Minnesota Sports Forum

"Have to remember they have been without Kmart as well,So it's not just PRK...Just Saying."

We've only been without Martin for three games since Pek went down. Pek went down 10 games ago. Pretty easy to see over that seven game span how big of a hit our offense took when our most efficient scorer was out of the lineup. Also, without Pek in the middle, it makes everything tougher on the perimeter players, including Love from 3P range. K-Love's 16-51 (31%) from 3P range since Pek's been out of the lineup. Attribute that to a normal cold streak or Pek's absence, but it's likely a combo of the two. Keep in mind that his percentage would be much worse had it not been for a 6-11 game against Denver to finish the first half of the season. We need Pek.

<<Again, another uneducated statement from you Team Ricky. If Minnesota offered Pekovic for Sanders straight up, Milwaukee would jump all over that offer without thinking twice about it.>>

I like how you just make crap up and post it like its fact. Milwaukee will NEVER do that deal and I'll put money on that. Milwaukee doesn't need Pekovic. Milwaukee needs guards in a bad way, but its big men are its strength. Pekovic is paid $12+ million a year, too old for a rebuilding team, is injury prone and is not a difference maker on defense or offense. Last year, Sanders proved he can be a defensive force.

TeamRicky wrote:<<Again, another uneducated statement from you Team Ricky. If Minnesota offered Pekovic for Sanders straight up, Milwaukee would jump all over that offer without thinking twice about it.>>

I like how you just make crap up and post it like its fact. Milwaukee will NEVER do that deal and I'll put money on that. Milwaukee doesn't need Pekovic. Milwaukee needs guards in a bad way, but its big men are its strength. Pekovic is paid $12+ million a year, too old for a rebuilding team, is injury prone and is not a difference maker on defense or offense. Last year, Sanders proved he can be a defensive force.

So, basically the same thing you're doing by saying Milwaukee would NEVER do that deal. You're using your opinion just like I am with my opinion, except your case is weak and mine is not. Milwaukee needs more talent. We can agree on that much, but to call their big men a strength is laughable. The Bucks don't have a strength right now. Sanders/Henson/Ilyasova (depending on if you think he's a 3/4) is amongst the worst big men groups in the NBA. Very little post scoring, or scoring in general for that matter. Can they block shots? No doubt about it, but unfortunately for you and your argument, you have to score more points than the opponent to win a basketball game. Sanders/Henson/Ilyasova aren't good enough on offense. With those bigs, they'll need an elite perimeter scorer or two to be worth a shit.

Okay? Pekovic is paid $12M a year and Sanders just signed an extension for $11M a year. You really should quit using that as a point in your argument. It's not helping your case, that's for damn sure.

You can go ahead and scratch the injury prone argument off your list of things to say also.

Since 2010-11, here's their games played in order from then to now.

Pekovic: 65, 47, 62, 44. 218 total games played to this point.

Sanders: 60, 52, 71, 23. 206 total games played to this point. Sanders is also expected to be out for six more weeks at the least.

That's also with Pekovic logging far more minutes than Sanders throughout that span. Would you like to try again with your argument on this point? You're digging yourself a hole on the injury subject.

Pekovic isn't a difference maker on offense? Being one of the most productive and efficient centers in the NBA isn't anything to scoff at. I won't spend too much time on this comment of yours, though. It's about as absurd as saying Blake Griffin can't dunk a basketball. Pek's numbers speak for him better than I can.

We need to trade Pek pretty much no matter what.

If we decide to try to keep Love as the franchise guy, we can't pay 12 mil a year to a center who only exacerbates Love's weaknesses - especially not when the perimeter defense remains so dodgy. Some would suggest upgrading on the perimeter, but exactly how does that happen without cap space or high lottery picks? You need to trade value for value, and Pek is maybe the only solid value on the team after Love.

If we decide not to build around Love, it's officially tank/rebuild mode. You don't want to pay an efficient, effective 29 year old big money when you're trying to secure multiple high lottery picks. He'll accidentally win you games while serving no role in your long term plans. Better to grab whatever picks and prospects you can while he holds value.

