Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:The ringers new draft board. Worth a read.

https://nbadraft.theringer.com/?_ga=2.180647463.1832521605.1555516476-526244341.1555516476

I was just thinking today that there are much fewer NBA draft resources online. ESPN bought most of them and put them behind a paywall. This was a welcome resource but they should do more in-depth player pages or links to video. I'm not as high on Culver at 4. This draft really does seem to become a crapshoot pretty early it seems.

They go a little more in-depth at the bottom right of its player box, hitting the down arrow. (Can be hard to find) But you are right wish they had video.

I was going to ask Lip this also but would you consider trading the pick to get off gorgui contact if the wolves don't move up.

I've been against that for awhile but no prospect around 10 really excites me and I'm wondering is the 16 million in cap going into next offseason worth more than the pick. I still don't know if I would do it but I'm considering it a little bit more now

Absolutely not. Taking a stab at a worthwhile player on a rookie deal is light years more valuable than the 0 cap space trading away G would generate. With Teague opting in we have no way to generate meaningful cap space.

Correct no meaningful cap space would be created this year but Dieng off the books. Teague and Saric both off the books (saric would be RFA) and not having to pay the #10 pick would create close to 45 million off the books for 2020 offseason compared to 25 million off the books if we didn't trade it.

Once again don't know if I would do it but it has to be considered

The number 10 pick costs scraps. Good rookie deals are the #1 bargain in all of sports. Throwing that away to save money is always a bad move. Can you name any moves where a pick was moved with a player to open up cap space where it was a good move for the team who lost the pick? All we see left and right is bad pick conveyances every year and teams tanking or hoping to get 8 seeds to not have to lose good picks. Now add to that you are opening up the cap space to convince a player to come to the Wolves and it makes even less sense.

The Warriors spent two unprotected first-round picks to salary dump Andris Biedrins, Richard Jefferson, and Brandon Rush to the Jazz so they could acquire Andre Iguodala in a sign-and trade deal. That move being successful is the outlier here, but sometimes it does work out.

I also want to say I still wouldn't do the trade, Im just nervous that we only have about 3 or 4 offseasons with Kat and we are pretty much stuck with this roster for the next 2 seasons. Assuming we re-sign Tyus and Dario. That Teague money that would be coming off the books next offseason will be pretty much going to Tyus and Dario. I am just nervous that will be the roster going forward and we will have 0 cap flexibility through all of KATs contract.

Once again I am not saying that I would do the trade. I understand there is a huge upside in that #10 pick. I am just worried about the cap ramifications and cap space that the wolves will have going forward to try and fill in holes that the roster presents. Once again I still wouldn't do the trade but I do think it is a valuable option.

monsterpile wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:The ringers new draft board. Worth a read.

https://nbadraft.theringer.com/?_ga=2.180647463.1832521605.1555516476-526244341.1555516476

I was just thinking today that there are much fewer NBA draft resources online. ESPN bought most of them and put them behind a paywall. This was a welcome resource but they should do more in-depth player pages or links to video. I'm not as high on Culver at 4. This draft really does seem to become a crapshoot pretty early it seems.

They go a little more in-depth at the bottom right of its player box, hitting the down arrow. (Can be hard to find) But you are right wish they had video.

I was going to ask Lip this also but would you consider trading the pick to get off gorgui contact if the wolves don't move up.

I've been against that for awhile but no prospect around 10 really excites me and I'm wondering is the 16 million in cap going into next offseason worth more than the pick. I still don't know if I would do it but I'm considering it a little bit more now

Absolutely not. Taking a stab at a worthwhile player on a rookie deal is light years more valuable than the 0 cap space trading away G would generate. With Teague opting in we have no way to generate meaningful cap space.

Correct no meaningful cap space would be created this year but Dieng off the books. Teague and Saric both off the books (saric would be RFA) and not having to pay the #10 pick would create close to 45 million off the books for 2020 offseason compared to 25 million off the books if we didn't trade it.

