Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
The Three-Pointer: Outclassed
Photo copyright 2009 NBAE (Photo by Elsa/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #45, Home Game #23: Minnesota 119, Los Angeles 132
Game #46, Road Game #23: Boston 109, Minnesota 101
Season Record: 16-30
1. Never Really In Doubt
If you're a Wolves fan and you want to don the rose-colored glasses, you can say they never gave up. Down to the Lakers by 20 Friday night with 9:28 to play, they battled back to cut it to single digits at the 4:26 mark. And on Sunday, they were down 21 to the Celts with 8:50 to play in the third and still behind by 11 with 7:32 to go and cut it to 5 with 5:20 remaining. Given that it was established and confirmed who the better team was in both instances, Minnesota could have packed it in. These are minor condolences to be sure, but not meaningless. A youthful 16-30 team playing both NBA Finalists within 40 hours is less a barometer of talent than of attitude. Few expected the Wolves to win either game. How they'd respond to the inevitable adversity was the more interesting question.
All that said, there was plenty of ineptitude and discouragement along the way. In both games, you never got the sense that LA or Boston were unduly concerned about the outcome. The whole thing took on the flavor of a larger kid with a longer reach holding the forehead of a smaller kid at arm's length while the latter swung, kicked and screamed at the air.
Quality opponents expose flaws, and thus for the Wolves it was writ in neon this weekend that this team can't play defense, for some pretty fundamental reasons. One, they are too small up front. Two, it is not part of their internal identity. (Perhaps the biggest of Randy Wittman's many mistakes was emphasizing D over O while developing around a nucleus of Al Jefferson, Randy Foye and Mike Miller.) Three, they don't know how, due both to lack of experience and lack of commitment.
Small up front was laid bare in the Lakers game (surprise surprise). Here's a fun fact: At 6-6, Kobe Bryant is the third smallest player on LA's 14-man roster. Andrew Bynum looks, and plays, about 4 inches bigger than Al Jefferson--sometimes it seems he didn't even leave his feet for putbacks and turnaround bunnies in the paint. Bynum played essentially 12 minutes less than "Big Al" (one full quarter) yet grabbed two more rebounds and made only three fewer baskets in a dozen fewer shots. Yes, yes, I know its apples and oranges because Bynum has Kobe to magnetize defenders toward the perimeter and Gasol beside him to occupy others. And after the Celtic game I heard Wolves coach Kevin McHale say that he doesn't care who the opponent is; that "we play ourselves 82 games a year and the opponents only twice" (in the Eastern Conference anyway). That's why Jason Collins is likely to be DNP-CD for the rest of the year, and Mark Madsen will leap from the bench to congratulate a teammate or protest a call roughly 274 times as much as he rises to check into the game. Fine. But Jefferson, and those pint-sized 4s Craig Smith and Kevin Love are pretty much always going to allow Bynum and Gasol to spring for 48 points, 24 rebounds and 20 free throws between them while the Lakers rack up 132. Why wouldn't they? It would be charitable to dub Jefferson an average defender, and the other guys can "establish position" to their heart's content: They're still going to cede low-post buckets and wrenched-away putbacks by being the relative pipsqueaks in the paint. Or, to put it more succinctly and diplomatically, the Lakers are a "bad matchup" for Minnesota. It was ironic to hear McHale, when pressed about who he thinks might win a Celtic-Laker series, comment about how the game is different in June, when the refs put the whistles in their pockets and things get physical. That's precisely why getting a legit big man that enables Jeffeson to slide to the 4 should be an abiding priority for this ballclub if they are to have any hope of being bona fide contenders when the Great Blossoming occurs for this franchise.
