Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul

On the Ball

NBA Second-Round Playoff Preview

Photo by Chris Graythen/Getty Images

First, some accountability on my first round predictions. Right now I'm technically five out of seven with the Celts-Hawks still incredibly yet to be determined, but I'd rather not be that simplistic--the devil (and angel) is in the details. For example, if the Celtics do prevail, I'll have been "right" in my pick of Boston, but like most everyone else I was apparently foolish (and wrong) to automatically discount Atlanta and call for just a five game series. Ditto Detroit and Philadelphia: I called a Pistons sweep, and although the Sixers didn't really elevate their play in the postseason, Detroit's overconfidence and lethargy gave a couple away.

Where else was I wrong? Well, I had the Wizards over the Cavs in 6 and the Rockets over the Jazz in 7. The first one was flat-out bad prognostication, although I did correctly point out that the injection of Gilbert Arenas into the mix would ultimately hurt Washington at least as much as it would help them. The Utah-Houston series, as I've said before, was a sentimental pick for the Yao-less Rockets, with an acknowledgment that Utah was capable of taking it in 5 (they won in 6). I enjoyed cheering on Houston, and don't mind the inaccuracy here. But inaccurate it was, and you bet I would have strutted if the Rockets had prevailed.

On the plus side, I was right to be baffled by the pundits mostly going for Dallas and Phoenix despite their lack of home court advantage and, not coincidentally, their ill-advised trades for stars long past their primes. I gave Steve Nash and Phoenix too much credit--and, despite being a huge fan of their grit when it counts, too little credit to the Spurs--in predicting a full 7-game set. But of all the series, I had the Hornets-Mavs sussed perfectly, nailing the length and tenor of the 5-game blowout. That leaves Orlando-Toronto and LA-Denver, two series I mostly had right, calling the victor and being just a little opmistic about how many tilts the loser would take.

Things get a lot tougher to call here in the second round, especially after the desultory showings by the Celts and Pistons and the better-than-expected peformances by the Magic and Cavs. There's really only one series I am pretty confident about, and even that one may go 6 or 7 games. And that's where we'll begin.

Utah (5) vs. L.A. Lakers (1)

Pivotal Points: Has Ronnie Brewer progressed enough during the season to be even halfway able to deter Kobe? Mehmet Okur and Andrei Kirilenko both played way over the heads vs. Houston--Okur on the boards, AK-47 via shooting. These three members of Utah's starting five are crucial, because the Lakers won three of four during the season--including a March win at Utah without either Gasol or Bynum--by letting Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer essentially get theirs on offense but outscoring the Jazz anyway. How chippy will these games get: Utah fouls more (and perhaps harder) than any team in the league and the Lakers move the ball so well that we're apt to see some nasty collisions. How will the Lakers--especially Lamar Odom--fare under pressure, something they never really faced vs. Denver?

My guesses: Williams and Kobe are going to have huge series, as there's nobody to stop them on the opposing side. Kobe's presence really hurts Utah's ability to use Kyle Korver, a huge minus for the Jazz. In their own way, this is the Lakers' reprise of Showtime and Utah needs to muck it up with Harpring, Milsapp and their other bruisers, then hope Williams can carry them in the clutch. An uptempo pace favors LA and the forwards are vital: Gasol and Odom are suspected for being soft and a bit of a choker, respectively. If they can hold their own in the paint at both ends, Utah is in serious trouble. It will be interesting to see how Phil Jackson guards Okur: If he's still on a roll, I'd think about Odom, or even Luke Walton, guarding him outside to deter the trey and to react with alacrity on the pick and rolls. Bringing Gasol out plays into Utah's hands.

My pick: A lot of people are on the Jazz bandwagon but I just can't see it, especially against this large, quick, Lakers team. LA in 5 or 6.

Orlando (3) vs. Detroit (2)

Pivotal Points: Can Rasheed Wallace keep his cool enough to help neutralize Dwight Howard? Will he work in the paint and eschew the trey enough to perhaps get Howard in foul trouble? Will we see hack-a-Howard near the end of quarters in close games? Did Chauncey Billups just go through a bad patch vs. Philly or is he past his peak? Can the Pistons keep their focus through a semi-tough series? How much will Flip Saunders utilize his depth?

My guesses: The Magic has no good matchup for Billups--Jameer Nelson and Keyon Dooling lack size and grit and Carlos Arroyo barely played vs. Toronto--but something about Billups looks funky lately and I don't think he's ready to take full advantage. Keith Bogans had much better luck guarding Rip Hamilton in the regular season than did starter Maurice Evans, so expect a quick hook there by Stan Van Gundy. Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu both had great passing series vs. Toronto and could create open treys if Detroit (necessarily) gets too preoccupied with Howard down low. Saunders has got to use his bench, especially Maxiell and Ratliff to help on Howard, and go with Stuckey to spell Billups. The evidence is that Detroit was scared straight by the losses to Philly and are ready to reassert. If they win both games in Detroit to start the series they could indeed roll. I think they're ripe for an upset, but a couple stats hold me back: Detroit was second in the NBA in opposing 3pt shooting %, negating an Orlando strength. And Orlando had more turnovers than assists this season--not a good sign against a Pistons defense that can plays well together when the going gets tough.

My Pick: Detroit in 7.

San Antonio (3) vs. New Orleans (2)

Pivotal Points: Will this fulfill its potential as one of the greatest second-round playoff series of all time? The refs are absolutely crucial because the Spurs pound the paint and the dropoff from Tyson Chandler to Hilton Armstrong is precipitous. If Chandler defends the rim without whistles it's huge nod to the Hornets--and foul trouble for the big man means curtains for New Orleans. Can Jannero Pargo, a poor man's Ginobili in the Dallas series, match up with Manu, because MoPete or Bonzie Wells ain't gonna get it done. Can Bruce Bowen prevent Peja from getting open looks? How will Pops play West and Chandler with Duncan and Thomas/Oberto?

My guesses: Neither Chris Paul nor Tony Parker will be as dominant as in round one--but they'll still put on a hell of a show. The Spurs' Boy Who Cried Wolf foul protestations will slowly but surely start to penalize them with the refs, but Chandler will still get in foul trouble at least one or two games. I absolutely love the way both of these teams play and am rooting less for one or the other than for both to perform up to their potential. If that happens, I think it comes down to veteran poise and crunchtime experience--don't be surprised if Finley/Horry/Barry stick a dagger in at some point during the proceedings. For all the talk about Jason Kidd and Shaq, the Kurt Thomas pickup is second only to Gasol among contenders this season, and his ability to keep Duncan fresh and on the court, plus my ongoing belief that you don't bet against the Spurs until you see that stake through their hearts, has me leaning toward the Spurs. But forcing them to win it in a Game Seven in the Big not so Easy would be extra sweet.

My pick: San Antonio in 6 or 7.

Cleveland (4) vs. Boston (1) [or Atlanta (8)]

Pivotal Points: Is the luster off the Celtics' confidence or is getting the stodgy Cavs after the uber-athletic Hawks all the elixir they need to reassert their primacy over the East? Uh, who the hell guards Lebron James; Mr. Posey, it is time for your super-closeup. Now that Doc Rivers has totally screwed up his rotation by deep-sixing Eddie House and Tony Allen while elevating the aged Sam Cassell, can Sam I Am at least hit some of those shots he clanked and then stupidly eschewed in the Atlanta series (because House would have made them)? Is Kevin Garnett finally ready to put all those whispers to rest and go at a past-his-prime Ben Wallace, or will he continue to get 22-10-7 and hurt his team with selflessness in crunchtime? Last but not least, what has happened to Ray Allen?

