lipoli390 wrote:Cool - Don't worry. I still believe Rosas made a mistake giving up a valuable asset (Saric) to get Garland without knowing he could get him. And I still believe we would have been better off staying at #11 and taking either Doumbouya or Romeo Langdon. In the poll on this Board I said I would have taken Doumbouya with Langdon as a close second. If I had more information assuring me that Langdon's worth ethic was sound and that he had true passion for the game, I would have opted for Langdon who I think has a much better chance than Culver of becoming an all-star caliber player.
I'm just trying to make myself feel better about what's happened so far. And I'm going to dial down my rhetoric a bit in criticizing Rosas for the summer. But so far, I'm not impressed.
Lippy, yeah Rosas made a mistake. I don't think there is much question about that. But more than that, a couple of points are framing my judgement about this draft:
1) I've talked a lot about being innovators and not imitators. To me, Rosas seems like an imitator. He wants to play primarily a one, a big, and three wings. That's been done already. He would impress me much more if he came up with a strategy that would differentiate us from what the trend is. Finding innovators is tough, there are a lot more imitators. The NFL is full of copiers. But the originals tend to win most of the titles.
2) It's very hard to move out of the middle of the NBA. It happens but you usually have to go backwards before you can go forward. The Bucks are an exception. They were in the middle, hired an innovative coach, and made some shrew signings. Of course it didn't hurt to have a top 5 player in the league to begin with. We have a top 20 player and some decent pieces, but Jarret Culver isn't a step to move us out of the middle.
And I'm not saying Rosas should be expected to make us a contender immediately. Just that I haven't seen anything yet that is moving us in the right direction. I'm patient enough to see what happens in the next year or two.
Excellent points, Cool. As I mentioned in my last post, we need to show good judgment AND patience. So yes, we shouldn't expect to be contenders immediately. Beyond that, I agree that so far I don't think we've seen any evidence that this is moving in the right direction. To be fair, Rosas is just starting. For all we know, he has a brilliant master plan that's unfolding exactly as he intended. :) I sure hope so.
I don't know if it is innovator or imitator, but when was the last time the Wolves actually moved up in the lottery?!?
Philosophies Rosas has preached are "you win with high-end players" and "you need to maximize opportunities". I interpret his "high-end players" mantra as maximizing what he can get in an individual player rather than compromising for the sake of two or more players. He wants several all-stars, not just one all-star surrounded by decent players. And in his first efforts on the players front, that is what we have seen.
I am not touting Culver as an all-star. But in an effort to eventually get another all-star, he made a move that on paper should net a better player at #6 than either Saric or a player at #11. #6 may not be an all-star, but down the road, whoever you get at #6 should be a more valuable chip than just having #11 and/or Dario.
And Lip is wrong to say this draft had a top tier with 3 players and the rest of the first round was flat. Any sampling of mock drafts will show there were at least two tiers, and then the draft was flat. Rosas made a move that got him into that second tier. He deserves kudos for that, even if you don't agree with the player he selected. I happen to like the player he selected, along with many other draft pundits. Time will tell whether he is right or wrong, but it's premature to declare the choice a bust.
I also see the interest in D'lo as another example of "you win with high-end players". Rosas has a philosophy, and his actions reflect that philosophy. I don't know what the results will be, but I am getting warm fuzzy feeling knowing Rosas is in charge.
FWIW I read in The Athletic that Garland was absolutely ridiculous in his workout not missing a shot for over 5 minutes including nailing a number of 30 footers. John Beilein was going bonkers and it sounds like the Cavs basically decided they were taking him. So...apparently unless we jumped the Cavs or wowed then with something insane we weren't jumping them. It's after the fact so...who knows but yeah.
monsterpile wrote:FWIW I read in The Athletic that Garland was absolutely ridiculous in his workout not missing a shot for over 5 minutes including nailing a number of 30 footers. John Beilein was going bonkers and it sounds like the Cavs basically decided they were taking him. So...apparently unless we jumped the Cavs or wowed then with something insane we weren't jumping them. It's after the fact so...who knows but yeah.
