PDA

View Full Version : Benefits of winning vs Benefits of losing



PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 12:59 AM
Lets discuss this topic in here, and in here only.

Is it best to lose and possibly get a top 3 pick, or is it best to win and define roles and develop?

this is where we will discuss this, leave this out of all other threads.

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:04 AM
really, i do see the need to find a PG or C of the future, but i just dont want to lose to put the decision in the hands of a rookie. Telfair was once considered a PG of the future, as Olowakandi was considered a C of the future.

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 01:05 AM
Black or white? No gray?

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:08 AM
Black or white? No gray?

Id prefer black or white, but explain your gray area?

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 01:08 AM
Lets discuss this topic in here, and in here only.

Is it best to lose and possibly get a top 3 pick, or is it best to win and define roles and develop?

this is where we will discuss this, leave this out of all other threads.

I edited the poll to reflect the fact that you can develop while winning or losing, the original poll didn't reflect that.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 01:08 AM
Id prefer black or white, but explain your gray area?

How about the fact that you didn't mention the fact that you can develop while losing. :p

Do you agree the poll is less biased now?

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 01:10 AM
Id prefer black or white, but explain your gray area?

I'm complicated so giving me two options is never enough unless it is just a Yes or No.

Gray area? You basically saying make a push for the playoffs (slightly exaggerated I admit) or top 3 pick.

Preuss-is-right
01-26-2009, 01:10 AM
Originally Posted by WSU Tony
Isn't rebuilding the point of rebuilding?

At what point do you say "ok I've rebuilt enough"? Don't you have to have at least one mediocre year before you start winning? Who are you to say we would be a 500 team for years? Who am I to say we will win a championship someday? Thats the whole point of having discussion right?

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 01:14 AM
Originally Posted by WSU Tony
Isn't rebuilding the point of rebuilding?

At what point do you say "ok I've rebuilt enough"? Don't you have to have at least one mediocre year before you start winning? Who are you to say we would be a 500 team for years? Who am I to say we will win a championship someday? Thats the whole point of having discussion right?

I think our winning is premature first of all, and were going to start facing teams when there not on one leg and were going to cool off.

But I think your done rebuilding when your no longer able to really add legit assets. So I believe there is a point that you start winning before your done but I think there is a phase where you acquire a fair amount of talent before that winning takes place which I think where almost there but not quite.

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:14 AM
How about the fact that you didn't mention the fact that you can develop while losing. :p

Do you agree the poll is less biased now?

i dont know about less biased, but i think its fair, and thats what i wanted, but i still dont think you can lose and develop, but the poll question is fair

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 01:15 AM
i dont know about less biased, but i think its fair, and thats what i wanted, but i still dont think you can lose and develop, but the poll question is fair

(Don't at all take offense to this) Are you a person that believes that if Love doesn't play 20-25+ minutes he doesn't develop?

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:17 AM
I'm complicated so giving me two options is never enough unless it is just a Yes or No.

Gray area? You basically saying make a push for the playoffs (slightly exaggerated I admit) or top 3 pick.

i would say making a push for the playoffs with this team for the future, minus a top 5 pick, but still keeping into acount the 4 first rounders we have in the next two years and all the cap space we will free up (it wont bring us a Lebron, but it will bring us veteran help)

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:19 AM
(Don't at all take offense to this) Are you a person that believes that if Love doesn't play 20-25+ minutes he doesn't develop?

i think players can develop in various ways, i think brewer can develop now while being injured (because we are winning and because Carney is pushing him) and i think Love has developed enough to earn that 20-25 minutes, i dont know if him playing that much has developed him like it would, but i would say he has developed enough to earn those minutes.

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 01:20 AM
...So no...you don't believe that a player has to play in a game to develop.

Jeez its getting late.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 01:20 AM
i dont know about less biased, but i think its fair, and thats what i wanted, but i still dont think you can lose and develop, but the poll question is fair

Ok, cool.


Originally Posted by WSU Tony
Isn't rebuilding the point of rebuilding?

At what point do you say "ok I've rebuilt enough"? Don't you have to have at least one mediocre year before you start winning? Who are you to say we would be a 500 team for years? Who am I to say we will win a championship someday? Thats the whole point of having discussion right?


Any team with Telfair as the starting PG and no center won't be competing for a championship. If we had a legit PG and ONLY needed a center I might agree with you. Heck, if we had a legit center and only needed a PG I might even agree with you.

name the last deep playoff team with no legit PG or center and you'll complete your argument. I'm not trying to be an *** hole, just trying to make a point. It's nothign personal, honest.

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:21 AM
Tony, i think a more fair question would be CAN we develop and hope for a top 5 pick that might boost our roster

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 01:23 AM
Any team with Telfair as the starting PG and no center won't be competing for a championship. If we had a legit PG and ONLY needed a center I might agree with you. Heck, if we had a legit center and only needed a PG I might even agree with you.

name the last deep playoff team with no legit PG or center and you'll complete your argument. I'm not trying to be an *** hole, just trying to make a point. It's nothign personal, honest.

Name the last championship team without a star center or 3 very good players.

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:24 AM
i find it really ironic right now that i am watching the new office video where the office is taking a vote on whether or not Hillary Swank is hot, and no one will budge no matter what the argument is.

