Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:If you think Shabazz has warts just wait till we develop a pick in the 20s in this draft. Shabazz has proven he can play in this league which is hit or miss reality for many players drafted in the late first. Shabazz should only be part of a deal that gains us a proven commodity, not a crap shoot draft pick. That is selling low and pointless for where we are at.

It obviously depends on the prospect that we'd get back for Bazz, but getting a first rounder for him wouldn't be selling low, IMO. Some of us would rather have a more well-rounded player than him and the draft is a cheap way to go about getting one. When you consider the makeup of this roster, what he provides (unorthodox scoring) isn't needed as much as defense, shot creators, three-point shooting. There's only so much value he brings when he's on the court and it's on one-side of the court only.

I get the point of wanting a more well rounded player to replace Bazz. Getting that well rounded player that is ready to contribute in the late 20s of a draft is not the best route to achieve that. Way too much uncertainty in that part of the draft to expect you would be able to accomplish that. The higher probability is that you would be getting a player that won't contribute anything for a few years. I'd rather have Bazz with his warts who can at least contribute a tangible skill to win games at this point. Especially when he is going to have a defensive specialist as a coach.

This discussion might make it seem like I hate Bazz so I want to make it very clear that I don't. I dig the guy's work ethic, nonstop motor and how he fits personality-wise with our other young players. I don't think that he's a player that wins you games, however. When he does produce offensively, more often than not he's giving it back on the other end of the floor (defensively). He's also not all that consistent offensively. The ball tends to stick when he has it, whether that's in transition or when he gets a post-up opportunity. He's worked very hard to improve his court vision, passing, decision-making, and defense, but those aspects of the game are still really weak for him. Unfortunately, those aspects of the game are arguably the most important.

His "tangible skill" is replaceable. Scoring is arguably the most replaceable stat there is. He just doesn't produce enough in that area to overcome the areas that he's poor in. It's mainly why I don't consider him a core piece. So, if I could gain four more years of a prospect that fit this team better, someone who was more of a two-way player, I would be inclined to do so at the expense of Bazz.

I don't get the argument for the diminished value of scoring I guess. There are other significant components of the game sure, but he had a significant time of leading the league in points per touch under Flip. That stat is not easily replaceable. Our 2nd unit is going to continue to struggle for points, taking him out of the equation for a project is short sighted strategically. Especially when we can acquire other well rounded players by other means. I want to see what another great basketball mind could do with his talents. Flip had already shown that when used properly, he was an asset. Sam didn't seem to take the same approach. I have a suspicion that Thibs is going to love Bazz and know just how to use him. The Riley coaching tree seems to conceptually believe that D can be taught and is about effort. Many great teams have had bad to mediocre individual defenders on them, and have made up for it with a system. There has always been these types of players in the league because it is a unique talent. Replacing him at the 8/9 spot of the roster for a generic player really doesn't move the needle for this team either way. It just seems like tinkering where it isn't necessary.

That being said.....

If we were going to make this deal a reality we should target teams that lacked scoring outside their main guys. I think OKC could have used a basket or two this playoffs, the Spurs too. I'd target those teams assuming OKC can resign Durant.

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:If you think Shabazz has warts just wait till we develop a pick in the 20s in this draft. Shabazz has proven he can play in this league which is hit or miss reality for many players drafted in the late first. Shabazz should only be part of a deal that gains us a proven commodity, not a crap shoot draft pick. That is selling low and pointless for where we are at.

It obviously depends on the prospect that we'd get back for Bazz, but getting a first rounder for him wouldn't be selling low, IMO. Some of us would rather have a more well-rounded player than him and the draft is a cheap way to go about getting one. When you consider the makeup of this roster, what he provides (unorthodox scoring) isn't needed as much as defense, shot creators, three-point shooting. There's only so much value he brings when he's on the court and it's on one-side of the court only.

I get the point of wanting a more well rounded player to replace Bazz. Getting that well rounded player that is ready to contribute in the late 20s of a draft is not the best route to achieve that. Way too much uncertainty in that part of the draft to expect you would be able to accomplish that. The higher probability is that you would be getting a player that won't contribute anything for a few years. I'd rather have Bazz with his warts who can at least contribute a tangible skill to win games at this point. Especially when he is going to have a defensive specialist as a coach.

This discussion might make it seem like I hate Bazz so I want to make it very clear that I don't. I dig the guy's work ethic, nonstop motor and how he fits personality-wise with our other young players. I don't think that he's a player that wins you games, however. When he does produce offensively, more often than not he's giving it back on the other end of the floor (defensively). He's also not all that consistent offensively. The ball tends to stick when he has it, whether that's in transition or when he gets a post-up opportunity. He's worked very hard to improve his court vision, passing, decision-making, and defense, but those aspects of the game are still really weak for him. Unfortunately, those aspects of the game are arguably the most important.

His "tangible skill" is replaceable. Scoring is arguably the most replaceable stat there is. He just doesn't produce enough in that area to overcome the areas that he's poor in. It's mainly why I don't consider him a core piece. So, if I could gain four more years of a prospect that fit this team better, someone who was more of a two-way player, I would be inclined to do so at the expense of Bazz.

This is very well stated and echoes my thoughts exactly. I have cheered for Bazz more than almost any other player because of those qualities we all like, but after three years in the league my hopes for him improving on his weaknesses are diminished. Lip says in the post above that Bazz is a very good rebounder, and I agree, as long as we are talking about offensive rebounding only...he's a below average defensive rebounder for a SF. I'm afraid his value around the league is perhaps a late first round pick at best, and I'm on the fence as to whether or not I would do that.