Yeah, I read that too earlier today. No doubt Rosas traded up to get Garland - a very worthy goal. Also no doubt Rosas had no assurance he'd get him. Hence my criticism. The trade was a bad one unless you believe that Culver is a significantly better prospect than any of the alternatives we could have had at #11. If Rosas believed that, then the risk of not getting Garland was worth it. For me those of us who see Culver as no better as a prospect than a number of alternatives who were likely to be (and ended up being) available at #11, it was a bad move. Time will tell.
monsterpile wrote:FWIW I read in The Athletic that Garland was absolutely ridiculous in his workout not missing a shot for over 5 minutes including nailing a number of 30 footers. John Beilein was going bonkers and it sounds like the Cavs basically decided they were taking him. So...apparently unless we jumped the Cavs or wowed then with something insane we weren't jumping them. It's after the fact so...who knows but yeah.
Yeah, I read that too earlier today. No doubt Rosas traded up to get Garland - a very worthy goal. Also no doubt Rosas had no assurance he'd get him. Hence my criticism. The trade was a bad one unless you believe that Culver is a significantly better prospect than any of the alternatives we could have had at #11. If Rosas believed that, then the risk of not getting Garland was worth it. For me those of us who see Culver as no better as a prospect than a number of alternatives who were likely to be (and ended up being) available at #11, it was a bad move. Time will tell.
Like Tim said most people had Culver in a tier above that next large swath of picks. I'm not sure where my tier would have stopped before that large group. I think I would have had White in that tier just because I thought his production last year made him above a lot of the other ballhanders in the draft but I also think he is/was risky. I think its pretty clear Rosas and whoever was making decisions valued Culver MUCH higher than the guys that were going to be available. So really all we are looking at is whether or not their evaluation of Culver was right or not. Like you said time will tell. As Tom Petty said "The waiting is the hardest part..." =)
Here is an interesting question that hasn't been discussed on this forum. What do people think about Atlanta giving up a pretty nice haul to jump up and get Hunter at #4? Personally I don't really get that one any more than what the Wolves did getting Culver. I like Hunter (about as much as I liked Culver but full disclosure I didn't dig into either guy) and its not like the Hawks gave up some amazing assets to make the deal happen, but...of course right now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They did well last season and seem to be drafting pretty well with Travis S. in charge. Is it possible that they were right about Hunter? Is it possible Rosas a new GM coming from a smart organization is right about Culver? We have discussed over the years smart teams sometimes take the guy that isn't obvious and hit on them. Maybe we missed something on Culver. Maybe there is some info that team have on him we don't really have. I'm not saying Culver is the next Klay Thompson or Westbrook level guy etc, but is that impossible? I would give it a better chance than how I felt about Kris Dunn becoming a REALLY good player. It was weird to feel THAT strongly AGAINST someone especially that seemed to be really getting lots of love as a possible star. This board wasn't in on that. Even Cam who was all about him earlier in the season had cooled on him even if part of that was Murray was likely in play and obviously was available at our pick.
monsterpile wrote:FWIW I read in The Athletic that Garland was absolutely ridiculous in his workout not missing a shot for over 5 minutes including nailing a number of 30 footers. John Beilein was going bonkers and it sounds like the Cavs basically decided they were taking him. So...apparently unless we jumped the Cavs or wowed then with something insane we weren't jumping them. It's after the fact so...who knows but yeah.
Yeah, I read that too earlier today. No doubt Rosas traded up to get Garland - a very worthy goal. Also no doubt Rosas had no assurance he'd get him. Hence my criticism. The trade was a bad one unless you believe that Culver is a significantly better prospect than any of the alternatives we could have had at #11. If Rosas believed that, then the risk of not getting Garland was worth it. For me those of us who see Culver as no better as a prospect than a number of alternatives who were likely to be (and ended up being) available at #11, it was a bad move. Time will tell.
