Minnesota Sports Forum

I'm catching up on this thread, and seeing a lot of talk about Harrison Barnes. I've always liked Barnes, but with Montrezl Harrell apparently sparking some interest from Gupta, I'm trying to understand why people here prefer Barnes to Harrell. Barnes is having arguably his best season this year, but take a look at their comparative stats this year:

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?player_id2=harremo01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id1=barneha02&p2yrfrom=2022&sum=0&request=1

Other than 3-point shooting (Barnes-good, Harrell-nonexistent), I can't find one stat that favors Barnes. They are both very efficient scorers, which I like, but despite his lack of a 3-point shot, Harrell's 68.4 TS% still beats Barnes' very good 61.5%. Since we know that Harrell is clearly on the block and the Wolves have expressed interest, shouldn't there be a lot more attention here on acquiring Harrell? In addition to his superior stats, there are other reasons why he is a more attractive target:

1) We need size, and Harrell is bigger and longer. How about a 7'4" wingspan compared to Barnes' 6'11"?

2) Barnes has always been a starter, and Harrell has always been a 6th man. Does anyone really want to replace Vando in the starting lineup with Barnes, or is bringing in a productive 2-way player to replace some of Naz's minutes a bigger need? Just think how much better our bench would be at both ends of the court with 20 minutes of Harrell instead of Naz?

3) Barnes is a year older, and still owed $18 million next year. Harrell is an expiring only getting $9 million this year.

4) Sorry on/off detractors, but Harrell is a +9.2 this year, and Barnes is at the bottom of the list for Sacramento at -6.2.

5) We would likely need to give up fewer valuable assets to get Harrell compared to Barnes.

6) Barnes seems like a good guy, but Harrell is a fan favorite everywhere he goes. He would make Target Center a lot more fun.

All of this is coming from a guy who has always liked Barnes, but seriously, what am I missing here? Why would we favor Barnes over Harrell? And while I'm interested in everyone's opinion, some supporting data might be more persuasive.

I think our biggest need in our lineup is upgrading production from Reid's minutes. Its too inconsistent. That is why I lean to going after a big rather than a wing. If we are upgrading Beasley that could work too, but when Beasley is hot its a nice commodity to have.

FNG wrote:I'm catching up on this thread, and seeing a lot of talk about Harrison Barnes. I've always liked Barnes, but with Montrezl Harrell apparently sparking some interest from Gupta, I'm trying to understand why people here prefer Barnes to Harrell. Barnes is having arguably his best season this year, but take a look at their comparative stats this year:

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?player_id2=harremo01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id1=barneha02&p2yrfrom=2022&sum=0&request=1

Other than 3-point shooting (Barnes-good, Harrell-nonexistent), I can't find one stat that favors Barnes. They are both very efficient scorers, which I like, but despite his lack of a 3-point shot, Harrell's 68.4 TS% still beats Barnes' very good 61.5%. Since we know that Harrell is clearly on the block and the Wolves have expressed interest, shouldn't there be a lot more attention here on acquiring Harrell? In addition to his superior stats, there are other reasons why he is a more attractive target:

1) We need size, and Harrell is bigger and longer. How about a 7'4" wingspan compared to Barnes' 6'11"?

2) Barnes has always been a starter, and Harrell has always been a 6th man. Does anyone really want to replace Vando in the starting lineup with Barnes, or is bringing in a productive 2-way player to replace some of Naz's minutes a bigger need? Just think how much better our bench would be at both ends of the court with 20 minutes of Harrell instead of Naz?

3) Barnes is a year older, and still owed $18 million next year. Harrell is an expiring only getting $9 million this year.

4) Sorry on/off detractors, but Harrell is a +9.2 this year, and Barnes is at the bottom of the list for Sacramento at -6.2.

5) We would likely need to give up fewer valuable assets to get Harrell compared to Barnes.

6) Barnes seems like a good guy, but Harrell is a fan favorite everywhere he goes. He would make Target Center a lot more fun.

All of this is coming from a guy who has always liked Barnes, but seriously, what am I missing here? Why would we favor Barnes over Harrell? And while I'm interested in everyone's opinion, some supporting data might be more persuasive.

