Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
The Three-Pointer: Every Win A Surprise
Photo copyright 2009 NBAE (Photo by David Sherman/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #52, Road Game #27: Washington 111, Minnesota 103
Game #53, Road Game #28: Miami 104, Minnesota 111
Season Record: 18-35
1. A Team of Spurts
We are beginning to get a larger sample of the Timberwolves without Jefferson, a roster sans Alpha Dog, and it is an exciting, if maddening, phenomenon. Jefferson was a regulator of pace and points: You could rarely push the tempo full-bore with him lumbering up and down the floor, but if you set yourself up in the half court and tossed the rock on the low left block, good things generally happened without much effort from the other four offensive players. Now it is a scattershot, a jailbreak, with players moving like roaches across the kitchen floor when the light goes on. Without Big Al demanding the ball, turnovers and trey attempts are up--two things that cause wild fluctuations in scores. Indeed, these past two nights on the road post-All Star game have seen more than the usual quotient of careening.
Tuesday night in DC, the Wolves spotted Washington a 19 point lead with 3:38 to go in the first half, then roared back with a 14-0 run, nearly took the lead after a 10-2 to start the second half, went up 6 after a 12-4 midway through the fourth, and then spit the bit with a game-ending 14-3 Wizards splurge. Wednesday it was as if Minnesota played rope-a-dope with the Heat, offering absolutely no resistance as Miami scored 14 points in the paint plus one more on a Telfair technical foul to go up 15-4 with only 5:38 gone in the first quarter. But the Wolves climbed back into the game with a 12-1 run midway through the second period. Up double-digits early in the 4th, they surrendered twelve straight points and seemed on the verge of continuing a pattern of blowing leads in the final period, a corrosive trait on the psyche of any ballclub. Instead they closed it out with a 14-5 run, an almost mirror image of the previous night. Coach Kevin McHale's mantra has been to keep it close so you have a chance to win at the end. Mission accomplished twice since the break, with a rare victory to show for it.
The obvious hero in Miami was Bassy Telfair, going off for a career-high 30 points. That was hardly the gameplan going in, and it seems rather remarkable when you consider aggressively looking for his own points is what opponents invite out of Bassy. But with Jefferson out, Randy Foye saddled with enough foul trouble to put him on the pine for all but 4:42 of the first half, and Mike Miller discovering new ways to avoid shooting the ball, Telfair inexorably claimed the go-to mantle. His points per-quarter rose steadily, registering 5-7-8-10. He was second to Love's 6 in the first, tied with Gomes's 7 in the second, and led the squad in both quarters of the second half, even with Foye back on the floor. He did it the way Foye did it during the latter's marvelous Dec-Jan run: by hitting 6-10 from beyond the arc (versus 1-4 from two point territory), and canning all 10 of his free throws.
But Telfair's robust 30 merits merely co-star mention beside his ballhandling. Miami specializes is creating turnovers, especially in the backcourt where the superstar Wade teams with the impressive rook Chalmers (the guy we gave away, remember?) on quick-handed poke-checks and anticipatory lane-fills. The box score will show that Telfair had 5 turnovers compared to Miller's half-dozen, but after a couple of miscues in the first period, Bassy mostly settled down, while Miller, perhaps bothered by yet another injury (to his ankle) that had him writhing in extreme pain yet refusing to come out (sound familiar?), had four turnovers in the fourth, including two costly mistakes when McHale needed to rest Telfair and Miami promptly went on a run. This was one of the key points of the ballgame. The Wolves were up 11 with 10:14 to play when Bassy got his first blow of the second half. A minute and 57 seconds later, Minnesota had committed three turnovers (two of them by Miller) and that 11 point margin had been cut to five. If you're wondering where Foye was during this time, he was leading the team in 4th quarter shots (1-6 FG) and had zero dimes for the period. When it came to protecting the ball versus the Heat's pressure, it was Bassy or bust. Credit McHale for recognizing his value and rushing him back into the game.
