Minnesota Sports Forum

I would love to trade for Brad Stevens.

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.

Confused by the last part, in bold.

Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.

That's what I thought you meant.

Do you realize Boston is the 3rd seed in the East? And they still have a boatload of draft picks to trade along with its decent collection of assets to land a key guy.

Boston has rebuilt a championship-level team with only one season out of the playoffs. They've gone from 25 wins to 40 wins to 31 - 23 at the moment. All the while... the Wolves haven't gotten above .500 in more than a decade. Boston is way ahead of schedule and is in really good shape moving forward.

So you think they could challenge for a title this year or very soon? I don't. They would be the sixth seed in the West (in a down year, .574 would have been the 8th seed in the West last year) right now with their current winning percentage so slow your roll on how good they actually are. They are nowhere near championship level and 1 guy isn't gonna fix that. They still need two stars to even be at a contender level and right now they have none.

You do realize they have two unprotected Brooklyn picks on the way in the next 3 years, right? Those picks offer GREAT value.

After all, Brooklyn might struggle to win 25 games for the forseeable future...

They were a playoff team in Year 2 of a rebuild... and currently the #3 seed in Year 3... with help from super high draft picks on the way. They are the model franchise for rebuilding at the moment, aren't they? I just don't see how the Boston Celtics can be used at the moment as an example for mediocrity.

As a lifelong Wolves fan... I remain confused by your take.

Ya, just keep completely ignoring the fact that they're doing it in a bad conference. They're 8-7 against Western Conference teams, but they're well on their way to being a contender. They're 12-16 against teams .500 or better, but they're on their way to being a contender. So knowing that information, why does their 3 seed status just overrule their actual record against good teams in determining their contender status? It just looks to me like they've been the beneficiary of a soft schedule so far this year.

You've completely lost me at this point. I don't care about conference strength perception. (That gap has narrowed significantly this season.) I care that another NBA team that was at one point worse than the Wolves... built up a championship roster and won a title... got old... then rebuilt to the point that it's already #3 seed after only 2 years of rebuilding. Plus, consider that the team might have a higher draft pick in 2 of the next 3 years than the Wolves.

By the way, the Wolves have been better than 31 - 23 in only 3 of its 27 seasons in the league. Conversely, the team has failed to win more than 31 games in 15 out of 27 seasons. And has won more than 33 only once in the past 11 seasons.

I find it amusing that we're ripping Boston for its "mediocre" rebuild in this thread. If any fanbase knows how difficult it is, it's Wolves fans. I love what Boston has been able to do.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.

Confused by the last part, in bold.

Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.

That's what I thought you meant.

Do you realize Boston is the 3rd seed in the East? And they still have a boatload of draft picks to trade along with its decent collection of assets to land a key guy.

Boston has rebuilt a championship-level team with only one season out of the playoffs. They've gone from 25 wins to 40 wins to 31 - 23 at the moment. All the while... the Wolves haven't gotten above .500 in more than a decade. Boston is way ahead of schedule and is in really good shape moving forward.

So you think they could challenge for a title this year or very soon? I don't. They would be the sixth seed in the West (in a down year, .574 would have been the 8th seed in the West last year) right now with their current winning percentage so slow your roll on how good they actually are. They are nowhere near championship level and 1 guy isn't gonna fix that. They still need two stars to even be at a contender level and right now they have none.

You do realize they have two unprotected Brooklyn picks on the way in the next 3 years, right? Those picks offer GREAT value.

After all, Brooklyn might struggle to win 25 games for the forseeable future...

They were a playoff team in Year 2 of a rebuild... and currently the #3 seed in Year 3... with help from super high draft picks on the way. They are the model franchise for rebuilding at the moment, aren't they? I just don't see how the Boston Celtics can be used at the moment as an example for mediocrity.

As a lifelong Wolves fan... I remain confused by your take.

Ya, just keep completely ignoring the fact that they're doing it in a bad conference. They're 8-7 against Western Conference teams, but they're well on their way to being a contender. They're 12-16 against teams .500 or better, but they're on their way to being a contender. So knowing that information, why does their 3 seed status just overrule their actual record against good teams in determining their contender status? It just looks to me like they've been the beneficiary of a soft schedule so far this year.

You've completely lost me at this point. I don't care about conference strength perception. (That gap has narrowed significantly this season.) I care that another NBA team that was at one point worse than the Wolves... built up a championship roster and won a title... got old... then rebuilt to the point that it's already #3 seed after only 2 years of rebuilding. Plus, consider that the team might have a higher draft pick in 2 of the next 3 years than the Wolves.

By the way, the Wolves have been better than 31 - 23 in only 3 of its 27 seasons in the league. Conversely, the team has failed to win more than 31 games in 15 out of 27 seasons. And has won more than 33 only once in the past 11 seasons.

I find it amusing that we're ripping Boston for its "mediocre" rebuild in this thread. If any fanbase knows how difficult it is, it's Wolves fans. I love what Boston has been able to do.