My guesses: The Celtics will need to play really well--with much, much more poise and skill than vs. Atlanta--to pull this out in 6 or 7. LeBron is going to win at least one game all by himself and I think Z Ilgauskas, Wallace and Joe Smith in the paint plus Szczerbiak and Booby Gibson spotting up outside makes the Cavs dangerous on the offensive end and complements to the triple-teamed James. For the Celts to win, their erstwhile relentless D, led by KG and Rondo, need to create turnovers and transition baskets, plus Pierce and Allen need to compensate for their mediocre D (in Allen's case make that horrible D) by proving they are indeed crunchtime stars. That will spread the floor enough for Garnett to work in the paint. But as a confirmed KG-lover I admit I'm rattled by what I've seen from this Beantown squad in the first round. It wouldn't surprise me if both the Celts and the Pistons went down. I resisted the Pistons upset, but Detroit isn't playing against the best player on the planet.

My Pick: Cleveland in 6 or 7.

65 Reader Comments

Captain America (not verified)04:35pm
May 3
I always admired Ray Allen as a player and a sports personality. My concern is that Ray's feet and ankles are impacting his play. He is now 33 and has incurred some serious wear and tear. Of the Big 3.2, he is the one that I hope and return to form. Whether or not the Hawks win game 7, they are the story of the playoffs. It's great that the Hawks are no longer the doormat and their fans are rediscovering the franchise.
Paul (ikrushlots) (not verified)11:29pm
May 3
I think allen is giving them exactly what you'd expect. Good scoring and offensive play, coupled with inadequate defense. Did anybody think he could guard Joe Johnson? He's playing at his "form." KG, Pierce and Rivers are the three that need to step it up. KG needs to outplay Smith. Pierce needs to get more aggressive. And Rivers needs to return to his regular season rotations.
Andy G (not verified)08:30pm
May 3
Good stuff. I agree with most of those predictions and comments. I think LA will roll, as long as they can contain Boozer inside. Fisher and Farmar can't stop Williams, but they're tough and athletic enough to keep him from going nuts. The bigger question is whether Odom and Gasol can do the same to Boozer and Okur. Unless somebody gets hurt--(which could happen with Matt Harpring on the court)--I expect LA in 5. With Boston and Cleveland, I think a biggest factor will be how well LeBron can shut down Pierce and still have the gas left to run the offense for 40+ minutes. If he has that in him, and I personally think he does, Boston will struggle mightily to score 90 points per game. Pierce is their go-to guy, and without him last night, we saw what their crunchtime offense looks like. I loved what I saw from New Orleans when they came to MN a while back, and they obviously had the same stuff going in Round 1, but Ginobili plays at a completely different level than Mo-Pete, Pargo, or whoever tries guarding him. That's way too big of a mismatch for New Orleans to overcome. I doubt it'll get to 7 games, but Chris Paul is Chris Paul, and I think 6 is realistic.
Andy H (not verified)05:11am
May 5
New Orleans is an amazing test for the Spurs. It's fascinating to see Chris Paul against Parker. Parker has enjoyed being the quickest 1 in the league, now he confronts this? He has to experience some insecurity. The half life of an NBA player, from being freaked out by the quickness, and strength, the schedule. Burying doubt. Getting accustomed to it. Then the body breaks down just as your getting it. Bowen will be interesting to watch. I love Ginobli, he's similar in effort to one of my all time NBA favorites Bobby Jones of the DRJ/Malone sixers. Only he has a much bigger role in the offense. The will and toughness are exactly the same. Gets an old guy misty. The Spurs are such a cohesive group. Imagine the horror if Wally and Joe Smith advance. KG doesn't? If that happens I'll blame Sam I am. Irrational, probably. I really don't know who to root for in that series since I really like Labron James. I want KG to succeed, but the big 3.2 (that's clever) is aging at fruit fly speed. I hope they get it done. Knock on Parque. I think KG is playing hurt too.
Paul (ikrushlots@aol.com) (not verified)11:25pm
May 3
Cleveland will end up playing Boston, and probably lose. However , , , The first round series has confirmed for me what I have always felt about KG. He just can't deliver in big games or the clutch, nor can he (or at least he's not willing) to take over games when needed. The KG vs Duncan debate can end now. Put Duncan on Boston and it's at best a 5 game series. After reading some Boston boards and journalists (Simmons and others), it seems they are starting to see what has frustrated some Timberwolves fans over the years. Even so, I never thought I'd see the day that a Josh Smith would outplay him and a Zazu Pachulia would punk him. It'd be nice to see KG focus less on the ineffective bully tactics and menacing stares, and channel that energy into taking over games. I hope Boston doesn't end up facing Orlando. I'm not looking forward to what Orlando's Superman would do to KG. Britt, I'm not sure I agree with your "relentless D" comment. KG hasn't provided much resistance against Atlanta's forwards. Nor is he averaging 22-10-7. Against Atlanta it's been 21.5 points, 8.5 rebounds, 4 assists.
Britt Robson12:38am
May 4
Krush-- If you're going to troll with the usual anti-KG blather, at least get your facts straight. Josh Smith is shooting 41.6% and averaging 17.2, 6.8 and 3.0. Garnett is shooting 45.9% and averaging 21.5, 8.5 and 4.0. In the three games Atlanta has won and the Celtics have lost, KG is a net minus -5 in 124:23 and the Celts are a net minus -12 in the 19:37 he hasn't been on the floor. By contrast, Smith is a net plus +10 in 111:06 and the Hawks are a net plus +7 in the 43:54 Smith has sat. Obviously--in the games the Hawks have won!--the Hawks have been more effective when Smith has sat and the Celts have been less effective when KG has sat. We won't go into the three Celtic wins because they've been blowouts that make Smith look very very bad in comparison to Garnett. I've acknowledged that this series has turned up the whispers about Garnett not taking over. That apparently isn't sufficient for you. By coming up with this "Josh Smith outplayed him" bullshit, you are overreaching and eroding credibility on an argument you are winning on the merits right now. You might want to examine that bias.
levi (not verified)09:36am
May 4
In the three Atlanta wins, I reviewed the +/- of the time when KG and Smith were actually on the floor together. In the Apr 26th game, KG was -13 (and thus Smith +13) due to big 1st and 3rd quarters by the Hawks. KG was positive in both the 2nd and 4th quarters of that game. In the Apr 28th game, KG was +5 and then May 2nd, was +2. As I noted in previous comments that in some of these games, KG is not looking fresh, or as sharp as he seemed to be even late in the season. And I'd speculate that he is again playing in pain. But look at Duncan against New Orleans last night. He was really unable to get his motor running. It's about time for us to accept that these superstars are aging and are physically unable to dominate every minute of every game. As if they *ever* could, but that's a whole `nother discussion.
Britt Robson10:37am
May 4
Agreed. But I also want to agree with Krush in the sense that Garnett is the best player on the best team and needs to assert himself more than he has in the Atlanta series. Even apologists such as yours truly were dismayed to see the turnovers--and they were coming on passes, not shots--which KG committed in crunch time the other night. I disagree with Krush that his defense has been lacking; he's about the only guy besides Posey on the floor who is playing D. The Celts, KG included, have handed the Hawks confidence. There's really only one player in the East that has that killer instinct that you see from Duncan and Ginobili and Kobe and, I'm beginning to think, David West in the West and that is LeBron. Hence my pick of the Cavs over either the Celts or the Hawks. But as a confirmed KG fan, I hope I'm wrong.
RhinoLove (not verified)09:46am
May 5
