It feels to me that the Wolves front office, maybe for the first time ever, might have a real sense of how to put a team together. I liked the Saric + 11 move for the 6, because they saw that Dario wasn't going to fit in with how they want to play, and they got good value for moving him. I really liked the Wolves' draft. I also like what I read in the Strib this morning:
"For us, free agency is important, but it's not the priority," Rosas said. "We're building this program through the draft. We're building it through trades and resetting and developing. Free agency plays an important role, but it's a calculated and strategic role. You don't want to be in free agency for the sake of being in free agency."
This is exactly what I wanted to hear from Rosas. And while I still believe he made a mistake not swapping Covington for Garland, I'm at peace with the Rosas front office. I do think they get it.
Giving up Covington to get Garland would have been a huge mistake
I hope you're right. It will ultimately depend a lot on how good Culver becomes in comparison to Garland and it will also turn on whether Covington stays healthy.
It feels to me that the Wolves front office, maybe for the first time ever, might have a real sense of how to put a team together. I liked the Saric + 11 move for the 6, because they saw that Dario wasn't going to fit in with how they want to play, and they got good value for moving him. I really liked the Wolves' draft. I also like what I read in the Strib this morning:
"For us, free agency is important, but it's not the priority," Rosas said. "We're building this program through the draft. We're building it through trades and resetting and developing. Free agency plays an important role, but it's a calculated and strategic role. You don't want to be in free agency for the sake of being in free agency."
This is exactly what I wanted to hear from Rosas. And while I still believe he made a mistake not swapping Covington for Garland, I'm at peace with the Rosas front office. I do think they get it.
Giving up Covington to get Garland would have been a huge mistake
I hope you're right. It will ultimately depend a lot on how good Culver becomes in comparison to Garland and it will also turn on whether Covington stays healthy.
Remember how well we played his first 10 or 15 games last year? If he's healthy he's a big boost to the lineup
It feels to me that the Wolves front office, maybe for the first time ever, might have a real sense of how to put a team together. I liked the Saric + 11 move for the 6, because they saw that Dario wasn't going to fit in with how they want to play, and they got good value for moving him. I really liked the Wolves' draft. I also like what I read in the Strib this morning:
"For us, free agency is important, but it's not the priority," Rosas said. "We're building this program through the draft. We're building it through trades and resetting and developing. Free agency plays an important role, but it's a calculated and strategic role. You don't want to be in free agency for the sake of being in free agency."
This is exactly what I wanted to hear from Rosas. And while I still believe he made a mistake not swapping Covington for Garland, I'm at peace with the Rosas front office. I do think they get it.
Giving up Covington to get Garland would have been a huge mistake
I hope you're right. It will ultimately depend a lot on how good Culver becomes in comparison to Garland and it will also turn on whether Covington stays healthy.
Remember how well we played his first 10 or 15 games last year? If he's healthy he's a big boost to the lineup
Drafting Garland would obviously be a play for the future but the defense now (and maybe even in the future) could be rough. The people that talked about him that liked said the defense was really bad. The other problem with Garland is that most don't really consider him a very good passer. If he can shoot and score that's great but having a young team led (because he is a PG) by a guy that doesn't defend or pass well does have quite a bit of downside to it. It's easy to build up the idea of getting Garland in your mind because he does sound like a nice player to slot in. There was risk involved and how much do you give up to take on that risk? It's a fair debate either way. I wouldn't have given up Covington and #11 to move up to get him. If he turns out to be say a top 5 PG I'll likely be wrong. I can live with that.
It feels to me that the Wolves front office, maybe for the first time ever, might have a real sense of how to put a team together. I liked the Saric + 11 move for the 6, because they saw that Dario wasn't going to fit in with how they want to play, and they got good value for moving him. I really liked the Wolves' draft. I also like what I read in the Strib this morning:
"For us, free agency is important, but it's not the priority," Rosas said. "We're building this program through the draft. We're building it through trades and resetting and developing. Free agency plays an important role, but it's a calculated and strategic role. You don't want to be in free agency for the sake of being in free agency."
