Copyright 2007 NBAE (Photo by David Liam Kyle/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #57, Road Game #27: Minnesota 84, Cleveland 92
Season Record: 12-45
1. The Price of Youth
What a discouraging game.
Wanna bet that the Cavaliers had a scout at Target Center for the Wolves win over Utah last Tuesday? Coach Mike Brown seemed to set his stellar defense for a team that would deftly move the ball and present probing, multifaceted threats. In particular, Brown, thinking he had 20-point scorers like Foye, McCants and Gomes to worry about, decided to single-cover Al Jefferson with the Luthuanian leviathan known as Z, and let tall, panther-quick cohorts like Ben Wallace and LeBron James scout the horizon beyond the paint.
That was fine with Jefferson, who was enjoying the elbow room even before Z (surname Ilgauskas) committed one stupid foul by going over the back on a free throw miss, and then another one showing too hard on a perimeter pick and roll in the first six minutes of play. That sent him to the pine, to be replaced by Anderson Varejao, a Raggedy Andy-headed string-bean quite the opposite of the bald Z. He promptly got flattened (half shoulder, half patented Varejao fffflop) for a Jefferson slam. Brown understandably flipped Varejao over to Gomes and so it was Ben Wallace's turn to guard Jefferson. By the half, Jefferson had hit half of his 16 field goal attempts for 18 points and 5 offensive rebounds (out of 7 total) at intermission.
Alas, the rest of the team also had 18 points, on horrendous 7-30 FG. The ball movement and constant stabs at penetration--not to mention the silky, visually pleasant teamwork--so much in evidence against Utah was kaput, with a capital dipthong. Just a few quarters beyond his breakout game against the Jazz, Randy Foye broke back in, displaying all the bad habits that caused me to sour on him earlier this season-- the ill-chosen, off-balance jumpers early in the shot clock, the running alongside of his opponent's dribble so he can he can get a better profile on the man's successful jumper, and the lazy entry passes that, while not usually stolen, certainly give defenses the time to cogitate and react.
Hopefully the offensive gameplan was for Ryan Gomes to exploit the smallball matchup and take Ben Wallace out on the perimeter, the only justification I can come up with for the normally prudent Gomes chucking it up like the second coming of Rashad McCants, at 2-7 FG in 11:04. Speak of the devil, Shaddy checked in with 2:41 to play in the first quarter and managed to squeeze off three before the buzzer, then added three more in 8:41 of the second quarter. Three and three make six shot attempts and six misses for zero points in 11:22 first half minutes. Foye? Zip for three but a literal bonus point for being allowed to shoot the technical on a defensive three-second call against Cleveland, and thus transform his halftime goose egg into a straight line. After his first quarter delirium, Gomes came back to earth with but one clank in the second, and thus finished the half with 4 points on 2-8. For those of you slow with the abaci (abacuses?), that's a collective 2-17 FG and a whopping 5 points from the squad's second, third, and fouth leading scorers in the first half--and because of shot selection and general disdain for the first pass, let alone the extra pass, they collectively deserved almost every miss.
This is what happens with a young ballclub. They play well and then they don't, learning painful lessons on the job. Coach Randy Wittman addressed this after the Toronto loss Wednesday, but it is typical young club behavior, the habit of relaxing after a grand victory. The vexing aspect of it was not so much Toronto, however, but this game, after their Canadian clubbing theoretically taught them the error of instant self-regard. They had the contrast--fun and bloody games a la Utah, or belittling suffocation a la Toronto. The irksome thing is that they mentally opted for another bout of belittling suffocation, this time in Cleveland.
At the half, Hanny and Pete were marvelling about how nice it was to shoot only 32.6% and yet be down a mere four points at 36-40. But from the time the Cavs' Devin Brown opened the game by waltzing down for an easy jumper and Randy Foye followed that matador D with a travel, until the time McCants rang the garbage time dinner bell by nailing his 4th quarter treys, there was not a single moment when I seriously thought the Wolves were going to win this game.
In the second half, Mike Brown took a gander at the stat sheet and decided Big Al needed a double team after all. With Z and Big Ben--and isn't it ironic that Z is much bigger than both Big Al and Big Ben?--taking turns as the primary matchup and sometimes tag-teaming, with a little guy flashing over to boot, Jefferson had 4 points and 3 boards in 20:36 of the second half after going 18-7 in 20:39 of the first half. With all this attention focused on the undersized center, the undersized power forward, Gomes, managed to sneak outside for a 7-point flurry in 71 seconds to knot the game up at 51-51 midway through the third quarter. But by the end of the third Foye and McCants were a combined 1-14 FG and the Wolves were back down by 7.
When it was mercifully over, Foye was 1-9 FG for 4 points, two assists, and three turnovers in 33:32, not a good line for a point guard or off guard, even one given a fistful of free passes for making a ginger transition from one-and-a-half to two good knees. McCants had a totally deceptive double-digit night--six of his ten points came on meaningless three-pointers in the final minute of play--but to his (small) credit he did register a team-high 3 assists while finishing sixth in minutes-played at 27:37.
With just 1:22 to go in the game, the Wolves had amassed but 75 points and visited the free throw line 10 times. For the game they shot 39.1%. Young players or not, it is worrisome that the ballclub, which ranks 29th among 30 NBA teams in points scored per game, can be so inept offensively despite the fact that three players perceived to be cornerstones--Jefferson, Foye, and to a slightly lesser extent McCants--are all much better offensively than they are on defense.
