Photo by Nathaniel S. Butler/NBAE via Getty Images
Eastern Conference Finals, Game #4: Boston 75, Detroit 94
Series record: Tied 2-2
1. The "Little 3"
I'm not the first one to unimaginatively pervert the "Big 3" sobriquet for tonight's no-show troika of Celtic stars, and the way they are playing, I certainly won't be the last. Among Boston's starting five, the two role players stepped up fine, especially Kendrick Perkins. But the stars were all dim bulbs, collectively shooting 11-38 FG and refusing to take control of what remarkably, all things considered, was a winnable game until about 3 minutes left to play.
Begin with Paul Pierce, the man whose guidance of the offense in the half-court is what ultimately swung the Celtic series versus Cleveland. Tonight Pierce had his shot blocked as many times as it went in the hoop, making just 3-14 FG while getting housed three time. Worse than that, though, was that he doled one measly assist compared to four turnovers. Yes, his defense on Tayshaun Prince was stout, and yes he got to the line 11 times and sank ten of them. But in the half-court sets, Pierce, who has become the floor general and go-to creator, never really made anything happen via either the pass or the jumper.
On to Kevin Garnett, who had an embarrassing night first getting his shot blocked from behind by Jason Maxiell on a breakaway, then getting shown up on two straight defensive sets, the first on a spin move and layup for 'Sheed Wallace, quickly followed by a Stuckey alley oop lob to Maxiell over KG's leaping fingers. Now with the exception of the 'Sheed spin, a charitably inclined individual could say Garnett was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But there is no excuse or justification for Garnett's disappearance in the first quarter. During the regular season and the first three games of these finals, KG has owned 'Sheed and the Pistons from about 16 feet on in, averaging 24 points and converting well over half his shots. So tonight the Pistons come roaring out with a 10-0 run and Detroit's matchup nightmare is MIA. The other nine starters on the floor had all attempted at least one field goal before Garnett deigned to clank a jumper with the score already 16-4 Detroit and the first quarter more than half over with 5:19 to play. His second shot was the breakaway dunk attempt swatted away by Maxiell with 2:22 to play. He sat about a minute later with his team down 20-12.
During that entire first quarter, in other words, Garnett followed through on a post-up move exactly once. That is ridiculous and typical of the self-effacement that crops up enough to stain his reputation. He finished with decent numbers, given the context of the Celtics offense: 6-16 FG, 16 pts, 10 rebounds, 3 assists (vs. 3 turnovers) and two steals. But when your team is up 2-1 on the road with a chance to essentially make your winning inevitable and your desperate, talented opponent races to a lead, and you are the best mismatch for your ballclub, you make yourself available and then you succeed or fail on that availability. You don't shoot 0-2 FG with one of the shots being a breakout in transition.
Which leaves us with Ray Allen. I am sick and tired of color commentator Mark Jackson (and to a lesser extent his colleagues Breen and Van Gundy) detailing every imagined flaw in Rajon Rondo's game, especially on offense, while Allen gets a free ride for a stretch of abysmally cold outside shooting that has gone beyond a slump and is entering Nick Anderson or John Starks territory for historic, career-footnoting ineptitude. Less than 6 weeks ago, Allen ranked with Peja Stokjaovic and Steve Nash as one of the NBA's best outside shooters. Tonight he once again failed to hit a single jumper, going 2-8 FG in four seconds less than 35 minutes, with both buckets being layups. He missed three treys and turned down about 15 other open looks. Compared to the way Allen is shooting, Rondo is Pete Maravich.
I know that none of this is Allen's "fault," in that he's been lax or malicious or brought this on by any karmic retribution that would make sense. He's been forthright and classy about his woes. He's moved the ball relatively well and has been mostly automatic from the free throw line. But it is getting to the point where patience is appearing to be less and less of a virtue. Allen has already had his breakthrough game to end the doldrums when he shot 9-16 FG in the Celts' Game Two loss--then promptly went back to abject clanking in the next two games. Tonight's fourth quarter had to be a bad dream for him: Not only couldn't he buy a basket, he missed two crunchtime free throws (!) and had Rip Hamilton toy with him on two crucial crunchtime buckets en route to Rip's 10 4th quarter points and game line of 8-10 FGs. It might be time to experiment with Rondo on Hamilton and either Cassell or Eddie House guarding Billups at the point, at least for brief stretches. That's two tough matchups on the defensive end, but maybe a little more offense--some shots that go in, in part because they are attempted by someone not worrying about being an albatross every time they pull the trigger. The Celtics as a team shot 31% tonight, and Allen's 2-8 didn't elevate that putrid accuracy. I understand that the Celtics don't win the NBA Finals against the likes of LA or SA without Allen being on his marksman-like game. But that doesn't mean you can't rattle the mix--Tony Allen, even?--for four or five minutes stretches, just to see if you can stir a change.
2. A Night For Large Role Players
As in large guys who are role players, but also guys who play large roles. The consensus among those who saw tonight's tilt would be that Antonio McDyess was the player of the game, and not just because he scored more points (21) and grabbed more rebounds (16) than anybody else. Although he continues to be deadly from midrange, McDyess was perhaps most valuable as the team's emotional leader. With Rip and 'Sheed bedeviled by fouls, Billups obviously not right in his hamstring, and Prince experiencing shooting woes, McDyess became the regulator, the one to keep things on a consistent keel that blended both passion and self-control. He came up huge. Ditto Maxiell, who in additon to his signature block and nifty alley oop played staunch half-court D and was a perfect 6-6 FG in 20:28 off the bench. And over on the other sideline, Kendrick Perkins was probably Boston's best player tonight, ensuring that nobody got anything easily in the paint and warring for defensive boards and putbacks while stoking the desire in what seemed a curiously blase, or perhaps just disspirited, Celtics ballclub. After a horrible series against the Cavs, it has been enjoyable to watch Perkins's series-long revival vs. Detroit.
3. Quick Observations
If I've got a rooting interest in either team, it is Boston, who I picked to win in 7 and who stars one of my favorite players in Garnett. But without the refs blowing their whistles, the Celts lose by 30 tonight, as Hamilton (8-10 FG) and 'Sheed (6-9 FG) were both limited by foul trouble while the Celts lived at the line, registering more than half of their first 53 points via free throws. That said, the refs are getting wise to Hamilton's arm-locking manuvers and push-offs to get open, and 'Sheed still commits some really obvious and circumstantially dunderheaded infractions, like 4th foul showing hard on the pick and roll with more than 7 minutes to play in the third.
