60WinTim wrote:I don't know what to say, LST, other than "congratulations on finding I sample size that fits your feelings"...
If you are looking for a pick-me-up, just check out Teague's playoff number this year!
Ha, yeah! Who knows what the most relevant sample is? My tendency is to look at the most recent data as long as there is sufficiency to it (I would argue that a half season is sufficient)...especially with young players who havent yet reached their peak. Some may argue that Rubio's stats in his early 20s when he was batlling knee issues are what we should look at, or that we should focus on the first half of the season when he was getting used to a coach that many of us thought were misusing him. I still see the second half of last year as more indicative of what Ricky will do in the future if properly employed...unfortunately he will be putting up that 16/10.5/4.6 for a competitor rather than for us.
I guess what bothers me most about yesterday is that I feel like Thibs is playing fantasy basketball...trying to put a roster together with little consideration of continuity or future salary cap considerations. I loved the Butler deal because it gave us a solid starting lineup plus future flexibility...other than Bazz and Gorgui, it was possible to see how Thibs could let a talented group of players grow together. Now he will be forced to let key players go in a couple years. I like continuity, not player shuffling...and this deal is going to result in player shuffling down the road.
60WinTim wrote:I don't know what to say, LST, other than "congratulations on finding I sample size that fits your feelings"...
If you are looking for a pick-me-up, just check out Teague's playoff number this year!
Ha, yeah! Who knows what the most relevant sample is? My tendency is to look at the most recent data as long as there is sufficiency to it (I would argue that a half season is sufficient)...especially with young players who havent yet reached their peak. Some may argue that Rubio's stats in his early 20s when he was batlling knee issues are what we should look at, or that we should focus on the first half of the season when he was getting used to a coach that many of us thought were misusing him. I still see the second half of last year as more indicative of what Ricky will do in the future if properly employed...unfortunately he will be putting up that 16/10.5/4.6 for a competitor rather than for us.
I guess what bothers me most about yesterday is that I feel like Thibs is playing fantasy basketball...trying to put a roster together with little consideration of continuity or future salary cap considerations. I loved the Butler deal because it gave us a solid starting lineup plus future flexibility...other than Bazz and Gorgui, it was possible to see how Thibs could let a talented group of players grow together. Now he will be forced to let key players go in a couple years. I like continuity, not player shuffling...and this deal is going to result in player shuffling down the road.
I know it sucks losing Rubio. I was a big fan of his and would have liked to see him get a shot at seeing what he could do. However you are taking 24 games and suggesting he is going to do that from here on out? Let's be rational here...that's irrational.
As for the continuity thing...I hate the player movement too but there is some reality in guys moving around. Adding some legit vets right now may help them start to have a culture where they can develop the younger players that come up through the system like we see with other young teams and stay around. It's also possible they keep a lot of the guys they have. There is too much unknown and let's be honest it was even if the Wolves stood pat and added value guys because we didn't know for sure if some players would actually be good and/or fit. You have some legit concerns but let's see how this plays out. I continue to be impressed with what Thibs and Layden have done
I'm not sold on the Rubio + 4 mill for Teague + late 1st swap either. Teague just doesn't move the needle enough shooting wise for me, which was the ONLY reason I'd consider trading Rubio. Rubio who had a career stretch after the All Star break, so it wasn't just a couple weeks. He was also attacking and leading, which was nice to see. Sure he could fall back to where he was too, but it was also the teams best stretch.
Sure it'll be interesting to see what kind of player we end up having from that pick, but as of right now I just don't see it. I was expecting a much better shooting PG to replace him. Now watch Rubio continue his post All Star break pace lol that would be just our luck. Hopefully Teague has a better year than last year and doesn't make us wonder, what if.
Note: I'm not saying it was a terrible swap or that the sky is falling, just that I'm not sold on it which is fine. Teague very well could end up being a great fit this coming season.
TheFuture wrote:Fully understand your view jester, and most others here. It's been a LOooooong road to get here. Don't blame any for wanting to just see a dang playoff game.