I hope that you are wrong too. I want KG to get his ring badly. My hope is that Boston not only took Atlanta too lightly, but succumbed to the pressure of being the "team of destiny"...I sensed that the Celtics were too often playing not to lose, rather than playing to win. Hopefully that series shook some sense into Doc and the team, and they get their mojo back. One of KG's only real weaknesses is that he hates to lose so much that he tenses up and changes his game when it is on the line. If they play like they are capable of playing, Cleveland cannot beat them. Even if LeBron does hit 40pt a night thing. Another quick point...and I tried to get someone to take the bait on this one before, so my apologies for repeating myself. How great would it have been to get Atlanta's picks rather than doing the trade with Boston. We could have had three of the following guys as our young core: Al Horford, Noah, Brewer, Thornton, Rodney Stuckey, Thaddeus Young, and Julian Wright. I think there's at least a decent chance that the Wolves may have passed on Brewer, knowing they they could grab another SF at the #11 pick. In which case, we could have had a front line of Horford, Noah, and Thornton. Ouch! I don't know how close this deal was to ever going down, but it is a farce to say that the Wolves got the best possible deal that was discussed.
pagingstanleyroberts (not verified)12:55pm
May 5
Hook, line, and sinker. It wouldn't have been great to have those three instead of the package we got. If you want to talk about the best deal, Golden State's was better because Biedrins and Ellis (along with Brandan Wright, who should've been on your list) would've been better options than the players on that list. The reason the Wolves did the Boston deal was not only because of the McHale-Ainge friendship; it was because they thought Al Jefferson had the potential to be the best player. That includes anyone they could've had after the third pick in the draft. When a team is rebuilding, it's as important to get All-Star-caliber players as it is to get good players. Look at the Bulls; for all of their good players, none of them have been good enough to even be All-Stars in the Eastern Conference, and this year, despite having talented players similar to or better than the ones on your list, they missed the playoffs in a conference where a team with 37 wins got in. This was after playing together for 2-4 years. As good as Horford was for Atlanta, he has a long ways to go to be considered an All-Star player. Jefferson is a year older, and he's already close (although he needs to be in better shape to get there on a winning team). It's also important to get scorers who can carry a team when an offense is struggling. Of the players mentioned, none of them is that type of player. They could be good players, but they'll need to have guys who are great in some capacity if they want to be a part of winning teams. Jefferson has weaknesses in his game, but he's a great scorer. Horford and Noah were the fifth options on their teams, and Thornton was at best second on a team who the Wolves almost swept this year. As far as quantity goes, here's the two options: 2 picks from last year's draft or Jefferson, Telfair, Gomes, a future first-round pick, and a first-round pick in 2009 (probably late) Just on quantity alone, that's a better deal. I know you were debating quality, but I think all of those options lead to more possibilities of getting quality. It's still the same front office making the picks either way.
Jim (not verified)01:33pm
May 5
Teams like Atlanta, Chicago and the Clippers are examples of why building a legit contender through multiple lottery picks generally doesn't work. All have had over a decade of high picks and between them have only a few playoff wins and season after season of mediocrity or (far) worse to show for it. Most big time teams get one franchise player in the draft (Duncan for Spurs, Paul for Hornets to take one series) and surround him with skilled role players or a couple moderate all stars caliber guys who mesh.
RhinoLove (not verified)03:47pm
May 5
Jim, I agree with your reasoning in general. Stockpiling picks doesn't always lead to success. But last year's draft was a pretty good one. Again,who would you rather have as your frontline? Jefferson, Gomes and Brewer or Horford, Noah, and Al Thornton? I'd take the latter in a hearbeat. Three legit starters or one and a half. And please don't tell me you are putting Al Jefferson in the same company as Duncan and Paul. Also, I have to say that Atlanta seems like they are well on their way, and I think most Wolves fans would be tickled to approach the level of the Bulls or Clippers the past few seasons (though obviously not this season). I misspoke on my previous post, the Boston pick is a late 20, our own pick back will be a good one given our putrid record. So, yes we did get one high pick from Boston. It just doesn't seem as nice when it is your own pick.
Andy G (not verified)04:10pm
May 5
Jefferson, Gomes, Brewer vs. Horford, Noah, Thornton? I'd rather roll the dice with what we've got. Jefferson is not only better than Horford right now, but there's a lot more room in his ceiling, given the fact that his number one strength (low-post scoring) is greatly frustrated by the lack of play-makers and perimeter shooting (at least in the 50 games Foye missed) in his backcourt. His post-moves are unmatched by all NBA players, aside from Duncan, and as more talent surrounds him, he'll be a perennial All-Star. I'll admit to not having seen any Bulls games this year, but by all accounts, they were horrendous, and I've seen enough of Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, and Luol Deng in past seasons to know that they themselves are not horrendous. They may have taken steps back this year, but there was clearly not a major presence in their interior game (where Noah and Ty Thomas are supposed to be) that has done anything noteworthy in Chicago. That said, I'm fine with Gomes over Noah, even if Noah fills a positional need. I've argued the Brewer vs. Thornton debate enough this season, but to summarize, it's too early to cast Brewer aside, and his weaknesses (shooting and strength) are two of the most easily fixed for young, hardworking players. Thornton has a great NBA body, and has put up huge numbers on a bad team. When Brand returns next year, we'll see how he fits into a more competitive framework.
pagingstanleyroberts (not verified)10:32am
May 6
I agree about the Brewer/Thornton thing. Everyone in the draft was saying Thornton would probably be ready to play right away, and judging a draft class after one year yields far different evaluations than judging them after 3-5 years. As for RhinoLove's comment about Atlanta being "on their way," you reinforced part of my earlier point. The reason they made the playoffs was as much about the maturity of players like Joe Johnson and Josh Smith and the addition of a playoff veteran into the starting lineup like Mike Bibby as it was about Horford. For the Wolves, Al Jefferson is like Johnson or Smith; he needs a Horford-type player at some position to bring out the best in him, and Horford would need a guy like Jefferson/Johnson/Smith to bring out the best in him. Also, as a fan, I've watched the Wolves be where the Bulls were at. That's the Bulls' ceiling. I was just as tired of watching Flip's teams get bounced in the first round as I was about the past season. The point is to be serious contenders, not short-term playoff visitors.
Jim (not verified)12:11pm
May 6
I'm not sure draft evaluations turn out far different after five years all that often. And even if that's the case, if it takes five years for a guy to pan out chances are by the time he does it will be for team that did not draft him. There's no reason a high pick can't come in and contribute, even as a rookie. Don't be so quick to buy into McHale's apparently 10-year rebuilding plan that features continually drafting projects like Foye and Brewer over guys like Roy and Thornton who are ready for the NBA floor as rookies. At some point it's time to believe what you've seen on the floor, Brewer's rookie season was embarrassing for a top 10 pick. If it takes him five years to learn to shoot and get strong I guarantee he'll be on another team when that happens.
Andy G (not verified)12:28pm
May 6
Foye was All-Rookie First Team, so I don't think he was a project. One of the more disappointing parts of the Wolves season was that we didn't get enough chances to "believe what we've seen on the floor" from Brewer. The Snyder addition took away minutes that should've been dedicated to Brewer, regardless of his shooting woes. He showed against Cleveland that he's one of the few guys in the NBA willing to take charges on LeBron James penetration, and showed viewers who were willing to pay attention that he's got huge upside as a game-changing defender and intelligent offensive player. Anyway, I've already been baited into the same discussion that we had a while back. I can't say anymore about Thornton's potential as a Ricky Davis-caliber fantasy player or Brewer's impending development into a much-needed glue guy on a team that otherwise lacks defensive toughness. We weren't getting any superstars with that pick, Thornton very much considered, so I have no problem with the selection of a guy that every team hoping to win ballgames could use, even if he's a couple years younger and less physically developed than an otherwise less attractive option.
