Copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by David Sherman/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #59, Home Game #32: Charlotte 109, Minnesota 89
Season Record: 12-47
1. Getting the Message
It is just early March, with more than a fourth of the season's games still to play, but the Minnesota Timberwolves are counting ping pong balls a lot more assiduously than they are counting victories.
Is the team "tanking"? No, not in the blatant, Mark Madsen will chuck up three pointers, or Kevin Garnett will suffer an injury sort of way. But the situation feels uncomfortably similar to this stretch of the season last year, when it became pretty obvious that the best five-man team the Wolves could put on the floor was KG and a bunch of young kids, yet Randy Wittman and the front office stubbornly played the stinking vets like Mark Blount and Ricky Davis with Garnett, all the while trying to convince would-be ticket-buyers that there was a "Blueprint" in the offing that would spell wins down the road. It just so happened that part of that blueprint was losing enough games to keep the draft pick instead of sending it to the Clippers.
Flash forward to this season. The Wolves have just lost consecutive home games to a Seattle squad that had won just 15 games all season, and now a Charlotte team that had lost nine in a row on the road and triumphed only once--in overtime, yet--in the entire month of February. In both games, Minnesota played quarter-assed defense (half assed is too much praise) and didn't step up when it mattered most. In the postgame press conference Wittman stated the obvious: "Tonight we tried to have a nonaggression pact with the other team...it was happening from the first play of the game to the last play of the game...I think we are worrying too much about what is happening at the offensive end and not enough about what is happening on defnese...we had 3 free throws and 2 offensive rebounds in the second half--that's nonaggression.
All true. But the part that perked up my ears was when Wittman mentioned, twice, at different points in his harangue, that Ryan Gomes was doing a noble job of fronting power forward Emeka Okafor, denying him the ball, and then--and here Wittman said it, twice--he went to his "big lineup" and the person on Okafor guarded him from behind and let him shoot. And that's when it hit me: The "big lineup" Wittman was criticizing to the inferred plaudits of Gomes and the "small lineup" consisted of Al Jefferson at center and Craig Smith at power forward. But that "big lineup" was the front line I was criticizing as a "small lineujp" earlier in the season before Wittman went smaller still with Jefferson at center and Gomes at power forward. And the reason it is now the de facto "big lineup" is because the Timberwolves braintrust thought it would be a good idea to cut Theo Ratliff loose.
If your idea is to be as competitive as possible and win as many games as possible, buying out the remainder of Ratliff's contract made absolutely no sense. If your idea is to groom Al Jefferson at his natural power forward position and get him used to playing with a defensive-oriented, shot-blocking man in the pivot who would be the perfect complement to Jefferson's skill set, than buying Ratliff out makes no sense. If your idea is to see how the existing centers who are either young and unproven (Chris Richard) or signed relatively long term (Mark Madsen) do paired with Jefferson, the buying out of Ratliff does have some logic--but obviously that is not the Wolves' intent. Richard got a whole 5:53 worth of burn tonight, bringing him up to 29:38 over the past six games--he played 25:17 in the December 14 game against Seattle alone. But even when the coaches deign to play Richard, it is almost always *replacing Jefferson at center*; the two rarely if ever play together. Meanwhile, Madsen hasn't played since a token appearance against Toronto February 10, which was ten games ago. And Michael Doleac has logged a grand 2:25 in the last six games.
If Wittman wanted this ballclub to care more about defense than offense, he should have kept Ratliff, who I daresay would have made Okafor think about turning and shooting even playing behind him. Ditto Doleac, and probably Madsen. Richard and Okafor were on the floor at the same time for less than two minutes tonight.
At the end of the exhibition season, I was genuinely looking forward to the time when the Wolves could trot out a front line of Ratliff, Jefferson and Corey Brewer; I remember writing at the time that it had the potential to be a very good defensive trio. I was also looking forward to a shared backcourt of Foye and McCants with that front line. Yes, Ratliff would have been gone next year anyway, but he would have provided some defensive stability and attention to that side of the ball this year; he would have hopefully helped develop a habit of talking to each other and taking pride in one's defense. I saw a team with Ratliff, Foye and Jefferson winning between 20 and 30 games. Now injuries certainly intervened. But it's funny; just when that unit had a chance to finally get together, the Wolves' braintrust pulled the plug and let Theo walk, saving owner Glen Taylor perhaps $3 or $4 million--and, not incidentally, putting them in a better position to let the likes of Seattle and Charlotte convert more than half their shots en route to road wins at Target Center.
"Let's build it together," is the new "Blueprint For the Future." It feels very familiar: A hard, aggressive public relations campaign while Theo gets his buyout and Antoine Walker--another vet who is highly respected in the locker room and has been a solid citizen up until the trade deadline, and is still straining to be a solid citizen now--sits in street clothes, spared the indignity of not having DNP-CD next to his name. But who's to say 'Toine couldn't have provided a spark tonight, spread the floor a little bit?
Don't think the players on the roster don't notice these things. The talk around the league is how the Lakers got Pau and the Mavs Kidd and the Suns Shaq. Then there are teams that are positioning themselves for next year. Minnesota is in the latter batch--for the third straight year. And for the third straight year, losing games means more to this squad than to most, because the difference is not just a better position in the ping-pong ball chase, it is the difference perhaps between having a pick and forking it over to the Clips.