2. Management Follies
About the only good thing about owner Glen Taylor's halftime "interview" with Tom Hanneman tonight was that it spared us the cheerleader report and Sweetwater Jones. As infomerical entertainments go, it was somewhere between the Victoria Principal/Susan Lucci testimonials and the somewhat clownish guy walking around with all those question marks on his suitjacket. Actually the latter wouldn't be a bad analogy for the current state of the Wolves.
Taylor let it be known that he is really enjoying this team, especially compared to the underachieving teams of the previous two years. He knows, in other words, that this 12-45 team is not underachieving, but likes the job coach Randy Wittman is doing--Kevin McHale and the rest of the front office are not discussed. He says he has many people telling him and writing him that they like this team better than other recent editions too, and would like to invite still other folks to come out and decide for themselves. And, oh yeah, the new Timberwolves season ticket packages for next year are about to go on sale soon. If Taylor was this subtle in his wedding invitation business, the fancy, script-flowing marital announcements would go out complete with a picture of a the father of the bride holding a shotgun between the groom's shoulder blades.
In very much related news, the Wolves have bought out the contract of Theo Ratliff and would very much like to do the same with Antoine Walker. The spin that dumping Ratliff will open up more playing time for rookie Chris Richard is about as disingenuous as the earlier spin that Ratliff's return would enable the Wolves to see how well Al Jefferson plays with a shot-blocking center. Richard got a whole 3:21 worth of burn tonight (his plus +1 led the team, of course), which is approximately how much Ratliff and Jefferson played together after Theo's return.
For quite some time now, it has been apparent that Wittman prefers Jefferson at center and Gomes at power forward. Smallball. Game by game, it has worked out much better than I would have imagined. Tonight, for example, the shrunken banshee lineup battled to a 40-40 draw on the boards with the top rebounding team in the NBA. Wittman likes to spread the floor with his small unit and give Jefferson room to operate down low. He also likes the other players utilizing this spacing and their quickness to crash the boards and outhustle as much as outmuscle opponents for position under the hoop. Perhaps this lineup is giving Jefferson experience getting his shot off against the tall timber, and hopefully learning how to survey the floor and dish back out when teams pack the paint to defend him.
But I can't embrace it. Anyone who watches Jefferson knows he's a classic power forward that, even by the standards of the "new" NBA, with its paucity of dominant big men and anti-hand checking rules, is best suited to operate beside a center precisely like Ratliff, who can help out on defense, is laterally quick around the hoop, sets a good example by showing hard on peimeter pick and rolls and doesn't need the ball. Even if we all know Ratliff wasn't part of the future here, isn't that kind of pivot man something this franchise should be manuevering towards? Shouldn't we get Jefferson and Gomes ingrained in those habits now, in their formative stages? Do we really need Jefferson playing 69% of the center minutes for this ballclub and just 5% of the power forward's minutes? (According to the 82games.com web data.) And do we really need the Wolves' 8 most popular 5-man lineups to feature Jefferson as the center--especially when the most popular 5-man lineup that doesn't feature Jefferson as a cetner puts Mark Madsen in the pivot instead?
Perhaps there is guerrilla tanking going on here. A Timberwolves team with Jefferson and Ratliff playing beside each other for most of the season would be very close to 20 wins by now, in my opinion, which would vault them ahead of another five teams in addition to Miami. Perhaps that's a little too close for comfort on losing that Clips' pick this year for the Jaric deal.
Then there is the money angle. Taylor himself acknowledged (in the newspaper, of course, not the infomercial) that the buyout would save him a chunk of the remainder of Theo's $11 million contract this year--on the order of the $3 million or so that he had remaining. Meanwhile, consider that Ratliff has missed 45 games--officially more than half of an 82-game regular season. Consider that with his injury history there is a possibility that he is insured against loss of play due to injury. When I tentatively asked around, through a member of the communications staff, about whether the Wolves were getting any insurance money due to Ratliff's injury, the staffer reported back that he couldn't find out. Now that Ratliff is gone, I'll be a little more aggressive and ask the question myself to Taylor or GM Jim Stack or some other team representative. And I wouldn't mind if a daily beat writer traveling with the team beat me to it.
3. Silver Linings
Not all is amiss and awry in Wolves land tonight, and amid all the dolor, I thought I'd save the best for last. First off, Sebastian Telfair has begun to improve his shot much as he hiked up his court vision and sense of command in prior months. For the past 8 games, Bassy has shot 48%, (12-25) from beyond the arc. He has scored in double figures in 6 of those 8 games, along with running the offense far better than Foye or Jaric or McCants in terms of pace and proactive passing. Let's face it, he's the only point guard on the roster. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to label Telfair a reliable shooter. Tonight, after hitting some big shots in the 3rd quarter and clearly establishing himself as the second-best Timberwolf behind Jefferson, he got a little too happy with himself and clanged a pair of stupid shots that were crucial to helping the Cavs pull away. On the second of these, McCants was literally pointing down toward Jefferson in the paint as Telfair drew iron with a trey. I understand Bassy is feeling--and sort of thriving on--the heat of competition for playing time with Foye, McCants and Jaric (the current short straw man, logging just 6:26 tonight). But excitability is his enemy.
By contrast, Corey Brewer seems forever excited and unruffled at the same time. The rook's work on LeBron James tonight was as staunch as one could hope for against a player who wound up with 30 points and 13 assists.(And if we're talking about real silver linings, that would go to everyone lucky enough to see James's monster dunk midway through the fourth quarter, when he tried to thread his way through two or three Wolves and stumbled around the foul line, losing the ball a little out in front of him, only to grab it as he stumbled a bit and rise up with literally incredible speed and elevation to slam it home. "That is a different look than anything I have ever seen in my life!" Petersen claimed, rightly going batshit. "TV doesn't do it justice." Perhaps, but even on TV it looked like somebody hitting the fast forward button on a dude who disappares behind players for a second only to emerge as if jumping on a trampoline to slam it home.)
