Minnesota Sports Forum

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

To be fair, he's played with some great players. Felton Spencer would have been on all .500 or better teams under the same circumstances.

Ummm. No.

I don't know what else to tell you. We seem to be very very far apart on this... and I'm not even advocating bringing in Ibaka to the Wolves.

Really? Westbrook and Durant wouldn't have gotten OKC above .500 without Ibaka? Toronto with Lowry and Derozan would be under .500 without Ibaka? Please explain.

Wait. I think we're just disconnecting here. I'm talking specifically about the comment that he's essentially Felton Spencer out there. No. He's not. Not even close.

Ibaka isn't just a guy on a .500 team. He was a starter on teams that won at a 55 - 60-win pace (.700) FIVE times in 7 seasons. They won "only" 50 games when Ibaka was a rookie coming off the bench. And they won "only" 45 games in a season where Durant missed 65 games. Westbrook missed 15 games. And Ibaka missed 18 games.

I think it's fair to question what he can offer the Wolves moving forward. I don't think it's fair to put him with the likes of Felton Spencer for what he accomplished.

khans2k5 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

To be fair, he's played with some great players. Felton Spencer would have been on all .500 or better teams under the same circumstances.

So you're saying he can be a good role player on a team with other good players? Funny...I seem to recall our team having two elite scorers still on rookie contracts and we can afford to pay that elite role player next to them while they are still on those contracts.

Yes, we can afford to pay him. I'm just questioning his potential overall impact for what it is going to cost us.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

To be fair, he's played with some great players. Felton Spencer would have been on all .500 or better teams under the same circumstances.

Ummm. No.

I don't know what else to tell you. We seem to be very very far apart on this... and I'm not even advocating bringing in Ibaka to the Wolves.

Really? Westbrook and Durant wouldn't have gotten OKC above .500 without Ibaka? Toronto with Lowry and Derozan would be under .500 without Ibaka? Please explain.

Wait. I think we're just disconnecting here. I'm talking specifically about the comment that he's essentially Felton Spencer out there. No. He's not. Not even close.

Ibaka isn't just a guy on a .500 team. He was a starter on teams that won at a 55 - 60-win pace (.700) FIVE times in 7 seasons. They won "only" 50 games when Ibaka was a rookie coming off the bench. And they won "only" 45 games in a season where Durant missed 65 games. Westbrook missed 15 games. And Ibaka missed 18 games.

No, I'm definitely not saying he was Felton Spencer. I'm saying that players with far less talent than Ibaka could have been .500 on those teams. Ibaka, while a certain contributor, isn't the reason those teams were at least .500.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Mr. Brightside wrote:No thanks on Ibaka. All advanced statistics show he does not make his teams better. And for $25 million? Nope.

To be fair, Ibaka has never finished a season on a team below .500. And he's started virtually his entire career. We can search for stats to suggest he has nothing to do with that... and probably find some to support that narrative. But we might be pushing a confirmation bias with that search.

"Take that for data!"

To be fair, he's played with some great players. Felton Spencer would have been on all .500 or better teams under the same circumstances.

Ummm. No.

I don't know what else to tell you. We seem to be very very far apart on this... and I'm not even advocating bringing in Ibaka to the Wolves.

Really? Westbrook and Durant wouldn't have gotten OKC above .500 without Ibaka? Toronto with Lowry and Derozan would be under .500 without Ibaka? Please explain.

Wait. I think we're just disconnecting here. I'm talking specifically about the comment that he's essentially Felton Spencer out there. No. He's not. Not even close.

Ibaka isn't just a guy on a .500 team. He was a starter on teams that won at a 55 - 60-win pace (.700) FIVE times in 7 seasons. They won "only" 50 games when Ibaka was a rookie coming off the bench. And they won "only" 45 games in a season where Durant missed 65 games. Westbrook missed 15 games. And Ibaka missed 18 games.

No, I'm definitely not saying he was Felton Spencer. I'm saying that players with far less talent than Ibaka could have been .500 on those teams. Ibaka, while a certain contributor, isn't the reason those teams were at least .500.

Ok. Now that we that settled...

My point stands for Mr. Brightside who claimed Ibaka hasn't made his teams better. I disagree entirely with that. A 3rd or even 4th option who doesn't need the ball much... plays good pick-and-roll defense... leads the league in blocks... hits between 47% - 57% of his shots... etc. That guy has value. That guy helps good teams be good or even great.

OKC traded Harden in part to keep Ibaka. They certainly saw his value on those teams. After the fact it turns out they were just cheap. Sounds like another potential situation we see coming ;)

Hey I like Ibaka, just not sure I like him $25 large.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Hey I like Ibaka, just not sure I like him $25 large.

agreed. happy ending for all!

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Hey I like Ibaka, just not sure I like him $25 large.

agreed. happy ending for all!

Ew

thedoper wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Hey I like Ibaka, just not sure I like him $25 large.

agreed. happy ending for all!

Ew

What do sheep have to do with anything?

What's the high number people would be willing to go on Ibaka? I haven't decided part of it is the length of the contract

Would anyone have interest in Tyreke Evans on what might be a relative bargain deal? I'm not a big fan of his game he fades into the background too much. He is unlikely to help much with outside shooting but he is a versatile vet and has size and strength Wolves perimeter players tend not to have. Does he play defense? Will he stay healthy?