Every year about this time, I get into long involved discussions with people who think it best to inadvertantly tank, by "playing the young kids," or simply figuring out ways to move up in the draft. I understand the logic of the argument. But I hew to a simpler logic: Fans who pay good money to watch a pro NBA team deserve to see a team that is doing whatever possible to win now and win later with the personnel they have. And everyone in the Wolves locker room knows that the personnel moves made in recent days--be it the dumping of Ratliff or the mothballing of Walker--are not about winning now or later with the current personnel. It is about making sure another high draft pick comes to this ballclub. That's not exactly a motivating force.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Theo Ratliff were still around and Antoine Walker was still getting some rotations that overall morale would be higher, and the defensive effort would be more rugged. I get the math of the draft picks. I get the "we'll see who really wants to step up and play these last few weeks of the season," speech. But when Glen Taylor goes on television and talks about how much more fun this season has been than the last two, because you can really see how the young kids are coming together and how there is a plan in place and how the future is brighter--well, some of that is true and some of that is fairly intolerable bullshit. This team is currently playing uninspired, demoralized basketball--they just handed a game to the pathetic Sonics and got impudently spanked by a team that couldn't beat anybody in regulation during the entire month of February--you know, the month that ended four days ago. It's not fun. It feels a hell of a lot like the previous two years, when it was hard to tell which was worse: If the front office knew what it was doing or if it didn't. It's a Twilight Zone, and that's exactly how the players are responding to it.
2. Muddied Waters
Meanwhile, the jury is out on exactly how meaningful these last six weeks are going to be. Let me offer a few examples.
Point guard: The competition is between Randy Foye and Sebastian Telfair. The recent plan has been to start them both in the same undersized backcourt and then go "big" by swapping Bassy out for a bigger player than kicks Foye over to the point. Management obviously would prefer that Foye blossom into a quality point guard and settle the matter, consigning Telfair to back-up point status and enabling Rashad McCants to glide in as sixth man and shooting guard, or bump Corey Brewer back to the 2 when the Wolves really do want to go "big."
If this really is about players stepping up and making claims for their time, no favorites considered, then Telfair is doing his part. Wolves fans don't even blink twice when they read a line like Bassy's 9/1 assist to turnover ratio tonight. He's got 141 assists versus just 33 turnovers in his last 22 games. The knock, of course, is that he is an unreliable shooter.
But Telfair is ever so slowly but surely improving that facet of his game. Tonight he sank 6-11 FG for 12 points, the 7th time in 10 games he's cracked double figures, despite having his minutes cut some since Foye's return. More significantly, he's begun stroking the j without mentally checking himself, a crucial confidence threshold that he needs to maintain to have any shot at becoming a bona fide point guard in this league. Tonight in the second quarter he clanked a wide open look from about 13 feet, and had the ball bounce right back out to him. The Bassy of earlier this season would have looked around for a pass and, if not seeing one, brought the ball back out to set up a play. Tonight he got the rebound and realized he was in the exact same position as before--wide open for a 13 footer. After the quickest of glances to see if anyone was cutting for the hoop, he rose up and stuck the jumper. In the third quarter, a double-teamed Jefferson dished it out to him and Telfair nailed the jumper (inexplicably, no assist for Jefferson). Then there was the play where Bassy came down, did a quick dribble between his legs, faded right and sank a long two-pointer. And the play where Telfair sped down the court looking for a fast break, only to have no one keeping up. Finally, he hit the trailer Smith, who promptly dished it right back to him. Open again, Telfair let it fly--swish. All of which led to a play in the fourth where the ball went out to Telfair and Charlotte's perimeter D started to close out on him. Telfair promptly zipped a pass to Smith beneath the hoop for a layup.
As has been true for the past couple weeks, Foye was more inconsistent, alternately better and worse than his competitor. Tonight he came out smokin' with 9 points and 4 assists in the first quarter, including some midrange penetration that often yields his running banker on the right lane. He followed that up with 1-1 FG but two turnovers in 5:59 of the second period, then a gruesome second half in which he went 2-5 FG but produced zero assists and two more turnovers, plus 5 personal fouls, in 14:39. The Randy Foye of the 1st quarter deserves the starting point guard position. The Randy Foye who has a 0/4 assist to turnover ratio and 5 fouls in the last three periods must be given the "injuries take time to heal" waiver because the Wolves invested a lot in him both in terms of his draft position and his being acquired for the reigning rookie and the year and current All Star, Brandon Roy. It also of no small concern that both Telfair and Foye were just awful on defense, along with just about every member of the ballclub.
Power forward not named Jefferson. With Walker bumped aside, the meaningful competitors are Craig Smith and Ryan Gomes. I've always felt like the Rhino is easy to overestimate because he's the archtypal gritty underdog people love to root for as an undersized second-round draft pick with an uncanny knack for scoring in the paint. Consequently, I've probably underestimated him this season. He and Gomes share a proclivity for occasional breakout games--they are two of three Wolves to have scored 35 or more this season--and more frequent disappearances. But lately he's had another boomlet, and what's especially pleasant to see is how much he is moving without the ball, making him an excellent partner for Telfair--and, increasingly, Jefferson, who is looking for him near the hoop as often as he looks to the perimeter when the double coverage comes. The other things that distinguish Smith are superb hands--that aforementioned bullet pass from Telfair was partially screened by defenders and not an easy catch--and a knack for footwork and body control that create space versus taller opponents, which, along with a nice touch with the arc, gets him hoops that are improbable to say the least.
Smith is not a very good defender, however, with an admirable frequency but low success rate at attempting to draw charges, and a 'tweener curse that makes him too short versus large power forwards and too slow versus quick power forwards.
Gomes is a more versatile glue guy, and not just because he can play the 3 too. He has more range on his jumper (but is less accurate than Smith overall), and is a better passer ('tho Smith is improving), dribbler, and defender. Wittman's comments about the defensing of Okafor tonight notwithstanding, however, Smith generally is better able to guard low-post oriented players, and so if Minnesota truly wants Jefferson to be the center in their future, Smith's odds of being resigned in Minnesota go up. Another relative plus for Smith: He will be cheaper than Gomes.
