at the end of every one.
With 5:10 to play in the 4th and Dallas up just 4, Kidd--who'd been penetrating and turning down makeable shots all night for the sake of ball movement--started sinking nails in the Wolves' coffin. First was a driving layup that few, including Telfair, expected him to finish. Then a 20-foot jumper relatively early in the shot clock. Then a feed to a driving Jason Terry and, following a Nowitzki jumper and 1, a transition layup off a steal that yielded his own three point play. Just like that the lead was 14 with 2:41 to go, and after doling out a relatively pedestrian 17th assist to Josh Howard, #2 from Oaktown was done for the night. Ditto the Wolves.
Those of us who fancy ourselves "students of the game" will always marvel at how Kidd's court vision makes basketball intelligence a thing of beauty, and cherish him because of it. But here's the rub: The Kidd who performed tonight was a very different player than the Kidd manning the point for New Jersey earlier this month. That Kidd was indifferent to the point of laziness on defense, made the competent passes but not the ones that get teammates excited about moving without the ball, and comported himself like a man with a heavy burden. Ironically, that New Jersey team also sported Vince Carter, a player whose admitted tanking in Toronto so offended us "students of the game" because the beauty of his play was so raw and physical, the near opposite of Kidd's cerebral gambits. But the evidence of our eyes in the way Kidd rejuvenated his game for Dallas tonight--with nearly a third of his 17 assists of the eye-popping sort, 4 steals, and a skipping gait that shows the burden lifted somehow--is that Kidd was tanking in Jersey perhaps no less than Vinsanity withheld himself in Toronto. So, does being "smarter" give Kidd immunity on being slacker?
2. Jefferson + 4 = -1
Al Jefferson is getting better in a hurry. He denied any difference in commitment and attitude when I asked him after the Spurs game if he'd rededicated himself to anything going forward from the All Star break, but elements of his game that do not affect his personal point total--passing and defense--have both noticeably sharpened. Whenever Jefferson has blown a defensive assignment in the past three games, he's either slapped his chest or, if the play is quickly in transition, held up his finger as a sign of taking responsibility. He is much more aggressive about going for the block or the foul when opposing use dribble penetration. And his passing has helped foster some of the best ball movement the Wolves have executed this season.
Jefferson gives the Wolves something elemental--a big man constantly at threat to score in the low block. Yet an increasingly vexing problem as the season has progressed has been finding him a worthy partner, a relatively potent and consistent player who can score and dish on the perimeter to create space and synergize the offense. Unfortunately, the quartet of candidates being seriously auditioned thus far have varying degrees of skill in terms of commanding the floor and shooting the ball, ranging from the "pure" point Telfair to the point machine McCants, with Marko Jaric close to Telfair and Randy Foye closer to McCants in skill sets.
At the beginning of the year, Foye was the obvious choice, and remains the most likely to grab the role, if only by default thus far. Further complicating matters is that Foye is a combo guard just as Jefferson is a combo big man--the Wolves would like to see them grow into the point guard and pivot positions, when in fact they seem most at home at off-guard and power forward. Whatever you want to call him, Foye took a small step backward tonight, nailing but one of six shots and delivering a lone assist against two turnovers in 25:04. "He's going through some ups and downs right now and has got to get his confidence back, which will help everything," Wittman said after the game.
But with just 28 games to go, the possibility grows that this is a "limbo" season for Foye, much as last year was for McCants; any judgements, pro or con, on what he can and can't do are occluded by the injury. That's almost worse than a definitive yes-or-no answer for a franchise that will have a very good pick and two high second-rounders in the draft.
When the Wolves got the pou pou platter for KG during the off season, Wittman specifically said the squad was looking for two or perhaps three or four of the glut of young'uns populating the team to emerge as potential stars. As expected, mission accomplished for Jefferson. On the winnowing out end of things, Gerald Green has left the premises. But anyone who can say with any confidence that they know how Telfair, Foye, McCants, Brewer and Gomes are going to turn out is kidding himself--not a good sign
I understand that this is hardly a startling insight for folks following the team, but tonight's checkered play by the checkered players and the realization that the season is over in 8 weeks seems to throw it into sharper relief. Telfair continued his recent uptick in shooting accuracy but was frequently overmatched by Kidd's length and rejuvenation. McCants poured in 17 points in 28:08 but continues to epitomize the "different drummer" cliche with a playing rhythm and inherent decision making that is silk for him but often off-kilter for his teammates. Jaric, a rare known commodity, shows why he could be an 8th or 9th man on a playoff contender by assembling one of his 7 point-6 rebound-5 assist games with a little disruptive D thrown in for good measure. And Craig Smith, who was absolutely blistered by Dirk Nowitzski in an obvious mismatch situation earlier in the season, defended Dirk as well as anybody on the team this time out and had me biting my tongue on the lack of Ratliff-Jefferson tandem play that's occurred since Theo's return.