On the other hand, the defensive shortcomings in the Celtic game were mostly due to fundamental reason number three: Lack of experience and commitment. Anyone who watched knows the Wolves lost it in the second quarter, when they couldn't take care of the basketball and couldn't defend anybody en route to a 33-20 margin. Eleven of those points came from 7 Celtic steals in the period (victimizing 6 different Wolves in the process) but the only two of those points were a direct transition layup off the steal--the rest involving at least one, and usually two other players touching the ball and scoring 5-10 seconds later. No, in addition to turnovers, mismatches and blown assignments on defense sabotaged the Wolves. Mike Miller got torched by the much quicker, more aggressive Tony Allen, who got to the line a whopping 8 times in a span of 8:48 while scoring 12 points. In the half-court, the Celts set a lot of crunching picks with their bigs, and because he is such a threat from outside and in penetration, Paul Pierce is murder on the pick and rolls--ditto Ray Allen on the kick-out trey. But along with the talent mismatches, the Wolves cohesion and collective purpose in the half-court D seemed out to lunch. Without knowing the exact schemes, it is difficult to say whose judgment was off or who blew an assignment, but frequently two players would guard one guy on the pick and roll, leaving the other opponent unfettered, and when people who do understand D, like Brian Cardinal, would come over to help, the extra pass would award the bucket to Cardinal's man. Other times it was just a straight pick and the guarding man got crunched out of view, without a teammates switching off to help.
There also didn't seem to be any emphasis on what player or players were a priority for the defense. For example, I noticed that Glen "BIg Baby" Davis (who started in place of Kevin Garnett, out with the flu and high fever) was getting a lot of wide open jumpers in the second half--he finished 5-12 FG after going 2-2 FG in the second period. And that's because McHale and the coaching staff told the players to concentrate on Pierce and Allen; that if Davis was the one to beat them, so be it. This enabled the Wolves to concentrate more diligently on the Big Two --not that it did any good, other than making Pierce's baskets more difficult, and thus prettier. More than any other game since he was injured, the Wolves missed Corey Brewer, who made his biggest splash matching up so well with The Truth in their two meetings last season.
The sorry truth for Minnesota is that, with Brewer out, they don't have a single shutdown defender on the squad, at any position. Nor do they compensate for that lack of specific talent with synergistic trust, talk, or collective pride. That's fine when you're going up against the dregs of the league, or otherwise mediocre-to-good opponents missing a key player or three. But when you are playing talented opponents whose every victory helps them secure home court advantage deeper in the playoffs, not playing staunch defense will get you undressed, and not taken super-seriously even when the game is late and the score is close. On a weekend where many will say Jefferson burnished his All Star credentials with back-to-back 34-point, 4-block outings and was a persistent marvel in the low block on offense, the fact remains that LA and Boston put up 102 points in the paint in these past two outings, and outrebounded the Wolves to boot.
2. Steps Back For the Four-Letter Guys
Now that the Wolves have dropped three in a row and we can officially declare their hot streak over, the most exciting thing about that boomlet was the relatively consistent flashes of extraordinary talent demonstrated by Randy Foye and Kevin Love. Six weeks ago, it could fairly be said that Al Jefferson and perhaps Ryan Gomes were the only players one could imagine being meaningful contributors in the rotation of a playoff contender. Since then, Foye and Love have played their way into that conversation, in a way that other bountiful performers such as Telfair and Carney have not. For Foye, it was the discovery that he was being pointed toward the game at the wrong angle, as a tactician instead of a catalyst. For Love, it was the discovery that he is way ahead of the rookie curve as a rebounder. slightly ahead of it as a defender, and, while hardly an offensive force, could indeed make opponents pay for ignoring his midrange game as well as the garbage he collected in the paint.
It is still way too early to rescind those good vibes for either player, but both have been decidedly less remarkable of late. Who knows whether it better scouting or the uptick in publicity he received for getting jobbed out of the Rookie-Sophomores game at the All Star break, but opponents are beginning to account for Love on the glass, and realizing that while he may have the heart of a lion when it comes to rebounds, his body is that a lesser cat--a panther or leopard, maybe. This weekend's games saw Love jawing at the refs more than ever before, a sign that teams are working him over during the scrum when the ball is in the air. Rebounds Love was securing before are merely being contested and kept in play the past two or three games, and those he was contesting and keeping in play before are more often going to bigger, beefier or perhaps just more conscious opponents. The rook is still posting good-to-great rebounding numbers; it's just that the dramatic, swashbuckling pull-downs and putback he was garnering, the momentum changers, are less in evidence. These also are the type of plays that bolster confidence and a sense of adventure for other aspects of the game, psychologically oiling the joints of K-Love's jumper, interior footwork, and snap passes.