Once again don't know if I would do it but it has to be considered

I am in the camp of absolutely not trading a draft pick to get rid of Dieng. Draft picks even in a meh draft have value. 2013 was considered a meh draft and you have that GF guy at 15 and Gobert outside of the lottery. We sold a pick that became Robertson. Name these teams that really got better by paying a draft pick to get space? Lots of teams end up regretting giving up young players/draft picks to do that the Lakers are one of them and they got Lebron.

Meanwhile Dieng played well this year. He can actually be useful a smaller bench role. A year from now he will be an expiring and could be a contract that helps get you a player while sending back assets. We need to use the draft pick as an asset to add talent to this team not shooting ourselves in the foot again watching some other team pick a useful player we could have had.

Really if you really want to dump salary by attaching a pick why not go all the way and use it to dump Wiggins? I'm not advocating doing that but of its salary flexibility you want...

I agree completely with Monster on this. I wouldnt' even consider trading our lottery pick simply to dump salary - even if it were Andrew's contract. That sort of deal MIGHT be worth considering for a 45 win team if it freed up cap space to sign a meaningful free agent as we saw from the Warriors when they acquired Iggy. But it makes no sense for a 35-win team like the Wolves.

lipoli390 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:The ringers new draft board. Worth a read.

https://nbadraft.theringer.com/?_ga=2.180647463.1832521605.1555516476-526244341.1555516476

I was just thinking today that there are much fewer NBA draft resources online. ESPN bought most of them and put them behind a paywall. This was a welcome resource but they should do more in-depth player pages or links to video. I'm not as high on Culver at 4. This draft really does seem to become a crapshoot pretty early it seems.

They go a little more in-depth at the bottom right of its player box, hitting the down arrow. (Can be hard to find) But you are right wish they had video.

I was going to ask Lip this also but would you consider trading the pick to get off gorgui contact if the wolves don't move up.

I've been against that for awhile but no prospect around 10 really excites me and I'm wondering is the 16 million in cap going into next offseason worth more than the pick. I still don't know if I would do it but I'm considering it a little bit more now

Absolutely not. Taking a stab at a worthwhile player on a rookie deal is light years more valuable than the 0 cap space trading away G would generate. With Teague opting in we have no way to generate meaningful cap space.

Correct no meaningful cap space would be created this year but Dieng off the books. Teague and Saric both off the books (saric would be RFA) and not having to pay the #10 pick would create close to 45 million off the books for 2020 offseason compared to 25 million off the books if we didn't trade it.

Once again don't know if I would do it but it has to be considered

I am in the camp of absolutely not trading a draft pick to get rid of Dieng. Draft picks even in a meh draft have value. 2013 was considered a meh draft and you have that GF guy at 15 and Gobert outside of the lottery. We sold a pick that became Robertson. Name these teams that really got better by paying a draft pick to get space? Lots of teams end up regretting giving up young players/draft picks to do that the Lakers are one of them and they got Lebron.

Meanwhile Dieng played well this year. He can actually be useful a smaller bench role. A year from now he will be an expiring and could be a contract that helps get you a player while sending back assets. We need to use the draft pick as an asset to add talent to this team not shooting ourselves in the foot again watching some other team pick a useful player we could have had.

Really if you really want to dump salary by attaching a pick why not go all the way and use it to dump Wiggins? I'm not advocating doing that but of its salary flexibility you want...

I agree completely with Monster on this. I wouldnt' even consider trading our lottery pick simply to dump salary - even if it were Andrew's contract. That sort of deal MIGHT be worth considering for a 45 win team if it freed up cap space to sign a meaningful free agent as we saw from the Warriors when they acquired Iggy. But it makes no sense for a 35-win team like the Wolves.

You got it right here. GS looked to be assending and made a big move (2 unprotected picks AND to 2nd rounders) to get Iggy. The Wolves have some talent but really at this point they have Towns and Covngton and really no certain answers anywhere else. Heck if they were more like a 40-42 win team and you make deal and are able to bring in sign someone then yeah but we are a year away from knowing more about where we are going.

