kekgeek wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 12:02 am
I think Durant Is becoming extremely underrated on this board. He was 6th in the league in scoring and out of the top 231 players in ppg he was 18th in eFG% and was 7th in non post players in eFG% (outside of lavine Durant had at least 8 more FGA per game than the others 6 ahead of him). I get the age thing but he is still one of the best offensive players in the nba.
Ant was 4th in regular season points per game and Durant was 6th. And to your point, he is the most efficient volume scorer in the NBA after Jokic. 64 TS% is crazy good and a lot more efficient than Ant.
Perhaps Durant is aging like LeBron. Past his prime? Yes. Still really, really good? Yes.
The sticking point is how many post-Durant assets do we need to give up (meaning guys we would ideally like to still be here after Durant leaves the Wolves, like Dillingham, Shannon, etc.) and who of the "starting 8" is included. If one of them is Rudy, then we have an absolutely massive hole to fill and Connelly better have something else lined up to fill it.
I am not sure losing Rudy creates a big hole. I think it may change what our range of scores are, but ultimately we are worried about winning games. We one 46 games the year before Rudy and have averaged 49 since his arrival. I think we could easily argue those three wins had more to do with Ant and Jaden maturing. If we trade for Durant I think it makes more sense to keep Rudy rather than Naz or Randle, but I don't think either direction is that devastating. I do agree with WW that it does make me question the KAT trade, which I already had a problem with. We won 7 games less this year without KAT versus with him.
I think you and Q are both right. I do think Rudy’s departure would create a massive hole in our defense. But I also think Rudy’s overall impact on winning has been over-estimated. As you noted, our improvement in wins since Rudy arrived has been minimal except for last year when we won 56. I’ve mentioned many times that Ant, Jaden and Naz were only around 20 years old when we won 46 games and we didn’t have Slo Mo who became a huge positive contributor the year we won 56. When KAT missed nearly all of Rudy’s first season here, we finished with 42 wins.
The central point is that we didn’t need to trade for Rudy. We could have improved the team with small moves, like signing Hartenstein as a free agent and other things, using our assets and the financial flexibility we would have had. So yes, Rudy has helped us win and he’s be central to making us a top defensive team, but there were and are different paths to having a very good or great defensive and being a championship contender.
But Q’s point is important. If we trade Rudy, we need to have a plan that puts on that different path to defending well enough for a championship run.
Q-is-here wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 4:34 pm
Lip, Most of your points are valid around the Durant concerns, but you continue to call him a terrible defender based on a largely obsolete metric. Other more contemporary metrics have him anywhere from an average to well above average defender.
You either need to acknowledge these other metrics as providing a more balanced view of his defense or defend why the one you cite is better than the others.
Exactly!!!! Lip you are using a team defensive metric when Durant played with Nurkic, Richards and Plumlee as his centers.
When Durant was off the court the suns defense did not get better. You would think that would be the case if Durant was so bad on D. Also he is a year removed from getting all defense vote.
I understand the rest of your points but the defensive thing is you are using one metric in a team context to determine this player is a bad defender.
For example the NY Liberty have the Top 7 players in defensive rating this year. They gave up over 100 points today against the Fever.
Q-is-here wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 4:34 pm
Lip, Most of your points are valid around the Durant concerns, but you continue to call him a terrible defender based on a largely obsolete metric. Other more contemporary metrics have him anywhere from an average to well above average defender.
You either need to acknowledge these other metrics as providing a more balanced view of his defense or defend why the one you cite is better than the others.
Did someone post those other metrics. If so, I didn’t see them. I can’t acknowledge what I haven’t seen. You understand that, don’t you?
Q-is-here wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 4:34 pm
Lip, Most of your points are valid around the Durant concerns, but you continue to call him a terrible defender based on a largely obsolete metric. Other more contemporary metrics have him anywhere from an average to well above average defender.
You either need to acknowledge these other metrics as providing a more balanced view of his defense or defend why the one you cite is better than the others.
Did someone post those other metrics. If so, I didn’t see them. I can’t acknowledge what I haven’t seen. You understand that, don’t you?
Refer to my latest post in the Durant rumors thread.
Ant was 4th in regular season points per game and Durant was 6th. And to your point, he is the most efficient volume scorer in the NBA after Jokic. 64 TS% is crazy good and a lot more efficient than Ant.
Perhaps Durant is aging like LeBron. Past his prime? Yes. Still really, really good? Yes.
The sticking point is how many post-Durant assets do we need to give up (meaning guys we would ideally like to still be here after Durant leaves the Wolves, like Dillingham, Shannon, etc.) and who of the "starting 8" is included. If one of them is Rudy, then we have an absolutely massive hole to fill and Connelly better have something else lined up to fill it.
I am not sure losing Rudy creates a big hole. I think it may change what our range of scores are, but ultimately we are worried about winning games. We one 46 games the year before Rudy and have averaged 49 since his arrival. I think we could easily argue those three wins had more to do with Ant and Jaden maturing. If we trade for Durant I think it makes more sense to keep Rudy rather than Naz or Randle, but I don't think either direction is that devastating. I do agree with WW that it does make me question the KAT trade, which I already had a problem with. We won 7 games less this year without KAT versus with him.
I think you and Q are both right. I do think Rudy’s departure would create a massive hole in our defense. But I also think Rudy’s overall impact on winning has been over-estimated. As you noted, our improvement in wins since Rudy arrived has been minimal except for last year when we won 56. I’ve mentioned many times that Ant, Jaden and Naz were only around 20 years old when we won 46 games and we didn’t have Slo Mo who became a huge positive contributor the year we won 56. When KAT missed nearly all of Rudy’s first season here, we finished with 42 wins.