Jim (not verified)02:23pm
May 6
I was hoping for a pro-Brewer response. It will be fun to see what happens with him the next couple seasons. I'm not expecting much more than the intangibles everyone on this board adores but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. As for Thornton, who knows? Should the Clippers get all their guys back from injury they could have a starting five of Livingston, Mobley (or maybe even OJ Mayo) Thornton, Brand and Kamen. That's sick and for sure playoff caliber but the injuries are a big if. I'd still take it in a heartbeat over whatever the Wolves throw out there.
Jim (not verified)02:31pm
May 6
BTW — When I called Foye a "project" I was obviously referring to the idea that he would develop into an NBA-caliber PG not his fairly impressive rookie year scoring. Since he has only one move, is a below average defender and a text-book tweener, I'd say it's fair to say he's probably a project in general, at least in terms of whether he's capable of starting.
Andy G (not verified)10:27am
May 7
I agree about the Clips having a potentially big upside--but wasn't Livingston's injury pretty catastrophic? I thought I remember hearing it was something like multiple ligament tears and a dislocated kneecap or something along those lines. And Brand's was an achilles? If somehow both guys become 90% of what they were--(or in Livingston's case, what he was going to become)--they could be a nice team.
pagingstanleyroberts (not verified)04:51pm
May 6
Whoa. Who said I bought into a 10-year rebuilding plan? All that was implied is that the player a team wants in order to win this year isn't necessarily the player a team would want in order to win 3-5 years from now. How many teams above .500 this year had true rookies (not international veterans) in their rotation? Glen Davis with Boston, Rodney Stuckey with Detroit, Brandan Wright with GS, Carl Landry and Aaron Brooks with Houston, and Julian Wright with New Orleans. If more than 1 player on this list makes an All-Star team, I'll be surprised. Also, the types of players who usually have trouble adjusting to the NBA are tall wing players who lack physical strength. That doesn't mean that they don't adjust sooner or later. Since '97, here are some players who didn't make even the All-Rookie second team (not including high schoolers): Chauncey Billups, Dirk Nowitzki, Baron Davis, Rip Hamilton, Michael Redd, Gilbert Arenas, Mehmet Okur, and David West. That's just the All-Stars; there are dozens more players who contribute to playoff teams that weren't on either All-Rookie squad. With the '06 draft, guys like Thabo Sefolosha, Ronnie Brewer, Renaldo Balkman, Jordan Farmar, and Daniel Gibson didn't make either team (during a year in which 6 players made 1st team and 7 made second due to ties). Not everyone can be evaluated on their first year, and they don't need to be.
Jim (not verified)11:56am
May 6
I wasn't trying to talk up Jefferson or even rip Atlanta, Chicago or L.A. My point is that building a contender takes serious creativity and scouting and luck much more than it takes a series of high lottery picks, which often are blown no matter who is making them. People get pumped about picks because it's fun to talk about the draft, but history shows a team could be in the lottery 15 straight years and never build a contender. It's all about establishing a plan and a style, finding a star and building around him with smart trades and signings. What bugs me about the Wolves is that they have a history of making moves that contradict each other. We draft Brewer, who physically can't play a half court game, then trade for Big Al, who can't maximize his skills on a running team, to take just one example. Then there's the obsession with "position flexibility" which is little more than way to talk up tweeners.
RhinoLove (not verified)02:16pm
May 5
I haven't forgotten the GS deal or the Lakers deal (Bynum + Odom)...both would have been better than our Celtics package. But yeah, I was arguing quality. Gomes and Telfair are probably career backups. Jefferson is good (obviously), but to be honest, I think I prefer Al Horford straight up. He is already a better defender and passer, and I think he could get 18 points without a lot of plays run for him. Throw in his intangibles (maturity, proven winner, leadership, ability to play transition or half court game) and the balance tips over Jefferson's great low post scoring. Plus we would have had the 11th pick in what now appears to have been a pretty solid draft (Young, Stuckey, Wright, Thornton, etc still available). I would have preferred Horford to Jefferson and the 11th pick to Gomes and Telfair (who both need to be resigned btw, if they are included in this argument). We all know the picks are going to be in the high 20s.
Andy B (not verified)12:56pm
May 5
I don't think its a farce, although it certainly is open for debate. Al Jefferson is still young, but may very well be the player that can close out a playoff series while being the go to person in the 4rth qrt. You do have to let these things play out, but after Al's playing career is over I would not doubt that people may be comparing KG and Al's careers and argue over who was the more dominant player during their career. The answer might not be so obvious as it appears right now. But, if Al never gets to the playoffs and becomes just a mediocre player while three of the players you cited become all stars, then obviously the Wolves would have been better taking a trade for the Atlanta picks if it was ever offered. But, knowing everything I know right now I'd say that the Wolves made the right one. But, for all the KG talk, and Boston turnaround, etc. I wonder why noone has asked how good Boston would have been without him. They might not have been the best in the East, but they still would have made drastic improvements from the year before. Perkins and Rondo became capable NBA players and would have been nice complements to Al who made some great strides as well. Gomes would have been there as well to play a nice role off the bench. With a healthy Pierce and Allen, I don't see how Boston would not have made the playoffs had they kept Al Jefferson and in a first round matchup with Atlanta (though they would not have had the best record in the East) they would have prevailed and in probably under 7 games. Boston's turnaround has as much to do with the improvement of Perkins and Rondo as it does with KG. Put Jefferson in the middle instead of KG and the defense is not nearly as good, but offensively, you do have a player to put the ball in the basket to close out games. This year, I'd rather have KG, but next year and the year after? I think I'd rather have Al Jefferson.
midlife crisis (not verified)02:57pm
May 5
I think this is the appropriate place for the "makes teammates better" cliche'. With KG able to fit into any offensive and defensive gap, it allows any player on the team to do what they're best at. I like the players we got from Boston, and given the situation, don't think we could have done better. However, it's not only the improvement of their players that stands out, but also Foye and McCants becoming liabilities at least as often as assets. In 5 years, we should be happy with the trade. We at least have a young player and some draft picks, whereas KG and the young'uns could have perhaps got us once more into the playoffs. The value of KG is not only that the team he went to got the best record, but the team he left fought for the worst.
Andy B (not verified)04:22pm
May 5
Midlife, I hear ya, and I don't loudly proclaim that Al Jefferson is equivalent to KG. But, I will entertain your notion of KG and the young ones. KG missed the playoffs with the Wolves the preceeding three years. I am not sure which teammates he made better during that time. Wally? Marcus Banks? Ricky Davis? Mark Blount? Mike James? Rashad McCants? Randy Foye? Mark Madsen? I don't know, but I suppose a acase can be made for all of them, though none were all stars and the Wolves did not make the playoffs. KG on the Wolves this year, instead of Al Jefferson and without Randy Foye, but having Troy Hudson running the team for half a season instead? There is no way that team makes the playoffs, whether it is Antoine Walker and Greg Buckner playing beside him or Juwan Howard, Trenton Hassel, Ricky Davis, Mark Blount, McCants and Troy Hudson. Pick your supporting cast and noone's game is improved on the Wolves this year by playing alongside KG, just as none were the past three years. I am not KG bashing or trolling. I loved KG while he was with the WOlves and defended him when I could. But, there were and still are obvious weaknesses to his game. I do believe if the trade didn't happen and the WOlves had KG for another year we would have competed for the worst record just the same as we did with Al Jefferson, Gomes, Telfair and company.