Flip Saunders and Mark Jackson seem to want to agree that Chauncey is more rusty than dinged up, but the rest of us don't have to buy that bullshit. Billups has always moved like a cat, he a bunched-up and spring player with a great first step. That stuff is nowhere to be seen in this series. Instead we see Billups missing badly on his jumper (3-12 tonight) and walking with a hitch during breaks in the action.
I understand that Lindsay Hunter's on-ball defense is preventing Eddie House from getting much burn, but have the Celts forgotten that Pierce was frequently bringing the ball up in Game Seven of the Cleveland series? For that matter, KG and Ray Allen also have pretty good handles. It sure would have been interesting to see if House's microwave act from way outside could have made up that perpetual 5-10 point margin that existed from midway through the first until about 4-5 minutes left in the game. Boston was 1-9 from trey territory tonight, and that was Posey in the corner off a KG double team. I mean, if Sam Cassell is going to chuck a trey with 16 seconds on the shot clock in the fourth quarter and the Celts down 6 without nobody under the hoop for a rebound, is there any justification for keeping House under wraps?
Can I just add something.
This is the OJ mayo interview: http://www.draftexpress.com/article/O.J.-Mayo-%22There-are-more-than-two...
Please note what I beleive to be the crux of the interview, that this is not just a 2 person draft.
OJ Mayo did average 20 pts a game in a tough division. Rodney Stucky averaged 20 pts per game also in a lesser division and he's been worth the 19th pick in last year's first round. To say OJ Mayo is going to be a bust is a no evidence claim. One that I too was on the verge of making. But my friend, the same one who pointed this interview my way also noted, that Mayo has been in the spotlight since he was a freshman in high school. And in all honesty, I don't think he has failed under all the pressure he has been through.
Also, Brewer to me didn't prove anything this year. Nothing. Nada. Seriously, what did he do that would make anyone beleive that he could be a star or warrant that #7 overall? Yes, you probably have to wait to evaluate a pick a few years down the line, but I think it's also very fair to evaluate the first year. You can slice and dice up the year by year progress as we go along, but for his rookie campaign he sucked. He averaged 5.8 Points per game, 3.7 rebounds, 1.4 assists and shot 37% while averaging 22:48 Minutes per game.
My point is, that he is very much trade bait. So is Randy Foye, So is McCants and anyone else on the roster not named Al Jefferson.
I agree with so many others that there are some good players in this draft that could help the Wolves out and that they could probably be taken late first round early second. But I am not at all satisfied that we should just stay where we are. If we have a chance to package up 2nd round picks to move into the late first, and or trade and buy our way into the first round, the Wolves should do it. Get as many first rounders as you can. Every year they should be doing this. And when and if they are picking in the second round, don't just throw away the pick on some European guy that may or may not come over in few years. Or some guy that we have to send over to Europe for a few years. It's actually only until the Craig Smith pick that I have seen the Wolves intelligently use a 2n round pick.
Yes I would love CDR (Chris Douglas Robersts) or Joey Dorsey in late first early second. But if history tells us anything, the Wolves never move up for players.But there are so many players in this draft that I think would help and they wouldn't be high picks. Bill Walker is another. I mean, with the 3rd overall pick, you should get an NBA ready player. With the other 2 early 2nd round picks, they should be able to at the very least find some good role players and possibly even a stater.
Without going through the laundry list of 2nd round picks that have become contributors if not stars in this league, I think it's safe to say that the Wolves should be getting some quality players. And I also think that our roster is such that we could afford to trade /sign and trade for other picks this year as well.
The Wolves have a ton of moves they can make. I just hope they don't act complacent with our current team and our current status (picks) in the draft. I would hope they would move up.
Lastly, isn't Antoine Walker trade Bait also with his contract?
Jessie,
I agree with you about Mayo and that there are going to be some gems that come out of the mid to late picks in the 1st round. The problem is that 2 second round picks probably won't get you to the mid level. You might only move up 3 or 4 spots tops. And, even if that means you might have a chance at a CDR (or whoever), CDR may not pan out to be a gem. He could be a bust. Meanwhile you have two chances high in the second round at finding someone who can fill out some roles in the roster. From what everyone has been saying there should be some quality centers available that have some potential to keep Jefferson at the 4 spot next year. Take the two best Centers available and hope that one of them pans out. If you move up a couple of spots, but sacrifice two picks for one, you end up losing a backup plan. But, if there is a player they think they have to have who is still available and there is a team willing to make the trade, I suppose you can do it.
Can I first interrupt the Basketball talk for a quick second to point out how the Home Run totals have gone fallen like bad stocks? What was it 2 years ago there were like 40 players with 30 dingers in each league by this point? Now 11 and 13 respectively are league leading numbers. I have long thought that many a player have been juicing it up. Perhaps the steroid shame factor is actually doing some good. How and why are the Yankees in last place? Maybe because 1/2 their team was on the juice in years previous? Oh and if anyone saw Alex Rodriguez give his best poker face when being asked point blank if he ever used; he had no affect, no facial expression, his answer was rehearsed and planned and practiced. I will leave it at this when I say, TONS of players were using steroids, more than the Mitchel report could ever point the finger at, and still to this very day, tons are still using and trying to find new ways in which to use and not get caught. But, at least it's apparent now that the use was rampant and is less so today.
The Celtics and Pistons are at the least fun as hell to watch. Back and forth, back and forth. No matter who wins I'm going to feel bad for the loser. Ray Allen woke up tonight. I only hope he will stay awake because his jumper is a thing of beauty when he's stroking it right.
When it comes to Rondo, I don't really think he's ready for this, this playoff atmosphere he's in, but he's there and he's doing the best he can. I watch Rondo and I see a young Tony Parker. Man did he take heat when he came up with the Spurs. And at one point I believe he got benched in the series against New Jersey. Heck, they wanted to trade him, not resign him yada yada yada. This went on for a few years....well until the 2nd NBA title the Spurs won with him at the helm. Rondo is a lot like Parker was in my opinion. One of the big knocks on Parker and even still is, his jumper and his ability to hit an open one. Well, in all honesty I think Parker cleared that up last year being named the NBA Finals MVP where he nailed jumper after jumper after jumper. Rondo will have to do the same. He clearly can't shot at the clip needed but he's doing a lot right and well a lot wrong too in my opinion. But I do think he has the chance and has and will grow from this playoff experience.
So yes Brit, the anouncers harp on Rondo quite a bit, but I think just like they used to with Tony Parker; and as Tony Parker has now had his day(s) to prove them all how good he can be and will be and is, Rondo too I beleive may have his day just like Parker.
