Minnesota Sports Forum

khans2k5 wrote:
If you get Crowder what's your closing lineup? Role and money are the two most likely things to break up our big 3 so if you get Crowder does that push Zach or Wiggins to the bench to close games? Do you go small and play Crowder at the 4 and give up the boards to teams like SA and Memphis? Crowder isn't a perfect fit here. The perfect fit is a long-term starter at the 4/5 which Favors would be. If you get Crowder and small ball can't close out games you've just created a reason for a guy like Zach or Wiggins to want out because they aren't on the court to close out games. I think we either need to go big with a real starting 4/5 (i.e. Favors or Horford) or keep the pick and pick up role players who can help our second unit, but more importantly accept the role of sitting on the bench at the end of the game when a W or L is on the line.

This is easy, you will play Rubio, Lavine, Wiggins, Towns and the guy who matches best with opponent. Sometimes it might be Crowder if opponent is playing small ball. Sometimes it might be Dieng or defensive center that I hope we will sign next summer. Sometimes you might go with different lineup in defensive and offensive possessions and there you might even go with Crowder over Lavine.

The beauty of Crowder's contract is that since it is very moderate and he is signed still for four more years, you don't have to give him starter position. He could be our super sub that would still play a lot of minutes behind Lavine, Wiggins and even some power forward minutes in small ball lineups. It might mean that he would want to sign with some other team to get opportunity to start after his current contract has ended but we have made hopefully playoffs at that point already several times. So it should be quite easy to replace him with someone else then.

khans2k5 wrote:Another option could be to keep the pick and if Durant and Westbrook leave after next season go after Ibaka. He'd be 27 going on 28 and would be a great fit in our frontcourt. I can't imagine him hanging around if Durant and Westbrook leave and by then we should be a playoff team on the rise. He likely won't command a max or really all that close either with the way he's played this year and last year when the big 2 were down for parts of the year. He's just a good starter, but not all-star caliber. Throw 15-18 at him and that allows us to keep the band together through the first mini-maxes.

I agree that Ibaka would be currently great fit but I have a bad feeling that he is one of those guys that peaked on really young age. His play has regressed already in two consecutive years regardless what advanced statistic you use (PER, RPM, WS/48 or VORP). I'm afraid that same trend continues and that he will be worse than Dieng in near future.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:
Whether the team's young guys seem really nice and sweet and committed or not... they have egos. And they're young.

Young guys want to find their place. They want to establish themselves as THE guy for that first big contract ($100+M). That's a big rub with compiling a team full of super young talented guys all trying to "make it" simultaneously.

There's no pecking order. And that has proven to be a problem for other teams in the past.

That is one reason why I would prefer someone else than Ingram or especially Simmons. Wolves current future stars Towns, Wiggins and Lavine seem to have nice chemistry together and it looks currently that they would not want to put individual success above team success. It is very well possible that Ingram or Simmons could be similar but we can't know that yet and if they have that big ego, it could mess the current team chemistry. Trading for some really good role player without big ego and later 1st round pick would seem to be safer path.

Another concern that I have is that do we have currently team where Ingram or Simmons can flourish. Ingram seems to be currently too skinny to play power forward, which would mean that he wouldn't start. Simmons would be better fit right away because he has NBA body to start as four but since he is not much a defender, even he wouldn't be that good fit. He wouldn't be even that good fit offensively since he needs ball in his hands to be effective and doesn't have a reliable outside shot.

I get the reasoning for going after Crowder, I just don't buy that the season he's had in 2015-16 is:

a.) Sustainable year after year, especially with no history to back him up.

b.) Worth a top-five pick in a draft where there's 5-7 pretty solid options at the top that will be available.

c.) A lock to translate over to a team that has a poor coaching staff that is no where near what the Celtics currently have with Brad Stevens leading the charge.

d.) All that great in general. His biggest contributions come on the defensive side of the ball where he is well worth the money he's paid. I'm not doubting him there. Offensively, I'm not buying him. I know this year he's been decent, though still below league average from three in a career year. If he were to play on this Wolves roster where we have plenty of offensive weapons that need the ball, his three-point shooting would be his biggest contributor, or detractor if he were to regress like most non-Wolves do when they get to Minnesota. That worries me.

I think you have a much better case in selling me on the idea of trading the pick for Brad Stevens than you do selling me on the idea of trading the pick for Jae Crowder.

Camden wrote:I get the reasoning for going after Crowder, I just don't buy that the season he's had in 2015-16 is:

a.) Sustainable year after year, especially with no history to back him up.

b.) Worth a top-five pick in a draft where there's 5-7 pretty solid options at the top that will be available.

c.) A lock to translate over to a team that has a poor coaching staff that is no where near what the Celtics currently have with Brad Stevens leading the charge.

d.) All that great in general. His biggest contributions come on the defensive side of the ball where he is well worth the money he's paid. I'm not doubting him there. Offensively, I'm not buying him. I know this year he's been decent, though still below league average from three in a career year. If he were to play on this Wolves roster where we have plenty of offensive weapons that need the ball, his three-point shooting would be his biggest contributor, or detractor if he were to regress like most non-Wolves do when they get to Minnesota. That worries me.

