Minnesota Sports Forum

I forgot to mention it previously, but there was a Culver scouting video linked at one point and one thing jumped out to me. The guy pointed out Culver's bad shooting form, but then later in the video pointed out how he sometimes has really good form. This made me think he had been working on his form and may just not be consistent with it or used to it yet which would explain the dip in his shooting his sophomore season.

My formula for judging Culver will be simple. Is he better than Coby white and Saric? I'm pessimistic at this point especially after seeing White in Summer league and Culver riding the pine. I really wanted White on our team because speed always seems to translate with guards. I was also higher on Saric than most here. We will see in the end but I'm going to keep my criteria simple rather than focusing on other potential scenarios that we missed out on.

thedoper wrote:My formula for judging Culver will be simple. Is he better than Coby white and Saric? I'm pessimistic at this point especially after seeing White in Summer league and Culver riding the pine. I really wanted White on our team because speed always seems to translate with guards. I was also higher on Saric than most here. We will see in the end but I'm going to keep my criteria simple rather than focusing on other potential scenarios that we missed out on.

I'll be comparing Culver to Garland, White and Langford and Alexander Walker.

I'll compare him to Garland because I would have traded Covington rather than Saric, which would have gotten the Wolves to #4, and taken Garland.

I'll compare him to White because he's the best PG available when we were on the clock. I'll admit I would have taken Culver over White if stuck at #6, but failing to get Garland, I would have traded back in and parlayed #6 into two lower 1st round picks. But I see the argument for taking White over Culver -- speed, speed, speed.

I'll compare him to Langford and Alexander-Walker because those would have been my two picks if I had traded down for two lower 1st round picks.

lipoli390 wrote:

thedoper wrote:My formula for judging Culver will be simple. Is he better than Coby white and Saric? I'm pessimistic at this point especially after seeing White in Summer league and Culver riding the pine. I really wanted White on our team because speed always seems to translate with guards. I was also higher on Saric than most here. We will see in the end but I'm going to keep my criteria simple rather than focusing on other potential scenarios that we missed out on.

I'll be comparing Culver to Garland, White and Langford and Alexander Walker.

I'll compare him to Garland because I would have traded Covington rather than Saric, which would have gotten the Wolves to #4, and taken Garland.

I'll compare him to White because he's the best PG available when we were on the clock. I'll admit I would have taken Culver over White if stuck at #6, but failing to get Garland, I would have traded back in and parlayed #6 into two lower 1st round picks. But I see the argument for taking White over Culver -- speed, speed, speed.

I'll compare him to Langford and Alexander-Walker because those would have been my two picks if I had traded down for two lower 1st round picks.

Hypotheticals are tough, I don't see any guarantees that Garland was truly there for Covington. I suppose if we would have traded Covington for Garland I would have had a lot more scrutiny, because that would have been a lot giving up an impact starter for a mystery. There are no guarantees in any draft, but Garland being better than Covington is the same dynamic of whether Culver will be better than Saric. To me, if Culver isn't better than White that is a huge misstep considering how much we need a plan for the point and that seemed be the more logical fit for our team. I was also super low on Culver going into the draft.

thedoper wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

thedoper wrote:My formula for judging Culver will be simple. Is he better than Coby white and Saric? I'm pessimistic at this point especially after seeing White in Summer league and Culver riding the pine. I really wanted White on our team because speed always seems to translate with guards. I was also higher on Saric than most here. We will see in the end but I'm going to keep my criteria simple rather than focusing on other potential scenarios that we missed out on.

I'll be comparing Culver to Garland, White and Langford and Alexander Walker.

I'll compare him to Garland because I would have traded Covington rather than Saric, which would have gotten the Wolves to #4, and taken Garland.

I'll compare him to White because he's the best PG available when we were on the clock. I'll admit I would have taken Culver over White if stuck at #6, but failing to get Garland, I would have traded back in and parlayed #6 into two lower 1st round picks. But I see the argument for taking White over Culver -- speed, speed, speed.

I'll compare him to Langford and Alexander-Walker because those would have been my two picks if I had traded down for two lower 1st round picks.

Hypotheticals are tough, I don't see any guarantees that Garland was truly there for Covington. I suppose if we would have traded Covington for Garland I would have had a lot more scrutiny, because that would have been a lot giving up an impact starter for a mystery. There are no guarantees in any draft, but Garland being better than Covington is the same dynamic of whether Culver will be better than Saric. To me, if Culver isn't better than White that is a huge misstep considering how much we need a plan for the point and that seemed be the more logical fit for our team. I was also super low on Culver going into the draft.

The Covington for #4 (Garland) isn't just a hypothetical; it's a report by Jon K. His report could be wrong, but he's proven to be highly accurate.