Preuss-is-right
01-26-2009, 01:24 AM
I think our winning is premature first of all, and were going to start facing teams when there not on one leg and were going to cool off.

But I think your done rebuilding when your no longer able to really add legit assets. So I believe there is a point that you start winning before your done but I think there is a phase where you acquire a fair amount of talent before that winning takes place which I think where almost there but not quite.

When is winning ever premature? How do you face teams on one leg? The good teams we've beat or hung with have been fine so Idk who you are talking about.

I still dont understand. Are you agreeing that you usually have one or two mediocre years before you are good enough?

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:26 AM
Name the last championship team without a star center or 3 very good players.

Detroit, they had a team of a bunch of decent players, Billups was probably their best, and was probably very good, and so was Rasheed, but teyshaun, and Rip were/are not VERY GOOD

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 01:28 AM
When is winning ever premature? How do you face teams on one leg? The good teams we've beat or hung with have been fine so Idk who you are talking about.

I still dont understand. Are you agreeing that you usually have one or two mediocre years before you are good enough?

They've all had key guys on the bench.... or we've played crappy teams. Take your pick.

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 01:31 AM
When is winning ever premature? How do you face teams on one leg? The good teams we've beat or hung with have been fine so Idk who you are talking about.

I still dont understand. Are you agreeing that you usually have one or two mediocre years before you are good enough?

I think where winning premature because I don't see this holding up.

Hornets had Chandler and West out. Clippers were also beat up how many did they have out including Baron AND Kaman, Bulls earlier in the month has Hinrich and Deng out, GS didn't have Wright or Maggette. So we have been facing teams that are injured.

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 01:33 AM
Detroit, they had a team of a bunch of decent players, Billups was probably their best, and was probably very good, and so was Rasheed, but teyshaun, and Rip were/are not VERY GOOD

Better prey for the wolves then.

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 01:39 AM
Bottom line is, Detroit boosted their roster that won the championship through a trade, not the draft, and i found it funny how tony worded his post that said who has won a championship without a dominant center or three very good players, when the Celtics won their championship through trades, not the draft, also, who did Boston select during their years in the lottery?

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 01:58 AM
Bottom line is, Detroit boosted their roster that won the championship through a trade, not the draft, and i found it funny how tony worded his post that said who has won a championship without a dominant center or three very good players, when the Celtics won their championship through trades, not the draft, also, who did Boston select during their years in the lottery?

What you fail to realize is trades bring back EQUAL talent. You don't trade McCants and Brewer for Kobe. Trades are not for bringing in MORE talent, they are for re-allocating talent. Why in the world would another team give you MORE talent than your giving them?

The celtics gave away a high pick (valuable) for Ray Allen. They they gave up all their depth at the time and a VERY promising player (Jefferson) for KG. They didn't gain talent, they re-allocated the talent they had.

Did they build through trades? No. They built value through the draft and then traded that talent to re-allocate it. This is why teams tend to draft 'by value' rather than 'by position,' unless they clearly don't have a center or PG. :p If we have the #1 pick we take the most value (griffin) and trade him (re-allocate) for Thabeet/Rubio/Holiday/Jennings and another asset. We gained the most value by drafting Griffin and then re-allocated the talent through a trade, much like the celtics.

Oefarmy2005
01-26-2009, 01:58 AM
Bottom line is, Detroit boosted their roster that won the championship through a trade, not the draft, and i found it funny how tony worded his post that said who has won a championship without a dominant center or three very good players, when the Celtics won their championship through trades, not the draft, also, who did Boston select during their years in the lottery?

Rondo, who's turned out to be a very good guard. I still don't see why Tony is so upset about the wolves not getting a top pick. If we start playing good without that top pick, than we are ready to start winning now. If we put our future on this years pick, that it will take probably at least three years to develop that player and I don't think that the wolves fans are ready to wait that long. There are very few people that come out of the draft and make significant impact right away, however this draft has been very good, which i am very surprised about.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 02:02 AM
Rondo, who's turned out to be a very good guard. I still don't see why Tony is so upset about the wolves not getting a top pick. If we start playing good without that top pick, than we are ready to start winning now. If we put our future on this years pick, that it will take probably at least three years to develop that player and I don't think that the wolves fans are ready to wait that long. There are very few people that come out of the draft and make significant impact right away, however this draft has been very good, which i am very surprised about.

We won't be playing ****** teams or short handed teams like we have been later, will we? We'll be set up to lose later if that's the case. We haven't beaten anyone legit enough for me to change my mind about not having a championship calibur talented team.


When we start beating the Cavs, Lakers, Celtics, and Magic at a .500 clip, I'll be in on this 'we're ready to win now' boat.

Mauersota
01-26-2009, 02:12 AM
We won't be playing ****** teams or short handed teams like we have been later, will we? We'll be set up to lose later if that's the case. We haven't beaten anyone legit enough for me to change my mind about not having a championship calibur talented team.


When we start beating the Cavs, Lakers, Celtics, and Magic at a .500 clip, I'll be in on this 'we're ready to win now' boat.

What is with all the arks and boat talk?

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 02:12 AM
What you fail to realize is trades bring back EQUAL talent. You don't trade McCants and Brewer for Kobe. Trades are not for bringing in MORE talent, they are for re-allocating talent. Why in the world would another team give you MORE talent than your giving them?