Those are just two thumbnail comparison sketches, and what they dramatize for me is that the sample size remains incredibly small and there are so many contingencies that folks--probably including the front office--don't even know what the parmaters of comparison or the needs of the ballclub are going to be. A part of me yearns to see the same kind of decisive handicapping that had the Wolves not offer an extension to Gerald Green and then unload him at the trading deadline. They saved time by deciding that he was never going to be an answer. Rather than give Kirk Snyder all kinds of burn, or continue to fiddle with McCants/Foye/Telfair without a clear sense of what you are looking for(due top draft uncertainty, I understand), it would be nice to know what each player needs to accomplish or resolve in order to raise his stock. Hopefully, an emphasis on improving defensive prowess is on everyone's criteria list.
3. Sign of Progress
Let the record show that Jefferson had two assists to night--as I mentioned earlier, I saw three, perhaps even four. But for the first time this season I also saw something equally exciting for Wolves fans. When Jefferson was being double teamed in the fourth quater and the Wolves ran their bread and butter play with a baseline cutter going past Jefferson on the left block, he was able to create space for himself by feinting the pass, then spinning for a relatively uncontested layup. The better he can dish, the easier he can score. It was a rare optimistic moment.
A big man would definitely help, but I don't know about taking one with a top 10 pick (maybe Jordan but not Brook Lopez). What about DeSagana Diop? He's a UFA next year, and he plays for a NJ team that has a lot of frontcourt players (Krstic, Williams, Boone, Nachbar). It's worth watching how much and how well he plays for the rest of the year, because that could indicate if his success was because of Avery Johnson and/or if the Nets want to bring him back. He deserves at least the mid-level exception, but if someone went above, he might even be worth that.
I took a little heat for my comment on the previous Three Pointer suggesting that the buyout of Ratliff seriously affected the motivation of the Wolves players. I'm feeling somewhat vindicated reading this one.
No one has mentioned the City Pages article last week featuring one Big Al Jefferson. The article seems to present the idea that Kevin McHale sees Al as the second coming of Kevin McHale. And also that Big Al has "grown up" being the big guy in the paint, seemingly single-handedly carrying his team (at least on offense) for better or worse. I believe I've mentioned the similarity of Big Al's game to McHale's. And perhaps now I could add a similarity in ego -- at least on the court.
But allow me to ponder whether it's ego or foolishness driving the Wolves GM these days.
Can the McHale's "blueprint" really be to build the Wolves around the concept of Jefferson at center, single-handedly carrying the team? Does McHale believe those Boston championships were due to his, um, prowess and that he didn't need a guy like Robert Parrish, or Larry Bird for that matter? How many of us seriously believe that Big Al is a genuine NBA centerpiece "5"? Yep, there's a few teams he can be competitive against, but in general, the quality starters in the league will expose this ploy as, well, foolishness.
Has McHale ever said he sees Jefferson as a center over the long haul?
If McHale sees Jefferson as the "second coming" of himself, he sees Jefferson as a PF who can play center when needed.
Paul (ikrushlots) wrote:
>> Has McHale ever said he sees Jefferson as a center over the long haul?
Chuckle. As far as I know, like any deity, McHale has yet to share his "blueprint" with us mere faithful mortals. But as another deity reportedly said a couple thousand years ago, "By their works ye shall know them".
>> If McHale sees Jefferson as the "second coming" of himself, he sees Jefferson as a PF who can play center when needed.
A certain deity who once resided in Boston went out and picked up guys like BIll Walton so that McHale wouldn't have to spell Parrish at center. That work was good enough to know another championship.
As I suspected, your original post was nothing more than imagining a scenario and making it sound factual.
Can anyone tell me why Beasley (and Durant for that matter) aren't the next Rashard Lewis? I would take Rose with the #1
rebouding .. and it's custom here to always use a handle, ty :)
Sorry, I was interrupted in the middle of my comment and forgot to put my name in...
Wasn't durant the top rebounder in college? He's not looking like even an average one now. I just don't see 6'10" SF's translating their insane college #'s into the pros...
Britt and posters do a great job of outlining the good and bad sides of tanking. On the one hand, dedicated fans get penalized by having to watch crap basketball for a sizable chunk of the season, and on the other, we keep ourselves in good position to land a top prospect for the future. While we have tanked the last two years, and this makes three, I consider this year to be part of a new era that needs--more than ever--to land a young superstar. Make no mistake, though--this is it for tanking/rebuilding. We've got plenty of talent to move up next year, and with one more stud added to an improved Brewer and McCants, we should only be satisfied with playoffs next year and beyond.
I guess I am a dedicated fan. I have been attending 10-12 games since 1989. I was at the game when Madsen, laughing all the way, threw up all of those 3 point attempts. It was insulting. I paid $180 for my 2 tix to watch that fiasco. I have since downgraded my tickets but I am still not interested in watching a "tanked game". I am not an investor. My purchase of tickets is for entertainment. The draft is not the only way to put a good product on the floor. Teaching, coaching, trading, and signing free agents are other alternatives. Looking at our list of #1 draft choices going back to the beginning of the franchise, provides me with little encouragement re the next #1 pick. Given the current mgmnt I guess I shouldn't put much hope in coaching, teaching, trading etc either. If the Wolves tank for the 3rd consecutive year maybe it is time to downgrade to my sofa and remote.
Good stuff as always Britt and fellow bloggers. I can't say it enough.
My first thought is regarding big men and the draft. I say you take the BEST player that's available when you draft. Don't draft on need solely, especially in the Wolves situation where they don't even know who plays what position yet, so how could they possibly know what they need?