Whatever is said about Brewer, and I've been pro and con, the guy is dogged and he plays the game like he's memorized the handbook. Tonight he racked up 15 points (5-10 FG) and 4 steals, but it was his simple foot movement and determination to stay in front of LeBron that was most impressive. Meanwhile, if you want a half full/empty glass, think about how shrewd Brewer's shot selection is--the ex-Gator almost never shoots outside the flow and rhythm of the offense and hustles hard enough to put himself in many great positions to score. Now consider that despite taking such an inordinately high percentage of good shots, Brewer is still making less than 35% of them. Blame it on his youth, and cross your fingers.
For those who wonder where I am...
Had to finish something else up last night and thus am just getting started on the trey for the Seattle game. Look for it early afternoon.
wow, not sure where else to post as a Wolves fan living in VA. Tough night, and to have my favorite player miss a key free throw (Brewer) to help us lose against Seattle.
Painful. I really don't care about lottery position, no guarantee the Wolves would choose the right player anyways (See Foye over Roy, see McCants over Granger). Bad Wolves loss and Michael has to say good bye to his little brother and his best friend on "The Wire". Tough night on TV
Question: which comes first - the draft or the free agency period?
I believe it's the draft, which would make me think that decisions on who to keep among the free agents would be determined in part by who the Wolves select in the draft. If they were to select Derrick Rose, for example, doesn't that make Bassy less of a priority? If they were to select Michael Beasley doesn't that make Craig Smith and/or Ryan Gomes less of a priority?
In the rather likely event that the Wolves don't get a top two pick (given their history of poor draft luck, at least), then what?
I don't know that the talent level drops off after those two (it seems like a lot of people think that it drops off after Beasley), it's more a situation where the other top players wouldn't fit in as well. For example, if Memphis got the second pick and Beasley was already chosen, they probably wouldn't pick Rose because they already have Conley. So it's possible that one of them would be available at 3 or even later. Plus, draft position could be heavily influenced by the NCAA tourney. After them, though, DeAndre Jordan might be a good fit with a lot of potential.
The other option is a trade. The Wolves have Walker's contract and the pick to offer if a team had a free agent who would be willing to do a sign-and-trade. Or, they could grab someone straight up for the pick like the Clippers did with the Elton Brand-Tyson Chandler swap.
Rose or Beasley would change their roster, but only in the sense that they have more potential than who they'd replace and would make someone expendable. The Bassy situation probably has some effect, but that depends on how much he's worth.
The Draft is June 26th and free agency negotiating should start around the 1st of July with the actual signing period beginning about 2 weeks later. Unlike the NFL where they have both the signing and negotiating bell rung at the same time, the league gives a window following the draft so that there is no appearance of collusion or tampering...like in the NFL where some of these guys sign offer sheets within minutes of the start time.
For an example of how this happened in Wolves Ville, Mike James was signed on July 13th, 2006 only a couple of days after the club selected Randy Foye in the 2006 Draft (June 28th).
It would be very cynical to bring up a class warfare angle, so I will. What has always been particularly distressing to me has been the owners, front office executives, broadcasters, and players utter disregard of an ordinary fan's intelligence. This is not just true of the Wolves, but I think the majority of sports franchises in this town. We saw this not only in Mr. Taylor's pathetic interview of last night, but also in the Wild's reaction to the fans general outrage in acquiring Chris Simon--an often suspended goon who has a history of extreme violence, even by hockey standards.
How did the Wild respond? An excerpt from the StarTribune, in an interview with GM Doug Risebrough:
"I've done the due diligence and talked to enough people that know a little bit about who this person is," Risebrough said. "But why would the fans know all this stuff? Why would they know he's got three young kids and he's a soft-spoken guy who really wants to keep playing his career and has paid his price? Why would fans know that? They wouldn't know that, so that's my fault. I miscalculated that they would know that."
So, if Wild fans had only done better research/information on this guy, they wouldn't be concerned about a player who's had two 20+ game suspensions, and a particularly nasty on-ice racial slur incident? And, the only mistake Risebrough made was that he thought the fans were better informed? That's right out of the Jim Petersen "what the ordinary fan doesn't understand about..." manual. Maybe Doug will do like Jim Pete does with basketball and after each FSN Wild Live contest, he'll strap the skates back on, get out on the ice and demonstrate his superior hockey acumen. That'll show us.
Runner up in this week's spin sweepstakes was the whole Ratliff buyout affair, with the "I read in the paper Antoine Walker was looking for a buyout, too" addendum. Who does Kevin McHale, Glen Taylor and Sid Hartman think they're fooling?
This seems like classic elitist behavior: "just take what we give you, believe what we say, and buy our tickets. If you don't support our franchise, we'll simply sell it to someone else who will take it out of town. Either way we profit, so enjoy us while we're here, because after all we're the professionals, you're the fan."
Ah, call me a curmudgeon...
I saw the game and the halftime show, but missed the part where James Dolan and Isiah Thomas took over the team. What did Wolves ownership/management do this past week that was so terrible?
That's a great description of Brewer. He forces nothing on offense, and yet has enough effort and understanding to get a variety of good looks--but still clanks a lot of them. "Crossing your fingers" is about all a fan can do, and hope that Brew's proven work ethic leads to improved shooting accuracy. One thing about Brewer comparisons, though--he's not a standing shooter, so I doubt his future is the Bruce Bowen, stand-in-the-corner wing player. His percentages are bad, but he seems to be more comfortable running off picks, back-cutting and crashing the glass. If you digitally removed the ball from the game tape, and just watched footwork and movement, Brewer would look like an all-star. Unfortunately, the ball is a pretty important part of the game.