The celtics gave away a high pick (valuable) for Ray Allen. They they gave up all their depth at the time and a VERY promising player (Jefferson) for KG. They didn't gain talent, they re-allocated the talent they had.

Did they build through trades? No. They built value through the draft and then traded that talent to re-allocate it. This is why teams tend to draft 'by value' rather than 'by position,' unless they clearly don't have a center or PG. :p If we have the #1 pick we take the most value (griffin) and trade him (re-allocate) for Thabeet/Rubio/Holiday/Jennings and another asset. We gained the most value by drafting Griffin and then re-allocated the talent through a trade, much like the celtics.

What you fail to realize is that Boston got KG in their trade, if it was a fare trade, than we should be a playoff team soon.

Preuss-is-right
01-26-2009, 02:18 AM
What you fail to realize is trades bring back EQUAL talent. You don't trade McCants and Brewer for Kobe. Trades are not for bringing in MORE talent, they are for re-allocating talent. Why in the world would another team give you MORE talent than your giving them?

The celtics gave away a high pick (valuable) for Ray Allen. They they gave up all their depth at the time and a VERY promising player (Jefferson) for KG. They didn't gain talent, they re-allocated the talent they had.

Did they build through trades? No. They built value through the draft and then traded that talent to re-allocate it. This is why teams tend to draft 'by value' rather than 'by position,' unless they clearly don't have a center or PG. :p If we have the #1 pick we take the most value (griffin) and trade him (re-allocate) for Thabeet/Rubio/Holiday/Jennings and another asset. We gained the most value by drafting Griffin and then re-allocated the talent through a trade, much like the celtics.

Technically they built through trades then because they had the choice to build through the draft and groom the players they had or they could take the chance with the win now attitude. All the pieces came together at the right time for them. Whos to say the sme thing cant happen with us? Technically we are doing both because we traded Garnett for the majority of our starters. Didnt we reallocate our talent by trading Roy for Foye and Mayo for Love?

jwin2005
01-26-2009, 02:27 AM
Mauer that is sorta funny I am not gonna lie

But I like talking to you guys about sports... I think cwilson is funny as hell sometimes with his comments. I wonder how old he is?

Anyways good arguments guys... I think I would have to say that in sports like gambling it is a lot of luck in my mind.

The Heat last year got lucky and Wade was hurt with his "injury" so they got the worst record and got Michael Beasley... Chicago was 9th worst and got Derrick Rose

It is luck to have exactly the right pieces to fall in place for you to become a championship team. Just ask the Boston Celtics last year. Or Lakers about Kobe Bryant or ask Cleveland about getting some HS kid named Lebron James.

Fellow Wolves fans... let us be content about a win here and there. Even though our team wont win a championship for at least another 6 years we can still cheer them on! Let us settle for an average mediocre team is it really that bad? It is not like we are the ones getting paid millions to play the game. We are just stupid, old, fat fans.

We try not to be jealous of our neighbors goods, let us not be jealous of other teams in the NBA. Hey we have Michelle Miller, the ugliest basketball player in the NBA we should be happy about that.

Preuss-is-right
01-26-2009, 02:30 AM
jwin: why the copy paste posts?

jwin2005
01-26-2009, 02:30 AM
The funniest part of this argument is that Fred Hoiberg probably doesn't give a **** about any of this.

He just gets paid by Glen Taylor and Glen wants us to win and be mediocre. As long as his business is making money that is all he cares about. Winning a championship is great and all but business is more important.

jwin2005
01-26-2009, 02:31 AM
because someone like you said not to post this stuff anywhere else so i brought it over here... get that stick out of your ***

Preuss-is-right
01-26-2009, 02:35 AM
I'm just sayin man that it doesnt make your points any more valid by posting them more than once.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 10:30 AM
What you fail to realize is that Boston got KG in their trade, if it was a fare trade, than we should be a playoff team soon.

KG wasn't winning us a championship here so when we traded him and got EQUAL talent back, we shouldn't be at a championship level. Right?

The Celtics took a 'win now' attitude by trading Jefferson (future) for KG in his prime (now). You don't gain value through a trade you just re-allocate the talent you have. Business concepts by Sauers would be a great class for you to take.

Why in the world would one team be willing to give up more talent than the other team in a trade?

Skylander14
01-26-2009, 12:06 PM
The Lakers got more talent in the gasol trade... except Marc maybe better than his bro in a few years but he was just another second rounder at the time of the trade

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 12:20 PM
The Lakers got more talent in the gasol trade... except Marc maybe better than his bro in a few years but he was just another second rounder at the time of the trade

But are you willing to rely solely on trades to build a franchise? I hope not.

Much like the Jefferson for KG trade, it's all a matter of when you want your talent to peak. We delayed the process for a few years (3-4?) so we could rebuild. The lakers did the same thing, really.

Oefarmy2005
01-26-2009, 12:40 PM
But are you willing to rely solely on trades to build a franchise? I hope not.

Much like the Jefferson for KG trade, it's all a matter of when you want your talent to peak. We delayed the process for a few years (3-4?) so we could rebuild. The lakers did the same thing, really.