Kendik Perkins too may be growing right before our eyes. Tonight he was a man among mice. Did you all know he's 6' 10" ? Can you imagine Boston still having Al Jefferson? Anyway, I really like this Perkins guy. Boston has done some good scouting. In fact, of all that young talent they aquired before making trades for them, I see only one dud so far and that is Green. Delonte West, Al Jefferson, Kendrik Perkins, Ryan Gomes, Rajon Rondo are all good players so far. Even their free agent signing has been good and trading. Anyway I digress... Perkins, wow, yeah that's basically what I wanted to say.
Am I crazy to think that there is not some nefarious things going on with David Stern and the NBA? I mean, forever I have come to beleive there is something up with the NBA draft. Cleavland get LeBron, Shaq, Duncan etc...and now Chicago gets their hometown boy? But once again I digress,
Last year's NBA Finals were the lowest rated in history. No way Stern (Who already dislikes Popavich) is gonna let Spurs and Pistons repeat that disater of ratings. He knows, and everyone knows Lakers Vs Boston will send the ratings to all time highs. Now look at the non-call the Spurs got jobbed on the other night. I told my friend jokingly that the NBA will give the Spurs 1 game as to not draw too much suspicion but that's it. Folks... on behalf of my conspiracy theory self I can tell you, no way is Detroit winning.
Lastly,
I was forwarded an interview of OJ Mayo where he talks abou twanting to play the point in the NBA and how he sees himself coming into the NBA as a Deron Williams type. How does this make you feel about taking him 3rd?
"Can I first interrupt the Basketball talk for a quick second to point out how the Home Run totals have gone fallen like bad stocks? What was it 2 years ago there were like 40 players with 30 dingers in each league by this point? Now 11 and 13 respectively are league leading numbers."
...I read something about how fastball speeds have fallen just as much. Is the NBA the only major league out there with participants who don't cheat like crazy? I suppose the ref thing hurts a bit, but I don't think the NFL or MLB would be what they are today without drugs and cheating.
Caustic commentary from a boston boy who clearly knows what he is talking about. The celts were sleepwalking during the first three quarters but the pistons were just not good enough to put them away most of the game. Probably a good look into the rest of the series. The Celts in seven by default. Thanks for your obsevatoins Britt.
My investment advisors classify me as risk-averse, so I'm not sure you can trust my opinion on what the Wolves should do with the Third pick. Behavioral economist might classify my sentiments on the Wolves third pick as loss -aversion.
From an article in the latest New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491
"Loss aversion refers to the fact that once people own something they hate giving it up, be it a house, a car, or even a humble coffee mug. Many years ago, Kahneman and two collaborators divided a class of students in two, giving the members of one group a mug each that they could keep. After waiting awhile, the researchers asked the mug owners how much they would be willing to sell their mugs for, and they asked the students without mugs how much they would pay for one. 'The results show that those with mugs demand roughly twice as much to give up their mugs as others are willing to pay to get one,' Thaler and Sunstein write. 'Thousands of mugs have been used in dozens of replications of this experiment, but the results are nearly always the same. Once I have a mug, I don't want to give it up.'"
Before, and immediately after, the draft, I was in favor of trading down. With the third pick I had a feeling that the stock for Mayo would rise and we could get a comparable player with a lower pick, plus one or two more assets. Now, as I hear the possible trade scenarios I am in fear of the potential loss. Just as people talk about Roy and Granger, I am terrified the next name to haunt the Wolves will be OJ Mayo if we deal the rights for the third pick, or heaven forbid, we choose Lopez, Bayless, Love or some other player with the third pick.
A backcourt of Mayo and Foye teaming with Big Al may be the combination the Wolves need to compete with Portland and Utah in the coming years, especially if Mayo pans out to be a dominant scorer and a lock-down defender in the NBA, which may be the surest bet the Wolves currently are in possession of. Yes, call it loss aversion, but the more I hear about other teams coveting our pick and Mayo, the more I think we have to take him and move on with what we have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages of Wins offers up their draft preview, featuring pace-adjusted, strength of schedule adjusted win scores.
http://dberri.wordpress.com/
It's well worth the read. Historically, these analysis foils to the Chad Ford/Real NBA GM groupthink fare pretty well. As the author of this piece (and past draft pieces) states, he figures he gets about an 70% correct rate, better, he thinks, than real GMs.
Anyway, all the prospects are in a chart in the article, but he does go out of his way to highlight the more noteworthy prospects in his system (apparently those who aren't cast into one of the following four categories can be considered "neutral").
HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC:
Michael Beasley
Kevin Love
Maurese Speights
Richard Hendrix
Joey Dorsey
Chris Lofton
(Apparently this is a good draft for 4's. I'd love to see the Wolves grab Dorsey with their 31st pick.)
OPTIMISTIC:
Chris Douglas Roberts
Roy Hibbert
Jason Thompson
JR Giddens
Mario Chalmers
Lester Hudson
Pat Calathes
Aleks Maric
George Hill (PG for IUPUI)
PESSIMISTIC:
Jerryd Bayless
DJ Augustin
Russell Westbrook
Derryll Arthur
Robin Lopez
Sonny Weeks
HIGHLY PESSIMISTIC:
OJ Mayo
Eric Gordon
Anthony Randolph
Very Interesting. If (a) this win score analysis is accurate and (b) the consensus draft order holds up, this could make for a real crazy draft.
Interesting,
However, given the track record of econometric studies to predict future economic events, I have to be a little skeptical of a model using the tools from econometrics to predict NBA success from past performance in the NCAAs.
As usual, this draft will produce some busts in the first 10 picks and likely even amongst the top 3. It will also have some gems that will be scooped up in the middle and later picks in the 1st round and a couple of players that will contribute to their teams from the 2nd round. There will be teams with track records of finding diamonds in the rough landing another steal (San Antonio, Lakers, Jazz) with their picks and teams with track records of busts having another bust (Wolves, Clippers, Knicks, Grizzlies) and all of this will give writers and fans in some cities plenty to write about. But, I still think a lot of this all falls closer to random luck than actual skilled evaluation of NBA draft prospects, once the list of draftees are presented to the teams. You are not going to improve upon player evaluation by developing these models. There are some inherent qualitative and complexity issues found in sports that are not easily captured with a single number. The statistics are interesting, and even useful in many cases, but I would not put much stock in a model that places a number on each player predicting their future success in the NBA.
I am sure there are many people who can do much better without the number just by watching film and the players play basketball and judging them with little more than instinct.