If Rose is the best player available when we draft, take him. If Beasley is the Best, then take him. Don't move down to fill need.
Also, regarding big men in the draft. Was Adres Barn---(???) worth it? What about Andrew Bogut? Now look at Anderson Verajo or Louis Scola (sp on names??) Personally, I think the later 2 would work better with Jefferson than the former 2 and you didn't need to use a high draft pick for either.
Also, keep in mind how many teams passed up Josh Howard, or Tony Parker, Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd. Point is, keep your eyes open, do some beter scouting...
Now to Wittman...
I haven't nor will I back down that he is a terrible coach. He is not a good developer of talent. What's his overall record as a coach? Anyone? It's a losing record everywhere he has gone. He's failed. Remember last year? People said, "It's only fair to give him a full year". Now I hear, "It's unfair to judge him during a rebuilding time".. HELLO?! Isn't that ipso facto? If there's anytime to judge someone it's during this time. He has all the control to do things as he sees fit. It's his show, his time to show what he can do, how well he can mold a team, evaluate talent, make it all work. Folks... we have 12 wins. There are no "could have won a few games more ifs" we didn't. We lost. The points were totaled in fair manner and the results are loses. We are 12- 47, period. They don't have a column for "Almost won the game if only they had done xyz". They have a win and a loss column.
Britt, fellow blogers, help me out here on this one. Wittman took over at the mid point of the season last year. I'm not sure, but I think his win to loss ratio sucks more this year, even without the suspected tanking that happened last year. And saying we had a better team last year because of KG is null because I don't think KG played the last 8 games anyway-- correct me on that if you will, I'm not sure how many he was sat out.
Anyway, when will Wittman's record catch up with him? How many more years of cluelessness are we going to have to deal with? And when and if Wittman leaves, are we just going to have another country club member step in as coach, give a half ass job and then have the brain trust feed us more lines about trying to win now?
Thanks all for letting me rant. Peace-
Jesse,
Fair points about taking the best player available. Certainly a Beasley-Jefferson forward combo would be formidable.
I have to give McHale credit for turning Davis and Blount, into a first round pick (protected the next 2 years), and Walker's expiring contract next year. If the Wolves don't draft a big man, hopefully they will use Walker's contract to land a proven center to play alongside Jefferson.
Wittman has done an excellent job at losing games. Sad to say, this might be the best thing for the wolves to do this year.
Britt,
I too am getting a whiff of some indirect tanking beginning on this team. Probably more from Wittman's rotations than anything that the players are doing on the court. So, let me make a few comments on the draft since that appears what this team is targeting for the remainder of the season.
1. Wolves desperately need a big center. Both Jordan and Lopez are good options, especially if the ping pong balls don't work-out.
2. If the Wolves do happen to land a top 2 pick, do they take Beasley / Rose? Or, do they trade down for 2 lower 1st round draft picks and try to land both Jordan and Lopez and/or a guy like Anthony Randolph?
3. Should the team even consider taking a guard in the draft?
As you can probably tell, I think this team really needs some length to protect Jefferson and keep him at power forward. I'm actually okay with the backcourt as constructed. I see Foye and Bassy as good point guards, and McCants/Foye as sufficient scorers. If this team really wants to play "smash mouth" basketball, they need to draft some big front-line players.
Not really sure if it belongs here but I was just reading this little article: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/insider/columns/story?columnist... and it hit me...
Could it be they have been playing Jefferson at center this much to see if he could play Center in case they get to draft Beasly? They already know he's a very good PF but could they be testing him out to play center just because they're thinking of drafting Beasly? Or is that too far fetched?
Hmm, that could be. It would be stupid of them to make line-up decisions today to plan for the small chance they'll have the top pick — so it would fall in line with most of what they do there.
I think the better question is whether Beasley can play the three. I see no reason he can't play there while Al plays four, then slide over to the four spot based on the match-ups that allow Al to play the five.
He's athletic and tall enough to play multiple positions and has plenty of range to drift outside if need be. Put me in the camp that thinks the Wolves should jump at the chance to take Beasley. He'd be the second scorer they really need and would mask Telfair and Brewer's lead-touched shooting.
I thought I was the only person who thought Beasley could play the 3; glad to see I'm not alone. Telfair/Foye at 1, Brewer at the 2, Beasley at the 3, Big Al at the 4, 2ndroundcenter at 5, and McCants as the microwave off the bench. I could get excited for that.
I defenitly agree that I'd rather see Beasly at the 3 and Al at the 4, just hoping the mngmt things the same (if we ever get that nr 1 pick..)
As far as the idea that high draft picks are the best opportunities for superstars, here's a list of the "star" players from the teams with the 10 best records in the league, along with where they were drafted. I didn't have a big problem with tanking before, but after thinking about it, I don't see how it can be considered a good strategy.
Boston: Garnett (#5), Allen (#5), Pierce (#10)
Detroit: Billups (#3), Wallace (#4), Hamilton (#7)
San Antonio: Duncan (#1), Parker (#28), Ginobili (#57)
L.A. Lakers: Bryant (#13), Gasol (#3)
New Orleans: Paul (#4), Chandler (#2), West (#18)
Utah: Williams (#3), Boozer (#34), Okur (#37)
Phoenix: Nash (#15), Stoudemire (#8)
Houston: Yao (#1), McGrady (#9)
Dallas: Kidd (#2), Nowitzki (#9), Howard (#29)
Orlando: Howard (#1), Turkoglu (#16)
It looks like about half of the guys were top 5's, with about 2/3rds of those in the top 10. Over half of the players on this list have played for other teams or been part of a draft-day trade (the #3 pick used to take Williams was originally Portland's before Utah traded up).
