Rubio Plays Squash (the trade rumors)

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

So....The veteran leader of the Wolves...the current best player..our PG who is a top rebounder/assist/steals/intensity at his position in the league, whose on/off court numbers clearly state his value...you think we should shop him because he is a poor shooter, even though he takes less than 10 shots a game and makes everyone around him better. He's literally 1 made shot away per game from being considered a solid shooter for his position. I find it hard to believe people can't wrap their heads around the idea that he can make that up in other areas of his game. I think the fact that there's a lot of elite level point guards doesn't make Rubio more expendable, but rather more valuable...because you need a PG in this day and age..and we saw what happens when you've got JJ/Flynn/etc running the show as your starter...all the sudden it doesn't feel like PGs are plentiful.

Is he worth trading for the rights to draft Russell? Some think it's a no brainer, and I'd be tempted, because I think Russell has considerable upside and I really see him becoming very good in the NBA, but it's certainly not a slam dunk, and it'd set out team back further rather than powering our team forward, at least in the short term. We all saw what happens with the Baby Bulls..and that's basically what we'd be putting together. It'd be a consideration, but it's still giving up a known GOOD player for an guy who could be a star, or could be a bust...and even if he's a star, he still might be the 7th best PG in the NBA...so is it worth the gamble to move up 5 slots at PG in 4 years? I'm not sure.

That's the dumbest statement in a while. Watch the games man

I'm not exactly sure why hockey's statement is dumb. Rubio made 3.5 out of 10 shots per game last year for a poor 35%. Hockey said that if he made just one more shot per game, he would be considered a solid shooter, and I don't think that contention can be questioned. One more make per game would put Ricky at a very respectable 45%, and combined with his superb passing, rebounding and defensive skills, would make him an elite PG.

It's a very simplistic take.

Maybe, but I also think it is simplistic to focus so much on Ricky's shooting percentage, when he does so much more for the team and just one more made shot in 36 minutes of play could label him a very good shooter. For the same reason, people who really understand baseball don't focus much on batting average, because 2 hits a week can mean the difference between an all-star and an average player. Ricky's value is apparent more in on/off stats, or even more simplistically, winning percentage depending on whether he is injured or not. Entirely too much time is spent on this board analyzing Ricky's shooting percentage, as if that is the primary way in which his contribution should be measured.

[SameOldNudityDrew]

We should be open to trading nearly anyone for the right deal, including Rubio. That "right deal" simply isn't going to happen this offseason unless Minnesota is willing to trade him for 50-cents on the dollar.

He's an elite role-playing PG. Most contending teams have elite role players in the starting lineup: Jason Kidd with Dallas; Ben Wallace with Detroit; Derek Fisher with the Lakers; Dennis Rodman with the Bulls.

There is absolutely no reason he can't quarterback a team to contending status. He definitely needs a couple of high-usage scorers as wingmen, but I think some of the guys we've got have that potential.

First of all, I love the idea of an elite role player. It seems like an oxymoron, though it rings true. So how do we define that? Q's examples give two possible definitions.

I'd say Kidd with Dallas was well-rounded but not a star anymore, and Fisher wasn't really great at any one thing, but he was solid at pretty much everything and most importantly, he was a perfect fit for the system. Neither really had any weaknesses. So that could be one definition of an elite role player. A guy who's all-around good, and maybe a great fit for the system, but no glaring weaknesses.

By that definition, Rubio doesn't quite fit because of his weak shooting.

But Wallace and Rodman give us another possible definition. Wallace was TERRIBLE at several things (shooting, ball handling, passing, offense in general), but he was a legitimately elite rebounder and shot-blocker for a while (leading the league in both in 2002 and in rebounds in 2003) and maybe more impressively he was DPOY 4 out of 5 years there. He averaged over 15 rebounds per year there for a year, and the only guy to do that since was Love. Rodman was also nothing to write home about on offense. But he was TRULY ELITE at rebounding. That dude led the league SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW. He was twice DPOY and seven times (say it with me Tony Allen!) All-NBA FIRST TEAM DEFENSE! In other words, another possible definition of an elite role player is a guy who sucks at some things, but is truly great at others.