Paul (ikrushlots) (not verified)11:05am
May 5
Britt, I had no intention of "trolling". I thought the thread was supposed to be about thoughts on first round playoffs, and that was my number one thought. I should have been more clear about my Josh Smith and Zaza comments. I was referring to the games in Atlanta. I saw that you mentioned KG hasn't played well in the clutch. The only comments of yours that I disagreed with and pointed out were KG's D, which I don't think have been up to his regular season standard (do you?), and the stats you had posted.
drza44 (not verified)11:41am
May 5
Re: Celts vs Hawks It is interesting that coming into the series the Hawks claimed that they could play with the Celtics primarily because they were a bad match-up for the Celtics. It's interesting because...they were right, but since no one else really believed it before-hand it is being discounted in favor of saying that the Celtics wilted. The Celts certainly didn't answer the bell the way that they should have in Atlanta, but I think the Hawks (and their matchups) were (and are) grossly underestimated. 1) Athleticism. This Celtics team is in many ways a talent-upgraded version of the 2003-04 Wolves. And just like that Wolves team, they rely heavily on older players with skill/savvy/attitude but fading athleticism. The same way that the Nuggets were somewhat scary to that Wolves team because of their athleticism, when the Hawks played at their level there was very little that many of the Celtics could do to match them. Ray Allen, Sam Cassell, Leon Powe, and PJ Brown were all just grossly physically outmatched which really minimized their ability to affect the game. Pierce and Perkins were slightly better but still had difficulty. Really, only KG, Rondo, and Posey were able to match their opponents physically. And speaking of KG... 2) Josh Smith. Smith is EXACTLY the kind of player that gives KG the most trouble. KG's strengths on offense are often predicated on him being a better perimeter threat than his opponents, while his strengths on defense rely on being able to help out his teammates and also crash the boards. Smith is really a SF who happens to be 6-9, long, with ridiculous jumping ability. That neutralizes much of KG's natural advanatage on both offense and defense. The counter-argument is to say that KG should have spent more time in the post, but even there Smith's jumping ability made that harder than it could have been. 3) Youth at home. The Celtics should have been able to win at least one game in Atlanta, because they were just the better team. But the Hawks at home were one of the more formidable teams in the playoffs...I submit that their play at home was of a higher caliber than even the 3rd-seeded Magic displayed in the first round. Because they were so young and athletic, while also having an outstanding scorer in Joe Johnson and a savvy vet like Bibby, the Hawks were able to really make themselves hard to beat in Atlanta. Like I said, the Celtics (if they really are contenders) should have been able to take at least 1 in ATL. But I really wonder if the Pistons would have done any better, because they Hawks played REALLY well at home.
jesse (not verified)04:02pm
May 5
Mike D'Antoinie, is on the market. Can you imagine what he could do for our team? What about Avery Johnson? Why not go after a good coach?! I just don't get it... When Stan Van Gundy was on the market, why didn't we get him? When Rick Adleman was on the market, why didn't we get him? Whenever there is a good coach out on the market, we NEVER go after them. And all these coaches are proven. And then they go out and prove it. Anyone think, they should get a good coach?
Britt Robson07:30pm
May 5
Just stopped by for the first time today and have to give it up once again to the commenters. It really is a joy to learn so much reading the folks on your own board. Sincerely, thanks to all for stopping by and chipping in--even you Krush, and if I get a little testy/defensive, it is due to past skirmishing on the KG front. A Celtic flameout this upcoming series will add a good deal of credence to something I've heartily resisted for many years now, and just because I'm being open-minded about it doesn't mean I won't wince if it comes to pass. On the other hand, maybe I'll kick myself later for not keeping the faith. I'd respond to at least a half-dozen great things below, but don't have the time nor energy at the moment. But I did want to say "nice work" and to add that I'll be back in the mix in the near future.
Andy G (not verified)12:16am
May 6
This is premature, considering that San Antonio could easily win the next two home games and make it a series, but I'll throw this out there since this is a Wolves blog and we're all anxious to see the traditional Western powers be taken down: What happens if New Orleans sweeps the Spurs? (or wins in 5?) That would mean that a team of young guys that are only going to improve smoked the aging Spurs right after they smoked the even-more aging Suns. I'm not sure that either team would go straight to panic-mode, but it could certainly signal some off-season changes that shift toward getting younger, perhaps at the expense of the next few seasons. Even more worrisome for Spurs fans would be if New Orleans handles them, only to have the young Laker team dismantle the Hornets in the next round. Chris Paul might accelerate the turnover of Western playoff slots if he proves that the old powers have no chance against his team and they're better off rebuilding.
midlife crisis (not verified)08:32am
May 6
I'll keep bringing it up until someone smarter than me carries it, but what does a New Orleans sweep mean to our guys? They are such a young team, and so superior to ours, that I wonder what magic (other than a top 2 pick) has to happen for the wolves to beat them. If we won't be able to, then as much as I like Al Jefferson, the next 4-8 years are going to be a quest for mediocrity, at which point Portland will take over. Would it be smart for Taylor to spend any of his money in this circumstance? Wouldn't the wise move to only spend money figuring out how to put a few more people in the seats via marketing campaigns or drafting gophers and Minnesotans. As fans, will we be ok when the team comes in under the cap each year? Given that we've all followed for this miserable season, I gotta think we will.
Andy B (not verified)08:56am
May 6
"but what does a New Orleans sweep mean to our guys?" Midlife, in answer to your question I think it means the Wolves should just fold up and go home. Seriously, it means motivation. It means a challenge. If you have competitive players it can only be inspiration. Just to make the comparison, what did Clevelands year last year and Detroit's offseason moves mean to the young and upstart Twins. It should have meant that the Twins had no chance and shouldn't even have showed up and competed this year. It is only May, but look where they are at. Can they keep it up. If they were preoccupied with the rosters of Cleveland, Detroit and the White Sox, you would have to say no. However, if they only worry about themselves and compete each game as hard a they can, come October they may be hosting some playoff games. Same goes for the Wolves. All that matters is what they believe. I seen enough of Al Jefferson this year to think he can lead a competitive club with the improved play of Randy Foye. If they are lucky enough to get a competent center to play alongside him and Brewer can show some improvement, they can win games they are still close in the 4rth quarter because Al Jefferson can make a basket when he has to. Al Jefferson is the real deal folks. He is Chris Paul at the power forward spot next year and the years after. He will dominate games and teams will have to find an answer to him. He just needs to be playing power forward and the Wolves need a big competent center playing alongside him.
stop-n-pop (not verified)02:12pm
May 6
