Minnesota Sports Forum

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Continuity is usually very important for a team. As much as Garnett could conceivably help when he plays... how much damage does it cause when he's out?

How would it be any more damaging than a Rubio or Pek injury or any injury for that matter? It's not a good enough reason to criticize the move to keep him because you could literally make that argument for every player on every team in the league. Also if a guy plays 20 MPG's and your team is dealt significant damage when that player is out then your team isn't good enough for it to matter enough whether he should or shouldn't be brought back. It's a big reach to insinuate we shouldn't bring him back because his 20+ missed games is seriously going to hurt our continuity when we are going to be bad anyway.

Let's be reasonably positive and say KG plays 20mpg in 55 games and in those games he gives you what you expect top level defense some rebounding highly functional on offense because of his passing and knowing what to do. Plus some vet leadership. Name a FA that you could get for the mid-level that would impact the team that much. It's rare any team ever gets someone that good at that pay slot assuming he doesn't get more than that and I know a lot of people here don't want to pay him that much. I am not saying that as a KG homer just realistic about the FAs teams usually get. It doesn't hurt he is the best player to ever play for the franchise and a no brainer future hall of famer an IMO one of the best all around players to ever play the game or at least for sure in my lifetime.

monsterpile wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Continuity is usually very important for a team. As much as Garnett could conceivably help when he plays... how much damage does it cause when he's out?

How would it be any more damaging than a Rubio or Pek injury or any injury for that matter? It's not a good enough reason to criticize the move to keep him because you could literally make that argument for every player on every team in the league. Also if a guy plays 20 MPG's and your team is dealt significant damage when that player is out then your team isn't good enough for it to matter enough whether he should or shouldn't be brought back. It's a big reach to insinuate we shouldn't bring him back because his 20+ missed games is seriously going to hurt our continuity when we are going to be bad anyway.

Let's be reasonably positive and say KG plays 20mpg in 55 games and in those games he gives you what you expect top level defense some rebounding highly functional on offense because of his passing and knowing what to do. Plus some vet leadership. Name a FA that you could get for the mid-level that would impact the team that much. It's rare any team ever gets someone that good at that pay slot assuming he doesn't get more than that and I know a lot of people here don't want to pay him that much. I am not saying that as a KG homer just realistic about the FAs teams usually get. It doesn't hurt he is the best player to ever play for the franchise and a no brainer future hall of famer an IMO one of the best all around players to ever play the game or at least for sure in my lifetime.

I'm fine with bringing him back. I don't buy into the BS that we could bring in someone who could positively affect the team significantly more than him at or below his price point for the short and long-term. I think training camp is going to be way better with KG in camp than a replacement player because he is an extension of the coach on the floor. You need guys who know and buy into the coaches system to help everyone get on board and run it well and he knows the system very well.

khans2k5 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Continuity is usually very important for a team. As much as Garnett could conceivably help when he plays... how much damage does it cause when he's out?

How would it be any more damaging than a Rubio or Pek injury or any injury for that matter? It's not a good enough reason to criticize the move to keep him because you could literally make that argument for every player on every team in the league. Also if a guy plays 20 MPG's and your team is dealt significant damage when that player is out then your team isn't good enough for it to matter enough whether he should or shouldn't be brought back. It's a big reach to insinuate we shouldn't bring him back because his 20+ missed games is seriously going to hurt our continuity when we are going to be bad anyway.

Let's be reasonably positive and say KG plays 20mpg in 55 games and in those games he gives you what you expect top level defense some rebounding highly functional on offense because of his passing and knowing what to do. Plus some vet leadership. Name a FA that you could get for the mid-level that would impact the team that much. It's rare any team ever gets someone that good at that pay slot assuming he doesn't get more than that and I know a lot of people here don't want to pay him that much. I am not saying that as a KG homer just realistic about the FAs teams usually get. It doesn't hurt he is the best player to ever play for the franchise and a no brainer future hall of famer an IMO one of the best all around players to ever play the game or at least for sure in my lifetime.

I'm fine with bringing him back. I don't buy into the BS that we could bring in someone who could positively affect the team significantly more than him at or below his price point for the short and long-term. I think training camp is going to be way better with KG in camp than a replacement player because he is an extension of the coach on the floor. You need guys who know and buy into the coaches system to help everyone get on board and run it well and he knows the system very well.

Yes. The Wolves will probably be better with Garnett than some of the other guys they could bring in instead of him. But that's for only about 25% of the available minutes. As I said from the beginning...

Is his "backup" (Payne/Bennett/Dieng) going to be better than the guy they could have brought in for the other 75%?

I guess the team needs to figure out if those guys are going to develop anyway... so what's the harm in one more really crappy season while we figure it out. MAYBE... Garnett helps one of them break through.

We should bring Chauncey Billups back to be backup point guard. He's a mentor. He wouldn't play in the majority of the games either. He's an extension of the coach. He knows the system. And guess what? He's the same age as Kevin Garnett. It's perfect. Now we can have two mentors! Double the mentoring!

(read this with sarcasm)

Camden0916 wrote:We should bring Chauncey Billups back to be backup point guard. He's a mentor. He wouldn't play in the majority of the games either. He's an extension of the coach. He knows the system. And guess what? He's the same age as Kevin Garnett. It's perfect. Now we can have two mentors! Double the mentoring!

(read this with sarcasm)

You're right. Guards age the same in the NBA as bigs. That's why they always play longer right? You're delusional if you think KG's tank is completely empty and he is a waste of a roster spot.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Continuity is usually very important for a team. As much as Garnett could conceivably help when he plays... how much damage does it cause when he's out?