Foye's numbers have likewise been solid but relatively lacking in momentum changers and confidence boosters. During the hot streak he had the aura of stardom because when it came to seizing the moment, both his timing and his execution were close to impeccable. It could have been a steal, a block, a trey, a bounce pass to a cutter in transition, or a layup himself. Somehow, Foye was operating in a manner where Jefferson was still getting his points and his due--this wasn't a McCants-like coup d'etat for pecking order supremacy--and serving as a strong complement to Big Al as a scorer, to Telfair as a floor general, to Gomes as a defender, and so on down the line. Aside from some lackadaisical D early in games, Foye really didn't evince a weakness for weeks on end. He was, ironically, playing very much like Brandon Roy. But in the past few games, the timing has been off. It was nice to see Foye elevate his play in the fourth quarter again Sunday versus Boston, but his early going was too fitful--he was 2-8 FG in the first half--and his finish was too little, too late. That Jefferson has now led the team in scoring for nine straight games is not a good thing--the Wolves are 11-22 when that happens, as compared to their 5-5 mark when Foye is top scorer.
After a roller coaster ride on the schedule--a brace of monstrously good teams followed by a string of relative patsies, then this little dose of champions--the Wolves get a nice cross-section that should provide a better sense of their relative merits over the next three weeks. They play Indiana twice, Atlanta, Toronto, Washington and Miami. They also play Houston, New Orleans and the Lakers. Four or five wins out of that pack would be solid. It won't happen without a return to value-added peformances from the two Wolves with the four-letter last names.
3.Biting the Hand That Fed This Franchise
Right up front I again want to stress that I respect Wolves color TV analyst Jim Petersen, and that it is not just lip service. Almost every game he says something that educates me or clarifies something I hadn't been able to put my finger on. On Sunday versus the Celts it was a comment about Rodney Carney: Pete remarked that for Carney to take the next step, he needs to learn how to develop a handle and dribble the ball with confidence. Exactly right.
But Petersen said something else that didn't sit so well, and he said it two or three more times in different ways. Specifically, he said that the Celtics were "Paul Pierce's team," and that Pierce was clearly the best player on the team. Lest we didn't get the message, Petersen then invoked Kevin Garnett's name, but mostly to note that Garnett too would go into press conferences singing the Superman theme and calling Pierce Superman. He noted that the Celtics were 10-2 without Garnett in the lineup and were winning this game without KG, and then said the Celts wouldn't be contention for another championship without Pierce. I was already formulating objections to this line of reasoning in my mind when Petersen, without directly drawing the dots but leaving little to the imagination, then said it was like when Pau Gasol came over to the Lakers from Memphis; that Gasol was always a good player but then he got to play with Kobe. The obvious parallel was Gasol to KG and Kobe to Pierce.
Now Paul Pierce is a marvelous, marvelous player, who may in fact be that rare commodity--an underrated superstar. And you could have a healthy debate about who is more important to the Celts, Pierce or KG. But Petersen wasn't even acknowleding the possibility that there could be such a debate. He was making KG Gasol to Pierce's Kobe. And that's flat-out bullshit that, given the circumstances, smells funny to me.
Let's get some perspective here, first of all. Only one of Boston's Big Three has ever been named league MVP, and that is Garnett. The general consensus on why the Celtics won it all last year is their team defense. The player who set the tone, physically and psychologically, for that defensive rebirth was Garnett. And KG was Boston's leading vote-getter for the MVP Award last season, in addition to being named Defensive Player of the Year. Now Pierce was named Finals MVP and appropriately so. His defense on LeBron James in the Cleveland series was also a revelation. And he is a greater offensive threat than Garnett. As I say, you can have a healthy debate over who is better, who is more important to the team and which player best epitomizes the identity of the team.
But for the longtime color analyst for the Minnesota Timberwolves to so definitively laud Pierce over Garnett and to liken KG-Pierce to Gasol-Kobe, after Garnett spent a dozen years essentially being more important to the Wolves than Babe Ruth was to the Yankees, is bad form. It is consistent with some of the intemperate things Wolves owner Glen Taylor said about Garnett in the middle of last year, and, in my opinion, consciously or not, it is an overly defensive reaction to the possibility that the Wolves got hosed in the blockbuster deal with Boston. That deal and who "won" or "lost" it remains a subject of conversation--it was asked by a viewer to studio analyst Mike McCollow after today's game. The better Garnett performs and is regarded, the worse it looks for the braintrust of the franchise. Before the Celtics went on to win it all last season, some very silly things were said by some folks in the media--Charlie Walters of the PiPress memorably opined that he wouldn't trade Jefferson back to the Celtics for two Garnetts.
