Joe ingles back!

[guest81]

I wonder how many 13th to 15th roster guys you could actually name in wolves history

I'm following this to see Lip's list because I bet he can name quite a few.

I also think that saying Ingles can't add any value under any circumstances is going a little too far. He played 114 mins last year and I wouldn't make a total assement of pretty much any player that played that little.

My hyperbole was only a very slight exaggeration. Honestly, do we really want to see Ingles filling in as a rotation guy in the event some players get hurt? I’d feel ok with JMac filling in that role if necessary for a while but no Joe.

If the situation arrives that Ingles has to play major minutes then the season is probably over anyway

[Lipoli390]

Yes, but just because a guy is added to a roster that already has 12 to 14 players doesn’t mean the last guy added is a 13th-15th guy who won’t matter. I think the issue with re-signing Ingles is that it’s money tied up in someone who likely can’t add value on the court under any circumstances. I think there are many, my self included, who would like the 13th or 14th guy we add to be someone who could step into the rotation and play a positive role if needed. We have only so much room under the 2nd apron so it behooves the organization to get the most out of every dollar spent.

I wonder how many 13th to 15th roster guys you could actually name in wolves history

Guest81, What are you defining as the "13th to 15th roster guys"? Are you talking about where they stand in the actual depth chart? Their contract amount? Or in what order they were acquired and signed to the team?

As it relates to the first definition - the depth chart - you do realize that it's possible the Wolves could sign someone with the TPMLE that could leapfrog the 13th-15th guys on the depth chart and actually be someone that might be in the regular rotation or at least be "next man up" the second someone in the main rotation gets hurt? That's not a trivial thing.

Of course I realize it’s possible to sign someone who could leapfrog the 13th-15th guys. You sign the best players you can with the money and slots you have and worry about the depth chart later. I’m thinking about signing players who can be trusted to step into the rotation if necessary with minimal harm regardless of how someone might place them on the eventual depth chart. So when I see two roster spots left, I’d like to fill one or both of them with a player or players I trust stepping into the rotation. I don’t see Ingles as a guy I would trust. But I would trust JMac or Dinwiddie. This isn’t that complicated.

[guest81]

Yes, but just because a guy is added to a roster that already has 12 to 14 players doesn’t mean the last guy added is a 13th-15th guy who won’t matter. I think the issue with re-signing Ingles is that it’s money tied up in someone who likely can’t add value on the court under any circumstances. I think there are many, my self included, who would like the 13th or 14th guy we add to be someone who could step into the rotation and play a positive role if needed. We have only so much room under the 2nd apron so it behooves the organization to get the most out of every dollar spent.

I wonder how many 13th to 15th roster guys you could actually name in wolves history

Guest81, What are you defining as the "13th to 15th roster guys"? Are you talking about where they stand in the actual depth chart? Their contract amount? Or in what order they were acquired and signed to the team?

As it relates to the first definition - the depth chart - you do realize that it's possible the Wolves could sign someone with the TPMLE that could leapfrog the 13th-15th guys on the depth chart and actually be someone that might be in the regular rotation or at least be "next man up" the second someone in the main rotation gets hurt? That's not a trivial thing.

Yes the depth chart. You could sign that but then you are taking away minutes from all the young guys they already have that need playing time

[Sundog]

I think the front office values Ingles’ contribution to the locker room and on the practice floor more than adding another player that isn’t going to crack Finch’s rotation. This team is going to improve primarily through the development of its young players, and I’m betting they see Joe as helping with that and adding veteran leadership to the locker room.

[Lipoli390]

I think the front office values Ingles’ contribution to the locker room and on the practice floor more than adding another player that isn’t going to crack Finch’s rotation. This team is going to improve primarily through the development of its young players, and I’m betting they see Joe as helping with that and adding veteran leadership to the locker room.

That’s probably how they’re viewing it. I just see it a bit differently. I don’t think we need more veteran leadership in the locker room or practice. We have Conley, Rudy and Randle. I’d prefer to add players we can trust to step in as our PG or C for a stretch if we face some extended injuries to keep us afloat at those critical positions. To me, that’s no longer Joe Ingles as much as I like him.

Maybe they just felt that with Rocco coming here they needed someone on the roster who speaks Aussie.

[D-Loser25]

Guys the 13th-15th guys on a roster have never in the history of the NBA, have contributed to a team winning a championship. This is not something to have the slightest thought over

I hate it when people say this. What a cop out. No, you actually use these 3 spots to bring in at least a couple young guys to see if they can be developed.