"I am sure there are many people who can do much better without the number just by watching film and the players play basketball and judging them with little more than instinct."
...I completely disagree with this statement. It started in baseball with Bill James and it spread through the BoSox and across town to the Celts, but highly developed and tailored statistical analysis is an indispensible tool through which to view players on film and in person. I'd be willing to bet a fair amount that the Wolves' stats operation is about on par with their win total vis-a-vis teams like San Antonio, Portland, Denver, and Boston.
It's not just a 1-number thing anymore. If you look at a system like 82 Games (similarity scores) and compare it to WoW (heavily weighted towards rebounding) and Hollinger (PER + red flag analysis) you begin to get a more holistic view of what a player can do in a generic NBA situation. Furthermore, each year, the data builds upon itself and new niches and approaches are uncovered. Some teams have been doing this for long enough to create their own offensive/defensive scores that are (reportedly) accurate to the tune of 70-80%. If you can know what works for your squad on both ends of the court to the tune of 70-80%, and you can then build a model of what sorts of college players work well and prosper in a similar model, you're going to have a kick-ass team.
The Spurs aren't just picking these guys up off the street randomly. Lengthy guards who have high rebound rates and who showed that they can work inside-out in college aren't simply outperforming their college expectations for no reason. Sophmores who had a better freshman year than 2nd season aren't doing better than sophmores who went vice versa just because.
I don't follow baseball as much as I used to but I get the sense that the Twins under Terry Ryan had an approach based more on the scouts' eye than the data box. I'd be willing to bet that McHale is one of these guys as well. Meanwhile, the rest of the league is getting behind the statistical approach and landing players that fit, perform, and...best of all...can be replaced with greater ease than are the ones selected with the naked eye.
If the Wolves don't have their own statistical model of what type of college player fits their system then somebody isn't doing their damn job.
Just to give you an idea of the things the team should be looking for, they need to develop a similarity-score ranking system based on the following numbers:
- pts/poss
- fta/poss
- 3pa/fga
- fta/fga
- age
- wingspan
- standing reach
- games played
- minutes played
- rebound rate (adjusted for height)
- ppr
- offensive rebound rate (adj for height)
- charges taken
- blocks/48
- offensive eff
- poss %
- shot %
...there's a few more, but they need efficient players with length who have high poss % with above average fta numbers and solid possession-ending/maintaining abilities (charges/oreb/etc). They should then take the similarity scores and rank them against team performance. Again, if this isn't being done, someone isn't doing their damn job.
S&P,
Yes, I don't doubt that you do disagree with that statement and I am glad that you do. I love reading about different stats and I do think it is useful to have a stats guy on hand. Surely, Terry Ryan and every other succesful Baseball man pays attention to and pours over statistical measures of players. Likewise, so do the Wolves and so does McHale.
But, there is also a subjective measure to looking at stats as well. There is not just one number that says "here is the # 1 player, #2, #3 and so on." That is my point. You have to have good instincts when pouring over stats as well. Any good econometrician will tell you that a good model is just as much art as it is science.
And, there is no substitute for watching a player plwy, just as there is no substitute for sitting down with a player and talking with them to see if you can get an insight into what goes on in their head. Likewise, you have to go over health and physical reports. You cannot just rely on stats. It is only one small part. And, I really am not willing to go completely over to the idea that San Antonio or any other team has better statisticians than the Wolves and that is why they get good picks. It doesn't explain Darko for Detroit and I am sure we can come up with many other examples. There is a large element of luck in a draft (good - Brandon Roy, Michael Jordan, Steve Nash, Josh Howard- and Bad -Len Bias, Greg Oden, Joe Barry Carroll, Stephan Marbury/Ray Allen) and also some good subjective evaluation based on gut feelings that explain a teams success as much as statistical measures - especialy given the that there is a subjective element in statistical analysis as stated above.
Fair points. As a former stat-based-employee myself (I was up to my elbows in data) I agree that numbers are just another way of painting a picture and even data-based scribblings can be seen in different ways by different people.
I guess to build on my point, I'd say that stat-based research should be the tool by which interviews and video analysis are viewed and processed. The only reason why Michael Jordan was a lucky pick was because the Blazers didn't have access to what we now know about college players. Darko (and Bargnani) don't get explained because not many teams have come up with a good ranking system for foreign players compared to American college players.
There will always be an element of luck involved in player selection. Stats are the most helpful and proven measure by which to reduce the element of chance. If you have a moderately paced club that ranks low in pts/poss with a high oreb rate, low ast rate, and non-existant fta/poss number, what type of player does this team need? How can the play-it-by-eye guy even comprehend what sorts of needs his team has? I'll tell you how it's worked with the Wolves (who I don't think have a solid stat operation...just a guess): it's worked by having a GM try to figure out which college player looks the most like Dennis Johnson or Danny Ainge.
I'm not arguing that anyone should simply rely only on stats; rather, that their judgment should be filtered through statistical analysis in an attempt to provide a check and balance against...well, McHale's own lying eyes.
PS: Just to throw something extra into the conversation, is it fair to ask if the Twins are run more poorly than the Wolves?
I think the Twins are run much better than the Wolves. I think there are some very good evaluators of talent in the Twins organization and they have an efficient means for evaluating players involving statistical measures and the opinions of many people in the organization. It has led to some very good trades and draft picks when compared to other major league teams. Britt had a great city pages article a couple years ago with Billy Smith I think that explained how they evaluate players. It was a great interview.
That said, I don't think McHale has done THAT bad, though things could have gone much better. He had decent instincts with KG and Marbury and, as you said, the picks of McCants/Wright, Foye/Smith, and Brewer/Richard, the last three years are not that bad when evaluated separately. Taken as a whole is another story. He also should be given a new slate since the trade because KG was such a huge presence on the roster to try and build around given salare constraints. The Smith fiasco was worse in theory than in actuality if you go back and look at where the Wolves would have picked and the players available those years. They did not miss much. Though, when they got a pick they missed badly with Ebi and they did not put enough emphasis on the 2nd round picks. But, you also have to take into account that for many of those years there were strong sentiments from KG that he wanted to win now and not wait for a player to develop. He wanted veteran presence and never wanted the leadership role of taking players under his wing.
I should note that I'm talking way over my head with the baseball stuff. In a thread about the importance of stats, I guess it's kind of ironic that I'm talking about my gut feeling about the Twins, but I get the sense that something is fundamentally flawed with their approach to player selection. From their infield to a lack of power to...well, I read the box scores and I'll never cease to be amazed by some of the players they bring into the lineup.