I'll post the question in another way. Would you rather have Saric and Garland or Covington and White? I would choose Saric and Garland. Rosas chose Covington and Culver. The Wolves could have kept both Covington and Saric, which would have left the Wolves with the #11 pick and no shot at getting Garland, White or Culver. Rosas may have made the right choice. Like you, I was not high on Culver going into the draft. I feel better about him now, but not excited. Your guy Coby White looked really good in summer league.

lipoli390 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

thedoper wrote:My formula for judging Culver will be simple. Is he better than Coby white and Saric? I'm pessimistic at this point especially after seeing White in Summer league and Culver riding the pine. I really wanted White on our team because speed always seems to translate with guards. I was also higher on Saric than most here. We will see in the end but I'm going to keep my criteria simple rather than focusing on other potential scenarios that we missed out on.

I'll be comparing Culver to Garland, White and Langford and Alexander Walker.

I'll compare him to Garland because I would have traded Covington rather than Saric, which would have gotten the Wolves to #4, and taken Garland.

I'll compare him to White because he's the best PG available when we were on the clock. I'll admit I would have taken Culver over White if stuck at #6, but failing to get Garland, I would have traded back in and parlayed #6 into two lower 1st round picks. But I see the argument for taking White over Culver -- speed, speed, speed.

I'll compare him to Langford and Alexander-Walker because those would have been my two picks if I had traded down for two lower 1st round picks.

Hypotheticals are tough, I don't see any guarantees that Garland was truly there for Covington. I suppose if we would have traded Covington for Garland I would have had a lot more scrutiny, because that would have been a lot giving up an impact starter for a mystery. There are no guarantees in any draft, but Garland being better than Covington is the same dynamic of whether Culver will be better than Saric. To me, if Culver isn't better than White that is a huge misstep considering how much we need a plan for the point and that seemed be the more logical fit for our team. I was also super low on Culver going into the draft.

The Covington for #4 (Garland) isn't just a hypothetical; it's a report by Jon K. His report could be wrong, but he's proven to be highly accurate.

I'll post the question in another way. Would you rather have Saric and Garland or Covington and White? I would choose Saric and Garland. Rosas chose Covington and Culver. The Wolves could have kept both Covington and Saric, which would have left the Wolves with the #11 pick and no shot at getting Garland, White or Culver. Rosas may have made the right choice. Like you, I was not high on Culver going into the draft. I feel better about him now, but not excited. Your guy Coby White looked really good in summer league.

Great question. I'd rather have Covington and White. But if Culver doesn't pan out to be a more effective player than Saric, we will really be hurting.

thedoper wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

thedoper wrote:My formula for judging Culver will be simple. Is he better than Coby white and Saric? I'm pessimistic at this point especially after seeing White in Summer league and Culver riding the pine. I really wanted White on our team because speed always seems to translate with guards. I was also higher on Saric than most here. We will see in the end but I'm going to keep my criteria simple rather than focusing on other potential scenarios that we missed out on.

I'll be comparing Culver to Garland, White and Langford and Alexander Walker.

I'll compare him to Garland because I would have traded Covington rather than Saric, which would have gotten the Wolves to #4, and taken Garland.

I'll compare him to White because he's the best PG available when we were on the clock. I'll admit I would have taken Culver over White if stuck at #6, but failing to get Garland, I would have traded back in and parlayed #6 into two lower 1st round picks. But I see the argument for taking White over Culver -- speed, speed, speed.

I'll compare him to Langford and Alexander-Walker because those would have been my two picks if I had traded down for two lower 1st round picks.

Hypotheticals are tough, I don't see any guarantees that Garland was truly there for Covington. I suppose if we would have traded Covington for Garland I would have had a lot more scrutiny, because that would have been a lot giving up an impact starter for a mystery. There are no guarantees in any draft, but Garland being better than Covington is the same dynamic of whether Culver will be better than Saric. To me, if Culver isn't better than White that is a huge misstep considering how much we need a plan for the point and that seemed be the more logical fit for our team. I was also super low on Culver going into the draft.

The Covington for #4 (Garland) isn't just a hypothetical; it's a report by Jon K. His report could be wrong, but he's proven to be highly accurate.

I'll post the question in another way. Would you rather have Saric and Garland or Covington and White? I would choose Saric and Garland. Rosas chose Covington and Culver. The Wolves could have kept both Covington and Saric, which would have left the Wolves with the #11 pick and no shot at getting Garland, White or Culver. Rosas may have made the right choice. Like you, I was not high on Culver going into the draft. I feel better about him now, but not excited. Your guy Coby White looked really good in summer league.

Great question. I'd rather have Covington and White. But if Culver doesn't pan out to be a more effective player than Saric, we will really be hurting.

I think adding either Vonleh or Layman to the equation of any trade involving Saric is worth considering. Personally I lean towards Vonleh because so think the opportunity we opened up dealing Saric was a pretty significant factor of him landing here.