Wittman felt the game turned sour when his team held Dallas without points for seven straight possessions but couldn't convert themselves. Not surprisingly, Jefferson wasn't on the floor at the time. Wittman also correctly explained that the difference between the Wolves who shot 71% in the second quarter (to be 59% at the half) and the Wolves who shot 26% in the fourth quarter was aggression, not settling for jumpers, and moving the ball. Not incidentally, Jefferson was 4-4 FG in the second period, 0-3 FG in the final stanza, and mightily pissed over his lack of touches and the team's inability to score without him. "We lost our composure with each other a little bit and got frustrated," Wittman conceded. No feuds, and nothing specific, just general angst.
Telfair, Jaric, Foye, and McCants. Is there is a legit partner in that crew for Big Al? The longer there is no definite answer, the answer is no.
3. Smallball Update
Wittman explained that he doesn't want to bring Ratliff back too quickly against smaller lineups, so he played sparingly alongside Jefferson at the end of the first and third quarters. Okay, but why bring back Chris Richard if he isn't going to get any burn? And why does the coach enjoy smallball with this personnel so often? Despite shooting a higher percentage than Dallas (49.4% to 45%), the Wolves were outrebounded 43-35 and got to the line only a third as often as the Mavs, 9 to 27 FTA. Jefferson's FT totals in the three Dallas games have steadily declined, from 14 to 8 to 4. Does Kevin McHale want only one smashmouth big man barging around?
Taking responsibility for being the worst defender on the team doesn't mean he is getting better. Means he is owning up. About time.
We leave Jefferson in every blow out so he can pad his stats and make it look like trading Garnett was for not. Fact is this team plays better when Jefferson shares the ball like against the Jazz then when he hogs the ball.
Jefferson will never be anything better then a good shooter on a bad team. He has no clue how to pass the ball especially in traffic.
I am about done. Can't do this anymore. Fire McHale already
hey for all u mccants haters. i dont understand what your deal is.
he is by far the teams best shooter and has improved alot on defense. his skill sets are exactly what you want for a young guy. great shooting ability, has improved passing and ball handling. most of you guys are just saying stuff that happened int he beggining of the year. have you watched since after the break. it looks as if hes comming into his own in that sixth man he has also hasnt stopped ball movement more than anyother player. i dont see u guys complian when all jefferson is a black hole. or smith. shotty is shooting just as good as all jeferson.
also why are u writing foye off so early? he still gettin back into game shape. i love the lineup weve been using with foye/telfair/mccants at the 1 and 2 spot.
i like reading all your comments but it seems to me that u guys are being a little hard on them. theve played with avery team since all star break ive seen improvement. its pretty obvious.
Thanks to all for your concern about the fate of this site.
They'll be a new three pointer here when you wake up in the morning. My condolences to Tom Bartel and Kris Henning for having to shut down the paper part of The Rake, and to all the noble staffers who have lost their jobs. Tom and Kris aren't a corporation, just independent publishers who have this sort of thing in their blood. I haven't always been kind to either one of them, but I'm here for a reason.
As for the staff, I have worked with Julie Caniglia and Brad Zellar at other publications. Julie has a rapier wit in print that we didn't see enough here (she was too busy running the shop) and a great nose for detecting bullshit. Brad Zellar is a genius, an overused word I purposefully don't toss often. But anyone who has ever happened by Yo Ivanho! or Up All Night when it was at City Pages, know him to be an utterly distinctive writer and make-you-cry funny.
The other folks are newer to me, but Cristina Cordova is a capable web editor who's sticking around and Christy DeSmith seems both young and bright enough to land on her feet via someone with an eye for talent.
I really didn't mean for this to turn into a toastmasters parody--but I did mean every word I just wrote.
And nothing has changed at On The Ball.
That's a tough business, and even more so for a local publication that values quality journalism above all. I'm glad Three-Pointer lives on and I look forward to reading your take on tonight's bloodbath.
The bad news about the Rake's future sheds light on conditions around here in recent weeks. I'm sorry to see the end of the Rake and I hope that Britt and the other Rake writers soon land on their feet, hopefully in places easy to find. If quality literary endeavors can't succeed in the Twin Cities, what does that say for those US cities that are not above average?
Am I missing something? What is this talk about "the end" of The Rake? Sorry for being ignorant, but I am curious.
CW- They are ending the print edition, and will only be available on-line.
Wait a second...the print version of the Rake is going away. The Rake online is staying.
Britt, can you provide an update to your nervous readers?
CW, The Rake is pretty much closing up shop, according to an article in today's Strib:
http://www.startribune.com/business/15942772.html
Based on the article although the website will remain it doesn't look like they are keeping really any of their staff, which would mean the best Wolves writer in town is again out of a job through no fault of his own. Bad news.
That's great news, Cristina!
Thanks a lot everyone.
I was looking all over The Rake website and couldn't find anything lol.
Appreciated.
I agree with Britt's take. Maybe the Wolves should take a worthy gamble and move one of these young guys to become a bigger player in the deep 2008 draft.
Randy Foye and next year's Wolves number one pick to a team who is willing to give up their top ten lottery position for this draft.
The blueprint is to be in a position to make a play on both Memphis's star guard, Derrick Rose and legit 7-2 Georgetown product, Roy Hibbert.