Rubio probably fits closer to this definition of an "elite role player," but I don't think Rubio is on their level because he's not as good at what he does well as they were at what they did well. For all the praise Rubio gets as a passer, he's been 10th, 6th, and 5th in the league in assists in the three full seasons he's played for us. That's pretty good, but it's not really elite. He was second in the league in steals for two years in a row, which looks better. But overall, I don't think his defense is really THAT great. He gambles for a lot of those steals, he's not super quick, and he does let a lot of quicker PGs get by him. And it's not just my opinion. He's never been voted for even second team all-defense. He's a great rebounder for a PG, but now we're starting to rank by position. And nobody ever says Rodman was an elite rebounder for a small forward (or power forward later in his career).

Gotta run. Long and short. I think Rubio is good, he's just not that good.

[alexftbl8181 [enjin:6648741]]

So....The veteran leader of the Wolves...the current best player..our PG who is a top rebounder/assist/steals/intensity at his position in the league, whose on/off court numbers clearly state his value...you think we should shop him because he is a poor shooter, even though he takes less than 10 shots a game and makes everyone around him better. He's literally 1 made shot away per game from being considered a solid shooter for his position. I find it hard to believe people can't wrap their heads around the idea that he can make that up in other areas of his game. I think the fact that there's a lot of elite level point guards doesn't make Rubio more expendable, but rather more valuable...because you need a PG in this day and age..and we saw what happens when you've got JJ/Flynn/etc running the show as your starter...all the sudden it doesn't feel like PGs are plentiful.

Is he worth trading for the rights to draft Russell? Some think it's a no brainer, and I'd be tempted, because I think Russell has considerable upside and I really see him becoming very good in the NBA, but it's certainly not a slam dunk, and it'd set out team back further rather than powering our team forward, at least in the short term. We all saw what happens with the Baby Bulls..and that's basically what we'd be putting together. It'd be a consideration, but it's still giving up a known GOOD player for an guy who could be a star, or could be a bust...and even if he's a star, he still might be the 7th best PG in the NBA...so is it worth the gamble to move up 5 slots at PG in 4 years? I'm not sure.

That's the dumbest statement in a while. Watch the games man

I'm not exactly sure why hockey's statement is dumb. Rubio made 3.5 out of 10 shots per game last year for a poor 35%. Hockey said that if he made just one more shot per game, he would be considered a solid shooter, and I don't think that contention can be questioned. One more make per game would put Ricky at a very respectable 45%, and combined with his superb passing, rebounding and defensive skills, would make him an elite PG.

because it's such a simple take that it means nothing. Watching the games you see Rubio can't take it to the rim, and he has no 1 on 1 moves. The only shots he makes are wide open. If it's contested, he misses. "making one more shot a game and he's a solid shooter" is wrong on all levels. He's not going to shoot 45%, let's be honest

[alexftbl8181 [enjin:6648741]]

Why would someone give up a high pick for Rubio, when Lawson is clearly on the block and a much better player then Rubio? Or hell, even sign Rondo, you could probably get on him on the same deal, and you don't have to give up a pick. They are pretty much the same player at this point

Uh, no. Rubio is the much better defender and rebounder and Lawson is the much better shooter/scorer. I'd put them in the same tier of PGs in terms of overall effectiveness, so I don't see Lawson as being "much better".

Rebounding and defense for a point guard are not on the same level as shooting/scoring.