The other key moment in this contest occurred in the second quarter, when McHale finally grew tired of opponents kicking sand in the Wolves' faces down in the paint and *finally* flipped Gomes from power forward to small forward. Through much of the early going, newly acquired Heat center Jermaine O'Neal remembered how he'd schooled Kevin Love at Target Center just last week, and again went right at him. Meanwhile, Gomes was having all kinds of problems keeping track of Udonis Haslem and then keeping him out of the paint when he did locate him. In the first 8 minutes, O'Neal and Haslem had combined for 13 of Miami's 19 points (Wade had the other 6) as the Heat built an 8-point lead. McHale brought Jason Collins in for Gomes late in the first and that staunched the flow a little bit. But it was the arrival of Brian Cardinal on the scene--paired first with Craig Smith and then with Collins, with Gomes at the 3--that really got the Wolves back in the game. (One could argue that another key moments was when Miller smashed O'Neal across the face doing one of his patented twist-and-kick passes while charging into O'Neal. A bloody nose and blurred vision sent O'Neal to the locker room. Miami went small in the 3rd quarter, enabling McHale to go with his preferred lineup and still shoot 14-18 FG for the period while outrebounding the Heat 11-2.)
Cardinal is simply a tough, smart son of a bitch, a scrapper who knows how to frustrate and aggravate opponents while doing all the little things--ball movement, box-outs, hard picks--that benefit his teammates. He plays bigger than his listed 6-8 and probably should be starting at the power forward slot if McHale insists on keeping his big men on the pine. Cardinal was plus +13 on Tuesday versus Washington. The only other positive was Craig Smith at plus +6. Against the Heat he was plus +6 and led the team in rebounds with 10 despite playing only 16:40. A Love-Cardinal-Gomes frontcourt is small but gritty, and absent any hangups or egos. It puts Gomes at the 3 where he belongs--he had better luck guarding Wade than Haslem on Wednesday. And it lets Miller come in for Telfair and share ball-handling responsibilities with Foye until Kevin Ollie returns.
2. Accepting Miller
There is no longer any point is getting frustrated by Miller's "Timberwolf style" of play, because the guy isn't going to change. Anyone who thought his disinclination to shoot was a matter of lacking confidence should have noticed that he kept dishing instead of chucking even when he was red hot. And he hasn't varied his game even with Jefferson down, although if anyone could and should seize the reins of the offense--specifically scoring--it is Miller.
No matter. The dozen FGA he launched versus Washington in 37:14 is probably the upper end of his shooting aggression, with his 2-4 FG in 36:57 on Wednesday probably trending toward the lower end. More significantly, Miller has led the Wolves in assists the past two games with 6 and 9 and it is time to look at the positive aspects of what he's doing. First of all, he has developed a connection with Love which is helping the rook's confidence offensively. Love has great hands, moves without the ball, and has figured out something opposing scouts have yet to glean--when Miller turns the corner, he's looking for cutters instead of shooting space. When Miller heads hard for the hole, it is almost certain that he'll whip the ball to the wing, corner, or perimeter rather than finish at the cup. The world is upside-down when Miller drives and kicks so that Bassy Telfair can drain a three-pointer--how many people envisioned it last fall?--but that sequence happened a whopping four times for four treys and four dimes against Miami.
Miller remains a poor defender, but he's been a solid rebounder at small forward as well as shooting guard. If you ignore his reputation and forget the reason Minnesota originally acquired him and just watch him play, it is easier to appreciate his contribution. And who knows, maybe someday he'll wake up and go off for 30. If Telfair can do it...
3. Personnel Matters
With Jefferson out, the trading deadline looming Thursday afternoon, and Chalmers posting a stellar game versus the Wolves, it is hard not to second-guess or want to go fiddle with espn's trade machine. In addition to a pair of dunks and three steals, Chalmers had a relatively hardy defensive game, which is why he was so much more effective than his backup, Chris Quinn. Chalmers and Quinn split time almost right down the middle, 24:01 and 23:59, respectively. During those minutes, Chalmers was plus +11 and Quinn was minus -18. He's a valuable piece that the Wolves punted away on draft night. I know they got a pick out of the deal, and that at the time they thought they had Mayo and thus too many backcourt players. But the longer time goes on this season, the more losing Chalmers seems to be a bigger blunder than trading Mayo for Love, considering all the contracts the team unloaded in that Memphis deal. Meanwhile, Telfair is the only trustworthy point guard on the roster until Ollie returns from his elbow injury.