You’re saying that instead of signing Naz Reid (I know he was probably a 2 way at first, but should be the same thing) as an undrafted rookie, we should have signed some old guy who never plays? We already have mike for that and we should be at the point now where we don’t need either.

TC is a lazy disappointment

They have 5 young guys on the roster right now that need to be developed! How many more do you want?

Keep em coming… if the coaches can’t develop more than 5 young players, they shouldn’t be on an NBA staff.

[D-Loser25]

Guys the 13th-15th guys on a roster have never in the history of the NBA, have contributed to a team winning a championship. This is not something to have the slightest thought over

I hate it when people say this. What a cop out. No, you actually use these 3 spots to bring in at least a couple young guys to see if they can be developed.

You’re saying that instead of signing Naz Reid (I know he was probably a 2 way at first, but should be the same thing) as an undrafted rookie, we should have signed some old guy who never plays? We already have mike for that and we should be at the point now where we don’t need either.

TC is a lazy disappointment

On the flip side you have what Jingles brings though, he's not going to be pushing to play either so his attitude for not playing versus a guy you don't know who could be cancerous. Risk of player unknown is a thing too.

I'm a little surprised a bit as well, don't love it but I'm fine with it, understand it and like his value off the court and in the locker room.

I suppose ideally you try and develop a younger guy, but how many Naz Reids are there out there without the opportunity to play? We're already deep enough right now that playing time is at a minimum. And Joe can still play if need be!

There is a known value Jingles brings, chemistry, coaching, leadership, and play OK if needed, etc... It's fine.

I mean ingles is great as a vet, I guess I just don’t like the optics. It’s like you’re giving up. Theres a lot people making a lot of money to find the next Naz or the next Ty Jerome, but instead we don’t try lol. It’s just weird to me.

[Q-is-here]

I hate it when people say this. What a cop out. No, you actually use these 3 spots to bring in at least a couple young guys to see if they can be developed.

You’re saying that instead of signing Naz Reid (I know he was probably a 2 way at first, but should be the same thing) as an undrafted rookie, we should have signed some old guy who never plays? We already have mike for that and we should be at the point now where we don’t need either.

TC is a lazy disappointment

They have 5 young guys on the roster right now that need to be developed! How many more do you want?

Keep em coming… if the coaches can’t develop more than 5 young players, they shouldn’t be on an NBA staff.

I would say OKC is sort of the poster child of this. The fact a 68-win title team got their 2nd round rookie draft pick more regular season minutes than Clark, Shannon, or Dillingham speaks volumes to their approach.

[guest81]

I hate it when people say this. What a cop out. No, you actually use these 3 spots to bring in at least a couple young guys to see if they can be developed.

You’re saying that instead of signing Naz Reid (I know he was probably a 2 way at first, but should be the same thing) as an undrafted rookie, we should have signed some old guy who never plays? We already have mike for that and we should be at the point now where we don’t need either.

TC is a lazy disappointment

They have 5 young guys on the roster right now that need to be developed! How many more do you want?

Keep em coming… if the coaches can’t develop more than 5 young players, they shouldn’t be on an NBA staff.

Do you want a 14 man rotation?

[Q-is-here]

I wonder how many 13th to 15th roster guys you could actually name in wolves history

Guest81, What are you defining as the "13th to 15th roster guys"? Are you talking about where they stand in the actual depth chart? Their contract amount? Or in what order they were acquired and signed to the team?

As it relates to the first definition - the depth chart - you do realize that it's possible the Wolves could sign someone with the TPMLE that could leapfrog the 13th-15th guys on the depth chart and actually be someone that might be in the regular rotation or at least be "next man up" the second someone in the main rotation gets hurt? That's not a trivial thing.

Yes the depth chart. You could sign that but then you are taking away minutes from all the young guys they already have that need playing time

But there are some extenuating circumstances at Center and may be even point guard. Do we think Beringer is ready for NBA minutes next season? He doesn't even turn 19 until November. It's not the end of the world if we get a one-year stopgap vet big that can backup Rudy against some of the bigger opponents (like holy crap Houston!).

I can make an argument that Conley should be demoted to a Joe Ingles role (I know others would pushback on that) and we could use a vet starting PG like Tyus Jones while still playing Dilly regular minutes as the backup PG this year.

Those are two examples where I don't see us compromising player development.