TheFuture wrote:lipoli390 wrote:WildWolf2813 wrote:lipoli390 wrote:WildWolf2813 wrote:Long story short, Lip is bitter that he didn't get the guys he wanted even though his guys have major flaws in their games also.
Lol. Good one, Wild. Note that the Wolves gave up a valuable asset, Saric, to get a player with flaws. Rosas could have drafted one if my flawed favorites without giving up any assets. And that what makes me bitter and twisted.
If Garland had fallen one more spot, just one more spot, you wouldn't give a damn about Saric or his "value." Let's be honest.
You're absolutely right. But he didn't fall one more spot. And that's why I give a damn about Saric's value. We gave up his value without getting the return I wanted and that Rosas was apparently trying to get. So we're not disagreeing.
Why are you so convinced Garland was the pick?
Because it was widely reported that Rosas was pursing Garland, not to mention the fact that PG is a position of need. It was also widely reported that the Wolves front office was scrambling to recover after it became clear the Cavs were going to take Garland. I don't think the notion that Rosas traded up for Garland is particularly controversial or disputed. The issue is whether it was wise to give up an asset like Saric without know for sure whether the Wolves could get Garland. I think there are reasonable arguments on both side of that question.
As I've said, if Rosas thought Culver was significantly better than any prospect he could have taken at #11, then I can understand his decision to give up Saric in pursuit of Garland, viewing Culver as a soft landing in the event he missed on Garland. My view is that Culver was not significantly better than a number of options the Wolves would have had (and were likely to have) at #11.
I've mentioned Doumbouya and Langford as better alternatives with significantly higher upsides than Culver. If the object was to get a higher floor prospect (which is a fair description of Culver), then I think Alexander-Walker was actually a better choice, which the Wolves could have made at #11. As sophomores, Alexander-Walker had a better FG percentage than Culver (47.4% v. 46%), a better 2-point percentage (53.7% v. 52.6%), a much better 3-point percentage (37.4% v. 30.4%), more steals per game (1.9 v. 1.5), and more assists per game (4.0 v. 3.7). Culver had more rebounds and points per game, but was a significantly less efficient scorer. Alexander-Walker has a longer overhead reach (8'6 v. 8'4.5) and the same impressive wingspan of 6'9.5. Alexander-Walker is also 10 pounds heavier with bigger hands and is at least as quick (probably quicker) with the ball.
So time will tell whether trading Saric for what ended up as Culver was a good move or not. And we'll never know for sure whether that move was intended or desired by Rosas. I sure hope Culver pans out and becomes the next Brandon Roy or Jimmy Butler without the attitude. I like what I've read about Culver's worth ethic and character. I like his impressive vertical leap and wing span. I'm hopeful, but still not pleased that we gave up Saric and ended up with Culver. However, I'm ready to be proven wrong and it wouldn't be the first time that happened. Moreover, I really like Nowell at #43. I think that was a steal. So this draft was by no means a disaster for the Wolves. And if I'm proven wrong about Culver and he turns out to be an allstar caliber guard, then this draft will turn out to have been a great one for our Wolves.