Oklahoma City stole Tyson Chandler for a couple of mediocre bigs with expiring contracts--then threw him after deeming him a chronic injury risk. Seven-footers with foot injuries has a nasty history--Z Ilgauskus and Bill Walton immediately come to mind--and the Thunder braintrust has proven its competence in building the ballclub, so perhaps they were wise to kill the deal. But given the chance to put one of the game's best low-post defenders beside a young nucleus of Westbrook, Durant and Green, well, unless the long-term prospects for Chandler are not only uncertain but probable in the negative, I'd still swap Wilcox and Smith and literally take out an insurance policy on Chandler. The potential upside is worth the risk.
Now that Chandler is officially damaged goods, could the Wolves put together a package of expiring deals to bail out the cash-strapped Hornets? Wilcox and Smith is more attractive than Collins and McCants and a top draft pick or two, but that better deal is no longer tenable. It is hard for me to believe some contending team won't take the plunge on Chandler, but I don't imagine the Wolves will get serious about him--not after they passed on both Danny Granger and Brandon Roy because of their injury histories and risk going forward. Of course no other team has lost more games to injury from their three previous first-round picks than Minnesota recently. but Wolves fans are supposed to curse their bad luck instead of the front office's bad judgment or instincts.
There is a rumor that the Wolves will try to upgrade at the point by trading for Kirk Hinrich, perhaps for the Collins-McCants combo platter. If, as seems likely, Minnesota's future is in rotations among its center-power forward and point guard-shooting guard combos, then Hinrich is an excellent fit beside Foye and Telfair. And upgrading the roster now or next year, while the teams higher up on the food chain position themselves for the 2010 free agents, makes the most sense. When the deadline expires Thursday afternoon, no news will not be good news for this franchise.
27 Reader Comments
The Chalmers draft night trade really made me mad. The trade was about the money, $2 million coming our way from Miami. And, they knew that they would not have any open roster spots. The Wolves were already at 15 roster spots and weren't planning on keeping Chris Richards, so they didn't have plans to buy out Booth for a roster spot for Chalmers or Richards. The draft picks are going to be mid-high second round picks, which rarely even make your team. I'm tired of Taylor using the draft day to pick up money in deals instead of improving the team. Build a winning team and he will make more money in the long run and fill some seats.
Count me as one who feels the Chalmers trade was a huge mistake. I'm not one to whine and moan about past mistakes, but this one irks me. I can at least understand the Love for Mayo deal, and to a lesser extent, deals like Foye for Roy. The Chalmers deal, on the other hand, is indefensible.
Though some draft sites (the ones I put little stock in) had him lower, analysts like Hollinger and the guys at Draft Express had Chalmers rightly listed as a mid to late-lotto talent. His numbers unspectacular but steady and he was a gritty defender with plenty of experience and a national championship under his belt (let's not forget the clutch shot he knocked down to seal the game, too).. When a guy like that who plays a position of need falls to you in the SECOND round, you don't trade him for meaningless future picks (come on, future 2nds?) and some cash. That was just dumb. No way around it. Even if you buy the company line that the trade was made before they saw who was on the board, it absolves them of nothing. This draft was deep with talent - they should have known better than to move the pick before seeing who was going to fall. That's how you build a winning team.
Guys, while McHale bashing on the Chamlers trade is in vogue, I think some perspective is needed.
When the trade was made - we had/knew we had MAYO! (There are conflict reports on how early in the day that trade was made) So, where does Chamlers fit with Mayo, Telfair, Foye and McCants (based on Shaddy's promising end to the 07-08 season)? Deep on the bench that's where.
McHale has admitted that, as the roster ultimately turned out after the trade, Chalmers would have been a perfect fit. But there are no "do overs" - you have to make the call at the time. Based on the roster, it was a good call.
So while there are some draft moves that we can certainly trash (the reach for Ebi), this ain't one of them.
I disagree JAF. Chalmers is a solid, true PG who can defend. Out of the group you listed, only Telfair can boast the distinction of being a real PG, but he's a relative defensive liability. Chalmers could have stepped in and pushed bassy for the PG job (which he would have probably eventually won), serving as a defensive stopper as he learned the ropes. If he didn't prove good enough, well, he'd have cost essentially nothing. You never go wrong by adding a talent like that in the 2nd round, Mayo or not.
