Minnesota Sports Forum

I would be pumped if we landed Smart. He likely would come off the bench behind Martin his first year as a combo guard, but he and Rubio could certainly play together. I think Shabazz will prove he is a shooter next year and will move into the starting lineup with Brewer getting more minutes at SG.

Trade 13 (Stauskas) to OKC for 22 (Andrew) and 29 (Aaron) and get the Harrison Twins. That fills our depth chart with young, developing talent (they've gone from horrible to leaders on a National Title team in the same year), It gives us a backup PG and SG that already have continuity playing together. I think the development they have shown in just 1 year of college shows that these guys are coachable and will get better especially if they can learn from the likes of Rubio and Martin. They aren't great athletes, but their bodies are NBA ready and I think they could be a great pair to bring off the bench in the backcourt. They took a draft dive like Bazz coming in as the best PG and SG prospects in the class and instead of staying rattled and looking like last year's UK recruits, they stepped it up when it counted and now they are playing for a title. Something has to be said for that kind of resiliency to bounce back from such a poor start. I get that a lot of people don't like them as prospects, but spending 2 picks in the 20's on them lowers the expectations enough where I think they would be successful here, together.

Not a fan of that trade at all. Actually, I'm very rarely a fan of trading out of the lottery into the 20s. I don't see either of the Harrison twins contributing next season and I wouldn't trust either one running the second unit right out of the gate anyway. Also, they make a bunch of mental mistakes and I would argue that their basketball IQ isn't up to par right now. Stauskas can contribute right away even if he's just a spot-up shooter. His BBIQ is also leaps and bounds better than theirs. We'd probably disagree about their potential, as I side with NK in that instance as well.

And I would say your last point is rather funny. How would expectations for them be lower when we'd know we gave up Stauskas/some other good prospect for them? We'd just compare the Harrisons production to the best prospects that were available at 13. Less expectations from the media, sure. Not from the front office and the team's fans.

Aaron's the better twin and he's not close to being a lottery pick. Throwing in his raw-skilled twin brother doesn't sweeten the pot for me. Give me pick 13 all day over those two.

The problem is that you need to stop looking at 13 as needing to be an impact player on this team next year. Banking on any rookie to be a difference maker for 82 games + playoffs is a bad move just because rookies don't make that much of a difference. You need to draft who you think will be the best player in 3 years because that is when they get past the skill and IQ gap if they ever get over those gaps. I'm not taking the Harrison Twins because of what they could do next year. I'm taking them because they are younger than most of the guys mentioned on this board, have been playing together their whole lives, and have stepped up and led a team who struggled most of the year to the championship game.

They beat the only undefeated team that was left in the country. They beat the title defenders. They beat Stauskas and his Michigan team. Aaron is shooting 56% from 3 with 3 game winners/daggers in the tournament. Andrew is averaging 5 assists and almost 4 rebounds per game while getting to the line and taking 5.2 FT's per game. You can keep praising Stauskas all you want, but the kid disappeared in the second half against Kentucky (18 first half points to 6 second half points) and the games I saw him play in, he struggled against athletic defenders which is half the league. I'll take the guys who have taken down just about everyone good in this tournament to be the future leaders of my second unit. Also, Bazz was taken with the last pick in the lottery so the trade of 9 for 14 and 21 is almost trading out of the lottery and everyone thinks we won that trade. Why get 1 player not guaranteed to be good when you can double your odds by getting 2 at a cheaper price to pay?

khans2k5 wrote:The problem is that you need to stop looking at 13 as needing to be an impact player on this team next year. Banking on any rookie to be a difference maker for 82 games + playoffs is a bad move just because rookies don't make that much of a difference. You need to draft who you think will be the best player in 3 years because that is when they get past the skill and IQ gap if they ever get over those gaps. I'm not taking the Harrison Twins because of what they could do next year. I'm taking them because they are younger than most of the guys mentioned on this board, have been playing together their whole lives, and have stepped up and led a team who struggled most of the year to the championship game.

They beat the only undefeated team that was left in the country. They beat the title defenders. They beat Stauskas and his Michigan team. Aaron is shooting 56% from 3 with 3 game winners/daggers in the tournament. Andrew is averaging 5 assists and almost 4 rebounds per game while getting to the line and taking 5.2 FT's per game. You can keep praising Stauskas all you want, but the kid disappeared in the second half against Kentucky (18 first half points to 6 second half points) and the games I saw him play in, he struggled against athletic defenders which is half the league. I'll take the guys who have taken down just about everyone good in this tournament to be the future leaders of my second unit. Also, Bazz was taken with the last pick in the lottery so the trade of 9 for 14 and 21 is almost trading out of the lottery and everyone thinks we won that trade. Why get 1 player not guaranteed to be good when you can double your odds by getting 2 at a cheaper price to pay?

