Minnesota Sports Forum

Carlos Danger wrote:

monsterpile wrote:I'll also and that there are some basketball folks out there like Brit Robson that thought Finch had a somewhat short leash (in terms of playing time) for Vanderbilt doing other things on offense. I'm not sure I am on board with that but it was an interesting observation.

Personally I was a bit conflicted on not letting Vanderbilt do more. On one hand I was kinda like let's just get this guy being effective in a small role as the previous season was basically his first one playing any meaningful minutes so that's fine just get him doing the things he did the previous year. Maybe if he had stayed around this season maybe he would have improved his game and been unleashed somewhat. I haven't seen him play a minute of basketball this year so idk how or what he isn't doing other than look at stats. I did think last year his shot looked better/not as broken as it was before his FT shooting certainly looked smoother. It doesn't surprise me that with another team he is taking some more 3's. Let's see if he keeps hitting them at a decent clip.

I seem to recall Vanderbilt had (has?) chronic knee issues and that was at least part of the reason for his limited minutes/role with us last year. Possibly same thing going forward too which is why I was ok letting him go. It's too bad because I did like his overall game.

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:

FNG wrote:I know many of us keep tabs on ex-Wolves, and this really made me unhappy:

Andrew Wiggins went 8-10 beyond the arc last night, and Jarred Vanderbilt was 4-4...they are 45% and 46.2% on the season, respectively).

(Cue Q's reply to this post in 3...2...1)

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Wiggins is the one that just kills me. In 6 seasons with the Wolves he was 33% from behind the arc. In 4 seasons with Golden State he's 39%. It's fucking incredible.

And Vando is just a kick of sand in our face on top of what's happened to a suddenly motivated Wiggins. I mean, you can't make this shit up!

Oh, happy holidays everyone!

The Wiggins things is understandable. We traded him based on what he was for years here. He ended up in a winning culture and it had a positive impact on him. Vando is another story. What he's doing for Utah is what he was doing for us. To the extent he might be playing marginally better, it's simply a function of the fact that he's a young player who was already improving and who had remaining upside. You make your own luck in life. Luck is the product of smart decisions over time. Dumb decisions over time lead to bad luck.

Speaking of Vando, he had 16 highly efficient points along with 7 rebounds, 4 assists, steals and only 1 turnover last night. Kessler had 8 points on 4-4 shooting, along with 8 rebounds and 3 blocks in only 17 minutes. Again, you make your own luck, good or bad, with the sum total of your decisions, smart or dumb.

Personally I think Vanderbilt last year was not encouraged to do much of anything on offense but roam around looking for passes from teammates setting screens and offensive rebounding. That made sense in the context of the team. Utah...they really don't have anything to lose. Why not have Vanderbilt jack up some 3's? Maybe they will even let him handle the ball for more than 2-3 dribbles. We will see if this leads to more offense/upside or whatever for Vanderbilt or not.

Vanderbilt did what you described last season for the Wolves - screening and offensive rebounding. But he would also do a lot of cutting and move a lot off the ball, which was helpful in creating opportunities for teammates. He would also not infrequently handle the ball on the break. He's also a good passer. What' sometimes overlooked by some fans is that Vanderbilt has always been a very good ballhandler who came into the League as a projected SF. And of course, he's a terrific, disruptive defender who rebounds on both ends. His perimeter shooting has always been the catch with him being more than a rebounder/defender/energy guy. He was great in the role the Wolves carved out for him last season, but his age, quickness, skills and coordination always suggested he could do more. At a minimum he's been and will continue to be a really good rotation role player as a starter or off the bench. He was a starter last season on a 46-win team and he's a starter again on a surprisingly successful team with very limited talent around him.

First of all we both like Vanderbilt and I think we were both people that had some level of belief he had a bit more to be able to do than what he showed. As I watched more late in the season and in the playoffs I did have to admit others on the board were right about his hands catching and holding onto the ball offensively. It was a real problem.

I agree Vanderbilt did other worthwhile things on offense which you described very well I'm in total agreement with you there. However I disagree with you on his handling the ball. From what I saw very little of his value on offense was with the ball in his hands. He did not handle the ball much last season. There was times he specifically looked like he stopped in his tracks and handed the ball over to someone else (sometimes it was not even a guard) very purposefully when there was an opportunity to attack sometimes even in transition. I thought there were times he could have attacked but also there were times he was wild with the ball and I could see why he likely wasn't allowed to do more. The reality is that we don't know as he didn't get many opportunities for whatever reason. Like I said I think he wasn't given the green light and that probably affected him in that regard. He was a pretty high turnover guy in the G-league as Q can attest to. I agree there is some natural ability as a passer too.