ESPN is doing Wolves fans a favor by primetiming the likely top picks for College Gamenight. Last week was Derrick Rose, and tonight is the Michael Beasley show. From what I've seen and heard, he seems to be too close to Jefferson's position for us to want him, but maybe he's versatile enough to play the three. In any case, it's becoming pretty clear that Jefferson doesn't have a budding superstar next to him on the current roster. Plenty of guys that can play, and can become contributors to a great team, but none that will actually get us to that level. It doesn't seem reasonable to think that Telfair/Foye/Brewer/Jefferson/7-Foot Shotblocker will ever be enough to contend for a championship. Flip McCants and/or Gomes/Smith as you like, but it's not there. Maybe a fringe playoff team in three years, but that's about it.
Andy G says he "missed the part where James Dolan and Isiah Thomas took over the team." And "What did Wolves ownership/management do this past week that was so terrible?"
May I suggest that the Theo Ratliff buyout was a contributing factor?
Doesn't that move just shriek "The Wolves management has no desire to win games now"? If you were a player, on a team that needs to click on all cylinders just to be remotely competitive, would you feel like busting your butt?
Just so I understand, give me a realistic example of what the Ratliff contract could've been traded for that would've outweighed the long-term detriment of losing a top 3 or 4 pick in this year's draft. There's still a level of uncertainty with the draft, but it's likely we'd get a game-changing player with one of those slots, and equally likely that we'd get another Brewer or Foye if we climb up the rankings and get stuck with the 6 or 7th pick. Both nice players, but won't be carrying us to the promised land now or ever.
Take a look around the Western Conference and ask yourself what player we could've traded for would bring us to the level of competition that will be there for the next six or seven years.
Utah - Williams, Boozer, Okur
LA - Bryant, Farmar, Gasol, Bynum
Portland - Roy, Webster, Aldridge, Oden
New Orleans - Paul, West, Chandler
Either fans upset with not trading Theo think that our current squad plus whatever we could've gotten right now for Ratliff and the worse 1st Round pick are good enough to compete with those core groups, or they are satisfied with mediocrity and don't care to try to contend with those core groups. For those falling in the former group, I'd just like an example of what future megastar was going to come in a Ratliff deal. We don't need more role players, so if it's a role player that would've just improved this year's record at the expense of lotto balls, I'd say it's a bad idea. I think the West looks almost impossibly difficult to compete in for the next decade unless we land another All-Star, and to me, the chances of acquiring one are higher at the top of the draft than they are in the current market for an expiring contract.
To answer your first question, I'd say "sort of." "No desire" would be sitting AJ the way they sat KG when the offiicial tanking began in years past. This could still happen, but it hasn't yet, so we can't say they've thrown in the towel on the season completely.
To answer your second question, I'd say it depends on what player I was. If I were Antoine Walker, upset at not being traded, or bought out, I might be pouty and not feel like busting my butt. If I were Al Jefferson, I'd be trying to continue to develop into an All-NBA post. If I were any of the other young players, I'd be trying to solidify my long-term spot with the team, since none have accomplished that yet. In any of the cases, except maybe Walker's, I'd have plenty of motivation without somebody being added before this year's trade deadline. I think they're smart enough to see the big picture, and competitive enough to want to win every time they are on the floor.
Andy G -
It's still my contention that Brewer is a better shot than he's showing to date. To wit, his field goal percentage at Florida State was better (at least in the 40's) than what he's showing in the League. He moves at such a frenetic pace that he rushes his shot mechanics. If my theory is correct, he should improve to percentage as he gets more accustomed to his surroundings.
As for Foye and McCants, both are not far removed from their rookie seasons considering their severe injuries and associated absence. In Foye's case, I agree with Wittman that his performance with fluctuate for a while as he plays himself into game shape. Consider the tribulations that STAT encountered while playing himself back to pre-injury level.
My point: it's premature to judge the upside potential of Brewer or Foye at this juncture. Will they land us a championship? Who knows. But I'm not convinced any of the six picks ahead of Brewer will bring their teams a ring.
And, as for Walker, It's really hard to justify a multi million dollar player pouting and having a passport problem to Cleveland to Johnny Lunch Bucket who puts down some serious change so he and his family can purchase far reaches seats. It's the Johnny Lunch Bucket types who indirectly pay the players to...well...play.
I hope I didn't come across as ripping Brewer--he's becoming one of my favorite Wolves, even with the low FG%. I agree that he's gotta let the game slow down, and then that number will increase. I think his instincts--both offensively and defensively, are better than our other guards. But, the numbers don't lie and he's gotta hit a higher percentage if he's going to start at the 3.
My point about the upside potential isn't that those guys won't be very good players--just that they won't be good enough, with Jefferson to contend with the best young core groups in the West--especially Kobe, Gasol, Bynum. It's our last chance to add a huge prospect to pair with Big Al.
Andy G--
Excellent comments all around. I love the Brewer without the ball analogy and would agree, to a point, that the current club doesn't gel into ring contention. However, the cavaet really does obtain in this instance that you've a lot of intrguing young players of undeniable talent, and that Foye/McCants and Brewer have enough contrast to create a nice synergy at two positions. Telfair's upside will likewise continue to beguile until and unless he stops progressing this year. But right now that learning curve is still trending upward; ditto Jefferson.
