Minnesota Sports Forum

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:Monster -- At a high level, signing Derrick Williams for the vet minimum would make sense. But then I think about what a goof he is. I remember a Wolves official telling me that Derrick loved the NBA lifestyle but not the game. I just can't stand the thought of seeing the return of one of the founding members of my "all underachiever team." I don't think I could stand watching Derrick Williams or Wes Johnson sitting in front of me on the Wolves bench. Even worse if I had to watch them actually play again in a Wolves uniform.

I know but sometimes the right situation presents itself. For a couple years Wes was actually a decent bench player especially wehn he was just earning the vet min. He seemed to be really bad last year. Beasley is a good too but the Bucks eaked some good minutes out of him last year. The Cavs ended up with a pretty important player when they added JR Smith. Some of the guys that are available that may be worthwhile are kinda goofy. Monte Ellis fits that and remember he will be suspended for drug use for a few games. I'm not really advocating for Williams too much because I might rather have some random other dude that had to bust his butt to just make it to the NBA but yeah. There has been basically even less talk about Derrick Williams than Bazz. There are probably a few reasons even though he is still somewhat young and has some talent especially phyically. What separates him from a D-league guy pretty than experience?

What about Hollis Thompson? He was a guy that could at least hit 3's for the Sixers.

Also do you bank on some younger player being more worthwhile or do you bank on an older player not aging crazy bad? Do you sign a guy that's likely just what he is or do you maybe even sign a young guy that may have some potential and hasn't proved he sucks yet? I wouldn't count out a guy that's old because he is old. If he is really done at some point you can let him go and sign someone else. Again whoever we get is gonna have some flaws and in general that's ok. For all his flaws and being old Matt Barnes is probably one of the best players left out there (he always somehow seems to rise to the top) and he isn't talked about much and there are legit reasons for that.

lipoli390 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:Monster -- At a high level, signing Derrick Williams for the vet minimum would make sense. But then I think about what a goof he is. I remember a Wolves official telling me that Derrick loved the NBA lifestyle but not the game. I just can't stand the thought of seeing the return of one of the founding members of my "all underachiever team." I don't think I could stand watching Derrick Williams or Wes Johnson sitting in front of me on the Wolves bench. Even worse if I had to watch them actually play again in a Wolves uniform.

I know but sometimes the right situation presents itself. For a couple years Wes was actually a decent bench player especially wehn he was just earning the vet min. He seemed to be really bad last year. Beasley is a good too but the Bucks eaked some good minutes out of him last year. The Cavs ended up with a pretty important player when they added JR Smith. Some of the guys that are available that may be worthwhile are kinda goofy. Monte Ellis fits that and remember he will be suspended for drug use for a few games. I'm not really advocating for Williams too much because I might rather have some random other dude that had to bust his butt to just make it to the NBA but yeah. There has been basically even less talk about Derrick Williams than Bazz. There are probably a few reasons even though he is still somewhat young and has some talent especially phyically. What separates him from a D-league guy pretty than experience?

What about Hollis Thompson? He was a guy that could at least hit 3's for the Sixers.

Also do you bank on some younger player being more worthwhile or do you bank on an older player not aging crazy bad? Do you sign a guy that's likely just what he is or do you maybe even sign a young guy that may have some potential and hasn't proved he sucks yet? I wouldn't count out a guy that's old because he is old. If he is really done at some point you can let him go and sign someone else. Again whoever we get is gonna have some flaws and in general that's ok. For all his flaws and being old Matt Barnes is probably one of the best players left out there (he always somehow seems to rise to the top) and he isn't talked about much and there are legit reasons for that.

If we're going to go old, then I like the idea of Matt Barnes. He'd bring a nice dose of nastiness and you're never too old to be nasty. :) I hadn't thought about Hollis Thompson. I like the idea. He's been a good 3-point shooter his entire career and, at age 26, he still has young legs.

khans2k5 wrote:I'd be fine with Tony Allen. We're talking bear minimum minutes at this point with Crawford/Butler/Wiggins on the wing. 10-15 minutes a night maybe to check at least one guy while Crawford and Tyus are on the floor. I'd at least lock him up and still try to get one of these other Hollis Thompson types after.

TRKO wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:I'd be fine with Tony Allen. We're talking bear minimum minutes at this point with Crawford/Butler/Wiggins on the wing. 10-15 minutes a night maybe to check at least one guy while Crawford and Tyus are on the floor. I'd at least lock him up and still try to get one of these other Hollis Thompson types after.

On paper you are 100% correct. The problem is with injuries. Butler does get hurt his fair share, so we are going to need considerable wing depth. That being said, I still would go for Allen for that role.

monsterpile wrote:

TRKO wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:I'd be fine with Tony Allen. We're talking bear minimum minutes at this point with Crawford/Butler/Wiggins on the wing. 10-15 minutes a night maybe to check at least one guy while Crawford and Tyus are on the floor. I'd at least lock him up and still try to get one of these other Hollis Thompson types after.