I'll also and that there are some basketball folks out there like Brit Robson that thought Finch had a somewhat short leash (in terms of playing time) for Vanderbilt doing other things on offense. I'm not sure I am on board with that but it was an interesting observation.

Personally I was a bit conflicted on not letting Vanderbilt do more. On one hand I was kinda like let's just get this guy being effective in a small role as the previous season was basically his first one playing any meaningful minutes so that's fine just get him doing the things he did the previous year. Maybe if he had stayed around this season maybe he would have improved his game and been unleashed somewhat. I haven't seen him play a minute of basketball this year so idk how or what he isn't doing other than look at stats. I did think last year his shot looked better/not as broken as it was before his FT shooting certainly looked smoother. It doesn't surprise me that with another team he is taking some more 3's. Let's see if he keeps hitting them at a decent clip.

The other reality is that Vanderbilt is on a value contract right now but it lasts for 1 more season after this year. What is he gonna be worth at that point? Who might pay him? What role will he have reasonably achieved? Of the players (I consider Kessler more of a prospect/draft pick) we moved in that deal I thought Vanderbilt obviously had the most value moving forward. Still as much as a I liked him I also had to wonder...how long was he really gonna stay a Timberwolf? It was a bit of a conundrum.

Meanwhile the Wolves may have drafted his replacement in Minott. He has a long ways to go to become the impact player Vanderbilt was but he also seems to have a much higher upside in being a functional offensive player. Again this is what good teams do continue to find players and having to let other guys go. It's also interesting that really the Wolves other than signing Forbes and Rivers they basically used the roster spots opened from the Gobert trade to add young talent. That's partly why the Wolves haven't seen more significant value from the Gobert trade this year is because there is a lot of young talent on the roster. When Forbes remembers how to shoot he will bro no value and it looks to me from the few games I have seen Rivers has been solid and is deserving some minutes at least until the Wolves have more of their perimeter players healthy. Moore is making a case he deserves minutes which is an excellent development no pun intended. :)

lipoli390 wrote:The Lakers won tonight. They've been playing well and closing in on the Wolves. Right now, they're only 1 game behind the Wolves. If the Lakers pass the Wolves in the standings, the Wolves will be 12th. There are only two really bad bottom dwellers in the West - Houston and San Antonio. OKC will definitely be in the lottery too, but significantly higher in the standings that the Rockets and Spurs. I continue to believe the Jazz will continue to drop and eventually end up being on of the bottom four teams in he West along with the Rockets, Spurs and OKC. Meanwhile, the Pelicans are surging as they continue to build on their strong finish last season. Not surprisingly, Denver looks really good and the Suns have surprised me by once again by leading the Western Conference and doing it without Chris Paul who's been hurt. The Warriors are surging, which is not surprising. They're the same team that won it all last season and they'll be in the top tier of the West at the end of the season. The Kings are no longer Western Conference doormats.

I expect the following teams will end up in the top six in the West, in no particular order:

1. Suns
2. Pelicans
3. Nuggets
4. Warriors
5. Grizzlies
6. Clippers - amazing they're a game over .500 without getting much PT from Kawhi.

The Kings are my front runner to capture the 7th position for the play-in with a decent chance at finishing in the top 6. I see the Wolves, Lakers, Mavs, and Blazers fighting for the 8-10 play-in positions. Utah might be in the mix as well.

lipoli390 wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

monsterpile wrote:I'll also and that there are some basketball folks out there like Brit Robson that thought Finch had a somewhat short leash (in terms of playing time) for Vanderbilt doing other things on offense. I'm not sure I am on board with that but it was an interesting observation.

Personally I was a bit conflicted on not letting Vanderbilt do more. On one hand I was kinda like let's just get this guy being effective in a small role as the previous season was basically his first one playing any meaningful minutes so that's fine just get him doing the things he did the previous year. Maybe if he had stayed around this season maybe he would have improved his game and been unleashed somewhat. I haven't seen him play a minute of basketball this year so idk how or what he isn't doing other than look at stats. I did think last year his shot looked better/not as broken as it was before his FT shooting certainly looked smoother. It doesn't surprise me that with another team he is taking some more 3's. Let's see if he keeps hitting them at a decent clip.

I seem to recall Vanderbilt had (has?) chronic knee issues and that was at least part of the reason for his limited minutes/role with us last year. Possibly same thing going forward too which is why I was ok letting him go. It's too bad because I did like his overall game.