As we have heard over and over again from the PR honchos, the Minnesota Timberwolves are currently celebrating their 20th season as a franchise. Let's just remind everyone for the record that the most wins they have ever captured in an 82-game season without Garnett is 29. With Garnett they made the playoffs eight years in a row and won over 50 games 4 times. Last season, the Celtics enjoyed the greatest single-season improvement in win total in NBA history. Last I checked, the abiding metric for greatness is improving your team's chances of winning.
48 Reader Comments
If one were to be a wise acre about it (and I'll usually take that bait), one could say that the only defensive attitude the Wolves have shown in the last year is when the subject of KG comes up. George Romero couldn't have done any better in bringing up a dead subject. Whether you love or hate the Wolves, their ability to propagandize--whether it be to tout current ball players for greatness, or slight former players and coaches--continues to be remarkable.
Here's the deal though, isn't McHale pretty much on record as saying you don't need real big bigs? Aren't Love and Jefferson the second coming of Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes? Because this club has "rebounded" enough from their bad start, I am sure there are folks in the Wolves front office who think that all is needed is little more seasoning to make the small ball vision work. Of course, if McHale can find a new version of Robert Parish, that might change his mind.
Still, since the Iron Ranger has this team back on track to meet pre-season expectations, give or take a few games, I think it only gets stickier to pursue a different vision that would embrace the reality that the better way to re-emerge as a contender in this league is to add size and play some defense.
Rock, meet Hard Place.
Britt, well said about Garnett and Petersen.
Britt,
I have a somewhat different take on the 2nd quarter of the Celtics game. Our lineup was Telfair, Miller, Carney, Love and Cardinal. Just exactly who in that group is going to score in the half court? Unfortunately, since Miller has decided to only take "good shots" whatever those are, we have no one in that group able to score in the half court. A big ass problem against a team like the Celtics who are going to limit your chances to run.
With the Celtics shooting well, we were forced into a half court game. How many times did you see the ball swing around to guys who were either 1) unprepared to shot or 2) not interested in shooting.
So, like he did last week, Telfair tries to carry this unit. But obviously slowed by his injury (and guarded by someone as quick and 3" taller), it does not happen. The more he tries, the more turnovers we have. Then others try to create one on one with the saw results. Kind of a death spiral.
Interestingly, in the 4th, McHale did not use Cardinal, rather he subbed Gomes out early and brought him back with the 2nd unit. Now, with someone willing to shoot, the 2nd unit not only held its own, but whittled the Cletic's lead down a bit.
From this, I draw 2 conclusions.
1.McHale needs to change the rotation around a bit so that at least one of the Foye/Big Al duo is on the court at all times to give us a half court option.
2. Miller, though providing many other benefits, needs to fulfill his primary role - shooting/scoring off the bench - or he needs to take a seat next to Collins. That unit needs someone willing to shoot and that is Miller. If not, we should start the 10 day contract search for a 2 guard who can/is willing.
Finally comment is on fundamentals. Even with the turnovers, the poor 1st half shooting, and the suboptimal defense, we are still in the game IF Big Al and the Rhino get their body on their man and box them out. Unlike the Detroit game, the Celtic's offensive rebounds were not long one destined for the guards. These were at the rim. But it is frustrating to see guys not even try to box out. I was taught is 5th grade that boxing out was the great equalizer - it allowed a smaller guy to gain rebounds over bigger guys. And at least in the case of Smith, his weight and strength certainly allow him to be effective even at his shorter height. Why don't they try it? Is it too cool in the NBA to box out? Love does it - quite effectively. Interestingly, Miller, an early 3rd quarter sub for the Rhino, does it quite effectively too. Why not Big Al and Smith?
Britt:
I think the character barometer point is spot on; this team didn't roll over and they even forced a few uncomfortable moments for Big Phil and Doc coming down the stretch. For us paying customers, that's nice to see. That being said, a little grit in the 2nd quarter would be nice to see as well. 2 of the 3 games they just lost were well within reach.
However, I think the talent barometer over the last 2 contests is what really stands out and should not be sold short.
Basketball Prospectus has a fantastic new stats page:
http://basketballprospectus.com/cardindex.php
It has several measurements that are very helpful with team ball: Wins Over Replacement Player (WARP), Wins Produced (WP), +/-/40, etc.
