Minnesota Sports Forum

TheFuture wrote:Why do you think he has to score 20 to be worth a damn. Is 20 points the threshold of a great player? Would you rather have Carmelo or DJ? JR Smith can create his offense and get you 20.. to me DJ is worth more than rubio money. He's a threat to get 20 boards every night. He can score 15 a night. He will block multiple shots a game and alter plenty more. He keeps opposing players out of the lane, plays great pnr d, help d, and one on one d. He's a top center in this league, something we don't have. LaVine, Wiggins, shabazz, martin, dieng etc. Can score points. He's something we severely lack. Oh, did I mention he doesn't miss games?

You almost have be convinced because of this ^^^ point. Geez, three consecutive seasons playing all 82 games is almost unheard of for a Center these days. The ability to stay healthy is a huge asset for a big man.

The other thing I will point out is that while he's a low-usage player, his ability to convert around the rim at such a high rate is a net positive on offense. He stays in his lane and is super efficient.

His FT shooting and upcoming price tag probably makes me shy away from trading out our top pick for him, but you make a good case here.

(Oh yeah, the other thing he does well is set screens. Yeah, they might be illegal half the time and not called, but if you can set a screen that a defender can't get over, you have massively improved your chances to score on that possession. One of my biggest beefs with Flip and the coaching staff is the lackluster emphasis on screen setting).

Q12543 wrote:(Oh yeah, the other thing he does well is set screens. Yeah, they might be illegal half the time and not called, but if you can set a screen that a defender can't get over, you have massively improved your chances to score on that possession. One of my biggest beefs with Flip and the coaching staff is the lackluster emphasis on screen setting).

Thanks Q. That was one point I meant to make as well. He his a brick wall on screens. Defenders are always looking out, and they take a good step or two back when he sets one. That free second or two means a ton of playmaking room for rubio.

khans2k5 wrote:

Rubiooooooo wrote:Why do you think he has to score 20 to be worth a damn. Is 20 points the threshold of a great player? Would you rather have Carmelo or DJ? JR Smith can create his offense and get you 20.. to me DJ is worth more than rubio money. He's a threat to get 20 boards every night. He can score 15 a night. He will block multiple shots a game and alter plenty more. He keeps opposing players out of the lane, plays great pnr d, help d, and one on one d. He's a top center in this league, something we don't have. LaVine, Wiggins, shabazz, martin, dieng etc. Can score points. He's something we severely lack. Oh, did I mention he doesn't miss games?

It's not just about scoring 20. It's about the fact that he can't give you any of his own accord. You have to sit him for all but the last two minutes of the 4th quarter until they fix intentional fouls and even then you still can't give him the ball because they'll just foul him right away. He can't play in the most important quarter of close games. He can't score in any volume capacity and has no ability to score without being setup by teammates. He allows teams back into games as early as the 3rd quarter with the hack a shaq strategy. His basketball skill is not setup to age well at all. His game is based on athleticism so once that goes he has nothing. By the time Wiggins is setup to possibly leave, DJ will be in his mid 30's and won't be an all-star anymore so he won't have a positive affect on that decision from Wiggins.

Or we could take a big this year who will also be entering in their prime at the same time as Wiggins and maximize our window rather than need to win in the first 4 years of Wiggin's career before your 2nd and 3rd best players start declining. DJ dunks, rebounds and plays defense. He's a rich man's Ben Wallace. Making moves now because of what could happen in 3 years but most likely 8 in today's NBA climate of restricted free agency is short sighted. Why go all in when Wiggins is 20? Keep stockpiling assets and go all in when he's 23-25 and you might hit on some pieces along the way that will be right in line to play their best basketball when Wiggins is playing his best basketball.

If we by some miracle can pull off getting DJ on a new 5 year max deal which would be tough to match in a sign and trade and would involve giving up some pieces you mention like a Dieng and/or Bazz, etc., you now have a guy who can leave after 5 years versus a draft pick who you can hold onto for 9 and could be better than DJ. And finally, why does DJ accept a sign and trade to MN right now after we were just the worst team in the league and he's on a contender in LA? It's the wrong player at the wrong time for the move to be made.

I understand where you are going with comment above, but this is very risky. This type of proposal is basically suggesting we can already assume a losing record the next 3-4 years. I can promise you that no matter who we get in the draft next season, we are still not a 40 win team. My guess is we win 25-30. And the year after, with some luck, we are hitting 40 wins. At some point, you need to utilize assets the ENSURE you get better, and not always rely on striking it rich in draft.....because that is a longshot. That's also why Flip was so stupid for trading for Payne. That pick in this next draft could certainly have pulled a much better veteran player if he would have simply waited. Payne would have always been there for the taking....just didn't make sense.

Hicks123 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Rubiooooooo wrote:Why do you think he has to score 20 to be worth a damn. Is 20 points the threshold of a great player? Would you rather have Carmelo or DJ? JR Smith can create his offense and get you 20.. to me DJ is worth more than rubio money. He's a threat to get 20 boards every night. He can score 15 a night. He will block multiple shots a game and alter plenty more. He keeps opposing players out of the lane, plays great pnr d, help d, and one on one d. He's a top center in this league, something we don't have. LaVine, Wiggins, shabazz, martin, dieng etc. Can score points. He's something we severely lack. Oh, did I mention he doesn't miss games?