Like Tim said most people had Culver in a tier above that next large swath of picks. I'm not sure where my tier would have stopped before that large group. I think I would have had White in that tier just because I thought his production last year made him above a lot of the other ballhanders in the draft but I also think he is/was risky. I think its pretty clear Rosas and whoever was making decisions valued Culver MUCH higher than the guys that were going to be available. So really all we are looking at is whether or not their evaluation of Culver was right or not. Like you said time will tell. As Tom Petty said "The waiting is the hardest part..." =)
Here is an interesting question that hasn't been discussed on this forum. What do people think about Atlanta giving up a pretty nice haul to jump up and get Hunter at #4? Personally I don't really get that one any more than what the Wolves did getting Culver. I like Hunter (about as much as I liked Culver but full disclosure I didn't dig into either guy) and its not like the Hawks gave up some amazing assets to make the deal happen, but...of course right now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They did well last season and seem to be drafting pretty well with Travis S. in charge. Is it possible that they were right about Hunter? Is it possible Rosas a new GM coming from a smart organization is right about Culver? We have discussed over the years smart teams sometimes take the guy that isn't obvious and hit on them. Maybe we missed something on Culver. Maybe there is some info that team have on him we don't really have. I'm not saying Culver is the next Klay Thompson or Westbrook level guy etc, but is that impossible? I would give it a better chance than how I felt about Kris Dunn becoming a REALLY good player. It was weird to feel THAT strongly AGAINST someone especially that seemed to be really getting lots of love as a possible star. This board wasn't in on that. Even Cam who was all about him earlier in the season had cooled on him even if part of that was Murray was likely in play and obviously was available at our pick.
You're probably right that Rosas considered Culver a significant tier above the guys likely to be available at #11. I sure hope you're right. But I'm not totally convinced. By all accounts he traded up to get Garland and believed he'd get him. When Cleveland took Garland, there were widespread reports that the Wolves front office was scrambling to do something. Again, I hope you're right because, if not, Rosas really messed up in my view in a way far worse than just overvaluing Culver versus alternatives like Langford, Doumbouya, Alexander-Walker and others. I really want to believe that Rosas seriously considered the possibility that the Cavs might take and keep Garland and that he was comfortable ending up with Culver as a player significantly better than others likely available at #11. And if so, I want to believe that Rosas and his team turn out to have been right about Culver. Tom Petty, God rest his soul, was right!
Seems like Rosas did trade up for Garland, but criticizing him for making the move without knowing where Garland would go is a little silly. If he knew he would drop to six, would phoenix have traded the pick to us???
While I don't believe that he wanted Culver (based on rumors that we were trying to trade back after Garland was off teh board), I have no problem with the pick. While he may be as quck or athletic as some, they say he does everything well and has a feel for the game with good footwork, and great hesitation moves. Hesitation moves are what made Brandon Roy great. That's how you get to the line (Harden)
sjm34 wrote:Seems like Rosas did trade up for Garland, but criticizing him for making the move without knowing where Garland would go is a little silly. If he knew he would drop to six, would phoenix have traded the pick to us???
While I don't believe that he wanted Culver (based on rumors that we were trying to trade back after Garland was off teh board), I have no problem with the pick. While he may be as quck or athletic as some, they say he does everything well and has a feel for the game with good footwork, and great hesitation moves. Hesitation moves are what made Brandon Roy great. That's how you get to the line (Harden)
Culver was a good soccer player, and I suspect he learned his footwork from it. Soccer has more emphasis on footwork, spacing and off-the-ball movement, and I hope he really learned something which is useful for basketball.
Culver literally grades out as good or better at everything. Of course, there is still room to grow, but getting a player that has the scoring versatility that he has and the physical gifts he has with the defensive prowess he has -- he was deserving of a top-five pick and Rosas trading up to grab him at six was a good calculated risk. Culver has the potential to be an All-Star but has the floor of a very solid starting wing.
I would have been happy staying put at 11 and taking Herro, but I'm also happy with our current draft to include Culver. I have little doubt that he will be good in the NBA.
I am just shocked at how down the majority of the board is down on this draft. I mean we bitch all season about how bad our defense is and now we draft a projected top 4 defender in this draft (Zion, Hunter, Culver, Matisse Thybulle) and he a good offensive skill set and we still bitch.
Then people bitch about going to get DLO because he isn't that good at defense. I just don't understand it sometimes.
You know what its really hard to find players who can be two way above average players and at least Culver has the potential.
Now do I think Culver has ways to go but man, Culver is a damn good player and at worst we have a rotation wing what is hard to get in todays NBA and at best we have an All Star caliber wing.
We also gave up Saric, who we would have to pay and I don't know if we wanted to because we are really max out with Wiggins, Gorgui and Towns next year still on the roster, so I don't know if we wanted to pay Saric that type of money and who knows this could be Saric highest ever value because other teams might not want to pay Saric the RFA, so they might be trading for a rental also.