Also the idea we are stuck with this roster is just too limiting. The Wolves have some pieces they can move if they decide to do so. Do they have high value? Probably not but that doesn't mean you can't make some savvy moves to get guys you want and or flexibility. I'm not saying it's easy but there is a possibility to making moves.

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:The ringers new draft board. Worth a read.

https://nbadraft.theringer.com/?_ga=2.180647463.1832521605.1555516476-526244341.1555516476

I was just thinking today that there are much fewer NBA draft resources online. ESPN bought most of them and put them behind a paywall. This was a welcome resource but they should do more in-depth player pages or links to video. I'm not as high on Culver at 4. This draft really does seem to become a crapshoot pretty early it seems.

They go a little more in-depth at the bottom right of its player box, hitting the down arrow. (Can be hard to find) But you are right wish they had video.

I was going to ask Lip this also but would you consider trading the pick to get off gorgui contact if the wolves don't move up.

I've been against that for awhile but no prospect around 10 really excites me and I'm wondering is the 16 million in cap going into next offseason worth more than the pick. I still don't know if I would do it but I'm considering it a little bit more now

Absolutely not. Taking a stab at a worthwhile player on a rookie deal is light years more valuable than the 0 cap space trading away G would generate. With Teague opting in we have no way to generate meaningful cap space.

Correct no meaningful cap space would be created this year but Dieng off the books. Teague and Saric both off the books (saric would be RFA) and not having to pay the #10 pick would create close to 45 million off the books for 2020 offseason compared to 25 million off the books if we didn't trade it.

Once again don't know if I would do it but it has to be considered

I am in the camp of absolutely not trading a draft pick to get rid of Dieng. Draft picks even in a meh draft have value. 2013 was considered a meh draft and you have that GF guy at 15 and Gobert outside of the lottery. We sold a pick that became Robertson. Name these teams that really got better by paying a draft pick to get space? Lots of teams end up regretting giving up young players/draft picks to do that the Lakers are one of them and they got Lebron.

Meanwhile Dieng played well this year. He can actually be useful a smaller bench role. A year from now he will be an expiring and could be a contract that helps get you a player while sending back assets. We need to use the draft pick as an asset to add talent to this team not shooting ourselves in the foot again watching some other team pick a useful player we could have had.

Really if you really want to dump salary by attaching a pick why not go all the way and use it to dump Wiggins? I'm not advocating doing that but of its salary flexibility you want...

I agree completely with Monster on this. I wouldnt' even consider trading our lottery pick simply to dump salary - even if it were Andrew's contract. That sort of deal MIGHT be worth considering for a 45 win team if it freed up cap space to sign a meaningful free agent as we saw from the Warriors when they acquired Iggy. But it makes no sense for a 35-win team like the Wolves.

You got it right here. GS looked to be assending and made a big move (2 unprotected picks AND to 2nd rounders) to get Iggy. The Wolves have some talent but really at this point they have Towns and Covngton and really no certain answers anywhere else. Heck if they were more like a 40-42 win team and you make deal and are able to bring in sign someone then yeah but we are a year away from knowing more about where we are going.

Also the idea we are stuck with this roster is just too limiting. The Wolves have some pieces they can move if they decide to do so. Do they have high value? Probably not but that doesn't mean you can't make some savvy moves to get guys you want and or flexibility. I'm not saying it's easy but there is a possibility to making moves.

Monster - You make a good point that we're not necessarily stuck with this roster and that we do have some pieces we can move. I consider KAT the only untouchable on the roster and I consider Okogie and KBD close to untouchable because of their potential and team-friendly contracts. And I'd be reluctant to move Covington because of his defense and three-point shooting on a team-friendly contract (salary and length). But I think Saric is moveable and would bring value back. I actually think we should look to move him because we only have him locked up for one more season. We have to build for the long term. I think Teague will be moveable closer to the trade deadline. For the right deal, the Wolves would have to consider trading KBD, Okogie and/or Covington.