Well, its probably where you have to look beyond the boxscore. People make fun of it, but I think there really is something to the Twins promoting the organization as a playing baseball the right way. And many of those ways don't show up in the boxscore. Running out groundouts, hitting the cutoff man, taking pitches, throwing over the plate and letting the defense play, etc. What it translate into is a pitching staff that may give up more home runs and hitters that hit less of them, but it has also led to more wins. The Twin's often have been at a disadvantage when compared to other teams in the division, when you just compare boxscores during the Kelly/Gardenhire eras. THey had some bad years in the Kelly era, but won two world series and Gardenhire has won the division or been in the race in each year. THis year the Twins have no business being in the same class as Detroit, Chicago, and Cleveland if you just look at rosters, stats and boxscores, yet somehow they have managed to be right there. What is it if not knowing players that have the potential to play the right way and teaching those fundamentals? What team would develop a player like Punto other than the Twins? What team wouldn't tell Mauer that he has to start swinging for power? THere are many exampl;es of players leaving the Twins to lesser succes and other examples of players coming to the Twins for greater success -especially pitchers. The one who got away, Ortiz, has flourished to the MVP level since leaving by doing something the Twins didn't want him to do as much of and that is swing for the home run. But, what makes Ortiz so dangerous is that you cannot pitch him away, because he can go to the opposite field and at the end of games he is just as dangerous getting hits like that as he is with the big swing. He learned that from his years in the Twins organization under Kelly's tutelage to play the right way. He was also injury prone during his development years with the Twins.
"What team would develop a player like Punto other than the Twins? "
...that's kind of what pisses me off about them. He's absolutely terrible and I could care less that he hustles and dives head first into 1st base.
He actually is far from a terrible major league baseball player. He is a very good player. He's a great defensive player - gold glove caliber at three positions. He is a great base runner. He had a terrible year at the plate last year but was solid the year before and has been good, so far, this year. Punto is a very valuable player to the Twins and is contributions are vastly underrated. He wasn't adequate as a full-time third baseman, given he does not hit for power and, last year, playing injured, was a disaster for him and the Twins. But, he plays the right way, no doubt.
I'm trying to think of a basketball equivelant player and perhaps, Ervin Johnson the center for the Wolves or Fred Hoiberg come to mind. But, a better comparison is that he is the exact opposite of Ricky Davis. His stats won't jump out at you, but there is no doubt that he contributes to a winning atmosphere on and off the field for a team.
The Twins didn't sign or develop Punto. They traded for him and Carlos Silva at the major league level from Phily for Eric Milton, way back when.
But give the Twins credit for continuing to get value for a first round pick from 1988 (Chuck Knoblach) It went like this:
Knoblach -> Milton -> Silva & Punto
Thanks,
And that is my point. The Twins have a knack for recognizing the value of players - often times in trades more than drafting.
PPS: I should also note that quite a few rankings have Kevin Love at #2 right behind Beasley.
Andy B., very well said.
My opinion is it couldn't hurt to incorporate more this type analysis as a piece of the larger puzzle into the evaluation process, particularly if you aren't one of the few fortunate teams run by a front office with a lengthy record of razor sharp decision-making.
I'm also skeptical of this type of work's ability to identify sleepers. I'd be shocked if Chris Lofton, a 6'2" shooting guard, emerges as one of the best players from this class. (Or, last year's egghead sleeper--Nick Fazekas--didn't exactly put his name in many ROY discussions; whereas real sleepers/overacheivers--guys like Carl Landry or even Craig Smith, for instance, tend to come out of nowhere.)
And for a guy like Kevin Love (a player this system identifies as not just a worthy pick but a potential franchise player), this system of course doesn't recognize and therefore can't address the legitimate concerns about his conditioning, athleticism, and size.
However, I am more confident in this type of work's ability to identify busts. And with 6 potential lottery picks designated as "pessimistic" or "highly pessimistic," including Mayo who looks to be gathering enough momentum already to make this a "3-player draft, I'm going to do a complete 180 on my earlier stance about trading down: I think they should do it.
And again, personally, I find this type of analysis intriguing as a foil to the more conventional mocks.
Anyway, the NBA rules after the fact that Bones Barry should have gotten two free throws. Does that mean they have to refill the arena, put some ticks back on the clock, and put Barry on the line?
Al Jefferson for either the #1 or #2 pick (and necessary contracts). What do you guys think? Both Miami and Chicago could use a low post scorer, and both are close enough to contention that they may favor an established player over a 19 year old college freshman.
RL
Absolutely, no way do you trade our only asset for something unproven. Jefferson is untouchable and, although I loved RHino too, there really is not any way to keep him around in a Wolves uniform. Besides, he'd play behind Beasley as well.
No way will McHale trade away Jefferson and if he did, he really would be the dunderhead everyone says he is.
I wasn't necessarily promoting the idea. Just wondered what people thought. But since you ask.... :)
Personally, I like the upside of both Rose and Beasley over Jefferson. I've been very vocal in my belief that Jefferson has a rather narrow set of upper tier talents (and some glaring weaknesses). Neither Rose nor Beasley appear to be complete players yet either, but I would put Rose's speed and passing ability on par with Jefferson's low post game. And Beasley looks like he could probably give you Al-like scoring from the inside and out.
Not sure if it is as risky a proposition as it might seem.
Jianfu,
You may be right about Mayo and him being a bust. There is almost a 100% guarantee that no matter who the wolves selected at 3, there will be viable arguments that they made a grave mistake by passing on someone. Likewise, if they don't make a trade, some of the proposed trades we have heard about and more in the proposed trades up to their pick will become established as real actualities that the dunderheads at Target Center passed by for a player who is not performing to expectations. Statistical models would bear out that the above scenarios are a near certainty if the Wolves stand pat and take their pick. The only way for the critics to be quieted would be if they somehow made it to the playoffs next year with their pick and to the Western final within three years. Otherwise, plenty of people will be saying told-you-sos about a player or trade the Wolves passed on and will scream how stupid they were when everyone knew they should have taken Mayo or a 3 or the best 5 or whatever they did not do.
All that is not a possibility, it is an almost certain reality. Still, the Wolves would not do bad by the BPA strategy for their three picks this year. If it is Lopez, then perhaps they can get a solid scoring small forward in the second round. If it is Mayo, then lets hope they can get some bigs with the 2 2nd round picks. And if it is someone else, well, lets just hope...
I'll be damned if I know who their best pick should be. I'll say it Here and now on May 28, 2008, that they should take Mayo - but, I would not be surprised if I was wrong. But I can say the same thing about any other pick.