As for the Glen Taylor Show, I've long been one of his more persistent defenders, in part because he has in the past really been willing to open his wallet more than any other franchise owner in Minnesota history, and in part because he really is incredibly open and honest with the media. My current problem is that fans were baited and switched on Ratliff--there really is no other way to describe it--and the ownership is being very financially conservative this time around, not utilizing Theo's contract, the $5 million salary chip in trades, or anything else that would rev this team this season. It is my opinion, or perhaps suspicion, backed by absolutely no evidence, that both Foye and Ratliff were given much more time to be diagnosed, rechecked, operated on (in Ratliff's case) and healed than they might otherwise be if the Clippers pick had no strings attached. And I think "Let's Build It," like last year's "Blueprint," is designed far more to entice than to inform. Taylor and company have every right to do that, but, as much as I respect him and do not in any way liken him to a cretin like Dolan, that doesn't mean I have to sit in front of the set and lap up this pablum. Or not call it out for the weak PR that it is.
Let me make another prediction: this team will improve enough in the offseason to really, and I mean REALLY flirt with not having one of the bottom 10 picks in the league, thus giving their own 1st rounder to the Clips. The team is talking a lot about the possibility of having 3 first rounders next year, but they could end up with a single pick in the high 20s (Celtics). I predict that the front office will commit an act so blatant, and so downright insulting, that Grandpa Sid will refuse to...who am I kidding, they'll have a new marketing gimmick and the entire backcourt will receive recommendations from the team's doctor to have microfracture surgery with about 30 games to go. New slogan for 2009/10:
LET'S REHAB THEM!!!
It's tough for me to evaluate Taylor as opposed to a guy like Pohlad. Taylor is definitely more open with his wallet, but he also made the one huge mistake (Joe Smith) and didn't build an organization like the Twins have (although they've bolstered it in the last 2-3 years). His handling of the Ratliff contract? It's tough to say if there were guys available who the team would want to pay a lot of money to for an extended period (especially since most of the big deals also involved draft picks). To me, the best option would've been to keep rolling a big expiring contract over to the next season (like, say, trading Ratliff for someone with two years left on their deal) until the team found someone who'd be worth taking back because he took the team to the next level. I also think they're going to try hard to deal Walker this summer; that might be their best shot to get someone.
I think they think the best way to get better fast is to get at least one top-5 pick during the early stages, and they've been very careful to try to stay within that range. Whether it works depends on the quality of talent that is in the draft and how the organization scouts, chooses, and develops players.
Even if we ignore the good ole' boys club over at Target center, it's tough to like an owner that threw KG under the bus the way he did.
Brewer was fantastic. The fact that he can play the kind of defense he has against the likes of "man child" James and Paul Pierce lead me to believe his weight is not the issue it has been made out to be by many fans. if he had a jump shot, he'd be the second best rookie this season.
I didn't think Foye took bad shots. He just didn't make them. I also thought he played within the offense and made some nice passes in the first half, including three blown assists.
My problem this game, especially the second half, was with McCants. I was disgusted watching him completely ignore Jefferson and dominate the ball. There was possession after possession where McCants dominated the ball and Jeff didn't even get one touch.
What's more upsetting is the fact that Wittman allowed it to continue and did not yank McCants. If the Wolves would have made Jefferson the focus on offense, as they did the first half, they may have had a chance to pull it out at the end.
My favorite Brewer moment from last night was when he cut off LeBron's baseline drive in the 4th Quarter. How many guys would even try to get in LBJ's way, let alone beat him to the spot and take what should've been a push-off/charge call? Brewer shows every bit the confidence in his D that AJ and Foye show in their ability to score. Add 20 more pounds and some increased respect from the officials and he'll be First Team All-Defense.
It sounds like the Taylor-bashing was two pronged: one for making up excuses for the Ratliff situation and another for tanking and calling it silly tag lines like "Let's Build It."
I admittedly don't understand all of the details of the collective bargaining agreement, like others on this site do, but from what was posted on here, I never saw an obvious alternative that involved trading Ratliff. Wasn't part of the deal that you have to take on a big contract if you're going to ship him? Is it possible that there were trade talks involving Theo, but just nothing that met their expectations? I'm sure if analyzed closely, with enough understanding of what their real options were, you can see through the BS of the Front Office, but it doesn't seem that anything was too dishonest or devient from the big picture rebuilding plan.
As for the "tanking," I agree that Ratliff probably sat more than he had to--Foye, I'm not sure. I would think that they would've wanted to see him healthy ASAP, since there are clear questions about the future of our backcourt. In spite of the low win totals, I've enjoyed this year more than the last two--just like Glen said. From a game-to-game basketball standpoint, it was great watching KG, but knowing that there wasn't enough talent around him, or enough flexibility in free agency to contend made the big picture very frustrating and I was anxious to see it broken up so we could start rebuilding. Al Jeff brought in an entirely unique set of skills and I'm naive enough to think we're one big piece away in this draft from "building it." Just because they didn't make an aggressive move to climb this year's win total up to 25, I don't think that Taylor and McHale are any less dedicated to building a contender.
