Looking at post game stat sheets

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think part of the pessimism for me... or blahness... isn't about losing.

It's that it's such a purgatory year. How many guys currently on the roster have any sort of longer term (even by new NBA standards) promise for this organization?

With the (1) new regime (2) obvious #1 star (3) and very little else... I expect A LOT of changes in the next few months. How many players will still be part of the roster by opening night, 2020?

- Towns. Definitely.
- Culver. Probably. But, are we certain about that? Are we even certain Rosas wasn't blowing smoke when Garland was gone... and the Wolves settled?
- Covington. Two more years on a solid contract with value. But suitors will be coming... and because he fits a very narrow window on what he does (very well)... is he more valuable elsewhere than as a distant #2 guy for a losing team here?
- Okogie. He's so very flawed despite his energy and defensive potential... that he's no guarantee to even make it in the league.
- Wiggins. The only way he sticks long term is if he's literally un-tradable.
- Layman. Two more years... but very meh. Seems like a guy who could be moved with ease amid a larger deal.
- Dieng. One more year. But we're just waiting until he becomes a expiring contract guy.
- Teague, Vonleh, Bell, Napier, Graham are all on expiring deals, right?

[Monster]

I think part of the pessimism for me... or blahness... isn't about losing.

It's that it's such a purgatory year. How many guys currently on the roster have any sort of longer term (even by new NBA standards) promise for this organization?

With the (1) new regime (2) obvious #1 star (3) and very little else... I expect A LOT of changes in the next few months. How many players will still be part of the roster by opening night, 2020?

- Towns. Definitely.
- Culver. Probably. But, are we certain about that? Are we even certain Rosas wasn't blowing smoke when Garland was gone... and the Wolves settled?
- Covington. Two more years on a solid contract with value. But suitors will be coming... and because he fits a very narrow window on what he does (very well)... is he more valuable elsewhere than as a distant #2 guy for a losing team here?
- Okogie. He's so very flawed despite his energy and defensive potential... that he's no guarantee to even make it in the league.
- Wiggins. The only way he sticks long term is if he's literally un-tradable.
- Layman. Two more years... but very meh. Seems like a guy who could be moved with ease amid a larger deal.
- Dieng. One more year. But we're just waiting until he becomes a expiring contract guy.
- Teague, Vonleh, Bell, Napier, Graham are all on expiring deals, right?

As you have brought up many times before that's basically the new NBA. You could lay out a lot of this for various rosters across the league and it's not just the lower tier teams both in terms of likely record and market etc.

The reality is for this team (and this comes from a fairly optimistic person) coming into this season this roster had Towns and Covington as legit known commodities. Nobody else was a guy you had a legit starter out of anyone left or one you wanted to keep long term in Saric. I would have traded anyone outside of Towns for the right price. The roster isn't hopeless but it was far from a finished product. I think they do think they added a building block in Culver. We will see but yes this team is ripe for change and to be honest that's probably the right play.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think part of the pessimism for me... or blahness... isn't about losing.

It's that it's such a purgatory year. How many guys currently on the roster have any sort of longer term (even by new NBA standards) promise for this organization?

With the (1) new regime (2) obvious #1 star (3) and very little else... I expect A LOT of changes in the next few months. How many players will still be part of the roster by opening night, 2020?

- Towns. Definitely.
- Culver. Probably. But, are we certain about that? Are we even certain Rosas wasn't blowing smoke when Garland was gone... and the Wolves settled?
- Covington. Two more years on a solid contract with value. But suitors will be coming... and because he fits a very narrow window on what he does (very well)... is he more valuable elsewhere than as a distant #2 guy for a losing team here?
- Okogie. He's so very flawed despite his energy and defensive potential... that he's no guarantee to even make it in the league.
- Wiggins. The only way he sticks long term is if he's literally un-tradable.
- Layman. Two more years... but very meh. Seems like a guy who could be moved with ease amid a larger deal.
- Dieng. One more year. But we're just waiting until he becomes a expiring contract guy.
- Teague, Vonleh, Bell, Napier, Graham are all on expiring deals, right?

