Minnesota Sports Forum

It's clear now that Glen Taylor has the team on the market and that he's ready to sell as soon as he gets an offer he finds acceptable, which would include acceptable assurances that the new owners will keep the team in Minnesota. There are apparently multiple suitors in the mix already, including one group involving KG and another group fronted by former NBA role player, Aaron Afflalo. Considering all this activity and Glen's age, I'd say there's a high probably the team gets sold before the beginning of next season, which is expected to be sometime in December.

A sale of the team will, of course, put the status of Rosas in question. I can't see a new owner replacing Rosas until the end of next season at the earliest. But you never know. I like to imagine what I would do if I bought the team this summer. And honestly, I'd come in pretty skeptical of Rosas. He obviously hasn't had enough time yet to fully evaluate his performance as the Wolves POBO. So far, I'd say his tenure is a mixed bag of some good and some bad.

The good things include the hiring of what looks like a pretty good front office staff. I give Rosas and his front office cohorts high marks for signing Reid, McLaughlin and Martin as undrafted free agents. I really liked the Covington deal they put together to acquire Beasley, H-Gomez and the Nets' 1st round pick. I like it because of Beasley and the 1st round pick. I thought Nowell was an excellent 2nd round pick, but the organization's decision not to give him extended, consistent playing time in spite of his really good G-League numbers and the struggles of Culver significantly reduces the credit I'm willing to give Rosas for that pick.

In spite of what I consider to be the positives I've listed, Rosas has said and done things that would make me highly skeptical of him as my long-term POBO if I were buying the team. Here's my list:

1. At the top of that list was what he did with the team's first round pick last year. As everyone on this Board knows, I was not high on Culver and would have considered him a bad pick at #6 under any circumstances given his broken shot and lack of anything particularly special in his game or physical profile. But it's much worse that the Wolves traded up from #11 to take him. And it's worse yet that, by all credible accounts, Rosas traded up for Garland. Giving up an asset to get a player without assurance that you'll actually get that player is the kind of incompetence we've seen way too often from Rosas's predecessors over the years. By the way, I'm not suggesting that we should have kept Saric. But it's clear that Saric had trade value and for me it's what we could have gotten for him plus what we ended up with that turned the whole thing into a double negative for Rosas.

2. Next on my list was the Rosas Regime's failure to give significant, consistent minutes to the team's second round pick in spite of Nowell's excellent G-League stats, Culver's struggles and opportunity to experiment without any realistic chance of making the playoffs.

3. Next on my list the organization's failure to give Spellman any playing time after acquiring him in the Wiggins deal in spite of Towns' injury and the obvious opportunity for another big to get some burn.

4. Next on my list was the deal for Allen Crabbe. It's not a big deal to me, but I can't understand how Rosas and his cohorts believed that Crabbe could possibly be a plus for the team. He's looked for years like a guy who no longer has any interest in playing basketball. I have to believe there was a playoff-bound team willing to give us at least a 2nd round pick for a still very capable PG with playoff experience and an expiring contract.

5. Next on my list is one aspect of the Beasley deal. Although I liked the Beasley deal generally, that deal had a major negative - namely the inclusion of Evan Turner. By accepting him as part of the deal and failing to find a team to take him, the Wolves ended up over the Luxury tax threshold, which means they are further constrained now since exceeding the luxury tax threshold again this next season will trigger repeater penalties that further limit the Wolves personnel flexibility.

6. Next on my list is the obsession with style of play. The best, most successful, NBA franchises over the years accumulate the best talent and adapt the style to get the most out of that talent. It's hard enough to acquire enough talent to be a contender. Focusing so obsessively on style makes it even more difficult. Even worse is that the fast-paced, open-court style Rosas has outlined doesn't match well with the mediocre athleticism and speed of the players he's brought in - including Russell and Beasley.

7. Finally, rounding out my list of negatives was the deal for Russell. This one is really a judgment call. Reasonable people can differ on this one and I respect those who consider this a good deal for the Wolves. And as I've conceded in other posts, swapping Wiggins for Russell definitely improves the roster. I definitely get the argument in favor of adding a one-time allstar who is only 24 years old and a close friend of our best player, KAT. But The Wolves' two biggest glaring weaknesses last season were poor defense and a lack of athleticism, especially given the style Rosas and Ryan want to play. Russell is a very poor defender and not particularly quick or athletic. Adding a poor defender to pair as our second star with another poor defender, Towns, as part of the 2nd worst defensive team in the League last season seems highly questionable to me. But what takes it from questionable to a major negative for me is the fact that Rosas also gave up next year's 1st round pick with only top 3 protection, as well as next year's 2nd rounder. And they gave up those assets to a Western Conference rival in a draft that is likely to be a very good one - certainly much better than this one.

