Minnesota Sports Forum

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

worldK wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I have two major concerns with the supposed big 3. First, each one of them is a lightweight relative to their position and they are easily pushed around. Second is the redundancy between Zach and Wig.

When your best players are so soft, it gives me pause as to how effective they can become. They need to be surrounded by a bunch of Pek's or Matt Barnes types and we don't really have any of those guys. And it's becoming increasingly evident that both Andrew and Zach are shooting guards. Unless Zach could somehow manage to play large minutes at the 1, it's hard to see these two playing a ton of minutes next to each other while both being net positives. They are completely different players in their styles, but yet they need to occupy the same position on the floor. It's a problem.

I see your point but i believe that wig and zach can co exist better in the future than they are doing now( they actually do okay now) The main problem is both being underweight in their positions. They are 21 yrs old so we should give them a few more years to grow into their body. On offense, they actually compliment each other well.

Its the defense, tougness and rebounding that is the problem with them. Ideally, we would want 1 wing that is elite at defense or an above average rebounder at the wing and is tough which neither one are at the moment. But its still too early. I believe wiggins and lavine can eventually be plus defenders at their position. What makes me hesitate to give up on either one is that both have the talent to be elite at their positions in due time. Both are gymrats, hard workers and good guys who improved every year. No reason to think they cant reach their full potential.

The solution is to add toughness around them and towns. Rubio and dieng while they compete hard are lightweights themselves at their positions. Its easier said than done to surround the core 3 with tough guys but i will rather go that route than having to choose between wiggins and lavine now when we dont have to.

Sorry to be debbie downer... but can't it be argued that a really high percentage of NBA players actually never reach their full potential?

I think it's dangerous to assume all three of the Big 3 are going to improve significantly and reach their potential while jelling on and off the court... it's wishful thinking. It's possible. And things would be great if they did.

But it's actually very rare to have happen to 3 guys entering the NBA simultaneously.

monsterpile wrote:I'll say it again Wiggins has plenty of physical ability to be a SF on both sides of the ball.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:I'll say it again Wiggins has plenty of physical ability to be a SF on both sides of the ball.

I don't know Monster. I realize Leonard is the best of the best, but that game illustrated how far Andrew has to go to be a physical presence at SF. He shies away from just about all contact and just doesn't seem to have the strength necessary to hold his own. Offensively he can play either wing position with relative ease. But he should be more of a difference maker on defense. He just doesn't engage enough physically.

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

worldK wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I have two major concerns with the supposed big 3. First, each one of them is a lightweight relative to their position and they are easily pushed around. Second is the redundancy between Zach and Wig.

When your best players are so soft, it gives me pause as to how effective they can become. They need to be surrounded by a bunch of Pek's or Matt Barnes types and we don't really have any of those guys. And it's becoming increasingly evident that both Andrew and Zach are shooting guards. Unless Zach could somehow manage to play large minutes at the 1, it's hard to see these two playing a ton of minutes next to each other while both being net positives. They are completely different players in their styles, but yet they need to occupy the same position on the floor. It's a problem.

I see your point but i believe that wig and zach can co exist better in the future than they are doing now( they actually do okay now) The main problem is both being underweight in their positions. They are 21 yrs old so we should give them a few more years to grow into their body. On offense, they actually compliment each other well.

Its the defense, tougness and rebounding that is the problem with them. Ideally, we would want 1 wing that is elite at defense or an above average rebounder at the wing and is tough which neither one are at the moment. But its still too early. I believe wiggins and lavine can eventually be plus defenders at their position. What makes me hesitate to give up on either one is that both have the talent to be elite at their positions in due time. Both are gymrats, hard workers and good guys who improved every year. No reason to think they cant reach their full potential.

The solution is to add toughness around them and towns. Rubio and dieng while they compete hard are lightweights themselves at their positions. Its easier said than done to surround the core 3 with tough guys but i will rather go that route than having to choose between wiggins and lavine now when we dont have to.

Sorry to be debbie downer... but can't it be argued that a really high percentage of NBA players actually never reach their full potential?

I think it's dangerous to assume all three of the Big 3 are going to improve significantly and reach their potential while jelling on and off the court... it's wishful thinking. It's possible. And things would be great if they did.

But it's actually very rare to have happen to 3 guys entering the NBA simultaneously.

Abe I think there is a difference in believing it will happen and making an assumption that it will. I believe there is a good chance it happens. You are right though it's not certain. We hope this is more of a Spurs type deal where all those guys stay around sacrifice for each other. It could easily end up as an OKC situation where the guys end up reaching their potential (maybe not tot he level of those guys) but now all 3 MVP caliber players are playing for a different team. I am going to enjoy watching this team unfold instead of worrying about which guy should move on. It's a luxury to actually have talent. Let's enjoy it.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Kris Dunn may turn out to be a fine player, but my suspicions that we weren't getting great value at the #5 draft position look realized. That hurts. If we pick in the top 5 again this year, you can't come out of it with another Dunn. Those high picks need to count. Thibs is zero for one as far as I'm concerned as a drafter.

kekgeek1 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Kris Dunn may turn out to be a fine player, but my suspicions that we weren't getting great value at the #5 draft position look realized. That hurts. If we pick in the top 5 again this year, you can't come out of it with another Dunn. Those high picks need to count. Thibs is zero for one as far as I'm concerned as a drafter.

https://theringer.com/jamal-murray-vs-buddy-hield-191c24ba83f4#.hy6rzobwi

"The changing sentiments toward these two is instructive. We are too quick to judge young players. Jabari Parker was pegged as a floor-suffocating forward and now he's shooting 42.1 percent on a high volume of 3s. Austin Rivers looked like an absolute dud, then turned his career around with the Clippers. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope looked like a journeyman, and now he's geared for a big payday as a valued 3-and-D wing. Kemba Walker was labeled a good-not-great point guard, but now he's a potential All-Star. The examples are endless.