On paper you are 100% correct. The problem is with injuries. Butler does get hurt his fair share, so we are going to need considerable wing depth. That being said, I still would go for Allen for that role.

I have no clue why anyone wouldn't want Tony Allen for the vet min. The guy played 71 games and started 66 games for a team that was over .500 and was voted 1st team defense this year. I feel pretty confident he is going to be plenty worthwhile for 60+ games this year. He is 35 not 40. That said I bet he ends up back with the Grizz.

monsterpile wrote:

TRKO wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:I'd be fine with Tony Allen. We're talking bear minimum minutes at this point with Crawford/Butler/Wiggins on the wing. 10-15 minutes a night maybe to check at least one guy while Crawford and Tyus are on the floor. I'd at least lock him up and still try to get one of these other Hollis Thompson types after.

On paper you are 100% correct. The problem is with injuries. Butler does get hurt his fair share, so we are going to need considerable wing depth. That being said, I still would go for Allen for that role.

I have no clue why anyone wouldn't want Tony Allen for the vet min. The guy played 71 games and started 66 games for a team that was over .500 and was voted 1st team defense this year. I feel pretty confident he is going to be plenty worthwhile for 60+ games this year. He is 35 not 40. That said I bet he ends up back with the Grizz.

lipoli390 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

TRKO wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:I'd be fine with Tony Allen. We're talking bear minimum minutes at this point with Crawford/Butler/Wiggins on the wing. 10-15 minutes a night maybe to check at least one guy while Crawford and Tyus are on the floor. I'd at least lock him up and still try to get one of these other Hollis Thompson types after.

On paper you are 100% correct. The problem is with injuries. Butler does get hurt his fair share, so we are going to need considerable wing depth. That being said, I still would go for Allen for that role.

I have no clue why anyone wouldn't want Tony Allen for the vet min. The guy played 71 games and started 66 games for a team that was over .500 and was voted 1st team defense this year. I feel pretty confident he is going to be plenty worthwhile for 60+ games this year. He is 35 not 40. That said I bet he ends up back with the Grizz.

In the 3 seasons preceding last season, Tony played in 55, 63 and 64 games respectively. He's played in fewer than 65 games in 8 of his 13 seasons in the League. And he turns 36 in January.

At this point, he may be the best we can do for the vet minimum. And I agree he'd probably be a better choice than Crawford to start at one of the wing positions if Wiggins or Butler went down. But Allen has a history of missing a lot of games with various injuries and you don't get more resilient as you enter your late 30s. His durability last season was the exception, not the rule for Tony Allen. And history tells us that players over 35 often see their level of play fall dramatically from one season to the next. Oh, and we desperately need to add 3-point shooting, which Allen doesn't provide.

At this point, I don't have a good vet minimum wing alternative among available free agents. So I suppose I can't complain if we sign him. But I think I'd rather sign Brandon Rush, who played reasonably well defensively. Moreover, Rush is 32 and can hit the three. Assuming we can't convince Bazz to come back for the League minimum, I'd try to fill our final 3 roster spots with Rush, Morrow or Dunleavy, and Deron Williams or Aaron Brooks.

lipoli390 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

TRKO wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:I'd be fine with Tony Allen. We're talking bear minimum minutes at this point with Crawford/Butler/Wiggins on the wing. 10-15 minutes a night maybe to check at least one guy while Crawford and Tyus are on the floor. I'd at least lock him up and still try to get one of these other Hollis Thompson types after.

On paper you are 100% correct. The problem is with injuries. Butler does get hurt his fair share, so we are going to need considerable wing depth. That being said, I still would go for Allen for that role.

I have no clue why anyone wouldn't want Tony Allen for the vet min. The guy played 71 games and started 66 games for a team that was over .500 and was voted 1st team defense this year. I feel pretty confident he is going to be plenty worthwhile for 60+ games this year. He is 35 not 40. That said I bet he ends up back with the Grizz.

In the 3 seasons preceding last season, Tony played in 55, 63 and 64 games respectively. He's played in fewer than 65 games in 8 of his 13 seasons in the League. And he turns 36 in January.

At this point, he may be the best we can do for the vet minimum. And I agree he'd probably be a better choice than Crawford to start at one of the wing positions if Wiggins or Butler went down. But Allen has a history of missing a lot of games with various injuries and you don't get more resilient as you enter your late 30s. His durability last season was the exception, not the rule for Tony Allen. And history tells us that players over 35 often see their level of play fall dramatically from one season to the next. Oh, and we desperately need to add 3-point shooting, which Allen doesn't provide.

At this point, I don't have a good vet minimum wing alternative among available free agents. So I suppose I can't complain if we sign him. But I think I'd rather sign Brandon Rush, who played reasonably well defensively. Moreover, Rush is 32 and can hit the three. Assuming we can't convince Bazz to come back for the League minimum, I'd try to fill our final 3 roster spots with Rush, Morrow or Dunleavy, and Deron Williams or Aaron Brooks.