I'm just of the opinion that it was a year or two too soon. I've watched religiously through it all. The beasleys, the johnsons, the Williams, flynns, etc. etc. etc. Flip came back and made Great moves to put us back on track. Then he passes, the KG fiasco happens, Thibs moves on from his 5 pick after one year (one can argue that's better than waiting though I see otherwise) Zach (which I felt was a flip homerun), and #7. Call me timid, but I cannot help but feel this blows up in our face in two seasons and a Thibs is canned simultaneously. Then it just restarts. I loved the notion of actually seeing real potential for once and wanted to see it at least develop. We haven't sniffed playoffs for 13 years, yes, but we also never came close in those years to having the young hits on talent that flip left us with..
Through the Beasleys and Flynns and Williams?!?!?!?
What about the Rashad McCants. Joe Smiths. Paul Grants. Will Averys. Stojkos. Spencers. Lowes. Poohs?!?!
So you STARTED watching years after the Wolves were missing the playoffs? And after the Wolves were already chasing down the LA Clippers for worst NBA franchise... ever?
I'm fairly neutral on the transactions involving our point guard position. But one thing i don't like is how it's being portrayed that we got Teague and a #1 pick and all it cost us was Rubio. The fact is it cost us Rubio and about 5 million in cap space. And that cap space might have been a factor in us not getting some free agents we were chasing. It gives another dimension to what transpired.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm fairly neutral on the transactions involving our point guard position. But one thing i don't like is how it's being portrayed that we got Teague and a #1 pick and all it cost us was Rubio. The fact is it cost us Rubio and about 5 million in cap space. And that cap space might have been a factor in us not getting some free agents we were chasing. It gives another dimension to what transpired.
Cool -- I have essentially the same take as you on the PG transactions. If I had been in Glen Taylor's shoes, I would have vetoed those transactions. The net improvement in shooting and the low 2018 first round pick we're likely to get don't move the needle enough for me to justify reducing our cap space by $5 million. We'll all be left to wonder if that extra $5 million could have landed us Joe Ingles or maybe even Millsap. We're also giving up two years in age going Ricky to Teague and it will probably be harder to re-sign Teague than Rubio in two years. (Note I'm assuming Teague opts out in 2 years). I'm not down on the deal because I do see value in having a PG whose shooting is good enough that opponents will have to guard him -- something that would only happen with Rubio if his shooting improvement after the allstar break is permanent.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm fairly neutral on the transactions involving our point guard position. But one thing i don't like is how it's being portrayed that we got Teague and a #1 pick and all it cost us was Rubio. The fact is it cost us Rubio and about 5 million in cap space. And that cap space might have been a factor in us not getting some free agents we were chasing. It gives another dimension to what transpired.
Cool -- I have essentially the same take as you on the PG transactions. If I had been in Glen Taylor's shoes, I would have vetoed those transactions. The net improvement in shooting and the low 2018 first round pick we're likely to get don't move the needle enough for me to justify reducing our cap space by $5 million. We'll all be left to wonder if that extra $5 million could have landed us Joe Ingles or maybe even Millsap. We're also giving up two years in age going Ricky to Teague and it will probably be harder to re-sign Teague than Rubio in two years. (Note I'm assuming Teague opts out in 2 years). I'm not down on the deal because I do see value in having a PG whose shooting is good enough that opponents will have to guard him -- something that would only happen with Rubio if his shooting improvement after the allstar break is permanent.
I'm curious why you mention Ricky is two years younger and yet Teague will be harder to sign in two years. People are acting like Ricky would have guaranteed taken a discount to stay here. The reality is he'll be in the prime of his career (28) and be coming off an underpaid contract during the huge cap hike. We'd have no cap space to really look outside of the organization so he and his team who would have been dealing with trade rumors for years could just look at our front office and say pay him for all the shit he's been through or he's out. Teague meanwhile will be on the other side of 30 and could go either way. He could look for one last big deal or he could take a discount to keep the band together. I'm not gonna say one way or the other, but let's not act like Ricky was staying for cheap either in 2 years.
In a vacuum, the deal is neutral to a slight plus to me (putting my emotions aside, since I absolutely love Ricky Rubio). We basically swapped out one solid starting PG for another solid starting PG AND got a first rounder to boot. Not bad.
