Let's Try To Make Some Sense Out of All This

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Oh, look, Q and I aren't the only ones who think we could have gotten more for Thad. Check out the Brooklyn and Minnesota grades. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2370185-nba-trade-deadline-2015-deal-recaps-and-grades-for-every-team/page/9

[Coolbreeze44]

Beat you to this one

[alexftbl8181 [enjin:6648741]]

So it sounds like Flip wanted to get KG for that Miami pick originally but the Nets turned it down.

I'm all but convinced that Flip is much more concerned about fan service then he is actually creating a winning franchise

[AbeVigodaLive]

Abe, I agree with your statement that Thad Young didn't deserve the hatred he occasionally received on this board, but I don't accept the default conclusion that this trade makes us worse and is an example of tanking. I think it makes us better. First, it's difficult to get much worse than the .200 winning percentage we put up with Thad as our starting PF. Secondly, you win in the NBA with defense and rebounding, and a combo platter of Payne/KG/AB is certain to be better in these elements than Thad plus. Look at the positive comments Flip has already made about Payne's defense in his first two practices (which mirror Izzo's comments). Combine that with KG's defensive intensity and rebounding rate twice that of Thad's, and AB's superior rebounding rate compared to Thad's (I see their respective defense as a wash), and it's not difficult to conclude that our defense and rebounding is vastly superior today to where it was 24 hours ago.

Thad Young is a quality guy with a creative offensive game, but he hasn't demonstrated an ability to win in the NBA in his 8 years. It's really difficult to construct an argument that replacing Thad Young in a lineup hurts a team's chances of winning.

Well, it's hard to refute that Thad Young has been a big part of some really crappy teams.

As for the rebounding... sure, Young was poor for his position. But I don't think it's as easy as claiming Player B averages (x) more rebounds than Player A so the team will automatically average (x) more rebounds per game. There are a lot of factors that go into it. Garnett should help when he's on the court. Probably Bennett and Payne, too. How much? We'll find out.

But what about Young's passing. That part of Young's game surprised me. He's a better passer than I expected. What about his ability to take guys off the dribble. I don't know if Payne or Bennett have that ability. I know Garnett doesn't. What about his ability to steal the ball and take off on a break...

Granted, some of those things are more important than others. And some may be able to be replaced for the most part. I guess a big part of my point is that in today's NBA we're heading toward a more position-less game. Sure, you still need bigs and smalls and you need to be able to do certain things (score, rebound, et al) but it's less about how one guy does that and more about how well you're able to do it as a team.

I literally can't comprehend your rebounding argument. When the rest of the team remains the same, but we swap Thad's rebounding prowess for KG's I don't see how it is possible that we aren't a better rebounding team. Your argument can only ever make sense if the better volume rebounder gives up more rebounds to his opponent than the increase in boards he already has over Thad (i.e. Thad gets 5, KG gets 7, KG would have to give up 2+ more boards to his opponent than Thad did for us to not see an increase in rebounding). It is completely counter intuitive to believe someone who gets more boards also gives up more boards than someone who gets less boards to begin with to the point where we are worse off with the guy who is a better volume rebounder. The total rebounds available doesn't just magically go up so it mathematically doesn't make sense that bringing in a guy who gets more rebounds won't make us a better rebounding team. I'm sending this from my phone so I can't look up the stats easily, but I would better the rebounding percentages show we will be a much better rebounding team with KG and Payne over Thad. I just never understood your point with a stat like rebounding that has a total amount of boards available that doesn't highly fluctuate and known percentages that players come down with those boards. I would bet Thad's rebounding percentages don't look pretty compared to his peers.

Wait. I'm not saying that Garnett doesn't make the team a better rebounding team. I think they improve. After all, as I wrote, Young is a poor rebounder. I'm simply saying (let's say Garnett averages 5 more per game than Young... that doesn't automatically mean the team improves 5 rebounds per game.)

With every new player, other player responsibilities change. There may be reasons why Young's rebounds were so low. And there may be residual effects for Wiggins, Pekovic, Dieng, et al... with Garnett or Bennett in there.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Abe, I agree with your statement that Thad Young didn't deserve the hatred he occasionally received on this board, but I don't accept the default conclusion that this trade makes us worse and is an example of tanking. I think it makes us better. First, it's difficult to get much worse than the .200 winning percentage we put up with Thad as our starting PF. Secondly, you win in the NBA with defense and rebounding, and a combo platter of Payne/KG/AB is certain to be better in these elements than Thad plus. Look at the positive comments Flip has already made about Payne's defense in his first two practices (which mirror Izzo's comments). Combine that with KG's defensive intensity and rebounding rate twice that of Thad's, and AB's superior rebounding rate compared to Thad's (I see their respective defense as a wash), and it's not difficult to conclude that our defense and rebounding is vastly superior today to where it was 24 hours ago.