As pointed out, Foye is an unknown commodity, but what is known is he can score in this league and was a very good college player. He doesn't have any debilitating, stock-dropping traits like having a bad attitude or unwillingness to play defense. The logic there is he still is a valuable commodity to a rebuilding team. The Wolves have future Boston and Miami number one picks too to work, so you are essentially borrowing the future to get 'more future faster and now'.
It would be nice if the Wolves could follow that up and lock up a good, young free agent like Luol Deng (even though Sid reported that Taylor wasn't going to spend the money this offseason). Deng is gritty on defense, can score, and has a good head on his shoulders. He would have done a better job on softie Dirk Nowitiski yesterday. Imagine the athletic defensive prowess with Deng at the three and Brewer at the two. You might be overpaying him if you sign him to a near max contract, but to bookend Jefferson and Deng together would be worth it.
Keep up the good work Britt. We need you, now that everyone else (surprisingly not Dan Barreiro - albeit, mostly negatively), has stopped talking about the Wolves.
One thing about the Rose-Hibbert combo idea-- From the little I've seen and lot I've read about Rose, he is an open-court player, while I've seen plenty of Roy Hibbert to know he's a slower, half-court center. I'd guess that there are other big men out there that would mesh better with Rose, if we are indeed lucky enough to draft him with our first pick. It's not the end of the world to have a slow center on an up-tempo team, but it's an easily avoided chemistry problem if you know that you're picking up a high-tempo point guard and you haven't yet found your future 5-man.
I can see that. Perhaps a Brock Lopez would be a better combo with Rose. I just love the leviathan size of someone like that covering the defensive ends or getting rebounds in a half-court game.
Granted I am a Florida fan who also loves the Twolves but I think in alot of circles Nick Calathes is getting over looked. If the TWolves could get Calathes later in the draft, by trading up or by seeing him slide, I believe this would be a better value than Rose early in the draft. I know he averages 3tpg but realize none of the players on his team started last year and he is still getting them shots. Also I would rather he stay in college another year and see Florida win another title or two.
Also, I think Brewer needs to be on a competitive team if he is going to become better. He just doesn't seem as into the game when the Twolves start to get behind. Yet, I do like how he crashes the boards every play.
Nice call on Calathes. He's one of the smartest freshman players I have ever seen and I think he'd be a fantastic compliment to Bassy a few years down the line. He's a bit undersized a'la Brewer but he's one of those guys that just sees the game a few plays ahead of the action.
This team needs to continue what it is doing...losing. Perhaps it is tough as a fan to see your team lose night after night, but that is what is best for the wolves this season. Wittman may tinker with line-ups without the final result in mind. I know that sounds like they are tanking, but in reality the wolves are just experimenting with various combinations. Would fans rather have the wolves win 15 more games by pulling out all the stops to win these last 8 weeks? No. Wittman's job is much like Doc Rivers was last year, experiment and don't worry about Ws and Ls. It is ironic since Wittman inherited much of Doc's team.
The Wolves overcame one onslaught in the third - resiliency for the home squad that was great to see. The fourth quarter was another matter all together.
A moment's thoughts on Craig Smith: Through three, the Rhino seemed very effective at both ends. A double spin move he made in the paint just about took my breath away and his defense was good as Britt mentioned.
Smith is a hustle-guy and it paid off...that is until the other team took their hustle up a notch in the fourth. When crunch time came, Smith became an undersized, overmatched front line player. He had three fourth quarter shot attempts, each within six feet of the basket and each in traffic. With the Mavs playing like it mattered, Smith could not get the job done. As much as I like Smitty, I question whether he can be a Top 8 building block for this team.
Britt-
Nice article today, I was discouraged with the play of Foye on both sides of the court when he was in the game. I thought you made good points calling Foye a combo guard and Jefferson a combo big man.
I chuckle about the angst expressed by fans over the "tweeners". Unlike college ball, the NBA is not about position - its about athletes and skill sets. You need a creator, a ball distributor, a physical presence, etc. Now it would be easier for the coach if the distributor was the point, the physical presence was the 5, and so on. But there are very few NBA teams that look exactly like that. It's all about mixing and matching.
Which brings me to my point - mixing and matching skill sets is not Wittman's strong suit. To hear him decry the lack of 4th quarter ball movement, when he had:
Foye (well discussed struggle with ball movement)
McCants (much worse than Foye)
Smith (who is really becoming a black hole - 6 assists in 195 min in February)
Ratliff (0.6 career assist average)
Jaric (finally, one person who moves the ball)
makes me wonder if Wittman really has figured out the skill sets that he has on this team.
The first quarter featured some of the most fluid ball movement I have seen this season which resulted in some very high percentage shots which we made. The second quarter featured some of the worse ball movement I've seen which was compensated for by some unbelievable low percentage shots that just happened to sneak in (Smith on the baseline anyone?) The scoreboard result was the same - tied at the end of the 1st tied at the end of the 2nd.