The central point is that we didn’t need to trade for Rudy. We could have improved the team with small moves, like signing Hartenstein as a free agent and other things, using our assets and the financial flexibility we would have had. So yes, Rudy has helped us win and he’s be central to making us a top defensive team, but there were and are different paths to having a very good or great defensive and being a championship contender.
But Q’s point is important. If we trade Rudy, we need to have a plan that puts on that different path to defending well enough for a championship run.
looking back, even if the Wolves had signed Hartenstein to the deal the Knicks did, we woulda lost him anyway
Maybe the Wolves could have signed and kept Hartenstein longer. I'm not sure what the Wolves had available to spend had they not signed Rudy. Sure OKC had the money to make a nice offer, but I don't think it was all about the money with Hartenstein. Given that he was essentially a journeyman in the early part of his NBA career, I think he wanted a team that would value him and provide him the opportunity to embrace his talent. Hartenstein showed very impressive defense in LA, along with excellent passing and was starting to get a bit more range to his shooting. The problem was that he was a backup behind Zubac and probably didn't expect that to change. When he joined the Knicks he was given a smaller role than what I believe he expected, he was a backup and his role was more of a traditional center. I sensed some tension early on with his role in Thibs offense. He was fighting for minutes with Mitch Rob, Achiuwa, Jericho Sims and Josh Hart. I expected Hartenstein to take over as starter when Mitch Rob suffered a serious injury, but I remember when Thibs was starting Sims over Hartenstein for a stretch and other games where Josh Hart was the center in a small ball lineup. Eventually, there was injuries to other bigs that helped get Hartenstein more minutes and eventually a starting spot, but I have to wonder if he felt like there might be better situations for him than playing for Thibs. Had Hartenstein signed here and got the minutes and usage that he sought who knows what would have happened. Money, respect and opportunity are all factors and I don't think it was a guarantee that Hartenstein would have left the Wolves even if another team was waving around more money.
KG4Ever wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:44 am
Maybe the Wolves could have signed and kept Hartenstein longer. I'm not sure what the Wolves had available to spend had they not signed Rudy. Sure OKC had the money to make a nice offer, but I don't think it was all about the money with Hartenstein. Given that he was essentially a journeyman in the early part of his NBA career, I think he wanted a team that would value him and provide him the opportunity to embrace his talent. Hartenstein showed very impressive defense in LA, along with excellent passing and was starting to get a bit more range to his shooting. The problem was that he was a backup behind Zubac and probably didn't expect that to change. When he joined the Knicks he was given a smaller role than what I believe he expected, he was a backup and his role was more of a traditional center. I sensed some tension early on with his role in Thibs offense. He was fighting for minutes with Mitch Rob, Achiuwa, Jericho Sims and Josh Hart. I expected Hartenstein to take over as starter when Mitch Rob suffered a serious injury, but I remember when Thibs was starting Sims over Hartenstein for a stretch and other games where Josh Hart was the center in a small ball lineup. Eventually, there was injuries to other bigs that helped get Hartenstein more minutes and eventually a starting spot, but I have to wonder if he felt like there might be better situations for him than playing for Thibs. Had Hartenstein signed here and got the minutes and usage that he sought who knows what would have happened. Money, respect and opportunity are all factors and I don't think it was a guarantee that Hartenstein would have left the Wolves even if another team was waving around more money.
if all money was equal, Hartenstein was staying in NY. He was beloved here.
WildWolf2813 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 3:16 pm
Steven Adams just signed a 3 year $39 mil extension to stay in Houston, so if anyone considered him as a post Gobert option, he's off the board.
Correct, like Gobert last year, the extension means he’s legally ineligible to be traded for six months.
A couple of things I’ve heard recently that I think are interesting points to consider in this weird KD-obsessed period. One, an important side benefit to the KD exploration is that I’m sure the Wolves front office is getting a pretty clear idea of the market for our own free agents and what it’ll take to re-sign them or get back for them in a sign and trade. The other is that it looks like ownership must be willing to continue to flirt with the second apron in order to keep this team near the top of the West, ie, it’s likely the Wolves will not want to take a step back this next season, to maximize the progression of Ant/Jaden through additional highly competitive playoff experience.
KG4Ever wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:44 am
Maybe the Wolves could have signed and kept Hartenstein longer. I'm not sure what the Wolves had available to spend had they not signed Rudy. Sure OKC had the money to make a nice offer, but I don't think it was all about the money with Hartenstein. Given that he was essentially a journeyman in the early part of his NBA career, I think he wanted a team that would value him and provide him the opportunity to embrace his talent. Hartenstein showed very impressive defense in LA, along with excellent passing and was starting to get a bit more range to his shooting. The problem was that he was a backup behind Zubac and probably didn't expect that to change. When he joined the Knicks he was given a smaller role than what I believe he expected, he was a backup and his role was more of a traditional center. I sensed some tension early on with his role in Thibs offense. He was fighting for minutes with Mitch Rob, Achiuwa, Jericho Sims and Josh Hart. I expected Hartenstein to take over as starter when Mitch Rob suffered a serious injury, but I remember when Thibs was starting Sims over Hartenstein for a stretch and other games where Josh Hart was the center in a small ball lineup. Eventually, there was injuries to other bigs that helped get Hartenstein more minutes and eventually a starting spot, but I have to wonder if he felt like there might be better situations for him than playing for Thibs. Had Hartenstein signed here and got the minutes and usage that he sought who knows what would have happened. Money, respect and opportunity are all factors and I don't think it was a guarantee that Hartenstein would have left the Wolves even if another team was waving around more money.
if all money was equal, Hartenstein was staying in NY. He was beloved here.
I read some stuff that strongly suggested he wasn't happy with Thibs, so I guess we'll never know how a hypothetical situation would have played out as the Wolves already had committed to Rudy.