As far as trading down, I would not do it to get another player who is not rated as high as Mayo. I would do it to get more draft picks next year and some young pieces to go with Jefferson. Now, everything S&P proposes sounds dang swell to me. But, are these really possibilities and will it all play out as he says. The safest bet is still Mayo (if Rose and Beasley go 1&2) and keep the 2 2nd round picks imho. Lopez a close second.
As I have also said from the beginning, McHale and his cronies would do well to let everyone know how pleased he is with the possibility of landing Mayo with that third pick as well and let the other GMs come to him with their best offers right up to the final minute of their pick. If the best offer is something he can't pass on, then make a trade. Otherwise, take Mayo.
John Hollinger has another list that is useful to cross reference against WoW. His is behind the ESPN firewall so I'm hoping it gets leaked to some board where it spreads.
I never could have imagined all this OJ Mayo-hype in just one week following the draft lottery--it's as if it became a "3 Player Draft" without anything happening, when the entire college season had established it as the same 2-player lottery as in 2007. Reading articles like Chad Ford's yesterday, it's easy to get excited about OJ. He describes Mayo's incredible work ethic and desire to be great, and makes excuses for any struggles he had at USC. This is all good for Minnesota, since it gets fans excited about the player we are currently most likely to end up with, and it may influence the two teams ahead of us, who have the opportunity to take better talents. I have to admit, the hype is affecting me, and I'm getting to where I'm indifferent between OJ and Beasley, and if Beasley is a true power forward, I think we're better off with Mayo. However, I can't erase the memories of watching Rose look like a man among boys whenever he needed to for Memphis, while showing steady leadership as a point guard. He's better than Mayo, and if we can get him for our pick and not too much else, it's the obvious play.
I wasn't fearing moving up as much as trading down. I'd be happier with Rose or Beasley, but I wouldn't want to give up too much (future draft picks or the 2 second rounders). The more I think about it, the happier I would be if the Wolves keep their third pick and draft whomever is left from Rose/Beasley/Mayo (I assume it will be Mayo) and draft a couple of big guys with their 2 second rounders. Then shuffle their remaining roster accordingly through minor trades, buyouts and resignings. Go into the season with
1. Telfair/Foye/Mayo/Jaric
2. Mayo/Foye/McCants/Jaric/Brewer
3. Gomes/Brewer/Jaric
4. Jefferson/Gomes
5. Richards/2nd rounders/Jefferson.
That's a lot of guards, but with Walker and McCants, you can probably manage a trade for someone who can earn minutes at the 3 and four. Who knows, perhaps McHale can even swing some more future draft picks in the deal. Keep stock piling them (1st and 2nd rounders).
I agree that Mayo and two big men with the 31-34 combo would be a good draft. Especially if one of the big men is a tough defender, ready to contribute immediately, like Joey Dorsey, and the other is a project who may reap long-term benefits, like some of the African and European names being thrown around. We'd miss out on a chance to recoup the Clips pick, but Mayo might be sufficiently better than Eric Gordon for us to pull the trigger at #3. Plus, the lineup you show should (provided guys like Foye-Brewer-Telfair show more improvement) be out of the bottom 10 and we could lose it next year while we gain Miami and Boston's 1st Rounders, which would lessen the blow considerably.
My point was a more general one that, in one week's time, Minnesota's spot at #3 went from a Laettener repeat to a coveted spot...but I still can't take magazine and blog hype and put Mayo in Rose's league--(although I certainly hope Chicago and Miami can).
While it probably has nothing to do with their own actions, I'm glad that folks are talking about this draft as a 3 person affair. If only for public relations, it's a solid move for a club that hasn't done much right in recent memory. Here's hoping that GMs view it in a similar light.
To tell you the truth, I'd be more upset with the club if they don't walk away with either CDR, Budinger, or Alexander in the mid-1st than if they simply grab Love with the top pick. They need a 3 in a bad way and I think that they need to address the frontcourt as much as possible with this draft. They have free agency and 3 potential picks in next year's 1st round to try and dabble with the big 2nd scorer. They need talent in the front court and the best 3 available. I'll be fine with Mayo because he's clearly an upgrade over Foye and McCants, but I think they'd be wasting an opportunity if they didn't jump on their highest rated 3 and then another 2/3 swingman and/or a big with their remaining picks. Hopefully, they'll have 3 picks next year with one of their own being in the top 5-7. Ideally, they would be able to move up for a Tyreke Evans, Demar Derozan, Brandon Jennings, or Ricky Rubio. This isn't a 1 year rebuilding affair and they would be hard pressed to screw this bad-boy up (taking Love or Gallinari without trading down or simply grabbing Bayless would be about as close as they could get to messing it up.)
Ideally, here's what I'd like to see in order of preference:
1- Beasley falls to 3
2- They trade the pick to the Grizz, Clips, Bucks, or Nets for a player and a pick. If they go with the Grizz, they need to walk away with 2 of the following: Conley, Warrick, or Lowry in addition to both their 1st rounders. If they go with the Clips, they need the pick plus the future 1st owed to the Clips. If they go with the Bucks, it's Bogut or bust. If it's the Nets, its Krstic the former Huskie PG, and their 2 1st rounders. (How about Shaddy + Toine + 3rd pick to the Nets for Jefferson + 2 1st rounders + sign and trade Krstic?)
3- They grab Mayo.
4- They grab Lopez.
Outside of Beasley, I'd really like to see them move down as far as they can and still walk away with their top rated 3. I'm guessing this is Gallinari. I'd then like to see them move the 2nd rounders and a player for a mid 1st and grab CDR/Budinger/Alexander. I like the idea of trading with Memphis if they could get Darko and Lowry/Conley. Even if Beasley falls, I think the team should immediately offer Toine + Shaddy + Beasley to the Grizz for Conley + Darko + their 2 1st rounders. Let's say they get Gallinari or Love and CDR. Lineup 1:
1- Conley/Jaric
2- Foye/CDR/Brewer
3- Gallinari/Gomes/Brewer
4- Jefferson/Richard
5- Darko/Richard
Lineup 2:
1- Conley/Jaric
2- Foye/CDR/Brewer
3- Gomes/Brewer
4- Love/Richard
5- Jefferson/Darko
They'd still have 3 1st rounders and a ton of free agent money in 2 years to work with.