Although I'm not on board with drafting a Harrison as high as 13, you are so correct that we should not expect significant contributions next year from whomever we draft. I know 2013 was a weak year, but still, look at the meager contributions from this year's class. Really the only guy who had much of an impact at all was MCW, and his shooting and turnover stats are a little frightening. Let's draft the right guy for the long-term. Let him play more than Adelman would allow, but keep expectations low.

longstrangetrip wrote:
Although I'm not on board with drafting a Harrison as high as 13, you are so correct that we should not expect significant contributions next year from whomever we draft. I know 2013 was a weak year, but still, look at the meager contributions from this year's class. Really the only guy who had much of an impact at all was MCW, and his shooting and turnover stats are a little frightening. Let's draft the right guy for the long-term. Let him play more than Adelman would allow, but keep expectations low.

We are the Minnesota Timberwolves, remember? At some point, we need impact from our rookies. We need some sort of contribution from them since this franchise is historically inept at developing. If we can't expect something from them, what's the point of drafting?

khans2k5 wrote:The problem is that you need to stop looking at 13 as needing to be an impact player on this team next year. Banking on any rookie to be a difference maker for 82 games + playoffs is a bad move just because rookies don't make that much of a difference. You need to draft who you think will be the best player in 3 years because that is when they get past the skill and IQ gap if they ever get over those gaps. I'm not taking the Harrison Twins because of what they could do next year. I'm taking them because they are younger than most of the guys mentioned on this board, have been playing together their whole lives, and have stepped up and led a team who struggled most of the year to the championship game.

They beat the only undefeated team that was left in the country. They beat the title defenders. They beat Stauskas and his Michigan team. Aaron is shooting 56% from 3 with 3 game winners/daggers in the tournament. Andrew is averaging 5 assists and almost 4 rebounds per game while getting to the line and taking 5.2 FT's per game. You can keep praising Stauskas all you want, but the kid disappeared in the second half against Kentucky (18 first half points to 6 second half points) and the games I saw him play in, he struggled against athletic defenders which is half the league. I'll take the guys who have taken down just about everyone good in this tournament to be the future leaders of my second unit. Also, Bazz was taken with the last pick in the lottery so the trade of 9 for 14 and 21 is almost trading out of the lottery and everyone thinks we won that trade. Why get 1 player not guaranteed to be good when you can double your odds by getting 2 at a cheaper price to pay?

I don't think the player at 13 NEEDS to be an impact player right away, but I think Stauskas definitely will be if given minutes. The guy's an elite shooter with a quick release. Having just that ability means he has to be accounted for on the floor, which is more than what a Harrison twin would likely provide. And apparently you skimmed over the part in my post regarding potential. I see Stauskas having a higher potential than either of the twins. I look at the twins and see players that may turn into good starters at best. Stauskas has the potential to be a perennial All-Star (similar college numbers to Harden, better numbers than Klay Thompson). So no, khans, I wouldn't be taking Stauskas over the twins just for right now. I think his immediate impact and long-run potential are BOTH greater than the Harrison twins.

The only undefeated team in the country was Wichita State, who I felt was overrated all year long. Yes, they beat Michigan without Mitch McGary. That's nice and it's why they're in the national championship, but are we to forget what the twins did the rest of the year, which is close to nothing? Their production the rest of the year was more "mehh" than it was good. Even through the tourney I'm not blown away like you are.

If you're going to throw in college accomplishments, why shouldn't the same be done for Stauskas? 46% from the field his freshman year and 47% his sophomore year. 44% from three-point land in back to back years while making more than two a game each year (2.6 this year). 5.7 FTAs this season, more than either of the Harrison twins attempted. Better Assist/TO ratio than either of the Harrison twins. Similar rebounding numbers as well.

Stauskas carried the Wolverines to B1G championship in the regular season. He torched good defenses in FSU (75th best), MSU (twice), WIS, OSU and still finished with a good game against Kentucky. What did the Harrison twins do against Florida? Big time struggles, except Andrew on Feb 15th. Point is, Stauskas has performed better than both the twins at a high enough level to where his value exceeds both of them combined.

Let's be fair, every rookie has to adjust their games at the NBA level. Stauskas will adjust to the length and the Harrisons need to adjust to the speed/gameplans. Stauskas has already been the primary scorer on a good team and succeeded. He's produced without a top-shelf post presence sucking in the defense. Can you say the same about the twins? Negative.

Are we really going to compare last year's draft to this year's? Is Alex Len a top-five pick in this class? Is Kelly Olynyk a lottery pick this year? The answer to both questions are no. It's a considerably deeper and better loaded class than last year's, which is why value of pick is different. The player the Wolves could have gotten at 9 (CJMc) isn't far off in terms of the player they could have got in the 20s (Hardaway, Dieng, Snell). The talent level wasn't night and day where it would be in this class.

"Why get 1 player not guaranteed to be good when you can double your odds by getting 2 at a cheaper price to pay?"