Thad Young is a quality guy with a creative offensive game, but he hasn't demonstrated an ability to win in the NBA in his 8 years. It's really difficult to construct an argument that replacing Thad Young in a lineup hurts a team's chances of winning.

Well, it's hard to refute that Thad Young has been a big part of some really crappy teams.

As for the rebounding... sure, Young was poor for his position. But I don't think it's as easy as claiming Player B averages (x) more rebounds than Player A so the team will automatically average (x) more rebounds per game. There are a lot of factors that go into it. Garnett should help when he's on the court. Probably Bennett and Payne, too. How much? We'll find out.

But what about Young's passing. That part of Young's game surprised me. He's a better passer than I expected. What about his ability to take guys off the dribble. I don't know if Payne or Bennett have that ability. I know Garnett doesn't. What about his ability to steal the ball and take off on a break...

Granted, some of those things are more important than others. And some may be able to be replaced for the most part. I guess a big part of my point is that in today's NBA we're heading toward a more position-less game. Sure, you still need bigs and smalls and you need to be able to do certain things (score, rebound, et al) but it's less about how one guy does that and more about how well you're able to do it as a team.

I literally can't comprehend your rebounding argument. When the rest of the team remains the same, but we swap Thad's rebounding prowess for KG's I don't see how it is possible that we aren't a better rebounding team. Your argument can only ever make sense if the better volume rebounder gives up more rebounds to his opponent than the increase in boards he already has over Thad (i.e. Thad gets 5, KG gets 7, KG would have to give up 2+ more boards to his opponent than Thad did for us to not see an increase in rebounding). It is completely counter intuitive to believe someone who gets more boards also gives up more boards than someone who gets less boards to begin with to the point where we are worse off with the guy who is a better volume rebounder. The total rebounds available doesn't just magically go up so it mathematically doesn't make sense that bringing in a guy who gets more rebounds won't make us a better rebounding team. I'm sending this from my phone so I can't look up the stats easily, but I would better the rebounding percentages show we will be a much better rebounding team with KG and Payne over Thad. I just never understood your point with a stat like rebounding that has a total amount of boards available that doesn't highly fluctuate and known percentages that players come down with those boards. I would bet Thad's rebounding percentages don't look pretty compared to his peers.

Wait. I'm not saying that Garnett doesn't make the team a better rebounding team. I think they improve. After all, as I wrote, Young is a poor rebounder. I'm simply saying (let's say Garnett averages 5 more per game than Young... that doesn't automatically mean the team improves 5 rebounds per game.)

With every new player, other player responsibilities change. There may be reasons why Young's rebounds were so low. And there may be residual effects for Wiggins, Pekovic, Dieng, et al... with Garnett or Bennett in there.

Yeah, I agree that we can't easily conclude that the Wolves will get five rebounds a game more because that is the delta between Thad and KG, or that the Wolves will score five points a game less because that is the scoring delta between the two. It's true that the other four players on the court will impact both rebounding and scoring. But while it doesn't lend itself to easy numerical analysis, I think Flip will be stunned if the Wolves don't instantly become a significantly better defensive team due to replacing Thad's minutes with KG and Payne.

[TheGrey08]

Oh, look, Q and I aren't the only ones who think we could have gotten more for Thad. Check out the Brooklyn and Minnesota grades. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2370185-nba-trade-deadline-2015-deal-recaps-and-grades-for-every-team/page/9

OH NOES.. some random dude on Bleacher who isn't respected at all thought we could have gotten "significantly more" for Thad. Yet that was the only negative he listed and still gives the trade a B lol. MEH

I'm not saying we couldn't have gotten more, but I'm not saying we could have. We simply do not know.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but I haven't seen it on here and it is definitely worth reading. Robson has weighed in on the Thad/KG deal. He comes from a different perspective than me, because those who go back to Robson's TC Reader days know he has always been infatuated with KG, but this is excellent work and required reading for anyone trying to understand the complexity of this deal.

http://www.minnpost.com/sports/2015/02/risky-return-kevin-garnett

[60WinTim]

Yup, great read. I meant to post the link earlier, but was too busy watching old KG commercials on youtube... :thumb:

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Good stuff from Asch too...another guy who was on the inside during the KG years.

http://www.nba.com/2015/news/features/steve_aschburner/02/20/garnett-giving-more-than-he-gets-in-his-return-to-minnesota/index.html?ls=nbahpsplit1