Tony, do you seriously believe that the Wolves will be a championship team? I personally don't think the Blazers will ever be a championship team and they've done everything right in the draft the last 5 years or so. For our team, and will reiterate OUR, it doesn't matter what pick we get if we make the wrong choice anyways 90% of the time. May as well make the wrong choice with the 15 pick than with the 2nd pick. Untill we change the way we draft and who makes the choices, it doesn't really matter what our pick is going to be. If we get a top pick, we'll trade it down anyways.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 12:51 PM
Tony, do you seriously believe that the Wolves will be a championship team? I personally don't think the Blazers will ever be a championship team and they've done everything right in the draft the last 5 years or so. For our team, and will reiterate OUR, it doesn't matter what pick we get if we make the wrong choice anyways 90% of the time. May as well make the wrong choice with the 15 pick than with the 2nd pick. Untill we change the way we draft and who makes the choices, it doesn't really matter what our pick is going to be. If we get a top pick, we'll trade it down anyways.

If you look at who we've taken and find a star player a few picks later it's not that we didn't make the right choice its that we didn't get lucky. Having another top pick would give us the chance to get lucky, which is all that you can hope for. Peaking early isn't something I hope for. Look at my other thread, I've made a proposal for our way of thinking about future games. I hope you find it fair.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 12:52 PM
Tony, do you seriously believe that the Wolves will be a championship team?

At this point, no. I'm guessing by the way you worded that you don't think so either.... So why don't you want another top 10 pick to put us one step closer?

horst_04
01-26-2009, 12:55 PM
Untill we change the way we draft and who makes the choices, it doesn't really matter what our pick is going to be.

McHale stepped down from GM role to coach. Hopefully he stays the coach during the draft.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 01:35 PM
McHale stepped down from GM role to coach. Hopefully he stays the coach during the draft.

That's a good point. Drafting is kind of like guessing anyways, I think McHale got pretty unlucky. This doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable, though.

thesparky33
01-26-2009, 01:44 PM
Benefits of losing? Sounds like an oxymoron to me...

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 01:51 PM
I edited the poll to reflect the fact that you can develop while winning or losing, the original poll didn't reflect that.

what do you develop losing? The ability to accept losing is about it.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 01:52 PM
Benefits of losing? Sounds like an oxymoron to me...

Not wanting top 10 draft picks while rebuilding sounds the same..... Then again, you guys don't consider us rebuilding at this point so it really doesn't.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 01:53 PM
I am sick of debating this. There are no benefits of losing. Period. Getting a high draft pick isn't guaranteed, and then your management has to be smart enough to make a good pick, something we rarely do. Why, when the average age of your lineup is like 24, do you not want them to win and grow? We could honestly have a few all stars on our team, and we just don't know it yet.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 01:55 PM
I am sick of debating this. There are no benefits of losing. Period. Getting a high draft pick isn't guaranteed, and then your management has to be smart enough to make a good pick, something we rarely do. Why, when the average age of your lineup is like 24, do you not want them to win and grow? We could honestly have a few all stars on our team, and we just don't know it yet.

If you have the worst record in the NBA you are guaranteed a high draft pick, you are wrong.

I think you guys severely over estimate the talent on this team. Make a thread in the NBA section asking how we compare to Portland.... Atlanta.... and other rebuilding teams. They'll let you know from an objective standpoint that we are not as talented as those teams.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 01:58 PM
If you have the worst record in the NBA you are guaranteed a high draft pick, you are wrong.

I think you guys severely over estimate the talent on this team. Make a thread in the NBA section asking how we compare to Portland.... Atlanta.... and other rebuilding teams. They'll let you know from an objective standpoint that we are not as talented as those teams.

I think you are trying to play GM for a very dysfunctional franchise, and by putting your faith in our ability to draft, you are setting yourself up for dissapointment, not the fans that want them to win. As I stated, you will not convince me you are right, I have played on a team that was bad, and then better, and the mentality difference can not be measured. Average players become good players, good players become great players, when wins are coming. That is the point most of you are missing. Go ahead and rely on getting more and more picks, because if we do what you would like us to do, we will be in the lottery every single year.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 01:59 PM
If you have the worst record in the NBA you are guaranteed a high draft pick, you are wrong.

I think you guys severely over estimate the talent on this team. Make a thread in the NBA section asking how we compare to Portland.... Atlanta.... and other rebuilding teams. They'll let you know from an objective standpoint that we are not as talented as those teams.

an mr short term memory, Memphis and Boston had the worst and second worst record three years ago. They were both bumped out of the top 3.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 02:04 PM
as far as comparing us to Portland, the got Roy at 6. Oden was a #1, but they jumped 7 teams, including us, with a 32-50 record, to get him. They traded up to get Aldrige. I mean, they used blind luck, and contracts to move up. They did not tank. And Atlanta, please. They have 15 lottery picks on their team. They are not, and never will be a championship contender.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 02:11 PM
as far as comparing us to Portland, the got Roy at 6. Oden was a #1, but they jumped 7 teams, including us, with a 32-50 record, to get him. They traded up to get Aldrige. I mean, they used blind luck, and contracts to move up. They did not tank. And Atlanta, please. They have 15 lottery picks on their team. They are not, and never will be a championship contender.

So because teams get lucky and win the lottery that means we're in better shape with the #7 slot rather than the #1?


an mr short term memory, Memphis and Boston had the worst and second worst record three years ago. They were both bumped out of the top 3.