I can tell you what a NOLA sweep means for Derrick Rose and his agent: straight cash homie. With Paul playing like this at age 23 I think this all but guarantees Rose gets the nod with the 1st pick in the draft. The way Paul is playing right now should worry each and every GM in the West and you can bet that Rose and his agent will take full advantage of this fact when talking to teams about his potential. Forget Lebron, there hasn't been a player who looked like this in the posteason since early 2000's Shaq. He's taken his game to another level.
Andy G (not verified)02:31pm
May 6
Agreed--and I'd add that Rose showed more as a young college player than Paul did. But, that's not to say he'll make the quick and major strides in development that Paul has in his first three NBA seasons. If Rose becomes a Wolf, we can only hope that's how it plays out.
midlife crisis (not verified)02:27pm
May 6
Thanks for the reply. I agree that the wolves should be motivated and work, and some of the players seem to have the character qualities to keep doing it. My worry is the front office. I don't know if they are so motivated towards trying, if it happens to cost money. I have been pretty negative on Wittman in the past, and so this is not completely unbiased, but isn't this a time to look at another coach, given the guys out there. I certainly understand the concept of giving a guy who had a lot of difficulties a second chance, but doesn't it make more sense to give someone with a ton of success a second chance. Especially if, as yo said, the players need to see this as motivation and a challenge. I would love to hear Avery Johnson motivating players with his mixed metaphors and Popeye references. Will the front office see a value in making a move now, when so much is available?
Andy B (not verified)03:11pm
May 6
When Taylor hired Wittman it showed as much imagination as most other NBA owners and GM's in hiring another retread. I am not going to say that Avery, D' Antoni, or some other recently fired and recycled coach would not be an improvement on Wittman. I am just tired of the same old coaches getting opportunity after opportunity. I am in favor of keeping Wittman until he demonstrates he cannot keep this collection odf WOlves going forward. I think he should be held to McHales standard next year of a club that is around .500 and flirting with a playoff spot. I don't want a recycled coach to come in and be given a year to implement his standards and then holding him to a standard. If Taylor really thinks that WIttman is not the one to coach this team he should put Jerry Sichting in the head coaching spot. I am not a fan of coaches going from job to job in the NBA. I think it stinks. If a coach is fired they should be forced to take a year off and even put some time in as an assistant some where. The recycling of coaches is ridiculous in my view. My hope is that Wittman gets the Wolves to .500 next year and establishes basketball played at Target center to be a certain brand just as Sloan has done at Utah or Kelly and now Gardenhire does at the Metrodome. For that to happen you need continuity and right now WIttman has over year in and he has the Wolves going in the right direction. Next year, .500. My belief is that WIttman can coach, the question is if the Players will continue to believe in him to take them to the next level. If they belive in him and believe in themselves (it goes hand in hand) then the Wolves and Wittman will be all right next year.
Would Have Lost for Pat Riley's Balls (not verified)05:00pm
May 6
I have the advantage of seeing a few games Brit didn't see before his predicitions, but, since I called the games (in my head) and he hasn't stepped into confess the error of his 2nd round ways and adjust the predictions, here are mine: >> In short, the winners will follow the seedings - without exception. The top seeds will be up for the competition and the opportunity for surprise attacks has been lost. Too much weight is put on 1st round chaos. It didn't get Golden State into the playoffs this year, did it. > Hornets in 5. I thought Popovich would adjust better for game 2. Parker and Ginobli have been shut down. Duncan looks far worse against an athletic frontline than KG did. The advantages they had on the Suns, namely the Suns weak team D that allowed for easy penetration, no longer exist, yet they seem to be stuck in that mode. I've earned a lot more respect for Marion as a player than I have for the Spurs. Miami will disrupt some plans next year. As for the Spurs, friendly calls or some hot outside shooting at home and stronger fan support than Dallas will probably get them one token game to avoid getting booed by their own fans. > Pistons in 5. Defensively, the Pistons can play everyone other than Howard man-on-man, and even Howard they can give enough problems to keep it from being easy. Offensively, the Pistons have too much flexibility for a still defensively naive Magic. > Lakers in 5. I think they'll get cocky in game 4 after taking 3 straight, 7 straight playoff games and dreams of sweeping the playoffs appear in their heads, then return home and put the Jazz into reconsidering their team's long-term construction. The Jazz blew their surprise opportunity in Game 1 where the Nuggets lack of resistance and rest rust could have made the Lakers an easy upset victim. I don't see the mountains as a problem for the Lakers. They got a workout with the Nuggets and thin air doesn't look like it will give Utah enough of an advantage to make this a contest. I think there is the potential for the Lakers cracking in this series if Utah can keep the games consistently close and physical. > Celtics in 5. Awake for Lebron and not facing the same difficult matchups the Hawks presented, they'll be close games, but they'll exhaust Lebron and potentially cause Cleveland's coaches to panic. Doc and the Celtics showed they can deal with real pressure, so I don't expect any more significant challenges until the finals. Overall, I'm picking a Celtics-Hornets finals. I think the Hornets can match up defensively with the Lakers, but not vice versa. I don't see anybody being able to consistently stop the Celtics or grabbing a game from them on the road, including the Hornets, so I'll pick the Celtics over the Hornets. As for the wolves, forget about attracting a major coach. They'd also be best to avoid trying to derive any significant meaning from the playoffs and fill their holes. They still need an athletic point able to keep up with Paul/Williams/Parker, and ideally one able to put offensive pressure on them. And they need to find that defensively capable center. All they can do is hope Corey adds enough strength and endurance to shut down big swingmen like Kobe/Manu/Peja/Roy/Durant and likewise develops a little more offense to keep them from resting on D. The end of useless forecasting for meaningless games.
Paul (ikrushlots) (not verified)10:59am
May 7
KG was fantastic in the 4th quarter last night. Loved the way he took Joe Smith inside, and was aggressive offensively. If KG always had that mentality in the 4th, I would never complain.
Levi (not verified)09:26am
May 9
With KG not having to carry most of his teammates on his back, it's a lot easier to rise up in the final minutes of the game. I pity LeBron, having to carry Wally Szczerbiak (and his inflated salary) now. Which reminds me. Despite all the discussion of deals by Boston, L.A., Phoenix, and Dallas, I thought Cleveland tried really hard too, picking up Ben Wallace and Wally at February's trading deadline. Alas, I don't think those trades have helped the Cavaliers very much. As a confirmed detractor of Mr. Szczerbiak's basketball talents and overall lack of team spirit (hey, there is "me" in "team") I would have passed on him, no matter how much I coveted Delonte West. Danny Ferry must have a soft spot for slow white guys who can barely jump high enough to dunk.
Andy G (not verified)09:39am
May 9
If this series doesn't take a big turn in Game 3, I wonder how long Mike Brown will get to be LeBron's coach. From what I've seen, there is very little creativity in their sets, and as a result, LeBron's game hasn't evolved much since he reached that point of knowing he can barrel through the paint--at will sometimes--to 45 wins and 30-7-7 averages. Sure, he puts a lot of pressure on opposing defenses, but when you have a tough team like Boston, they're not going to let him win 1 on 5. I would've thought he would have a post-game by now, if not a better 3-point shot. Can't he ever be the screener on the screen & roll? You can rip on his teammates, but it's not like he's playing with total scrubs. Some of them aren't in their primes, but Ben Wallace, Joe Smith, Wally, Delonte West, Daniel Gibson, Verejo are all at least competent players and should make a contender when surrounding a Top 3 player in the world. I realize that there's never been a physical specimen like LBJ before, but to me, that's more reason to use him in different ways, and not just let him try to do every play himself.