I don't think your wrong in your thinking in this. I feel like the board is more down for Harrell though.

I think we're all saying if we're going to make a splash Barnes is a more reliable Beasley.

The problem is Prince has played so great the last 10-20 games and Beasley looks like himself again the last 5-10 games.

I'm been a big proponent that Naz is our weak link. He's the reason we get bullied by some teams down low. He's is a good rotational back up but with a team with Kat he's not a good fit for the wolves because essentially KAT light out there. This team needs a change of pace big like Harrell.

I also don't think the asking price will be that high. With Beal down for the year and Harrell on expiring contract. The NBA gms kind of have them by balls.

1. Harrison Barnes has above average size for his position, which allows him to have positional versatility at both forward spots. That in itself has value, especially in the post-season. Montrezl Harrell is bigger than Barnes, but he's very much undersized for his position. Replacing Naz Reid with Harrell actually makes the Wolves smaller if we're talking about size.

2. Barnes has always accepted the role that was asked of him no matter his environment. Chris Finch could relegate Patrick Beverley or Jarred Vanderbilt to the bench, or allow Barnes to get acclimated off the bench. Having quality options is a good thing. I'd also argue that replacing Malik Beasley's minutes with a two-way wing -- and having insurance should any starter get injured -- is more important than upgrading Naz Reid's minutes in the long run.

3. Barnes makes more because he does more, he's capable of more. He's more skilled, more versatile, and plays a premium position. That shouldn't be surprising. Harrell is extremely limited despite being good at what he does. Non-star bigs don't typically command large salaries as we've seen.

4. Who gives a shit? Have you seen the Kings this year? Not much has gone right in Sacramento. Barnes is a much better player than Harrell. Relying on the eye test and basic basketball knowledge for this take. The plus-minus gods might strike me down.

5. Why do you think that is? Why would Barnes cost more? Maybe Barnes is considerably better than Harrell and plays a desired role with limited supply of available wings like him. I think you're catching on.

6. Irrelevant in the landscape of winning basketball games. Barnes has a well-known reputation of being a good guy, consummate professional, etc. However, you don't acquire talent for this reason.

What are you missing? I think you're missing an advanced understanding of the game, respectfully. I think you ignore floor spacing far too often. I think comparing a perimeter player's scoring efficiency to a rim-rolling big's is wildly misleading considering where the two operate from. I think every team in the league would value Barnes over Harrell (by a lot) because he's capable of playing with so many different types of players and lineup combinations.

It's also conceivable that the Wolves could afford both Barnes and Harrell if they wanted to go that route. My question to you would be why is it one or the other for you?

My sense is that the reason for getting Harrell is that it may help take our offense to yet another level (we're #10 in offensive rating by the way - that escalated quickly!). His ability to roll to the hoop and finish strong could create even more open looks for the hot-shooting Beasley and Prince.

I don't see him as a defensive solution. When people think about Harrell they tend to think about his ferocious dunking on teams. Does anyone think of him as a master of drop coverage and rim protection? How about as a defensive rebounder?

So when we say we need someone who won't get bullied, I have to question how big of a difference there is between Harrell and Naz on defense.

I think the biggest challenge in some ways when it comes to acquiring Harrell is finding matching salaries that make sense for both teams especially since the wolves are trying to stay under the Lux tax.

Not sure where to put this so just gonna put it here.

McLaughlin in February: 4 games 77 minutes 30 assists, 0 turnovers, 14 rebounds, 4 steals, 2 blocks and 64.7% FG. Is it time to sell high? :)

Naz plays small. Harrell plays way bigger and stays inside. Hes smaller by measurement but he bangs.

Camden wrote:1. Harrison Barnes has above average size for his position, which allows him to have positional versatility at both forward spots. That in itself has value, especially in the post-season. Montrezl Harrell is bigger than Barnes, but he's very much undersized for his position. Replacing Naz Reid with Harrell actually makes the Wolves smaller if we're talking about size.