Top 5 picks aren't high picks? Out of 30 picks a top 5 isn't a high pick?


I think you are trying to play GM for a very dysfunctional franchise, and by putting your faith in our ability to draft, you are setting yourself up for dissapointment, not the fans that want them to win. As I stated, you will not convince me you are right, I have played on a team that was bad, and then better, and the mentality difference can not be measured. Average players become good players, good players become great players, when wins are coming. That is the point most of you are missing. Go ahead and rely on getting more and more picks, because if we do what you would like us to do, we will be in the lottery every single year.

If it is the last game of a rebuilding year and a loss means we have a top 10 pick and a win means we lose it, are you rooting for a win? Will 1 win give these guys enough experience to justify losing a top 10 pick?

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 02:20 PM
So because teams get lucky and win the lottery that means we're in better shape with the #7 slot rather than the #1?



Top 5 picks aren't high picks? Out of 30 picks a top 5 isn't a high pick?



If it is the last game of a rebuilding year and a loss means we have a top 10 pick and a win means we lose it, are you rooting for a win? Will 1 win give these guys enough experience to justify losing a top 10 pick?

We are in better shape with a better record regardless
top 5 is nice, check that year out. Oden, Durant, Horford, garbage. Losing got those teams nothing
In the KG era, I was okay throwing the last handful of games, we already had a vet in KG, and multiple other vets. Now, no way. I will take the win, and give that #10 pick to the Clips to waste on a player with a ceiling. With the free agent money we have upcoming, the only thing that will attract good players is if we show we are only a vet or two away. If we keep drafting children, nobody will come to the frozen tundra

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 02:24 PM
We are in better shape with a better record regardless
top 5 is nice, check that year out. Oden, Durant, Horford, garbage. Losing got those teams nothing
In the KG era, I was okay throwing the last handful of games, we already had a vet in KG, and multiple other vets. Now, no way. I will take the win, and give that #10 pick to the Clips to waste on a player with a ceiling. With the free agent money we have upcoming, the only thing that will attract good players is if we show we are only a vet or two away. If we keep drafting children, nobody will come to the frozen tundra

And if that player the Clips get turns into a star... will you change your mind? That's the thing, it's all about having a CHANCE at a good player. Eventually, your going to hit.

Who do you have in mind as far as the FA market that could make an impact for this team and would actually sign a contract to play for the Wolves. IMO signing FA is a scarier thought than having a top ten pick and a chance at a good player. FA signings have killed us in the past where as drafting guys like McCants aren't as big of a risk.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 02:30 PM
And if that player the Clips get turns into a star... will you change your mind? That's the thing, it's all about having a CHANCE at a good player. Eventually, your going to hit.

Who do you have in mind as far as the FA market that could make an impact for this team and would actually sign a contract to play for the Wolves. IMO signing FA is a scarier thought than having a top ten pick and a chance at a good player. FA signings have killed us in the past where as drafting guys like McCants aren't as big of a risk.

and why couldn't we hit with one of our other 3 picks?? As far as free agents go, we will have to wait to see who opts out, and who is available. I will worry about that this summer.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 02:33 PM
and why couldn't we hit with one of our other 3 picks?? As far as free agents go, we will have to wait to see who opts out, and who is available. I will worry about that this summer.

I think you mean depend on that..... :speechless:


Hitting a stud with a pick 15 or lower is rare. Very rare. (I hope the "I can find a statistical anomaly" argument doesn't come up next).

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 02:55 PM
I think you mean depend on that..... :speechless:


Hitting a stud with a pick 15 or lower is rare. Very rare. (I hope the "I can find a statistical anomaly" argument doesn't come up next).

it is rare, but we somehow seem to find that dudes that never pan out, even with high picks. I just have a major problem putting faith in the Timberwolves and draft in the same sentence. I don't care if it is a #1 pick, we will screw it up somehow. Until proven otherwise, I don't trust them. I am liking the Love deal, and Foye is coming around, but I would still love to have Roy. And don't even get me started on past picks. Ugh

thesparky33
01-26-2009, 04:01 PM
Hawkeye... :clap:

You're one of the few posters in here that is allowing me to stay sane...

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 04:09 PM
it is rare, but we somehow seem to find that dudes that never pan out, even with high picks. I just have a major problem putting faith in the Timberwolves and draft in the same sentence. I don't care if it is a #1 pick, we will screw it up somehow. Until proven otherwise, I don't trust them. I am liking the Love deal, and Foye is coming around, but I would still love to have Roy. And don't even get me started on past picks. Ugh

Since we've screwed up picks in the past, I don't want to win the lottery this year. You guys seem so sour about past drafts I think you forget the power and potential of a top 10 pick.

Depending on getting an impact guy through FA is the wrong way to go about this imo. How can you build a franchise and depend on something out of your hands happening? At least drafting your accountable, their can be no accountability held when a FA simply says "no" to your contract because you're team plays in Minnesota.

IowaAJ
01-26-2009, 04:38 PM
Losing causes a lot of problems, players turn on eachother, coaches get fired, and people want to be traded. Winning people start to believe in eachother, coaches stay longer. When you win you develope more team chemistry, and if you lose you might get a high draft pick that could change your team or you might get a bust.