I think our odds of success would be far greater repeating the 1st period process rather than the 2nd. But does Wittman realize the difference in how the exact same result (24 pts each quarter) was produced? I have to wonder because Wittman NEVER got the starting lineup back on the floor in the 4th quarter, the lineup that moved the ball so well, yet in the end complains about the lack of ball movement. Kettle let me introduce you to the pot.
This is a season to figure out pieces of the puzzle to see what is missing. I become more and more concerned that Wittman is not the one to figure it out.
I don't see Jefferson as a "tweener" or combo player. He is a classic low post power forward. Period. The fact that he is being played out of position does not make him a tweener.
I agree that right now Foye is a combo guard. As I've said in the past, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. As to Foye never being able to play point guard full time, let's not forget the lessons of Chauncey Billups. Boston and Denver both gave up on him because he was thought of as a combo guard (did not average more than 4 assists until his 7th season), but now he is an all star point guard who can distribute (though he still is shoot first).
Krush--
Foye defenders are well served comparing him to Billups. I don't think he'll ever have the handle Billups has, but on the other hand we saw last year that he could get to the hole better than early and late career Billups (there were a couple years where Chauncey could penetrate well).
More to the point, I remember Billups when he was here; endorsed letting him go to Detroit, and had some of the same reservations about him then that I have of Foye now. That doesn't mean Foye will blossom like Billups did, but the body types are very similar, the attitude (Mr. Big Shot) comparable, and the glimpses of greatness (Billups had his stellar moments early on as well) kind of familiar...
I try to stay pretty reserved on my Foye judgements at this point, he's had what.. maybe ten games under his belt this season? After ten games to start the season many of us were ready to give up on Telfair and Gomes as well. But just as Ryan and Sebastian have shown, things can change rather quickly in the NBA. Randy Foye was selfish when he took it upon himself to win the game against the Spurs, and is now rightfully being criticized. Had he however made the game-deciding basket that night, he would no doubt be known to us all again as "4th quarter Foye."
And on the whole Chauncey Billups thing, which Foye defenders always bring up, I thought it could be interesting to note that even Chauncey himself may see similarities between himself and Randy. During one of those FSN games that Foye helped commentate he told the story of how in his first season in a game against the Pistons Billups came up to him and told him he was going to make it big in this league (or something to that effect) and that he gained a lot of confidence from that.
I liked Foye last season, but this season no not so much. But if he starts knockin' down just one or two game winners (since nobody has) I know I wont be the only one right back on his bandwagon.
Good point PMAC,
I think a lot of the current frustration (at least mine) with Foye is that he is being force fed minutes at the starting 2. As a combo guard we should be easing him back into the flow as a backup PG and backup SG. This is probably his ideal role until he improves his play-making abilities enough to become a starting point.
Let him find his way and earn his minutes, rather than just handing him the keys and expecting that he is going to hit big shots.
Rick and JaF--
You're both right in that combos or tweeners or whatever are unwieldy and thus more difficult to tongue-in-groove when assembling a roster, but perfect fits are an illusion anyway.
Where I side with Rick (not surprisingly, since he was siding with me) is when you have two foundation positions--a floor general and a big man-- that are both slightly askew, and, in the case of Jefferson and Foye, the ones designated to be your cornerstones. Yeah, they can be a 2 and a 4, but if you pair them with another 2-like and 4-like player, it isn't going to be a great team. I mean, Phoenix was getting by just fine without a bona fide 5 and ditto Dallas without a bona fide 1, but both Kerr and Cuban had the impulse to "upgrade." That's what tweeners/combos will do to you.
I think part of the uncertainty with the tweeners is that Wittman is a crappy coach. He should go. Who knows, maybe Roy would be sucking if he was here and not in Portland, where a decent coach holds court. There's no rhyme or reason to anything these fools do.
I found the following line very telling from your post, regarding finding a worthy partner for Jefferson:
"Yet an increasingly vexing problem as the season has progressed has been finding him a worthy partner, a relatively potent and consistent player who can score and dish on the perimeter to create space and synergize the offense."
So, after all the sturm and drang of finding worthy partners for Garnett, we seem to be heading back to square one, right where we started. Maybe we need to find a style of play, then, go find players who can deliver that style of play - rather than continually tinkering with inconsistent "pieces" and trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle.
I think you hit the nail on the head about how Foye's injury is going to prevent them from a clear-headed decision (if one is possible with this bunch) on the guy's game. Aside from clearing salary and collecting ping-pong balls, the 2 main goals of this team were to, as you mentioned, 1- find out who among the Celts group could hang and ball, and 2- is Foye a legit point and is McCants a legit 2 and can you walk them out on the court together?
Here's a Canis Hoopus link from November (just after Lebron came to town):
http://tinyurl.com/3bnlfu
In it I list the goals for a successful season. Here's #3:
"Foye vs. McCants (and Brewer). For all that has been said about the Wolves’ past 3 drafts, I think a case could be made that taken together, they have compounded the team’s terrible situation and stunted future growth. The Wolves have drafted, in 3 consecutive years, 3 ‘tweeners; players without an NBA position to call their own.
...