I go back and forth on pretty much every player but Jefferson. If Foye would've sat the whole year, maybe Bassy could've taken the momentum he had gained as the starting PG, coupled it with his newfound shooting touch, and really filled up the statsheet. However, he shows enough weaknesses for me to question his ability to lead a team to contender-status. He can't finish at the rim, unless absolutely untouched, and his shooting mechanics will always make me uneasy when he takes a shot in the 4th Quarter. His D is feisty on the perimeter, but in a playoff series, can you imagine what a coach like Don Nelson would do with a size mismatch? He can be exploited. Foye is a total question mark. The only certainty is his height--or lackthereof. His tweener status gets analyzed to death, but for good reason. Can you picture him being a bigtime 2-guard? I can't--I think his best situation would be playing with a great point guard that could allow him to do more spot-up shooting and drives with the D off-balanced. McCants is a wonderful one-on-one player, but he's almost too smooth and crafty, and not tough enough. Plus, as has been pointed out, he is a bit of a ball-stopper and that tag never seems to be a positive one, even for guys with the talent of Tracy McGrady. The more I watch, both the good games like Utah and the bad games like Cleveland, the more I think we need a great point guard since we don't have a Kobe or LeBron at the wing. Getting a "great" anything is easier said than done, but most experts are beginning to put that tag on Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley, so I'm all for "tanking"--at least the way the Wolves have been doing it, by playing the future and sitting the past.
It sounds like the board is pretty split on this, but I also believe that there was little to be had for Theo. I'm sure there were offers out there, but I don't see many players that I'd be willing to take onto this club who would help our long-term situation. And I don't think Taylor was disingenuous when he said that Theo gave us "options". The options other teams offered simply didn't outweigh the benefits of a buyout.
There's no question that we will win less games without Theo. But if we're going to "Build It" - why build with a piece that we won't have next year no matter what? I'm sorry to report that my moral opposition to tanking isn't nearly as strong as when KG was here.
My opposition to draft and free agency speculation is also weak - if the Wolves are going to compete in the West against a slew of top-flight PGs, we need one of our own. I know it's trendy considering the volume of quality PGs right now, but there's no position that can make other guys look so good. Paul, D. Williams, Parker, and Davis are all going to be around a long time, and I don't see how any combination of Bassy, Foye, and Jaric can play at that level. A playmaking point guard like Rose can really raise the collective b-ball IQ of our entire team. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a Wolf make a backdoor cut for an easy score.
I think I'm done on the Ratliff stuff. My take on the matter with the front office never was about them simply moving or not moving his contract; it was, as Britt referred to it, the whole bait-and-switch aspect of it all and them running the whole thing through Grandpa Sid. It's almost like when GOP talking points magically end up in a Katherine Kersten column (with impeccable timing, no less). A- that's not what papers are there for and b- surely the people peddling the line of crap that gets reprinted by the likes of Grandpa Sid should exhibit a bit more respect for the intelligence of their fans and their ability to make solid, informed decisions on their own. Peter had another excellent example above with the Wild and their brand new criminal.
As for the whole point guard thing, I don't disagree that the Wolves could use a top-flight point, but who couldn't? Boston, Orlando, Cleveland, LA, (until recently) Dallas, Houston, Denver...all of these squads don't have top flight points like Paul, D-Will, and Nash. The fact is, those types of players are the Tom Brady's and Peyton Manning's of the NBA; there simply aren't that many of them around.
A big question I have been trying to answer is how much of the Wolves' relatively poor point play has to do with limited and inconsistent offensive options beyond Big Al? Going back to the NFL analogy, do you guys think that an NBA squad can get by with a game-managing 1 who doesn't turn the ball over and who knows the pecking order a'la a game-managing Trent Dilfer style QB.? Paul, Nash, Davis, and D-Will haven't won anything and part of the confusion about the Wolves is figuring out what style of ball they want to go forward with. Is it a 3 guard 2 big small ball fiesta? Do they want a Jazz style 1-4 combo? Do they want to draft a 3 and have their scoring come from the forward spot?
if they get the 1st pick I think the decision is simple (Beasley), but anything after that will be interesting because I don't think they have a clear idea of where all of this is headed.
I'm not trying to sound overly negative about the young guys we have. I think Foye, Brewer and McCants all have the potential to be quality players. My main point is just that this is probably our one and only chance to get a REALLY high draft pick, and there appears to be two superstars on the board, provided that Beasley and Rose do what everyone expects and leave early for the money. Personally, I'd rather have Rose, but I think either is a great add for the future. Most teams don't have great PG's, but the top teams usually have a great 1 or a great 2/3 player. Telfair is a serviceable point, but he doesn't set the tone and dictate the tempo the way Kidd/Nash/Paul/Williams do. I agree that those guys are rare, just as dominant swing players like Kobe and LeBron are rare, but it looks like Rose is one of them, so I hope we get him. If it becomes the current squad plus a 7-footer like Lopez, we'll certainly improve--probably quickly, but in my opinion that lowers the potential ceiling to a 4 or 5 seed, forever struggling to get out of the first round. Now's the chance to get a game changer that could make Foye and McCants look a lot more comfortable out there, and set up Big Al with a few easy dunks, instead of always having to bust out the array of head-fakes and jumphooks. Don't others agree that Big Al has 28-29 ppg potential, ala Karl Malone, if he plays with a great point?
As scary as this sounds, the model to me is the Marbury deal when we set up the 1-2 punch for the future. The way that thing fell apart so fast doesn't instill confidence in my methodology, but I think that type of headcase is rare and Derrick Rose isn't one of them. Bottom line, is that I think Derrick Rose + Al Jefferson = Title Contention in 2010 and beyond. It looks like that combo plus a slew of nice complimentary players is very possible if we stick to the rebuilding plan and finish out the season with the most lottery balls.
My two cents:
I personally don't think we can get it done with a PG whose only role is to distribute or establish pecking order. An ideal PG should be a dribble-drive or shooting threat and the first thing a defense worries about each trip downcourt. The exception is a team like Denver, who can get by with a non-shooting distributor (Carter) because of their many weapons. Aside from defense and flash, AC and Bassy are somewhat similar - neither has reliable range, and to compensate they've developed into "distributing" PGs. This doesn't mean they're great passers or possess great vision, it means they usually make the correct decisions when the ball is in their hands.