Growth isn't linear, especially for NBA rookies. Hield and Murray are just the two latest examples of how we must let the story write itself before we make all-encompassing judgments about their fates as pros."

There are other players like otto porter, jimmy butler, Gordon haywood, cj Mccullum, who weren't good as rookies.

Don't give up on him yet, he has a skill that will keep him in the NBA for a long time

kekgeek1 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Kris Dunn may turn out to be a fine player, but my suspicions that we weren't getting great value at the #5 draft position look realized. That hurts. If we pick in the top 5 again this year, you can't come out of it with another Dunn. Those high picks need to count. Thibs is zero for one as far as I'm concerned as a drafter.

https://theringer.com/jamal-murray-vs-buddy-hield-191c24ba83f4#.hy6rzobwi

"The changing sentiments toward these two is instructive. We are too quick to judge young players. Jabari Parker was pegged as a floor-suffocating forward and now he's shooting 42.1 percent on a high volume of 3s. Austin Rivers looked like an absolute dud, then turned his career around with the Clippers. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope looked like a journeyman, and now he's geared for a big payday as a valued 3-and-D wing. Kemba Walker was labeled a good-not-great point guard, but now he's a potential All-Star. The examples are endless.

Growth isn't linear, especially for NBA rookies. Hield and Murray are just the two latest examples of how we must let the story write itself before we make all-encompassing judgments about their fates as pros."

There are other players like otto porter, jimmy butler, Gordon haywood, cj Mccullum, who weren't good as rookies.

Don't give up on him yet, he has a skill that will keep him in the NBA for a long time

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Kris Dunn may turn out to be a fine player, but my suspicions that we weren't getting great value at the #5 draft position look realized. That hurts. If we pick in the top 5 again this year, you can't come out of it with another Dunn. Those high picks need to count. Thibs is zero for one as far as I'm concerned as a drafter.

https://theringer.com/jamal-murray-vs-buddy-hield-191c24ba83f4#.hy6rzobwi

"The changing sentiments toward these two is instructive. We are too quick to judge young players. Jabari Parker was pegged as a floor-suffocating forward and now he's shooting 42.1 percent on a high volume of 3s. Austin Rivers looked like an absolute dud, then turned his career around with the Clippers. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope looked like a journeyman, and now he's geared for a big payday as a valued 3-and-D wing. Kemba Walker was labeled a good-not-great point guard, but now he's a potential All-Star. The examples are endless.

Growth isn't linear, especially for NBA rookies. Hield and Murray are just the two latest examples of how we must let the story write itself before we make all-encompassing judgments about their fates as pros."

There are other players like otto porter, jimmy butler, Gordon haywood, cj Mccullum, who weren't good as rookies.

Don't give up on him yet, he has a skill that will keep him in the NBA for a long time

I said he could turn out to be a fine player. But I'm confident he's never going to be considered a homerun at the #5 pick. He's older than our core 3 guys and miles behind every one of them. At this point I hope he can be a starter someday, but the jury is out on that for now.

monsterpile wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Kris Dunn may turn out to be a fine player, but my suspicions that we weren't getting great value at the #5 draft position look realized. That hurts. If we pick in the top 5 again this year, you can't come out of it with another Dunn. Those high picks need to count. Thibs is zero for one as far as I'm concerned as a drafter.

https://theringer.com/jamal-murray-vs-buddy-hield-191c24ba83f4#.hy6rzobwi

"The changing sentiments toward these two is instructive. We are too quick to judge young players. Jabari Parker was pegged as a floor-suffocating forward and now he's shooting 42.1 percent on a high volume of 3s. Austin Rivers looked like an absolute dud, then turned his career around with the Clippers. Kentavious Caldwell-Pope looked like a journeyman, and now he's geared for a big payday as a valued 3-and-D wing. Kemba Walker was labeled a good-not-great point guard, but now he's a potential All-Star. The examples are endless.

Growth isn't linear, especially for NBA rookies. Hield and Murray are just the two latest examples of how we must let the story write itself before we make all-encompassing judgments about their fates as pros."

There are other players like otto porter, jimmy butler, Gordon haywood, cj Mccullum, who weren't good as rookies.

Don't give up on him yet, he has a skill that will keep him in the NBA for a long time

I said he could turn out to be a fine player. But I'm confident he's never going to be considered a homerun at the #5 pick. He's older than our core 3 guys and miles behind every one of them. At this point I hope he can be a starter someday, but the jury is out on that for now.

I get where you are coming from now and I agree with your assessment. I wanted to go for a HR eithbthe pick but if you can get a double even out of the #5 pick that can be ok espcially with the Wolves top end talent without him. It usually (some teams still overcome it) really hurts when you have those high picks out of the league a few years later or just bench players bouncing around the league.