Then there was this recent comment from Rosas: "We've got to get stronger. We've got to get more athletic, more versatile, and a lot of the things as (Saunders) and his staff decide that we're going to move in the direction of philosophy," Rosas said, "our performance guys can support that and help that over a long period of time."

I'm not sure exactly what Rosas meant by that comment. "Move in the direction of philosophy"? Clear thinking is usually reflected in clear communication. I don't know what Rosas meant by that comment. I think he means getting the team to play the fast-paced, open court, high ball-movement style he's talked about before. But again, that style doesn't fit well with the major players he's brought in. Also, while I can understand how "our performance guys" (i.e., training staff) can help the team get stronger, i don't know how they make the current roster more athletic or versatile. That seems like a stretch bordering on nonsense. Although, perhaps in that regard, it really means that he's going to make further roster moves via the draft or trades to upgrade the team's athleticism. I'm just not sure who that would be.

Sorry to be so negative. But as I reflected on how I'd feel if I were purchasing this team, I couldn't help but seriously question what we've seen thus far from Rosas. I'd certainly give him until the end of next season to see how things have progressed. But he'd be on pretty tenuous ground with me after that absent major improvement by the team.

That's a very well thought out argument Lip. I have to be honest, the first thing I thought about when I heard Glen had the team for sale, was it might allow us to get out from under Rosas. I think your point #6 is where i really struggle with him. He's so hell bent on committing to a style that never got a very talented Houston team over the top. And then you realize we don't have a Harden or a Chris Paul to facilitate it.

I've said it many times that it's not the copiers, but the innovators who tend to have the greatest success. Much like you, I'm very skeptical about what he's done here.

What about the obvious tanking last season? Positive or negative? I think it was a positive since they are overhauling the roster.

I think we still need an All Star player to go with DLO and KAT to make this team a contender. Culver probably won't be it, despite his prowess on defense, I still am positive on him despite his poor shooting. I think he will turn it around. I don't think we have an All Star level player (or potential) on the roster so we have to make good on this draft and/or free agency.

It's just going to be hard to compete when your best player (KAT) is probably around the 15th best player in the league.

Here is my perspective on Rosas. To me the only reason you move on from him is you don't believe in his philosophy of basketball he is touting. If not why move on?

Rosas was a very good candidate when hired and has been on the job for about 15 months some of which included a pandemic. If you let him go you are probably just going to hire the next younger assistant GM type that Rosas was. I listened to a Podcast With Darryl Morey A couple years ago I think it was with Woj. This was well before Rosas got the job with the Wolves. Morey said he absolutely made some mistakes early in his career as the Rockets GM. He said it's kind of weird that people are willing to see young players develop their games but GMs and coaches are basically supposed to have it figured out from the jump. He said he had a good base of knowledge and experience before coming to the Rockets but it took some time to get there. I don't think he was suggesting coaches or GMs should be getting 5 years to develop or something but I think he made a good point. Danny Ainge made some poor deals along with some solid to very good ones before becoming a guy most consider one of the savviest in the league. I'm not saying Rosas is gonna turn out amazing because he might not be...honestly the chances re always against that in such a competitive sphere. I just don't see the point of dumping someone that hasn't proven one way or another he is good or bad to probably bring in someone just as or less proven. Maybe we can get someone's agent to be the GM!

If Gersson Rosas is as basketball savvy as I hope he is, then how he handles the head coaching position will say a lot about him. I have to believe that there was major pressure from Glen Taylor to keep Ryan Saunders in that role due to emotional and family ties with the franchise. But we have tangible evidence that suggests Saunders is either making no impact or slightly negative impact in that role. Meanwhile, we have arguably one of the better and more proven head coaching prospects on the bench right now in David Vanterpool. Would we see a move in that direction if, or when, Taylor sells the franchise? Would we see Rosas go after a much more proven and successful head coach like Kenny Atkinson? That pairing feels like a good match with how Rosas wants to build a team as well as some of the pieces already on the roster -- D'Angelo Russell was very productive and took a big step in the right direction under Atkinson in Brooklyn.

Just some things to think about. I can't imagine Rosas was given the opportunity to do a thorough search for a head coach and if there's a new ownership group in place that decides to retain him I'd hope he would revisit that decision without any pressure from up top. This franchise needs to focus less on good feelings and more focus on winning basketball games, especially with future draft capital being spent already.