WSU Tony
01-26-2009, 04:44 PM
Losing causes a lot of problems, players turn on eachother, coaches get fired, and people want to be traded. Winning people start to believe in eachother, coaches stay longer. When you win you develope more team chemistry, and if you lose you might get a high draft pick that could change your team or you might get a bust.

Exactly. I want change.

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 06:32 PM
[QUOTE=WSU Tony;8137780]If you have the worst record in the NBA you are guaranteed a high draft pick, you are wrong.

QUOTE]

if you have the worst record in the NBA, only one thing is guarenteed, and that is that you are the worst team in the NBA, the Wolves my friend are not the worst team in the NBA. If the season started over, we would be a playoff team, and you would be excited about us being young and making the playoffs. Next year, we can make the playoffs, and we will be a young team, sounds like good progress for a rebuilding team.

I do think we are a rebuilding team, but when is it appropriate to start winning? what if we drafted a PG this year and he didnt pan out? would you want us to just continue to lose for years to come until a PG came our way that did pan out and waste all that time not developing into a winning team?

Basically you guys are saying that we should lose to get a PG or C this year, and if they dont pan out, we have to keep losing until we find one. Do you realize that very possibly could take years?

Hawkeye15
01-26-2009, 08:54 PM
[QUOTE=WSU Tony;8137780]If you have the worst record in the NBA you are guaranteed a high draft pick, you are wrong.

QUOTE]

if you have the worst record in the NBA, only one thing is guarenteed, and that is that you are the worst team in the NBA, the Wolves my friend are not the worst team in the NBA. If the season started over, we would be a playoff team, and you would be excited about us being young and making the playoffs. Next year, we can make the playoffs, and we will be a young team, sounds like good progress for a rebuilding team.

I do think we are a rebuilding team, but when is it appropriate to start winning? what if we drafted a PG this year and he didnt pan out? would you want us to just continue to lose for years to come until a PG came our way that did pan out and waste all that time not developing into a winning team?

Basically you guys are saying that we should lose to get a PG or C this year, and if they dont pan out, we have to keep losing until we find one. Do you realize that very possibly could take years?


Welcome to being the Clippers and the Hawks.

PurpleJesus
01-26-2009, 11:47 PM
someone who thinks its a good idea to lose, please tell me what happens if we get a top 5 pick and get a PG or C who doesnt pan out, will we just keep losing and hoping to pick in the top 5 till we get that guy? that is basically what your argument is.

WSU Tony
01-27-2009, 12:02 AM
someone who thinks its a good idea to lose, please tell me what happens if we get a top 5 pick and get a PG or C who doesnt pan out, will we just keep losing and hoping to pick in the top 5 till we get that guy? that is basically what your argument is.

Attain sub par talent who's peak is around .500 and stop rebuilding at that point. Three to five years later when the team is at .500 and peaked we'll rebuild again!

That's basically your argument.


(I think we both know we've over simplified each others arguments....)

PurpleJesus
01-27-2009, 12:14 AM
Attain sub par talent who's peak is around .500 and stop rebuilding at that point. Three to five years later when the team is at .500 and peaked we'll rebuild again!

That's basically your argument.


(I think we both know we've over simplified each others arguments....)

answer the question, what happens if the PG or C doesnt pan out?

WSUJJ
01-27-2009, 12:22 AM
I hope we lost, get a top 3 pick, along with another high draft pick, then drop mcHale and then go from there.

Pick up Rubio/Thabeet

WSU Tony
01-27-2009, 12:35 AM
answer the question, what happens if the PG or C doesnt pan out?

Then we try through FA. Your argument supports the 'Wolves to sign a star' argument.


What happens if your severely over estimating the talent of the wolves and they peak at .500 in 3 years from now?

PurpleJesus
01-27-2009, 12:45 AM
Then we try through FA. Your argument supports the 'Wolves to sign a star' argument.


What happens if your severely over estimating the talent of the wolves and they peak at .500 in 3 years from now?

then you peak at .500, its better than taking a risk on a guy who hasnt played an NBA game yet, and risking another set back.
And no, I dont think we can sign a star, i do think we can sign veteran help eventually
playoff teams whoes PG is not a star
Lakers
Celtics
Orlando
Hawks
Detroit
Miami
Philly
Houston
Portland

for the record, I dont think we will peak at .500 mainly because of our abundance of picks coming in the next two years, and our cap room. We do have the resources to continue to build in the draft, a top 5 pick would be nice, but this team is better than a top 5 pick team.

WSU Tony
01-27-2009, 01:54 AM
then you peak at .500, its better than taking a risk on a guy who hasnt played an NBA game yet, and risking another set back.
And no, I dont think we can sign a star, i do think we can sign veteran help eventually
playoff teams whoes PG is not a star
Lakers
Celtics
Orlando
Hawks
Detroit
Miami
Philly
Houston
Portland

for the record, I dont think we will peak at .500 mainly because of our abundance of picks coming in the next two years, and our cap room. We do have the resources to continue to build in the draft, a top 5 pick would be nice, but this team is better than a top 5 pick team.