What am I trying to say? High draft picks are more likely to be better players; however, a team doesn't need to have a top 5 pick or even draft a guy to be able to get them. Utah did it with cap space and trades; SA did it with scouting (and with tanking, in the case of Duncan); Phoenix, Dallas, and Detroit did it with style of play; and most of the teams on this list did it with the foresight of seeing a player who could be great. It's going to be as important for the team to do that as it is to stockpile high draft choices.
Britt,
Normal I agree with you whole heartedly, but I don't see "tanking". I see very ineffective coaching.
From a practical side, at this point in the season, the T-wolves would need to finish with 12-11 spurt just to get close to the dreaded #10 place in the lottery. With still many games against elite West and elite East (Orlando, Detroit x2) teams, we are not going to finish that way - with or without Theo/Walker. Our January swoon pretty much insured our pick this year. (By contrast, last year we were in no man's land all February and March, thus necessitating the "tank")
I hate being redundant, but Wittman was fired from his stint in Cleveland because he could not mix and match young and old pieces to form a cohesive unit. Has anyone seen any improvement in this ability in the 90+ games he has coached the T-wolves? Some recent examples:
Small ball starting lineup vs Seattle
Continued pairing of Smith and Jefferson during 4th qrt crunch time
No rotation - for example, in last 12 games, Brewer's minutes have been as low as 8 and as high as 39!
Getting team prepared - I hope to never, ever see such a quote as "I was easy on the guys" offered as an excuse for unprepared play.
At what point do we say, enough is enough. This is not about tanking, it is all about coaching competency. We are woefully short on that.
Plus, I get the distinct impression, that McHale has been told to get his nose out of the day to day team coaching. Working with individuals is OK. But I get the sense that he is no longer allowed to influence team strategy.
I think that is a mistake. McHale needs to impose his will on WIttman by clearly defining the roles (which means minutes) for the team. Just like he (or others?) did, and so rightly pointed out by Britt, with Gerald Green. Decide and move on. Someone has to - it sure isn't going to be Wittman.
I talked about roster at length in the last 3 pointer. Let me build from that with 2 decisions that I would make right now.
1- Sign Telfair immediately
3 to 4 year at $3-$4M/yr plus playing time incentive. I am convinced he can be a solid back up and will improve his shooting (as Britt pointed out). I also think this is a reasonable "market" value - above the vet minimum but below the mid level exception. It is basically picking up the qualifying offer and holding it for 3-4 years. I honestly don't think Telfair would see better. Plus, if he improved, he would be positioned for a huge contract at age 26. A risk reward situation that I feel he would sign for.
2- Sign Gomes immediately
Same offer. 2-3 years at $2-3 M/yr plus incentive. I support Britt's comments about his glue factor and his ability to compete at the 3/4 positions. This would be a significant raise for Gomes, which I would temper by shortening the contract length. Plus, I think Gomes could accept the 11/12 man role on the team should decisions be made that impact his playing time.
Doing this would clarify some roles, without necessarily pigeon holing any player / draft choice potential / option. It would also reduce a very real threat - with Telfair, Gomes, Smith and Snyder all having some type of free agent status - that we could find ourselves without any of these guys next year.
Well,
Since the Wolves have mailed it in I guess it is all draft from here.But first I would like to mention that over the past two games he has played, Brewer has had 15 points both times.
Ok my dream in the future....
1)We trade mcants and whatever else to get another pick, in the mid round.
2)We get the #1 pick in the lottery.
3)Nick Calathes decides to stay another year.
4) We draft Beasley and take a flier on a center later in the round, in my best dreams, this means we get Brook Lopez, and if his brother comes out ill take him in the second round(Robin is basically a young Ratliff).
5)We move Beasley to 3 man. Brewer to 2 and Foye to the point. Thus having. Foye/Brewer/Beasley/Jefferson/Lopez.
6) Florida wins championship and Calathes decides to come out.
7)Beasley dominates with 20ppg and 7rpg. Brewer kicks up to 12ppg. Jefferson gets even better as a 24/12 guy. Foye sucks. Lopez plays D and maybe gets double digits in scoring.
8) Miami sucks again but is good enough that we get their pick.
9) We draft Calathes. We win championships in a few years. Pretty much perfect.
hehe that sounds a bit too easy to just work like that doesn't it. Lets just see how Foye and Mccants perform the rest of season (especially Foye) and than maybe trade either one for a mid first round pick...
I've only seen Lopez play once and he's really nice, but he's pretty sure to be a top 10 pick (i.e. out of our reach)
Lopez will be top ten. I really would like Thabeet and maybe Robin Lopez. He looks like his brother but better at D and worse at O. Which is what we need. Two Centers might not be a bad idea seeing our lack of depth there.
Hell, bring on both of the brothers. Brook with the top pick and Robin with the top 2nd rounder. I read somewhere (I think SI) that they want to come out of college together. Robin's definitely the defensive shot blocker of the 2. Brook's offensive game isn't all that "big" if that makes sense. Thanks to FSN I've caught quite a few Pac 10 games this year and he's not your typical back-to-the-basket big man. He's got a decent mid-range game but looks to face his man rather than play with his back to the basket. I actually think Robin could be the better long-term player. He seems to be a bit more athletic and interested in being a solid glue guy. I think Robin would be a steal if they could get him in with one of the top 2nd rounders.
While I'm warming to Thabeet, I still wouldn't draft him in the 1st round with a 10 foot pole. The guy simply can't play man on man defense. It's almost embarrassing. They stick him in the middle of a zone defense and he swats everything that enters the lane, but when he has to track a single opponent he doesn't have a clue as to what to do with himself. DJ White abused him in man-on-man situations. Thabeet would literally float back to where he thought he should be in a zone and White would go right at the rim. It was even worse against Hibbert. I think at one point of the Indiana game, even Billy Packer said something to the effect of "who in the world is he guarding?" Plus, I think his hands are made out of cast iron pots.