One of the first things you notice about the Lakers is that they go 8 deep with replacement level or well above. Bryant, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Ariza all perform above Randy Foye in terms of WARP and WP. Fisher contributes while Walton and Farmar hold serve.
That's 8 deep with talent that would likely start on the Wolves. The Wolves start 4 players who are right at the cusp of being replacement level players. Foye is making a push to move up but Gomes, Smith, and Bassy are role players in every sense of the word. This team is playing with 1 above average player (Big Al), 1 good player (Foye), a 20 year old rookie who will be an above average player, and a bunch of bench players.
I think Peter hits on something with the Parish comment. McHale is trying to put the band back together and this team would look a lot better with someone in the Parish mold playing the part of Craig Smith. This team would look a lot better with a real starting 3. This team would look a lot better if it had a 2nd point to take some pressure off of Bassy. Talent, talent, talent, talent, talent.
Between Love and Jefferson they have 65 of the 96 minutes at the 4 and 5 taken care of. Between Foye and Bassy they have 50-60 of the 96 minutes at the 1 and 2 taken care of. Gomes should be a 15-20 mpg guy off the bench. That's it. Hopefully Brewer can fill in some time at the 2/3 but they need upgrades across the board. They need a guy (in the Parish mold would be perfect) to take the remaining 31 minutes at the 4/5. They need a point/combo (preferably with decent size) to take pressure off of Foye/Bassy. They need a real 3.
OK, I'll stop there. I just don't think the talent gap can be overestimated with this squad. They are punching beyond their weight with their offense right now while looking like they're in the right weight class on defense.
Outclassed indeed. If there weren't so many other bad teams out there, you'd say that the Timberwolves are playing in the wrong league. McHale's "reality" just doesn't square with the scoreboard.
And the trashing of KG? Pitiful. Bitter, bitter Kool Aid.
As the last comment in the previous Three Pointer, I noted that McHale said that probably the biggest thing he's done for the current crop of players is pray for them.
Yep, I'd say that was true. With all the millions of dollars squandered by McHale as GM, I wonder what kind of prayers Glen Taylor offers up.
Britt --
I understand entirely your deep respect for KG's game, but I also understand were Jim Pete is coming from.
Paul Pierce is incredible. He raises his game to new levels when it really counts. He was the difference maker in the playoffs last year and in winning the championship.
KG has a high ceiling too. But now as high as PP's.
Sorry, we simply disagree.
No one really expected the Wolves to win the last two games.
Flip raised a good point recently. He spoke of different levels a team aspires for as the organization ascends: (1) beat the teams you're supposed to beat at home, (2) beat the teams you're supposed to beat on the road, (3) beat the top teams at home, and (4) beat the top teams at home.
The Wolves are between levels 1 and 2 in my judgment.
(4) beat the top teams on the road.
Perhaps Smith should watch some of K-Love's Wes Unseld tapes to learn how to use his strength and bulk to full advantage. As a 6'6" center, Unseld was both Rookie of the Year and MVP his rookie season improving the Washington Bullets record by 21 games. He was a 5-time NBA All-Star, in the NBA Finals 4 times and was the Finals MVP in the Bullets championship against the Seattle SuperSonics in 1978. "He ranked seventh on the league's all-time rebounding list and was one of a handful of players to have tallied at least 10,000 points and 10,000 rebounds for a career. He set solid picks, grabbed rebounds, whipped outlet passes to trigger fast breaks, and consistently prevented opposing centers from establishing position in the lane." http://www.nba.com/history/players/unseld_bio.html
Unlike many modern players, Unseld had "a stoic demeanor and an iron resolve to win....what Unseld lacked in height, he made up for with his powerful 245-pound frame and sheer determination." What was his secret? "I know that night in and night out the guy I play against will have more physical ability. But I feel like if I go out against a guy and play him 40 or 48 minutes a game or whatever, toe to toe, head to head, he is going to get tired or beat up or bored for two or three minutes. That will be enough to make sure he doesn't win the game for his team." http://www.nba.com/history/players/unseld_bio.html
It's interesting how the careers of Garnett, Pierce and Allen seem to be defined in large part by the couple months of playoff basketball in 2008. It hurt Allen's image, reinforced KG's--and boosted Pierce's beyond almost all reason.