As you have brought up many times before that's basically the new NBA. You could lay out a lot of this for various rosters across the league and it's not just the lower tier teams both in terms of likely record and market etc.

The reality is for this team (and this comes from a fairly optimistic person) coming into this season this roster had Towns and Covington as legit known commodities. Nobody else was a guy you had a legit starter out of anyone left or one you wanted to keep long term in Saric. I would have traded anyone outside of Towns for the right price. The roster isn't hopeless but it was far from a finished product. I think they do think they added a building block in Culver. We will see but yes this team is ripe for change and to be honest that's probably the right play.

I agree that it's the right play. As of now, however, I don't know how that gets me invested this season.

I'll be watching because it's what I always do. Mostly to see Town's development and to see if he can be extraordinary in a new, expanded role.

Outside of that... I'm just not compelled by this purgatory season. Basically, let's just flash forward when all these never-weres and over-the-hills are gone and replaced with shiny new toys.

[WildWolf2813]

As you guys now, I'm a big fan of Culver, BUT, he shouldn't be considered PG of the future. I really think this is Rosas trying to figure out how to justify this acquisition in the face of not getting Garland. If anyone should be trying to be groomed as a PG, it's Nowell. I don't mind Culver as another ball handler but it would foolish to think of Culver as anything other than a 2 with versatile skills.

[Monster]

As you guys now, I'm a big fan of Culver, BUT, he shouldn't be considered PG of the future. I really think this is Rosas trying to figure out how to justify this acquisition in the face of not getting Garland. If anyone should be trying to be groomed as a PG, it's Nowell. I don't mind Culver as another ball handler but it would foolish to think of Culver as anything other than a 2 with versatile skills.

It's a handful of games in the preseason but I haven't seen anything from Nowell that makes me think he is a PG. Culver? Looks like he has a clue of what he is doing running an offense and making plays. Ultimately you want as many guys that can make plays and decisions with the ball in their hands as possible. What exactly do the Wolves have to lose This season in an experiment with Culver playing some PG various possessions often likely alongside another PG?

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

I think we may be heading toward a situation where teams try to put their 5 best players on the floor at the same time regardless of their traditional position, assuming there is still ability to space the floor (i.e., you can't have 5 post-up bigs on the floor at the same time).

So if you build an offense around your best player (KAT) and the ball basically goes through him with lots of off-ball screening and cutting on most possessions, how important is it to have a traditional PG on the floor at all times?

I haven't seen Culver play a lick, so I have no clue if he is even one of our five best players yet. However, if our top five players eventually include him and exclude the likes of Teague or Napier, than I'm perfectly fine having him play PG.

Having said that, I think we only see brief glimpses of Culver at PG this season as he's only a rookie and it would be hard to keep Teague and Napier off the floor as long as both are healthy.

[Monster]

I think we may be heading toward a situation where teams try to put their 5 best players on the floor at the same time regardless of their traditional position, assuming there is still ability to space the floor (i.e., you can't have 5 post-up bigs on the floor at the same time).

So if you build an offense around your best player (KAT) and the ball basically goes through him with lots of off-ball screening and cutting on most possessions, how important is it to have a traditional PG on the floor at all times?

I haven't seen Culver play a lick, so I have no clue if he is even one of our five best players yet. However, if our top five players eventually include him and exclude the likes of Teague or Napier, than I'm perfectly fine having him play PG.

Having said that, I think we only see brief glimpses of Culver at PG this season as he's only a rookie and it would be hard to keep Teague and Napier off the floor as long as both are healthy.

The thing about Napier is that he has played quite a bit of his minutes WITH a good PG the last couple seasons and his best advanced stats are with those guys...even the defensive numbers are positive. So Culver could play with Napier in a 2 guard backcourt like many other teams play especially off the bench. Napier isn't a true PG and he is more of a gunner type but I feel like he is better suited to playing with/off someone than the guys we saw playing with Tyus in Rose and Crawford. It helps that Culver has some legit length and looks like he won't be a disaster as a defender.