Just for fun here is the numbers for a few guys compared to Vonleh.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Noah+Vonleh&player_id1_select=Noah+Vonleh&player_id1=vonleno01&y1=2019&player_id2_hint=Dario+?ari?&player_id2_select=Dario+?ari?&y2=2019&player_id2=saricda01&idx=players&player_id3_hint=Nemanja+Bjelica&player_id3_select=Nemanja+Bjelica&y3=2019&player_id3=bjeline01&idx=players&player_id4_hint=Taj+Gibson&player_id4_select=Taj+Gibson&y4=2019&player_id4=gibsota01&idx=players

monsterpile wrote:

thedoper wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

thedoper wrote:My formula for judging Culver will be simple. Is he better than Coby white and Saric? I'm pessimistic at this point especially after seeing White in Summer league and Culver riding the pine. I really wanted White on our team because speed always seems to translate with guards. I was also higher on Saric than most here. We will see in the end but I'm going to keep my criteria simple rather than focusing on other potential scenarios that we missed out on.

I'll be comparing Culver to Garland, White and Langford and Alexander Walker.

I'll compare him to Garland because I would have traded Covington rather than Saric, which would have gotten the Wolves to #4, and taken Garland.

I'll compare him to White because he's the best PG available when we were on the clock. I'll admit I would have taken Culver over White if stuck at #6, but failing to get Garland, I would have traded back in and parlayed #6 into two lower 1st round picks. But I see the argument for taking White over Culver -- speed, speed, speed.

I'll compare him to Langford and Alexander-Walker because those would have been my two picks if I had traded down for two lower 1st round picks.

Hypotheticals are tough, I don't see any guarantees that Garland was truly there for Covington. I suppose if we would have traded Covington for Garland I would have had a lot more scrutiny, because that would have been a lot giving up an impact starter for a mystery. There are no guarantees in any draft, but Garland being better than Covington is the same dynamic of whether Culver will be better than Saric. To me, if Culver isn't better than White that is a huge misstep considering how much we need a plan for the point and that seemed be the more logical fit for our team. I was also super low on Culver going into the draft.

The Covington for #4 (Garland) isn't just a hypothetical; it's a report by Jon K. His report could be wrong, but he's proven to be highly accurate.

I'll post the question in another way. Would you rather have Saric and Garland or Covington and White? I would choose Saric and Garland. Rosas chose Covington and Culver. The Wolves could have kept both Covington and Saric, which would have left the Wolves with the #11 pick and no shot at getting Garland, White or Culver. Rosas may have made the right choice. Like you, I was not high on Culver going into the draft. I feel better about him now, but not excited. Your guy Coby White looked really good in summer league.

Great question. I'd rather have Covington and White. But if Culver doesn't pan out to be a more effective player than Saric, we will really be hurting.

I think adding either Vonleh or Layman to the equation of any trade involving Saric is worth considering. Personally I lean towards Vonleh because so think the opportunity we opened up dealing Saric was a pretty significant factor of him landing here.

Just for fun here is the numbers for a few guys compared to Vonleh.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Noah+Vonleh&player_id1_select=Noah+Vonleh&player_id1=vonleno01&y1=2019&player_id2_hint=Dario+?ari?&player_id2_select=Dario+?ari?&y2=2019&player_id2=saricda01&idx=players&player_id3_hint=Nemanja+Bjelica&player_id3_select=Nemanja+Bjelica&y3=2019&player_id3=bjeline01&idx=players&player_id4_hint=Taj+Gibson&player_id4_select=Taj+Gibson&y4=2019&player_id4=gibsota01&idx=players

Good points, Monster. Doper and I were focused on the particular draft pick options and the particular Wolves players associated with trades to get those picks. But you make a good point that there are downstream impacts that should be considered when evaluating the Saric trade or the trade I wanted to get Garland. I agree that trading Saric was probably a necessary impetus to get Vonleh to sign with us. So we'll need to include him in evaluating Gersson's draft. Vonleh is a better rebounder than Saric, while Saric is a much better 3-point shooter (so far in their respective careers). And Vonleh is a couple years younger than Saric. We really needed to upgrade or our rebounding over last season and Vonleh should help us in that regard. So I'm hopeful that Vonleh can blossom with the Wolves and start to really tap into his considerable potential.

It's not fair to assess value of a player based on this season's FA valuation BUT if we did trading Saric probably made even more sense after we saw what some guys got. I think it's fair to say that if Saric was a guy we actually wanted to keep he was going to get well over 10 million next season. Maybe the landscape will change but it does look like Saric was like to get a contract in the 15 million range. He might end up being worth that and maybe RFA would have lowered the price a bit but this offseason that wasn't the case. I miscalculated on that big time. Rosas may have known more info on what Saric's likely price tag was and somewhat like Tyus decided he was a guy he could move on from if he could get something back...which was moving up in the draft to get a player he really liked. Part of the evaluation of that deal will be seeing what Saric signs for as well...and compare it to what we end up doing at the PF position which could include bringing back Vonleh etc. if Vonleh breaks out to some extent having that "max cap space" could come in handy to keep guys on the roster. Vonleh will have a low cap hold but it won't do them much good since they can only give him a small raise without dipping into the mid level exemption or cap space.

Monster - You've identified a significant risk associated with Vonleh. If he does really well it will be hard to keep him.