Why trade a player with a 50% chance to be an All-Star for two players that have a 25% chance each? This is pretty much what this trade would be doing for me. So in terms of odds, I'd argue that staying at 13 is the better option.

But if two is better than one in your opinion, maybe the Jazz should trade their lottery pick for two of the Suns' first rounders. Everybody wins... well, except Utah.

WildWolf2813 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:
Although I'm not on board with drafting a Harrison as high as 13, you are so correct that we should not expect significant contributions next year from whomever we draft. I know 2013 was a weak year, but still, look at the meager contributions from this year's class. Really the only guy who had much of an impact at all was MCW, and his shooting and turnover stats are a little frightening. Let's draft the right guy for the long-term. Let him play more than Adelman would allow, but keep expectations low.

We are the Minnesota Timberwolves, remember? At some point, we need impact from our rookies. We need some sort of contribution from them since this franchise is historically inept at developing. If we can't expect something from them, what's the point of drafting?

Problem is that rookies just don't contribute much...for anyone. I don't like any rookie's stats this year (with the exception of Deing and Muhammad in very small sample size), and historically draft picks haven't helped much in the first year. The NBA game is just so different from what they have been playing, and at least one transition year seems to be the norm. Take a look at Kobe Bryant's first year stats, for example...not very good. There are the rare exceptions, but not often with a pick as low as the Wolves will have. You draft for the future.

longstrangetrip wrote:

WildWolf2813 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:
Although I'm not on board with drafting a Harrison as high as 13, you are so correct that we should not expect significant contributions next year from whomever we draft. I know 2013 was a weak year, but still, look at the meager contributions from this year's class. Really the only guy who had much of an impact at all was MCW, and his shooting and turnover stats are a little frightening. Let's draft the right guy for the long-term. Let him play more than Adelman would allow, but keep expectations low.

We are the Minnesota Timberwolves, remember? At some point, we need impact from our rookies. We need some sort of contribution from them since this franchise is historically inept at developing. If we can't expect something from them, what's the point of drafting?

Problem is that rookies just don't contribute much...for anyone. I don't like any rookie's stats this year (with the exception of Deing and Muhammad in very small sample size), and historically draft picks haven't helped much in the first year. The NBA game is just so different from what they have been playing, and at least one transition year seems to be the norm. Take a look at Kobe Bryant's first year stats, for example...not very good. There are the rare exceptions, but not often with a pick as low as the Wolves will have. You draft for the future.

I agree with all of this, but if the player has an elite quality right out of the gate, why couldn't he be a factor? This goes for Dieng's defensive ability when Turiaf/Pek went down, Shabazz when our bench scoring sucked and possibly next year for Stauskas as an outside shooter (at the least).

Camden wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

WildWolf2813 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:
Although I'm not on board with drafting a Harrison as high as 13, you are so correct that we should not expect significant contributions next year from whomever we draft. I know 2013 was a weak year, but still, look at the meager contributions from this year's class. Really the only guy who had much of an impact at all was MCW, and his shooting and turnover stats are a little frightening. Let's draft the right guy for the long-term. Let him play more than Adelman would allow, but keep expectations low.

We are the Minnesota Timberwolves, remember? At some point, we need impact from our rookies. We need some sort of contribution from them since this franchise is historically inept at developing. If we can't expect something from them, what's the point of drafting?

Problem is that rookies just don't contribute much...for anyone. I don't like any rookie's stats this year (with the exception of Deing and Muhammad in very small sample size), and historically draft picks haven't helped much in the first year. The NBA game is just so different from what they have been playing, and at least one transition year seems to be the norm. Take a look at Kobe Bryant's first year stats, for example...not very good. There are the rare exceptions, but not often with a pick as low as the Wolves will have. You draft for the future.

I agree with all of this, but if the player has an elite quality right out of the gate, why couldn't he be a factor? This goes for Dieng's defensive ability when Turiaf/Pek went down, Shabazz when our bench scoring sucked and possibly next year for Stauskas as an outside shooter (at the least).

He could be, but he would be a major exception and probably not a 13th pick. Defenders are so much bigger and faster in the NBA that everyone seems to need a transition year, and the smart coaches (not Rick Adelman this year) give them their minutes anyway knowing that things will be much better in years 2 or 3. Take a look at some of the first year stats of some of the current elite players. Dirk averaged 8.2 points and 21% on 3's. Love averaged 11.1 and only made 2 of the 19 threes he tried. Harden averaged 10 points on 40% shooting. Paul George only averaged 7.8 on 30% 3's. Even the great Kevin Durant only hit 29% of his threes his rookie year. Most of these guys got significantly better their 2nd or 3rd years once they got used to the speed of the NBA game. I like Stauskas a lot, as you do, but I don't see him at the same level as the guys I cite above, and I expect him (or whoever we draft) to be not as good as the elite players above in his first year...especially since 3-point shooting seems to be the stat that suffers the most rookie years.