I hope the Wolves' FO hasn't given up on Brewer enough to rearrange a great draft position in order to replace him. I guess in my opinion, our long-term plans should be mostly revolved around a dynamic guard and slew of big bodies to surround our Foye-Brewer-Jefferson core of young talent. Since big men drafted at 31 and 34 are almost as likely to succeed as the Lopez's and DeAndre Jordan, I'd rather just take them there and take a stud guard with whatever we end up with in the Top 3 (Mayo with the 3rd, Rose if Chicago takes Beasley and Miami wants to trade down with us).
I don't think it's giving up on Brewer so much as admitting that he's the last KG-induced decision this club ever made. I hope he works out but if you listen to the things that McHale and Hoiberg have been saying for a while now, Brewer will have a hard time finding a home on this team. Just listen to the KFAN interview earlier today; McHale went on and on about surrounding a good post game with guys who can shoot and handle the ball...the 2 things Brewer simply can't do.
I also don't think they'll hold on to the 2nd rounders. I'm hoping they adopt a draft strategy where they don't take the BPA, but rather identify who they want and then move assets to go get him. They're going to have free agent money in 2 years to bring in a big man and they may have 3 1st rounders in next year's draft. I'm really hoping that they have identified the type of player they want to pursue in free agency and they are filling the holes in around the type of function that player x will bring to the table.
I also think that we're all forgetting the template for any post-KG McHale action: the 86 Celtics. In Jefferson, he has the version of himself. He's been going for 6'4" guards for the past few years a'la Dennis Johnson and Danny Ainge. With Gallinari or Love he sees his Bird. With 2 6'4" guards he thinks he can run out a lineup of, let's say, Rubio, Foye, Love, Jefferson, and some big dope of a center...or, they could take out the center and add another wing player like CDR.
There's a certain amount of crack smoking that is involved with thinking like this but I think it's pretty clear that is the idea in his head. Although, to be fair, if you told me now that we could lock in that roster in 2 years, I'd agree to it. At least it would be interesting.
I completely disagree with your strategy. Not taking the BPA would be the absolute worst thing McHale could do. It's almost like your advocating that the Wolves use the draft to get a bunch of pretty good guys instead of one or two exceptional guys. That's the opposite of how legit contenders are built.
It's all about getting two or three stars and surrounding them with role players who fit. Arguably the Wolves have one star and they have a chance to add another in Mayo. Trading the pick would be indefensible given the lack of star potential on this roster and the organization's rancid trade track record.
The free agency money coming in two years shouldn't be part of the draft thinking at all. It's a fantasy to bank on the Wolves luring a big time player or even an above average role player without drastically overpaying.
I'd just argue that BPA is a pretty relative concept and that it is different for the Wolves than it is for, let's say, the Clips...regardless of need. Some players just fit better.
I get what your sayin, that some players fit some teams better than others. But that really only applies to teams that have already established something more than the Wolves.
The Clippers may be more in the category of finding guys who fit with Brand, Linvingston Kamen, Thornton, ect. The Wolves just need guys who can excel in the league, period, not fit in with the misfits already on the roster.
They should assume this pick is the highest they'll ever get and do everything they can to use on a guy who can become an all star at any position.
Understood. I agree that they should assume that this is going to be their highest pick. Unfortunately, I also think this is a tremendously weak draft as far as superstar potential goes. I think it's filled with a lot of really nice starting-caliber players and maybe a few All Stars, but for once I think McHale gets it right: there's 8-10 guys here that are about the same as far as talent goes and none of them are going to be a D-Wade/Kobe-esque style player.
Because of this, and because of the assumption of peak value with the pick, I think they need to maximize this year's draft to fill as many holes as possible. They'll still have 3 possible 1st rounders next year as well as free agent money to work with. I think if there's a year to make a play for a can't miss style player (if one will exist) it's next year. Jrue Holliday, Brendan Jennings, Tyreke Evans, Demar Derozan...there will be some nice impact players that will be in the top few picks next year. The Wolves could either move up or make a big deal on a sign and trade with a team that has a nice player that wants to rebuild in a hurry...with 3 #1 picks and some young talent like Shaddy, Foye, or Brewer.
This year, they have 2 2nd rounders and Big Al as assets...and little else. They have no cap room and a lot of front court spaces to fill. Mayo is a nice player and I'd be more than happy with him on the squad, but I like the idea of getting Memphis' picks + Lowry for the 3rd pick. Gallinari/Love + CDR/Thompson + 2 2nd rounders like Pat Calathes and JR Giddens makes for a nice day at the office. Those are guys that could really help out in a year when the Wolves are able to move for a sign-and-trade, free agent, or top pick.
Also, I'd argue that outside of Beasley, no such superstar exists in this draft.
I'm with you on thinking Beasley is the cream of the draft crop. I have a very high opinion of Mayo too though, and I don't think the Wolves can afford to trade the pick and take the chance OJ becomes an all star for some other team.
The Wolves have to go for the home run and take Mayo. All the elite role players in the world won't help this team unless they get another star and this is as good a chance as they'll probably ever have to get one.
What type of player do you see in Beasley? I personally can't tell if he's closer to Elton Brand or Carmelo Anthony. I think he's too undersized at the 4 to be a KG or Duncan caliber-player, but he certainly could (and probably will) be an All-Star.
1- Age- he's 19
2- Poss%/ORtg- he ended a 1/3 of K-State's possessions while posting an obscene Ortg and PER. He also took nearly 36% of K-State's shots. Heavy workloads + big time efficiency = awesome player.
3- Free thows, free throws, free throws. He had a FTRate of 48.5
4- Turnovers- his TOrate was pretty damn good for having the ball that much.
5- eFG%- from in and out, he put thet ball in the bucket.
6- He played in a lot of games with a lot of minutes; good sample size
7- Amazingly efficient scorer (1st in PER, 1st in EFF, 2nd in WS/40, 3rd in ppg)
8- can finish with either hand
9- can play inside-out or outside-in
10- legit NBA 3 range
...there's some other things. He averages over a point/play, he has a TS% over 60%, he gets to the line a ton, he grabs every rebound in sight and he doesn't turn it over as much as a guy who has the ball in his hands that much should.
Who knows if he's done growing. Even if he's only 6'8" or 6'9", he's been measured to have a wingspan and standing reach on par with a 6'10" player.
Bottom line: the kid is 19 years old and he's the best non-NBA player in the world. I don't understand how he won't go first. Rose is nice but this guy has an unmatched ceiling. He's a very rare mix of small and big. Imagine Big Al being as quick and as perimeter proficient as Foye or Shaddy.
