Minnesota Sports Forum

longstrangetrip wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:I don't want to speak for Lip, Mike, but I think he's looking ahead one year to when we have to pay Wig and Zach...as well as Noel. It's almost impossible to make the math work without letting Gorgui, Belly and Bazz go. Yes, we'd have a great big man rotation for one year, but I don't see how we could keep G in 2017-8.

Zach and Wiggins have two years left on their rookie deals before an extension kicks in. We'd have to pay G and Noel at the same time, but neither are max guys or close it. If G goes out and gets 20 million in free agency then he should be gone anyway because he's not that good. He's not a high end starter. He's a high end backup. We have to stop thinking 3-4 years out when making moves now because anything could happen to change the equation at that time. You build for the next year or two and then figure out the next year or two after that. We're giving out huge contracts to guys 3-4 years before they actually get them and anything can happen between now and then. All we can do is hope they earn those contracts and are healthy when they get them, but neither may be the case so you can't build the team now for 3-4 years from now because too much can change in that much time to change how the team is gonna be built moving forward. What if you build the team assuming Zach is getting a max and he takes 15 per year? You could have spent that extra money on a better player, but you held it for something that never happened. That's dumb. On the other hand if Zach actually earns a max then you move other guys to make room for him. That's how you build. You don't build by holding money for guys. You wait until they earn it and then you make the moves to get it done.

Thx for the correction, khans...I was a year off on end of rookie deals for Wig and Zach. Yes, the Wolves have no cap issues this year and next, but things get dicey in 2018-9. There's a difference of opinion on this board about the wisdom of long-term cap strategy...many subscribe to the theory that you should sign anyone you think can help now, and not worry about implications 3 years out. I acknowledge their basic argument that anything can happen, and that it's foolish to pass on a player because it might cause cap or tax issues in three years. But I think you can prudently add players who are still helpful, but who are less likely to cause you to get rid of core players in three years.

Counter argument, not say I totally believe in what I am going to say but I have been thinking about it a lot lately. Whoever we select with our pick or picks (for trading back) and if the player/s we select is as good as we hope they are, won't we have to pay them also so won't we be put in the same situation just 2 years later dealing with the cap. So is our championship window the 18-19 and 19-20 season with the players still on the rookie deal. If the player/s don't develop like we hope didn't we miss out on acquiring a good young talent.

It also allows the wolves to sign middle tier free agents like Bazemore to a big 2 year deal. And a player like that will come off the books before having to pay wigg and Lavine. And we still would have the rights to noel and dieng

longstrangetrip wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:I don't want to speak for Lip, Mike, but I think he's looking ahead one year to when we have to pay Wig and Zach...as well as Noel. It's almost impossible to make the math work without letting Gorgui, Belly and Bazz go. Yes, we'd have a great big man rotation for one year, but I don't see how we could keep G in 2017-8.

Zach and Wiggins have two years left on their rookie deals before an extension kicks in. We'd have to pay G and Noel at the same time, but neither are max guys or close it. If G goes out and gets 20 million in free agency then he should be gone anyway because he's not that good. He's not a high end starter. He's a high end backup. We have to stop thinking 3-4 years out when making moves now because anything could happen to change the equation at that time. You build for the next year or two and then figure out the next year or two after that. We're giving out huge contracts to guys 3-4 years before they actually get them and anything can happen between now and then. All we can do is hope they earn those contracts and are healthy when they get them, but neither may be the case so you can't build the team now for 3-4 years from now because too much can change in that much time to change how the team is gonna be built moving forward. What if you build the team assuming Zach is getting a max and he takes 15 per year? You could have spent that extra money on a better player, but you held it for something that never happened. That's dumb. On the other hand if Zach actually earns a max then you move other guys to make room for him. That's how you build. You don't build by holding money for guys. You wait until they earn it and then you make the moves to get it done.

Thx for the correction, khans...I was a year off on end of rookie deals for Wig and Zach. Yes, the Wolves have no cap issues this year and next, but things get dicey in 2018-9. There's a difference of opinion on this board about the wisdom of long-term cap strategy...many subscribe to the theory that you should sign anyone you think can help now, and not worry about implications 3 years out. I acknowledge their basic argument that anything can happen, and that it's foolish to pass on a player because it might cause cap or tax issues in three years. But I think you can prudently add players who are still helpful, but who are less likely to cause you to get rid of core players in three years.

There is no move we can make that will force us to get rid of a core player. We can sign Barnes to a 4 year max deal and in three years trade him if we need to in order to keep our big 3. The difference is you guys are trying to build an 8-9 man team for the next 5-10 years and that just doesn't happen. You sign guys and trade guys and draft guys around your core players and those other pieces are likely to change over the years. When you try to build a full team to stay together for the next 5-10 ten years you risk having that group not being good enough to win a title and then what have you accomplished? You're back to square one of needing to make moves to build a team good enough. The Warriors didn't build a team for 5-10 years. They built it for 3-4 peak years around Steph's unbelievable discount (similar to our rookie deals) and now this summer and every summer moving forward they are going to be losing key pieces because they paid Klay, Draymond and will have to pay Steph. Heck they may lose Bogut, Barnes and Ezeli this summer alone. You go for it when your cap situation allows and then you deal with the cap casualties later, but there is nothing that will force us to lose any of Wiggins, Towns and Lavine if we want to keep them all.

Camden wrote:

TheFuture wrote:Everyone is also aware that Noel stalemated or regressed in nearly every category this year, right?

This is not true.

Noel improved his PER, TS%, FTr, TRB%, AST% and stayed the same in STL% from his rookie year to his sophomore year. He dipped a little bit in BLK% and TOV%.

Those are the spots I would say he stalemated in, as he improved very marginally. Less win shares, lower plus/minus, he attempted far less field goals from 3-16 feet this season and kept roughly the same FG % which tells me he hasn't expanded/worked on his offensive game. Overall, he is a net-negative player on the court, a slide from last year.

I think the Noel for #5 trade is the exact kind of trade me need to avoid right now. Don't rush and overpay for a guy that is not worth the 15-20 mil someone will throw at him. I do not want to handcuff this franchise. I don't see how we would win in a trade for Noel. We potentially trade a better player, on a better deal for a guy that we will feel forced to pay whatever this insane market dictates because we gave up the high draft pick. If he had 3 years left, sure i'd do it. That at least allows you to think like a gambling man and you could accept betting on Noel to improve to the point where he's worth the high dollars while also having the option to trade him after a year or two.

I vote to stay the course. Draft young players, grow them here, sign FAs. Isn't that how OKC, GS, and the Spurs all began, and how they stayed relevant? Memphis, Toronto, Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington all have been consistent playoff threats in recent years, and they all built through the draft. Fortunately for us, we have the chance for multiple stars to emerge on this team already. Some of those teams never really had a star to put them over the top, or they are still searching for one.

When you're a team trying to get to the playoffs, it is not best to make a splash that gets you to mediocrity/possibly loses you assets (if you cannot/do not resign Noel). Haven't we seen many teams make trades that took them out of the lottery into the 6-10 seed dog fight, only to have it set them back 5 years? Making the playoffs with talent you reaped from being a lottery dweller is how a market like Minnesota has to build. Once you are in the playoffs with young talent, you turn the FA market into your corner. You get better production value for your cost, and you can sustain success.

We'll just have to add this one to the overflowing container of topics that we disagree about. Two polar opposite viewpoints on how to build a team and the NBA in general.

Camden wrote:We'll just have to add this one to the overflowing container of topics that we disagree about. Two polar opposite viewpoints on how to build a team and the NBA in general.

Maybe we can make it simple. Do you believe KAT's best position is PF?

My bottom line is that we shouldn't give up major talent (Zach, Gorgui, Andrew, KAT) in a trade or pay big free agent money for any established player until after we see how our current core plays through at least the first half of this season under Thibs. I could see giving up our #5 pick for the right player, but I'm reluctant to do that because I like the talent that will be available at #5 and I love the rookie salary scale (amount and duration) as a hedge against cap risk down the road.

This summer, we should be focused on two things. First focus should be on getting the best player or players possible in the draft -- which might include trading down in a 1 pick for 2 picks deal. I lean towards Hield because it's highly likely he'll be a great long-range shooter (one of our key needs) and he looks close to NBA ready so he can hit the ground running. I also like Murray and Dunn. Trading down and landing Sabonis along with another prospect is also intriguing. Second focus should be on augmenting our depth by acquiring mid-tier veteran bench players like one or two of the following: Cole Aldrich, Jamal Crawford, Bazemore, etc.

If we do more than what I've suggested, I could live with a big money free agent acquisition like Noah, Deng or Horford. But I would absolutely, positively not trade any of our core young players or our #5 pick for a high-priced veteran -- even for Noel.

TheFuture wrote:

Camden wrote:We'll just have to add this one to the overflowing container of topics that we disagree about. Two polar opposite viewpoints on how to build a team and the NBA in general.

Maybe we can make it simple. Do you believe KAT's best position is PF?

For the thousandth time, Towns' position doesn't matter. He's a superstar power forward or he's a superstar center. Players of his caliber are going to be great regardless of position labeling. That's like me saying, "Is LeBron James a SF or PF? Is Tim Duncan a PF or C? Is Larry Bird a SF or PF? Is Allen Iverson a PG or SG?" In the end, it doesn't matter because you can play a great player, a versatile player, next to anyone.

Camden wrote:

TheFuture wrote:

Camden wrote:We'll just have to add this one to the overflowing container of topics that we disagree about. Two polar opposite viewpoints on how to build a team and the NBA in general.

Maybe we can make it simple. Do you believe KAT's best position is PF?

For the thousandth time, Towns' position doesn't matter. He's a superstar power forward or he's a superstar center. Players of his caliber are going to be great regardless of position labeling. That's like me saying, "Is LeBron James a SF or PF? Is Tim Duncan a PF or C? Is Larry Bird a SF or PF? Is Allen Iverson a PG or SG?" In the end, it doesn't matter because you can play a great player, a versatile player, next to anyone.

I guess you're right that Towns position in itself isn't the matter, but keeping that flexibility does matter. Noel ruins the mismatch potential. Noel looks like a great fit on paper, but I do not see it. With KAT playing Center you have the capability to pull the opposing teams likely best rim protector away from the paint. Dieng, or any other big with a mid range offensive game, being paired with Towns allows them to do that to both opposing bigs whenever they please. Add Noel here and he's parking down on the block and so is the opposing teams big.

I agree with Cam on the relative non-importance of position. I think that reality has become increasingly clear in the last 5 years. To the extent position matters at all it matters solely on the defensive end. But even then, defense depends primarily on skill set, matchups and team defensive concept. Iverson was small, but was not a defensive liability for the Sixers at SG. Iverson's quickness and ability to force turnovers, coupled with good team defense and his defensive-minded backcourt mate made it all work.

My larger theme is that it's not about position or even size. It's about skill-set and productivity. For example, rebounding is a critical element of a successful NBA team. To that end, I don't look at how big a player is. Instead, I look at a player's rebounding skills and track record as a rebounder. Terrific rebounders like Kevin Love, Al Horford, Paul Millsap and Kenneth Faried are good examples. None of these guys is particularly long yet they are all great rebounders. Horford is generally considered very small for a NBA center, yet he's been highly successful playing center.

The smart front office executives are the ones who talk about needs in terms of skill-set, production and ability rather than size and position. Thibs was quoted recently saying the Wolves need to improve their size, toughness and three-point shooting. I like his focus on toughness and shooting as two outcome-oriented attributes -- i.e, you exhibit toughness or shooting prowess on the court. It's a function of how you play, not your size or position. Few players have been as big as Darko, but I'm hard pressed to find a softer player or a less productive one. Iverson was one of the smallest players to ever play, but also one of the toughest.

So my message to Thibs is to reexamine his focus on size and instead focus his player evaluation skill-sets and character. Or more specifically for us on shooting, rebounding, shot-blocking, defensive stats as measured by a player's track record of production. Then look at toughness, IQ and character as part of a more subjective analysis. Position and size should be the last thing to look at on the margins.

No, Noel creates a mismatch while also erasing a possible mismatch for the opposition. Teams can't go small against a frontcourt pairing of Noel and Towns. Both are more than mobile enough to guard on the perimeter while losing nothing in rebounding and transition defense. Imagine Harrison Barnes or Andre Iguodala trying to keep Noel or Towns off the glass. Good luck.

The opposition can and often does go small against Dieng and Towns. Why? Because Dieng isn't good at defending in space. If the opposition gets Dieng in a position where he has to guard on the perimeter, it's a definitive advantage for them. That's mainly why the Wolves couldn't play him at various points in the season when teams went small.

I appreciate Dieng's ability to space the floor from 18 feet and the potential to one day hit corner threes. It does bring some flexibility on offense. However, that does not outweigh the defensive flexibility that Noel would bring, especially under Thibodeau's tutelage where bigs are often supposed to ICE the P&R and recover to their big while the other half of the floor rotates. This is much easier to accomplish when your bigs are light on their feet, capable of closing out, guarding the three-point line.

Having two bigs with the potential to be DPOY candidates is a huge advantage that no other team possesses. I want that advantage. I want a core with an identity of being damn near impossible to score 100 against, even in this era of basketball. I think that's more achievable with Noel starting next to Towns for the foreseeable future.

This does not mean that I want to kick Dieng out the door, BUT if we're being honest with ourselves, that's inevitable at some point.