The Wolves absolutely need to know if Foye can man the point, and if not, whether or not Foye or McCants can be a starting 2 in the Association. I have a strong feeling that Brewer is smart and talented enough to make it work and that Foye does belong in an NBA starting lineup; what I—and the Wolves—don’t know is where these young men should line up on the court."
They're not going to get these answers. Not only for Foye and McCants, but for Brewer as well. It's not just that they can't find a decent 2nd option for Big Al, they simply can't exist on the same court together.
Jerry Zgoda had a really good argument for taking Derrick Rose:
http://nc.startribune.com/blogs/wolves/?p=76
"If Rose is indeed the second best player available in the draft, you have to take him if you have that pick, even if, say, the Wolves’ already have Randy Foye, Sebastian Telfair, etc., and their bigger need is height. Most teams who draft for size and need almost always regret it: Remember when Atlanta added Marvin Williams to an already sizable collection of forwards and bypassed both Deron Williams and Chris Paul?"
...that's the best one I've seen and it's hard to argue against. The only comeback is that definite answers to the Foye/McCants questions would have to be answered and acted upon before taking on a player that looks to be everything both of these peas-in-a-pod were supposed to be in one player and then some. Will they have enough info to answer the questions in lieu of injury? I personally think they'll have enough info but they'll balk on the action end of things. There's no way they're folding up the Foye tent after what happened around him in the draft.
After seeing Rose in the last 4 minutes Saturday night, I agree with Zgoda. Connecting it to the idea of matching up different skills on the court at the same time, he has the skills that match up with different players. He was creating open looks for his teammates in transition and half court because of his speed, quickness, court vision, and decision making. On defense, he was getting his hands in the passing lane, creating turnovers even though his guy wasn't in the play, and pushing the ball up the court. He also showed a good shooting stroke. He has things to work on, but he looked fast and explosive, and he seems to have a long wingspan and good strength at 6-3. Maybe as important as anything was that UT was doubling him a lot on his forays to the hoop, despite where's he's at as a scorer right now, and he was still able to find an open teammate. It seemed like he knew who would be rotating where and which teammate would be the most open.
As far as the Foye/McCants thing, I'm just hoping that, if Rose is available, McHale remembers what he did 13 years ago, when he picked KG despite having Laettner and Googs on the roster as forwards and Rider and West both getting minutes at SF. I'm not saying Rose is going to be as good as KG, but if a guy brings something to the table that potentially could take the team to the next level, the team should make room for that player. If they wanted to, they could always take size with one of their 2nd-rounders or package them together to move into the 1st.
He'd be great. Now we just need him to leave school early and get a Top 2 pick. If we get our usual lotto luck, maybe one of the current guards and our pick will get shipped to move up. Lots of uncertainty remains.
Lawrence Frank of the Nets had an interesting comment on Saturday night. He said that players--once they get the ball--have two seconds to make a decision...shoot, pass, attack the rim. If a player hangs on to the ball any longer than that without making that decision they are a ball stopper. Based on that theorem, McCants is certainly a ball stopper. Foye also seems to be headed in that direction. Both of them are afflicted with the dreaded Alpha disease. All that would be left is to try and mark Target Center as their territory.
JKidd was masterful, but the more I think about it, this one's on Wittman. For example, they come out of halftime, and start laying bricks on the court with their jump shots. Why? Must be because they shot 59 percent in the first half. Where's the time out to get their heads back into the game? It seems like Foye got pulled because Terry beat him down the court for a transition layup. That's the extent of his disciplinary acumen.
Another game with a foul disparity. I know these guys aren't good defenders, but Wittman shows increasingly the same attitude as our dearly departed Dwayne Casey: never stand up for your players. Another game with under 20 team assists. Where's the playing time reward system for those who move the ball? Of course they're young, but only one or two folks seem to be progressing, the rest are inconsistent.
Since inconsistency got another coach fired here, how long of a tenure does Wittman have? Or, is the criteria now totally different?
McCants needs work on this consistency and ball movement tendencies, but isn't it clear to everyone that he is our second most talented player?
I don't know if he will ever become an all-star caliber player, but I do know that he and Jefferson are the only guys with the ability to become all-stars.
I'll admit, he can be frustrating, but he's still a young player. He's already improved enormously since his rookie year. I am dumbfounded that so many people on this blog have written him off, yet heap praise on guys like Ryan Gomes and Corey Brewer (nice players indeed, but career role players is their destiny).
RL -
It's clear to me he's the second most talented player on an 11 win team, and the gap between him and Jefferson is huge. What does that mean? For me, it means that either he has to get a LOT better, or we need much more talent on this team. I am dumbfounded over your dumbfoundedness, which I don't think is an actual word, but I'll go with it. I think the point McCants detractors like myself have made all along is that sure he's young, but other than wanting the rock, stopping all ball movement, and shooting, what other part of his game is showing improvement? Defense? Nope. Passing? Occasionally, but rare. Chemistry? How many times have we seen him pout in the last six weeks?