Xand,
Ok, in your scenario, you have Bassy backed up by Chalmers. Fine. That leaves Foye, Mayo and McCants fighting for 48 minutes at 2. That would be Foye with a guaranteed contract, Mayo with a guaranteed contract and McCants, who at that time, was considered the 6th man "offensive" wizard. Those guys are going to sit, right? Don't think so.
So, Bassy is not the starting PG - Mayo is. Which is basically the role Mayo has right now. Or Foye at PG with Mayo at 2. McCants is first off the bench. Bassy and/or Chalmers is the 4th guard playing limited minutes.
At the time of the draft, Chalmers was coming off a leg injury (knee I think) that seriously limited him in the NCAA. There were a TON of teams that passed him by for that very reason (as Hollinger pointed out in his draft summary).
So, are we really going to criticize McHale for not using a 2nd round pick to take a player initially projected to fight for the 4th guard position against a 24 year old incumbent, who had played decently the previous season?
I should asy that I respecfully disagree and don't mean to start a heated argument or anything on this topic, I just don't think it was handled the right way, even if I try to put myself in their shoes at the time.
What I mean to ask is would it be too much to expect our FO to actually evaluate their talent? Sure, we had McCants, but it was pretty obvious (to me, at least) that McCants was not going to be a part of this team's future. Watching him kill the flow of the offense every time he touched the ball made this quite obvious. As such I would have considered him trade bait at best going into this season. That leaves Mayo and Foye, both 2's who can play spot minutes at PG, and Telfair, who is still the lone PG on the roster. My personal draft startegy is to make the most of the talent available, regardless of the situation on your team. Even if Chalmer's minutes are limited this year because Bassy is playing a good chunk at PG, Mayo is at SG, and Foye's backing them up, what do you lose by having Chalmers on a 2nd rounders contract? It also gives you flexibility to look at moving guys like Foye/Telfair if the opportunity ever comes along. If he proves injury prone or he can't hack it, then it costs you what, a few hundred grand? A relative pittance.
This move just runs contrary to what I consider a winning mentality. Good teams comb the draft for steals and develop those players. I guess can see where McHale is coming from, but that doesn't mean it was a good move. Would the Spurs have moved a high 2nd rounder in a deep draft because they already have plenty of players, or would they have taken the BPA and sat him and let him learn on the bench, priming him to one day be a real player? That's how you win games in the NBA. That's how you become one of the best teams in the NBA, and how you stay that way. You certainly don't get there by saying "oh well, we wouldn't have had room for him anyway."
Just to add another part to this: Chalmers isn't a true PG. He's good at guarding PGs, but he wasn't Kansas's starting PG, and he went to a team that's a good fit for him because Wade is a combo guard. I wish the Wolves had waited to agree to any trades until they saw how the Mayo/Love talks played out, but Chalmers would need to always play with Foye to be an effective lead guard. Otherwise, his effectiveness as a PG would be similar to what Foye has shown.
Oops, didn't want to gloss over this point: I'd rather have Chalmers than next year's picks, but without knowing how those picks pan out, I can't say that this was a bad trade. Yet.
Oops, didn't want to gloss over this point: I'd rather have Chalmers than next year's picks, but without knowing how those picks pan out, I can't say that this was a bad trade. Yet.
Also, to cite an example of the Spurs getting rid of a good player because of numbers, they traded Luis Scola to a division rival last year for a similar reason (supposedly he was a chemistry problem, but others have said it was just numbers).
Surprise surprise! Wolves win. Wow. It did require somewhat miraculous shooting accuracy and an uncharacteristic 30 points from Telfair, so it is an anomalous victory unlikely to be repeated (though the Golden State Warriors tried vs the Lakers). I kept waiting to see when the Heat would deploy Jermaine O'Neal to reprise his Toronto drubbing of the Wolves from inside, but as he was new to the team (and took a little nick as well) the Heat didn't go there. Ah well. Let's all just have a cigar.
One consistent thing that I noticed vs Miami was that Foye was completely useless on defense against Wade. The quick fouls early were just a symptom -- Dwayne was already gone. I have never gotten McHale's fascination with Foye (or McCants and a host of other players for that matter). Perhaps moving Foye to the "2" improves the team, but if there was a way to move Foye to some other team, I'd try.
