Minnesota Sports Forum

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden wrote:Julius Randle posted a triple-double of 28 points, 12 rebounds, and 11 assists in a win against Cleveland. Nine turnovers is poor, but he did continue to shoot the ball well: 9-16 FG, 4-4 3P, 6-10 FT.

Wolves didn't need him.

And we didn't need Noel either. He had 7 rebounds, 3 blocks and 2 steals in 16 minutes. The Knicks are paying him $5M on a one-year deal. But he's just another guy who wouldn't fit our system. Took an extra $2M per year and an extra year to get a PF who could play the modern style that Rosas and Ryan Saunders have brilliantly installed here in Minnesota.

Yep, he was another truly available big that would have made an impact in Minnesota. He would have cost nothing! What's worse is that no hindsight is required here on this board. It's the front office making millions of dollars that can't get the simple things correct.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Julius Randle posted a triple-double of 28 points, 12 rebounds, and 11 assists in a win against Cleveland. Nine turnovers is poor, but he did continue to shoot the ball well: 9-16 FG, 4-4 3P, 6-10 FT.

Wolves didn't need him.

If you're gonna point out Wiseman and Randle after every good game... I'm gonna keep trumping Haliburton... and how the Wolves could have traded down to get him and at least one other guy. We'll make every thread into our own personal "I'm the smartest guy in the room" fest.

5 - 7 fg... 3 - 4 3fg
15 points / 6 assists
56% fg / 53% 3fg / 21 assists vs. 3 TOs on the season)

Sacramento is 3 - 1.

I'm pointing out Randle's performances because I don't think Minnesota would be as fucked in the frontcourt as they are right now if they had him, especially with Towns out. There's a reason behind it.

Also, please do point out Haliburton's performances. You aren't alone in liking him. He was third on my big board if you recall. The kid is legitimately good.

I liked him more. You can't have all of them in the "smartest guy in the room" contest.

Stop it. We both know Gersson Rosas is the smartest man in the room.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Julius Randle posted a triple-double of 28 points, 12 rebounds, and 11 assists in a win against Cleveland. Nine turnovers is poor, but he did continue to shoot the ball well: 9-16 FG, 4-4 3P, 6-10 FT.

Wolves didn't need him.

If you're gonna point out Wiseman and Randle after every good game... I'm gonna keep trumping Haliburton... and how the Wolves could have traded down to get him and at least one other guy. We'll make every thread into our own personal "I'm the smartest guy in the room" fest.

5 - 7 fg... 3 - 4 3fg
15 points / 6 assists
56% fg / 53% 3fg / 21 assists vs. 3 TOs on the season)

Sacramento is 3 - 1.

Abe - I'm glad you pointed out Halliburton's success to date. I wanted to trade down and he was on my list, although not as high as my guy Okongwu. I can say with certainty that Okongwu would be averaging around 10 rebounds and 20 points per game as the leading candidate for rookie of the year if he weren't injured. :)

Seriously, I like it when Cam or anyone else points out the success of players they like and thought the Wolves should have signed or drafted. I don't care how often they do it; in fact I appreciate getting the info. I don't see it as a "smartest guy in the room fest." I see it as interesting information and a reminder that the dumbest guy in the room is, once again, heading up the Wolves front office. :).

So please keep those posts on Haliburton coming.

lipoli390 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Julius Randle posted a triple-double of 28 points, 12 rebounds, and 11 assists in a win against Cleveland. Nine turnovers is poor, but he did continue to shoot the ball well: 9-16 FG, 4-4 3P, 6-10 FT.

Wolves didn't need him.

If you're gonna point out Wiseman and Randle after every good game... I'm gonna keep trumping Haliburton... and how the Wolves could have traded down to get him and at least one other guy. We'll make every thread into our own personal "I'm the smartest guy in the room" fest.

5 - 7 fg... 3 - 4 3fg
15 points / 6 assists
56% fg / 53% 3fg / 21 assists vs. 3 TOs on the season)

Sacramento is 3 - 1.

Abe - I'm glad you pointed out Halliburton's success to date. I wanted to trade down and he was on my list, although not as high as my guy Okongwu. I can say with certainty that Okongwu would be averaging around 10 rebounds and 20 points per game as the leading candidate for rookie of the year if he weren't injured. :)

Seriously, I like it when Cam or anyone else points out the success of players they like and thought the Wolves should have signed or drafted. I don't care how often they do it; in fact I appreciate getting the info. I don't see it as a "smartest guy in the room fest." I see it as interesting information and a reminder that the dumbest guy in the room is, once again, heading up the Wolves front office. :).

So please keep those posts on Haliburton coming.

Meh.

It just reminded me of the guy who ripped Thibs in every single post. Was it LST?



[Note: To be fair, I know others can be redundant from time to time, too. Ahem. ]

But let's get to the real story... where the hell is Q?

Vanderbilt balled out vs. the scrubs in the 4th quarter in back-to-back games. I thought his defense was comically bad... and he was exploited over and over again.