How would it be any more damaging than a Rubio or Pek injury or any injury for that matter? It's not a good enough reason to criticize the move to keep him because you could literally make that argument for every player on every team in the league. Also if a guy plays 20 MPG's and your team is dealt significant damage when that player is out then your team isn't good enough for it to matter enough whether he should or shouldn't be brought back. It's a big reach to insinuate we shouldn't bring him back because his 20+ missed games is seriously going to hurt our continuity when we are going to be bad anyway.

Let's be reasonably positive and say KG plays 20mpg in 55 games and in those games he gives you what you expect top level defense some rebounding highly functional on offense because of his passing and knowing what to do. Plus some vet leadership. Name a FA that you could get for the mid-level that would impact the team that much. It's rare any team ever gets someone that good at that pay slot assuming he doesn't get more than that and I know a lot of people here don't want to pay him that much. I am not saying that as a KG homer just realistic about the FAs teams usually get. It doesn't hurt he is the best player to ever play for the franchise and a no brainer future hall of famer an IMO one of the best all around players to ever play the game or at least for sure in my lifetime.

I'm fine with bringing him back. I don't buy into the BS that we could bring in someone who could positively affect the team significantly more than him at or below his price point for the short and long-term. I think training camp is going to be way better with KG in camp than a replacement player because he is an extension of the coach on the floor. You need guys who know and buy into the coaches system to help everyone get on board and run it well and he knows the system very well.

Yes. The Wolves will probably be better with Garnett than some of the other guys they could bring in instead of him. But that's for only about 25% of the available minutes. As I said from the beginning...

Is his "backup" (Payne/Bennett/Dieng) going to be better than the guy they could have brought in for the other 75%?

I guess the team needs to figure out if those guys are going to develop anyway... so what's the harm in one more really crappy season while we figure it out. MAYBE... Garnett helps one of them break through.

Abe you make a good point but I will say this whoever they bring in (theoretically instead of KG) may not be much of an upgrade over whatever young crappy PF plays those minutes. Most FAs that are cheap don't help you all that much which is why when you can get and keep a cheap guy like Hummel it's a good deal. Also I do think having a few games a year when a young guys gets a little more opportunity can be seen as a reasonable positive especially when it with KG not playing on back to backs much of at all it will be more predicable than an injury prone guy you don't know when he will miss. Hopefully that made sense.

Camden0916 wrote:

BizarroJerry wrote:I won't allow AB to become Derrick Williams part deux. New coach has to turn him into a good player for us. Just shoot 3s and get boards.

For the thousandth time on this board, Anthony Bennett can't make threes. I'd rather him not shoot from the perimeter at all, actually. Better yet, pass the ball. Get it out of his hands.

At this point Cam I will take whatever I can get out him that's positive and he looks like he has that range to me. If he shows some range good maybe he can shoot from there and help in that way or maybe trick a team into thinking he can be a stretch 4 and take him off our hands. What's the worst thing that could happen if he fails at shooting 3's? Not much so I'd give him the green light. If he is on the roster next year I want to see him fail or show me something. I'm not planning on anything worthwhile but yeah. I'm saying that and I think you know I would even consider cutting him if I was the GM.

Ok I have what I would do as GM.

Coach. Search for the best candidate possible. My fallback option is Mike Malone.

Explore any trades for Bennet and Payne. If there were none I would consider replacing them in one way or another on the roster via FA 2nd round pick d-league guys whatever. I would bring in competition for them at training amp and if someone really looked better. See ya. More likely to keep Payne because he is cheaper.

Resign KG for no more than the league average per for 2 years player option on the 2nd year.

Be open to trades for both Bud and Martin it would take something good to move Martin I'd give up Bud for something maybe not just give him away so a 2nd rounder depending be on what the cap situation was and who else I was able to move.

Sign NB from Europe. I assume a typical contract 5 million per for 3 years. Seems like the going rate for someone of his resume.

Resign Hummel to a very cheap 2 year deal.

Be aggressive trying to find a solid at least 3 year vet PG. They seem to come cheap since it's so deep so I'm sure I could find someone at the very least decent and better than say Lorenzo Brown who I might still being to TC

Draft BPA wherever I landed (hoping that we get Towns)get a Eurostash with one 2nd rounder.

I would be on Ed Davis's doorstep the minute FA started.

Nothing earth shattering there and some of what I said I would do could change if I was able to make a trade for a rotation player or who I draft etc. Just looking at what a few teams have on the books for next year I don't know if there are to many trade options but who knows. Some teams have a lot of money available so that could make for an interesting offseason. There could be some good bargain signings.

If Bjelica comes over, we have a logjam at PF: KG, Bjelica, Dieng, Payne, and Bennett. Of course, KG will play 25% or less of the minutes and one or two of the others will inevitably get hurt, so may be it works out. I'm not sure what this does for your dreams of Ed Davis Cam. My "pet" not-so-expensive free agent PF is LaVoy Allen.

By they way, Bjelica is rebounding the hell out of the basketball this season in Euroleague....Not sure what's up. His rebounding numbers have been steadily rising the last couple of years, but this year it took a dramatic leap higher. That's pretty rare for a guy who is 27, so I'm not sure what's driving it. It's quite a contrast to the guy that many viewed as a finesse hybrid forward when he was first drafted all those years ago.

Q, it may go something like this:

"we're having a little PF contest during training camp. The first place is a starting job, you wanna see 2nd prize? It's a set of steak knives. 3rd place and down you're fired. Oh, do I have your attention now?"