FWIW, I decided to post today in order to take my lumps and finally agree with Britt about Mike Miller's unwillingness to pull the trigger. If there ever was a time for Mike to be taking his shot, it is right now. It's ironic that Britt is now sort of "accepting Miller", i.e. my old position, while I move toward Britt's.
All this stuff about Mayo and Chalmers is just hypotheticals about hypotheticals.
In terms of the existing team -- and this may be outdated by this afternoon -- I see some interesting clarifications, and some equally as interesting muddyings.
Here are several.
Clarifications:
Love is a steady 15 and 10 man, and will be for the foreseeable future. Mayo's talent is special, but Love's talent is rare. Love and Miller for Mayo was a viable strategic judgment call that does not easily break down into a winner and a loser, but is better assessed as a choice that provides a different shape to the team, depending on whether it was made or not. McHale does seem intent upon working on the Celtics rather than the Lakers model, if you use the yin and yang teams of his generation as the baseline on which to judge.
Second, McHale is an interesting coach. Does he make some game management errors? I suppose. But he seems to have a bit of "mad scientist" in him in his way of experimenting with ways the game can be played. This is something Witt never had. But, more importantly, it is something a GM cannot have in any circumstances, because he is procuring pieces, not setting them in motion. McHale as a GM was the peter principle incarnate. I hope he stays as coach so we can watch him and the team evolve.
Third, we need a big more than we need anything else.
Muddyings:
Is Telfair a viable starting point guard or not? Last night's game indicates that he might be. How to proceed?
What is Gomes' ultimate role on this team? Is he a "points" man? Can he be? Should he be? Is it an asset or a liability to have someone whose role changes from night to night?
Is this bizarre "I only go right like a madman, then dish" Miller something worth keeping? His numbers are good, but his game has gotten extremely odd. I've begun to think that it is not fear that has kept him from shooting, but a belief that he has been held back from his true game on other teams, and now he's trying to show everyone that he is a multi-dimensional player. Is this new incarnation something viable and worth building on, or should he be jettisoned to a team that will pay us something of value?
There's more, and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on what those "more" are. But for me, these last several games have gotten me watching the aspects I mentioned above.
Good stuff folks. Dr. K. is right: We are debating hypotheticals about hypotheticals, and longtime readers know I'm usually not one for much crystal ball gazing in either direction. But I get frustrated with folks who buy whole-cloth the team's rationale that numbers and positions forced their hand on the Heat deal.
Bottom line, you make room for a player you like. Want proof? Well, the Wolves had already drafted Love to go with Jefferson, had already made the Memphis trade to acquire Cardinal and Collins, already landed Booth, and had previously locked up Madsen. They've also got a couple of bigs in Euro ball, one highly touted on draft night. And so the reason you go out and lock up Craig Smith on the last day of August is.....?
Even before the Memphis trade, the Wolves had yet to acquire Carney and Booth. They had yet to sign Smith, Gomes and Telfair. Theoretically, the reason you wait to sign your secondary free agents is to see what shakes on draft day. Holding on to that second-round pick, and investing it wisely in a Chalmers or a DeAndre Jordan, made more sense than punting it for a pair of later second-rounders the following year--*if* you had a clue that Chalmers and/or Jordan might be worth the investment. The Wolves made the decision that neither player was worth the investment. Thus, I think it is fair to criticize that decision.
To boil it down: How is Craig Smith any less redundant on this roster than Mario Chalmers would have been on the pre-Memphis roster, the pre-Philly trade roster, the pre-signing of your own free agents roster?
Or, if you don't want to engage in hypotheticals about hypotheticals, let's just acknowledge that deciding not to expend your second second-round pick on a guy who currently ranks 5th in the NBA in steals and third in the league (behind only Chris Paul and Trevor Ariza) in steals per48 wasn't the braintrust's finest hour. But at least we were able to sign Kevin Ollie in training camp.
I don't get all this bellyaching over Chalmers. He's basically the same player as Foye, but with better defense and less polished offense. He's not a true point. Playing with Wade masks his deficiencies as a PG. Players don't develop by sitting on the bench of losing teams.
And, if Bassy's game against the Heat doesn't show that the potential is there for him to be a good PG, than nothing will. He won't shoot like that most nights--I'll take 4/10 with 7 assists and limited turnovers--but even the games where his shot isn't falling, he's still not the weak link. He leads the team in +/- by a mile and the more minutes he plays, the harder it is for people to explain away +/- as a meaningless stat.
