lipoli390 wrote:The Spurs won handily tonight, taking their record to 15-7. That's without Leonard or Parker so far this season and after losing last season's starting center, Dedmon, to free agency. The Jazz beat the Pelicans tonight, taking their record to 12-11 -- just 1 game behind the Wolves. That's without their best defensive player, Rudy Gobert, for the past 2+ weeks and after losing their allstar SF and best all-around player, Hayward, and their starting PG from last season.
The Spurs and Jazz exemplify excellence as organizations, making shrewd draft decisions and hiring really good head coaches. The Jazz took Rudy Gobert with a first round pick they got from the Wolves for fricking cash. They drafted Mitchell with the 13th pick last season. And they have a heck of a head coach. The Spurs just continue to amaze.
I think you are wrong on gobert, we could of drafted him instead of gorgui, then we traded that last first to OKC for roberson. You know super duper smart move for a bad team. Makes a lot of sense.
But your point is the same. That is why I do not want to trade away that 1st we have this year. Even though another wing would help a lot it is not moving us to a title contender this year (what is fine), for the wolves to continue having success year after year we need to draft and develop young cheap talent to play roles. Patton, Tyus, the OKC 1st so important to sustained success.
No, I'm right. We traded down to get an extra pick that we used to draft Gorgui. But we still had the 26th or 27th pick in the draft from an earlier trade and we sold it for cash. We could have drafted Gobert with that pick we sold. I remember how pissed I was at the time and posted how ridiculous it was to sell a first round pick for cash, especially with Rudy Gobert still available. Teams rarely sell first round picks for cash. Leave it to the Wolves organization to do the dumb things that other organizations don't do.
Otherwise, we're in violent agreement. :). Keeping and making effective use of first round picks is key to building and maintaining a competitive team in today's NBA -- especially for a smaller market team like the Wolves. I would have loved to get CJ Miles, but I'm glad we held onto the OKC pick we got in exchange for Rubio. We had better hope that OKC makes the playoffs so we actually get that pick.
Obviously and wrongly, Flip liked Georgi better than Gobert. But I do understand not wanting three guaranteed contract rookies on the team. And those contracts make it tough to trade a later first for a second. Not saying he tried to make a trade, just that the mistake was who we took, not the trade for cash.
I get what you're saying, Peter. I actually liked Gorgui better than Gobert. But I don't see a problem in carrying 3 rookie contracts on a 15-player roster. First round pick contracts are very team-friendly given the team option component and the tradeability of those picks/contracts. The contracts are especially friendly/cheap at the bottom of the first round. So there's really no excuse in my view for trading that pick for cash. If nothing else, trade it for a future protected first round pick. But with Gobert available, the no-brainer move would have been to take Gobert. That's true even without hindsight. It's certainly what I thought at the time. And Utah clearly knew what it was doing just as they did taking Donovan Mitchell at #13 this past June.
lipoli390 wrote:The Spurs won handily tonight, taking their record to 15-7. That's without Leonard or Parker so far this season and after losing last season's starting center, Dedmon, to free agency. The Jazz beat the Pelicans tonight, taking their record to 12-11 -- just 1 game behind the Wolves. That's without their best defensive player, Rudy Gobert, for the past 2+ weeks and after losing their allstar SF and best all-around player, Hayward, and their starting PG from last season.
The Spurs and Jazz exemplify excellence as organizations, making shrewd draft decisions and hiring really good head coaches. The Jazz took Rudy Gobert with a first round pick they got from the Wolves for fricking cash. They drafted Mitchell with the 13th pick last season. And they have a heck of a head coach. The Spurs just continue to amaze.
I think you are wrong on gobert, we could of drafted him instead of gorgui, then we traded that last first to OKC for roberson. You know super duper smart move for a bad team. Makes a lot of sense.
But your point is the same. That is why I do not want to trade away that 1st we have this year. Even though another wing would help a lot it is not moving us to a title contender this year (what is fine), for the wolves to continue having success year after year we need to draft and develop young cheap talent to play roles. Patton, Tyus, the OKC 1st so important to sustained success.
No, I'm right. We traded down to get an extra pick that we used to draft Gorgui. But we still had the 26th or 27th pick in the draft from an earlier trade and we sold it for cash. We could have drafted Gobert with that pick we sold. I remember how pissed I was at the time and posted how ridiculous it was to sell a first round pick for cash, especially with Rudy Gobert still available. Teams rarely sell first round picks for cash. Leave it to the Wolves organization to do the dumb things that other organizations don't do.
