Minnesota Sports Forum

BizarroJerry wrote:Funny how everyone wants dieng to be a bench big when he's proven to be a great starter. We don't need 5 all stars starting.

Well, we currently have zero all-stars starting. Hopefully that changes in the near future.

I think it's simply a matter of what number Thibs and Layden put on Dieng. It seems like Thibs is the kind of guy that wants to know who is in and who is out, so it wouldn't surprise me that if they like Dieng, they make a run at an extension this summer, but have some line drawn in the sand that they won't go over.

Let's be clear here...all the statistical comparisons here of Gorgui to Horford/Favors are offensive only. I don't think anyone is going to argue that G is the superior overall player, because the other two are more polished than he is on defense.

But the question is whether Thibs can manage our cap better by giving G the kind of deals that have been discussed in this thread, or by spending almost twice as much for 4 years to bring in a player like Horford or Favors on a max deal. Without even considering the positive impact Thibs may have defensively on G (who was considered a very good defender in college just 4 years ago) or the fact that G is only a third year player with more upside than the other two, I think it would be foolish to give a max contract to one of them when we already have a cheaper, but suitable, option on our roster. I agree with those who swallow hard when thinking about what kind of contract a guy like G may command in the New World, but I think it will seem reasonable once the sticker shock wears off and we see other deals that are made this summer.

Q12543 wrote:
Well, we currently have zero all-stars starting. Hopefully that changes in the near future.

I think it's simply a matter of what number Thibs and Layden put on Dieng. It seems like Thibs is the kind of guy that wants to know who is in and who is out, so it wouldn't surprise me that if they like Dieng, they make a run at an extension this summer, but have some line drawn in the sand that they won't go over.

I'm a big Dieng fan - but I agree with this. It probably makes sense to let things play out. Give Thibbs until Mid-season/trade deadline to evaluate some of these guys before making any big decisions. Yes, there is a risk that it could cost us more to re-sign Dieng if we wait. But there is also a risk we could sign him for too much and have him not fit the new regime as well. The same can be said for pretty much the whole team. I think we are in a holding pattern short term beyond Thibbs adding guys who have played with him in the past. There is no way Thibbs is just going to manage Flip/Sam's team. He's going to remake it - his way.

Q12543 wrote:

BizarroJerry wrote:Funny how everyone wants dieng to be a bench big when he's proven to be a great starter. We don't need 5 all stars starting.

Well, we currently have zero all-stars starting. Hopefully that changes in the near future.

I think it's simply a matter of what number Thibs and Layden put on Dieng. It seems like Thibs is the kind of guy that wants to know who is in and who is out, so it wouldn't surprise me that if they like Dieng, they make a run at an extension this summer, but have some line drawn in the sand that they won't go over.

It's great that Doeng is finally getting some credit around here but to say he is "proven" especially as a starter is going too far. earlier in the same season there were aspects of his game that were like a train wreck you couldn't look away from sprinkled in with the usual Dieng positives. I would say what Dieng's stretch of 50 or so games proved was he has shown enough pretty much everyone feels like he can be a legit rotation player for a good team. Dieng is trending up but to say he is proven is going to far but it's probably said because it still feels like Dieng doesn't quite get enough credit for what growth he has had and how well the team played when he was there.

We have seen more out of Dieng to decide his value than we had 12 months ago. His ability to defend the PF spot was pretty encouraging. It's POSSIBLE the Wolves have the PF position set for the next few years with a combo of Dieng and Belly complimenting each other along with Towns playing there as well. Q was the one that really wanted to see Dieng at PF and that looks pretty smart right now. The reality is that you give these extensions to players after their rookie contracts because of what you project them to be. Keep in mind that Dieng's extension wouldn't even start till the 2017-2018 season so even if you agreed to a larger number similar to what happened with Rubio might end up looking like a decent deal 2-3 years from now.

I still think it's hard to put a value on Dieng. He has always showed some positives but there is always some legit reasons to go all in on the guy too. Let's see where we draft and more importantly who we draft and go from there. I want to keep Dieng but I don't know if I can come up with a high and low number right now because of how to value him in general and really wrapping my mind about contract values with the rising cap.

He's durable and can play both the 4 and the 5 as a backup or a starter. I'm fine giving him up to 16 million/year because of his versatility as a player combined with his great durability. If we could land a Horford or Favors for 20+ million great, but I'd still pay Dieng because Towns' rookie deal lets us pay for two other guys in the frontcourt like that and then Belly plays cleanup minutes.

Dieng as a starter this year vs. Horford and Favors (all numbers PER 36):
[table]
[tr]
[th]Player[/th]
[th]Points[/th]
[th]Rebounds[/th]
[th]Blocks[/th]
[th]PER[/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Dieng[/td]
[td]14.5[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.6[/td]
[td]19.1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horford[/td]
[td]17.1[/td]
[td]8.2[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]19.4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Favors[/td]
[td]18.4[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]21.6[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

So, not only are Horford and Favors better offensively and defensively (while winning basketball games in the process), but they've been doing it for hundreds of games whereas we're using Dieng's 39 game sample where the team went 15-24 and trying to get something definitive from it? What are we even talking about? Why are we comparing Dieng to two hands down better players in Horford and Favors? I assume it's because those are two guys that I've personally named that would be perfect fits here and I've went to bat for both of them, but this comparison is a disservice to Dieng. More appropriate comparisons would be to John Henson or even Kenneth Faried because that's the type of player we're discussing. Not an All-Star or an All-Star caliber player.