Andy B (not verified)09:45am
May 9
Oh, I don't know Levi. I think that's just a tad unfair. Wally is what he is. White and Slow, yes, but the reason to sign Wally is because of his nice shooting touch. Wally isn't a star anymore and probably never should have been billed as the costar along with KG. But, he wasn't horrible. He could put the ball in the basket and that counts for something. He also could get to the free throw line occassionally. RIght now, he spreads the floor for Lebron. You can't ignore him out there on defense. He's an asset to Lebron. Lets see what happens in Cleveland. If they can protect their home court, I think they have a better chance of stealing one in Boston than Atlanta, but I think the Celtics might have just woken up now. I have a feeling they win at least one in Cleveland.
Levi (not verified)12:13pm
May 9
Unfair? It is politically incorrect, I suppose, to point out that Wally fits into a certain stereotype. As did Danny Ferry in his day. Yes, the Cavaliers need good shooters to spread the floor for LeBron. And yes, Wally is hyped as having a nice shooting touch. Especially during shooting exhibitions in the gym (if McHale could be trusted as a judge of talent). But I doubt that his current .360 or so out on the floor is causing much angst amongst opposing coaches. Plus, Wally has never rebounded much and doesn't handle the ball well under pressure. I'll bet Mike Brown (and LeBron) was praying for better.
Andy B (not verified)12:34pm
May 9
Oh, yes, you said White. Shame on you. THen you implied slow and couldn't jump. That was very unfair of you. Seriously, No, I could care less about the PC. What is unfair (a tad-mind you) is your characterization that his shooting is overhyped and the singling out of Wally for Cleveland's current failures in Boston. He is a jump shooter with a career percentage close to 50%. Like everyone on Cleveland he has not been able to go off yet at Boston. But, someone has to guard him, unlike, say, Telfair or Brewer standing out on the wing for the Wolves. That is not a liability for Brown or Lebron if they could take advantage of him. As I said, It may be a different story in Clevelan
Levi (not verified)02:44pm
May 9
Wally's shooting percentage with the Cavs has, for whatever reason, hovered around .360 before the playoffs. There's no reason to expect a meteoric rise to his previous level of success. I admit that I strongly prefer an all-around basketball player rather than a one-dimensional shooter. Especially one making so much money that a team is almost obliged to start him. Shooters sooner or later go ice cold.
Andy B (not verified)02:55pm
May 9
I like an all-around player as much as anyone, but there is nothing like a shooter at times, too, even if they are ice cold. The Celtics would not be very smart to neglect Wally in Cleveland, because there is a reason he might get hot. The last game against Washington with him going 9-18 for 26 pts is enough reason for them to have someone out there contesting his shot. IF they want to ignore him, they do it at their own peril. Wally can hit the open J. He drives me mad, but he can hit the open J.
Levi (not verified)08:35am
May 10
Answering both Krush and AndyB, a couple of years ago I posted stats from the 82games site that indicated that Wally's high shooting percentage seemed to rely on a higher than average ratio of assists provided to him. I'd dig them out and repost, but I don't have time today. So if Wally's not getting assists in Cleveland, oh well. In my opinion, he's not really that good of a shooter on his own, or under pressure. And actually, I'd underscore the "pressure" part - I've watched Wally miss too many open shots that the team really needed (though I admit that's subjective, lacking stats to back it up).
levi (not verified)10:29am
May 11
There I was, googling recipes for eating crow at halftime last night, when Wally shot 4-4. Reality bit back though, as he missed his next six shots. Lucky for the Cavs, the Celtics couldn't ever get it going enough to get out of the big 1st half hole they put themselves in.
Paul (ikrushlots) (not verified)12:18am
May 10
Wally's career fg % is .487, and his fg% last season was .460. His career 3 point fg % is 40%. He's a good shooter. It's Cleveland's unimaginative offensive system, if you can even all it a system, that has Wally at such a low percentage.
Paul (ikrushlots) (not verified)09:58am
May 9
I don't think Wally is the problem in Cleveland. He's one of only two guys that are at least providing some offensive help for Lebron. The problem with Cleveland is they have horrible coaching and the team is not built correctly. They have decent players that are vauable on certain teams, but not the Cavs. And at each position they have two or three guys that do the exact same thing. Gibson, Wally and Pavolic all can be valuable, but they all are shooters that need to be on a team that plays an inside out game or drives to the paint with more than one guy. Wallace, Smith and Varejao are all complimentary power forwards. All 6 guys are decent players when placed on a team built correctly. Couple that with the most inimaginative offensive coaching in the league. No ball rotation, no pick and rolls, post ups nothing. Just give the ball to James at the top of the key and let him dribble through 4 defenders.
Andy G (not verified)09:58am
May 9
Question for all those with a better understanding of the cap rules than me: If the Lakers win this title without Bynum, and then Bynum (and his mysteriously never-healing knee) want a max deal, can LA afford to pay it? If that knee doesn't get better in the early part of the off-season, does LA have to make a decision now--after watching a lot of their playoff games, I can't help but notice how perfect of a fit for their system that Kevin Love would be as either the 4 between Odom's 3 and Gasol's 5, or just the 6th man who comes in to fire 50 foot outlet passes to Kobe, Sasha and Farmar. Obviously, they'd have to move up 15-20 spots to get him, and that's why I wonder if they'd ever consider swapping Bynum for somebody's Top 10 pick and another player or contract or something. Love would be a lot cheaper than Bynum, probably won't have the injury concerns, and has already developed a big fan base in Southern Cal. Oh yeah, and Minnesota could be the team who gets Bynum. I forgot to mention that part.
stop-n-pop (not verified)01:34pm
May 9
No, Bynum is still slotted on the rookie 1st round scale and he doesn't become a restricted free agent until after next year. In the mean time, the Lakers are over the cap and they pay the lux tax so they have no money to monkey with. In 09/10 Kobe has a ridiculous player option ($23 mil) with the Lakers already in the mid 50's and without Odom on the books. If they're lucky and the timing is right, they should be able to work an exception with Bynum and the remaining cap space to get him in at around 8-12 mil/year but they will likely have to do so at the expense of Odom. They can have Pau and Odom or Pau and Bynum, but I don't see how they keep all 3. Plus, Farmar will be up by then. If they win it this year, I think Bynum could become a pretty valuable asset to trade if he can prove he's healthy.
Andy G (not verified)02:08pm
May 9
Thanks for the input--it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. It's obviously pretty rare for one team to have two stud 7-foot centers. If they can't afford to keep Odom and Bynum, and Bynum's knee injury lingers up to draft day, I wonder what types of deals they will entertain. If the Wolves get the dreaded 3-6 spot, and LA falls in love with anybody around that area, a trade would buy LA a few years with their current core that will (possibly) have just won a title and add a nice piece for the cheap rookie salary for 3 years. Minnesota gets a possible superstar in the making to line up next to Al. Thinking way too optimistically, maybe they would swap 1st rounders in the deal, and we could package a couple (or all 3) of the 30-34 picks for something in the middle of the 1st, and add CDR or Brandon Rush to the mix. Or we can stand pat with Lopez and hope to make one or two playoff appearances before 2015.
stop-n-pop (not verified)03:41pm
May 9
That's a really interesting question. If the Lakers win the title this year without Bynum I think they'd be savvy enough to realize that a championship squad + Bynum doesn't necessarily mean a better team (it may; it may not). Pau and Kobe have a great thing going and I don't think a ring will make Bynum completely forget what Kobe thought of him before the wins started coming. I have no idea what LA would think about a proposal like that. My guess is that they'd tell the Wolves to suck it, but you never know.