At this point in the game, if the Wolves draft lower than 2nd, I think we fans need to start warming to the idea of Lopez or Hibbert...although trading down would be a decent idea.
I continue to love the take on Calathes. Here's another one to look out for: Anthony Randolph. He's a hybrid 3/4 in the NBA but his game reminds me a lot of Chris Bosh when he was in college. That being said, he would challenge Corey Brewer (and Calathes) for the "Skinny Man in the Weight Room" award. If he enters the draft, look for this kid to end up in the top 7. Thaddeus Young is another player that comes to mind when seeing this kid. Of course, he could be another Darius Miles (tap the headband).
If they trade down (or up from the 2 2nd rounders) they'll also be in the range of big 2's like CDR and Budinger. Budinger's another player that has really grown on me during the year. My only nagging doubt about the guy is wondering if he's a Sam Jacobsen to Jerryd Bayless' Bobby Jackson. I know that sounds like a lame white/black comparison but their games match up to a surprising extent. 6'6" athletic wingmen and undersized combo scoring guards.
I like you SnP. You like the same players I do. Its good.
Not only are your comments on Thabeet funny, they're true. The fact that's he's only been playing basketball for a few years now explains why he has those problems.
I'm hoping as GM's start to watch tape and get more into the guy they'll notice it and then he just might drop to 2nd round, where we can snatch him and give him some time to develop.
Don't forget about Deandre if we drop down to 3 and beyond, I'm not saying we should, but there's a good chance we will...
First time poster. Kudos to the site. It's almost more interesting than the games themselves. Two quick thoughts -- analogies, really. First, McCants seems to me to be nothing more than Ricky Davis with bad tattoos. He tantalizes with scoring ability, but does, indeed, stop the ball flow no matter how selfless he is feeling. He's one of those guys who smells the basket and sees a pass only as an afterthought. Because he has hot nights and occasionally sees the opportune pass, he tantalizes the fan. But, ultimately, his game is to jack up shots, and we should seriously consider trading him to a team that needs such a player, or switch our playing style to a flying circus, which we're not likely to do. Otherwise, he is a bad fit and will very likely become a bad apple if left in the sixth man role.
Second, Foye. You have to jump sports here. This guy is to the Twolves like Darrin Nelson was to the Vikings. I think that to this day Bud Grant and Jerry Burns would claim that Darrin was better than Marcus Allen -- better hands, more versatile, blah, blah, blah. In fact, he was a bad pick because he was like a universal tool: he did everything well and nothing spectacularly. Marcus Allen, on whom they passed, did one thing spectacularly, and will be hall of fame stuff while Darrin does his investment banking or whatever he is doing. Ditto Foye and Roy. You can't make the swiss army knife argument in basketball as easily as in football, because the "tweener" is too easily exposed. But just as Darrin was a "tweener," Foye is a "tweener," and he will be forever a man without a position. Roy is a man with a position and a possible place in the HOF.
So, for my money, you keep big Al and package any other players in any other configuration to get the player you want, either in the draft or from another team. Surprisingly, the one player I'd be most inclined to keep is Brewer. There is something spidery and unusual in his game, and I believe it will grow into something of real complementary value. But the rest of the guys are replaceable at this stage of development.
I know it sounds harsh, but unless Wittman decides to unleash a team of midsized gazelles in a Don Nelson fashion, this team, as configured, is going nowhere. And you can't build around big Al if you're going to play sprint ball.
I don't understand the geek dimension of salary caps and trades, so I won't indulge in idle trade speculation. But I do have a decent nose for the psychology of teams. And this one needs to get clarified. For my money, McCants is trouble on this team and an asset on a more mature team. And Foye will forever be the ghost of the one who got away while he is here, and you cannot have a team leader who is a man without a position. Two well-intentioned picks that, sadly, didn't turn out. A change of scene would help them both. Otherwise, we've got ourselves Ricky Davis and Darrin Nelson, and I've seen them both before.
If the Wolves end up wanting Jefferson as their long-term center, one bright spot will be the ability to mash classic literary references in an attempt to describe the organization's plight and folly. At least it will be fun for old History Lit folks like myself.
For example: Elizabeth Barrett Browning:
"How do I tank thee, let me count the years"
or Shakespeare:
"If you prick fans, do they not bleed?"
The operative word in that line being prick.
I've read a lot about the draft on different blogs lately; I'm not sure there's anyone available that would be worth a third straight year of manipulating events to demoralize the dwindling fan base. Besides, given their history, what evidence do we have that they'll get the right guy?
The question still remains: why so much burn for Al at the 5 this year? Based on their stubbornness to play the big fella out of position, are they looking at the power forward talent pool in the draft? Think of it; next year, if Doleac leaves, they would have no one over 6' 11 on their roster. I don't see how any College "4"--Michael Beasley or otherwise--gives them anything other than another kid who wants the ball. Smashmouth defense would go right out the window, which I think would say a lot for their future blueprint or napkin development.