I realize +/- isn't the end-all be-all, but it does reveal when crude stats aren't reflecting a player's true impact, which is why smart teams pay a lot of attention to it.
The Wolves need some size up front in the worst way. Even with Big Al, it was a problem against the good to elite teams. Now the typical middle class team is getting what it wants in the paint.
STF--
You don't get the bellyaching, but then state that the rookie second-rounder the Wolves passed on is essentially equivalent to their third-year lottery pick and presumed second cornerstone on the team behind Jefferson.
As for Telfair, your favorite player, yes, +/- is an important stat, but what it partly shows is how bad the alternatives are to Telfair at the point--he's "competing," in a +/- sense, with the team's other options.
Finally, why are Chalmers' deficiencies masked by playing with D-Wade but not Quinn's? Even throwing out the 4:45 Quinn played without Wade (a time when the Heat went minus -5), he was minus -13 last night playing alongside Wade while Chalmers was plus +11. If you're going to embrace +/- for Telfair, it's hypocritical not to embrace it for Chalmers.
Its not that I don't believe McHale and the FO about the numbers and how Chalmers would fit in with the Wolves. I can understand that argument. The reason I think the Wolves messed up was because McHale wasn't reading the astute observations of many hear leading up to the draft - in particular S&P. S&P didn't think Chalmers would be available with either 2nd round pick the Wolves had and thought he would be taken in the late in the 1st round. When Chalmers was there (okay, he also said Cris Douglas Roberts also would be taken with a late first round pick and was also coveted by S&P, he was also available with the Chalmers pick) and we traded him S&P immediately said it would be a decision the Wolves would regret.
Chalmers ended up being everything S&P thought he would be (CDR not so much).
The Wolves FO really should be reading the draft evaluations over at canishoopus. Its free advice.
My opinion on Dr. K's muddyings:
- I don't trust Telfair yet as a starting PG on a playoff caliber team. I realize his +/- has been solid, but in playoff basketball, it's all about who can force the opposing team's worst jump shooter to take jump shots. Until he *consistently* can make the open jump shot, he's a backup.
- Gomes is an utter mystery to me. Last year he was a poor man's Battier glue guy that added value in all sorts of subtle ways. This year it just isn't the same. Cardinal has taken his place as the best glue guy on the team.
- Mike Miller is the Joaquin Phoenix of the NBA. The drive and kicks to our 35% shooting PG is just surreal. Or may be it's art....
Apparently (according to Chad Ford), NOLA thinks OKC over-reacted about Chandler's turf toe. That's a self-serving statement when they're shopping Chandler, but if there's any truth to it, maybe we could get him for Collins, Cardinal and one of our later first rounders. Then, in the lottery, we can rule out Thabeet (who I otherwise would probably support drafting) and start thinking backcourt all the way.
If they're all healthy, Love-Jefferson-Chandler is a dynamite trio of bigs for a long, long time.
And so the reason you go out and lock up Craig Smith on the last day of August is.....?
If the answer to that is: "so that you can trade away your best expiring assets to get uber-redundant Rhino-lite Shelden Williams at the draft deadline" then the Jim Stack era is off to a flying start.
Ew.
My issue with the Chalmers pick is that the 2nd round is EXACTLY the time to take a flyer on a guy with zero risk. So what if Chalmers has knee issues? Even if there was legitimate concern about his knees (though I don't recall hearing much on it), it's a 2nd round pick. We're not talking about using a top-10 pick on the guy, just a non-guaranteed 2nd rounder. On top of that, Chalmers was a mid 1st round talent. Other teams passing on him doesn't change that he's a good player. In fact, he's already a steady, solid player, and that's as a rookie. Even if Chalmers wasn't there, what about DeAndre Jordan? You basically get a free shot at a guy. There's NOTHING to lose. Sure, we got a future pick or two back, but the odds that there will be guys with half the talent of the guys we could have drafted this year are slim.
Bottom line is he could have been a steal with that pick, and I feel we missed a great opportunity to add talent. We shouldn't have moved it until we knew who was available when we would have picked. It's a dumb move from a franchise management standpoint.