Many of the writers and fans that watch the Celtics are claiming that Ray Allen--and not Paul Pierce--should be an All-Star this year. That doesn't surprise me, since I've always like Ray's game more than Paul's. Maybe it is some hangover from the post-season where Allen forgot how to shoot for 12 or so games and Pierce got red-hot and held LeBron under 50 in that Game 7 classic.
Garnett's career resume' is better than Allen's and Pierce's. He won an MVP in a year that Kobe, Shaq and Duncan were all in their prime. On the current Celtic team, I think he's their MVP--but the margin isn't quite as big as the one where each guy compares resumes. Garnett anchors their defense, which is probably the best in the entire league. He's also a very good offensive player. Add all the leadership/intangibles and I think he does more for that team and locker room than The Truth or Allen. I think the whole "this is Paul Pierce's team" thing has to do with Pierce being a career Celtic. If PP came to Minnesota, there wouldn't even be a question of whose team it was.
Andy G. is dead on re how a couple of months of playoff basketball have altered the perceptions of Allen, Garnett, and Pierce. It's an interesting example of legend making right before your eyes.
In my opinion, Pierce is the guy who has to play at his maximim for the Celtics to win deep in the playoffs.
This may be too soon to predict, but I believe that Pierce will not be able to handle LeBron in the playoffs this year, certainly not next year. Even if Pierce (unlike, say Kobe Bryant) had a long history of defensive prowess, LeBron is still improving. I believe that Pierce has maxed out and has actually begun to decline.
These ebbs and flows of players and teams are really what makes the NBA interesting to me.
Right on to notice Jimbo Pete's minimalizing of KG. His pro-management agenda continues to show up in more and more preposterious ways. At some point he went from being a knowing helper to a propoganda director (like a giant, presumably less murderous Goebbels).
It doesn't really make any sense how bad he has gotten. He should know that by this point the only people watching Wolves games with the volume on are fairly obsessive basketball junkies (and certainly in large part people who watched KG play better than a decade's worth of games) who are unlikely to fall for his company line.
I know there is a fine line when attempting to serve multiple masters- in this case the viewing audience and his employers, the Wolves-but it seems as though he's stopped trying to walk that line and just stepped fully over to the other side.
I'm not comparing the two in terms of straight up greatness, but how about a few votes for Rondo as the Celts' MVP? The guy has the 2nd highest PER on the team, the most win shares and he controls the game without having to score. He's essentially a back court KG. Without Rondo I don't think these guys are in the Cleveland/Magic/Celtic trio atop the East.
CA--
Yes we do disagree, and it gets to one of my pet peeves even among staunch basketball folks--the underrating of defense.
Almost right after JPete made his ridiculous comparison of KG and Gasol, he said something along the lines of, "but Doc Rivers is a perfectionist and he isn't going to be happy with the Wolves shooting 48 percent today. They have a league-best 42 percent defense."
Yeah--with KG on the floor. Do you think Al goes 15-21 FG with KG on the floor? Even at 31, the guy has more quick range and length from endline to foul line and lane to lane than anyone in the league with the possible exception of Dwight Howard, and Howard can't get out on the perimeter as comfortably as Garnett. Do you realize how many defensive options and improvisations-on-fly you can make when KG is your teammate?
I don't begrudge Paul Pierce anything--or Ray Allen for that matter. But it is getting pretty absurd...I remember pretty heated arguments about a year ago at this time when folks were bitching because KG hadn't won anything. I'm not going to waste too much time on this--I'm already said my piece and if folks still have doubts there really isn't much I can say--but consider this: In the 7 full years KG has not been a member of the Wolves the team has averaged 21 wins. In the 11 full years he was with the team (I threw out the strike half-season) they averaged 43 wins. That's more than twice as many. I defy you to find a player on another franchise with a disparity that large.
The point being if anyone should pay KG his propers, it is anyone getting a paycheck from the Timberwolves organization.
Good post...Bynum was scary...made it look like T-Wolves won't be competing in the West for the next decade or so that Andrew is in LA...
To defend Jim Pete--there are some BRUTAL color TV/Radio guys out there. Antonio Harvey (Blzers radio) stands out as the worst. He recently dropped a gem while Kwame Brown was shooting free throws, noting that Kwame looks "like he's throwing spears at a lion when he shoots" (awesome).
What is the point of a color guy if not to throw out colorful opinion? It kills me how everyone crucifies Souhan and Ruesse and Walters and Hartman for having (mostly stupid) opinions. Uhhhhhh...isn't that what they are paid to do? Provoke those thoughtless bloggers!