As exhibit A, take last night...please (insert rimshot):
One primary reason why the Wolves current perimeter defense is so poor (other than hustle) is that our guys are afraid to let their player take them off the dribble; there's no decent help or last line of defense. As a result, they give the shooter extra space and don't close out (See Marko Jaric) Or, on the pick and roll, all the opposition does is make one extra pass to a well positioned shooter behind the arc (See Matt Carroll). With a proven shot blocker, folks interested in playing defense should be able play up on guys like J-Rich and at least force them inside the arc into the teeth of the defense. Richardson can create his own shot, but you've made it tougher for him, and given him one more thing to think about. That's one BIG reason why small ball may get you into the playoffs, but not much beyond. Having a tough interior presence changes the entire defense. Defense--even in this era--wins championships. Nelson and Saunders would complain, but they're still window shopping for a ring. Jefferson will block a few shots from time to time, but he doesn't intimidate anyone on the defensive end. So again, why all the minutes at the 5? Since you can't believe anything the front office says, what is their plan? Do they actually have one, or are they just reacting to events from year to year?
I'll give the organization some credit; it makes the off-season storyline intriguing. That is, if anyone is left around to care.
Let's also give Wittman some credit for last night, at least in the first half. He was much more aggressive in his coaching, calling time outs after horrible displays of defense. What he didn't do however, is something dramatic, like, sit all of his starters down at one time. Or get a technical. Referee Brian Forte is sure feeling his oats these days, having recently bounced Kobe Bryant out of a game. He's a bad to mediocre referee though, and if it's a true statement that the current roster is demoralized by all the front office dealings, getting "T'd" by daddy's boy Forte who's trying to make a name for himself would show there's someone who's still standing up for the players.
It is funny though, how even the tortured references about fighting back after getting punched in the mouth are dwindling. Mike McCollow used it once last night, and that's it. Looks like we may be done fighting for the year.
I defenitly agree on the inside PRESENCE thing. People are saying blocked shots are overrated because you often just get the ball out of bounds are because the shot blocker is in the air someone else gets the ball.
The thing is exactly that an inside presence completely changes the defence. It enables perimeter defense to tighten up, makes opposing players think twice about waltzing into the paint and also makes it harder to face up for inside players..
So let me just grab this opportunity to slip in another "We need thabeet" (it even sounds nice!).
I hear what you are saying on the morale-front with Walker, but I'm glad that management has kept him in street clothes after not buying him out (another good thing). His recent comments about the team's buyout offer being "ridiculous" are every bit as trashy as Spree's "I got a family to feed" remarks a few years ago. At least Spree was telling the truth.
Performance-wise, Walker isn't close to being an effective player anymore. He shoots just over 50% from the line and well below 40% from the floor and range. He may be a prince in the locker room, but his value right now is one thing: 2008-09 cap space. What Theo should have been but for a conservative approach to the lux tax, Walker is with lux room to spare in the off-season. This is a players' union issue if there ever was one. The reason he can't be waived is the same reason why he's worth nothing more than cap space. For him to come out and call the team's offer ridiculous when everyone in the entire league (players' union included) know that he's not worth whatever amount the buyout was put at, let alone the $8.5 he's getting this year and $9 the next, is beyond trashy and the team continues to handle the Heat trade and it's consequences as well as possible.
The league has some big issues to address with guaranteed contracts and mid-season maneuvering. Sam Cassell weaseled his way out of LA and magically passed waivers in order to end up with good-buddy KG in Boston. In baseball, garbage like that never would have happened as other GM's would have had the common decency to not allow the top team to get exactly what it needs at the league's vet minimum. All the while, everyone in the country knew exactly where he was going and when it would happen. Collusion that out in the open is...what?
The 1st Kidd deal was tanked because Stackhouse couldn't keep his mouth shut and hide the uber-collusion that even Stern would have to take notice of. The 2nd Kidd deal went through because the dancing geek billionaire traded a stay-at-home-dad for what many people consider the best point of his generation. You stay classy NBA.
The Memphis/Laker deal went down because the Lakers traded an assistant coach from another team for exactly the type of player they needed. Memphis emptied the bank and will continue to do so in the off-season.
The only thing ridiculous about all of this is the patch-work approach the league and players' union take to mid-season transactions. It's OK for all sorts of nonsense to happen but it's not OK to trade useless salary of barely-performing vets like Walker for something like a weighted formula of draft picks and/or future cap space. Antoine Walker is very well compensated with guaranteed money. Without that guarantee he would be cut and could go anywhere in the league he wanted...provided they would take him. However, without that guarantee he wouldn't be making $8+ mil/year and no one would probably take him as without the cap space utility, he's worthless at this point in his career. He knows this, I know this, other teams know this, and it's ridiculous that we have to pretend otherwise or look the other way when he wants to have it both ways on the matter. Either shut up and play along with your $8.5 mil or take the buyout and try your luck on the open market.
Comparing Walker to Spree is apples and oranges, but if forced to do it, I'd take issue with lumping Walker's silly remarks in league with Spree's. The "family to feed" quote was the one that seemed to stick in people's minds, but during that same interview, Sprewell said, "Why would I want to help this team win?" or something to that effect, even as the Wolves were a trendy choice for NBA Champion (remember?) and Spree was *already pulling down $14 million and turning up his nose at $21 million more over 3 years.*
I admit I didn't pay attention to Walker last night, or know if he was even in the building. But during the Seattle game, he was congratulating his teammates for good work as they were coming to the sideline and had a big smile on his face at various points in his interaction. And be it no-hopes like Gerald Green or rubies in the rough like Corey Brewer, he has helped the development of young pups on this squad this season. You can look it up--I was a notorious Walker hater for many years. And yes, his ego prevents him from seeing that the Wolves couldn't get a deal remotely advantageous to holding on to his eventually expiring contract--he is being the "ridiculous" one. But it is easy to make a snit when you know you're in street clothes for the rest of the season. I'd have preferred to have the option of suiting Walker up and seeing if he'd be professional enough to put forth an effort on the court. His horrible defense couldn't have been much worse than anything the activated players threw out there.