Which of those teams don't have a legit PG OR C? The next question is "how can we get a legit PG or C?" We can't get one through the draft if we lose our top 10 pick and I think we both know the odds of us getting an impact player at either of those positions through the FA market. Their are some talents later in the draft but both PG's and C's seem to be undersized. If we had a Holiday, Jennings, Rubio, or Thabeet I think we'd be in much better shape. From then on we can look for a manageable player for the opposite position and have a pretty good team.

Oefarmy2005
01-27-2009, 02:56 AM
Tony, once again, as PurpleJesus said - draft picks don't always pan out. If we loose and get a high pick and he turnes into a bust we have to go to the free agency. Since our team played horrible that year noone in their right mind wants to go to our team, so we have to wait next year. We play like crap again just to please you and get another high pick. That one turns out to be ok but not great. Since we are a terrible team again, no free agent wants to come here. And so on and so on. We just practically turn into the Hawks, except that Atlanta is warm and they have a much higher change of getting a good freeagent that us being a loosing team. How do you even know that we'll be a .500 team. Most of our guys have only spent 2-3 years in the league. In this years draft, by the way, there are only 2 PG slotted to go top 10 in the draft, everyone else is like 15-25. We can always trade up to get that ONE guy that we really like up top. It's a crappy draft this year, so I would love to give our pick to the Clippers this year, rather than the next, because the same players that are going to go top 5 this year would go in late lottery in a deeper draft next year.

robbieseay03
01-27-2009, 06:08 AM
Not often do teams develope while losing....

WSU Tony
01-27-2009, 12:19 PM
Tony, once again, as PurpleJesus said - draft picks don't always pan out. If we loose and get a high pick and he turnes into a bust we have to go to the free agency. Since our team played horrible that year noone in their right mind wants to go to our team, so we have to wait next year. We play like crap again just to please you and get another high pick. That one turns out to be ok but not great. Since we are a terrible team again, no free agent wants to come here. And so on and so on. We just practically turn into the Hawks, except that Atlanta is warm and they have a much higher change of getting a good freeagent that us being a loosing team. How do you even know that we'll be a .500 team. Most of our guys have only spent 2-3 years in the league. In this years draft, by the way, there are only 2 PG slotted to go top 10 in the draft, everyone else is like 15-25. We can always trade up to get that ONE guy that we really like up top. It's a crappy draft this year, so I would love to give our pick to the Clippers this year, rather than the next, because the same players that are going to go top 5 this year would go in late lottery in a deeper draft next year.

I understand what you guys are saying, I really do. I like our odds with a top 10 pick for an 'impact' player more than the FA market here in Minnesota, that's the difference.

PurpleJesus
01-27-2009, 07:53 PM
If you have the worst record in the NBA you are guaranteed a high draft pick, you are wrong.

I think you guys severely over estimate the talent on this team. Make a thread in the NBA section asking how we compare to Portland.... Atlanta.... and other rebuilding teams. They'll let you know from an objective standpoint that we are not as talented as those teams.

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318891

if you are telling us to care about what the main forum says about our talent, then i think you should care about what they have to say about us winning.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2009, 08:02 PM
Which of those teams don't have a legit PG OR C? The next question is "how can we get a legit PG or C?" We can't get one through the draft if we lose our top 10 pick and I think we both know the odds of us getting an impact player at either of those positions through the FA market. Their are some talents later in the draft but both PG's and C's seem to be undersized. If we had a Holiday, Jennings, Rubio, or Thabeet I think we'd be in much better shape. From then on we can look for a manageable player for the opposite position and have a pretty good team.

Houston, Portland, LAL, and Miami do not have a good point guard. Just saying

Hawkeye15
01-27-2009, 08:05 PM
this is a dumb argument. SOme think tanking, and getting a pick is the way to go. Some think win, win, win, and it will work out. Some voted for Obama. SOme voted for McCain. Some this, some that. Oh well. It is clear at this point what everyone thinks. In 2 years, if everyone is on here, and one side works out, they can yell, ha! ANd the other side can say, you were right. Meanwhile, lets enjoy not being the laughingstock of the NBA, and having experts talk about our young talent before I have to hear of Portland anymore. And anyone who brings up Thabeet as a good pick needs to either get off drugs, or get on, whichever you aren't. He will be out of the NBA in 3 years.

PurpleJesus
01-27-2009, 08:23 PM
a 7'3" defensive minded center wont last 3 years in the NBA? now thats laughable.

WSU Tony
01-27-2009, 08:26 PM
You need a few picks to build a core, but if you have one then you need to build a winning culture.


we're pretty much going through the same thing right now. Yeah, it's nice to win some games here and there but overall we need this draft pick a lot. I'd like us to beat Golden State and Lakers, but if we lose those games as well as other games, i'm not gonna be pissed because that's just gonna help us in the long run.


http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318891

if you are telling us to care about what the main forum says about our talent, then i think you should care about what they have to say about us winning.

I see mixed opinions, personally.


Houston, Portland, LAL, and Miami do not have a good point guard. Just saying

The argument was which team lacks a legit PG AND C, like our team.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2009, 08:33 PM
a 7'3" defensive minded center wont last 3 years in the NBA? now thats laughable.

not really. If he is so good, why doesn't he totally dominate college basketball. He has ping pong balls for hands, and relys on being 7" taller than anyone else. Now, I will take back my out in 3 years, only because teams will take a chance on him due to his height, even though he will suck forever.