[alexftbl8181 [enjin:6648741]]

Maybe, but I also think it is simplistic to focus so much on Ricky's shooting percentage, when he does so much more for the team and just one more made shot in 36 minutes of play could label him a very good shooter. For the same reason, people who really understand baseball don't focus much on batting average, because 2 hits a week can mean the difference between an all-star and an average player. Ricky's value is apparent more in on/off stats, or even more simplistically, winning percentage depending on whether he is injured or not. Entirely too much time is spent on this board analyzing Ricky's shooting percentage, as if that is the primary way in which his contribution should be measured.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Maybe, but I also think it is simplistic to focus so much on Ricky's shooting percentage, when he does so much more for the team and just one more made shot in 36 minutes of play could label him a very good shooter. For the same reason, people who really understand baseball don't focus much on batting average, because 2 hits a week can mean the difference between an all-star and an average player. Ricky's value is apparent more in on/off stats, or even more simplistically, winning percentage depending on whether he is injured or not. Entirely too much time is spent on this board analyzing Ricky's shooting percentage, as if that is the primary way in which his contribution should be measured.

Is that winning percentage above .500? I think there's a ton more point guards that have higher winning percentages

[Monster]

Why would someone give up a high pick for Rubio, when Lawson is clearly on the block and a much better player then Rubio? Or hell, even sign Rondo, you could probably get on him on the same deal, and you don't have to give up a pick. They are pretty much the same player at this point

Uh, no. Rubio is the much better defender and rebounder and Lawson is the much better shooter/scorer. I'd put them in the same tier of PGs in terms of overall effectiveness, so I don't see Lawson as being "much better".

Rebounding and defense for a point guard are not on the same level as shooting/scoring.

Your initial point that why would anyone give up a top draft pick when you could get a guy that's likely more available and is pretty good for less is a good point.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Why would someone give up a high pick for Rubio, when Lawson is clearly on the block and a much better player then Rubio? Or hell, even sign Rondo, you could probably get on him on the same deal, and you don't have to give up a pick. They are pretty much the same player at this point

Uh, no. Rubio is the much better defender and rebounder and Lawson is the much better shooter/scorer. I'd put them in the same tier of PGs in terms of overall effectiveness, so I don't see Lawson as being "much better".

Rebounding and defense for a point guard are not on the same level as shooting/scoring.

Says who? Ricky's On/Off numbers exceed Lawson's over their respective careers, so somehow your statement of what's more important isn't bearing itself out in terms of individual impact on team performance.

I see them as roughly equivalent in terms of value.

[bleedspeed]

I would trade Rubio for Lawson just because he stays healthy.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Why would someone give up a high pick for Rubio, when Lawson is clearly on the block and a much better player then Rubio? Or hell, even sign Rondo, you could probably get on him on the same deal, and you don't have to give up a pick. They are pretty much the same player at this point

Uh, no. Rubio is the much better defender and rebounder and Lawson is the much better shooter/scorer. I'd put them in the same tier of PGs in terms of overall effectiveness, so I don't see Lawson as being "much better".

Rebounding and defense for a point guard are not on the same level as shooting/scoring.

Says who? Ricky's On/Off numbers exceed Lawson's over their respective careers, so somehow your statement of what's more important isn't bearing itself out in terms of individual impact on team performance.

I see them as roughly equivalent in terms of value.

I know the On/Off splits work to your advantage in this debate. But I think there's a lot of noise in those numbers too that we should take into account.

The Wolves have been pretty terrible. Who's on the court when Rubio isn't? How much time was Rubio with Love? Remember, Love had some pretty astounding numbers himself.

I get that Rubio is valuable. But I also see where he's a legit liability. It's not only that he can't shoot. His shooting/finishing has gotten to a point where it affects his passing. And this is obvious in meaningless regular season games. Every season, we see in the playoffs where teams over the course of a playoff series are woefully exposed for any weakness. Right now, we're seeing it with Draymond Green and Iguodala shooting. We saw it with Tony Allen. We see it defensively quite a bit too with guys simply not capable of staying on the court on that end.

Guys go under the pick EVERY time with Rubio. And in a playoff series (I know, I know... we're nowhere near that yet) it would be comical how they'd play him. Does that mean Rubio can't be a helpful player to get the Wolves back to mediocrity and even respectability? No. He most certainly can on such a young team.

But his glaring weaknesses, shooting/finishing, can be and will be and have been exposed. It limits just what he can do or become. And that's fine... is it fine at $55M over 4 years... if we had to see him take a backseat down the stretch of playoff games?

I guess it's all relative.