But again, as we've all discussed, the upcoming draft is crucial. Make the right pick and sign a solid, youngish free agent with the MLE. The primary focus of this organization should be the 2020-21 season - making the same sort of leap then that the Nuggets made this season or at least landing a 6th seed with the chance to advance. This next season (2019-20) should be viewed as a stepping stone to the following season. Hit paydirt in the upcoming draft, sign a good young free agent this summer with the MLE and develop the team next season around that those two guys along with KAT, Covington, Okogie, KBD and Saric (or a player obtained in return for Saric). To me, that should be the formula moving forward right now.

Lip I'm going to go a bit of a different direction with the draft pick. I'm not saying make a safe pick but really even a year or few months from now whatever young player could be an asset in a deal. They don't have to be some obvious stud either. Imagine if the guy we got was a Saric from his first 2 years. He would be a nice piece in a trade and probably has value right now too but even more with a couple more years left on a rookie deal. Look at the Clippers. The last couple years they acquired and signed a bunch of value players on good contracts. Everyone want to find they next Mitchell or Giannis but coming out of this draft with a player that looks like a guy that can be an above average starter gives you another piece to make a deal...or just lock up a spot so you don't have to worry about it...or make another player available etc. There is an asset acquiring game you can play to get where you need to be without being in some sort of tank mode either. Denver is a nice example I keep going back to the Rockets. One star and some Legit turmoil and they also threw some money at the problem and...it actually kinda ended up working.

Let's get back to Saric for a minute. Honestly I feel we are kinda in a similar place with Tyus too in a way in that I don't think we completely know what we have in either guy. Saric has a resume of at worst a likely pretty good rotation big that's pretty versatile. So he isn't gonna get just a couple million. Tyus has a nice resume for a young bench player...but maybe there is a bit more there. How much do you pay for that guy? The roster has so many questions and yet it may have some answers or possibly some assets to make something happen. Getting the value right of some of our own players is gonna be big going forward and to be honest I don't think that's going to be easy. Making the right salary cap moves is gonna be big and it's not easy. If it was you wouldn't have like half the league with a bunch of bad contracts on their rosters. Miami I still think is a pretty good franchise but look at all the bad deals they have. Yikes.

Monster - I'm torn on this. I'm more incline to swing for the fences (or at least a double deep in the gap) when drafting in the top 10. That said, I see your point about the value of drafting a high floor, rather than high ceiling player (unless you can get both as in Zion). I also agree your comment about the Wolves being in sort of the same place with Saric they're in with Tyus.

As for cap management, I'll offer a different angle. I'd argue that what lies at the root of bad contracts is bad player evaluation. What makes the Wiggins contract bad isn't the fact that it's a max deal. What makes it bad is the fact that it's a max deal given to a player who was not showing consistent intensity, an improved handle or an improved shot after 4 years right under the nose of Wolves' management. In fact, he regressed in his 4th season. The Wolves gave Andrew that max deal after he had already validated the red flags surrounding him when he entered the NBA draft. Bad cap management to give him a max deal? Yes. But the root of it was a very poor job of understanding or acknowledging the type and caliber of player the Wolves had in Wiggins after 4 full seasons here.

lipoli390 wrote:Monster - I'm torn on this. I'm more incline to swing for the fences (or at least a double deep in the gap) when drafting in the top 10. That said, I see your point about the value of drafting a high floor, rather than high ceiling player (unless you can get both as in Zion). I also agree your comment about the Wolves being in sort of the same place with Saric they're in with Tyus.

As for cap management, I'll offer a different angle. I'd argue that what lies at the root of bad contracts is bad player evaluation. What makes the Wiggins contract bad isn't the fact that it's a max deal. What makes it bad is the fact that it's a max deal given to a player who was not showing consistent intensity, an improved handle or an improved shot after 4 years right under the nose of Wolves' management. In fact, he regressed in his 4th season. The Wolves gave Andrew that max deal after he had already validated the red flags surrounding him when he entered the NBA draft. Bad cap management to give him a max deal? Yes. But the root of it was a very poor job of understanding or acknowledging the type and caliber of player the Wolves had in Wiggins after 4 full seasons here.

Was is cap management or player evaluation for Dieng? That one was squarely on cap evaluation. They should have seen things coming and waited it out and I'll fully acknowledge I did not see it coming and thought it was a solid contract at the time.