Not sure if it's the blockbuster everybody had in mind but Shaddy/Booth for Wiliams/Brown seems like a reasonable gamble. Williams can grab some post minutes that we have, and brown can be the 3rd PG. Brown has a player option at $900K for 2009-10, so he could be with us one year longer than the other 3 who are all expiring, but seems like a reasonable low cost risk for a 3rd pg.
Oops. I read that too fast and was thinking we gave up Collins and his $6.2M expiring contract. It was Booth and McCants for Shelden Williams and Bobby Brown.
And maybe I'm higher on McCants than anyone in the league but I thought that between McCants, Collins, and a draft pick, we may have been able to acquire something (Heinrich, Chandler)that wasn't basically shuffling the deck chairs.
Haven't noticed anyone comment on the McCants trade yet. Is it not official yet, or is it just that no one cares?
It's a weird dynamic for me. Draft night '05 I was adamantly against picking McCants, and on draft night I was sick that we took him over 4 other guys that I wanted (more on that below).
Then, I slept on it, talked to one of my best friends who's a huge Carolina fan and also normally a good judge of talent, and got glowing reports on McCants. By the end of that week I'd read every article there was on McCants, and had gotten completely behind the pick. By the time I went to the Vegas Summer league that year and had an assistant coach from Jersey tell me that I had to be overjoyed with McCants as a Wolves fan, I was one of his biggest fans.
I can't count how many message board wars I fought over McCants. He was my favorite non-KG Wolves player for awhile there, perhaps because he was the first supposedly talented young player the Wolves had added since the 90s.
But now? After KG left the strengths/weaknesses in his game no longer seemd tenable for the Wolves. And such a vast majority of the fan base was turned off by his attitude. And then this year, where he just couldn't do anything right...by now, I think I'm just glad we can all move on.
I still wouldn't be shocked to see him putting up Ben Gordon numbers for somebody one day. But if so, clearly it'll be on another team...and probably everyone involved is relieve to see him go.
Doh. Durn long message, let me get scooped!
On more than a handful of nights, last season, Shaddy was really fun to watch. He could fill it up with all sorts of difficult jumpers with a hand in his face. For whatever reason, that player didn't come to camp in 2008-09. He kept all of his weaknesses, but (very) rarely brought his strength, which is scoring in bunches, usually off the bench. I too won't be shocked if he lands on his feet somewhere, and improves off his 14+ ppg he put up for the Wolves in 07-08. He just needs to mature as a player.
I haven't commented on the trade because I have no idea what you guys are talking about :)
It's not up on ESPN or the Wolves page - where can I get a breakdown of the trade?
Don't know much about Williams, but I do recall reading that he's a strong post defender. Since McCants was giving us nothing this year, getting a big body who can play some D can't be a bad thing, can it?
On the flip side, I was really high on Williams the year he came out. Keep in mind that I don't watch much college basketball, but from reading the scouting reports and watching a few Duke games over the years I was convinced he could come in and be a nice big-body next to KG. I was disappointed that the Hawks reached and took him, but then he's been so disappointing in his career thus far that I've gotten over my disappointment.
Coming out of college he projected like a defensive-version of Love: undersized big that dominated college but would have a bit of trouble translating it to the pros. Unlike Love, he never seems to have made the transition. But who knows, if any team could use him it'd be the Wolves so hopefully he seizes this last shot.
My +/- is in defense of Telfair as quite possibly a viable starting PG. He seems to be the kind of player whose impact is best measured by a large +/- sample. It was not to bash Chalmers, who I think is a perfectly fine combo guard, but not a better floor general than Telfair and not a better offensive weapon than Foye.
As for the Chalmers/Quinn comparison, I'd have to check the +/- for the season, but maybe there have been games where Quinn has shined. But overall I think Chalmers brings enough to the table on defense that he can be effective alongside a top-5 player, like Wade, who can put up 37 and 12 on a given night.
Post new comment
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
- Contact:
- Secrets Staff
- Write to Editors
- Send Press Release
- Reprint Request
- Work at Secrets of the City
- Our Address:
- Secrets of the City
- PO Box 3690
- Minneapolis, MN 55403
- (651) 356-8714
©2002-2009 Entropy Publishing, LLC. No part of this site may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Entropy Publishing, LLC. except that an individual may print for personal use and/or forward articles via e-mail to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes. Thanks to FAMFAMFAM and Tango Project for their icons.
Media Partners