I think they traded Vanderbilt because Utah wanted him included in the deal. Simple as that I suspect.

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

monsterpile wrote:I'll also and that there are some basketball folks out there like Brit Robson that thought Finch had a somewhat short leash (in terms of playing time) for Vanderbilt doing other things on offense. I'm not sure I am on board with that but it was an interesting observation.

Personally I was a bit conflicted on not letting Vanderbilt do more. On one hand I was kinda like let's just get this guy being effective in a small role as the previous season was basically his first one playing any meaningful minutes so that's fine just get him doing the things he did the previous year. Maybe if he had stayed around this season maybe he would have improved his game and been unleashed somewhat. I haven't seen him play a minute of basketball this year so idk how or what he isn't doing other than look at stats. I did think last year his shot looked better/not as broken as it was before his FT shooting certainly looked smoother. It doesn't surprise me that with another team he is taking some more 3's. Let's see if he keeps hitting them at a decent clip.

I seem to recall Vanderbilt had (has?) chronic knee issues and that was at least part of the reason for his limited minutes/role with us last year. Possibly same thing going forward too which is why I was ok letting him go. It's too bad because I did like his overall game.

I think they traded Vanderbilt because Utah wanted him included in the deal. Simple as that I suspect.

I don't know if Vanderbilt still has any chronic injury issues but that's why didn't play much his 1 year in college and his minutes were limited there and then the G-league and that also limited him a bit in the NBA early on as well. I do think you make a good point that was likely a bit of a factor him him playing fewer minutes but I don't think the fact that they may have been working to keep him healthy had anything to do with his offensive role though.

Q-was-here wrote: Vando had some past injury issues, but I don't think that affected him last year or was the reason why he was traded.

He wasn't THAT limited last year, as he played his ass off for 25 MPG. His role was to inject the starting lineup with energy and effort along with PBev. But his limitations offensively along with his unreliable hands I think limited his crunch time minutes. They were far more likely to have McDaniels or Prince at PF late in 4th quarters. Plus he played so damn hard, his effectiveness above 25MPG would begin to wane quickly.

Carlos Danger wrote:

Q-was-here wrote: Vando had some past injury issues, but I don't think that affected him last year or was the reason why he was traded.

He wasn't THAT limited last year, as he played his ass off for 25 MPG. His role was to inject the starting lineup with energy and effort along with PBev. But his limitations offensively along with his unreliable hands I think limited his crunch time minutes. They were far more likely to have McDaniels or Prince at PF late in 4th quarters. Plus he played so damn hard, his effectiveness above 25MPG would begin to wane quickly.

For the record (to you and others), I never said the injuries were "why he was traded". I just stated that I (personally) was ok with them trading him because of those injuries. I do recall he had some sort of limiting injury factor. I don't have a membership to the Startribune anymore, but I think I found the article I was recalling. If someone can open/post, I'd be curious to refresh my memory. Here's the link:

https://www.startribune.com/jarred-vanderbilt-timberwolves-karl-anthony-towns/600144576/

Q-was-here wrote:

Carlos Danger wrote:

Q-was-here wrote: Vando had some past injury issues, but I don't think that affected him last year or was the reason why he was traded.

He wasn't THAT limited last year, as he played his ass off for 25 MPG. His role was to inject the starting lineup with energy and effort along with PBev. But his limitations offensively along with his unreliable hands I think limited his crunch time minutes. They were far more likely to have McDaniels or Prince at PF late in 4th quarters. Plus he played so damn hard, his effectiveness above 25MPG would begin to wane quickly.

For the record (to you and others), I never said the injuries were "why he was traded". I just stated that I (personally) was ok with them trading him because of those injuries. I do recall he had some sort of limiting injury factor. I don't have a membership to the Startribune anymore, but I think I found the article I was recalling. If someone can open/post, I'd be curious to refresh my memory. Here's the link:

https://www.startribune.com/jarred-vanderbilt-timberwolves-karl-anthony-towns/600144576/

Thanks for clarifying Carlos. I don't have access to the Tribune article either, but I just don't recall health or injuries being a big factor with Vanderbilt while with the Wolves. It was a big concern coming out of Kentucky, but he seemed to have overcome those issues by the time he came to the Wolves.

My point is that his skills (non-shooter/turnover prone) and style of play (all out effort) were the things that limited his minutes, especially in crunch time. Utah seems to be using him in a similar way....defensive role-playing starter that plays ~ 25 MPG.