Teague? I'd say we could agree that was partly player evaluation, salary/cap and roster construction plus some bad luck as he ended up with injuries that held him back.

I believe Jon K brought up that at the time the Wolves had Wiggins coming off a pretty good season and they had seen what happened with Gordon Hayward. They didn't want another situation where they had to match a contract they didn't really want. Again this isn't simply player evaluation. It's also having a plan and being able to execute it. Thibs brought in some legit talent but it didn't exactly all work well together. Some of that is on him as a coach too but I think a legit criticism of Thibs time here was that there was Problems with the fit of the roster together and or the utilization of it. It's not just about knowing who is talented it's about how it all fits together. You have to have someone that has a broader skillet than just knowing who is the most talented players you can get. The Clippers led by Lawrence Frank (what?!?) are a franchise that traded away their most valuable player Twice in less than a year and made the playoffs. We need to hire a group of smart people (and likely utilize some of the people that are already here while moving on from some) to get it done not just one smart talent evaluator surrounded by some people to do some number crunching.

Let's get back to Wiggins a bit. They sign him to a big deal and then the bring in Butler who was supposed to mentor Wiggins etc. on a few levels that didn't work. Q was a person that had concerns about that working because they were somewhat similar as offensive players. It did seem that Thibs catered to Butler more than maybe he should have or maybe Wiggins and Towns let him or whatever but while Wiggins is a flawed player his regression can't be only shouldered by him. The organization has to be held accountable for it as well even if it's only 10%. Let's not forget Wiggins turned 21 the season he put up over 23 ppg (although not the most efficiently) on a team that was not great. That's looking like a guy that was going to take another step. He didn't. I think there was a path to him being better than he have right now and that part is on the Wolves. Would Wiggins be worth his contract still? No probably not but I think people would be talking about him as still an asset or someone we could sucker having a team take and maybe getting some small return not having to pay to get rid of him. Again that's not just player evaluation it's understanding how to build your roster this isn't fantasy basketball. Player development is big and it's supposed to be something the Wolves are looking to put high priority on. My guess is Ethan Casson is the guy pushing that angle not particularly Glen.

Monster -

Part of player evaluation is knowing now different players will fit together, not just knowing how good individual players are. It's assessing injury risk, attitude and trajectory among players and not just assessing their physical talents or their stats.

I agree with you that it's a blend of player evaluation and business sense. Combine the two and let's call it good judgment. As for Gorui's contract, I'll agree that was a poor business decision, but it still reflected poor judgment about Gorgui talent relative to potential alternative PFs the Wolves could have signed to replace him if he chose to go elsewhere. Thibodeau essentially conceded his mistaken assessment of Gorgui just 9 months after giving him that contract when he signed Gibson to a $14 million per year to replace Gorgui as the team's starting PF. That's also a bad business decision, but it tells you the Gorgui deal was rooted in poor talent assessment because it says that Thibodeau realized just 9 months after handing Gorgui his contract that he wasn't good enough to be the Wolves starting PF. As you've pointed out, it's a blend of the two. Bottom line it's about good judgment. With Gorgui it was poor business judgment to miss the fact that the market value of players was inflated at the time with the big bump in the cap. So Thibodeau should have waited. Even if Thibs didn't want to lose Gorgui based on his mistaken assessment of Gorgui's talent, Thibodeau exercised poor business judgment giving him that contract prematurely before the market simmered down.

As for the organization's role in player development, I think that's oversold. By the time a player gets to the NBA the only significant impact the team has on that player's development is through the allocation of playing time and exercise of patience. Players need time on the court to develop and, for some young players, teams need to be especially patient. Otherwise, it's the players who develop themselves. Again, it comes back to player evaluation in my view. Good talent evaluators are able to effectively assess both a player's talent AND the likelihood of that player reaching his potential, which depends on a list of intangibles. That's why really good talent evaluators are harder to find than people with good business acumen. It's almost as much art as it is science or analytics. That's why, in my view, it's critical to prioiritize talent evaluation in filling this PBO position. That's also why it's essential to hire someone with a track record of successful player evaluation.

lipoli390 wrote:Monster -

Part of player evaluation is knowing now different players will fit together, not just knowing how good individual players are. It's assessing injury risk, attitude and trajectory among players and not just assessing their physical talents or their stats.