Since the beginning of the year he has been saying he wanted to be a leader on this club. Well okay...LEAD then. The door is wide open, we're on the ground floor here. Make your teammates better for Jim Pete's sake. As I've said before, he's been on a championship club before, albeit in college. He ought to have a taste of what real leadership means on a basketball team. As a result, as compared to the dearly departed Gerald Green, I'm cutting him less slack. Believe me, it would be great if a McHale draft choice actually panned out in a major way, because as you say, he certainly has all the physical tools, it's the mental ones that seem to be seriously lacking.
I agree with that. Early in the season, before his first injury, he was happy to finally have the "green light." I think he dropped 30+ at least once, and would have many more times if Wittman hadn't quickly changed that light to more of a yellow, as well as cut his minutes. PW is right about the "ball stopper" tag, but you could equally call him a "points machine" like Britt in his column. It's odd that McCants isn't the guy with the great 4th Quarter reputation, since his one-on-one skillset seems well-suited for those end-game situations. Maybe it'll happen in time. The only thing that really frustrates me with Shaddy, though, is the stupid fouls outcourt. I missed yesterday's game, but saw that he had 4 fouls, so I'd guess a couple were overaggressive handchecks 20+ feet from the basket. He has the intensity/effort level, but needs to channel it with better defensive awareness.
The stupid reach in fouls and the "ball stopping" are two very clear areas for improvement in Shaddy's game. But, these are pretty fixable right? Move you feet more, quit gambling, and swing the ball if you don't see a shot/lane/interior pass. Is there any reason to think McCants can't improve these areas?
Look at the guy's positives...nice shooting stroke out to three, great first step with strength and agility to finish around the hoop, decent two guard size when you consider his long arms and muscular build, drastically improved handle and passing.
Like I said..I get frustrated with him as well. But how can anyone deny his talent and potential? Trading his known abilities and known upside for anything less than a very solid big man or top five pick is lunacy.
Again, I agree. I flip-flop between thinking he's going to be a good starting 2 or 6th-man, but in either case, an impact player. After watching enough teams this year that don't have one, you begin to appreciate a guy that can just fill it up in a hurry. I think his "ball-stopping" would be lessened considerably if he played with a bigtime point guard that handled the ball for most of the non-AJ Post up-possessions. As for stupid fouls, they would seem to be a lot more curable than, say, Gerald Green's lack of passion & intensity.
I'm really waiting for the Casey vs. Witt explanation from Taylor via Grandpa Sid. Today Grandpa Sid ran a Taylor quote that said something to the effect of "oh yeah, we really weren't going to be players in free agency this year anyway." Sid was all too happy to run this poke in the eye after the trading deadline and with Theo's deal still on the books. Think about this comment: for months and months local sports personalities have been talking about how Ratliff's money off the books would give the squad options in free agency. Now that Ratliff's money can come off the books without a trade, we're told that it really can't be spent on free agency anyway. Of course, this was something that was plain as day to anyone with access to The Google but yet...the fans are treated to yet another stunning display of arrogance by an 11 win franchise. Peter, you're right about this being the most arrogant crappy team of all time.
Wow, I am not sure what you mean by arrogance, I see good business practice. Theo's contract coming off the books will help make to pay for Al's extension due next year, and keep this team under the luxury tax. RIght now, that is what the bottom line for the Wolves is about- being over the luxury tax and rebuilding is absolutely poor business practice, which is what has happened lately.
When it comes to running a basketball team there is more to things than simply looking at whether one can resign ones players to reasonable extensions. It is whether one can resign players and keep under the luxury tax, otherwise you may have a franchise doomed to Knickdom.
I know what the expiring contract does. I have no problem with them saving money and spreading out the contract dollars over re-signings and whatnot. The arrogance comes from pretending otherwise before the trade deadline while peddling the "it will give us more options (wink..in free agency...wink)" line and then finally telling everyone after the deadline "oh yeah, we weren't going to spend that money in free agency anyway." That's arrogant. Either have some consistency and tell people before the deadline that Ratliff's money is already spent (on 11-win talent no less) or just tell everyone that the money can't be spent because they're losing money left and right. It's not like this was a secret. It was available to anyone with internet access to figure out. The arrogance comes from believing otherwise and having to run interference through Grandpa Sid in hopes that people don't put 2 and 2 together.
I couldn't disagree more with the rest of what you have to say. The Blazers are over the luxury mark by doing exactly what the Wolves should have done: use their big contracts to operate over the cap in a 1-2 year window in order to bring on additional assets. The only reason this club has to worry about going over the luxury mark in the first place is because of self-inflicted wounds a'la T-Hud and Howard. *That's* the bad business practice. That's absolute garbage about dooming the franchise to Knickdom. It has nothing to do with the reasons you cite.
What does this good business practice buy? Craig Smith at $4 mil/year? Anonymous front court player at the mid-level exception? Re-signing Bassy at $3 mil? There goes Ratliff's money for the same team that is parked at 11 wins. If this is simply a monetary equation, fine. But the team shouldn't pretend that Ratliff's expiring deal does anything more than save Glen's wallet and extend the status quo of an 11 win squad. Here's Glen via Grandpa Sid from just after the KG deal:
"Taylor said there are no plans to spend money to sign free agents this year even though Garnett's big salary is off the books and that he will seek to trade more veterans to free up salary for 2008-09. The Wolves were fifth in the NBA in total payroll last year."
