TheSP wrote:I think VP Thibs takes charge and tanks the team to maybe 2-3 wins and a spot in the annual lottery festivities! Coach Thibs is not happy with this plan but given how poorly his team has played knows not to piss of VP Thibs and plays Crawford and Rose massive minutes while resting his stars KAT and Belly!
TheSP wrote:I think VP Thibs takes charge and tanks the team to maybe 2-3 wins and a spot in the annual lottery festivities! Coach Thibs is not happy with this plan but given how poorly his team has played knows not to piss of VP Thibs and plays Crawford and Rose massive minutes while resting his stars KAT and Belly!
You might be right about the 2-3 wins thing! Lose at Home to the Grizz, might as well pack it in.
TheSP wrote:I think VP Thibs takes charge and tanks the team to maybe 2-3 wins and a spot in the annual lottery festivities! Coach Thibs is not happy with this plan but given how poorly his team has played knows not to piss of VP Thibs and plays Crawford and Rose massive minutes while resting his stars KAT and Belly!
You might be right about the 2-3 wins thing! Lose at Home to the Grizz, might as well pack it in.
I've been a fan for far too long to let this crap bother me anymore. I no more expect the Wolves to ever be a truly good/great team than I do the Vikings sniffing a Super Bowl victory or the Wild a Stanley Cup Championship. When I die I can go with the memories of two plucky, lovable Twins World Series Championships though! I'm no baseball fan, but damn though teams were hard not to love even before they won it all, the championships just sealed the deal!
Go Wolves, wherever it is you can be bothered to go!
TheSP wrote:I think VP Thibs takes charge and tanks the team to maybe 2-3 wins and a spot in the annual lottery festivities! Coach Thibs is not happy with this plan but given how poorly his team has played knows not to piss of VP Thibs and plays Crawford and Rose massive minutes while resting his stars KAT and Belly!
You might be right about the 2-3 wins thing! Lose at Home to the Grizz, might as well pack it in.
I've been a fan for far too long to let this crap bother me anymore. I no more expect the Wolves to ever be a truly good/great team than I do the Vikings sniffing a Super Bowl victory or the Wild a Stanley Cup Championship. When I die I can go with the memories of two plucky, lovable Twins World Series Championships though! I'm no baseball fan, but damn though teams were hard not to love even before they won it all, the championships just sealed the deal!
Go Wolves, wherever it is you can be bothered to go!
Yes, those two Twins teams were easy to root for. A bunch of talented young players who loved the game and came up together in the minors. I was thinking we might have the equivalent in Wiggins, Towns and LaVine. But alas, one of those three is gone, Wiggins hasn't progressed the way most of us thought, we have no cap room and are approaching the luxury tax threshold. Oh, and except for Wiggins and KAT, we're no so young anymore.
Remember when we debated on whether or not to sign a max player several off-seasons ago when we actually had the cap space to do it? That was when we had an upcoming trio with LaVine still here and they were still in the early stages of their cheap contracts. I can remember myself and doper (probably others) advocating specifically for an Al Horford addition while the majority was against that thinking. What I'm getting at is that it was a missed opportunity to add an impact player those two off-seasons. Knew it then and know it now. We sat on our hands expecting internal growth and let that cap space go to waste by not spending at the time and then re-signing a bench player to a gross contract.
Camden0916 wrote:Remember when we debated on whether or not to sign a max player several off-seasons ago when we actually had the cap space to do it? That was when we had an upcoming trio with LaVine still here and they were still in the early stages of their cheap contracts. I can remember myself and doper (probably others) advocating specifically for an Al Horford addition while the majority was against that thinking. What I'm getting at is that it was a missed opportunity to add an impact player those two off-seasons. Knew it then and know it now. We sat on our hands expecting internal growth and let that cap space go to waste by not spending at the time and then re-signing a bench player to a gross contract.
This is why I'm fine with the Thibs strategy now. To me it is always better to be able to deal when your team is relevant. The best thing about having Butler here is his relationships with other players in the league. If trades have to happen they will, but I'm confident we're going to get a solid player with the MLE. There is no reason (other than cheapness from ownership) not to spend up to your cap when you have young player who you can resign with extensions. The only really questionable front office decision has been Gourgi but even that was a market value contract v production at the time.