Camden wrote:If Gersson Rosas is as basketball savvy as I hope he is, then how he handles the head coaching position will say a lot about him. I have to believe that there was major pressure from Glen Taylor to keep Ryan Saunders in that role due to emotional and family ties with the franchise. But we have tangible evidence that suggests Saunders is either making no impact or slightly negative impact in that role. Meanwhile, we have arguably one of the better and more proven head coaching prospects on the bench right now in David Vanterpool. Would we see a move in that direction if, or when, Taylor sells the franchise? Would we see Rosas go after a much more proven and successful head coach like Kenny Atkinson? That pairing feels like a good match with how Rosas wants to build a team as well as some of the pieces already on the roster -- D'Angelo Russell was very productive and took a big step in the right direction under Atkinson in Brooklyn.

Just some things to think about. I can't imagine Rosas was given the opportunity to do a thorough search for a head coach and if there's a new ownership group in place that decides to retain him I'd hope he would revisit that decision without any pressure from up top. This franchise needs to focus less on good feelings and more focus on winning basketball games, especially with future draft capital being spent already.

Great point, Cam. Like you, I have the sense that Rosas felt a bit pressured into hiring Ryan. Part of the pressure was the fact that Ryan had been elevated to head coach by Glen the season before. I thought Glen did a terrible disservice to the franchise when he elevated Ryan. By doing that, he tipped the scale in Ryan's favor and made it much more difficult for the next PBO to choose someone else.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:That's a very well thought out argument Lip. I have to be honest, the first thing I thought about when I heard Glen had the team for sale, was it might allow us to get out from under Rosas. I think your point #6 is where i really struggle with him. He's so hell bent on committing to a style that never got a very talented Houston team over the top. And then you realize we don't have a Harden or a Chris Paul to facilitate it.

I've said it many times that it's not the copiers, but the innovators who tend to have the greatest success. Much like you, I'm very skeptical about what he's done here.

Cool - I've seen you make that point about innovators versus copiers before and I totally agree. I'd also say that adaptors tend to succeed. The ability to adapt to circumstances is a common characteristic in successful NBA coaches and organizations. The Spurs and Pop are great examples of that. So is Carlisle. In my mind, it's a combination of innovation and adaptation that distinguishes the top NBA franchises and coaches.

I think there is very little to make an analysis on Rosas. Possible negatives in my mind: 1. The Culver pick - Hated it to begin with, very skeptical moving forward 2. The Saunders hire - Seemed to tow the company line on this one - I like Ryan, but I wish there was an experienced basketball person above him

Possible positives - 1. The Wiggins trade - I was definitely a Wiggins advocate but feel he got the best deal he could based on market value 2. Acquiring Beasley - This guy will likely be my favorite player moving forward

I think Rosas is an interesting business guy and a questionable basketball guy from what I can see. I wish there were more experienced former players in our organization to balance out Gersson's potential deficiencies.

Way to early to tell on Rosas. One season doesn't decide how good a GM will be.

Things he did great in year 1: Was able to make a trade, I think its awesome to have a GM that is willing to have an aggressive mindset and go try and get players he wants for his vision. Will it work, still to be seen but I like that he has a vision and gets shit done. He was also able to find under the radar undrafted players what hopefully continues.

Still love the Culver trade in theory. Wolves moved up only giving up Saric who doesn't have a ton of value who was also going to be a RFA and moved up in the draft. Now will Culver be any good, who knows but outside of Herro nobody looks significantly better then Culver and its way to early to tell if it was a bad trade yet. I just love that trade in theory of asset management.

Wiggins trade was very solid. Thought we had 3 options with Wiggins. 1) Keep him and continue to be bad and have Kat get pissed and ask out in a year. 2) Trade Wiggins for Batum caliber player on a shorter deal with a lotto protected 1st at least and pray we draft well next year and that player makes the difference to change the whole organization. 3) Add a former 24 year old All Star in DLO and actually give up a solid asset in top 3 protected pick. Its a risk but by far this trade has the biggest upside to it. Do I love not having a pick next year, nope! Its the price of business though to have a shot at getting out of being a completely terrible team.

I can argue with what Rosas has done with the Wolves but I will for sure say I think the wolves are better now roster wise then they were when he took over the team. Also there is nothing he did this season what worries me thinking he can't do the job.

D'Angelo Russell, Malik Beasley, Juan Hernangomez, and the 16th overall pick in this year's draft for Andrew Wiggins, Robert Covington, and Minnesota's first-round pick in 2021...

If anyone had come up with that trade as a hypothetical before last season, most of us would have responded with glee yet also pointed the finger at that poster for being a homer. And yet that's the takeaway Gersson Rosas got from the trade deadline. That's a pretty damn good haul even without considering the dire position the Wolves were in.

Not only did the current roster get noticeably better, but the future prospective did as well. And while Rosas traded a pick away he also replaced it in another deal. Asset management has been a plus for Rosas. Execution is 50/50 depending on how you feel about Jarrett Culver. More positives than negatives for Rosas, I feel. And if that's what he can consistently provide for the Wolves, then he will at some point bring a successful ball club to the table.