...in interviews elsewhere it was implicit that Ratliff's deal would provide the Wolves with free-agency options. This was pimped to such a degree that it became a talking point in local sports talk radio (see PA & Dubay for the biggest example). They can't have it both ways and not be called arrogant for believing fans will swallow it without question.
I believe the Wolves have been up front from the beginning they said FA options, which means their own FA's too. Also they are lined up to get cap room in a couple of years.
The Blazers are over the luxury tax because John Nash messed up rebuilding the first time by signing Zach Randolph and Darius Miles to large contracts. This is simply a situation in which Paul Allen is paying the piper, and Steve Francis for his own mistakes.
I think it is very easy to be an capologist and a GM expert when you are playing with someone else's money. However, when it is your own money that makes a difference it is huge thing. The NBA is the least friendly league for rebuilding teams because of the trading restrictions.
It is in quite common parlance that after trading the star player it takes a couple of years to get cap room lined up for a FA signing. Let your core grow and then target a FA that can really help, unlike what the Cavs did when they went on their spending spree for LeBrons supporting cast. As for Sid, do you think he really understands the ins and outs of the cap? The idea of having a young team is to allow them to grow and have growth from within. However, fans get impatient with the process far too often, in my opinion.
I respect that opinion. Since the internets can be a place where intent is a bit hard to judge, none of what I'm saying is directed at you personally or in anger. I'm actually quite amused by what I believe to be the team's arrogance.
The Blazers also got trade exceptions and draft picks in the transactions you cite. They were able to do what they did by taking bad decisions and getting something in return for them...not just letting them expire. There was always something in return. I'll try to dig up the link, but there was a quote from Kevin Pritchard about the value of operating over the cap in a short term situation. I think it was in the NY Times but I could be wrong. It was on the APBR board a while back.
I disagree about the FA comments. At the time of the KG deal, the benefits were compartmentalized: players, draft picks, and free agent money. If they want to boil this down to a semantic argument about their own free agents a'la Gomes, Bassy, and the Rhino, then, to me, that's even more arrogant than pretending that Ratliff's money wasn't just going to save Glen from the salary cap in the first place. Again, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them acting otherwise and Grandpa Sid's shoddy journalism.
For your last point, I'll draw an analogy to the Iraq War. If things are going bad from the get-go, and there are people pointing out that things are wrong from the get-go, it is hardly impatience when the things that are going wrong are pointed out as predicted from said get-go. In other words: Randy Foye = WMDs. There, how about that for confusing and controversial analogies :)
Again, I respect your opinion on this and I don't want you to think that this is directed at you.
It should be noted that Sid is not, and to my knowledge has never been, a journalist in the true sense of the word. He's a columnist with a lot of connections. He spends most of his time kissing a few key asses and being a total jerk to most everyone else. I've been told by insiders that much of what lands in his column is printed word-for-word as it was handed to him by PR people from the Wolves, Wild, Vikings and U of M. The rest is spoken into a tape recorder and thrown at a Strib intern to type.
I can only say one thing for him: His readers are loyal.
I get that he's not a journalist, but he still writes at the area's big paper. I know he's there for the rolodex but he's the sports page's Katherine Kersten (or she's the Metro's Sid): a lazy writer who sticks to a very predictable line and for whom things like research and nuance are forbidden fruit. I suppose it's the ultimate example of how political and sports coverage mirror one another anymore, but it's still frustrating to have to read. Kate Parry fired a shot or 2 across the bow of SS Sid while she was the Readers' Rep, but it doesn't seem to have done much good and he's still doing what he's always done. At some level, his coverage (and that of the mini-Sids on the good neighbor, AM1500, and KFAN) is corrosive and detrimental to legit journalistic coverage of the local sports teams. That's why this site is so refreshing. It's like HL Mencken to Bill O'Reilly.
I know it's a little late to chime in on this thread, but you all know who is available this summer, right? (hint: click name)
I just hope those of you who complain about the albatross contracts we've dealt with over the past couple of years realize it will take another just like it to draw a free agent to an 11-win team in MN, especially if they are restricted. As for unrestricted FAs, which on this list will be worth it? Pietrus, Ratliff, Jamison, Najera, Arroyo, and Duhon are the biggest "impact" players (in that order).
Not to troll, just wondering who you all would like us to go after...the FA list in '09 will be much better, so why not shake things out for another year and go for a better fit, rather than overpaying in '08 for talent?