BUT... the guy works. He'll probably be one of those Anthony Randolph types early in his career where every other boxscore looks awesome and everybody wonders why he doesn't play more... until you look closer.

BUT... why not? If he keeps working... give him his shot and see what he's got.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Julius Randle posted a triple-double of 28 points, 12 rebounds, and 11 assists in a win against Cleveland. Nine turnovers is poor, but he did continue to shoot the ball well: 9-16 FG, 4-4 3P, 6-10 FT.

Wolves didn't need him.

If you're gonna point out Wiseman and Randle after every good game... I'm gonna keep trumping Haliburton... and how the Wolves could have traded down to get him and at least one other guy. We'll make every thread into our own personal "I'm the smartest guy in the room" fest.

5 - 7 fg... 3 - 4 3fg
15 points / 6 assists
56% fg / 53% 3fg / 21 assists vs. 3 TOs on the season)

Sacramento is 3 - 1.

Abe - I'm glad you pointed out Halliburton's success to date. I wanted to trade down and he was on my list, although not as high as my guy Okongwu. I can say with certainty that Okongwu would be averaging around 10 rebounds and 20 points per game as the leading candidate for rookie of the year if he weren't injured. :)

Seriously, I like it when Cam or anyone else points out the success of players they like and thought the Wolves should have signed or drafted. I don't care how often they do it; in fact I appreciate getting the info. I don't see it as a "smartest guy in the room fest." I see it as interesting information and a reminder that the dumbest guy in the room is, once again, heading up the Wolves front office. :).

So please keep those posts on Haliburton coming.

Meh.

It just reminded me of the guy who ripped Thibs in every single post. Was it LST?



[Note: To be fair, I know others can be redundant from time to time, too. Ahem. ]

LST did not enjoy Tom Thibodeau's time in Minnesota whatsoever and routinely referred to him as an ogre, which is funny looking back on it. He had a bad stretch where every post was Thibs-centric, but they were at least thought out and he went back and forth courteously.

He wasn't much of a Kevin Love fan either. I don't know if anyone was happier to see him leave the Twin Cities.

But with all of that said I would gladly welcome LST back to this board with open arms. He was one of the founding fathers here, if you will, and there's not many of us left!

PS: If you want redundancy, I might know a guy. He's my biggest fan.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:But let's get to the real story... where the hell is Q?

Vanderbilt balled out vs. the scrubs in the 4th quarter in back-to-back games. I thought his defense was comically bad... and he was exploited over and over again.

BUT... the guy works. He'll probably be one of those Anthony Randolph types early in his career where every other boxscore looks awesome and everybody wonders why he doesn't play more... until you look closer.

BUT... why not? If he keeps working... give him his shot and see what he's got.

I won't comment specifically on Vanderbilt - at least not until we've heard from the Vanderbilt whisperer himself. Q, where are you??

Otherwise, I think we're now in a why not stretch for the Wolves. Why not give Vandy more minutes? Why not give McDaniels more playing time. Why not get Nowell out on to the court (assuming he's healthy)? Why not sit DLO's ass down for an entire game and go with Ricky and JMac Why not get JMac as our PGs? Why not leave Juancho in LA to do some screen tests? The list goes on. KAT will be out a while and, as a result, it's hard to see the Wolves as a playoff team with this roster and this head coach.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Julius Randle posted a triple-double of 28 points, 12 rebounds, and 11 assists in a win against Cleveland. Nine turnovers is poor, but he did continue to shoot the ball well: 9-16 FG, 4-4 3P, 6-10 FT.

Wolves didn't need him.

If you're gonna point out Wiseman and Randle after every good game... I'm gonna keep trumping Haliburton... and how the Wolves could have traded down to get him and at least one other guy. We'll make every thread into our own personal "I'm the smartest guy in the room" fest.

5 - 7 fg... 3 - 4 3fg
15 points / 6 assists
56% fg / 53% 3fg / 21 assists vs. 3 TOs on the season)

Sacramento is 3 - 1.

Actually I'm the smartest guy in the room, Abe- you guys are all vying for second place ;-) .

I was all about Halliburton too pre-draft and thought he would prove to be the most NBA-ready guy in the draft- probably not the most upside, but very likely the most ready. And he has not disappointed.

What bothers me sometimes though is the assumption that it would have been easy to trade down in this draft. We just don't know that. If a team offered Rosas a good player and a pick to move up, then shame on him for not considering it. But I guess I don't see Rosas as the moron many here do, and it's likely he saw what we and most GM's saw- a relatively flat draft where a guy drafted 8th may easily outplay the guy drafted #1. More likely most offers involved a bad contract a team wanted to get out of. Rosas has said he was on the phone until the time he had to make the pick, and I'm sure he heard a lot of proposals that would have made all of us here vomit. There are a lot of "reports" about deals that could have been made, but pre-draft smoke-blowing is a time-honored tradition. We just don't know what offers were on the table.