2. Barnes has always accepted the role that was asked of him no matter his environment. Chris Finch could relegate Patrick Beverley or Jarred Vanderbilt to the bench, or allow Barnes to get acclimated off the bench. Having quality options is a good thing. I'd also argue that replacing Malik Beasley's minutes with a two-way wing -- and having insurance should any starter get injured -- is more important than upgrading Naz Reid's minutes in the long run.

3. Barnes makes more because he does more, he's capable of more. He's more skilled, more versatile, and plays a premium position. That shouldn't be surprising. Harrell is extremely limited despite being good at what he does. Non-star bigs don't typically command large salaries as we've seen.

4. Who gives a shit? Have you seen the Kings this year? Not much has gone right in Sacramento. Barnes is a much better player than Harrell. Relying on the eye test and basic basketball knowledge for this take. The plus-minus gods might strike me down.

5. Why do you think that is? Why would Barnes cost more? Maybe Barnes is considerably better than Harrell and plays a desired role with limited supply of available wings like him. I think you're catching on.

6. Irrelevant in the landscape of winning basketball games. Barnes has a well-known reputation of being a good guy, consummate professional, etc. However, you don't acquire talent for this reason.

What are you missing? I think you're missing an advanced understanding of the game, respectfully. I think you ignore floor spacing far too often. I think comparing a perimeter player's scoring efficiency to a rim-rolling big's is wildly misleading considering where the two operate from. I think every team in the league would value Barnes over Harrell (by a lot) because he's capable of playing with so many different types of players and lineup combinations.

It's also conceivable that the Wolves could afford both Barnes and Harrell if they wanted to go that route. My question to you would be why is it one or the other for you?

Fair point, Cam...it doesn't necessarily have to be only one. I like both players, and would have no problem bringing them both in, although I question we have the assets to get that done. But if it's just one, Harrell has a lot of Beverley-like dog in him, and replacing Naz's minutes with Harrell makes us so much better. Barnes is a 3/4, so I would presume his 25 minutes would be at the expense of Vando, Jaden, and Prince ...not sure that is as much of an upgrade as Harrell replacing Naz. Maybe you like Naz as a 2-way player more than I do, but their comparative stats are even more one-sided than Harrell/Barnes.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?player_id2=harremo01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id1=reidna01&p2yrfrom=2022&sum=0&request=1

I get that intangibles count too, and Harrell will never be a floor spacer. But he's an extraordinarily efficient rim-runner, and with the Wolves' recent embracing of Finch's ball-movement philosophy and the exceptional inside passing we have seen the past three weeks, I suspect Harrell would be even more effective here than in Washington. And the other intangible we're ignoring is motor...Harrell brings it 100% every minute he's on the court, while as much as I like his skills, the word "passive" shows up for Barnes sometimes...he himself has talked about he needs to get more aggressive. Nobody has ever asked Montrezl Harrell to be more aggressive!

But maybe I'm misunderstanding how you guys think Barnes would fit in. He's always been a starter, so do we move Vando to the bench, and break up what has been a very effective starting unit? Vando's energy and relentlessness on the offensive boards keeps so many possessions alive, and I think we would miss that if he moved to the bench. Would a guy who has almost always been a starter accept a role off the bench? Let's say Harrison gets 28 MPG (fewer than his career 32 MPG). Whose minutes does he take from? I like the minutes Vando, Prince and Jaden are getting right now, but maybe he could get some of Prince's minutes...especially if Prince were part of the package going out.

So, get then both if possible, certainly. But if we can only add one big, I like the upgrade Harrell provides over Barnes...and at a cheaper price tag.

monsterpile wrote:Not sure where to put this so just gonna put it here.

McLaughlin in February: 4 games 77 minutes 30 assists, 0 turnovers, 14 rebounds, 4 steals, 2 blocks and 64.7% FG. Is it time to sell high? :)

It's just crazy that we've basically seen nearly the entire bench do a complete 180 from earlier in the year. It started with Nowell a few weeks ago during the Covid outbreak (who has since trailed off a bit), but lately we have multiple other guys on absolute fire in their roles. McLaughlin makes me want to break off the long-distance relationships I've been having with Ricky Rubio and Tyus Jones (granted, it's purely platonic...and largely one-way, as they rarely return my correspondence with them and when they do, it's usually through a "representative").