And I don't want to dissect each of the teams you've listed above, but the only PGs I would consider downgrades are Alston and Carter (and maybe Hughes if you were referring to him).
My point is that I think we need a threat at the PG position more than we need Beasley. While I'll admit to not being a fan of his, if we did end up drafting him, that's minutes taken from Brewer, Gomes, and Smith (indirectly). For all their flaws, those three important players would benefit the most from a PG who can get to the rim and finish. Not to take anything away from Bassy, who is having his best year as a pro, but I think we have some quality pieces on this team, we just need to put those players in a position to succeed.
Good points. I've been looking through the original blueprint for some stuff over at Canis Hoopus and I found this quote from Babcock:
"We want to improve our shooting ability, and we could use a banging, strong, tough guy inside for help in that area. When you have a team that is not playing .500 basketball, then you definitely have some needs. We need to increase our depth at our inside positions (the 4 and 5)…A physical low post player would be ideal, but those players are extremely difficult to find. We also need to improve our overall shooting ability. This can come from any position, but most likely at the small forward position. Consistently knocking down open shots (and three-point shots) cures a lot of ills. Besides position need we would like to add to the leadership and mental toughness of our ball club."
...first of all, I agree with Britt's take about the blueprint being there more for enticement rather than for simple information, but I think this paragraph still holds true for the club from an actual needs-based side of things. They got their ideal low post player in Jefferson and now they need to fill out the front court depth and get a scoring 3. After reading all the things they've said about Foye, McCants, and Smith, those guys ain't going anywhere. It will be interesting to see how they decide to go with the pick if they don't get the top one and if Rose is still on the board.
After going through their blueprints and going through some quotes on Lexis my bet is that if Beasley is off the board they go with Lopez (and maybe his brother in the 2nd round). They're beyond FUBAR'd in the front court next year if they don't add anyone. The only frontcourt players signed through next year are Jefferson, Toine, and Madsen.
Thanks for asking about the insurance business. That will be very interesting to find out. I'll have no problem with actual decision to do such a thing, but its existence implies planning that would put its initiation well before the date of such classic Ratliff lines as "he'll give us additional options (wink, wink free agents) in the 2008-09 season", "he'll allow us to re-sign our *own* free agents", and "we really need to see how well Big Al plays against a shot-blocking center."
I'm keeping a running tally on Richard's burn throughout the remainder of the season. Will he eclipse Ratliff's 214 minutes, 39 rebounds, 63 points and 19 blocks? Before last night he was sitting at 229 minutes, 48 rebounds, 32 points, and 4 blocks. Let the race begin!!!
Although, maybe what McHale is really talking about giving some D-League player an audition during the last few games of the year.
As for the half-time interview, it's part of the big roll-out package for the team's new "Let's Build It" (together) campaign. According to the website, there will be more "interviews" with Glen about the continuing development of the team. The site also has a flashy new graphic with updates from the blueprint that was unleashed right before the KG deal:
http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/blueprint_future_0607.html
I haven't had time to compare the two but I do find it funny that the team has all these flashy new graphics but they still list KFAN as their metro radio partner.
Here were the building blocks in the original blueprint:
1) Vision: Randy Wittman is supplying firm and fair leadership, and is also a top-notch basketball strategist.
2) Youth: We have added three very exciting and dedicated young players to anchor our future: Randy Foye, Craig Smith and Rashad McCants.
3) Experience: We have a number of key veterans to supply critical experience.
I can't remember, but something big happened between then and now. Anyway, this latest "interview" hasn't changed all that much since the original blueprint. Here's an honest-to-God question that Mike Trudell asked to Rob Babcock:
Q: Do people sometimes forget that no one wants to win more than Glen Taylor, Kevin McHale, your staff and the Wolves players?
Babcock: People tell us how frustrated they are with our team right now, and my answer is that yes, we understand that. If you are frustrated, if you can imagine how frustrated we are, because this is our job, our livelihood, this is what we do. All of us are very, very competitive, and we all want to win a championship. We feel these frustrations, and we are not going to sit here and do nothing about it. I like every one of our guys, but collectively, we need to find a better mix of leadership, mental toughness and guys that complement each other. That isn’t knock against the guys at all, it’s just not a perfect mix of guys. It’s very important before we add guys to our team that they’ll fit into the mix.
Sometimes I swear that these guys are the legal defense team for Roger Clemens. It's all somebody else's fault for thinking the way they do.
Of course the greatest part of the initial blueprint is from good ol' Fred Hoiberg:
Q: What can the Wolves 2006 first rounder do to take the next step as a basketball player?
Hoiberg: In his first few years, Dwyane Wade was pretty much a take-it-to-the-basket guy. He's extended that and extended his game to where now he's a great jump shooter. Michael Jordan did that with his game. So I think it's going to be a very important offseason for Randy this summer. I think you improve the most from the end of your rookie year to the beginning of your second year. It's going to be important for Randy to be here and to work on his shooting, so people will play him honest when they are guarding him on the perimeter.
In case any of you are wondering, D-Wade is a career 25% 3 point shooter. You can check out more of his outstanding j-action here:
http://www.nba.com/hotspots/
Go back to his 2005-06 season and check out his eFG% for jumpers:
http://www.82games.com/0506/05MIA4A.HTM
39%. 04/05 was 38% and last year was an even 40%. Hey, at least he matched it up with Foye's college numbers.
These guys are beyond clueless. One final thing, here's assistant GM Hoiberg talking about the Rhino's d:
Q: How important can he be as a defensive presence for the Wolves going forward, particularly on the backboard?
