Minnesota Sports Forum

lipoli390 wrote:Thanks for posting the video, WolvesFan! I feel much better after seeing that interview. It's not just one response, but all of his responses together that point in a positive direction:

1. When asked whether the Wolves would draft based on talent or fit, Rosas was emphatic in his response, stating: "Absolutely, it's the highest level talent. This is a multi-year decision and we want to make sure we have not only the best player but the best person with the most upside."

I'm not sure what he meant by "best person" and whether that excludes anyone, but Gersson seems like a guy who chooses his words carefully, so it must mean something. But bottom line is that he left no room for doubt that the draft decision is all about talent and upside and not about fit.

2. When asked generally whether the Wolves might draft another big with KAT already here, his response was a clear yes, stating that: "[KAT's] versatility allows us to add another big at that spot, especially if it's a guy who can complement him with athleticism and a guy who can be more of a defender and more of a runner and roller."

Beyond unequivocally indicating his comfort with drafting another big to play alongside KAT, what I found interesting was what he said about the type of big who would fit well with KAT. He identified three attributes of a big who would fit: (1) athletic, (2) a defender, and (3) good runner/roller. Who in this draft does that describe? Yes, it describes Wiseman and Okongwu. If true to his word, it suggests that Rosas is not inclined to draft Toppin if he selects a big unless Rosas believes that Toppin is a better talent than Wiseman and Okongwu.

3. Rosas elaborated on how the versatility of the Wolves two best players, KAT and DLO, opens the door to drafting another big or PG: "The versatility of our 1and 5 really leaves all the options open for us. For us it's just the pursuit of the most talented players that we can add to our organization."

This comment underscored his comfort with drafting another big while also indicating his comfort with drafting another PG. He was obviously alluding to Ball and wanted to communicate to other organizations that Ball is definitely on the table for the Wolves to draft and keep. I like that he went there even though he never got a question about Ball. It showed some savvy, taking advantage of an opportunity to communicate publicly to all the GMs who are looking for any and every clue to discern the intentions of their rivals.

4. When Rachel finally went for it and asked specifically whether the Wolves would take Wiseman at #1 if they concluded that he was the best player on their board, Rosas left no room for doubt by responding: "Absolutely. I mean, look at the current NBA champion. They did pretty good with two bigs in their lineup."

5. Then Rachel turned to the issue of trading the #1 pick, Her question was, "how tempted are you to deal the pick?" Gersson's response was candid and revealing, saying: "We're VERY open. We're having open conversations. That's why we want to use every minutes at our disposal. Our boards are set..."

This answer makes it clear to me that the Wolves have a strong preference for trading the pick. Rosas is pretty monotone in his speech, so the inflection in his voice as he emphasized the word "very" really stood out and revealed his thinking. Assuming that he is strategic, Rosas would not have been so obviously emphatic in expressing his enthusiasm for trading the pick. So why would he do that? Why would he suggest to his rival GMs that he really wants to deal the pick? The answer in my mind is that his intent was to generate excitement about the pick among his rival GMs and draw out more or better proposals than they ones they've received to date.

Overall, it was a huge relief to hear Gersson's comments. But it's actions, not words, that will tell the tale and hopefully distinguish him from past Wolves' front office regimes.

By the way, Rachel is a really good interviewer. In fact, I'd say she's the best TV sports interviewer in the Country.

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Drew, I think it's clear that Wiseman is not a perfectly refined prospect. I am probably not quite as far over on the pro-Wiseman spectrum as Cam. I'm actually open to taking him and trading down for another pick and assets and it doesn't have to be a star. I'd put it this way....I am MUCH more anti-Edwards and anti-Ball than I am pro-Wiseman. Make sense?

I just think it's incredibly arrogant for a young POBO and coach to believe they can take a guy like Edwards and somehow change his ways in what has been one of the losing-est franchises in the history of professional sports. A franchise like Miami could probably take that risk.

Fair points. There's a lot to doubt there regarding Ball and Edwards. At the same time, they are really young. Guys do evolve as players. Ball already has to some degree, and we haven't really seen that much of Edwards--one season of college, basically.

And as for whether our team culture can shape them well, yeah, I'm on the record as being super skeptical of this team's culture going back decades now, and KAT and DLO are, in my mind, really weak leaders. They're not going to inculcate discipline, selflessness, and defensive effort through their example, that's for sure.

Q, you kind of bring up the issue of fit in an interesting way. And it makes me think there are really different kinds of "fit" and it might therefore be worth asking if some kinds of fit should be considered and others not. For example, I think it would be wrong to pass on Wiseman because of concerns about fit, physically and positionally--especially on defense, with KAT), as long as you think he's the best prospect. If you think he's the best, you take him. I'm guessing most people here would agree. But if that's the case, what about this second kind of "fit" that you raise, which is sort of about team culture. Those guys would not fit in terms of culture--or in a perverse way, they potentially WOULD fit our weak, undisciplined team culture. Either way, if it's wrong to pass on Wiseman for positional fit, would it be wrong to pass on Edwards and Ball because of cultural fit? I'm not sure. But I might actually lean toward saying no (and I suspect you'd agree). I think you've identified a different kind of fit that might be worth keeping in mind, specifically because it might prevent a guy from actually reaching his potential. Then again, if Miami should take a guy #1 because they have the team culture to bring out the best in a guy and he has the best potential, then it would feel kind of risky to pass on him for our team.

At the end of the day, I'm just hesitant to conclude that we really know much about these guys other than what we have seen them do. There's so much we don't know here.

crazysauce wrote:Anyway Charlotte would do a deal around washington and 3 for 1 and 33? They really want Wiseman and they get an extra asset for parting with Washington. This would be a deal I could get behind.

WolvesFan21 wrote:[youtube]zKncXwTYsVs[/youtube]

Camden0916 wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:[youtube]zKncXwTYsVs[/youtube]

[youtube] https://youtu.be/DoQBkouDE4c[/youtube]

thedoper wrote:You guys yuck. This could get much uglier.