SameOldNudityDrew wrote:I feel like I need to defend Markkanen a bit here, even though I don't think we should touch him.
On a strong defensive team that can compensate for his defensive weaknesses or a super-high octane D'Antoni-style system that would maximize his talents by hoisting a ton of 3s, I think Markkanen could actually be a really useful player.
We are not either of those teams, so he makes no sense for us.
But I think he's getting unfairly maligned here. Mobile seven footers who can shoot it from deep range like that, including off the dribble, offer a very valuable skill. The problem is, it's about all he offers, so fit is really crucial for a player like that. He doesn't have the defense (or length) that a guy like Porzingis brings--but remember, a lot of people were skeptical of Porzingis too. I doubt Markkanen will end up being nearly as good as Porzingis, but nobody thought Porzingis would be this good either. So you never know.
I think most have been fair by pointing out the specific reasons (among his weaknesses) why he might not be a good fit here.
News to me lol, ive lost track of how many posters here that have tried to brush off the one skill he does have. Rarely has anyone mentioned fit it's all about how about how easy they think he will he able to be shut down.
We just have different definitions of fit. Offensively sure. But what's not being presented from the pro-Markkanen side is how he works defensively with KAT. How does his rebounding or lack thereof fit with this roster? Defensively he is not a fit at all with this team. So does he really "fit" here if only half his game fits while the other does not? Especially when you factor in we have plenty of scoring and not a lot of defense and rebounders next to Wiggins and Zach because KAT and Ricky can't grab them all. All we get back is he's 7' and mobile so the potential to get better defensively is there. That's the line for almost every draft prospect ever and few with his skillset and physical attributes become good defenders. They have to be hidden and we don't know if anyone on our roster right now can makeup for that fact and if they can't you are looking at a terrible defensive unit which is not a recipe for success.
You won't find a single post from me on this site where I defend his defensive fit with us, the highest praise I gave him on things besides offense is that I think he could potentially become average defensively and never improve his rebounding. I will call out those who make incredibly lazy offensive comparisons though, seriously Adam Morrison you have to go that far back to find a player that doesn't even play the same position? Now we saw someone shut down Ryan Anderson with Kawai and Simmons and suddenly Lauri is a non factor on offense despite being taller and more agile. Give me a break lol
What is the minimum requirement for rebounding that would make Marksman a viable option? The Wolves already have their double digit rebounder in KAT. Only one team has more than one and that was the Pelicans. A full season of both Cousins and Davis might push one down to single digits.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:What is the minimum requirement for rebounding that would make Marksman a viable option? The Wolves already have their double digit rebounder in KAT. Only one team has more than one and that was the Pelicans. A full season of both Cousins and Davis might push one down to single digits.
Towns numbers are inflated by stealing boards and not having good rebounders around him. Lauri would need an average of 9/game for me with plenty of double-digit efforts and I don't see it at this level. 7 per game in college doesn't lead me to believe he's gonna get even better in the pros. We were a sub par defensive rebounding team with Dieng getting 8 per game so we would need more than that from Lauri. If you're gonna suck on defense I want a double double from you as a big man to try to make up for it.
SameOldNudityDrew wrote:I feel like I need to defend Markkanen a bit here, even though I don't think we should touch him.
On a strong defensive team that can compensate for his defensive weaknesses or a super-high octane D'Antoni-style system that would maximize his talents by hoisting a ton of 3s, I think Markkanen could actually be a really useful player.
We are not either of those teams, so he makes no sense for us.
But I think he's getting unfairly maligned here. Mobile seven footers who can shoot it from deep range like that, including off the dribble, offer a very valuable skill. The problem is, it's about all he offers, so fit is really crucial for a player like that. He doesn't have the defense (or length) that a guy like Porzingis brings--but remember, a lot of people were skeptical of Porzingis too. I doubt Markkanen will end up being nearly as good as Porzingis, but nobody thought Porzingis would be this good either. So you never know.
I think most have been fair by pointing out the specific reasons (among his weaknesses) why he might not be a good fit here.
News to me lol, ive lost track of how many posters here that have tried to brush off the one skill he does have. Rarely has anyone mentioned fit it's all about how about how easy they think he will he able to be shut down.