Camden0916 wrote:Remember when we debated on whether or not to sign a max player several off-seasons ago when we actually had the cap space to do it? That was when we had an upcoming trio with LaVine still here and they were still in the early stages of their cheap contracts. I can remember myself and doper (probably others) advocating specifically for an Al Horford addition while the majority was against that thinking. What I'm getting at is that it was a missed opportunity to add an impact player those two off-seasons. Knew it then and know it now. We sat on our hands expecting internal growth and let that cap space go to waste by not spending at the time and then re-signing a bench player to a gross contract.
This is why I'm fine with the Thibs strategy now. To me it is always better to be able to deal when your team is relevant. The best thing about having Butler here is his relationships with other players in the league. If trades have to happen they will, but I'm confident we're going to get a solid player with the MLE. There is no reason (other than cheapness from ownership) not to spend up to your cap when you have young player who you can resign with extensions. The only really questionable front office decision has been Gourgi but even that was a market value contract v production at the time.
I would not have complained about Horford max deal. I wasn't banging the table for it. The issue Cam is we don't know what Taylor and the rest of his ownership stance is on luxury tax. I have never believed Taylor isn't willing to pay lux tax but how far and how long ? Idk it seems like it would be weird for him to go all in on all the facilities etc and then cheap out on the lux tax. The dude is old and his kids don't want the franchise. Why not go all out and if the Wolves win a title he actually has a positive legacy? I think he will be willing to spend. Maybe not Cavs crazy but yeah.
Would any of you rather have Dieng, Gibson, and Aldrich over Horford for the foreseeable future? I highly doubt it, and while it's not necessarily as easy as that, it's a very real situation that we could have been in. Horford's been essential for the Celtics on both ends of the floor despite the volume statistics not blatantly showing it. Also, making that kind of a move wouldn't have held us back in making the Rubio trade or even dealing for Butler. On the plus side, it probably would have forced Thibs to find a cheaper option to play the point guard position -- perhaps Darren Collison would be here right now. Not that he's a better player than Jeff Teague, but his contract is easier to manage around.
Camden0916 wrote:Would any of you rather have Dieng, Gibson, and Aldrich over Horford for the foreseeable future? I highly doubt it, and while it's not necessarily as easy as that, it's a very real situation that we could have been in. Horford's been essential for the Celtics on both ends of the floor despite the volume statistics not blatantly showing it. Also, making that kind of a move wouldn't have held us back in making the Rubio trade or even dealing for Butler. On the plus side, it probably would have forced Thibs to find a cheaper option to play the point guard position -- perhaps Darren Collison would be here right now. Not that he's a better player than Jeff Teague, but his contract is easier to manage around.
This is a good point. Gibson is very similar to Horford in how he does a lot of stuff that helps a team except he doesn't have a 3 point shot which obviously makes Horford so valuable not that it's the only this separating them. Let's take it a little bit farther. If you sign Horford maybe instead of paying Dieng you trade him for something of value which helps building one way or another. Corey Joseph would have been another cheaper PG option that could have been explored.
Camden wrote:Would any of you rather have Dieng, Gibson, and Aldrich over Horford for the foreseeable future? I highly doubt it, and while it's not necessarily as easy as that, it's a very real situation that we could have been in. Horford's been essential for the Celtics on both ends of the floor despite the volume statistics not blatantly showing it. Also, making that kind of a move wouldn't have held us back in making the Rubio trade or even dealing for Butler. On the plus side, it probably would have forced Thibs to find a cheaper option to play the point guard position -- perhaps Darren Collison would be here right now. Not that he's a better player than Jeff Teague, but his contract is easier to manage around.
Cam -- I was one of those who didn't like the idea of adding a max veteran at the time. I'm here to tell you with hindsight that I was wrong and you were right. I still think we should have signed Collison instead of Teague in any case. Two advantages: (1) Collison has a MUCH more team-friendly contract, and (2) he's a better 3-point shooter than Teague. The $9 million extra we're spending this season alone on Teague over Collison is money that could have gone to signing a good NBA-caliber wing player in addition to Jamaal Crawford for our bench.
Both the Teague and Gorgui contracts are financial anchors on this franchise right now because they will put this team on track to exceed the luxury tax threshold without providing net positive value to justify that result. Even if Glen is willing to pay the luxury tax, becoming a tax-paying team further constrains the team's ability to improve because of certain transactional restrictions.