But the bigger picture is Teague does not address any of the key functional needs this team has in any meaningful way: 3-point shooting and defense.
So we made essentially a neutral change from one PG to another while taking a cap hit to boot. All while not really addressing two of our biggest issues. Yes, Teague is a better 3-point shooter than Rubio, but not by much, and he really doesn't even take many. Free agency isn't over yet, but I feel like Thibs had his priorities wrong here.
I am going to disagree. Monster has been trying to sway people's minds but it looks like it is not working. I think you guys are undervaluing Teague by quite a bit.
Sure, there are things Rubio does better, but Teague has a more well-rounded set of skills. He shot .400 on 3-pointers a year ago in his last year with Atlanta. He is two years removed from being named an All-Star. As Monster has mentioned several times, he was the starting PG on some very good defensive teams in Atlanta. He is in his prime right now.
I will say that emotionally, the transaction is a net negative for all of us who loved Rubio. But for a pure basketball transaction, it is an upgrade. No doubt about it.
Teague is so often cited as a safe, "average" starting PG in this league, I think it's appropriate that his signing seems like the safe, middle-of-the-road choice, which means we can criticize it or praise it from all sorts of different angles.
One critical take about the salary I share with Cool and Lip are the concerns about the cap hit of Teague's deal. That 4-5 million more than Rubio was making could make a big difference on who else we can land as a free agent, and the player option could potentially come back to bite us.
The more positive take about salary is that getting a guy like Lowry or Holiday would have eaten up much more of the cap, and the drawback of Rubio's three point shooting would have outweighed the benefit of his slightly cheaper contract.
Another critical take of the timing and targeting of signing Teague right away is that there were so many PGs available, and only a few teams looking for starters, part of me thinks waiting until after Lowry and Holiday signed would have left us with a decent guy like Hill for a cheap price, or we could have targeted a guy like Patty Mills as a cheaper starting PG who nonetheless fit our needs and simultaneously freed up more cap space.
The positive side of getting Teague right away for more money is that those cheaper contracts would have come with more questions. Can Patty Mills carry a team? Can George Hill stay healthy? What if other teams snatched up PGs and we got stuck with Derrick Rose or Darren Collison? The PG is probably the most crucial position on the floor, so it's a huge gamble trying to bargain shop for that position.
One critical take regarding production highlights Rubio's post-All-Star numbers last year, which were crazy good, and if he could keep that up, losing him could end up being something we really regret. He looked like a completely different player at the end of last year, plus he's always had a positive impact on the team statistically. And yes, I loved Rubio's passion and intensity, which is totally consistent with what we need from our team culture, and I believe it directly leads to better play as a team.
The positive take regarding production is that probability says Rubio will regress toward his career averages, and he is one of the worst shooters the NBA has ever seen. As a 3 point shooter, he is 5% worse than Teague. That's not a small amount. It's not that Teague is a great 3 point shooter (like Hill or Lowry would have been). Teague's average. But Rubio was far below average. To Teague here is an improvement, just not the kind of massive improvement we would have gotten from a 40% 3 point shooter.
To me, the most interesting thing is to see just how important fit really is. Because Rubio and Teague are roughly equivalent talent-wise on the whole while being very different players, we'll get to see just how much impact Teague's 5% better 3 point shooting and better dribble penetration really have on our team. The difference could be about what you'd expect. Or they could have an impact much larger than you might think, justifying those who have long emphasized the importance of getting a PG who can shoot the 3 point shot, at least at an average clip, for the sake fit.
Then again, that fit argument could potentially work the other way, swapping Rubio's defense for Teague's is a step down, but what if that turns out to be a really steep step on a team where Wiggins and Towns are already not very good defenders?
It's a big shift, no doubt. And as an early Rubio skeptic (I didn't even want to draft him with the 5 or the 6!), I really came around to loving the guy as a player, so giving him away for cap space and a late first rounder was hard. But hopefully this switch will be one that has an impact that is bigger than Teague's extra 4-5 million per year. If so, and if we are winning games because of that, it will be easier to forget Ricky Rubio. I'm cautiously opDOUGistic.