FNG wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Julius Randle posted a triple-double of 28 points, 12 rebounds, and 11 assists in a win against Cleveland. Nine turnovers is poor, but he did continue to shoot the ball well: 9-16 FG, 4-4 3P, 6-10 FT.

Wolves didn't need him.

If you're gonna point out Wiseman and Randle after every good game... I'm gonna keep trumping Haliburton... and how the Wolves could have traded down to get him and at least one other guy. We'll make every thread into our own personal "I'm the smartest guy in the room" fest.

5 - 7 fg... 3 - 4 3fg
15 points / 6 assists
56% fg / 53% 3fg / 21 assists vs. 3 TOs on the season)

Sacramento is 3 - 1.

Actually I'm the smartest guy in the room, Abe- you guys are all vying for second place ;-) .

I was all about Halliburton too pre-draft and thought he would prove to be the most NBA-ready guy in the draft- probably not the most upside, but very likely the most ready. And he has not disappointed.

What bothers me sometimes though is the assumption that it would have been easy to trade down in this draft. We just don't know that. If a team offered Rosas a good player and a pick to move up, then shame on him for not considering it. But I guess I don't see Rosas as the moron many here do, and it's likely he saw what we and most GM's saw- a relatively flat draft where a guy drafted 8th may easily outplay the guy drafted #1. More likely most offers involved a bad contract a team wanted to get out of. Rosas has said he was on the phone until the time he had to make the pick, and I'm sure he heard a lot of proposals that would have made all of us here vomit. There are a lot of "reports" about deals that could have been made, but pre-draft smoke-blowing is a time-honored tradition. We just don't know what offers were on the table.

Sure. It's all conjecture.

But there was enough smoke that the Wolves could have gotten some asset. ANY additional asset + Haliburton. I like Haliburton better for THIS organization more than Edwards anyway.

Better talent? No.
More upside? No.

Dropping 10 spots in any draft will land you some sort of asset. I'm sure the Wolves just liked Edwards enough... and the value of the assets didn't work out withing the statistical formula the Wolves used to quantify value... and that's all fine.

I've literally watched thousands of games of talented players who don't know how to play NBA basketball as good as other, less talented players. Year after year. Decade after decade. I'm surly.


[Note: And it coincides with your arrival. Hmmmmm... maybe you're to blame for my new end-of-my-rope dour attitude.]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

FNG wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Julius Randle posted a triple-double of 28 points, 12 rebounds, and 11 assists in a win against Cleveland. Nine turnovers is poor, but he did continue to shoot the ball well: 9-16 FG, 4-4 3P, 6-10 FT.

Wolves didn't need him.

If you're gonna point out Wiseman and Randle after every good game... I'm gonna keep trumping Haliburton... and how the Wolves could have traded down to get him and at least one other guy. We'll make every thread into our own personal "I'm the smartest guy in the room" fest.

5 - 7 fg... 3 - 4 3fg
15 points / 6 assists
56% fg / 53% 3fg / 21 assists vs. 3 TOs on the season)

Sacramento is 3 - 1.

Actually I'm the smartest guy in the room, Abe- you guys are all vying for second place ;-) .

I was all about Halliburton too pre-draft and thought he would prove to be the most NBA-ready guy in the draft- probably not the most upside, but very likely the most ready. And he has not disappointed.

What bothers me sometimes though is the assumption that it would have been easy to trade down in this draft. We just don't know that. If a team offered Rosas a good player and a pick to move up, then shame on him for not considering it. But I guess I don't see Rosas as the moron many here do, and it's likely he saw what we and most GM's saw- a relatively flat draft where a guy drafted 8th may easily outplay the guy drafted #1. More likely most offers involved a bad contract a team wanted to get out of. Rosas has said he was on the phone until the time he had to make the pick, and I'm sure he heard a lot of proposals that would have made all of us here vomit. There are a lot of "reports" about deals that could have been made, but pre-draft smoke-blowing is a time-honored tradition. We just don't know what offers were on the table.

Sure. It's all conjecture.

But there was enough smoke that the Wolves could have gotten some asset. ANY additional asset + Haliburton. I like Haliburton better for THIS organization more than Edwards anyway.

Better talent? No.
More upside? No.

Dropping 10 spots in any draft will land you some sort of asset. I'm sure the Wolves just liked Edwards enough... and the value of the assets didn't work out withing the statistical formula the Wolves used to quantify value... and that's all fine.

I've literally watched thousands of games of talented players who don't know how to play NBA basketball as good as other, less talented players. Year after year. Decade after decade. I'm surly.


[Note: And it coincides with your arrival. Hmmmmm... maybe you're to blame for my new end-of-my-rope dour attitude.]

Sorry, I've been told by many I have that impact on people :-( .

I don't think anybody thought Haliburton would drop to 11...I personally thought he would be top 5. So if Rosas was like some of us and really liked Haliburton, he probably wasn't seriously considering any offers outside the top 5 (especially after miscalculating when he moved up in last year's draft)...and I just don't think any savvy GM was offering much in this flat draft to move up a few spots. But again we'll never know. And I get that conjecture is what these boards are all about.