Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:I can't get really behind Gallo for the price he'll command on the open market. He provides scoring and floor spacing at a premium position (SF/PF), which is nice, but I fail to see how he helps fix any of the Wolves problems, such as team defense and rebounding on the defensive end. Gallo is weak at both facets of the game. That's not even mentioning his inability to stay healthy for more than 60 or so games per year.

I'm sure he's not everybody's cup of tea. But Thibs said our first need is shooting, and that's what he's going to give you. Would go a longs ways toward solving our biggest problem as the head coach sees it.

My only reservation about Gallo is his injury history. And it's a big reservation. Gallo has played 80+ games in only one of his 8 seasons and you have to go way back to his second season for that. He's played 70+ games in only one of his last 6 seasons and that season it was only 71 games. Otherwise, his games played fall in the 43-63 range. It's a gigantic red flag. I wouldn't take the risk.

For the same money, I'd go after Redick even though I'm not crazy about paying him $18 million + per year.

lipoli390 wrote:My only reservation about Gallo is his injury history. And it's a big reservation. Gallo has played 80+ games in only one of his 8 seasons and you have to go way back to his second season for that. He's played 70+ games in only one of his last 6 seasons and that season it was only 71 games. Otherwise, his games played fall in the 43-63 range. It's a gigantic red flag. I wouldn't take the risk.

For the same money, I'd go after Redick even though I'm not crazy about paying him $18 million + per year.

Reddick for 18 million would be a disaster. He showed in the Jazz series how limited his game is. He's ok defensively, but he's not stopping anyone and he can't create anything off the dribble. Neither he nor Zach can play PG or SF so the minutes distribution would be a problem as well. Yes shooting is a priority, but it has to come from more than just the SG position. You just have to get more for that much money or the guy needs to be a positional fit here like 3/4.

lipoli390 wrote:Another thought. If the Spurs really do pursue Chris Paul, they'll have to clear a lot of cap space. That would put Dedmon in play as a possible FA for the Wolves. Thibs has identified interior defense and shot-blocking as to major needs and Dedmon would help there.

Again on Tucker. As Cool said, he's on the backside of an average career. I'll add that his career is one of intangibles. So hard to know exactly what you're getting. There are better choices that give us tangibles that we really need -- like Redick and his 3-point shooting. There are cheaper alternative defensive specialists on the backsides of average careers -- like Sefalosha. There are needle-moving vets like Millsap and Ibaka who will be max or near max players.

Lip, what makes you think that Sefolosha would be cheaper than Tucker? They are almost same age and Thabo has been valuable contributor in really good teams while this was the first time Tucker even played in playoffs. Thabo has been also better defender all the time based on all defensive metrics. Tucker is better rebounder tough but I don't see that teams would value his rebounding so much that he would be more expensive than Thabo.

Mikkeman wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:Another thought. If the Spurs really do pursue Chris Paul, they'll have to clear a lot of cap space. That would put Dedmon in play as a possible FA for the Wolves. Thibs has identified interior defense and shot-blocking as to major needs and Dedmon would help there.

Again on Tucker. As Cool said, he's on the backside of an average career. I'll add that his career is one of intangibles. So hard to know exactly what you're getting. There are better choices that give us tangibles that we really need -- like Redick and his 3-point shooting. There are cheaper alternative defensive specialists on the backsides of average careers -- like Sefalosha. There are needle-moving vets like Millsap and Ibaka who will be max or near max players.

Lip, what makes you think that Sefolosha would be cheaper than Tucker? They are almost same age and Thabo has been valuable contributor in really good teams while this was the first time Tucker even played in playoffs. Thabo has been also better defender all the time based on all defensive metrics. Tucker is better rebounder tough but I don't see that teams would value his rebounding so much that he would be more expensive than Thabo.

Mikkeman -- There seems to be a lot more hype surrounding Tucker than Sefalosha. Maybe it's his rebounding, I'm not sure. But there's been a lot more buzz about Tucker than Selalosha. That's why I see Tucker commanding a bigger contract. If I'm wrong and they'd end up costing the same, I'd still opt for Selalosha mainly because he can play SG as well as SF. Getting a SG is critical in my view because Zach may not be ready to start the season and ultimately he may help the team more in a 6th-man role.