I agree with you that it's a blend of player evaluation and business sense. Combine the two and let's call it good judgment. As for Gorui's contract, I'll agree that was a poor business decision, but it still reflected poor judgment about Gorgui talent relative to potential alternative PFs the Wolves could have signed to replace him if he chose to go elsewhere. Thibodeau essentially conceded his mistaken assessment of Gorgui just 9 months after giving him that contract when he signed Gibson to a $14 million per year to replace Gorgui as the team's starting PF. That's also a bad business decision, but it tells you the Gorgui deal was rooted in poor talent assessment because it says that Thibodeau realized just 9 months after handing Gorgui his contract that he wasn't good enough to be the Wolves starting PF. As you've pointed out, it's a blend of the two. Bottom line it's about good judgment. With Gorgui it was poor business judgment to miss the fact that the market value of players was inflated at the time with the big bump in the cap. So Thibodeau should have waited. Even if Thibs didn't want to lose Gorgui based on his mistaken assessment of Gorgui's talent, Thibodeau exercised poor business judgment giving him that contract prematurely before the market simmered down.

As for the organization's role in player development, I think that's oversold. By the time a player gets to the NBA the only significant impact the team has on that player's development is through the allocation of playing time and exercise of patience. Players need time on the court to develop and, for some young players, teams need to be especially patient. Otherwise, it's the players who develop themselves. Again, it comes back to player evaluation in my view. Good talent evaluators are able to effectively assess both a player's talent AND the likelihood of that player reaching his potential, which depends on a list of intangibles. That's why really good talent evaluators are harder to find than people with good business acumen. It's almost as much art as it is science or analytics. That's why, in my view, it's critical to prioiritize talent evaluation in filling this PBO position. That's also why it's essential to hire someone with a track record of successful player evaluation.

Thanks for your expanded thoughts on how you see player evaluation. To me the Dieng contract was much more simply a mistake of not seeing the market. Similarly I still don't understand the Denver acquisition of Mason Plumlee and then his contract and he is a more useful and lesser paid player than Dieng. Even the better franchises do some less than stellar things. It feels like they should have maybe utilized a guy like Faried and gotten something out of him instead of overpaying I'm terms of money and assets to have Plumlee on their roster. I say that and I actually like Plumlee. I hope we don't make a similar mistake the rest of Dieng's contract.

I think it's going to be tough to agree to disagree on something as significant as the role a team has in developing talent. I guess that's the only thing to do though.

Monster - Yep. I think we're in general agreement on front office management, including cap management, being a blend of talent evaluation (in the broadest sense) and business acumen. I also agree with you on Mason Plumlee. No doubt even the better NBA organization's make mistakes; it goes with the territory. But as I've always said, it's about what you end up with once you've netted the mistakes and the successes. Looking at Denver, for example, we see mistakes like Plumlee. Perhaps Denver's biggest mistake revealed through hindsight was trading the pick that Utah used to take Donovan Mitchell rather than drafting him. But then there's Jokic, Murray, Harris, Barton and Beasley. Contrast that with the Wolves. They got the easy one drafting KAT with the top pick in the draft. I also think they did well with Okogie and KBD last year. But then there is the long list of bad decisions from Bazz to Patton that were clearly bad to many of us at the time without the benefit of hindsight. And the jury's still out on Okogie and KBD.

As you said, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the significance of the organization's role in player development. However, we probably agree that the organization plays an important role when it comes to playing time and patience. Sometimes an organization has to be willing to take a step back allowing a young prospect to play through failure in order to for that player and the team to eventually take two steps forward.

This has been a great discussion. I'd be interested in more of your thinking on the things an organization (GM, head coach, etc.) can do other than giving playing time and being patient to help develop young NBA players.