The Timberwolves are a bad team in a Midwest market, who is out there that is an upgrade? If no one, what is the point of dissecting a color commentator who by most accounts does a great job?
As Britt and others have pointed out, the last three games have really exposed our lack of size on the front line. To make matters worse, none of these guys are that athletic or long. That makes them even smaller and prone to dismantling by bigger teams. Getting an athletic, defensive minded center, in the mold of a say a Marcus Camby, needs to be a top priority. The point is also a serious issue that has been exposed by Bassy's injury. Bassy is a good 10-20 minute backup, but not a starting level talent in this league. While DeAndre Jordan or Mario Chalmers probably weren't the long term answers, it kills me that the front office wasn't smart enough to recognize these weakenesses and take a flyer on either of them in the 2nd round of last year's draft. Either player would be playing some useful minutes right now on this team, contrary to McHale's previous assertion.
I think it's really important that the Wolves make a move before the deadline. I'd like to see them ship Miller and Rhino (while they each still have some value for a contender), and one of the later picks in this really shallow draft. They need to get a warm body at the 1, 3, or 5, rather than cap space, in return as no free agent (especially in the 2010 off-season) is going to sign with them unless the Wolves overpay for their services. Any news at all on this front?
Britt
Underating, or ignoring, of defense is required if pimping Jefferson for the AS game.
Ominuz P
If the Wolves had nonAnswer DJordan on the team, and Pekovic in Europe, would they be able to even consider drafting or acquiring a real answer this deadline or offseason. Deandre, IMO, is not an egg to top off your basket. Chalmers, I think they botched.
Right now, I'd put the Wolves in group 2 of Flip's classification--lower middle to middle class. These games this week will indicate if we're looking at some upward mobility. Indiana is a lower middle class team and Atl is firmly upper middle, a marquee player away form nouveu riche.
The question is if the Wolves will go for the McMansion and try to leverage their assets for some pricey, but extremely flawed piece or will they manage their assets and smartly and address a need with quality at a value price? For instance I’d love to see what it would take to bring in Joel Pryzbilla. Cardinal, Smith and a pick for Pryz and Sergio gets it done on the trade machine. Pryz gives us a defensive presence in the post and some touch. He would suck up some cap space in ’10, but we’re not buying on Park Ave or in Beverly Hills anyway.
Sergio and Bassy could split minutes for the time being.
Portland will, in contrast to the Wolves, be looking at Beverly Hills/Park Ave on ‘10 and this deal gives them more cap space. The Wolves have a lot of money coming off the books this summer and could still make a real run at Shawn Marion. While Chris Bosh isn’t walking through that door, we’d still have the space in ’10 to make a play at a high quality player who fills a need.
It seems to me that we had the good fortune of seeing the Wolves exposed back and front in the last two games. They couldn't score with the Lakers and they couldn't score against the Celtics. Every single one on that team -- even Big Al, whose success continues to come at the expense of team play -- should feel humbled. We aren't even in the conversation as a quality team by contemporary NBA standards.
So, what did we find out?
One, that our need for a point guard is less than our need for a defensive big. Telfair was serviceable, but Bynum ate our lunch and threw the bag at us.
Second, that we can't field a second unit that is able to score against tough defense. That stretch in Boston that "Just a fan" refers to was brutal. With Miller currently residing on basketball Pluto, we had a team out there with no ability to put up points.
Third, Love needs to toughen up and Foye needs to find a game that is not dependent upon loose defense. Their golden glow of late became more than a bit tarnished when they went up against serious opposition.
This team still has too many pieces from the spare parts bin, and McHale can talk all he wants about chemistry, but 6'7" inches does not neutralize 7'0" in even the most optimistic basketball compound. Why is it that we keep bringing in 7 foot bigs that we do not play? When this is our most pressing need, how bad must these players be to not be able to get on the floor? And if they're that bad, why did we pick them up in the first place?
That's enough for now. The Wolves got pantsed, and now they're standing shrivelled and naked in front of the big boys. It will be interesting to see how they respond.
Nikola Pekovic is 6'10'' and 265. If he's any good (which is a huge if), he could come off of the bench for either Al or Love and would give us a pretty amazing low post presence.