Hoiberg: He has long arms, so he will be able to guard bigger players. He's more explosive than people think. He positions his body well. He's a very good rebounder both offensively and defensively. Also, you can challenge him. I remember he had only one rebound one game and Kevin McHale said, "You got one more rebound than a dead person tonight. Nice game." Next game he said to McHale, "Tonight I had 11 more rebounds than a dead person." So, you can challenge him, and he'll take that and work. His and Randy's work ethic will show as these guys grow and become leaders of this team. That will be a good example for the young players that play under them.
AND WE CAN BUILD THIS THING TOGETHER
STAND THE STORMY WEATHER
NOTHING'S GOING TO STOP US NOW!!!
Jefferson Starship baby. It's a ready-made marketing campaign. Player introductions could be done a'la Parliament: a big spaceship being lowered on to the court with Big Al coming out with a pink wig. Now THAT'S marketing.
Britt -
Excellent commentary.
So, Mr. Taylor says that there will be 6 ballers standing after the audition. With Big Al a bona fide #1 on the list, who will be the remaining 5?
2. Rhino
3. Bassy
4. Foye
5. McCants
6. Gomes
And, why in the name of team chemistry would such a brilliant business owner as Mr. Taylor put a number down?
Well, if Taylor can be trusted and the blueprint is meaningful, I think I've found the 6 players. From the "Player Development" page on the blueprint:
"The last few drafts and key trades have provided our team with talented young players. Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Rashad McCants, Randy Foye, Craig Smith, and Corey Brewer will continue to grow and mature and put us in a position to compete for a championship in the coming years."
...sorry Bassy. It should be noted that Bassy is nowhere to be found in writing in the blueprint. There's a picture of him talking to Witt, but he's noticeably absent from the plan. Also, Marko, Toine, and Buckner are in no uncertain terms referred to as salary cap space....which is nice. Still, I think those are the 6 players Glen was talking about as they are clearly marked in the shiny new website.
Ouch, I forgot Corey Brewer. Oh well....
The persistence of the Jefferson at 5 lineups leads me to believe the Gomes is not planned on for the future. I anticipate a draftpick
that is a 4 inch taller version of Gomes.
I agree with CA, It was surprising to hear Taylor put a number down. Granted, he's probably just talking out his rear end trying to sound like the plan they have no is a logical continuation from the plan they put forward at the beginning of the year (both of which will be different from the plan put forward next year at this time) but it would be interesting to see who they are talking about.
If the 1st blueprint is true, then Shaddy, Foye, and Smith are locked in. Read here:
http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/blueprint_for_the_future_070328.htm...
Those 3 players are literally referred to as the future of the organization. I think it's pretty safe to say that they view Brewer as one of the core guys and Big Al's a sure-thing shoe-in. Which leaves us at:
1- Big Al
2- Brewer
3- Shaddy
4- Smith
5- Foye
Gomes v Telfair if you can take what the front office says at face value. Of course, we have ample evidence that you can't. Judging by the moves they have made during this year and the way they have handled contracts, the final survivors in this group will be decided by a single number: $70,049,420.
That's the luxury mark next season. With a top 3 pick coming in at about $3.5-4 mil (let's use 4 just to be even), and the 31st and 32nd picks (or a trade to the mid 1st) coming in at $1.5, the team is sitting at roughly $57 million with the following roster (plus T-Hud and Howard):
Walker
Jaric
Buckner
Foye
Brewer
Jefferson
Madsen
McCants
Top 1st
Remaining picks
Over at Canis Hoopus, WD ran a comparison of current NBA salaries to what it might take to re-sign Bassy, Gomes, and Smith. The team is probably looking at $12-16 million to sign all 3. Adding in the in-place roster, we're talking $69-73 million just to maintain the status quo with the new draft picks. If the team didn't move Ratliff's deal and they're talking about how nice it is to save a few bucks by buying out Theo's deal (which they can add to the Brandon Roy cash cache), there is probably zero chance of them going over the luxury mark. This means 2 things: either these 3 players sign under what they can likely get elsewhere (especially true for Bassy and Gomes who would make nice additions as backups on other clubs) or only 2 of them get deals and the club stays (barely) below the $70 million luxury cap mark.
Personally, I think Glen was talking out his ass. They'll keep 2 of the 3 Gomes/Bassy/Smith triumvirate and Bassy will likely be the odd man out as Foye will a) be cheaper and b) more hyped by the club as the future top guard. If I had to pick between the 3, I'd give the Rhino a first class ticket out of town. If I had to rank the 3 in terms of importance, I'd go Bassy, Gomes, Rhino.
Anywho, it was kind of interesting to hear a number being placed on the team. I don't put too much stock into it as the luxury cap will determine who stays and goes more than anything else.
Oh well, it should be interesting going forward. How about not re-signing Gomes and going for a Greg Buckner/Toine to Memphis for Mike Miller and Brian Cardinal deal? Hell, throw in the Celtic pick.
I may be a little biased (RhinoLove?), but I honestly think that the Rhino is a better player, with greater upside than Gomes. Gomes does nothing particularly well, has tweener size, and a tendency to disappear for very long stretches. The league (to say nothing about the latter half of any year's 1st round) is full of guys that can give you Ryan Gomes' positives.
He's a nice glue guy, period. Not a starter on a decent team. Rhino, on the other hand, has a very nice low post game, grabs a lot of offensive rebounds, and has an undeniable knack at finishing. Bottom line Rhino has strengths, whereas Gomes merely has competencies (and no strengths).
If Craig can add a mid range jump shot and work on passing out of the post, he'd be an extremely nice bench player for 20+ min per game.