I think you have a much better case in selling me on the idea of trading the pick for Brad Stevens than you do selling me on the idea of trading the pick for Jae Crowder.

I wouldn't trade our pick just for Crowder. But I would be open for trading couple of positions in draft to get Crowder. So we would need to get back that Brooklyn pick in case it was lower than our pick. If Boston wouldn't do that, I would just forget Crowder and tried to sign someone like Gerald Henderson instead of.

I actually also like your idea about trading pick for Favors but I would be little afraid whether Favors would be happy as fourth option in offense. In Utah he has been second option behind Hayward and his amount of shot attempts per game has increased every year. If he wouldn't be happy for his role, we could lose him without compensation after just two seasons. So I'm leaning towards that we should rather sign next summer offensively lesser big men that would be good in defensive end to play center position next to Towns.

Camden wrote:I get the reasoning for going after Crowder, I just don't buy that the season he's had in 2015-16 is:

a.) Sustainable year after year, especially with no history to back him up.

b.) Worth a top-five pick in a draft where there's 5-7 pretty solid options at the top that will be available.

c.) A lock to translate over to a team that has a poor coaching staff that is no where near what the Celtics currently have with Brad Stevens leading the charge.

d.) All that great in general. His biggest contributions come on the defensive side of the ball where he is well worth the money he's paid. I'm not doubting him there. Offensively, I'm not buying him. I know this year he's been decent, though still below league average from three in a career year. If he were to play on this Wolves roster where we have plenty of offensive weapons that need the ball, his three-point shooting would be his biggest contributor, or detractor if he were to regress like most non-Wolves do when they get to Minnesota. That worries me.

I think you have a much better case in selling me on the idea of trading the pick for Brad Stevens than you do selling me on the idea of trading the pick for Jae Crowder.

You have some valid points. But you also keep misinterpreting what others have been saying as well. Several of us are in favor of trading for a role player AND keeping a 1st round pick albeit a later one. I don't think anyone would trade a top five pick even up for Crowder. But I believe there is a lot of merit in what Mikkeman is saying. (And I don't hate the idea of getting Favors either).

The twin tower offenses of the 90's are gone gentlemen. A Belly type player is the perfect fit next to KAT. Whether it is Belly or not, that type of player is who you want. Sam would love to go back to his Indiana days with Smits and the Davis bros, that's the scary thing with Sam, he's not only clueless but he's stubborn. It took him this long to move Wig to the 3 line instead of just posting him up and have everyone watch him on offense. What lineups did we play during the GS game? Thank you

Duke13 wrote:The twin tower offenses of the 90's are gone gentlemen. A Belly type player is the perfect fit next to KAT. Whether it is Belly or not, that type of player is who you want. Sam would love to go back to his Indiana days with Smits and the Davis bros, that's the scary thing with Sam, he's not only clueless but he's stubborn. It took him this long to move Wig to the 3 line instead of just posting him up and have everyone watch him on offense. What lineups did we play during the GS game? Thank you

I get what you are saying. It's a copy cat world and teams will look at GS success and try to copy. I'm sure most on here recognize this isn't the 90's anymore. We're really just debating what the best fit would be to fix our blatant weakness - defense. I'm sure even you would concede we couldn't roll with Towns, Wiggins, LaVine, Bazz and Rubio every night. It worked that night. But teams would adjust. Our guys are not quite there yet that we can expect the same results we saw every night.

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

Camden wrote:Quality over quantity is the motto, or should be the motto. Think the chance of drafting Ingram or Simmons, or moving Simmons for Favors, would be much more ideal than getting a role player (Crowder, Faried) and a lesser first rounder.

I know some of you are very high on Crowder, but once again I have to tell you to proceed with caution. This guy's having a breakout year for him and he's still not anything that special. I get the fact he has a reasonable contract, but he's not THAT much of a difference-maker, IMO. He's a guy that can help a winning team, sure, but not one of the integral pieces of said winning team. Also, he's still a below average 3P shooter despite the uptick in attempts and makes this year. And with Brad Stevens as his coach, you have to wonder if Crowder's really just the product of some elite coaching and if he'll be as affective for a different staff. That is a legitimate concern.

I think it'd be a huge mistake to move any top-five pick for Crowder for these reasons.