Otherwise, we're in violent agreement. :). Keeping and making effective use of first round picks is key to building and maintaining a competitive team in today's NBA -- especially for a smaller market team like the Wolves. I would have loved to get CJ Miles, but I'm glad we held onto the OKC pick we got in exchange for Rubio. We had better hope that OKC makes the playoffs so we actually get that pick.
Obviously and wrongly, Flip liked Georgi better than Gobert. But I do understand not wanting three guaranteed contract rookies on the team. And those contracts make it tough to trade a later first for a second. Not saying he tried to make a trade, just that the mistake was who we took, not the trade for cash.
I get what you're saying, Peter. I actually liked Gorgui better than Gobert. But I don't see a problem in carrying 3 rookie contracts on a 15-player roster. First round pick contracts are very team-friendly given the team option component and the tradeability of those picks/contracts. The contracts are especially friendly/cheap at the bottom of the first round. So there's really no excuse in my view for trading that pick for cash. If nothing else, trade it for a future protected first round pick. But with Gobert available, the no-brainer move would have been to take Gobert. That's true even without hindsight. It's certainly what I thought at the time. And Utah clearly knew what it was doing just as they did taking Donovan Mitchell at #13 this past June.
No argument on Utah!
I still have problems with 3 guaranteed contract rookies and at least one on the third team. But I understand the issue with going for cash instead of future picks, though even SA and Portland have done it. Of course, their rosters were more settled when they did it.
It was a pretty good night as the East swept the West and the only bad news was the Nuggets beat the Lakers. Trey Lyles had a nice game for the Nuggets.
monsterpile wrote:It was a pretty good night as the East swept the West and the only bad news was the Nuggets beat the Lakers. Trey Lyles had a nice game for the Nuggets.
It should be very troubling to all Wolves fans that the Nuggets are winning without Millsap and Jokic.
monsterpile wrote:It was a pretty good night as the East swept the West and the only bad news was the Nuggets beat the Lakers. Trey Lyles had a nice game for the Nuggets.
It should be very troubling to all Wolves fans that the Nuggets are winning without Millsap and Jokic.
Yeah, Jokic is a stud and by far their best player. But they've only beaten the Lakers (at home) with him out for the whole game...I wouldn't be shocked if the Mavericks took them down tomorrow night.
monsterpile wrote:It was a pretty good night as the East swept the West and the only bad news was the Nuggets beat the Lakers. Trey Lyles had a nice game for the Nuggets.
It should be very troubling to all Wolves fans that the Nuggets are winning without Millsap and Jokic.
Yeah, Jokic is a stud and by far their best player. But they've only beaten the Lakers (at home) with him out for the whole game...I wouldn't be shocked if the Mavericks took them down tomorrow night.
Yep LST you nailed it their schedule lately hasn't been too impressive and they got thumped by Utah. Sure they are down 2 good players in Jokic and Millsap (plus Wilson Chandler has been in and out of the lineup and hasn't played well) but they have crazy depth in the front court. They are starting pretty good vet players in Plumblee and Fariid and have the luxury of having guys like Barton (playing really well lately) and Richard Jefferson coming off the bench and young guys like Hernagomez (starting at the 3) and Lyles who both are young players who seem deserving of minutes. Mudiay looking like a legit NBA player has been pretty big for them espcially since they let go of Jameer.
8th seed in West now has a winning record. Dammit! Ah, we'll see if it sinks down again, but I am still convinced it will be a nail-biter for the Wolves and we will win somewhere between 38-42 games. It would be great to get into the playoffs if we hit the upper end of that range.
Bill Simmons just did a 2 part mailbag podcast with Steve Kerr. I would recommend listening. One of the questions was what stats Kerr relies on in analyzing each game. He said opponent FG%, assists, and turnovers. Thought that was interesting. He also said PER isn't that useful which I thought was interesting.
thedoper wrote:Bill Simmons just did a 2 part mailbag podcast with Steve Kerr. I would recommend listening. One of the questions was what stats Kerr relies on in analyzing each game. He said opponent FG%, assists, and turnovers. Thought that was interesting. He also said PER isn't that useful which I thought was interesting.
Thanks, Doper. I'll check it out. I've never thought much of PER -- mainly because I dont understand it :)
thedoper wrote:Bill Simmons just did a 2 part mailbag podcast with Steve Kerr. I would recommend listening. One of the questions was what stats Kerr relies on in analyzing each game. He said opponent FG%, assists, and turnovers. Thought that was interesting. He also said PER isn't that useful which I thought was interesting.
Thanks, Doper. I'll check it out. I've never thought much of PER -- mainly because I dont understand it :)
Yeah me neither. Kerr basically just says when you rank all the players based on PER there are some anomalies that come out which are obviously in contrast to talent on the court.