Spot on. Beasely mixes low-post scoring, perimeter accuracy and tough drives to the hoop, rebounds on both ends and can run the floor. I think he could be a top 5-10 player in the league within three years and the Bulls would be nuts to pass on him. Rose, in my opinion, is getting over-valued because of the rise of Deron Williams and CP3 and his performance in the tournament. If Beasely had been on a final four caliber team there would be absolutely no question he'd go number one.
Back to Mayo:
I don't have the handle on stats like SnP does, but from what I understand Mayo was a pretty damn efficient player as well, especially when a couple of his early season clunker games are removed from the equation. He settled down as the season went on, and though he did not appear physically dominant, I think he ended the season a patient, smart player, great passer and shooter and a better defender than people give him credit for. I just don't buy that there are 8-9 guys who will be as good as him.
Plus, he's ready to play NOW! McHale has outsmarted himself the last three years in a row by not taking the obvious pick. If he does it again he must truly be an idiot.
Interesting stuff. I like Beasley, too, but don't quite share that level of optimism, mainly due to his size and questionable (at least I think it's questionable?) passing ability. He's a great pick for a team who needs a scoring forward.
Rose is not the slightest bit overrated, and I've been all about him on this comments page since the early signs of tanking when I was upset that we were playing Snyder over Brewer and costing ourselves a better chance at Rose in this lottery--(just to show that at least I am not one who was majorly affected by his tournament run). Aside from LBJ, there isn't a more explosive athlete in the league today. (He's out of Paul and Williams' league in athleticism.) Throw in that he's an incredible scorer in the paint, great passer, and very solid defender on the perimeter and I think he's the best prospect. I've already said this 500 times, though, and I'll probably say it 500 more before draft night. Unfortunately, it sounds like Chicago and Miami know this already...my only hope is that Doug Collins brings his slow-down game to Chicago like Hollinger predicts today and wants the post-player, then Riley prefers a shooter like Mayo next to Wade. We'll see. I bet I know which of the three Al Jefferson would like to play with.
Mayo could be really good, too, though. I wouldn't be the slightest bit disappointed with him--biggest worry is the Starbury factor and that he'll bolt out of the tundra after a couple seasons for a big market. Boy would that suck.
Beasley gets a bad rap for his passing, but it's pretty hard to tell your most efficient player to not handle and shoot the ball 1/3 of the time when he is producing at that high of a level. It's not that he *can't* pass, rather that he was so good that K-State's offense was simply better off with the ball in his hands.
Quite simply, there hasn't been a prospect like this in a while. I think you have to go back to Lebron to see a guy with this much potential.
As for Rose, I do think there is a level of over-ratedness to him simply for the fact that he's being considered above Beasley and Mayo. He was brought along slowly on the 2nd best team in the country with a superior player along side of him. Memphis was an Elite Eight team without him and they probably would have done the same with a replacement-value PG. Granted, he got them to the title game and he's a hell of a player, but his value is inflated due to the tournament performance and the way people view CP3 and D-Will.
I think Chicago will wake up, smell the coffee, and pick Beasley...leaving Miami with Rose and the Wolves with the best of the rest and not a lot of trading leverage.
Finally, I think Jefferson would want Mayo. He's more NBA ready than Rose and he's a better shooter and defender. It doesn't take a lot of flash to enter the ball into the big fella and he's not the type of big man to run the flashy p-n-r that Chandler and Paul do in NOLA.
Anywho, if the Wolves get Beasley, they would be hard pressed not to take him...unless Memphis blew them away with an offer that included Warrick, Conley, and the rest of their draft.
I watched Jefferson quite a bit last year, and he seems to really enjoy getting passed the basketball. I guess I think he'd prefer to have a few dunks served up on a plate for him more than he'd like a third 6'4" guard who can shoot the three.
Also, I don't understand how Mayo is more "NBA-ready" than Rose, when A) Rose has a true position, and was the best point guard in all of college basketball last season and B) Rose is more athletic than Mayo. I honestly don't have any idea which is a better defender, since both seem to be pretty solid. I could blindly say "Rose is better," but I suspect no scouts are sure on that, since both guys have the physical tools and seem to have the drive to be great two-way players.
Lastly, it's a mistake to try to compare Rose to any current NBA point guard. There is none like him. Young Baron Davis is maybe a good start, since he could fly, but I still don't think he was ever this quick and definitely not this good of a passer. Paul and Williams have nothing on Rose. He'll be closer to MJ and Kobe than he is to those two. A couple inches shorter, but a better passer.
Mayo is more NBA ready because of a few factors:
1- His jumper is light years ahead of Rose's.
2- He ran the pick and roll in his college sets.
3- Mayo is a lead guard every bit as much as Rose.
4- Mayo is the (much) better defender.
5- Mayo is just as big if not bigger (although their reach and wingspan are pretty much the same.)
I think Rose has more potential than Mayo and if I had to make a decision between the 2 I'd go with Rose if only for his age. However, they are both lead guards who play on the ball and can run an offense and there really isn't that much of a difference between the two as far as overall talent. Rose has his weaknesses. I'd be really worried about his shooting and whether or not he could transfer his late-season assist totals to an NBA-style offense. There was a point during the season where he had a negative ppr with very few assists. That's not good...especially for a guy without a good outside shot.
Unless it's a power forward, I think we have to take the best player available, coming off a 22-win season and all-time low fan interest. It's going to be easier for us to fill in missing parts down the road than it will be finding a co-star for Al Jefferson. With that said, maybe they won't be that impressed with Mayo's workouts. If that's the case and they genuinely think it's a crapshoot between 8 or 9 guys, then they may as well trade down and get more pieces.
PS: for the 20th time, I think the players they should target are their highest rated 3 (likely Gallinari), one of the ABCs (Alexander/Budinger/CDR), Pat Calathes, and David Padgett. I think that's about as good as it could get for this draft. Gallinari and Alexnader would be ideal; adding Calathes and Padgett would be amazing.
Whoops...I forgot Jason Thompson. He or Padgett would be great. Both would be amazing.
SnP- You are dreaming, the Timberwolves have the only retarded GM in the league. Nobody is going to do those trades. I can appreciate your enthusiasm though.
You shouldn't give up hope, especially this year. McHale has pulled off two of the best trades of the year (Davis/Blount and Green) and is really only one or two trades from putting the house back in order. Right now the only true dead weight on the roster is Jaric and Buckner. Walker is an expiring contract after this season (technically a team option, but...pass) and Madsen only have $5/2 left to go. Compare this to where the team was eleven months ago, and the transformation is startling. As strange as it is to say, I don't have a problem with keeping McHale right now. If he insists on keeping Wittman after he craps out next season, however...