Mauersota
01-27-2009, 08:38 PM
this is a dumb argument. SOme think tanking, and getting a pick is the way to go. Some think win, win, win, and it will work out. Some voted for Obama. SOme voted for McCain. Some this, some that. Oh well. It is clear at this point what everyone thinks. In 2 years, if everyone is on here, and one side works out, they can yell, ha! ANd the other side can say, you were right. Meanwhile, lets enjoy not being the laughingstock of the NBA, and having experts talk about our young talent before I have to hear of Portland anymore. And anyone who brings up Thabeet as a good pick needs to either get off drugs, or get on, whichever you aren't. He will be out of the NBA in 3 years.

Meh I just didn't want to turn the corner quite this soon or like this, never said I want to tank. I partly agree about Thabeet, I believe he is very overrated and wouldn't take him top 8 at ALL.

PurpleJesus
01-27-2009, 09:23 PM
a little off topic, but thabeet is exactly what we need, we need size, thabeet has it, we need a C, thats what thabeet is, we need interior defense, thats what thabeet brings, we need someone to complement Al, Als biggest weakness is interior defense, thats what thabeet brings. Sure Thabeet is behind the curve on offense, but interior offense isnt what we need, what we need is thabeet.

Size, Center, Defense

WSU Tony
01-27-2009, 09:27 PM
In the beginning of the year the guards would slash to the hoop and get easy layups. That hasn't been happening as much lately. I do agree, though, that having Jefferson, Love, and Thabeet would be a VERY solid big man group. That could be the best in the NBA in a few years.

I still have mixed feelings about Thabeet.

PurpleJesus
01-27-2009, 09:30 PM
Thabeet = Deandre Jordan? guy with athletic ability and great size but isnt too polished.

WSU Tony
01-27-2009, 09:33 PM
Thabeet = Deandre Jordan? guy with athletic ability and great size but isnt too polished.

Thabeet will be a top ten pick, Jordan went in the 2nd round. Whether or not we see it, something is different between them.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2009, 09:36 PM
you can quote me, Thabeet will not be a productive NBA player. I don't always call it right, but I know college players from experience. I just think he gets away with being huge, and has zero skill. If we pick him up with Utah's pick, fine. But I don NOT want him in the lottery

PurpleJesus
01-27-2009, 09:36 PM
Thabeet will be a top ten pick, Jordan went in the 2nd round. Whether or not we see it, something is different between them.

7'3" and playing for UConn I think is the difference, I also think Thabeet is better, there's just definetly some similarities in what they bring to the draft.

WSU Tony
01-27-2009, 10:05 PM
7'3" and playing for UConn I think is the difference, I also think Thabeet is better, there's just definetly some similarities in what they bring to the draft.

Similarities, yes. Overall ability and potential, I don't think so. I would take Jordan with either of our bottom 1st round picks, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't give up either of the top two picks at this point.

PurpleJesus
01-27-2009, 11:35 PM
Similarities, yes. Overall ability and potential, I don't think so. I would take Jordan with either of our bottom 1st round picks, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't give up either of the top two picks at this point.

for sure i would give up a late first for Jordan, but would you give up about a tenth overall for Thabeet, i would.

If you are talking about the number one or two overall pick for thabeet, you are definetly right, i wouldnt take thabeet with one of those, but if you are talking about the wolves top two picks, i would definetly give one of thsoe for size-C-defense=thabeet.

robbieseay03
01-28-2009, 03:30 AM
If you look back at previous drafts...there isn't much difference between guards taken in the top 5 or top 15. Losing guarantees the team nothing except the fact that they will lose confidence.
The Wolves potentially have 4 first round picks. Better to win a good portion of games, get close to .500 as possible. Have a 1% chance of getting winning the lottery outright...and they may even move into the top 5 with luck. If not, then package our picks and make some deals to move up if someone is there who we would want.

I like how the Wolves have made Love earn his stripes for the team. And I'm glad that Mayo is not on the Wolves. Mayo would not have earned his stripes and would already be a prima-donna if he wasn't in the starting lineup. And let's face it, he's the star of the Grizzlies. Who cares....and he also freezes out Gay and often enough puts his team in a bad situation. If Mike Miller figures out how to shoot, or if we can package him in a deal that brings another solid player, it was a great move for the Wolves.
Jefferson and Love in the frontcourt. Have Miller at the 3 if we to start with. Foye can play the 2. All we need to do is bring in a skilled player to run the point. Jefferson is getting better. Love is getting better. Foye is finally playing like the lottery pick he is. Miller is underachieving, but has been in the league a while and I still believe in him.

Sebastian is a good backup PG, Gomes, Carney, and Rhino are great off the bench. We need to solve PG via Free Agency and an upgrade at the 3 is also possible.

PurpleJesus
01-28-2009, 06:54 PM
not really. If he is so good, why doesn't he totally dominate college basketball. He has ping pong balls for hands, and relys on being 7" taller than anyone else. Now, I will take back my out in 3 years, only because teams will take a chance on him due to his height, even though he will suck forever.

few players do "totally" dominate college basketball, not even everyones favorite young big man Greg Oden did, nor Brook Lopez. He is commited to being a good defender, and he is huge, he will be a good center in this league for years to come.