Why do you keep comparing their rebuild to ours? I never brought us up. I'm saying if your ATL why would you want to rebuild the way Boston did, only you don't get Smart or the high picks they're getting from Brooklyn. Take out Smart and those picks and Boston's rebuild doesn't look good from a drafting perspective and some people think ATL would rather go that route to trade their players than getting more established talent. I wasn't comparing our rebuild to theirs, but just keep throwing out empty info like they're the 3 seed so that makes them contender's while completely ignoring how they've been a sub .500 team against their playoff competition.

Also, ask all 30 GM's in the league if they'd rather have the Celtics building blocks or ours and all 30 would take Towns and Wiggins over Boston's team any day of the week.

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Boston has shown how little having a bunch of non-top 10 picks actually helps rebuild a contender.

Confused by the last part, in bold.

Boston has already started using their billion picks that nobody else wants and they've ended up with a wildly mediocre roster that barely makes the playoffs in the East. Why would Atlanta want a bunch of picks that land them guys like Rozier, Hunter, James Young, Fab Melo, etc.? After all the picks they've acquired Boston has broken into the top 10 once in the last 8 years. Boston has had 9 first round picks since 2010 and they are nowhere near a contender. So I ask why that is supposed to be appealing to ATL to try to get a bunch of picks from these teams when those types of picks they would get are exactly what Boston has been using for the last 5 years and they aren't close to being a contender.

That's what I thought you meant.

Do you realize Boston is the 3rd seed in the East? And they still have a boatload of draft picks to trade along with its decent collection of assets to land a key guy.

Boston has rebuilt a championship-level team with only one season out of the playoffs. They've gone from 25 wins to 40 wins to 31 - 23 at the moment. All the while... the Wolves haven't gotten above .500 in more than a decade. Boston is way ahead of schedule and is in really good shape moving forward.

So you think they could challenge for a title this year or very soon? I don't. They would be the sixth seed in the West (in a down year, .574 would have been the 8th seed in the West last year) right now with their current winning percentage so slow your roll on how good they actually are. They are nowhere near championship level and 1 guy isn't gonna fix that. They still need two stars to even be at a contender level and right now they have none.

You do realize they have two unprotected Brooklyn picks on the way in the next 3 years, right? Those picks offer GREAT value.

After all, Brooklyn might struggle to win 25 games for the forseeable future...

They were a playoff team in Year 2 of a rebuild... and currently the #3 seed in Year 3... with help from super high draft picks on the way. They are the model franchise for rebuilding at the moment, aren't they? I just don't see how the Boston Celtics can be used at the moment as an example for mediocrity.

As a lifelong Wolves fan... I remain confused by your take.

Ya, just keep completely ignoring the fact that they're doing it in a bad conference. They're 8-7 against Western Conference teams, but they're well on their way to being a contender. They're 12-16 against teams .500 or better, but they're on their way to being a contender. So knowing that information, why does their 3 seed status just overrule their actual record against good teams in determining their contender status? It just looks to me like they've been the beneficiary of a soft schedule so far this year.

You've completely lost me at this point. I don't care about conference strength perception. (That gap has narrowed significantly this season.) I care that another NBA team that was at one point worse than the Wolves... built up a championship roster and won a title... got old... then rebuilt to the point that it's already #3 seed after only 2 years of rebuilding. Plus, consider that the team might have a higher draft pick in 2 of the next 3 years than the Wolves.

By the way, the Wolves have been better than 31 - 23 in only 3 of its 27 seasons in the league. Conversely, the team has failed to win more than 31 games in 15 out of 27 seasons. And has won more than 33 only once in the past 11 seasons.

I find it amusing that we're ripping Boston for its "mediocre" rebuild in this thread. If any fanbase knows how difficult it is, it's Wolves fans. I love what Boston has been able to do.

Why do you keep comparing their rebuild to ours? I never brought us up. I'm saying if your ATL why would you want to rebuild the way Boston did, only you don't get Smart or the high picks they're getting from Brooklyn. Take out Smart and those picks and Boston's rebuild doesn't look good from a drafting perspective and some people think ATL would rather go that route to trade their players than getting more established talent. I wasn't comparing our rebuild to theirs, but just keep throwing out empty info like they're the 3 seed so that makes them contender's while completely ignoring how they've been a sub .500 team against their playoff competition.

Also, ask all 30 GM's in the league if they'd rather have the Celtics building blocks or ours and all 30 would take Towns and Wiggins over Boston's team any day of the week.

I get the part about Atlanta questioning some of Boston's assets other than those Brooklyn picks. That makes sense.

I don't understand why you're ripping Boston for a mediocre rebuild or team. It's been wildly successful. And as a fan of a team that's gone through countless rebuilds... I believe it's actually quite relevant to see how other teams are doing it. I can see your point if Boston rebuilt and this was the end point. But, I don't think many people believe that based on what's happened so far and the extra picks coming up.

Wiggins and Towns are a great start. And I bet a lot of people would prefer them over anything Boston has. I wouldn't argue that. But Boston has a clear direction and is moving there quickly. The Wolves are rudderless without that GM and without a coach. And with an owner with a spotty history of identifying good GMs and coaches.

[Note: I have to think that many (all) teams have lesser records vs. playoff teams than they do vs. non-playoff teams. That's part of the NBA. The better teams with better records beat up on the crappy teams. Makes sense to me.]