More to the point, the attitude toward Walker and the announcement that they are essentially shutting him down with 6 weeks left to go in the season signals to the rest of the roster that the Wolves are once again in pseudo-competitive mode when it comes to winning basketball games. Regardless of how Walker does or doesn't react, that is the real story here.
Britt,
I guess I am just in a disagreeable mode today.
Between 11/14 and 12/4, Walker played in 11 straight games averaging 27 min/game (low 19 high 33). During that time, the T-wolves were 2-9.
Between 12/21 and 1/30, Walker played 21 straight games with a more reduced average of 18 min/game (low 5, high 26). During that time, the T-wolves were 5-16. (January a month when the T-wolves were, supposedly, on the rise)
In games where the Walker did not play at all, the T-wolves record is 2-10.
I guess if you want to pick nits, you could say that the T-wolves have a slightly better chance of winning when Walker plays ~18/min, but in all honesty, there really no statistical reason to conclude that by playing him you win more games.
So, I wouldn't play him. At 31 today, already declining, and with 2-3 years needed for our youngs to mature, Walker would not have anything left to offer when the time is right.
Walker was, in my opinion, caught because 1- he is a good citizen and 2- he was not sure he could get another contract.
Ratliff was easy - he had already made his money and left everything remaining on the table. I personally believe that some of Hudson's salary was covered by insurance making that an easier decision. Without naming names, I also have reason to believe that Howard walked away from his second year. But he was cool with that knowing he would get picked up.
I believe that Walker was given the same option as Howard, we finish this year, you drop next year. For someone not so sure about his market value (we did try to trade him per his wishes), that was a pretty big $7M pill to swallow. Which I think prompted the "ridiculous" offer comment. Both parties new Walker would not be able to make up the difference.
Good point on how minutes for Toine might help dull some of the public comments about his deal. He's no better or worse than anything else this club can throw out on the court right now and it won't affect wins and losses the way Ratliff might have suiting up next to Big Al. I think there are two stories here: the micro one (Wolves winning games; message to players on the team) which you have kindly reminded me of and I (admittedly and stupidly) overlooked, and the macro one dealing with collective bargaining. These contracts are bad for the league and are, from a labor-management relations perspective, demeaning to vets who have paid their dues in the league. I use "demeaning" with a cringe on my lip because we're still talking about multi-millionaire athletes, but from a simple principled labor standpoint, there are drawbacks to guaranteed money when the commodity is no longer tied to performance, but rather the owner's wallet with no real benefit for the laborer.
As for the Spree stuff, yeah...I was over the top on that one. I still think they're both examples of insulting lack of perspective from our economic betters.
SnP--
Your "macro" comments are always welcome here, especially because they are generally so well-considered and because it is not really my thing.
I understand it is somewhat of a weakness not to dwell bigger picture--if I really wanted to be prescient about the future of the Wolves I'd be boning up on college hoops. But I'm in it for the joy, bottom line, and what I like doing is watching NBA basketball on a game-by-game basis. And that's why these past two games have brought back ugly reminders of the previous two "lost" springs at Target Center. We are about to embark on a third. And it won't go down easily.
Danke. And no, it's not going to go down easily. For some reason the marketing department at 600 First Avenue just can't figure out how to put "Absurdity!" in the Let's Build It Blueprint. At least there are still little things to enjoy in each game. You cited Big Al's fake pass...Corey Brewer's aggressive play of late has been another. Maybe some 15/5/5 games from Foye with minimal turnovers could be another one. Outside of that, I guess the squad is in direct competition with Memphis and Miami for the ping pong balls and that's about it.
Nice Rant SNP, but I agree with you. Each team is supposed to do what is best for them within the parameters of the CBA. However, it is clear there are more and more little ways to get around the CBA. A couple of years ago vets traded to rebuilding teams simply did not show up, and forced management to buy them out. Now they have to show up otherwise they won't get paid at all. However, we now have "pre-arranged agreements" with teams, so that the contending team gets the player they traded back.
It looks like Brent Barry will resign with the Spurs after waiting 30 days. The only difference in that deal is Barry kept his mouth shut, and Stackhouse did not.
Thanks Kate. I'll try to tone down the rantiness in the future if this subject comes up again.
"when it was hard to tell which was worse: If the front office knew what it was doing or if it didn't"
That one actually made me laugh out loud :D. Good thing my office door was closed...
I agree with the whole first part. It's exactly what I was thinking when I read about the buyout.
It's feels purely dollars and ping pong balls while I'd rather have had seeing Jefferson and Theo together, with Theo schooling Jefferson a bit on D + seeing everyone else on their more natural position.
Winning games is underrated in the learning progress.
Though I was really rooting for picking Foye in that particular draft I can now see why he's the one sabotaging "the blueprint". It's not really about how "good" he plays, we really need him to play enough PG. If he doesn't then we'll have to draft one (unless we drop considerably) and then what... We trade away the guy we invisted so much in (Foye) or we move him over Full Time to SG? That's also difficult since he's undersized for that position and we also got McCants, Brewer and Snyder there (whom we all would like to keep?).
Or do we keep clinging to Foye being a PG and let Telfair walk. The one we really like in the back-up role and whom we can see is really improving and feel we're gonna regret if we let him go. He's also underrated because it seems other teams haven't really noticed his improvement...
If Foye would make his case as the guy would could play how we expected him (at least like 1,5:1 T/A or something like that) the whole PG TO SF would like look it only needs some minor tweaking and we can focus on a center and some more filling...
Foye's performance is really the biggest problem going forward. I think I now get why you've been so "overcritical" on him...
Oh and I realize there's a lot of wrong word order things in this post. If you can write it correctly in dutch you got the right to spank me neheh :).
No worries on the word order, Wim. I washed down last night's loss with a Grimbergen!