My beef isn't that they're not going to be able to go after free agents this year. I've always said that was out of the realm of possibility barring some sort of salary clearing miracle/trade. My issue is that before the trade deadline the team billed Ratliff's expiring contract as allowing them to have additional options (wink, wink free agents) and then after the deadline the options suddenly became...well, they'll likely overpay Smith, re-sign Gomes and Telfair and spring on a mid-level forward/center. In other words, the additional options are pieces already in place (with free agent restrictions) on an 11-win squad. It's not like Ratliff's deal couldn't have been turned into the exact same thing the team will have to spring for in the offseason...plus a pick. Anyone with a computer and internet access knew this club was up against the wall in free agency this off-season with or without Ratliff's deal. For the team to pretend that any options existed other than moving Ratliff's deal to maintain a $60-65 mil salary structure, gain a pick, and pay a 10-15% premium on the types of players they are going to have to sign anyway is kind of crazy. Theo's $11 million is, was, and always will be out the door. There never were any options in just letting him expire other than to maintain the status quo of an 11 win club. An example I had a while back was Theo, Smith, Shaddy, the Heat's 1st and 2nd rounders to the Grizz for Darko, Cardinal, Lowry, and the Grizz's 1st pick. The club could then not re-sign Bassy and take a 1-2 year minimum hit on the cap while not having to extend 3-4 year deals to patchwork frontcourt players because Darko and waste-of-space both only have 2 years left. You end up paying a $2-3 mil premium on the players you get in return but you fill the same needs while adding what you need the most: another high draft pick. Kind of pie in the sky but there were numerous clubs with 1 or 2 bad frontcourt contracts that could have given the Wolves a similar return.
And just for kicks and giggles, I've long said that if the salary clearing miracle could happen, Josh Smith is far and away the stud of this free agent class....although he is restricted. I'm also of the belief that you can't build a team via free agency. Free agents supplement your internal talent and should consist of priced-to-move vets.
I understand your points, but I think that when referring to the option of using Theo to potentially get better via trades, there's also the option of keeping our contractual obligations reasonable, and that's the route Taylor has chosen to take. Considering the money he has spent on mediocre ballclubs during the KG era, I think this is understandable.
Entering the 2009-10 season, the Wolves have contracts totaling $25 million. Yes, this is before we sign our most important role players (Smith and Gomes). Taylor saves a boatload of money in this non-deal - he refuses to spend money on guys that "might" help us. From an ownership position, do you want to pay $0 for an expiring contract next year, or $30 million over two years on unproven Milicic and unskilled Cardinal? I'm a Lowry fan, so I do like that part of your trade, but the medium-term cost is too high. Teams that are willing to let those contracts expire just have more flexibility, or else they end up being called the Knicks.
Looking longer term, I like some of our core guys (Al, Smith, and Gomes, in that order). Heck, even Foye, Bassy, and Richard could have future roles with this team. But for all of McHale's flaws, I'd rather see him build a team around guys he really wants, rather than let expiring contracts dictate the teams we talk to and the players we go after.
Fair points. As Kate pointed out above, I know it's not my money so it's a lot easier to be cavalier about things, but I'd much rather be at $65 than $55 for the next 2 years. There is no flexibility in being a team just at or just below the cap. Big contracts allow for sign and trades and trades to contenders. The Wolves are slated to have around $15 million in cap space in the 2009-10 season with 8 contracts (including partial options with Walker and Buckner). Without those 2 (who likely won't be there), the team is looking at about $28 mil under the cap with 6 players. We can add in a top pick ($4 mil), a mid 1st ($2 mil), a mid-level exception from next year ($4 mil), 2 minimum-style contracts for the 2nd rounders ($2 mil), and one more late 1st rounder ($1 mil) which would bring them all the way back down to $15 mil with 12 players. This doesn't include re-signings of current players, extensions to current players, etc. All-in-all they're looking at probably $8 million to burn in 09, with the number declining each year after that. With large expiring deals, the team can address personnel gaps with trades with more certainty and flexibility than they could hoping to compete in the 09 free agent market (which will be insane). Ratliff's deal, Toine's deal, and the hypothetical Cardinal/Darko deals all bring aboard assets that are worth more than what the club will likely have to deal with in free agency when they finally get their crack at the market.
Also, Darko and waste-of-space have 2 years left at a combined $26 mil for the length of the contract. Should Smith be resigned at $4 for 4 years and a mid level gets $4 for 3, we're talking more money over the length of the deal anyway, further reducing the options of the club by re-signing role players on a 12 win squad (nice victory last night).
Oh well, it's water under the bridge at this point. Here's hoping they can improve on their past draft performances.
First of all, I totally screwed up on that $25 mil number I quoted last night - I just glanced at hoopshype and subtracted team option players, which they had already conveniently done for me!
I know as diehard fans we'd like to see the best product on the court we can possibly have, but making moves just to make them isn't going to put fans in seats. And you're right - it's a tough judgment call when we're talking about other people's money, especially when we're talking about ridiculous amounts I can't really fathom.
Hey SnP and Peter, you're forgetting that we will most assuredly need that 11 million to sign our tweeners to contract extensions. Someone has to replace the contract albatross of the departed Hudson and Blount. It just wouldn't be the T'wolves if we were only fighting a lack of talent; when is the last time we've had money to play with.
Does Foye still have a chance to blossom? Telfair is a pleasant surprise and McCants would be the ideal backup to a starting shooting guard, but the key is Foye. Either he's the second coming of Dwayne Wade, as the Ostrich envisioned, or we are SOL. Can we do over the 2006 draft and keep Brandon Roy?
The other key question to me is the development of Brewer. He really needs to develop two things; his shot and his body.