I agree with both Abe and kahn for reasons below:
I agree that it is great for Boston that they have worked their way to #3 seed. But, in looking at that roster, it truly shocks me that they are where they are. The only guys I take from that team are Thomas and Crowder....maybe Bradley. And none of those guys are star level players. Thus, the importance of the NJ picks....which could ultimately catapult that team. If you could supplement those few strong role players with a couple studs....then you might have something.

But, it is not only about who they have now, but what they could become in the next couple years. Along with tons of picks, Boston has a ton of cap flexibility starting next season, which is a bigger reason why they may content rather quickly. Say they can sign Horford and Whiteside (or similar talent), while adding Dunn/Brown/Hield in draft. Now you have some stud vets along with a nice young nucleus of players. This is obviously what Abe and others see for this teams potential.

Yeah, Boston is in awesome shape. It is true that they don't have a star on their roster, but boy, Isaiah Thomas is pretty damn close. And all their main guys are in their 20s, many in their early or mid 20s, with plenty of runway. Add to that their salary cap flexibility, awesome coach, and Brooklyn's picks and it wouldn't surprise me if they sign/add another star or two.

And as Abe said, we should all be green with envy as Wolves fans. We've had a number of legit stars come through here in KG, Love, and now KAT. Yet we have been incapable of surrounding those players with the very type of players Boston has in spades.

Yeah, the only, ONLY, thing I'm envious about from Boston is Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens. Their roster can't touch ours in terms of talent or potential. Not even close, IMO. I'm also not worried about records or that they're the 3-seed right now. I give their title chances a whopping 0%. Would I like to have a team making the playoffs while rebuilding? Absolutely, but Minnesota plays in the blender that is the Western Conference. Other than Cleveland, every other team in the East would be average in the West. It's still a different beast, and this isn't anything like last year was.

Starting to feel like that time when there were some who preferred the Boston trade package for Love over anything. Overrated, overhyped, not even comparable to other options.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=p2x7hx3

Sorta related...

I don't know if I buy the "West is so much tougher" argument. It's clearly not as pronounced as much as we've grown accustomed to.

Obviously, the West is front-loaded with OKC, SA and Golden State. That's a murderer's row of quality teams. But where do you go from there? let's not forget, you have 3 lousy teams at the bottom... MN, Phoenix and the craptastic Lakers.

That's 10 - 12 very tough games. But you also get 10 - 12 relatively easy games too. Last I saw, the East record vs. the West was pretty close to .500 and a lot closer than it's been in quite awhile.

Just for cherry-picking fun... Philly is 2 - 29 vs. the East and 6 - 15 vs. the West.

I was just thinking about how impressive Boston has been, especially with their turnaround, so it's interesting to see this thread.

Of course I'd rather have Towns than anybody on Boston's roster, but on the whole, they're obviously rebuilding MUCH better than we have. Just look at their record and watch some of their games. Comparing us and them is a textbook example of how teams are much more than the sum of their players.

Anybody can be a terrible team, get lucky, and have a chance to draft a good or even great player high in the draft. But that's no guarantee you will build a great TEAM. We're THE case study in the former. How many times have people said we've got our core moving forward after the KG era? Al, Love, Foye, Brewer, Rubio, Beasley, DWill, Flynn, all those freaking picks. And what did we have to show for it? Some of those players were busts, but Love was great statistically, and where did that get us? Even today, we're one of the worst teams in the league and we've got several high picked players going back 3 years now. We all seem pretty happy with a lot of the young guys we've got right now (me too, by the way, with some of them), but let's be honest with ourselves, what have they done for us yet? Not much. I'm really really excited for Towns moving forward, but other than that, I'm pretty much open to anything with this roster.

Boston, by contrast, hasn't had any of the high level picks we've had, and have still managed to turn things around faster and better than us, while still holding onto the future assets they got for Garnett and Pierce. They even committed what some of the hard-core tanking fans on this board think of as the cardinal sin of signing a free agent (Thomas) and he's been great for them. They're proof that you don't need to tank 10 years running and get lucky three drafts in a row to get Durant, Westbrook, and Harden in order to rebuild. We've been trying to do that, and look where it's gotten us so far.

To me, a lot of it comes down to Brad Stevens, but more than that, they've approached rebuilding as a TEAM project, whereas I think too many people treat rebuilding as if it's just a collection of individuals. Too often, we go so far as to call players "pieces" or "parts" which is kind of offensive if you think about it, without thinking about the whole. Do you need great players? Of course. But there's just so much more to it than that. They've re-established a culture of winning pretty quickly in Boston through coaching, player development, front office and team stability, and emphasizing moving the ball and team defense rather than on-on-one individual talent. Kudos to them. We should be thinking more like them, and part of the reason we have been through 10 years of hell now while rebuilding is that we've been approaching rebuilding thinking if we just lose enough games and get enough high draft picks we can assemble an all-star roster. How well has that worked out?

I'm happy with our team moving forward, but we have to be honest with ourselves--tanking for years to rebuild is not the only way or even necessarily the best way to do it.