It's not just about scoring 20. It's about the fact that he can't give you any of his own accord. You have to sit him for all but the last two minutes of the 4th quarter until they fix intentional fouls and even then you still can't give him the ball because they'll just foul him right away. He can't play in the most important quarter of close games. He can't score in any volume capacity and has no ability to score without being setup by teammates. He allows teams back into games as early as the 3rd quarter with the hack a shaq strategy. His basketball skill is not setup to age well at all. His game is based on athleticism so once that goes he has nothing. By the time Wiggins is setup to possibly leave, DJ will be in his mid 30's and won't be an all-star anymore so he won't have a positive affect on that decision from Wiggins.

Or we could take a big this year who will also be entering in their prime at the same time as Wiggins and maximize our window rather than need to win in the first 4 years of Wiggin's career before your 2nd and 3rd best players start declining. DJ dunks, rebounds and plays defense. He's a rich man's Ben Wallace. Making moves now because of what could happen in 3 years but most likely 8 in today's NBA climate of restricted free agency is short sighted. Why go all in when Wiggins is 20? Keep stockpiling assets and go all in when he's 23-25 and you might hit on some pieces along the way that will be right in line to play their best basketball when Wiggins is playing his best basketball.

If we by some miracle can pull off getting DJ on a new 5 year max deal which would be tough to match in a sign and trade and would involve giving up some pieces you mention like a Dieng and/or Bazz, etc., you now have a guy who can leave after 5 years versus a draft pick who you can hold onto for 9 and could be better than DJ. And finally, why does DJ accept a sign and trade to MN right now after we were just the worst team in the league and he's on a contender in LA? It's the wrong player at the wrong time for the move to be made.

I understand where you are going with comment above, but this is very risky. This type of proposal is basically suggesting we can already assume a losing record the next 3-4 years. I can promise you that no matter who we get in the draft next season, we are still not a 40 win team. My guess is we win 25-30. And the year after, with some luck, we are hitting 40 wins. At some point, you need to utilize assets the ENSURE you get better, and not always rely on striking it rich in draft.....because that is a longshot. That's also why Flip was so stupid for trading for Payne. That pick in this next draft could certainly have pulled a much better veteran player if he would have simply waited. Payne would have always been there for the taking....just didn't make sense.

We just finished year 1 of the rebuild. "At some point" is not immediately. I assume we'll have a losing record next year, but that is the life of being a young team who just posted the worst record in the league. There is no shortcut to 40 wins for this team next year short of getting a star. Going from 16 to 25-30 to 40+ wins is the natural progression of getting better. Then after next year you have a huge jump in the cap and some extra roster spots to get some breathing room which we don't have right now and you've given everyone but our top pick this year at least two full years in the league to adjust and give us a better understanding of who they'll be in the league. It makes no sense to me to try to take a shortcut now for wins. You are going all in on free agency and internal development of multiple players to pan out if you trade our top pick this year for wins now because you are ditching the ability to get a top pick next year to still likely not make the playoffs. DJ is not worth 20 wins and even if he was, a 40 win team isn't good enough to make the playoffs in the West anyway. Why are we trying to push for the playoffs so hard while sacrificing future assets given the state of the West right now? Our young talent is between 20-26. They aren't ready to make a push for the playoffs next year. When's the last team in the league to go from 16 wins to mid to high 40's the next year on a playoff push in the West? I'm all for going for broke after next season but it's extremely impatient to say future be damned, we have enough high end potential now to go for it.

Say we get DJ and win 35-40 games next year and miss the playoffs. What does that accomplish? You don't have a high pick and now you have to hope someone really good is willing to come to MN in free agency just to get us in the playoffs. Then you have to hope Lavine and Wiggins both become stars or you no longer have a shot at a title. I just don't see the point in trading away elite potential for players now. We traded picks for players with Love and look how that turned out. It left us no assets to get significantly better and capped our winning potential. Meanwhile the guy we get in the draft this year plus our other young assets have great value together as a trade package to get an impact guy if we need to.

There is no safe play to put a title contender on the floor. That's why Flip traded for Wiggins. That was a huge risk because if Wiggins doesn't pan out you got nothing for Love. I'd rather risk it for a franchise changing player than settle for an all-star and hope to God everyone on the team improves a lot and by a miracle a good free agent comes to MN to put us over the top. That seems just as risky to me, but makes it a lot more difficult to recover from it if it doesn't pan out because of the contracts you just handcuffed the roster with.

Q12543 wrote:

mrhockey89 wrote:Q/Cam, I think you guys are stretching my "KG can teach" statement a little further than it was meant. The point was merely a positioning comment, not that he'd make WCS the second coming of Dennis Rodman on the boards.

Coolbreaz, I don't think anyone "wants" to trade LaVine, it's more that he is one of the few somewhat tradeable pieces that hold some value that could even get another team to entertain a trade for a pick that high. Q is probably right that it'd take even more than that. It won't happen anyway, so no need to even feud about him.

