CoolBreeze44 wrote:Just can't believe that this is the only deal we did today. It's pure comedy.
Flip is investing in mentorship. He is going to draft another big likely and wants KG to be what McHale was for him. A skilled big with an array of moves that will pass that on. I understand your aversion to KGs antics. But if he took that teaching role seriously, it will be an asset.
10 - 20 years ago, I bet there were a lot of "But McHale will be a great teacher for the big guys on the block."
Either you have the skill and desire or you don't. A guy twice their age barking at them isn't going to make a dent with a lot of millionaires just out of their teenage years.
McHale was great for KG's game. Skill and desire are absolutely factors, but to ignore mentorship and teaching is insane. You saw it in KG's game, after working with McHale he started adding Mchale's drop-step and up and under moves. Great footwork and defensive positioning for a big takes practice and teaching. But more generally, everyone great at anything had a mentor and a teacher. Your statement is far too pessimistic. These teenage millionaires may presumably want to become teenage billionaires no?
Sean Rooks
Andrew Lang
Tom Hammnonds
Cherokee Parks
Dean Garrett
Rasho
Bill Curley
Andrae Patterson
Marc Jackson
Joe Smith
Ervin Johnson
Mark Madsen
Oliver Miller
Olowakandi
John Thomas
Tskitskiviski
Mark Blount
Al Jefferson
Kevin Garnett
Was McHale worthless as a mentor? No. But we read SO MUCH about how important his mentorship was going to be. It makes for a great narrative... even if it's not much more than fluff.
Talent and desire are much, much, much more important. Do you really think Garnett wasn't a HOF player with/without McHale? Do you think Jefferson only becomes a 20/10 guy if he teams with McHale?
Talent and desire are important. But talent and desire plus mentorship and coaching push it over the top. There is a reason true superstars are surrounded by iconic coaches and veterans, there is no reason to diminish the impact. I can say with certainty that McHale helped KG on his path to the HOF and KG would gladly admit that. You saw the difference in the types of moves KG and AL would make with their moves and footwork. There was a reason for that. I would say that McHale got a lot out of many of those players on that list. Rasho may have ended up out of the NBA if he didn't start on the wolves.
What makes you think that about Rasho? Is there any kind of evidence you can use to prove this.
Otherwise, we'll just simply disagree and we're back at square one.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:You know he's such a great role model. He should get the type of reception here normally reserved for medal of honor recipients. Are KG and Chris Kyle one in the same?
To be fair, A LOT of athletes are dinks. Some are more obvious with it on the court than others. When Garnett was here, he gave a legit effort and carved out a HOF career.
Since I don't know Garnett at all, I can't compare him as a person to any other player. So I choose to judge him as a player.
And he's easily the best player in Wolves history.
[note: that doesn't mean i think this is a good trade or anything. it's a way to symbolically tank, i guess.]
And some of them are great actors a la Prime Time (Deion Sanders)
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I believe KG would have a better chance of getting through to these kids as an asst coach instead of a player. KG isn't going to win a title here as a player. He might as a coach.
That being said, who knows if he has any interest at all in coaching OR mentoring. He may only want to buy a share of the team and work the front office side. I don't readily see mentorship or coaching qualities in him.
KG will never coach, but I think he could have an impact on our defensive positioning on the court. Although he has lost a step or two, KG understands team defense and isn't shy about pointing out to a teammate when they are in the wrong place. The 3-4 times I have seen him on defense the past two years, I haven't had to cringe watching him like I do with many of our Wolves defenders...very much including Thad. The KG scowl could have much more of an impact on our young players than an explanation from our coaches 15 minutes later. Maybe not, but we can only hope.
longstrangetrip wrote:It looks to me like the board is about 80-20 against the deal...I'm only seeing Tim. Doper and me on board with it, and not as passionately as the objectors. Did I miss any other proponents of this deal?
I'm generally on board. As I have said before, I see this deal more about subtraction than addition. I have been consistent from the start in saying that Thad isn't my idea of a prototypical PF...well, not even a halfway decent one. I value rebounding and defense first in a PF, with scoring ranking behind those attributes. And we were never going to get defense or rebounding from Thad. It's odd to say that we have significantly upgraded rebounding and defense by swapping a 26 year old for a 38 year old, but we have...that's about all you need to know about Thad Young. He's a likable guy so I wish him luck in Brooklyn, but if he plays significant minutes for the Nets, I expect their winning percentage to be about the same that Thad has put up in his career to date.
The only reason I'm not completely on board with this deal is my personal dislike for Garnett...it rivals cool's. While I cheered for him and admired the intensity of his game while he was here, I often had to do it while plugging my nose...just knew a little too much about him. It's kind of sad that the two greatest players in Wolves history also happened to be the two I detested the most. Why am I willing to take Garnett back, when I wouldn't be so pleased with taking Love back? Easy...Garnett makes his teams better, while Love (perhaps like Thad) does not.
The biggest downside for me about this deal is that tickets on the street just got much more expensive...
I think most are too young to remember what having mentorship and real veteran leadership did for KG's game in his first few years or they just hate KG as a person (which is understandable Cool and LST). For instance, just look at how Magic talks about Kareem. Many superstars have had real veteran leadership around them in their initial success. I think this is a net plus for us.
KG was good because he was talented, not because he was mentored properly
This is so hilarious. Talent only gets you so far. This is like saying coaches, systems don't matter. The most talented team doesn't always win. Anyone who plays sports knows this. Talent is good, but talent with proper instruction is great.
Sure. Talent doesn't always win.
But you CAN'T win without talent. And Garnett already had the talent and desire with or without McHale. Wiggins either has it or he doesn't with or without the new teammate who's double his age showing up half the time for road games. Same with Lavine. Muhammad. Et al.
I look at Kevin Durant as an example. Who helped him learn how to win? He came in to an awful team in an awful situation. He showed some bad habits on a bad team. Did the arrival of Desmond Mason and Chris Wilcox teach him how to win? Or, did he simply have the drive to want to get better... and the talent to pull it off?
KD is a great example. Criticizing Brooks was the reason for his latest tirade at the media. But everyone talks about this as a legitimate reason why he hasn't been back to the finals. OKC has also not gone very far in bringing in veteran leaders (save derrick Fisher) which has often been talked about as to why they struggle. You need an experienced voice in the trenches. OKC completely shit the bed in the finals. Not because they weren't talented. They were shell-shocked and ill-prepared.
longstrangetrip wrote:It looks to me like the board is about 80-20 against the deal...I'm only seeing Tim. Doper and me on board with it, and not as passionately as the objectors. Did I miss any other proponents of this deal?
I'm generally on board. As I have said before, I see this deal more about subtraction than addition. I have been consistent from the start in saying that Thad isn't my idea of a prototypical PF...well, not even a halfway decent one. I value rebounding and defense first in a PF, with scoring ranking behind those attributes. And we were never going to get defense or rebounding from Thad. It's odd to say that we have significantly upgraded rebounding and defense by swapping a 26 year old for a 38 year old, but we have...that's about all you need to know about Thad Young. He's a likable guy so I wish him luck in Brooklyn, but if he plays significant minutes for the Nets, I expect their winning percentage to be about the same that Thad has put up in his career to date.
The only reason I'm not completely on board with this deal is my personal dislike for Garnett...it rivals cool's. While I cheered for him and admired the intensity of his game while he was here, I often had to do it while plugging my nose...just knew a little too much about him. It's kind of sad that the two greatest players in Wolves history also happened to be the two I detested the most. Why am I willing to take Garnett back, when I wouldn't be so pleased with taking Love back? Easy...Garnett makes his teams better, while Love (perhaps like Thad) does not.
The biggest downside for me about this deal is that tickets on the street just got much more expensive...
I think most are too young to remember what having mentorship and real veteran leadership did for KG's game in his first few years or they just hate KG as a person (which is understandable Cool and LST). For instance, just look at how Magic talks about Kareem. Many superstars have had real veteran leadership around them in their initial success. I think this is a net plus for us.
KG was good because he was talented, not because he was mentored properly
This is so hilarious. Talent only gets you so far. This is like saying coaches, systems don't matter. The most talented team doesn't always win. Anyone who plays sports knows this. Talent is good, but talent with proper instruction is great.
Sure. Talent doesn't always win.
But you CAN'T win without talent. And Garnett already had the talent and desire with or without McHale. Wiggins either has it or he doesn't with or without the new teammate who's double his age showing up half the time for road games. Same with Lavine. Muhammad. Et al.
I look at Kevin Durant as an example. Who helped him learn how to win? He came in to an awful team in an awful situation. He showed some bad habits on a bad team. Did the arrival of Desmond Mason and Chris Wilcox teach him how to win? Or, did he simply have the drive to want to get better... and the talent to pull it off?
KD is a great example. Criticizing Brooks was the reason for his latest tirade at the media. But everyone talks about this as a legitimate reason why he hasn't been back to the finals. OKC has also not gone very far in bringing in veteran leaders (save derrick Fisher) which has often been talked about as to why they struggle. You need an experienced voice in the trenches. OKC completely shit the bed in the finals. Not because they weren't talented. They were shell-shocked and ill-prepared.
Wait. Are we talking about team success or individual success?
Because isn't mentoring about reaching individuals? Not being snarky, trying to gain an understanding...
I believe there was legitimate interest from Toronto, Sacramento and Brooklyn (obviously). Just my gut based on everything I've read. There's probably a good chance that we could have gotten better from a different team. It's just Flip's love affair with Garnett that swung this move.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Just can't believe that this is the only deal we did today. It's pure comedy.
Flip is investing in mentorship. He is going to draft another big likely and wants KG to be what McHale was for him. A skilled big with an array of moves that will pass that on. I understand your aversion to KGs antics. But if he took that teaching role seriously, it will be an asset.
10 - 20 years ago, I bet there were a lot of "But McHale will be a great teacher for the big guys on the block."
Either you have the skill and desire or you don't. A guy twice their age barking at them isn't going to make a dent with a lot of millionaires just out of their teenage years.
McHale was great for KG's game. Skill and desire are absolutely factors, but to ignore mentorship and teaching is insane. You saw it in KG's game, after working with McHale he started adding Mchale's drop-step and up and under moves. Great footwork and defensive positioning for a big takes practice and teaching. But more generally, everyone great at anything had a mentor and a teacher. Your statement is far too pessimistic. These teenage millionaires may presumably want to become teenage billionaires no?
Sean Rooks
Andrew Lang
Tom Hammnonds
Cherokee Parks
Dean Garrett
Rasho
Bill Curley
Andrae Patterson
Marc Jackson
Joe Smith
Ervin Johnson
Mark Madsen
Oliver Miller
Olowakandi
John Thomas
Tskitskiviski
Mark Blount
Al Jefferson
Kevin Garnett
Was McHale worthless as a mentor? No. But we read SO MUCH about how important his mentorship was going to be. It makes for a great narrative... even if it's not much more than fluff.
Talent and desire are much, much, much more important. Do you really think Garnett wasn't a HOF player with/without McHale? Do you think Jefferson only becomes a 20/10 guy if he teams with McHale?
Talent and desire are important. But talent and desire plus mentorship and coaching push it over the top. There is a reason true superstars are surrounded by iconic coaches and veterans, there is no reason to diminish the impact. I can say with certainty that McHale helped KG on his path to the HOF and KG would gladly admit that. You saw the difference in the types of moves KG and AL would make with their moves and footwork. There was a reason for that. I would say that McHale got a lot out of many of those players on that list. Rasho may have ended up out of the NBA if he didn't start on the wolves.
Yes, Ricky Davis was absolutely key to LeBron in his rookie season.....
Bill Fitch was awesome for Larry Bird, before he got fired......
And Phil Jackson knew that he could turn around Jordan's ho-hum game once he became head coach....Then he did the same with Shaq and Kobe! What an icon!
longstrangetrip wrote:It looks to me like the board is about 80-20 against the deal...I'm only seeing Tim. Doper and me on board with it, and not as passionately as the objectors. Did I miss any other proponents of this deal?
I'm generally on board. As I have said before, I see this deal more about subtraction than addition. I have been consistent from the start in saying that Thad isn't my idea of a prototypical PF...well, not even a halfway decent one. I value rebounding and defense first in a PF, with scoring ranking behind those attributes. And we were never going to get defense or rebounding from Thad. It's odd to say that we have significantly upgraded rebounding and defense by swapping a 26 year old for a 38 year old, but we have...that's about all you need to know about Thad Young. He's a likable guy so I wish him luck in Brooklyn, but if he plays significant minutes for the Nets, I expect their winning percentage to be about the same that Thad has put up in his career to date.
The only reason I'm not completely on board with this deal is my personal dislike for Garnett...it rivals cool's. While I cheered for him and admired the intensity of his game while he was here, I often had to do it while plugging my nose...just knew a little too much about him. It's kind of sad that the two greatest players in Wolves history also happened to be the two I detested the most. Why am I willing to take Garnett back, when I wouldn't be so pleased with taking Love back? Easy...Garnett makes his teams better, while Love (perhaps like Thad) does not.
The biggest downside for me about this deal is that tickets on the street just got much more expensive...
I think most are too young to remember what having mentorship and real veteran leadership did for KG's game in his first few years or they just hate KG as a person (which is understandable Cool and LST). For instance, just look at how Magic talks about Kareem. Many superstars have had real veteran leadership around them in their initial success. I think this is a net plus for us.
KG was good because he was talented, not because he was mentored properly
This is so hilarious. Talent only gets you so far. This is like saying coaches, systems don't matter. The most talented team doesn't always win. Anyone who plays sports knows this. Talent is good, but talent with proper instruction is great.
Sure. Talent doesn't always win.
But you CAN'T win without talent. And Garnett already had the talent and desire with or without McHale. Wiggins either has it or he doesn't with or without the new teammate who's double his age showing up half the time for road games. Same with Lavine. Muhammad. Et al.
I look at Kevin Durant as an example. Who helped him learn how to win? He came in to an awful team in an awful situation. He showed some bad habits on a bad team. Did the arrival of Desmond Mason and Chris Wilcox teach him how to win? Or, did he simply have the drive to want to get better... and the talent to pull it off?
KD is a great example. Criticizing Brooks was the reason for his latest tirade at the media. But everyone talks about this as a legitimate reason why he hasn't been back to the finals. OKC has also not gone very far in bringing in veteran leaders (save derrick Fisher) which has often been talked about as to why they struggle. You need an experienced voice in the trenches. OKC completely shit the bed in the finals. Not because they weren't talented. They were shell-shocked and ill-prepared.
Wait. Are we talking about team success or individual success?
Because isn't mentoring about reaching individuals? Not being snarky, trying to gain an understanding...
If you are mentoring individuals in the context of a team game, the end product should be team success or else you would be doing a shitty job. For instance if you teach a big to know where a double team is coming from and where the pass should go, the team benefits.