I don't know Cam. I get the hesitation to a point, but Crowder has IMO been the most important piece to a team seeded 4th in the East (and a team that will most likely win 47-48 games). Will he be a star? Nope. But he doesn't have to be a star to have MASSIVE impact to our teams success....ask Boston fans. And I don't buy the product of good coaching thing in this case. His style is lunch-pail, and he doesn't strike me as someone who will regress. Will he get a lot better, probably not, but he certainly shouldn't get worse. And that contract IS extremely valuable as you look at our surrounding roster. He is signed through 2019/2020 season at about $7M per season. If we are talking about guys like Harrison Barnes getting max or near max this offseason....that makes Crowder an automatic max guy as well. Again, that has EXTREME value as you talk about roster flexibility....especially since we need another 3-4 guys to play minutes on that second line.

That being said, not sure I make trade for him if we are 1 or 2, but anything else, he is in play IMO.

If you get Crowder what's your closing lineup? Role and money are the two most likely things to break up our big 3 so if you get Crowder does that push Zach or Wiggins to the bench to close games? Do you go small and play Crowder at the 4 and give up the boards to teams like SA and Memphis? Crowder isn't a perfect fit here. The perfect fit is a long-term starter at the 4/5 which Favors would be. If you get Crowder and small ball can't close out games you've just created a reason for a guy like Zach or Wiggins to want out because they aren't on the court to close out games. I think we either need to go big with a real starting 4/5 (i.e. Favors or Horford) or keep the pick and pick up role players who can help our second unit, but more importantly accept the role of sitting on the bench at the end of the game when a W or L is on the line.

Look, I hear ya. But based on where we are today, I am not worrying about "who is closing games". Neither Lavine or Wiggins are even stars, let alone superstars that many on this board have already handed them for the future. If I was to plan next season, Crowder would be on the floor. Not sure what position he would be at, or who would accompany him to the floor....but he is on the floor. Look, I love our potential. But I have seen a lot of unrealized potential in the NBA over a long period of time, and am not ready to hand over our future blindly. And the fact is...Crowder is brought to a team like the Wolves not to supplant the stars, but to be a sidekick. And if Lavine and Wiggins don't see the floor in key points of the game, I would say that is more a statement of them not reaching the level that many on this board expect. If they are stars, I am more than happy to have Crowder (or another solid role player) sitting on the bench during crunch time.

I mean Lavine and Wiggins were both on the floor playing key roles in a victory over one of the best teams of all time. I don't know how much more they need to do to prove they are a great 2/3 tandem moving forward. Zach's averaging 17/3/3 on 47/45/80 splits as a starter. Wiggins is averaging 21/3.6/2.6 on 49/43/79 since the all-star break. How much more do they need to do to prove they have what it takes to be successful in this league? They're doing this at 21 years of age by the way. Our starting lineup with them is 4th in the entire league in offensive rating for a lineup that's played at least 40 games together and if you do it based on minutes they're the best in the league over 200 minutes together. The defense needs work sure, but that is always something that takes time to develop in young players especially undersized ones. So you'd be trading a top 2 pick for a bench role player if small ball doesn't work out and another pick. I'd rather add Simmons to this starting 5 than trade him for bench help. You can always sign bench help in the off season.

Again, I know the title hypothosized #1 or #2 pick. I stepped out of that and stated that 1 or 2, I probably keep. 3 and beyond, a guy like Crowder is in play for me personally. This is clearly a 2 player draft, with lots of speculation from 3 and beyond. But especially if we sit at 5....I am just not that interested in a guy like Dunn, Murray or Poetl. I actually like all of them...but don't see game changing potential with any of them. My feeling is that they are more role-player than star...thus I would prefer to accrue a player we know for sure can contribute next season. I am a big fan of Crowder, but he is not the only guy I would focus on. There are many guys I would explore...he is just a good example as he is defensive minded, a good rebounder, plays smart basketball, and is CHEAP. All things we need.

Everyone here is getting a bit excited about this upcoming pick. Have you all forgotten about the years of misery brought on by botched draft picks???

Sure, we've been lucky the last 3 years on draft night, but Flip is gone. How much trust do you have in this organization without him pulling all of the strings??

We've had many more missed draft picks than we have had solid, and we all should know, and accept, that it is the ultimate crapshoot and not one we are overwhelmingly going to win. We complain about Milt's inexperience, and Sam's lack of intelligence, yet we entrust them to make a pick on an unknown player in the top 6 who will immediately catapult us to new heights?

I'm more confident in their ability to trade for a good to very good roleplayer and a decent 1st rounder that wont completely derail our plan if they fail.

Just because we've seen Wiggins, LaVine, Towns,and Dieng (and to a degree Shabazz) thrive, does not mean we are going to get this next one right.

If you can get Crowder, Favors, or any other good to very good player/role player + a draft pick, you take it. We have 2-3 stars now, we don't need to search for our 3rd or 4th. We need a sure thing + a potential player/sure thing.

Sign me up for a player/role player + any pick from the 8-20 range. It's the right approach.