khans2k5 wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:lipoli390 wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:khans2k5 wrote:Camden0916 wrote:I'm sure this won't be agreed with, but I think Towns is better than Jokic and Russell is better than Murray, but everything else sides with the Nuggets over the Wolves. From the rest of the roster to the head coach and up through the front office. Minnesota could follow Denver's blueprint and theoretically become a contender in the same mold if they wanted to, or they could venture off and create their own style/advantage.
I think Towns and Russell can be as good a good as Murray and Jokic which is why I brought up the comparison of Russell to Murray. For some reason our duo has no chance to contend on this board even though we are seeing a similar duo do it for Denver.
Sure... those two could be as good or nearly as good... or possibly even better. Fair enough.
But what about the rest of the mix?
I mean the Wolves are debating making Beasley potentially 3rd on the pecking order on the court and at the bank. And he was jettisoned from Denver because he was largely irrelevant to the team's 10 man rotation.
He'd basically be PJ Dozier (who?) for Denver in the playoffs... and that's with Barton out of action. My point is that a team has to have more than just those two guys hit. Even take a guy like Millsap. He's largely overlooked but we've all see his impact for years. Just a steady player who can do the right things to help teams win. How many of those guys ever landed in Minnesota?
Taj Gibson comes to mind... but I don't even think he was as good or versatile as Millsap. Those guys are gems when you can find them. Then, there are promising guys like Porter. While we're gushing over Vanderbilt or McLaughlin or a guy who shoots 46% from the line... Porter is actually making critical shots in key playoff games.
The Wolves are just so very far behind the Nuggets... and the vast majority of it happens after we remove the top two guys from each squad.
I agree, Abe. But I wouldn't put McLaughlin and Vanderbilt in the same bucket. McLaughlin had significant productive minutes with the Wolves last season and was a key player in the Team's two most impressive wins last season. I'm not sure what Vanderbilt accomplished in the NBA before coming here, but he did nothing in his short time with the Wolves. Neither one has yet proven to be a consistently positive rotation player on a playoff team. But I'd say that McLaughlin has shown a lot of promise well beyond what Vanderbilt has shown to date. I'll add that Rosas obviously acquired Beasley based on his potential. Note also that Denver didn't believe they needed Beasley, which doesn't mean they didn't think highly of him. I see a lot of upside in him at 23 years of age. But again, he's still an unknown. I think he'll be a highly valuable rotation player for the Wolves.
Fair enough. I'd also put McLaughlin quite a bit ahead of Vanderbilt.
But that wasn't really my point.
My point is that neither one would make the Denver rotation... and probably not even the Denver roster. I disagree vehemently with Kahns that the Wolves aren't that far behind the Nuggets. The two teams rosters aren't remotely close right now. And I think he's probably sleeping on the star power, too. What more does Jokic have to do? He's the guy who's been making All NBA teams the past couple of seasons. And, hes' the guy who has shown up in the playoffs both years... raising his PPG 5 points per game while keeping his efficiency. That's a very rare feat in the history of the NBA.
And it all shows in Denver's .645 winning percentage vs. the Wolves .376 winning percentage the past two seasons.
You're literally comparing a Denver team that hasn't had significant roster changes to a current T Wolves core that has never played together. Using the last two years to compare the teams when our entire roster has been overhauled in that time and their's has had minimal changes is ridiculous. I'm comparing them to what we have now with our two core pieces, not what we've had the past two years.
I'm simply commenting on how hard it is to build a team like Denver has with complementary pieces that's good enough to compete.
We probably agree that the Wolves are so far away that it's laughable. The Wolves are starting with two guys... and they haven't even played together.
Denver has those two guys who have proven compatible... and then two more... and then two more... and...
And it's still very unlikely to be good enough. I'm ok with the Wolves not being a championship team. Just being a perennial playoff team is my fan dream. It's been a long time.
[Note: You're the one who compared the Wolves to Denver. I was just adding context to it. It's not impossible to contend with Russell and Towns... but a lot of other things will have to go right, too.]