Andy B (not verified)02:21pm
May 9
S&P, I just want to say here, since, although I can read CH, my workplace blocks me from commenting there, but about your post on B. Lopez. Although I like your proposal to get Lopez with CDR or some other athletic scorer at the 3 who shoot FT, it the Wolves can pull that off with a trade of the second rounders, I think BL might be the best option in the 3-6 slot for the Wolves, not only best on need but also because its a wash on the best player available. Thats what I got from your post anyway. We can get a big in the second round, but getting the best 7' big in the draft to play next to AJ is the route to go in my opinion and although some of the other bigs that may go later match up equally in some areas, from your post I still gather that BL is the best total package, is he not? When your talking second round you are talking about an even bigger crap shoot than the lottery. Its hard to put any faith in a second round center being the answer at the 5 next to AJ. Lets be generous and put the odds at 5-7% for any one of them that they will be the starting 5 and also still be on the Wolves roster or making significant contributions to some other NBA roster 3 years from now. At least, with BL, the odds are raised a bit more, say 30-35%. Do you agree? 30-35% might not be the best odds, but it might be the best we got, even if our pick is at number 3. I realize I am pulling these percentages out of you know where, but I'd say for top ten picks and second round picks the percentages are around those numbers just by scanning past drafts.
stop-n-pop (not verified)03:36pm
May 9
Stupid workplaces :) I debated whether or not to caveat the Lopez post with something along the lines of what you mentioned: in a thin draft, it's really a crap shoot in the 3-6 spots and it probably is a wash on the best player available. I guess where I'd differ is that the difference between Brook Lopez and Roben Lopez/Devon Hardin/best available big at the top of the 2nd round is a lot smaller than the gap between Gallinari and the best small forward at the top of the 2nd or OJ Mayo and the best off guard at the top of the 2nd. This draft has a fair amount of big men and I think the Wolves could get more value by addressing their biggest need with the top pick: someone who can shoot from outside while putting the ball on the floor, drawing fouls, and playing decent defense. I agree that Lopez will probably work himself into a servicable starting center. I just don't know that he brings the skills the Wolves need to the table or that he can produce without the amount of touches he got at Stanford while alongside of Big Al. He literally had the ball in his hand 1/3 of the time in that offense. With Foye and Jefferson, and with his less-than-stellar rebounding/blocked shot numbers, I'm not sure he has the type of game that would work with the Wolves.
Andy G (not verified)04:03pm
May 9
I also don't think Lopez brings the skills we need to the table. His best skill--low post scoring--is the one thing that the Wolves don't need. His soft rebounding and average defensive ability would leave the same void we have now, whether he's 7'5" or 6'8". Joey Dorsey will probably get picked 20-30 selections behind Lopez, and I'd rather start him at center next to Jefferson than I would Brook. Even if he's 3 inches shorter, he'll block more shots, grab rebounds, and put back more Randy Foye floater-rebounds for huge dunks. With a smooth-scorer type at the 4, I think we're best served with a strong enforcer type at the 5. That's not Brook Lopez. It may be DeAndre Jordan, but his so-so year at A&M has people (justifiably) questioning what type of player he is.
Paul (ikrushlots) (not verified)12:46am
May 10
I don't see Lopez being much more than an above average center. That's not what I want from a 3-6 pick. I'd go with the guy who has the best chance of being an explosive player, regardless of position. I'd go with OJ Mayo or Bayless if they are available. To address center, I would hope Alexis Ajinca (great shot blocker) makes it to pick 31. Maybe Hibbert falls. Or they could try to trade for a decent center, with McCants the centerpiece of a deal.
stop-n-pop (not verified)07:05am
May 10
OK, this is from a future CH post and I've rounded out the numbers from stuff like .25 and .75, but below are the height w/o shoes, standing reach, and wingspan measurements of 5 players that may be of interest to Wolves fans. Can you guess who they are? I'll put the answers in a new post at the bottom of the comment thread. Player 1: 6'2" / 8'1"/ 6'6" Player 2: 6'2" / 8'7" / 6'10" Player 3: 6'4" / 8.4" / 6'6" Player 4: 6'2" / 8.3" / 6'7" Player 5: 6'2" / 8.4" / 6'3"
stop-n-pop (not verified)07:11am
May 10
Well that didn't work out as planned. The answers are up top.
Levi (not verified)10:14am
May 11
Actually, I think an "above average center" is about all you can expect to get for a "5" in picks 3-6. Now maybe Kevin McHale disagrees, but I think most of us believe that Al Jefferson should be playing PF and that the Wolves need a center, especially one who complements Jefferson. Lopez seems to be that defensive minded, glue kinda guy. I'd go for him rather than take yet another chance on "explosive" potential at a position that the Wolves are already overstocked at. *chuckle* I wonder how many other teams covet McCants. I'd say the number approaches zero, but maybe somebody out there sees him as the "centerpiece" of a deal. I don't, but then I'm not an NBA GM with the creds of someone like, say, Isiah Thomas.
stop-n-pop (not verified)07:10am
May 10
Answers to the measurement question: Player 1: 6'2" / 8'1" / 6'6" Player 2: 6'2" / 8'7" / 6'10" Player 3: 6'4" / 8.4" / 6'6" Player 4: 6'2" / 8.3" / 6'7" Player 5: 6'2" / 8.4" / 6'3" With names: Randy Foye: 6'2" / 8'1" / 6'6" Rashad McCants: 6'2" / 8'7" / 6'10" OJ Mayo: 6'4" / 8.4" / 6'6" Derrick Rose: 6'2" / 8.3" / 6'7" Jerryd Bayless: 6'2" / 8.4" / 6'3" Mayo, Rose, and Bayless are essentially the same size.
Levi (not verified)07:59am
May 10
Cool numbers. What's your source? And all good reasons to pick Lopez instead. You can read about draft picks on Hoopshype here: http://hoopshype.com/draft.htm I've known that McCants was nowhere near his listed 6'4" since the day I stood next to him at his first summer league. At his listed height, he's at a disadvantage over the prototypical modern off-guard (6'6" or more). I assume that McHale owns a tape measure. It was ridiculous, no, it was inept to draft McCants when you consider Rashad's personality and that the Wolves didn't really need another off-guard at the time.
stop-n-pop (not verified)08:11am
May 10
Draft Express has a searchable measurement page: http://tinyurl.com/5b3agr Here's the one with Mayo, Bayless, and Rose: http://tinyurl.com/5r7r24
Xand (not verified)10:22am
May 11
Interesting to see those measurements, but who cares about their height w/o shoes. Last I checked, players don't play barefoot. You should also note that, at least for this year's freshmen, those are last year's measurements. Given their ages, it's entirely possible some of them grew in the past year. Also I've never seen McCants get overwhelmed physically by bigger 2's on either side of the floor. His freakish wingspan allows him to compensate for being 6'4 (which is also a byproduct of his having no neck to speak of..), it's always been a question of if he wants to put in the effort. If he was 6'5+ I'm pretty sure the situation would be the same.
stop-n-pop (not verified)10:49am
May 11
Last I checked, most shoes are about the same thickness. It's just the standard height measurement, that's all. McCants is effectively a 6'5" player. I didn't put him in there to show how small he was. He has a freakish wingspan and standing reach. Some short guys are bigger than "taller" opponents. He's the perfect example of a "short" player being bigger than his height would indicate. I think standing reach is the big one.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <i> <b> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
By entering in the words in the captcha image, you help us prevent automated spam submissions and keep the site tidy.

Blogs

Sports

Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Alex Halsted
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson

Society

Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines

A&E

Fiction:
Write Now! by Terry Faust

Retired

Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff