PDA

View Full Version : Update: Bottom of the League (Official Thread)



Jefferson25
01-31-2009, 02:46 PM
4/01/2009

New Jersey--------- 31 44
Toronto------------ 29 45
New York---------- 29 46
Golden State------ 25 49
Oklahoma City------ 21 53
Minnesota-------- 21 54
Memphis----------- 20 54
LA Clippers--------- 18 56
Sacramento-------- 17 57
Washington-------- 17 59


Wolves Pick (Protected top 10)... Wolves sit 5th-------> Wolves pick
Heat's Pick (Protected top 10).... Heat sit 16th--------> Wolves pick
Celtic's Pick (Protected top 3).... Celtics sit 27th------> Wolves pick
Jazz's Pick (Protected top 22).... Jazz sit 22nd------> Jazz's pick


Listing of upcoming games to keep an eye out for... these games include teams in the bottom 6

Apr 1 WAS @ MEM

Apr 7 MIN @ LAC
Apr 10 SAC @ LAC

Apr 15 SAC @ MIN & OKC @ LAC

Mark your calendar folks... May 19th... draft lottery day. Watch the ping pong balls go!

WSU Tony
01-31-2009, 03:31 PM
Will you fill us in with Utah, Miami, and the Celtics and whether we have the picks and what spot they are at? I think that would be a great thing to include, if you don't mind. Great idea for a thread.

PurpleJesus
01-31-2009, 06:36 PM
and could you post the ten bottom instead of 9? thanks

Jefferson25
01-31-2009, 10:21 PM
okay done thanks... again updated each Sunday probably. Please keep this thread to only analyzing the bottom teams and their positioning for the 2009 draft and which teams look to be headed toward the bottom and which teams are looking toward winning and leaving the bottom ten. Good Luck Wolves!

jwin2005
01-31-2009, 10:29 PM
Great idea for a thread Jefferson.

It is interesting to see how Miami's pick is actually the important one. It can easily be the 11th pick in the draft! They currently sit 17th but they can get worst and be 11th! Hopefully they do not get a top ten pick however since I think the Wolves can really use a mid-1st round draft pick.

Again I dont want the Wolves to lose but it would be sooooo nice if we could keep our pick in the top 10

howiend
01-31-2009, 11:31 PM
The wolves will finish with the 8th or 9th worst record. I think they will pass Indiana and be very close to the Bulls (some nights can play really well but are inconsistent) and Charlotte (playing well right now). This is worst case scenario. I think the wolves are finally going to get lucky and land in the top 3 when they shouldn't.

PurpleJesus
02-01-2009, 01:52 AM
stupid utah, start playing better.

Preuss-is-right
02-01-2009, 01:53 AM
I hope this is that year. This wasnt expected to be a breakout year, rather an improvement from last year. People seem to get lost in arguments of winning and losing when we should be glad to even be discussing the possibility of losing our pick. If it happens it happened because we exceeded expectations and the players we do have are improving more than we gave them credit for.

Talk of ceilings really makes no sense. Every player has flaws that the NBA eventually exposes. Whether or not these players can recognize and imporve cannot be predicted. I can remember when KG was drafted and how he had endless possibilities. Looking back at his career he was never a prolific scorer and never was really a go to guy down the stretch. KG was more suited to be Pippen not Jordan. How can one argue how well a player will adjust when he hasnt even played a game in the NBA yet?

I'm just glad we are showing all around improvement and are even worrying about being out of the bottom 10.

WSU Tony
02-02-2009, 12:20 PM
Come on Jazz! Boo Heat! :)

Mauersota
02-02-2009, 12:30 PM
Come on Jazz! Boo Heat! :)

Only reason I would want the Jazz's pick is if were going to go after Bosh, otherwise I'd rather have it next year.

WSU Tony
02-02-2009, 01:07 PM
Only reason I would want the Jazz's pick is if were going to go after Bosh, otherwise I'd rather have it next year.

How effective is he at playing Center? I suppose it wouldn't really matter, Jefferson and Bosh on the court would work either way.

Having 4 first round picks is too much and as long as we can still trade to get that Miami pick up in the top 10 I'm willing to let go of the Utah pick and let it .....simmer.... one more year. Protected draft picks are like wine..... lol.

Turning 3 picks + a player into two top 10 picks would be just fine. Utah's pick can be cashed another time.

howiend
02-03-2009, 11:09 PM
The raptors will be added to this list next week. I would say there is a pretty good chance the wolves will finish ahead of the raptors also.

Jefferson25
02-08-2009, 12:34 AM
The list has just been update... Icannot believe the raptors are in the bottom 10

Lets just hope Minnesota can stay in this pack until the end of the season

howiend
02-08-2009, 01:06 AM
Can you post the bottom 11 teams so we can see how close or far the wolves are to being in the bottom 10?

howiend
02-10-2009, 12:00 AM
Forget that request. With al out, we won't be gaining ground on any teams. I think we will end up 4 or 5 AND I am still predicting this is the year we get selected top 3 even though we don't finish in the bottom 3.

WSU Tony
02-22-2009, 08:27 PM
I guess this thread will never be edited again. :( (lol)

Jefferson25
02-22-2009, 11:40 PM
Hiya Tony,

I saw that you asked... so I just updated it... the Wolves are slowly but surely heading downwards

Jefferson25
02-23-2009, 12:04 AM
Keep winning Utah

Keep losing Miami

howiend
02-23-2009, 12:25 AM
I really like this thread. Thanks jeff25 for updating! Which team has the best chance of passing the wolves? Any predictions on how many will? I still think the clippers with some of their offensive fire-power (baron davis, zach randolph) should win some games at the end of the season when teams stop playing defense. I could see OKC and the Clippers passing the wolves. I don't think memphis is very good so I will predict wolves finish 4th worst record.


Memphis----------- 15 40
Oklahoma City------ 13 43
LA Clippers--------- 13 43
Washington--------- 13 43
Sacramento--------- 12 45

jwin2005
02-23-2009, 04:57 PM
Durant should lead OKC passed us.. the guy is playing out of his mind

OJ Mayo and Rudy Gay should win more games than the Wolves down the stretch

What an amazing last 30 or so games! I am excited to see where we position. I think we will be bottom 5 for sure... position 3-5 is a toss up at this point. I hope no one tanks like Miami last year!

Hawkeye15
02-23-2009, 06:12 PM
I can't see anyone but Memphis passing us really. those other teams are hopeless

Jefferson25
02-23-2009, 07:18 PM
A lot of people ask me why there werent many big trades before the deadline...

I think the asnwer is that there are only so many teams about 6 who actually want to win NOW

The league is very lopsided... the majority of the teams are dumping cap space and wanting young talent

What a mess... the Wolves are doing a great job! Now we need the draft to be a success for once. We need the #1 pick

Hawkeye15
02-23-2009, 07:27 PM
A lot of people ask me why there werent many big trades before the deadline...

I think the asnwer is that there are only so many teams about 6 who actually want to win NOW

The league is very lopsided... the majority of the teams are dumping cap space and wanting young talent

What a mess... the Wolves are doing a great job! Now we need the draft to be a success for once. We need the #1 pick

and some moves are not just for cap space, but to save money period. Many franchises are not making money. The Wolves can't possibily be in the black. No way.

howiend
02-23-2009, 09:40 PM
Sounds great so far - 2 votes for memphis and 2 votes for OKC. The wolves are going to get a break in the lottery this year.

VikingsWin2869
02-23-2009, 10:27 PM
I have been wondering even if we end up with the 8th or 9th pick we will most likely have 3 or 4 first round picks so why wouldn't we trade up quite a few picks because i don't see us keeping 4 or 5 players just from the draft.

jwin2005
02-23-2009, 10:53 PM
Here is a chart to look at the odds of winning the lottery and the most likely pick teams will receive according to percentages
http://www.nba.com/celtics/stats/inside-the-numbers/itn042307-draft-lottery-odds.html
I think some of us are still confused on what pick we will most likely receive.

IowaAJ
02-24-2009, 01:17 AM
I think we will get the 5th pick when all said and done. I bet the Clippers or the Wizards will win the lottery

tcman2007
02-24-2009, 07:54 PM
I think we will get the 5th pick when all said and done. I bet the Clippers or the Wizards will win the lottery

Yup. Probably. The draft is rigged. I've been saying it for years. The Clippers have had a wealth of #1/#2 picks. They've had more than anyone. The Wizards are a bigger market, so they'll get the pick over us. That's how it works.

WSU Tony
02-24-2009, 08:21 PM
Yup. Probably. The draft is rigged. I've been saying it for years. The Clippers have had a wealth of #1/#2 picks. They've had more than anyone. The Wizards are a bigger market, so they'll get the pick over us. That's how it works.

If they would release a tape after the picks have been announced of them actually picking the balls, people wouldn't think like we do. It's hard not to think that way when your from Minnesota.

tcman2007
02-24-2009, 09:27 PM
If they would release a tape after the picks have been announced of them actually picking the balls, people wouldn't think like we do. It's hard not to think that way when your from Minnesota.

Yes, it isn't. It's good to see I'm not the only one who thinks that way. They do all of those number combinations now...I'd like to see the balls pop up myself. Just once I'd like to see it.

There are a few reasons why I think it's rigged:

1. They don't show it.
2. Orlando getting the # 1 two years in a row.
3. Cleveland winning the year that LeBron (Ohio native) is up for grabs.
4. Chicago winning the year that Derrick Rose (Illinois native) is up for grabs.

Also, the supposed "envelope" incident in '85.

PurpleJesus
02-24-2009, 10:21 PM
yeah, it does always seem like the bigger markets get the number one when they are in the lottery, however, Boston never got the number one when they were in the lottery for a couple years. Ive always been a skeptical since i was a youngen when Orlando somehow got Shaq

jwin2005
02-24-2009, 11:08 PM
Shaq AND Penny Hardaway!

I would love for the Wolves to have to choose between Griffin and Rubio... what a tough decision. hmmmmm

jwin2005
02-25-2009, 01:29 AM
So many negatives to being on the bottom.

The top is much better. Just look at Boston

They got Mikki Moore for the veterans minimum... we wouldve had to give away like Ryan Gomes for him

Now they get first dibs at Stephon Marbury. Gosh I am jealous. Go Boston!

Hawkeye15
02-25-2009, 03:40 PM
So many negatives to being on the bottom.

The top is much better. Just look at Boston

They got Mikki Moore for the veterans minimum... we wouldve had to give away like Ryan Gomes for him

Now they get first dibs at Stephon Marbury. Gosh I am jealous. Go Boston!

Marbury is a loser and total waste of talent. I won't bother researching it, but I would guess his career winning % is around 28%. Everywhere he goes, they suck. And he was blessed with unreal physical talent. Rose is a clone, but mentally much better.

boeknows
02-26-2009, 03:43 AM
So many negatives to being on the bottom.

The top is much better. Just look at Boston

They got Mikki Moore for the veterans minimum... we wouldve had to give away like Ryan Gomes for him

Now they get first dibs at Stephon Marbury. Gosh I am jealous. Go Boston!

Mikki Moore was a free agent so why would we have to give up anyone to get him. If we would have claimed him off wavers we wouldnt have had to give up anything.

Actually with Marbury everyone has a chance to claim him. The Celtics arent even close to being the first crack at him. But i agree with Hawkeye Marbury is a piece of ****. He always makes the team worse and is a cancer to each time. I dont know why the hell u would want to get him.

howiend
02-26-2009, 10:14 AM
Clippers beat the Celtics. Any votes for the clippers passing the wolves up? And Utah is winning like crazy. Maybe we end up with 4 first rounders.

rusty trumpet
02-26-2009, 10:32 AM
Hi - first post here , be gentle please!

If you (are a sad statto and) look at the remaining fixtures you can see that there is actually some symmetry in that all the bottom 6 teams play each other once (and only once) more i.e. they have 5 games against teams in the bottom 6. (Assuming I haven't misread stuff that is.)

Feb 28 OKC @ MEM
Mar 4 WAS @ OKC & MEM @ LAC

Mar 9 WAS @ MIN
Mar 10 OKC @ SAC

Mar 11 MEM @ MIN
Mar 15 SAC @ WAS

Mar 18 WAS @ SAC
Mar 22 OKC @ MIN

Mar 27 MEM @ SAC
Apr 1 WAS @ MEM

Apr 7 MIN @ LAC
Apr 10 SAC @ LAC

Apr 15 SAC @ MIN & OKC @ LAC

So even if all 6 lose to everyone else someone's got to win some games! But will that be enough to take someone past the Wolves in the standings?

And is Madsen being rested to prepare himself for a 3 point barrage in the last game again?

Jefferson25
02-26-2009, 12:38 PM
Hi - first post here , be gentle please!

If you (are a sad statto and) look at the remaining fixtures you can see that there is actually some symmetry in that all the bottom 6 teams play each other once (and only once) more i.e. they have 5 games against teams in the bottom 6. (Assuming I haven't misread stuff that is.)

Feb 28 OKC @ MEM
Mar 4 WAS @ OKC & MEM @ LAC

Mar 9 WAS @ MIN
Mar 10 OKC @ SAC

Mar 11 MEM @ MIN
Mar 15 SAC @ WAS

Mar 18 WAS @ SAC
Mar 22 OKC @ MIN

Mar 27 MEM @ SAC
Apr 1 WAS @ MEM

Apr 7 MIN @ LAC
Apr 10 SAC @ LAC

Apr 15 SAC @ MIN & OKC @ LAC

So even if all 6 lose to everyone else someone's got to win some games! But will that be enough to take someone past the Wolves in the standings?

And is Madsen being rested to prepare himself for a 3 point barrage in the last game again?

Thanks for the listing of games... I might just have to post that into the body of the first post to update those games.

A part of me wants Madsen to start the barrage of 3s at the end of games starting today!

jwin2005
02-26-2009, 01:45 PM
Clippers beat the Celtics. Any votes for the clippers passing the wolves up? And Utah is winning like crazy. Maybe we end up with 4 first rounders.

I think realistically Oklahoma City, Memphis, and LA Clips can pass us up. It all depends on if a team gets hot for a little stretch.

I think the games between the bottom 6 if going to be crucial. It will be interesting to see if any team is tanking.

Lets get Ricky Rubio and Gerald Henderson!

WSU Tony
02-26-2009, 01:51 PM
If Rubio comes out, this draft should be top 4 heavy.

boeknows
02-26-2009, 11:26 PM
I think realistically Oklahoma City, Memphis, and LA Clips can pass us up. It all depends on if a team gets hot for a little stretch.

I think the games between the bottom 6 if going to be crucial. It will be interesting to see if any team is tanking.

Lets get Ricky Rubio and Gerald Henderson!

You already off of Curry now?

Man ur like the town bicycle. Your giving everyone a ride.

Mauersota
02-26-2009, 11:50 PM
You already off of Curry now?

Man ur like the town bicycle. Your giving everyone a ride.

Trying to keep it PG?

cwilson21
02-27-2009, 12:37 AM
Trying to keep it PG?

If not it'd look a little something like this, **** **** *** ****ing **** *** **** **** ********

jwin2005
02-27-2009, 02:22 AM
You already off of Curry now?

Man ur like the town bicycle. Your giving everyone a ride.

Curry > Henderson. I just said that cuz Tony likes him.

I hope the Vikings get Houshmandzadeh! C'mon Wilf so what if the guy is 32 your wide receivers suck!

WSU Tony
02-27-2009, 02:23 AM
I like Henderson. I don't like Curry.

Oefarmy2005
02-27-2009, 12:15 PM
Curry > Henderson. I just said that cuz Tony likes him.

I hope the Vikings get Houshmandzadeh! C'mon Wilf so what if the guy is 32 your wide receivers suck!

It's funny how you feel the need to kiss Tony's ***.

jwin2005
02-27-2009, 02:57 PM
Henderson is a solid player I agree he would be a great mid to late first round pick... I dont know if youve noticed but I mostly go against everyone and get criticized left and right every single day

boeknows
02-27-2009, 04:21 PM
Henderson is a solid player I agree he would be a great mid to late first round pick... I dont know if youve noticed but I mostly go against everyone and get criticized left and right every single day

Thats because u switch ur view every 2 minutes.

Hawkeye15
02-27-2009, 04:51 PM
Henderson is a solid player I agree he would be a great mid to late first round pick... I dont know if youve noticed but I mostly go against everyone and get criticized left and right every single day

nah, people give you crap because you love a player one day, then hate him the next. And you seem to not really understand basketball in my opinion, but you are a fan of the same team I love, so cheers anyways.

WSU Tony
02-27-2009, 06:08 PM
It's funny how you feel the need to kiss Tony's ***.

I :clap: Jwin for staying on subject while everyone tries to put him down.

Hawkeye15
02-27-2009, 08:02 PM
I :clap: Jwin for staying on subject while everyone tries to put him down.

as usual, he brought it up. And he can stay on subject all he wants, if he just sticks with something for more than 4 minutes, he will get more respect. We are all Wolves fan, and Jwin, that includes you. But bro, you gotta be more consistent, and get off Mayo's jock, he is gone.
Now, Henderson is fine, but he is a poor man's Foye. Listed at 6'4" (just like Foye was, meaning 6'3" maybe), and is a Dukie. Out of the 50 or so Duke players taken over the past 15 years, how many translated into the NBA?? Brand, Maggette, and Grant Hill ( I am sure I am forgetting someone, but you get my drift). Coach K recruits terrific college players that just don't translate into the pros. Shoot, we just traded for one

howiend
03-02-2009, 01:19 AM
Looks like the jazz will finish with a top 7 record so the Wolves are going to end up with 4 first round picks. Hope they can trade one to move up and trade another one for a first round next year.

Jefferson25
03-02-2009, 01:33 AM
Man it is getting bunched up at the bottom of the league. Kudos to the Jazz they are going to give us their pick. This is a make or break draft for us for sure.

WSU Tony
03-02-2009, 03:34 AM
4 first rounders are too much. Either we'll undervalue each pick since we have 4 or we'll take a less than value trade so we dont' have to sign 4 guys to guaranteed contracts.

BelieveTheDream
03-02-2009, 02:04 PM
whats going on guys i was wondering how bobby brown was doing for you guys is he getting any burn and if so hows he playing

WSU Tony
03-02-2009, 04:51 PM
Not many minutes go to him to be honest. Maybe with Telfair leaving the game the other night he see's more.

BelieveTheDream
03-02-2009, 06:19 PM
Not many minutes go to him to be honest. Maybe with Telfair leaving the game the other night he see's more.

yea ive heard a bit about him i like the deal for you guys plus the direction of the team in my opinion is nice with foye-jefferson-love-gomes feel like you guys could be a 2 guard away from doing some nice things jefferson had a monster first half and pretty much showed what he will be doing and him getting injured guys will have a shot at a top pick who do you think would fit good here or you want here

WSU Tony
03-02-2009, 07:44 PM
yea ive heard a bit about him i like the deal for you guys plus the direction of the team in my opinion is nice with foye-jefferson-love-gomes feel like you guys could be a 2 guard away from doing some nice things jefferson had a monster first half and pretty much showed what he will be doing and him getting injured guys will have a shot at a top pick who do you think would fit good here or you want here

I think Foye will put up league average at worst production at the SG spot. Our needs are a PG and a C. If we can lock down either of those positions with our FOUR first round picks this year, I'd be happy with the organization.

Mauersota
03-03-2009, 12:48 AM
I think Foye will put up league average at worst production at the SG spot. Our needs are a PG and a C. If we can lock down either of those positions with our FOUR first round picks this year, I'd be happy with the organization.

*Warning Off Topic*

Anyone else notice Foye is kind of demanding to run the point some times even if Ollie or Brown is in? If he didn't want to do it he wouldn't push for it as hard as it appears, or is McHale telling him to do? So maybe we do just take the best "guard" and not necessarily a point guard (and I'm not even talking Harden).

*Return to your previous topic*

WSU Tony
03-03-2009, 01:37 AM
I've always been a fan of the best available approach but I think we need to put a limitation on it this year to "Best available outside of a PF." This should hold true, of course, if our pick isn't set up to take Griffin or the pick isn't taking a high value guy like Monroe might turn into for this draft.

jwin2005
03-03-2009, 02:14 AM
Rubio has such a great feel for the game. I doubt he will be a great defender but if he isnt a liability on the defensive end I think he will become a great PG in time. He needs a few more years to develop his jump shot however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQvpwR8-Pck

WSU Tony
03-03-2009, 12:47 PM
Does he have an outside shot? His defense will be a liability, I fear.

jwin2005
03-03-2009, 01:36 PM
Well during the olympics Rubio was playing pretty well on defense against the U.S. team. As he gets older and stronger I think his defense can only improve. His outside shot is what many are scared of. He barely gets any lift and pretty much shoots a flat shot.

I still think he is going to be a great PG in the league with his quickness and decision making. Then add Steph Curry and it will be a successful draft. Also if Cole Aldrich falls down the board maybe we can get him as well.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2009, 02:16 PM
Rubio has great hands and anticipation. He will struggle with really quick guys, but he lives in the passing lanes, and even Kobe said he had some of the fastest hands he has seen. His outside shot is a work in progress, but he has Nash like passing ability.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2009, 02:17 PM
I still don't understand the Curry thing. We are already an undersized team. Why add a 6'1'' tweener? I don't understand.

WSU Tony
03-03-2009, 05:14 PM
Rubio has great hands and anticipation. He will struggle with really quick guys, but he lives in the passing lanes, and even Kobe said he had some of the fastest hands he has seen. His outside shot is a work in progress, but he has Nash like passing ability.

Nash like passing ability with Love, Jefferson, and Foye on the floor. I like the Rubio & Aldrich draft. Heck, if we could get Mullens instead, that'd only be a plus.

Mauersota
03-03-2009, 06:52 PM
I'm also more worried about Rubio's shot then defense. Sad thing is he would probably be our best defensive guard (excluding Brewer or Carney) and people are making comments about him being a defensive liability.

jwin2005
03-03-2009, 07:18 PM
I still don't understand the Curry thing. We are already an undersized team. Why add a 6'1'' tweener? I don't understand.

I can see why you dont agree with me. But as in most of the things I do in my life I take a lot of risk and go against the grain. For example in my portfolio I usually buy in to things that a lot of people are selling out of or afraid to hold. I have done a pretty good killing since I started a while back.

Curry is one of the players where if you take the risk on taking him, he can turn out to be a real gem. That is what my gut tells me. I may be wrong but that is what I think.

Here is a great article on tanking season:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090303

Mauersota
03-03-2009, 08:08 PM
I can see why you dont agree with me. But as in most of the things I do in my life I take a lot of risk and go against the grain. For example in my portfolio I usually buy in to things that a lot of people are selling out of or afraid to hold. I have done a pretty good killing since I started a while back.

Curry is one of the players where if you take the risk on taking him, he can turn out to be a real gem. That is what my gut tells me. I may be wrong but that is what I think.

Here is a great article on tanking season:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090303

Wanna play RISK sometime?

jwin2005
03-03-2009, 08:33 PM
no but I will play you in rat race... probably what you are in and have been in your whole life

tcman2007
03-03-2009, 11:57 PM
Does he have an outside shot? His defense will be a liability, I fear.

There was one GM who was quoted as saying that: "Rubio won't be able to guard anybody". I don't believe that necessarily. His man-to-man D isn't that great, but I think his quickness is really underated. If he is able to slither into the paint for layups (which he does quite well, IMO) then I think he can learn to move his feet and D people up. He needs to work on his strength, but most draft picks do. That's what I've gathered from watching him. His lack of strength gets him pushed around a bit. But, the guy gets a LOT of steals. He has great anticipation and flourishes in the open court. He can pass the ball like few players can. Also, he's a natural leader. So, as you see, he ain't perfect. He isn't Derrick Rose, even. But, I feel he could be a Steve Nash type player. He could be a Nash who gets a ton of steals.

And even though there have been a few GM's who don't like Rubio, I believe it it is Chad Ford from ESPN who says that almost ALL GM's have Rubio in their "top-3" prospects.

Hawkeye15
03-04-2009, 02:26 PM
There was one GM who was quoted as saying that: "Rubio won't be able to guard anybody". I don't believe that necessarily. His man-to-man D isn't that great, but I think his quickness is really underated. If he is able to slither into the paint for layups (which he does quite well, IMO) then I think he can learn to move his feet and D people up. He needs to work on his strength, but most draft picks do. That's what I've gathered from watching him. His lack of strength gets him pushed around a bit. But, the guy gets a LOT of steals. He has great anticipation and flourishes in the open court. He can pass the ball like few players can. Also, he's a natural leader. So, as you see, he ain't perfect. He isn't Derrick Rose, even. But, I feel he could be a Steve Nash type player. He could be a Nash who gets a ton of steals.

And even though there have been a few GM's who don't like Rubio, I believe it it is Chad Ford from ESPN who says that almost ALL GM's have Rubio in their "top-3" prospects.


He will need to go top 3, or he can't afford to come out. And Ford is saying not one GM that he has spoken to recently, has him outside the top 3. I forsee him as a Nash without the deadly jumper, but with a high rate of steals.

Foye
03-04-2009, 02:57 PM
There was one GM who was quoted as saying that: "Rubio won't be able to guard anybody". I don't believe that necessarily. His man-to-man D isn't that great, but I think his quickness is really underated. If he is able to slither into the paint for layups (which he does quite well, IMO) then I think he can learn to move his feet and D people up. He needs to work on his strength, but most draft picks do. That's what I've gathered from watching him. His lack of strength gets him pushed around a bit. But, the guy gets a LOT of steals. He has great anticipation and flourishes in the open court. He can pass the ball like few players can. Also, he's a natural leader. So, as you see, he ain't perfect. He isn't Derrick Rose, even. But, I feel he could be a Steve Nash type player. He could be a Nash who gets a ton of steals.

And even though there have been a few GM's who don't like Rubio, I believe it it is Chad Ford from ESPN who says that almost ALL GM's have Rubio in their "top-3" prospects.

I agree with you. Ricky Rubio won't be won't be a star right from the start he'll need time to develop. I think the Nash comparison is very realistic. I would not even expect that Rubio will be in the top 5-7 Rookies after the next season, he needs time to develop, just as Nash did but his game is special and he'll turn out to be one of the best pg's in the league in 2 or 3 years, when we are ready to contribute, mark my words. :clap:

Jefferson25
03-05-2009, 01:02 AM
If Twolves keep losing I think the other teams are starting to win (especially OKC)

We have a shot at the #1 again baby!

WSU Tony
03-05-2009, 11:16 AM
No, we don't.

Foye
03-05-2009, 02:56 PM
If Twolves keep losing I think the other teams are starting to win (especially OKC)

We have a shot at the #1 again baby!

I think the Wizards and Kings have already given up on winning.

I have a feeling they are just trying to win a game when all the other bad teams won a game xD

I don't see us being worse than WAS, SAC, LAC.

OKC seems to be on a role right now so they could end up being better than we are, maybe the Grizz, too.

Think we'll be 4. to 6. last

tcman2007
03-06-2009, 08:28 PM
Forget that request. With al out, we won't be gaining ground on any teams. I think we will end up 4 or 5 AND I am still predicting this is the year we get selected top 3 even though we don't finish in the bottom 3.

I hope you're right. Not only would I like to get a top-3 pick, I'd like for the Wolves to not finish as one of the 3 worst teams in the league.

WSU Tony
03-06-2009, 10:10 PM
I hope you're right. Not only would I like to get a top-3 pick, I'd like for the Wolves to not finish as one of the 3 worst teams in the league.

I don't care where we pick as long as we get one of Griffin, Harden, Thabeet, or Rubio. :) It would have been really nice to get the 14th worst record in the league and one of those guys. I wish we'd see a bit more consistancy from some of the starters, they are really hit or miss EVERY game it seems like.

howiend
03-07-2009, 12:02 AM
I'm right! I haven't watch Thabeet a lot but I am not a fan. The kid from Pitt had his way with him. He will not be a good rebounder and no offensive game. We really don't want someone who will clog the lane on offense.

WSU Tony
03-07-2009, 12:58 AM
I'm right! I haven't watch Thabeet a lot but I am not a fan. The kid from Pitt had his way with him. He will not be a good rebounder and no offensive game. We really don't want someone who will clog the lane on offense.

He rebounds fine.

Mauersota
03-07-2009, 01:01 AM
He rebounds fine.

With his height he should rebound phenomenal though.

For all those that say Thabeet looks "smooth" or "comfortable" with his height I give you this piece of evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjADO-KPxzU

boeknows
03-07-2009, 02:36 AM
I'm right! I haven't watch Thabeet a lot but I am not a fan. The kid from Pitt had his way with him. He will not be a good rebounder and no offensive game. We really don't want someone who will clog the lane on offense.

Blair has had his way with pretty much everyone this year. Thats why he is averaging 16 points and 12.6 reb per game this year. He is leading the league in reb and tied for 3rd in Division 1.

WSU Tony
03-07-2009, 12:58 PM
With his height he should rebound phenomenal though.

For all those that say Thabeet looks "smooth" or "comfortable" with his height I give you this piece of evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjADO-KPxzU

With love and Jefferson on the team, I don't think our main concern is drafting a rebounder.

jwin2005
03-07-2009, 04:14 PM
Sam Young of Pittsburg is someone the Wolves should really look at. He is listed at 6'6 but the guy is a flat out player.

He is great defensively and is great at driving and penetrating on the offensive end. He will definitely be a great 3 in the NBA if he can continue getting better on his jump shot. His athletic ability is pretty amazing as well. Just watch his highlight reels.

Undervalued players:
Sam Young
Patrick Patterson
Patrick Mills
Tyreke Evans
Jodie Meeks

PurpleJesus
03-07-2009, 07:56 PM
its ridiculous how bad we are playing, and yet, there are teams that are still worse.

Mauersota
03-08-2009, 01:58 AM
With love and Jefferson on the team, I don't think our main concern is drafting a rebounder.

So expecting a 7 foot 3 center who is going to get significant minutes to rebound what he should is asking to much? I'm sorry that is just ********. And only asking him to block shots is enough?

I guess our point guard should only need to know how to pass.
I guess our shooting guard should only need to know how to shoot.
I guess our small forward should only need to know how to score
I guess our power forward should only need to know how to rebound.
And our center should only need to know how to block.

It is called a complete player, we need them.

WSU Tony
03-08-2009, 02:06 AM
So expecting a 7 foot 3 center who is going to get significant minutes to rebound what he should is asking to much? I'm sorry that is just ********. And only asking him to block shots is enough?

I guess our point guard should only need to know how to pass.
I guess our shooting guard should only need to know how to shoot.
I guess our small forward should only need to know how to score
I guess our power forward should only need to know how to rebound.
And our center should only need to know how to block.

It is called a complete player, we need them.

If we get the #1 pick, we'll get one. Otherwise, we'll have to settle. Where are these 'complete players' your talking about in this draft?

We have a PG who doesn't pass well or hit open shots (most of the time)
We have a SG who is undersized and doesn't shoot like typical SG
We have SF who don't don't really have a strong point in their game
We have a PF with great offense but not great defense
We have a make shift C

We don't have a single "complete" player on our team, not even Jefferson. How do you expect us to get a complete player with the #5 or worse pick in the draft? Guys who are mediocre at every aspect are found later in the draft. Guys who excel in one or more categories and have upside in others are taken higher in the draft. That's how I've always looked at it, anyway.

Mauersota
03-08-2009, 02:08 AM
If we get the #1 pick, we'll get one. Otherwise, we'll have to settle. Where are these 'complete players' your talking about in this draft?

We have a PG who doesn't pass well or hit open shots (most of the time)
We have a SG who is undersized and doesn't shoot like typical SG
We have SF who don't don't really have a strong point in their game
We have a PF with great offense but not great defense
We have a make shift C

We don't have a single "complete" player on our team, not even Jefferson. How do you expect us to get a complete player with the #5 or worse pick in the draft? Guys who are mediocre at every aspect are found later in the draft. Guys who excel in one or more categories and have upside in others are taken higher in the draft. That's how I've always looked at it, anyway.

Gomes...

With the 5th pick we should be able to get a complete player whether it be Monroe, Harden, Griffin kinda, etc.

Oefarmy2005
03-08-2009, 02:49 AM
Mauersota, I think you should add Sam Young to your Jwins prospects of the week.

WSU Tony
03-08-2009, 11:10 AM
Gomes...

With the 5th pick we should be able to get a complete player whether it be Monroe, Harden, Griffin kinda, etc.

I only see one complete player, Griffin. Beyond that it's pick your position/strength and upside for the rest of the skills.


Mauersota, I think you should add Sam Young to your Jwins prospects of the week.

He made one comment about Young, sheesh. If you look for faults in anyone, you'll find them.

cwilson21
03-08-2009, 11:55 AM
I only see one complete player, Griffin. Beyond that it's pick your position/strength and upside for the rest of the skills.



He made one comment about Young, sheesh. If you look for faults in anyone, you'll find them.

Nope make it 2 as another was made in a different thread. Sorry but every week he gets a man crush on a player after hearing about how good they are on ESPN and then wants to draft him.

Mauersota
03-08-2009, 01:27 PM
I only see one complete player, Griffin. Beyond that it's pick your position/strength and upside for the rest of the skills.



He made one comment about Young, sheesh. If you look for faults in anyone, you'll find them.

Complete means a player that plays defense, can score and shoot, team player, can pass, and doesn't have any major weaknesses. They don't have to be a superstar to be a complete player.

WSU Tony
03-08-2009, 01:49 PM
Complete means a player that plays defense, can score and shoot, team player, can pass, and doesn't have any major weaknesses. They don't have to be a superstar to be a complete player.

I understand that. Complete players go top 3 or end of the first round. You either have GOOD complete players or you have MEDIOCRE complete players. Almost everyone else is really good at one part of the game and have upside with the weaknesses.

PurpleJesus
03-08-2009, 02:30 PM
are we on pace to lose more games than last year?

badkins1121
03-08-2009, 03:09 PM
We'd have to go 4-19 to tie last years record so at the rate they are going now probably. But for the season it's 2.39 loses per win. So for the seasons pace we will end up with 6 or 7 more wins and be at 24-58, so no we aren't on pace to lose more games then last year YET.

Jefferson25
03-08-2009, 11:16 PM
Looks like if the wolves keep this up we will be the worst team

WSU Tony
03-08-2009, 11:57 PM
Looks like if the wolves keep this up we will be the worst team

No, we won't be. We won't even be in the bottom three.

Now I ask you, was the winning streak earlier in the season really THAT beneficial? At the time I was saying no and 90% of the people here were saying yes. Now that it's as clear to all of you as it was to me that we won't be making the playoffs and that the win streak didn't fast track our development, if that streak means the difference between getting Rubio or Jennings, will you really admit it wasn't worth it?

boeknows
03-09-2009, 12:06 AM
I still believe winning is better than developing a losing attitude.

Mauersota
03-09-2009, 12:18 AM
No, we won't be. We won't even be in the bottom three.

Now I ask you, was the winning streak earlier in the season really THAT beneficial? At the time I was saying no and 90% of the people here were saying yes. Now that it's as clear to all of you as it was to me that we won't be making the playoffs and that the win streak didn't fast track our development, if that streak means the difference between getting Rubio or Jennings, will you really admit it wasn't worth it?

You know where I stood on that but I don't think anyone thought Al would go down.

cwilson21
03-09-2009, 12:19 AM
No, we won't be. We won't even be in the bottom three.

Now I ask you, was the winning streak earlier in the season really THAT beneficial? At the time I was saying no and 90% of the people here were saying yes. Now that it's as clear to all of you as it was to me that we won't be making the playoffs and that the win streak didn't fast track our development, if that streak means the difference between getting Rubio or Jennings, will you really admit it wasn't worth it?

Seeing that Jennings rarely gets any pt over in Europe and hasn't done enough to get his coaches attention, I'd say no to that. As much as people are stoked over Rubio, I honestly am not one of those people. TWolves fans complain about Telfair because he isn't the best of shooters (though improving) and is not a great defensive guy but then again, have you guys seen Rubio shoot the ball? Holy **** that is an atrocious shot. No lift whatsoever on his shot. He's going to get swatted a lot if that doesn't change. I just haven't been impressed at all watching him.

Jefferson25
03-09-2009, 12:33 AM
Sacramento is really starting to play well. Kevin Martin is healthy and shooting the ball great.

OKC is playing very well even without their best player Kevin Durant. What does that mean? That means they have a bright future (Westbrook, Green, Durant, Blake Griffin?). That would be a sick team.

Memphis is only two wins behind us... they can surely pass us if they keep it up.

LAC and Washington are probably the worst two teams.

jwin2005
03-09-2009, 12:38 AM
I hope you are right Jefferson. The Wolves need to get the best player possible.
Bad news for Steph Curry fans. They lost tonight and probably wont make the NCAA tournament.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=290672166

Curry could not score against a 6'7 player who has a 7'2 wingspan. Oh well. I still think he can be effective in the NBA.

WSU Tony
03-09-2009, 01:03 AM
I still believe winning is better than developing a losing attitude.

Yes, that winning streak clearly paid dividends to our future... :rolleyes:


You know where I stood on that but I don't think anyone thought Al would go down.

As if we would have made the playoffs with him.... Or been outside of the top 10....

Oefarmy2005
03-09-2009, 11:06 AM
Yes, that winning streak clearly paid dividends to our future... :rolleyes:



As if we would have made the playoffs with him.... Or been outside of the top 10....

Dude, you just gotto go and be a fan of someother team. You are becoming the secon Jwin on this forum, and frankly, I'm getting tired of you bashing the Wolves personally.

WSU Tony
03-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Dude, you just gotto go and be a fan of someother team. You are becoming the secon Jwin on this forum, and frankly, I'm getting tired of you bashing the Wolves personally.

To be honest, I'm not overly concerned. I'm not here to win a popularity contest or to wear rose colored glasses. Can you honestly tell me that win streak in the middle of the season was worth a good chance at a top 3 pick instead of a top 5-6 pick because it "fast tracked" the development of the team?

8 game win streak in the middle of the season < The opportunity at Rubio or Thabeet over Jennings or Mullens.

jwin2005
03-09-2009, 02:07 PM
Exactly Tony. We are just trying to be objective and look at the situation objectively instead of being biased wolves fans.

Seriously we cannot be here to try to win over critics and be the most popular person here. You can obviously see that I have no friend on here and most people on here straight up hate my guts. But I try to be objective in most things I say and try to tell it as an outside fan would observe our situation.

I know Purple, Tony, Mauer, Iowa, Oef, Sparky, Boe all love their twolves to the end but everyone is starting to realize that we need to mix things up... maybe a little bit more than we previously thought.

Hawkeye15
03-09-2009, 02:14 PM
No, we won't be. We won't even be in the bottom three.

Now I ask you, was the winning streak earlier in the season really THAT beneficial? At the time I was saying no and 90% of the people here were saying yes. Now that it's as clear to all of you as it was to me that we won't be making the playoffs and that the win streak didn't fast track our development, if that streak means the difference between getting Rubio or Jennings, will you really admit it wasn't worth it?

you can't play that card with Jefferson going down. It is demoralizing to lose all the time, there will be minimal, if any, growth the last 25 games. That may not have been the case had Jefferson stayed healthy. You are better than, "Told you so". The second Jefferson went down, yes, I agreed with the plan from that point forward. Even though, as a fan, you CAN NOT wish you're team to lose. That is messed up.

WSU Tony
03-09-2009, 02:44 PM
you can't play that card with Jefferson going down. It is demoralizing to lose all the time, there will be minimal, if any, growth the last 25 games. That may not have been the case had Jefferson stayed healthy. You are better than, "Told you so". The second Jefferson went down, yes, I agreed with the plan from that point forward. Even though, as a fan, you CAN NOT wish you're team to lose. That is messed up.

Play what card? You thought they were making the playoffs with Jefferson? If they aren't making the playoffs, then it's a year for rebuilding. Rebuilding is made easier with high picks.....

You could make an argument the team is growing MORE without Jefferson since guys like Gomes are seeing more playing time. I don't understand the mentality that you can only mature as a player if you are winning games. Cripes, you can make an argument we are growing MORE without Jeferson since the team isn't relying on passing him the ball and then standing around waiting of Jefferson to "do his thing."

Hawkeye15
03-09-2009, 03:25 PM
Play what card? You thought they were making the playoffs with Jefferson? If they aren't making the playoffs, then it's a year for rebuilding. Rebuilding is made easier with high picks.....

You could make an argument the team is growing MORE without Jefferson since guys like Gomes are seeing more playing time. I don't understand the mentality that you can only mature as a player if you are winning games. Cripes, you can make an argument we are growing MORE without Jeferson since the team isn't relying on passing him the ball and then standing around waiting of Jefferson to "do his thing."

I honestly mean this with no offense, but have you ever played organized, competitive basketball? Losing does more to you're mentality than you think, unless you don't care. If you don't learn to win, you get used to the idea of losing, and it becomes acceptable. Draft choices are a crapshoot. Period. You can not sit here and guarantee one player in the draft will be this or that. You can't. And no we were not making the playoffs with Jefferson. Neither was Portland last year, or the year before. And as I covered with you before, their roster came via trade, and one lucky roll of the dice. Chicago got the #1 last year. It is shown over and over again, that playing terrible doesn't guarantee anything if you don't have good GM's active in trades. NOBODY builds thru the draft alone. Nobody. You are so obsessive about the draft. First off, this one is not very good. Secondly, I am sick of putting my faith in draft picks. It has never worked for us. Why are you so optimistic that the clouds will part, and the Timberwolves management will finally make a great choice? I would rather our young players develop with winning some games, then trade ones that don't fit our needs. Or trade them for young proven talent. I think my hesitancy rests on the first point I made, about losing being demoralizing, and causing damage, and the sole fact that the Minnesota Timberwolves are pathetic come draft time.

Hawkeye15
03-09-2009, 03:31 PM
Unfortunately, all we have to look forward to is the draft. How exciting. 4th year in a row. And it appears we will be doing the same thing for a few years to come, at the very least.

WSU Tony
03-09-2009, 03:46 PM
I honestly mean this with no offense, but have you ever played organized, competitive basketball? Losing does more to you're mentality than you think, unless you don't care. If you don't learn to win, you get used to the idea of losing, and it becomes acceptable. Draft choices are a crapshoot. Period. You can not sit here and guarantee one player in the draft will be this or that. You can't. And no we were not making the playoffs with Jefferson. Neither was Portland last year, or the year before. And as I covered with you before, their roster came via trade, and one lucky roll of the dice. Chicago got the #1 last year. It is shown over and over again, that playing terrible doesn't guarantee anything if you don't have good GM's active in trades. NOBODY builds thru the draft alone. Nobody. You are so obsessive about the draft. First off, this one is not very good. Secondly, I am sick of putting my faith in draft picks. It has never worked for us. Why are you so optimistic that the clouds will part, and the Timberwolves management will finally make a great choice? I would rather our young players develop with winning some games, then trade ones that don't fit our needs. Or trade them for young proven talent. I think my hesitancy rests on the first point I made, about losing being demoralizing, and causing damage, and the sole fact that the Minnesota Timberwolves are pathetic come draft time.

Having Jefferson out means more playing time for Gomes. He's developing quite well because of this opportunity.

It's about getting the BEST CHANCE not guaranteeing yourself a talent in the draft.

They GAINED the value FOR the trades through the draft, as I have covered before. Do you think they could have made those trades if the draftees were #10+ overall? I don't think so!

Chicago got the #1 last year so lets play for their spot this year! We'll surely get lucky! It's about getting the BEST chance for a star, not trying to win 10 games and have a .5% chance at the #1 pick.

Nope, but they build the value for the trades they make later though the draft. You can't trade a 2nd round undersized guy with no skills for a decent player. You can trade a top 5 pick with "potential" for players like Ray Allen or KG.

This will be another year of putting faith in draft picks, sorry.

Even the blind squirrel finds a nut. I'd like that nut to have star potential from a top 5 pick and not "solid" potential from a 10+ pick. (Don't give me the "I can find guys who were drafted outside of the top 10 and are stars" argument, we both know you have a greater chance of finding one inside the top 10.

How much talent do you think this undersized team is? If all of them turned out at 100% of their potential as I see it right now I see a .500 team. We are SEVERELY undersized and we will get rocked because of it. I don't want my team to start winning now only to become a .500 team, I want to collect all of the value and talent I can and become a CHAMPIONSHIP calibur team in the future.

Why the hell would you build for a .500 peak? That's the difference between us, you see the potential in the guys as a championship team (or at least I sure hope you do if you want them to start winning and stop getting new talent) and I see a .500 team.

No, adding an over-paid FA will not put us over the top! :p

Hawkeye15
03-09-2009, 03:50 PM
Having Jefferson out means more playing time for Gomes. He's developing quite well because of this opportunity.

It's about getting the BEST CHANCE not guaranteeing yourself a talent in the draft.

They GAINED the value FOR the trades through the draft, as I have covered before. Do you think they could have made those trades if the draftees were #10+ overall? I don't think so!

Chicago got the #1 last year so lets play for their spot this year! We'll surely get lucky! It's about getting the BEST chance for a star, not trying to win 10 games and have a .5% chance at the #1 pick.

Nope, but they build the value for the trades they make later though the draft. You can't trade a 2nd round undersized guy with no skills for a decent player. You can trade a top 5 pick with "potential" for players like Ray Allen or KG.

This will be another year of putting faith in draft picks, sorry.

Even the blind squirrel finds a nut. I'd like that nut to have star potential from a top 5 pick and not "solid" potential from a 10+ pick. (Don't give me the "I can find guys who were drafted outside of the top 10 and are stars" argument, we both know you have a greater chance of finding one inside the top 10.

How much talent do you think this undersized team is? If all of them turned out at 100% of their potential as I see it right now I see a .500 team. We are SEVERELY undersized and we will get rocked because of it. I don't want my team to start winning now only to become a .500 team, I want to collect all of the value and talent I can and become a CHAMPIONSHIP calibur team in the future.

Why the hell would you build for a .500 peak? That's the difference between us, you see the potential in the guys as a championship team (or at least I sure hope you do if you want them to start winning and stop getting new talent) and I see a .500 team.

No, adding an over-paid FA will not put us over the top! :p

haha. I can tell you are a college kid. You live in a world of theories and statistics. Not a criticism, so please don't take it that way. Well, keep waiting for that nut. And I never said FA. That won't work. The only way we build is trades, and pray to go we draft smart. We are 0/2 with a high % on that one. Trust me, I hope you are right. I hope we get a top pick. But, as with our current president and all his hope, I am not going to hold my breath. Won't make it till dinner

WSU Tony
03-09-2009, 04:00 PM
haha. I can tell you are a college kid. You live in a world of theories and statistics. Not a criticism, so please don't take it that way. Well, keep waiting for that nut. And I never said FA. That won't work. The only way we build is trades, and pray to go we draft smart. We are 0/2 with a high % on that one. Trust me, I hope you are right. I hope we get a top pick. But, as with our current president and all his hope, I am not going to hold my breath. Won't make it till dinner

I do live in a world of theories and statistics. That's my answer to "what are your weaknesses" question for my interview Wed. ;)

IF we end up winning the lottery and getting a top 3 pick this year, will you be the guy saying "we could have won it with the #10 seed" or "why did we win those 8 games, we could have had the #1 pick if we had more ping pong balls!?!?!"

If we were a team which was capable of winning, I'd be on board with you. The fact is, we're a HORRIBLE team which could have had almost a 10% better shot at Griffin but we pissed it away by winning 8 games. I know this sounds ruthless but it's the truth. If we were a 35+ win team with the average age of what we have now I'd completely agree with you. The fact is we're young and can't win 20 games so I'd like to add a significant "star potential" piece to our team.

The lottery is a crap shoot, yes, but I'd take 156 balls and a 15% chance at Mr. Griffin over 11 balls and a 1% chance at the cost of a mere 8 game winning streak mid season. Catch my thinking?

That 8 game win streak could have had an opportunity cost of 10% for getting the #1 overall pick. That's steep!

The WSU in front of my name is a dead give away. ;)

Hawkeye15
03-09-2009, 04:05 PM
I do live in a world of theories and statistics. That's my answer to "what are your weaknesses" question for my interview Wed. ;)

IF we end up winning the lottery and getting a top 3 pick this year, will you be the guy saying "we could have won it with the #10 seed" or "why did we win those 8 games, we could have had the #1 pick if we had more ping pong balls!?!?!"

If we were a team which was capable of winning, I'd be on board with you. The fact is, we're a HORRIBLE team which could have had almost a 10% better shot at Griffin but we pissed it away by winning 8 games. I know this sounds ruthless but it's the truth. If we were a 35+ win team with the average age of what we have now I'd completely agree with you. The fact is we're young and can't win 20 games so I'd like to add a significant "star potential" piece to our team.

The lottery is a crap shoot, yes, but I'd take 156 balls and a 15% chance at Mr. Griffin over 11 balls and a 1% chance at the cost of a mere 8 game winning streak mid season. Catch my thinking?

That 8 game win streak could have had an opportunity cost of 10% for getting the #1 overall pick. That's steep!

The WSU in front of my name is a dead give away. ;)


Well, as a non statistical person myself (except at work where I have to use them on non living entities, in which case I agree), we have never moved up in the draft. Never. What are the chances of that? And I never play the IF game. I like you're ideas behind things, I just don't think numbers is the answer. And if you read my other posts, you know I agree on the undersized team. We are terrible. We have 3 players worth keeping. Jefferson, Foye, and Love. And really, pull my bias for them out, and I would trade any of them at this point. My point is, statistically we don't have as good of a chance at the #1 anymore. But, as history has shown, rarely do the ping pong balls care about %. That is all I am saying. Trust me, you make sense. But this the the Timberwolves we are talking about. They defy statistics.

WSU Tony
03-09-2009, 04:48 PM
Well, as a non statistical person myself (except at work where I have to use them on non living entities, in which case I agree), we have never moved up in the draft. Never. What are the chances of that? And I never play the IF game. I like you're ideas behind things, I just don't think numbers is the answer. And if you read my other posts, you know I agree on the undersized team. We are terrible. We have 3 players worth keeping. Jefferson, Foye, and Love. And really, pull my bias for them out, and I would trade any of them at this point. My point is, statistically we don't have as good of a chance at the #1 anymore. But, as history has shown, rarely do the ping pong balls care about %. That is all I am saying. Trust me, you make sense. But this the the Timberwolves we are talking about. They defy statistics.

Now you are sounding like TCman. :laugh:

One lucky lottery and everyone will change their mind. That year, will be this year. (cautiously hopeful)

Hawkeye15
03-09-2009, 06:30 PM
Now you are sounding like TCman. :laugh:

One lucky lottery and everyone will change their mind. That year, will be this year. (cautiously hopeful)

not to sound like old man river here, but aren't you about 20? I have been watching them since you were born. Outside the KG pick, and the sweet deal for Cassell and Spree, it has been a cast of misfortunes. Now, would the #1 pick change my mind? Sure, a little. We just have no luck, and I refuse to bank on statistics working in our favor. Ever. If that can all change for once for christ's sake, then I will stop with it. Until then, 20 years of history trumps the % of landing against the ping pong balls.

WSU Tony
03-09-2009, 06:32 PM
not to sound like old man river here, but aren't you about 20? I have been watching them since you were born. Outside the KG pick, and the sweet deal for Cassell and Spree, it has been a cast of misfortunes. Now, would the #1 pick change my mind? Sure, a little. We just have no luck, and I refuse to bank on statistics working in our favor. Ever. If that can all change for once for christ's sake, then I will stop with it. Until then, 20 years of history trumps the % of landing against the ping pong balls.

We haven't had 20 years of history with lottery picks to look at.

10% is 10% as long as the lottery is not rigged. It's funny how people (you, Tcman, and myself) look at a 10% wolves chance at more like 3%.

Hawkeye15
03-09-2009, 06:38 PM
We haven't had 20 years of history with lottery picks to look at.

10% is 10% as long as the lottery is not rigged. It's funny how people (you, Tcman, and myself) look at a 10% wolves chance at more like 3%.

I didn't say we have been in 20 lottery's. But I just find it hard for myself, and I mean me, to rely on draft chances when we are 0/whatever. That is all I mean. I would love for it to work out, finally. I am just not expecting anything other than to stay where we land, or fall back as usual. Shoot, I was beyond ecstatic we didn't fall last year. We will then pick an undersized "basketball player", or whatever the F the Wolves like to call it, instead of taking a giant, or a playmaking PG. But, I still think that the most important thing is to take the best player available, and forget about need at this point. We need a ton.

tcman2007
03-09-2009, 06:56 PM
I honestly mean this with no offense, but have you ever played organized, competitive basketball? Losing does more to you're mentality than you think, unless you don't care. If you don't learn to win, you get used to the idea of losing, and it becomes acceptable. Draft choices are a crapshoot. Period. You can not sit here and guarantee one player in the draft will be this or that. You can't. And no we were not making the playoffs with Jefferson. Neither was Portland last year, or the year before. And as I covered with you before, their roster came via trade, and one lucky roll of the dice. Chicago got the #1 last year. It is shown over and over again, that playing terrible doesn't guarantee anything if you don't have good GM's active in trades. NOBODY builds thru the draft alone. Nobody. You are so obsessive about the draft. First off, this one is not very good. Secondly, I am sick of putting my faith in draft picks. It has never worked for us. Why are you so optimistic that the clouds will part, and the Timberwolves management will finally make a great choice? I would rather our young players develop with winning some games, then trade ones that don't fit our needs. Or trade them for young proven talent. I think my hesitancy rests on the first point I made, about losing being demoralizing, and causing damage, and the sole fact that the Minnesota Timberwolves are pathetic come draft time.


Amen, brother. There's less guessing with free-agency than there is with the draft. You sign a contract knowing what a player can do on the professional level. Some FA's work out better than others, but for the most part, they work in your favor.

Ask George Steinbrenner what works. Do you think he builds through the draft? NO! He wants to win, so he goes out and gets the people he wants. Y'know what, I want you guys to see something: the Wolves need to have a more predatory nature as far as going out and getting quaility...everything (no pun intended). I'm so sick of hearing that we can't sign, say...Chris Bosh. People say that he's going to end up here or there...that's BS. Sure, this is MN, but why don't we adopt the attitude that we can do anything? Why do we not go out and get an established coach? We've never went out and got an established guy. Same with FA. We've never netted a big free-agent. It's always the same old attitude: we'll build through the draft. Y'know what? That says a lot about the franchise when you think you can only get star players through the draft. You're basically telling the rest of the league that no one wants to play for you or that you're too cheap to pay a star player $$. I don't think $$ is the issue because we signed KG to a massive contract...so why don't we go out and get a STAR FA?

tcman2007
03-09-2009, 07:07 PM
We haven't had 20 years of history with lottery picks to look at.

10% is 10% as long as the lottery is not rigged. It's funny how people (you, Tcman, and myself) look at a 10% wolves chance at more like 3%.

That's because I believe it's rigged. There is no pct. in my opinion. It's pre-determined.

WSU Tony
03-09-2009, 09:49 PM
I didn't realize how close the bottom of the league had gotten with this droubt we've been on.

We have 18 wins (19?)

Memphis 16
Sacramento 14
OCB(T) 17
LA 15
Washington 14 (15?)

We actually have a shot at another top 3 pick. I'd still say we have a 70% chance at the #5 or worse seed, though.

Jefferson25
03-09-2009, 10:17 PM
May 19th... the biggest day for the Wolves this year

Oefarmy2005
03-10-2009, 01:24 AM
I thought that we've had the discussion before already, where I listed the player and the picks and it turned out that you have just as good of a chance to draft a superstar in the picks 5-10 as you do in the picks 1-5, so it's going to be all about our scouting and our workouts. There is absolutely no sure fire players in this draft. I think the only one in recent years that was a future superstar for shure was Lebron. Even Griffin is compared to Boozer, who I personally don't particularly like. Maybe Griffin will be plauged by injuries his whole career, who knows. Maybe Harden will be the next Kobe or Wade and Thabeet will be the next Kandiman.

IowaAJ
03-10-2009, 01:52 AM
MAn I'm getting sick of the date of the lottery being the most important date in Timberwolves history even though yes it is very important it's just frustrating.

boeknows
03-10-2009, 02:01 AM
I hope you are right Jefferson. The Wolves need to get the best player possible.
Bad news for Steph Curry fans. They lost tonight and probably wont make the NCAA tournament.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=290672166

Curry could not score against a 6'7 player who has a 7'2 wingspan. Oh well. I still think he can be effective in the NBA.

Yeah cause there arent going to be any of those in the NBA.

boeknows
03-10-2009, 02:02 AM
Yes, that winning streak clearly paid dividends to our future... :rolleyes:



As if we would have made the playoffs with him.... Or been outside of the top 10....

Can you honestly say that losing consistantly and becoming used to losing is a good thing for a young team?

boeknows
03-10-2009, 02:15 AM
I do live in a world of theories and statistics. That's my answer to "what are your weaknesses" question for my interview Wed. ;)

IF we end up winning the lottery and getting a top 3 pick this year, will you be the guy saying "we could have won it with the #10 seed" or "why did we win those 8 games, we could have had the #1 pick if we had more ping pong balls!?!?!"

If we were a team which was capable of winning, I'd be on board with you. The fact is, we're a HORRIBLE team which could have had almost a 10% better shot at Griffin but we pissed it away by winning 8 games. I know this sounds ruthless but it's the truth. If we were a 35+ win team with the average age of what we have now I'd completely agree with you. The fact is we're young and can't win 20 games so I'd like to add a significant "star potential" piece to our team.

The lottery is a crap shoot, yes, but I'd take 156 balls and a 15% chance at Mr. Griffin over 11 balls and a 1% chance at the cost of a mere 8 game winning streak mid season. Catch my thinking?

That 8 game win streak could have had an opportunity cost of 10% for getting the #1 overall pick. That's steep!

The WSU in front of my name is a dead give away. ;)

You have never played organized sports before at all have you. The reason i say that is because you not taking into effect of the mental side of losing a lot in one season. A 8 game winning streak builds a lot of confidence for a team and the team plays a lot better. When a team losses a lot in a season the players get really down, their games get worse and teammates start blaming each other for things. It really breaks up a team. When the team losses a lot it break up the closeness of the team and does nothing good for the team. Ive been on losing teams before and it doesnt help anything. It just makes the team worse and breaks the whole team apart. People start playing for themselves and not for the team and just try to show that they should belong there. Losing more and more just hurts a team and never helps it.

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 10:38 AM
I thought that we've had the discussion before already, where I listed the player and the picks and it turned out that you have just as good of a chance to draft a superstar in the picks 5-10 as you do in the picks 1-5, so it's going to be all about our scouting and our workouts. There is absolutely no sure fire players in this draft. I think the only one in recent years that was a future superstar for shure was Lebron. Even Griffin is compared to Boozer, who I personally don't particularly like. Maybe Griffin will be plauged by injuries his whole career, who knows. Maybe Harden will be the next Kobe or Wade and Thabeet will be the next Kandiman.

You're right, we probably shouldn't even use our picks this year. :p


Can you honestly say that losing consistantly and becoming used to losing is a good thing for a young team?


You have never played organized sports before at all have you. The reason i say that is because you not taking into effect of the mental side of losing a lot in one season. A 8 game winning streak builds a lot of confidence for a team and the team plays a lot better. When a team losses a lot in a season the players get really down, their games get worse and teammates start blaming each other for things. It really breaks up a team. When the team losses a lot it break up the closeness of the team and does nothing good for the team. Ive been on losing teams before and it doesnt help anything. It just makes the team worse and breaks the whole team apart. People start playing for themselves and not for the team and just try to show that they should belong there. Losing more and more just hurts a team and never helps it.

I believe that was supposed to be a question but I'm not sure. The answer is yes, I have. I lettered 6-7 times (can't remember) in three sports in high school. :speechless:

What did that confidence get us? A long losing streak?

Our team chemistry hasn't been bad at all this year.

If that happens they get benched or traded.

Let me ask you this, what did the 8 game win steak get us? What did it cost us?

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 10:46 AM
Can you honestly say that losing consistantly and becoming used to losing is a good thing for a young team?

he doesn't think it matters. His opinion. I do. What you create is instead of young players who could contribute on winning teams, you will need a fire sale to get rid of all of them. They don't care about winning, their minds are now okay with losing. So you are even farther away now. And I can't stress enough that depending on the draft is stupid. This isn't football. Every single player coming out is an unkown. Every one. There is just as good of a chance the the #18 pick is as good as #1. Fact. And you can throw all the numbers and stats you want at me, it is the truth.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 10:47 AM
You're right, we probably shouldn't even use our picks this year. :p





I believe that was supposed to be a question but I'm not sure. The answer is yes, I have. I lettered 6-7 times (can't remember) in three sports in high school. :speechless:

What did that confidence get us? A long losing streak?

Our team chemistry hasn't been bad at all this year.

If that happens they get benched or traded.

Let me ask you this, what did the 8 game win steak get us? What did it cost us?

It cost us the chance to be made fun of for wasting the #6 pick, instead of the #2 pick. At what point in our draft history, outside KG, have we ever done the right thing? I just don't get you're logic. The Wolves defy statistics, and chances. Whatever bad can happen, will. I love this team cause I have to, but they are wearing me out man.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 11:19 AM
You can use fancy percentages, and statistics, showing you why it is good to lose, to get a better pick, and that the Wolves need this or that. Um, we are talking about Wolves management here. Outside the KG pick, we have messed it up forever. We have moved up 0 times in the lottery. 0. Why on earth would we as fans depend on the draft???? And losing, to a young team trying to develop, gives them the mentality that losing is okay. There is no development if you are just terrible. Losing becomes acceptable. What that means, is now, you need to dismantle the team yet again. Its not like you can just flip the switch and say, "Well, I know I didn't use to care about losing, but now I want to win". BS. I would guess you're average young NBA player can go thru at most 3 seasons of losing before they become immune to it, in which case they are now out of the plan. Losing kills talent and drive. Look at the Hawks. They have like 15 lottery picks on their team. Free agents won't come here. Not the big ones anyways. Trading, and player development is what we have.

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 11:28 AM
[/B]

It cost us the chance to be made fun of for wasting the #6 pick, instead of the #2 pick. At what point in our draft history, outside KG, have we ever done the right thing? I just don't get you're logic. The Wolves defy statistics, and chances. Whatever bad can happen, will. I love this team cause I have to, but they are wearing me out man.

We don't defy logic or chance, trust me. You CAN flip a coin 3 times and get all heads...... That's not defying logic.


You can use fancy percentages, and statistics, showing you why it is good to lose, to get a better pick, and that the Wolves need this or that. Um, we are talking about Wolves management here. Outside the KG pick, we have messed it up forever. We have moved up 0 times in the lottery. 0. Why on earth would we as fans depend on the draft???? And losing, to a young team trying to develop, gives them the mentality that losing is okay. There is no development if you are just terrible. Losing becomes acceptable. What that means, is now, you need to dismantle the team yet again. Its not like you can just flip the switch and say, "Well, I know I didn't use to care about losing, but now I want to win". BS. I would guess you're average young NBA player can go thru at most 3 seasons of losing before they become immune to it, in which case they are now out of the plan. Losing kills talent and drive. Look at the Hawks. They have like 15 lottery picks on their team. Free agents won't come here. Not the big ones anyways. Trading, and player development is what we have.

If we had the worst record, we wouldn't have to worry about moving up. We'd have a top 4 pick either way.

WE CAN'T WIN GAMES WITH OUR ROSTER. Why on earth would you want us to keep the same roster? If we can't win with the roster we have now, why wouldn't you want a top pick? Who's logic doesn't make sense?

We lose almost every game so I don't want a high draft pick, I want to keep the players we have. <---- ??????

We can't win with this team, we aren't old enough (or talented enough) yet. High picks add talent. I agree with you, I don't want a top pick on the team, I want an 8 game meaningless win streak in the middle of the season.

8 game win streak + Jennings OR no win streak + Rubio? Can you honestly tell me the 8 game win streak was worth giving up Rubio for Jennigns? Yikes! I suppose that 8 games distilled a winning mentality for the Wolves, we'll be in great shape now.

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 11:44 AM
IF we could win 40% of our games I would agree with you that winning would be better for our development than tanking for a high pick. If we were this same age and winning 40% of our games I'd definitely want us to win rather than tank. At that point winning would be great for us. This season, though, we can't even win 20 of 80 some games. I don't understand how you guys can justify a pointless 8 game winning streak in the middle of the season to "fast-track development" and create a "winning atmosphere" when we still can't win 20 games! How will winning 8 games in a row and then win another 12 games more the whole season show the team a winning culture? That makes NO sense to me.

If we were the Trail blazers I'd be all for winning. We aren't the Trail blazers, we are a much younger team. (I'd mention a typical growth curve but apparently it's over the head of a members here on PSD) They are set to win because they have the talent. We are 1-2 good drafts (1 draft with 4 picks?) away from getting enough talent to be legit. Losing now will mean a higher ceiling team for the future.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 11:59 AM
We don't defy logic or chance, trust me. You CAN flip a coin 3 times and get all heads...... That's not defying logic.



If we had the worst record, we wouldn't have to worry about moving up. We'd have a top 4 pick either way.

WE CAN'T WIN GAMES WITH OUR ROSTER. Why on earth would you want us to keep the same roster? If we can't win with the roster we have now, why wouldn't you want a top pick? Who's logic doesn't make sense?

We lose almost every game so I don't want a high draft pick, I want to keep the players we have. <---- ??????

We can't win with this team, we aren't old enough (or talented enough) yet. High picks add talent. I agree with you, I don't want a top pick on the team, I want an 8 game meaningless win streak in the middle of the season.

8 game win streak + Jennings OR no win streak + Rubio? Can you honestly tell me the 8 game win streak was worth giving up Rubio for Jennigns? Yikes! I suppose that 8 games distilled a winning mentality for the Wolves, we'll be in great shape now.

no, what I am telling you, and continue to tell you, is that there is a better chance Rubio and Jennings will not be good players than the chance they will be average players. You depend on the draft way too much. Winning provides growth, and makes you better. You and I are going to disagree on this forever dude. Unless you score LeBron, Howard, or Duncan, and shoot, even then, you rely on trades for established young players, and FA's. You can not build thru the draft in the NBA. It is nearly impossible. And what I continue to say, is I am going with 20 years of Wolves decision making history over the guessing game of where we land position wise, and our drafting ability.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 12:03 PM
IF we could win 40% of our games I would agree with you that winning would be better for our development than tanking for a high pick. If we were this same age and winning 40% of our games I'd definitely want us to win rather than tank. At that point winning would be great for us. This season, though, we can't even win 20 of 80 some games. I don't understand how you guys can justify a pointless 8 game winning streak in the middle of the season to "fast-track development" and create a "winning atmosphere" when we still can't win 20 games! How will winning 8 games in a row and then win another 12 games more the whole season show the team a winning culture? That makes NO sense to me.

If we were the Trail blazers I'd be all for winning. We aren't the Trail blazers, we are a much younger team. (I'd mention a typical growth curve but apparently it's over the head of a members here on PSD) They are set to win because they have the talent. We are 1-2 good drafts (1 draft with 4 picks?) away from getting enough talent to be legit. Losing now will mean a higher ceiling team for the future.

you are still missing my point. If the Blazers don't win those 32 games 2 years ago, and instead win 20, they aren't in the same place today. Winning breads confidence. It makes you want to be better. If the Wolves somehow managed to win 35 games this year, which was highly possible at one point, our players would be better not only this year, but next, and the year following. I am trying to say, that there are factors outside talent that predict what kind of a player a kid will be. If he is brought up in a positive environment, ie, winning, he grows much faster than if brought up in a bad environment, ie, losing. I will not, and absolutely refuse to believe the Wolves will build straight thru the draft.

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 12:03 PM
no, what I am telling you, and continue to tell you, is that there is a better chance Rubio and Jennings will not be good players than the chance they will be average players. You depend on the draft way too much. Winning provides growth, and makes you better. You and I are going to disagree on this forever dude. Unless you score LeBron, Howard, or Duncan, and shoot, even then, you rely on trades for established young players, and FA's. You can not build thru the draft in the NBA. It is nearly impossible. And what I continue to say, is I am going with 20 years of Wolves decision making history over the guessing game of where we land position wise, and our drafting ability.

So we can't sign FA, we can't trade for established players, and we can't build through the draft. How do YOU propose we build this team? I've clearly stated how I want to build, can I have your way of building, now? BTW- we have about a .500 team when all is said and done at this point so unless we want a .500 peaking team, I suggest we find a way to add talent to the team.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 12:06 PM
IF we could win 40% of our games I would agree with you that winning would be better for our development than tanking for a high pick. If we were this same age and winning 40% of our games I'd definitely want us to win rather than tank. At that point winning would be great for us. This season, though, we can't even win 20 of 80 some games. I don't understand how you guys can justify a pointless 8 game winning streak in the middle of the season to "fast-track development" and create a "winning atmosphere" when we still can't win 20 games! How will winning 8 games in a row and then win another 12 games more the whole season show the team a winning culture? That makes NO sense to me.

If we were the Trail blazers I'd be all for winning. We aren't the Trail blazers, we are a much younger team. (I'd mention a typical growth curve but apparently it's over the head of a members here on PSD) They are set to win because they have the talent. We are 1-2 good drafts (1 draft with 4 picks?) away from getting enough talent to be legit. Losing now will mean a higher ceiling team for the future.


In 1-2 drafts, Foye will be so complacent from losing it won't matter. Jefferson will be a poor defender, never having been forced to grow because games were on the line. You will never get it dude. I understand you're logic behind adding pieces. I do. But it works only in the NFL, and the MLB in some regards due to farm systems. NBA teams are made off getting a LeBron, which there are none anytime soon, or trades and FA signings. Drafting gives you core pieces, nice players, and sometimes huge roles of you're team, but losing crushes development. Period.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 12:11 PM
So we can't sign FA, we can't trade for established players, and we can't build through the draft. How do YOU propose we build this team? I've clearly stated how I want to build, can I have your way of building, now? BTW- we have about a .500 team when all is said and done at this point so unless we want a .500 peaking team, I suggest we find a way to add talent to the team.

well, I mean Bosh/Wade free agent. Of course the draft is important. What I continue to say is that the pick isn't that important. We have a track record of messing them up anyways. There is no difference between #3 and #6. None. I would rather win games, let our young players gain confidence, and add that way. Them losing every night kills confidence. There is a fine line between being a 20 win team, and a 40 win team. Confidence. Ours is gone. There is no player development right now outside Love. Because he is a rook, and is learning too much to care about losing like he will and should in the future

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 12:14 PM
well, I mean Bosh/Wade free agent. Of course the draft is important. What I continue to say is that the pick isn't that important. We have a track record of messing them up anyways. There is no difference between #3 and #6. None. I would rather win games, let our young players gain confidence, and add that way. Them losing every night kills confidence. There is a fine line between being a 20 win team, and a 40 win team. Confidence. Ours is gone. There is no player development right now outside Love. Because he is a rook, and is learning too much to care about losing like he will and should in the future

Gomes has done pretty well....

If it were draft time would you take Griffin who plays on a losing team (hypothetical) or Mullens on a winning team?

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 12:19 PM
Gomes has done pretty well....

If it were draft time would you take Griffin who plays on a losing team (hypothetical) or Mullens on a winning team?

college is different. They are young kids, away from home, learning a lot. They aren't consumed by basketball like they will be in the NBA. Plus, potentially good/great NBA players don't come from losing college teams. So in you're hypothetical scenario, I take Mullens
Gomes is a 7th man on a playoff team at best.
Look, we both hope for bright futures for the Timberwolves, we just disagree on a few principals. So what. I tell you this, if they become a contender by going you're route, I will be just as happy as if they took mine. How bout that?

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 12:35 PM
he doesn't think it matters. His opinion. I do. What you create is instead of young players who could contribute on winning teams, you will need a fire sale to get rid of all of them. They don't care about winning, their minds are now okay with losing. So you are even farther away now. And I can't stress enough that depending on the draft is stupid. This isn't football. Every single player coming out is an unkown. Every one. There is just as good of a chance the the #18 pick is as good as #1. Fact. And you can throw all the numbers and stats you want at me, it is the truth.

These are extremely competitive people, they are pro athletes! Having 2-3 losing seasons doesn't take away the competitiveness instilled in their personalities.


college is different. They are young kids, away from home, learning a lot. They aren't consumed by basketball like they will be in the NBA. Plus, potentially good/great NBA players don't come from losing college teams. So in you're hypothetical scenario, I take Mullens
Gomes is a 7th man on a playoff team at best.
Look, we both hope for bright futures for the Timberwolves, we just disagree on a few principals. So what. I tell you this, if they become a contender by going you're route, I will be just as happy as if they took mine. How bout that?

Your route to winning is trying to win with sub-par talent to build confidence. No offense but I don't see us going anywhere by building that way. You take a 10th grade basketball team with a winning record (60% win percentage) and I'll beat you with a varsity basketball team with a losing record (40% winning percentage).

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 02:32 PM
These are extremely competitive people, they are pro athletes! Having 2-3 losing seasons doesn't take away the competitiveness instilled in their personalities.



Your route to winning is trying to win with sub-par talent to build confidence. No offense but I don't see us going anywhere by building that way. You take a 10th grade basketball team with a winning record (60% win percentage) and I'll beat you with a varsity basketball team with a losing record (40% winning percentage).

well, we are never going to see eye to eye on this. And no **** a varsity team with 18 year olds can beat almost any team consisting of 15 year olds. Winning breeds confidence and growth. Losing does the opposite. For instance, do you really think a player who comes into a situation that is a winning environment grows at the same rate as a player who comes in and plays on a team that loses every night, and the locker room is quiet? I don't. And as far as competitive, I think you are overestimating the players. There are the KG's, but there are a ton of Troy Hudson's. Many are just in the NBA because they are 6'7", and athletic. They don't care about basketball (V Carter anyone?)

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 03:00 PM
well, we are never going to see eye to eye on this. And no **** a varsity team with 18 year olds can beat almost any team consisting of 15 year olds. Winning breeds confidence and growth. Losing does the opposite. For instance, do you really think a player who comes into a situation that is a winning environment grows at the same rate as a player who comes in and plays on a team that loses every night, and the locker room is quiet? I don't. And as far as competitive, I think you are overestimating the players. There are the KG's, but there are a ton of Troy Hudson's. Many are just in the NBA because they are 6'7", and athletic. They don't care about basketball (V Carter anyone?)

Why? Because they have MORE athletic and skilled players than the 10th grade team AND because they are bigger. You don't want the Wolves to get more athletic and skilled players or bigger. I don't understand.

If your a young guy getting more game time experience because of it being a bad team, you are learning more. (Much like the position Gomes is finding himself in right now) If your a mediocre player on a good team and you never play, I don't think you "grow" very fast.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 03:24 PM
Why? Because they have MORE athletic and skilled players than the 10th grade team AND because they are bigger. You don't want the Wolves to get more athletic and skilled players or bigger. I don't understand.

If your a young guy getting more game time experience because of it being a bad team, you are learning more. (Much like the position Gomes is finding himself in right now) If your a mediocre player on a good team and you never play, I don't think you "grow" very fast.

Skill? Love has more skill than 90% of the NBA. I am all for a guy getting experience for certain reasons. But experiencing losing every single night doesn't develop anything but acceptance in losing. What the F is that good for? I want to get bigger. Again, how big is Griffin?? Not on the OK roster. He is most likley 6'8". Without the passing ability and IQ of Love. I am not trading a known for an unkown. Sorry

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 03:47 PM
Skill? Love has more skill than 90% of the NBA. I am all for a guy getting experience for certain reasons. But experiencing losing every single night doesn't develop anything but acceptance in losing. What the F is that good for? I want to get bigger. Again, how big is Griffin?? Not on the OK roster. He is most likley 6'8". Without the passing ability and IQ of Love. I am not trading a known for an unkown. Sorry

Again, Gomes has been doing pretty well and has been developing nicely this year despite the losing. If Gomes was sitting on the bench for a winning team, I don't think he'd be developing quite as well as he has as of recently.

We know what Telfair will give us, does that mean we wouldn't trade him for Jennings.... Holiday.... or another young PG?

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 04:20 PM
Again, Gomes has been doing pretty well and has been developing nicely this year despite the losing. If Gomes was sitting on the bench for a winning team, I don't think he'd be developing quite as well as he has as of recently.

We know what Telfair will give us, does that mean we wouldn't trade him for Jennings.... Holiday.... or another young PG?

Really dude? You are being that dude that you always attack for being an idiot with stuff like that

And Gomes has developed into a 7th man on a playoff team. Wow. He has reached his ceiling.

jwin2005
03-10-2009, 06:06 PM
I think it is very important for players like Gomes, Smith, Telfair, Carney, and Miller to keep playing well. It is important for them to show other GMs what they are made of and to keep increasing their trade value.

Many playoff teams look for strong role players and will trade away young talent for those role players. The Wolves need to position themselves with strong trade assets so we can position ourselves for strong prospects whereas playoff teams are looking for win-now players.

PurpleJesus
03-10-2009, 06:23 PM
I can tell you, our players do care about winning, just read the article about Foye missing the shot to beat the Blazers the other night when he tucked his head into his assistant coaches chest. Tony is right that these guys are extremely competitve and want to win, but our team is crushed now, they dont think they have the oppurtunity to win here, and if we put ourselves in the position to be in the lottery year in and year out, then players will continue to lose faith in the team, and we will be in a bigger mess than what we are now. We need to win games...starting next season, right now, we need a top three pick because we are no better than the worst team in the league, winning games now wont do anything for our future, the difference between getting a Ricky Rubio over a Ty Lawson will.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 06:32 PM
I think it is very important for players like Gomes, Smith, Telfair, Carney, and Miller to keep playing well. It is important for them to show other GMs what they are made of and to keep increasing their trade value.

Many playoff teams look for strong role players and will trade away young talent for those role players. The Wolves need to position themselves with strong trade assets so we can position ourselves for strong prospects whereas playoff teams are looking for win-now players.

agree 100%. I wouldn't mind keeping Gomes, he can fill 2 positions, and is a good role player. But with Love there, and the need to draft a big badly, Smith is the odd man out. Luckily, even if we don't have anyone interested in these guys, they have contracts that are structured well, and they can be gone soon enough. Telfair is an average backup on a good team. Carney can go, he was a 2 week wonder that most of you fell in love with, I would rather have Brewer all night long. Miller is bait.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 06:34 PM
I can tell you, our players do care about winning, just read the article about Foye missing the shot to beat the Blazers the other night when he tucked his head into his assistant coaches chest. Tony is right that these guys are extremely competitve and want to win, but our team is crushed now, they dont think they have the oppurtunity to win here, and if we put ourselves in the position to be in the lottery year in and year out, then players will continue to lose faith in the team, and we will be in a bigger mess than what we are now. We need to win games...starting next season, right now, we need a top three pick because we are no better than the worst team in the league, winning games now wont do anything for our future, the difference between getting a Ricky Rubio over a Ty Lawson will.

yep. You keep losing, it demoralizes you. You just learn to turn that emotion off. If Foye for instance goes thru another 20 win season, I think he needs to be shipped off. Although he is weird. He has unshakable confidence. Most don't.

WSU Tony
03-10-2009, 06:45 PM
Really dude? You are being that dude that you always attack for being an idiot with stuff like that

And Gomes has developed into a 7th man on a playoff team. Wow. He has reached his ceiling.

I'm not the one making an argument on the sole stand of "I keep a guy who is average because I know what he can do vs a guy who has star potential who hasn't proven anything at the NBA level." Love is underized and it absolutely kills him in the games. Like TCman said, how many times has he been stuffed on what should be an easy dunk for a PF/C?


yep. You keep losing, it demoralizes you. You just learn to turn that emotion off. If Foye for instance goes thru another 20 win season, I think he needs to be shipped off. Although he is weird. He has unshakable confidence. Most don't.


I really can't believe you would take a 23 win season vs a 18 win season at the cost of downgrading from Rubio to Jennings. I think you HIGHLY over value the rewards of an extra 5 wins for one of the worst teams in the league.

Hawkeye15
03-10-2009, 06:50 PM
I'm not the one making an argument on the sole stand of "I keep a guy who is average because I know what he can do vs a guy who has star potential who hasn't proven anything at the NBA level." Love is underized and it absolutely kills him in the games. Like TCman said, how many times has he been stuffed on what should be an easy dunk for a PF/C?




I really can't believe you would take a 23 win season vs a 18 win season at the cost of downgrading from Rubio to Jennings. I think you HIGHLY over value the rewards of an extra 5 wins for one of the worst teams in the league.

Whatever. I will never agree with you on this. Never. Love is going to be an excellent player. I went at you, cause you said Love=Telfair. If you actually think that, I just lost quite a bit of respect for you're opinions. And I am not talking 5 wins bro. This team should have done more if healthy. They have more talent that their record. Wittman killed us early, then injuries ruined the season. That's all there is to it. If Jefferson didn't go down, this really should have been a 35 win team. And who says that 5 or even 15 wins costs you a spot at anything?????? The Bulls had 11 more wins than us last year, Portland the same as us the year before. They got the #1 pick. I don't care about statistics and chances. How many times do I have to tell you, the Wolves defy stats and chance. We are better off winning 4 more games, and being slated 4 spots higher in my opinion. I believe in history a lot more than I do mathematical equations.

boeknows
03-10-2009, 11:29 PM
If your a young guy getting more game time experience because of it being a bad team, you are learning more. (Much like the position Gomes is finding himself in right now) If your a mediocre player on a good team and you never play, I don't think you "grow" very fast.

The starters on our team would be the same if we were a winning team or a losing team. So why wouldnt u want the same guys to be gaining confidence on the winning team rather than getting down on each other for losing all the time?

boeknows
03-10-2009, 11:30 PM
Again, Gomes has been doing pretty well and has been developing nicely this year despite the losing. If Gomes was sitting on the bench for a winning team, I don't think he'd be developing quite as well as he has as of recently.

We know what Telfair will give us, does that mean we wouldn't trade him for Jennings.... Holiday.... or another young PG?

So are u saying that on that 8 game winning streak Gomes wasnt learning as much as he is now when they are losing?

boeknows
03-11-2009, 12:03 AM
I can tell you, our players do care about winning, just read the article about Foye missing the shot to beat the Blazers the other night when he tucked his head into his assistant coaches chest. Tony is right that these guys are extremely competitve and want to win, but our team is crushed now, they dont think they have the oppurtunity to win here, and if we put ourselves in the position to be in the lottery year in and year out, then players will continue to lose faith in the team, and we will be in a bigger mess than what we are now. We need to win games...starting next season, right now, we need a top three pick because we are no better than the worst team in the league, winning games now wont do anything for our future, the difference between getting a Ricky Rubio over a Ty Lawson will.

Why is it that whenever we are talking about winning or losing its always to an extreme? I mean right there its between a top 3 pick and a pick between 20-25.

Mauersota
03-11-2009, 12:07 AM
A top 3 pick that may not even come out.

boeknows
03-11-2009, 12:12 AM
A top 3 pick that may not even come out.

Exactly

WSU Tony
03-11-2009, 12:36 AM
So your opting for an 8 game win streak in the middle of a rebuilding season for a worst draft pick?

boeknows
03-11-2009, 12:41 AM
So your opting for an 8 game win streak in the middle of a rebuilding season for a worst draft pick?

Whose to say we still wont get a good pick?

Jefferson25
03-11-2009, 12:57 AM
OKC is only one loss behind us!

Oefarmy2005
03-11-2009, 01:00 AM
I can tell you, our players do care about winning, just read the article about Foye missing the shot to beat the Blazers the other night when he tucked his head into his assistant coaches chest. Tony is right that these guys are extremely competitve and want to win, but our team is crushed now, they dont think they have the oppurtunity to win here, and if we put ourselves in the position to be in the lottery year in and year out, then players will continue to lose faith in the team, and we will be in a bigger mess than what we are now. We need to win games...starting next season, right now, we need a top three pick because we are no better than the worst team in the league, winning games now wont do anything for our future, the difference between getting a Ricky Rubio over a Ty Lawson will.

I'm sorry, but even hypothetically speaking this differance is a little extreme, that's pretty much a difference of about 20-25 wins. It was always more like Rubio or Jenning/Teague.

Oefarmy2005
03-11-2009, 01:10 AM
So your opting for an 8 game win streak in the middle of a rebuilding season for a worst draft pick?

I have t agree with the other guys on this one. Winning 8 games doesn't equal a worst pick. Plus, hypathetically, what if we get the 5th pick, draft Teague and he ends up being the next Chris Paul/Deron Williams and than Griffin becomes the next Oden and just can't play more than half of the games for his entire career? I am a guy that believes in stats, but here you have to accout that not only the pingpong balls are your give you chances, but the players themleves are a big fat chance that can't be predicted statistically. So as I've said before, the pick doesn't matter as long as we make the right decision with the pick we get and also have a little luck.

Hawkeye15
03-11-2009, 08:36 AM
I have t agree with the other guys on this one. Winning 8 games doesn't equal a worst pick. Plus, hypathetically, what if we get the 5th pick, draft Teague and he ends up being the next Chris Paul/Deron Williams and than Griffin becomes the next Oden and just can't play more than half of the games for his entire career? I am a guy that believes in stats, but here you have to accout that not only the pingpong balls are your give you chances, but the players themleves are a big fat chance that can't be predicted statistically. So as I've said before, the pick doesn't matter as long as we make the right decision with the pick we get and also have a little luck.

oh my god, exactly. Also, I rely on history, which shows me that the Wolves are not great at drafting. So I would rather the players we have develop by winning more games, as many as possible, than leave it up to Wolves brass. KG in 1995, and Love last year. Those are the only picks that have been good ones. Well, I take that back. We drafted Ray Allen and Brandon Roy as well. Ugh

WSU Tony
03-11-2009, 09:23 AM
Whose to say we still wont get a good pick?

It's about maximizing the value in a season where you know your not going anywhere.....


I'm sorry, but even hypothetically speaking this differance is a little extreme, that's pretty much a difference of about 20-25 wins. It was always more like Rubio or Jenning/Teague.

Agreed, his example was VERY extreme.


I have t agree with the other guys on this one. Winning 8 games doesn't equal a worst pick. Plus, hypathetically, what if we get the 5th pick, draft Teague and he ends up being the next Chris Paul/Deron Williams and than Griffin becomes the next Oden and just can't play more than half of the games for his entire career? I am a guy that believes in stats, but here you have to accout that not only the pingpong balls are your give you chances, but the players themleves are a big fat chance that can't be predicted statistically. So as I've said before, the pick doesn't matter as long as we make the right decision with the pick we get and also have a little luck.

I figure with the confidence we have with the organization picking we are less likely to go wrong with a top 3 pick than we are with a top 6-7 pick. Do you kind of get how I'm thinking? With a top 3 pick it's harder to go wrong than with a 6-7 pick. Key word, harder.


oh my god, exactly. Also, I rely on history, which shows me that the Wolves are not great at drafting. So I would rather the players we have develop by winning more games, as many as possible, than leave it up to Wolves brass. KG in 1995, and Love last year. Those are the only picks that have been good ones. Well, I take that back. We drafted Ray Allen and Brandon Roy as well. Ugh

So beyond your #5 pick KG the ONLY other good draft we had was the #3 pick? Coincidence?

Oefarmy2005
03-11-2009, 10:20 AM
It's about maximizing the value in a season where you know your not going anywhere.....



Agreed, his example was VERY extreme.



I figure with the confidence we have with the organization picking we are less likely to go wrong with a top 3 pick than we are with a top 6-7 pick. Do you kind of get how I'm thinking? With a top 3 pick it's harder to go wrong than with a 6-7 pick. Key word, harder.


So beyond your #5 pick KG the ONLY other good draft we had was the #3 pick? Coincidence?

It's true if you look at it that way. But you can also look at it in the way, that if we are picking 6-7, than the hardest choices in the draft have already been made and we are just picking from whats left. I am not saying I would rather have a 6-7 pick over 1-5, I'm just saying that unfortunatly, the actual draft position doesn't matter, at least in the case of the Wolves, because we'll probably find a way to screw that up anyways.

Hawkeye15
03-11-2009, 10:23 AM
It's true if you look at it that way. But you can also look at it in the way, that if we are picking 6-7, than the hardest choices in the draft have already been made and we are just picking from whats left. I am not saying I would rather have a 6-7 pick over 1-5, I'm just saying that unfortunatly, the actual draft position doesn't matter, at least in the case of the Wolves, because we'll probably find a way to screw that up anyways.

this is the part that so many fans, especially young ones, forget. There are some who have WAY too much confidence in our management here when it comes to draft. Hopefull with Mchale out of the picture, the tide turns. I need to see it before I put my eggs in that basket

boeknows
03-11-2009, 10:09 PM
It's about maximizing the value in a season where you know your not going anywhere.....



I didnt realize that the draft was already over and we didnt get the top pick.

jwin2005
03-11-2009, 10:22 PM
Well as history shows we never move up in the draft... so if we were the worst team... we would have to just stay put at #1 =]

boeknows
03-11-2009, 10:27 PM
Well as history shows we never move up in the draft... so if we were the worst team... we would have to just stay put at #1 =]

Technically we did move up last year. We stayed in the same spot but we did move ahead of Oklahoma City.

WSU Tony
03-11-2009, 10:36 PM
Technically we did move up last year. We stayed in the same spot but we did move ahead of Oklahoma City.

Exactly. One of our balls was picked for that third slot.

tcman2007
03-12-2009, 09:35 AM
Technically we did move up last year. We stayed in the same spot but we did move ahead of Oklahoma City.

Technically, no we didn't. We were the 3rd worst team in the league and we got the 3rd pick. Just because Chicago leap-frogged us doesn't mean we jumped ahead of another team. That's like taking one step back and one step forward. You end up in the same spot you started in.

Hawkeye15
03-12-2009, 10:39 AM
Technically, no we didn't. We were the 3rd worst team in the league and we got the 3rd pick. Just because Chicago leap-frogged us doesn't mean we jumped ahead of another team. That's like taking one step back and one step forward. You end up in the same spot you started in.

exactly. Point is, the Wolves have never moved up higher than potentially slated before the lottery. Never. We haved been knocked back several times however. Awesome. But, I have a feeling this is our year. Course, I have been saying that for 4 years now.

Jefferson25
03-12-2009, 04:13 PM
Guys if the wolves end up sixth and get like the seventh pick I am going to cry. It is just not fair... life is not fair but being a wolves fan is starting to really suck.

I know we are in position to do big things but without a good draft I just cannot see us having any shot of a championship or even playoffs any time soon.

boeknows
03-12-2009, 05:19 PM
Technically, no we didn't. We were the 3rd worst team in the league and we got the 3rd pick. Just because Chicago leap-frogged us doesn't mean we jumped ahead of another team. That's like taking one step back and one step forward. You end up in the same spot you started in.

But we did move ahead of OKC. If we didnt move ahead of OKC we would have had the 4th pick. So while we didnt move up in the number we did move up ahead of one team. We took one step forward Chicago just took a bigger step forward than us.

Hawkeye15
03-12-2009, 05:31 PM
But we did move ahead of OKC. If we didnt move ahead of OKC we would have had the 4th pick. So while we didnt move up in the number we did move up ahead of one team. We took one step forward Chicago just took a bigger step forward than us.

regardless, we have never moved ahead of our original slated pick. I think that is many are concerned with

boeknows
03-12-2009, 05:33 PM
regardless, we have never moved ahead of our original slated pick. I think that is many are concerned with

True i was just pointing out that we did move up last year.

Hawkeye15
03-12-2009, 05:49 PM
True i was just pointing out that we did move up last year.

it sure didn't feel like we moved up. How pathetic is it, that the first time we technically move up, we don't move up

tcman2007
03-12-2009, 11:32 PM
But we did move ahead of OKC. If we didnt move ahead of OKC we would have had the 4th pick. So while we didnt move up in the number we did move up ahead of one team. We took one step forward Chicago just took a bigger step forward than us.

When I say "move up" I mean moving up from the 3rd spot, not moving ahead of OKC because Chicago got lucky and moved ahead of everyone.

boeknows
03-13-2009, 12:57 AM
Well regardless we did move up.

WSU Tony
03-13-2009, 09:09 AM
OMG dude, let it go. We had the 3rd worst record and got the 3rd pick. I don't care what spin you put on it, we didn't move UP in the draft.

If the Gophers were ranked #20 and then next week the team ranked #19 is now #21 and the team ranked #21 is now #19, did we move up? NO!

Oefarmy2005
03-13-2009, 10:13 AM
OMG dude, let it go. We had the 3rd worst record and got the 3rd pick. I don't care what spin you put on it, we didn't move UP in the draft.

If the Gophers were ranked #20 and then next week the team ranked #19 is now #21 and the team ranked #21 is now #19, did we move up? NO!

Well, since you like to look at things mathematically we did move up. After Chicago got lucky and got the first pick, the Wolves were slotted to have the #4 pick, but actully moved up to get the second, since OKC had a greater chance of getting that 3rd pick than us. So, all in all, Iowa is right. Chicago got lucky and we got a better pick than we should have after the Bulls got lucky.

tcman2007
03-13-2009, 11:38 AM
Well, since you like to look at things mathematically we did move up. After Chicago got lucky and got the first pick, the Wolves were slotted to have the #4 pick, but actully moved up to get the second, since OKC had a greater chance of getting that 3rd pick than us. So, all in all, Iowa is right. Chicago got lucky and we got a better pick than we should have after the Bulls got lucky.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "move up". I think you move up if you actually get a higher pick than what your record originally slotted you to have (which also determined your odds).

Hawkeye15
03-13-2009, 11:43 AM
OMG dude, let it go. We had the 3rd worst record and got the 3rd pick. I don't care what spin you put on it, we didn't move UP in the draft.

If the Gophers were ranked #20 and then next week the team ranked #19 is now #21 and the team ranked #21 is now #19, did we move up? NO!

HAHA. perfectly put

WSU Tony
03-13-2009, 12:01 PM
Plus, to add on to our point, the balls picked for the #3 spot are picked BEFORE the #2 spot or #1 spot. By the time Chicago got the #1 pick, we were already locked at the #3 pick. Look at it that way, guys, and we didn't move up. ;)

boeknows
03-13-2009, 03:13 PM
OMG dude, let it go. We had the 3rd worst record and got the 3rd pick. I don't care what spin you put on it, we didn't move UP in the draft.

If the Gophers were ranked #20 and then next week the team ranked #19 is now #21 and the team ranked #21 is now #19, did we move up? NO!

I love how u agree with me then u switch sides.

boeknows
03-13-2009, 03:19 PM
Plus, to add on to our point, the balls picked for the #3 spot are picked BEFORE the #2 spot or #1 spot. By the time Chicago got the #1 pick, we were already locked at the #3 pick. Look at it that way, guys, and we didn't move up. ;)

Actually your wrong. The first four balls picked are the combination for the #1 pick. Then the balls are put back in and the combination of the next 4 balls are for the #2 pick. Then the third. It is put in reverse order at the presentation so it adds more suspense. So the way u are looking at it then Chicago got the first pick and Miami got the second. So we were slotted in the 4th spot until our number got picked and we moved up to the 3rd spot.

WSU Tony
03-13-2009, 03:45 PM
3rd worst record..... 3rd pick. I don't see how we moved up, we're right where we were supposed to be.....

Hawkeye15
03-13-2009, 04:24 PM
Actually your wrong. The first four balls picked are the combination for the #1 pick. Then the balls are put back in and the combination of the next 4 balls are for the #2 pick. Then the third. It is put in reverse order at the presentation so it adds more suspense. So the way u are looking at it then Chicago got the first pick and Miami got the second. So we were slotted in the 4th spot until our number got picked and we moved up to the 3rd spot.

the point is, technically doesn't matter. We had the 3rd worst record in the NBA, we picked 3rd. Everyone understands that yes, technically, we moved up one, but in all reality, OKC got screwed, we stayed the same.

WSU Tony
03-13-2009, 05:22 PM
the point is, technically doesn't matter. We had the 3rd worst record in the NBA, we picked 3rd. Everyone understands that yes, technically, we moved up one, but in all reality, OKC got screwed, we stayed the same.

No, I think the point really was that I was wrong. :eyebrow:

boeknows
03-13-2009, 06:44 PM
No, I think the point really was that I was wrong. :eyebrow:

Well u were wrong about which pick is done first.

Oefarmy2005
03-14-2009, 01:09 AM
No, I think the point really was that I was wrong. :eyebrow:

It is funny that you thought that it was the other way around. If they picked in reverse order, than the least ammount of pingpong balls would be best. I think it would actually be kind of fun if the did that.

WSU Tony
03-14-2009, 02:43 AM
It is funny that you thought that it was the other way around. If they picked in reverse order, than the least ammount of pingpong balls would be best. I think it would actually be kind of fun if the did that.

Meh, I can take it or leave it. Third worst record and the third overall pick seem fair to me. :o

Breatnach
03-14-2009, 05:05 AM
Wow you guys are really going to town on this ;)

I've already tried to understand how the lottery works (and failed ;)), so instead of spending sleepless nights figuring out the odds, I'm just gonna wait and see when the ball with our name is picked :)

Besides, mathematics have failed me more often then I've failed mathematics xD

And frankly I think we'll be lucky because we "deserve" it. We have a young team, that's fallen into some rough times with all our injuries and what not, but we're still competing hard and not letting Mad Dog shoot the 3.

If there's anything like Karma out there, then it will reward us for staying positive and loyal to our team in the crappy past years and for not tanking to improve our odds like some teams... It reminds me of the '07 Blazers and I think we're gonna get the No1!

jwin2005
03-14-2009, 12:03 PM
I dont believe in karma... the whole saying "what goes around comes around."

Because sometimes it just doesnt come around and we all know it.

Hawkeye15
03-15-2009, 06:13 PM
I dont believe in karma... the whole saying "what goes around comes around."

Because sometimes it just doesnt come around and we all know it.

You apparently haven't watched "My Name is Earl"

Oefarmy2005
03-16-2009, 11:45 AM
You apparently haven't watched "My Name is Earl"

I absolutely love that show. ;)

Hawkeye15
03-25-2009, 01:13 PM
So, here is what we have as of 3/24
Wolves #5
Miami pick #17
Utah pick #22
Boston pick #28

I fear that will be what ends up, Utah may climb a spot, they are playing well. Memphis LAC, and WAS have cashed it in, they are more than 3 games back from us. We will need help on the coin toss. I would also think Washington would be willing to take our pick and Miami's if it gave us Rubio. They have Gilbert, and are really only a move away from playoffs.

WSU Tony
03-25-2009, 01:28 PM
What odds to you guys give it that Rubio comes out this year?

Considering his buyout would be about the same price as his first year contract and that people tend to stay in a 'comfortable' situation, I give it 35%

Hawkeye15
03-25-2009, 01:34 PM
What odds to you guys give it that Rubio comes out this year?

Considering his buyout would be about the same price as his first year contract and that people tend to stay in a 'comfortable' situation, I give it 35%

Well, if he is guaranteed a top 3 pick, many think he will come over. His agent is still trying to make the buyout payable over a couple years. If he could accomplish that, Rubio is in the draft for sure. I will say 65% chance he is in the draft this year

WSU Tony
03-25-2009, 01:38 PM
Well, if he is guaranteed a top 3 pick, many think he will come over. His agent is still trying to make the buyout payable over a couple years. If he could accomplish that, Rubio is in the draft for sure. I will say 65% chance he is in the draft this year

Wow, that's pretty optimistic.

I think his agent is trying to sue because the buyout is like 5M and the contract is like 250K or something like that. Those numbers aren't right but the point is the buyout is WAY too high for the contract he is receiving.

Either way we should be rooting for this to happen since our top pick has a fairly decent chance of being top 2 and even if it doesn't he'd be pushing someone better down to us. Rubio coming out means our pick is either much more valuable or one more spot up worth of value.

Jefferson25
03-25-2009, 01:43 PM
We gotta decide to tank guys. We just gotta. We are only a couple of games ahead of these other teams.

Washington is getting back Gilbert on Saturday that should give them a major boost.

Sacramento has everyone healthy.

LA Clips have Baron Davis, Thornton, Randolph, and Camby for crying out loud

Memphis is the only team that should be worst than us!

WSU Tony
03-25-2009, 01:48 PM
But if we tank we might not win that one extra game which would accelerate our growth to warp speed! On the other hand, tanking probably won't move us up (down) in the standings anyway.

Hawkeye15
03-25-2009, 02:11 PM
at this point, those other teams are tanking as well. I don't think us even losing every single game left will make a difference now. Watch, the mystery injuries will come out in the next week to fully healthy players of each of those teams. Only OKC will not tank. They started horrible, but have played close to .500 over the past 35 games, so they have something to play for. Plus, they already have a future superstar.

Hawkeye15
03-25-2009, 02:12 PM
and why the hell would Washington bring back Gilbert??? It will only hurt their draft position, unless they plan to deactivate Butler due to inflammation of the knee so Arenas can get some reps under his belt

Hawkeye15
03-25-2009, 02:13 PM
This is also why I hate San Antonio. In 1995, Robinson was hurt early in the season. He was cleared by doctor's to play with 30 games to go. But the team held him off the floor for some bs reason, and they landed Duncan. I hate that team almost as much as the Lakers

tcman2007
03-25-2009, 07:04 PM
This is also why I hate San Antonio. In 1995, Robinson was hurt early in the season. He was cleared by doctor's to play with 30 games to go. But the team held him off the floor for some bs reason, and they landed Duncan. I hate that team almost as much as the Lakers

Yup. And even though they've won, they win dirty. They don't have any class.

Jefferson25
03-25-2009, 11:03 PM
Hawkeye - Arenas is going to be back Saturday

Jefferson25
03-25-2009, 11:13 PM
Clippers also won tonight!

Hawkeye15
03-26-2009, 12:12 PM
Hawkeye - Arenas is going to be back Saturday

I have seen that. My only question is why are they doing that? If he ends up winning them some games, they may lose draft pick position. For a team that is in a fluke terrible year, ie, Miami from last year, they should be making the most out of it. Whatever, hopefully our gain.

Pat Thetic
03-27-2009, 02:00 PM
On the topic of the Wolves tanking, has anyone watched any of the games recently? I love this team, but there is no need to try to lose.

I say we trade all of our picks to the Spurs for Roger Mason Jr, that way we can finally have someone on the team that can make a jump shot consistently.

Untraceable
03-27-2009, 02:26 PM
I think Rubio will come out. I mean, can the guy every really become the #1 pick playing overseas? Unless the next olympics comes and he takes the USA to school, there will always be a stud in the NCAA tearing it up in front of scouts that have a great basis of comparison. He will probably go 2 and thats about all the higher you can really hope for. You know next year, there will be a new Griffin or durant or rose. Rarely ever do we go a season without a clear cut stud in college.

Scored courtside seats for this sundays game against the nets. Im going to be trashing Walt Disney and his movies all game.

Hawkeye15
03-27-2009, 02:45 PM
On the topic of the Wolves tanking, has anyone watched any of the games recently? I love this team, but there is no need to try to lose.

I say we trade all of our picks to the Spurs for Roger Mason Jr, that way we can finally have someone on the team that can make a jump shot consistently.

a 28 year old journeyman who benefits with playing with the best big man in the NBA and one of the top 5 point guards in the NBA for our future. Eh, no thanks

Jefferson25
04-02-2009, 12:18 AM
Wolves are soooo close to being th 4th worst team!

WSU Tony
04-02-2009, 10:43 AM
hahah

Foye
04-02-2009, 08:56 PM
Wizards playing well against the Cavs yet...30:25

jwin2005
04-02-2009, 10:50 PM
Wizards playing well against the Cavs yet...30:25

Not just well.. they played great. They won the game!

Fcuk you Arenas!

Fcuk you Wizards organization!

They do not deserve a top 5 pick

WSU Tony
04-02-2009, 10:55 PM
Unless they win another 3 games, this won't matter.