The funny part is that we have won 2/3 games that we scored less than a hundred in and won without Pek. Why might you ask? Because we actually had a rim protector in Ronny starting and he is a bench player. You don't win any meaningful games with all offense and mediocre defense in this league. Also, you argue that we need a better bench. Wouldn't getting a better bench plus a big that can contribute to keeping the other team under a 100 help us win games just as much as getting a better bench and having to score 110 to win? Having a good defense bails you out on off-shooting nights and nights when the offense isn't there because defense primarily just comes down to effort which should be available every night. Right now if they don't bring the offense every game, you can see the result. We have nothing to fall back on. A Pek/Love/Martin starting core has led to being the worst in the league in defensive FG%. It's pretty hard to be a playoff team when your defense can't stop anybody. Meanwhile the Pacers have won 23 games without scoring a hundred. Nobody is complaining about their lack of offense because they are the best in the league at defense and that is why they have the second best record in the league. The Bulls are a playoff team with the second best defense and they only average 92 PPG. Pek and Love give up so many easy looks at the rim, that they literally have to outscore what they give up or we stand no chance to win any games. They just don't fit together defensively and the loss of offense argument is crap when good teams are winning games when scoring less than a hundred with defense that we don't have but could get closer to if we trade Pek. When healthy, there's only 8 centers in the league scoring more than 15 PPG and yet there are twice as many playoff teams, so there is a formula for winning without a Center who can only score and rebound. Just because you can't see it for this team doesn't mean it isn't there.

Camden,

You and another poster put out that Pek is way better than Sanders. I simply called BS on it. The Bucks obviously are tanking for the top pick and Milwaukee has no incentive to rush any of their bigs back this year when they are banged up. So to use this year's stats as the measuring stick is like using last year's stats on Kevin Love to assess his value. Its an outlier. Sanders and Pek are very different players and I just happen to be a bigger fan of defense than you. I also like that Sanders is almost three years younger and I think Sanders has a much greater chance of improving than Pek. I watched him last year and I see the potential to be a nice offensive player too. The Bucks just don't have any guards worth crap that can run an offense. Put Rubio on the Bucks and Brandon Knight on the Wolves and you'd see Sanders thrive and Pek's offense go down.

I never said Sanders didn't have injury issues, but I was pointing out a flaw of Pek as you think he's so great. But seeing as you want to compare the two, I'll address your points. First, comparing games played isn't completely accurate as Sanders got DNPs early in his career that had nothing to do with injury. Also, Sanders eye bone injury is not likely to be a recurring injury like Pek's ankle issues. IMHO, Pek's older age and type of injuries he has suffered, make him a more likely candidate to be injured in the future over Sanders.

I never said Pek wasn't a good offensive player, he is. I just don't see him as a difference maker. His offense hasn't moved the needle to where he can carry the team on his back, especially against good teams. On the other hand, Pek and Love are a large reason why the Wolves defense is the worst in the NBA.

Camden wrote:"Have to remember they have been without Kmart as well,So it's not just PRK...Just Saying."

We've only been without Martin for three games since Pek went down. Pek went down 10 games ago. Pretty easy to see over that seven game span how big of a hit our offense took when our most efficient scorer was out of the lineup. Also, without Pek in the middle, it makes everything tougher on the perimeter players, including Love from 3P range. K-Love's 16-51 (31%) from 3P range since Pek's been out of the lineup. Attribute that to a normal cold streak or Pek's absence, but it's likely a combo of the two. Keep in mind that his percentage would be much worse had it not been for a 6-11 game against Denver to finish the first half of the season. We need Pek.

We allso played some hard teams the last 10 games...OKC,,POR,,MEM,,,POR,,,HOU,,,We lost to all of them....I like pek alot but if they could somehow get Noah for him fire away...

khans2k5 wrote:The funny part is that we have won 2/3 games that we scored less than a hundred in and won without Pek. Why might you ask? Because we actually had a rim protector in Ronny starting and he is a bench player. You don't win any meaningful games with all offense and mediocre defense in this league. Also, you argue that we need a better bench. Wouldn't getting a better bench plus a big that can contribute to keeping the other team under a 100 help us win games just as much as getting a better bench and having to score 110 to win? Having a good defense bails you out on off-shooting nights and nights when the offense isn't there because defense primarily just comes down to effort which should be available every night. Right now if they don't bring the offense every game, you can see the result. We have nothing to fall back on. A Pek/Love/Martin starting core has led to being the worst in the league in defensive FG%. It's pretty hard to be a playoff team when your defense can't stop anybody. Meanwhile the Pacers have won 23 games without scoring a hundred. Nobody is complaining about their lack of offense because they are the best in the league at defense and that is why they have the second best record in the league. The Bulls are a playoff team with the second best defense and they only average 92 PPG. Pek and Love give up so many easy looks at the rim, that they literally have to outscore what they give up or we stand no chance to win any games. They just don't fit together defensively and the loss of offense argument is crap when good teams are winning games when scoring less than a hundred with defense that we don't have but could get closer to if we trade Pek. When healthy, there's only 8 centers in the league scoring more than 15 PPG and yet there are twice as many playoff teams, so there is a formula for winning without a Center who can only score and rebound. Just because you can't see it for this team doesn't mean it isn't there.