I suspect that Tucker will cost $15 million per year. I see Sefalosha costing closer to the $10-12 million per year range. Sounds like Redick will cost around $18 million per year. If that's right, I'd opt for Sefalosha and use the money save on another free agent. My next choice would be Redick because he can fill the gap at SG and you know he'll significantly upgrade our 3-point shooting. None of these choices are ideal. I'd still rather take a shot at Millsap or Ibaka and failing to get one of those two I'd go after younger FAs with remaining upside.

lipoli390 wrote:My only reservation about Gallo is his injury history. And it's a big reservation. Gallo has played 80+ games in only one of his 8 seasons and you have to go way back to his second season for that. He's played 70+ games in only one of his last 6 seasons and that season it was only 71 games. Otherwise, his games played fall in the 43-63 range. It's a gigantic red flag. I wouldn't take the risk.

For the same money, I'd go after Redick even though I'm not crazy about paying him $18 million + per year.

I agree about having reservations about his injury history. However, it's probably going to keep his cost down a bit. I think you need to turn him from a 30+ minute player to a 25 minute player. Hopefully with the less wear and tear he can suit up for 70 games again.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:My only reservation about Gallo is his injury history. And it's a big reservation. Gallo has played 80+ games in only one of his 8 seasons and you have to go way back to his second season for that. He's played 70+ games in only one of his last 6 seasons and that season it was only 71 games. Otherwise, his games played fall in the 43-63 range. It's a gigantic red flag. I wouldn't take the risk.

For the same money, I'd go after Redick even though I'm not crazy about paying him $18 million + per year.

I agree about having reservations about his injury history. However, it's probably going to keep his cost down a bit. I think you need to turn him from a 30+ minute player to a 25 minute player. Hopefully with the less wear and tear he can suit up for 70 games again.

This reminds me of the hopeful posts on this board in the past about AK and Martin staying healthy. get where you are going Cool but it's hard to get on board and I like Gallo. If you really look at his shooting percentages...they really aren't that great. Now if you want to get into hypothetical stuff maybe he is better playing fewer minutes and as a lower option...or maybe if he isn't a scorer he isn't that good of a player. Idk it's all hypothetical and I havent watched enough games to make a take farther than what I have seen and can glean from the stats in front of me.

monsterpile wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:My only reservation about Gallo is his injury history. And it's a big reservation. Gallo has played 80+ games in only one of his 8 seasons and you have to go way back to his second season for that. He's played 70+ games in only one of his last 6 seasons and that season it was only 71 games. Otherwise, his games played fall in the 43-63 range. It's a gigantic red flag. I wouldn't take the risk.

For the same money, I'd go after Redick even though I'm not crazy about paying him $18 million + per year.

I agree about having reservations about his injury history. However, it's probably going to keep his cost down a bit. I think you need to turn him from a 30+ minute player to a 25 minute player. Hopefully with the less wear and tear he can suit up for 70 games again.

This reminds me of the hopeful posts on this board in the past about AK and Martin staying healthy. get where you are going Cool but it's hard to get on board and I like Gallo. If you really look at his shooting percentages...they really aren't that great. Now if you want to get into hypothetical stuff maybe he is better playing fewer minutes and as a lower option...or maybe if he isn't a scorer he isn't that good of a player. Idk it's all hypothetical and I havent watched enough games to make a take farther than what I have seen and can glean from the stats in front of me.

Honestly we will really never know unless we take that chance on someone. Yes Gallo might be a disaster and play 40 games per year, but the risk of adding his shooting might be worth it. Shooting is a need, period. A lot of people questioned Houston for signing 2 injury prone players in Anderson and Gordon both of which had played 70 or more games in a season once before playing 72, and 75 this year.

If we could get Gallo for sub 20 I'd be on board.

I"m scared to death of our 3 point free agent jinx though especially when it comes to guys who have absolutely torched us in years past. I'm looking at you MIke MIller