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:If you think Shabazz has warts just wait till we develop a pick in the 20s in this draft. Shabazz has proven he can play in this league which is hit or miss reality for many players drafted in the late first. Shabazz should only be part of a deal that gains us a proven commodity, not a crap shoot draft pick. That is selling low and pointless for where we are at.

It obviously depends on the prospect that we'd get back for Bazz, but getting a first rounder for him wouldn't be selling low, IMO. Some of us would rather have a more well-rounded player than him and the draft is a cheap way to go about getting one. When you consider the makeup of this roster, what he provides (unorthodox scoring) isn't needed as much as defense, shot creators, three-point shooting. There's only so much value he brings when he's on the court and it's on one-side of the court only.

I get the point of wanting a more well rounded player to replace Bazz. Getting that well rounded player that is ready to contribute in the late 20s of a draft is not the best route to achieve that. Way too much uncertainty in that part of the draft to expect you would be able to accomplish that. The higher probability is that you would be getting a player that won't contribute anything for a few years. I'd rather have Bazz with his warts who can at least contribute a tangible skill to win games at this point. Especially when he is going to have a defensive specialist as a coach.

This discussion might make it seem like I hate Bazz so I want to make it very clear that I don't. I dig the guy's work ethic, nonstop motor and how he fits personality-wise with our other young players. I don't think that he's a player that wins you games, however. When he does produce offensively, more often than not he's giving it back on the other end of the floor (defensively). He's also not all that consistent offensively. The ball tends to stick when he has it, whether that's in transition or when he gets a post-up opportunity. He's worked very hard to improve his court vision, passing, decision-making, and defense, but those aspects of the game are still really weak for him. Unfortunately, those aspects of the game are arguably the most important.

His "tangible skill" is replaceable. Scoring is arguably the most replaceable stat there is. He just doesn't produce enough in that area to overcome the areas that he's poor in. It's mainly why I don't consider him a core piece. So, if I could gain four more years of a prospect that fit this team better, someone who was more of a two-way player, I would be inclined to do so at the expense of Bazz.

This is very well stated and echoes my thoughts exactly. I have cheered for Bazz more than almost any other player because of those qualities we all like, but after three years in the league my hopes for him improving on his weaknesses are diminished. Lip says in the post above that Bazz is a very good rebounder, and I agree, as long as we are talking about offensive rebounding only...he's a below average defensive rebounder for a SF. I'm afraid his value around the league is perhaps a late first round pick at best, and I'm on the fence as to whether or not I would do that.

I was also going to bring up the point that's he's not a very good rebounder in the category that matters which is defensive rebounding. Offensive boards are luxuries. Defensive boards are necessities and he only gets 2 defensive boards per game. That's not enough to call him a good rebounder even off the bench.

He's a tunnel visioned offensive player who plays with great effort and is on the last year of his rookie deal. Not sure why some here think another team would rather have him than take a cheap chance on a rookie with a pick in the 20s.

Just ask yourself this ... would you rather take a chance on a McCaw, bentil, Beasley, Richardson, onuaku, etc. over the next 4 years or take bazz for a guaranteed one year?

It seems most here would prefer the former, so I'd assume every other team would feel exactly the same. Especially with the uncertainty of contracts of lower to mid tier players with the cap increase. Rookies should be in high demand for two years while contract amounts shake out and settle.

TheFuture wrote:Just ask yourself this ... would you rather take a chance on a McCaw, bentil, Beasley, Richardson, onuaku, etc. over the next 4 years or take bazz for a guaranteed one year?

It seems most here would prefer the former, so I'd assume every other team would feel exactly the same. Especially with the uncertainty of contracts of lower to mid tier players with the cap increase. Rookies should be in high demand for two years while contract amounts shake out and settle.

If you have 3 first round picks would you rather have a known commodity or take yet another flier on a rookie? If you are trying to win this year would you rather have a known commodity that fits what you want or hope a rookie does what most rookies don't do which is positively contribute consistently in year 1? Not all teams operate for the next 3-4 years. A lot operate for the next season.

I wouldn't totally be against dealing Bazz for a first round pick for a guy especially if it's a guy I like like say Sabonis like Cam suggested in an earlier post as well. I guess my point is that dealing Bazz right now comes with some legit risk that he turns out to be a nice player that you wish you hadn't dealt. Of course the guy we draft at that spot could end up being a nice player but he also could end up being a Wayne Ellington type or even worse. Is giving up Bazz to get a first rounder to pick a player that much better than getting a player a few picks later in the 2nd round which the price could be much lower? Idk there is a lot to think about I just still think Bazz is a guy with value one way or another and still has some potential.

There is some risk of waiting to long and basically ending up getting nothing out of Bazz so I think it is tricky for Thibs and Layden deciding what to do with him. A year from now they could be in a position that the Blazers are with Crabbe (if Bazz were to break out) where he may get a healthy contract and how much are you willing to pay to keep him as a backup. We used to have similar conversations about Dieng although the cost was going to be much higher because he is a big.

David Pick ?@IAmDPick
Source: Twolves like Dragan Bender with No. 5 pick. Scouts Calvin Booth and Zarko Durisic seen him here in workouts.

https://twitter.com/IAmDPick/status/739566995931332608

MikeAz wrote:David Pick ?@IAmDPick
Source: Twolves like Dragan Bender with No. 5 pick. Scouts Calvin Booth and Zarko Durisic seen him here in workouts.

https://twitter.com/IAmDPick/status/739566995931332608

Excellent

Reading tea leaves, I suspect the Wolves top 5 are 1-Simmons, 2-Ingram, 3-Bender, 4-Dunn and 5-Murray. I haven't really seen anything linking them to Hield.