You don't win any meaningful games with all offense and mediocre defense in this league.

-- I've never said that. Not even one time. I believe defense wins championships in every sport, but there have been teams in every sport that have had success while doing the opposite. My initial post to you is something I believe firmly, though. If we trade Pekovic, we likely won't get equal value. I can't say that enough, but you manage to skip over that and reply as if I said defense doesn't matter. The only people that know what Pekovic is worth is the Timberwolves (players, FO, fans). I'm in favor of not losing value in any trade and it's almost certain to me that we would if we dealt Pek, thus I'd hold on to him.

"Wouldn't getting a better bench plus a big that can contribute to keeping the other team under a 100 help us win games just as much as getting a better bench and having to score 110 to win?"

-- Instead of improving the bench this off-season and giving this current team another run next year with a competent second unit, we should just make some big time changes and create other problems right? If we deal Pekovic, we're going to need a big time starting wing scorer to compensate for the loss of points. I doubt we can roll with Rubio/Martin/Brewer/Love/Def Big and have a reliable enough offense to get buckets when we need them. We'd have one consistent source of points and that's coming from Love. I feel much more comfortable about Martin knowing he's our third option on offense instead of the No. 2 guy, which is what he'd be if we got rid of Pekovic. Rubio, Brewer and your defensive big would be black holes on offense for the most part. Awesome. Guess what happens next? Teams pay even more attention to Love and that makes his job tougher.

The reason the Pacers formula works really nice is because they're all two-way players except for Hibbert. Any given night Hill/Stephenson/George/West can go for 20. That's not even remotely comparable to the type of lineup we'd be running out. Rubio and Brewer are playing well if they get to the 12 point mark. Whatever defensive big we bring in won't be able to sniff 20. Martin and Love can get 20-plus, but it's not enough to make up for the other guys and what happens if they have an off night?

"When healthy, there's only 8 centers in the league scoring more than 15 PPG and yet there are twice as many playoff teams"

-- I don't know if you've noticed or not, but this team's makeup is pretty different from any I've seen in a while. We've got a point guard who can win a basketball game scoring four points and 10 assists while playing pesky defense and forcing turnovers, a power forward who can light up a box score with 30 points 15 boards and five assists and a center who can get 20/10 any night. At this point, it makes more sense to try and correct what we can with this team with minimal moves (fixing the bench) instead of making a drastic change in dealing our second (third if you'd like to be really tough) best player.

If we fixed the bench this off-season and still couldn't get over the hump, then it's the time to blow it up in some way. Right now, I'd go the easier route and fix the bench. See if I could win with the core I currently have.

It's like having a pothole in a road and either fixing the pothole or making a whole new road. Why wouldn't you try and do the easiest option first?

At the end of the day a Love/Pek frontcourt is not good enough to win anything meaningful. You have to ask yourself, do you retool for the chance at being a legitimate contender or do you add to the current unconventional makeup and settle for just making the playoffs? I can tell you right now that the team giving up the worst FG% in the league has 0 chance at ever winning a title. We aren't being innovative in the way we are going against the grain, we are just doing something different that isn't working. This isn't Lebron moving to the 4 innovative. This is failing to recognize patterns that are very prevalent in the league because you are afraid of taking a risk and going with something you know instead. I think of it as fixing that pothole with either concrete or asphalt. The rest of the league is using asphalt while we are trying to sell people on the idea that concrete is different, but can get the same job done. Concrete just doesn't look right and eventually it would just get replaced by asphalt anyway. Trading one player is not making a new road. Blowing up the team is making a new road. There is a big difference between the two.