We just have different definitions of fit. Offensively sure. But what's not being presented from the pro-Markkanen side is how he works defensively with KAT. How does his rebounding or lack thereof fit with this roster? Defensively he is not a fit at all with this team. So does he really "fit" here if only half his game fits while the other does not? Especially when you factor in we have plenty of scoring and not a lot of defense and rebounders next to Wiggins and Zach because KAT and Ricky can't grab them all. All we get back is he's 7' and mobile so the potential to get better defensively is there. That's the line for almost every draft prospect ever and few with his skillset and physical attributes become good defenders. They have to be hidden and we don't know if anyone on our roster right now can makeup for that fact and if they can't you are looking at a terrible defensive unit which is not a recipe for success.
You won't find a single post from me on this site where I defend his defensive fit with us, the highest praise I gave him on things besides offense is that I think he could potentially become average defensively and never improve his rebounding. I will call out those who make incredibly lazy offensive comparisons though, seriously Adam Morrison you have to go that far back to find a player that doesn't even play the same position? Now we saw someone shut down Ryan Anderson with Kawai and Simmons and suddenly Lauri is a non factor on offense despite being taller and more agile. Give me a break lol
I think I accidentally got sucked into a debate! I wasn't trying to criticize Abe or anyone else, but just comment generally. I also had to post my comment later than I wrote it so I missed some of the previous posts. Apologies. But the start of this thread felt overly critical of Markkanen to me, and I have never wanted to draft him because his unique game raises problems of fit. I was just trying to say I think he could be a good player if he's in a specific kind of place--a better player than the thread generally made him sound--even though I think we're not the right place for him at all.
Q12543 wrote:It pains me to say it, but I'm with my good buddy Khansy on this one.
I think a number of us have mentioned the fit issue when we've ripped on how soft he played at Arizona. What are the three things Thibs wants? Shooting, defense, and toughness. Markkanen fails miserably in two of those categories. Guys don't typically grow a pair when they come to the NBA. Things like toughness, rebounding, and motor (or lack thereof) are evident in college and generally don't change. Shooting on the other hand....it doesn't always translate (although I do agree I think he has a good chance of being a good NBA shooter).
Well said, Q. I see the argument for drafting Markkenan -- i.e., he will probably be a good 3-point shooter in the NBA and the Wolves need more 3-point shooting. But he appears to be so profoundly one-dimensional and weak in other areas of need - areas important to the PF position -- that I don't see him as the best use of our #7 pick. I'd much prefer Zach Collins with his length, toughness and productivity as a shot-blocker and rebounder in his limited college minutes. I'd also prefer John Collins with his high-rev motor, prolific productivity as a scorer and rebounder and his solid shot-blocking. John Collins has extra appeal as someone we could get by trading down and picking up another asset. Reports I've read and the videos I've seen of his recent practice sessions suggest he can extend his shooting range as well.
It's tough to reconcile how much this team needs better shooting and talk yourself into a prospect where that is all he offers. It's a scary proposition if his shot doesn't carry over and continue to improve.
I think I've been pretty balanced on Markkanen even though ai don't want to draft him.
I've heard a few people praise his dribble game attacking close outs as something that actually underrated. I can see that. I don't remember anyone saying he was "gonna blow past NBA 4's". I do think he has a decent chance of being more than just a 3 point shooter but no especially when NBA 4's might end up being Jayson Tatum's.
Channing Frye's defense isn't great but I believe it's improved the last 3 or so years...and he is often even more unplayable. Again I'll remind everyone Marburg said Channing Frye was going to be the next Duncan. :) That will never get old to me.
If the league goes with perimeter oriented 4's and they are standing around the 3 point line jacking up 3's...that would actually help Markkanen's poor rebounding some because he wouldn't be near the rim.
I don't like his do shot stats but I do hear the guy is a gym rat great guy pretty smart and he did come over here from another country and had plenty of success playing a different style of ball. He was used to the international 3 point line which is longer than the college line so that may have helped.
I don't think the guy is a worthless prospect I'm just not convinced he is gonnna be really good as I am greedy for a higher upside more dynamic and all around player. Sorry not sorry. I have respect for the positions of the posters that really like Markkanen.