Camden wrote:Dieng as a starter this year vs. Horford and Favors (all numbers PER 36):
[table]
[tr]
[th]Player[/th]
[th]Points[/th]
[th]Rebounds[/th]
[th]Blocks[/th]
[th]PER[/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Dieng[/td]
[td]14.5[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.6[/td]
[td]19.1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horford[/td]
[td]17.1[/td]
[td]8.2[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]19.4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Favors[/td]
[td]18.4[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]21.6[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

So, not only are Horford and Favors better offensively and defensively (while winning basketball games in the process), but they've been doing it for hundreds of games whereas we're using Dieng's 39 game sample where the team went 15-24 and trying to get something definitive from it? What are we even talking about? Why are we comparing Dieng to two hands down better players in Horford and Favors? I assume it's because those are two guys that I've personally named that would be perfect fits here and I've went to bat for both of them, but this comparison is a disservice to Dieng. More appropriate comparisons would be to John Henson or even Kenneth Faried because that's the type of player we're discussing. Not an All-Star or an All-Star caliber player.

I don't think Dieng is as good as Horford and Favors, but he's much closer to their level than that that of the other guys you compared him to. Henson (who is a pretty limited player) and Faried (who is not a good defender) are not even close to Dieng's value.

TeamRicky wrote:

Camden wrote:Dieng as a starter this year vs. Horford and Favors (all numbers PER 36):
[table]
[tr]
[th]Player[/th]
[th]Points[/th]
[th]Rebounds[/th]
[th]Blocks[/th]
[th]PER[/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Dieng[/td]
[td]14.5[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.6[/td]
[td]19.1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horford[/td]
[td]17.1[/td]
[td]8.2[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]19.4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Favors[/td]
[td]18.4[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]21.6[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

So, not only are Horford and Favors better offensively and defensively (while winning basketball games in the process), but they've been doing it for hundreds of games whereas we're using Dieng's 39 game sample where the team went 15-24 and trying to get something definitive from it? What are we even talking about? Why are we comparing Dieng to two hands down better players in Horford and Favors? I assume it's because those are two guys that I've personally named that would be perfect fits here and I've went to bat for both of them, but this comparison is a disservice to Dieng. More appropriate comparisons would be to John Henson or even Kenneth Faried because that's the type of player we're discussing. Not an All-Star or an All-Star caliber player.

I don't think Dieng is as good as Horford and Favors, but he's much closer to their level than that that of the other guys you compared him to. Henson (who is a pretty limited player) and Faried (who is not a good defender) are not even close to Dieng's value.

I get the point that is trying to be made comparing Dieng to Favors and Horford but honestly IMO it's going too far to try and prove a point on guys that Cam has shown affinity for. Both Favors and Horford are pretty good players. Dieng had t even arrived at being a good player...yet and that's coming from one of Dieng's biggest fans.

Camden wrote:Dieng as a starter this year vs. Horford and Favors (all numbers PER 36):
[table]
[tr]
[th]Player[/th]
[th]Points[/th]
[th]Rebounds[/th]
[th]Blocks[/th]
[th]PER[/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Dieng[/td]
[td]14.5[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.6[/td]
[td]19.1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horford[/td]
[td]17.1[/td]
[td]8.2[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]19.4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Favors[/td]
[td]18.4[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]21.6[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

So, not only are Horford and Favors better offensively and defensively (while winning basketball games in the process), but they've been doing it for hundreds of games whereas we're using Dieng's 39 game sample where the team went 15-24 and trying to get something definitive from it? What are we even talking about? Why are we comparing Dieng to two hands down better players in Horford and Favors? I assume it's because those are two guys that I've personally named that would be perfect fits here and I've went to bat for both of them, but this comparison is a disservice to Dieng. More appropriate comparisons would be to John Henson or even Kenneth Faried because that's the type of player we're discussing. Not an All-Star or an All-Star caliber player.

You're just fun to argue with, and you're an easy target because you're always quick to thump your chest.

Camden wrote:Dieng as a starter this year vs. Horford and Favors (all numbers PER 36):
[table]
[tr]
[th]Player[/th]
[th]Points[/th]
[th]Rebounds[/th]
[th]Blocks[/th]
[th]PER[/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Dieng[/td]
[td]14.5[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.6[/td]
[td]19.1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horford[/td]
[td]17.1[/td]
[td]8.2[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]19.4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Favors[/td]
[td]18.4[/td]
[td]9.1[/td]
[td]1.7[/td]
[td]21.6[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

So, not only are Horford and Favors better offensively and defensively (while winning basketball games in the process), but they've been doing it for hundreds of games whereas we're using Dieng's 39 game sample where the team went 15-24 and trying to get something definitive from it? What are we even talking about? Why are we comparing Dieng to two hands down better players in Horford and Favors? I assume it's because those are two guys that I've personally named that would be perfect fits here and I've went to bat for both of them, but this comparison is a disservice to Dieng. More appropriate comparisons would be to John Henson or even Kenneth Faried because that's the type of player we're discussing. Not an All-Star or an All-Star caliber player.

Get the F out of here. The comparison is what it is. Cool noted the gap between Dieng and some of the other names floated out there isn't as far as some are pretending it to be. And others have made the point that we don't need another star as they believe Towns/Wiggins/LaVine can be our star power going forward. Dieng has over 100 NBA starts - so you can stop with the "39 game sample" bullshit. We know what Dieng is - a very efficient, complimentary player. The question is whether it's better to add a couple good complimentary players vs. one, high priced star. We all have opinions on that. Just because you post more than anyone else on here - doesn't mean your opinion carries anymore weight - sorry pal.