This is exactly what I wanted to hear from Rosas. And while I still believe he made a mistake not swapping Covington for Garland, I'm at peace with the Rosas front office. I do think they get it.
Giving up Covington to get Garland would have been a huge mistake
I hope you're right. It will ultimately depend a lot on how good Culver becomes in comparison to Garland and it will also turn on whether Covington stays healthy.
Remember how well we played his first 10 or 15 games last year? If he's healthy he's a big boost to the lineup
Drafting Garland would obviously be a play for the future but the defense now (and maybe even in the future) could be rough. The people that talked about him that liked said the defense was really bad. The other problem with Garland is that most don't really consider him a very good passer. If he can shoot and score that's great but having a young team led (because he is a PG) by a guy that doesn't defend or pass well does have quite a bit of downside to it. It's easy to build up the idea of getting Garland in your mind because he does sound like a nice player to slot in. There was risk involved and how much do you give up to take on that risk? It's a fair debate either way. I wouldn't have given up Covington and #11 to move up to get him. If he turns out to be say a top 5 PG I'll likely be wrong. I can live with that.
I read that Garland was a good passer. Not sure about his defense. But it I see both sides. In the end it will depend on how good Garland becomes relative to Culver as well as Covington's health. If Garland ends up as good as Damian Lillard, I'd say it was a mistake.
It feels to me that the Wolves front office, maybe for the first time ever, might have a real sense of how to put a team together. I liked the Saric + 11 move for the 6, because they saw that Dario wasn't going to fit in with how they want to play, and they got good value for moving him. I really liked the Wolves' draft. I also like what I read in the Strib this morning:
"For us, free agency is important, but it's not the priority," Rosas said. "We're building this program through the draft. We're building it through trades and resetting and developing. Free agency plays an important role, but it's a calculated and strategic role. You don't want to be in free agency for the sake of being in free agency."
This is exactly what I wanted to hear from Rosas. And while I still believe he made a mistake not swapping Covington for Garland, I'm at peace with the Rosas front office. I do think they get it.
Giving up Covington to get Garland would have been a huge mistake
I hope you're right. It will ultimately depend a lot on how good Culver becomes in comparison to Garland and it will also turn on whether Covington stays healthy.
Remember how well we played his first 10 or 15 games last year? If he's healthy he's a big boost to the lineup
Drafting Garland would obviously be a play for the future but the defense now (and maybe even in the future) could be rough. The people that talked about him that liked said the defense was really bad. The other problem with Garland is that most don't really consider him a very good passer. If he can shoot and score that's great but having a young team led (because he is a PG) by a guy that doesn't defend or pass well does have quite a bit of downside to it. It's easy to build up the idea of getting Garland in your mind because he does sound like a nice player to slot in. There was risk involved and how much do you give up to take on that risk? It's a fair debate either way. I wouldn't have given up Covington and #11 to move up to get him. If he turns out to be say a top 5 PG I'll likely be wrong. I can live with that.
EDIT: Whoops, I wrote this, not Lip, but it looks like I somehow typed it into his quote. Sorry for the confusion. -Drew
Am I mistaken or do I remember that Garland had more turnovers than assists in his 5 games? Nobody really knows what to expect from that guy, some signs look really good, others really bad, and the incredibly small sample size probably exacerbates both. He might end up being really good or a terrible bust, but trading Covington for him would have been a big mistake, I think.
Covington is not a star player, but he's the ideal role player on a great contract who makes a remarkably positive impact on the team towards winning. Honestly, that's better than the deal you get with a lot of "stars," especially when you consider the salary and (in)efficiency of a lot of stars. Every team needs guys like Covington and we've got him, and he's on an awesome contract for us given his impact.
I read that Garland was a good passer. Not sure about his defense. But it I see both sides. In the end it will depend on how good Garland becomes relative to Culver as well as Covington's health. If Garland ends up as good as Damian Lillard, I'd say it was a mistake.