I hear you Hockey. It's more of a reaction to the accumulated effect of people talking about KG's much-anticipated impact on the team. Other than the few stints he actually played, his "mentoring" appeared to have no impact whatsoever on our Cs and PFs. Yet people keep using him as a crutch for our young players ("KG can help with that!"). There is only so much he can do with 20+ year old grown men. I'm not buying it....

You don't need to look any further than KG's impact on Mason Plumlee to understand the validity of the KG mentoring narrative. Here's an article where Plumlee and other Nets talk about it.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2324026-kevin-garnett-helping-mentor-mason-plumlees-resurgence-with-brooklyn-nets

Plumlee was averaging about 15 and 8 for the 6 weeks before KG was traded, but less than 5 and 5 after the trade. Pretty compelling evidence. KG's positive impact on Plumlee happened when they were on the court at the same time. And we saw a similar impact on the Wolves' play in the few games KG actually played. Questioning whether KG is still able to contribute 60 games of 20 minutes is a valid discussion. But suggesting a verbal, active HOFer like KG isn't going to have a positive impact on our young bigs is a non-starter for me.

LST - Wait, so what you are telling me is that Plumlee basically fell to pieces without KG around. If that's an example of KG's mentoring, than no thanks!

My definition of a mentor is someone that imparts skill and wisdom such that the subject is able to fly on his own some day. Instead, Plumlee appears to be like a baby chick, with his mouth open in the nest of basketball, dependent upon Papa KG to feed him his food.

Q-I'm not wed to the word "mentoring", and I think your definition is sound. I prefer "effectiveness". KG clearly made Plumlee a much more effective player when he was on the court with him...that is supported both by the numbers and by Plumlee's own words. And anybody who watched the Wolves play in the five games KG played in knows that they played much more effectively in those games...both on offense and defense. An intelligent and driven young player should be able to take what he learns from KG...both in words and by example...and use it to continue to improve as a player long after KG is gone. I don't know if Plumlee fits the definition of driven and intelligent...his collapse after KG's departure leads me to believe he does not.

KG's positive impact on Plumlee and on the Wolves in those 5 games is compelling enough evidence for me to agree with Flip's conclusion...that our young players can use KG's experience on the court the next couple years.

longstrangetrip wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

mrhockey89 wrote:Q/Cam, I think you guys are stretching my "KG can teach" statement a little further than it was meant. The point was merely a positioning comment, not that he'd make WCS the second coming of Dennis Rodman on the boards.

Coolbreaz, I don't think anyone "wants" to trade LaVine, it's more that he is one of the few somewhat tradeable pieces that hold some value that could even get another team to entertain a trade for a pick that high. Q is probably right that it'd take even more than that. It won't happen anyway, so no need to even feud about him.

I hear you Hockey. It's more of a reaction to the accumulated effect of people talking about KG's much-anticipated impact on the team. Other than the few stints he actually played, his "mentoring" appeared to have no impact whatsoever on our Cs and PFs. Yet people keep using him as a crutch for our young players ("KG can help with that!"). There is only so much he can do with 20+ year old grown men. I'm not buying it....

You don't need to look any further than KG's impact on Mason Plumlee to understand the validity of the KG mentoring narrative. Here's an article where Plumlee and other Nets talk about it.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2324026-kevin-garnett-helping-mentor-mason-plumlees-resurgence-with-brooklyn-nets

Plumlee was averaging about 15 and 8 for the 6 weeks before KG was traded, but less than 5 and 5 after the trade. Pretty compelling evidence. KG's positive impact on Plumlee happened when they were on the court at the same time. And we saw a similar impact on the Wolves' play in the few games KG actually played. Questioning whether KG is still able to contribute 60 games of 20 minutes is a valid discussion. But suggesting a verbal, active HOFer like KG isn't going to have a positive impact on our young bigs is a non-starter for me.

Didn't Brook Lopez see his stats go up after Garnett left?

Was Garnett a negative influence? Or, is it more likely that Lopez's emergence made Plumlee more expendable?

Abe, I think we need to look both at stats and at the players' testimonials to really assess the impact KG had on the Nets bigs. Plumlee credits KG for his improved play, and his numbers with and without him back up his assertion. Further, Jarret Jack talks about how KG was constantly coaching Plumlee when they were on the court together (knowing KG's style, "coaching" may have bordered on "harassing" at times) And I saw the same thing in the Portland and Washington games I went to this season. KG never stops coaching when he is on the court, both on offense and defense, and it makes the other 4 players on the court with him better. That has to have something to do with why we outscored our opponents in the 5 games KG played in this year. Big deal, some might say. But a 16-win team outscoring its opponent in a certain subset of its games is a big deal. and needs to be analyzed.

One of the most frustrating parts of the season for most of us was watching our young guys (AB, Zach, Payne, Bazz, Dieng) acting like young guys...especially on defense. KG knows where they need to be on defense and isn't shy about telling them. How can that be a bad thing? KG's presence on the court is exactly what Plumlee needed, and it's exactly what this young team needs.