With regard to the broadcast teams, the Wolves have been good examples in the past of being able to get quality. The Wolves had Kevin Harlan for almost 10 years and Gus Johnson for a season; for color analysts, they've employed Len Elmore, Quinn Buckner, and Kevin McHale but just haven't been able to keep them. Buckner now works for the Pacers, another team that would qualify as a losing team in a midwestern market. It's too bad that McHale probably won't reprise his TV role once his other ties with the team are severed.
Britt, I totally agree with you and others on the need for a true big man. Simply perusing 82games.com and looking at Al Jefferson's player pair ratings since he was a rookie, it's interesting to see that he almost always comes out in the + column when paired with a big man: Perkins, Olowakandi (!), Ratliff, Madsen. While things didn't go so well when he was paired with Collins earlier in the year, our defense was much better. We just couldn't score to save our lives.
So yeah, I'd rank getting length in the middle as the second priority after getting an additional do-it-all perimeter guy. Easier said than done on both accounts.
Ominuz P
On the canishoopus.com site, I wonder out loud if a Miller +$4M cash + renounce the top 10 protection of our pick this year for Camby would make sense. Both have almost identical contracts. ($ and yrs)
I based it on several factors:
Based on Hollinger's playoff predictions, Twolves are likely to finish somewhere between 9-12 in the lottery. I looked a little deeper and I think we are more likely in the 11-14 range, as I think the Twolves will surpass a number of the current 19/20 win East teams. This mean that the pick is in all likely hood gone.
Clippers need a big shooting wing and have excess bigs.
Sterling is looking for cash after spending a boatload of money on free agents last year.
Camby solves the 4/5 problem for the Twolves for at least the next couple years, allowing them to focus all the other assets on finding that tall, sharp shooting 2 and extra 1 that we desperately need. And frankly, those positions are easier to fill than 4/5.
Just something to pass the idle time.
Britt --
Good points. No one could possibly diminish KG's greatness as The Kid turn The Franchise. Beyond that, I've never seen a player play through as many injuries as KG throughout his career. It is not his antics or mouth that define him as the toughest player in the NBA toughness, it is his play. He leaves it on the court every time he is out there. In fact, his antics and mouth sometimes take away from him being the epitome of "toughness."
And, if the discussion was solely defense (could add team play), I would be wholeheartedly and enthusiastically behind you.
What sets PP apart in my opinion is how high his performance soars in the critical games. He is in Jerry West (Mr. Clutch) and MJ territory in that regard.
You are still atop my "must-read" writer list.
Now I'm really bummed.
Bynum has a torn MCL out 8 to 12 weeks.
It seems that every time the kid starts reaching his full potential, he gets shafted by a bad injury.
Hopefully, this will be the last one that keeps him off the floor for any length of time.
Very accurate wrap up, Britt. About the only positive from this weekend may be convincing the Lakers to take Collins for someone like Ariza. Or with Gasol locked in, maybe they'd even be willing to give up on Bynum. The Icefish should definitely be offering whatever they can to help the Lakers in hope of filling their own length gaps.
Giant Goebbels! Moniker of the year!
Good stuff Flinger. I usually just call Peterson Dipshit. His rampant kool-aid pouring dramatically outweighs the occasional quality insights. Missed the game but, I may have thrown something large and heavy at my tv if I'd have heard that comment.
Re: Al at the 4. I don't know...I think the Wolves realize that he can't guard a lot of the 4's. Basically anyone with some handle and a little shooting range would eat Jefferson alive. He just isn't mobile or dogged enough to stay with a guy that can move and spread the floor. It's center or nothing and you just hold your breath whenever a Bynum-type is suited up alongside him. Thankfully there aren't too many centers that can score.
I seriously doubt that the Lakers will ever trade Bynum. Plus, the Wolves don't have any players that LA would want.
Dunno makes an interesting assertion that Jefferson simply cannot handle the modern PF on defense. I'm not sure that I agree, but if so... blecch ... that makes McHale's deal taking and Kool-Aid making taste even more incredibly bad than it already does.
Which, btw, reminds me of the assertion by Zagoda in the Strib that Taylor did not want to give KG a new $20M/year contract, so McHale was forced to make a trade. So I ask, how many millions have the Timberwolves lost since "The Trade" and what's the delta?
"What sets PP apart in my opinion is how high his performance soars in the critical games. He is in Jerry West (Mr. Clutch) and MJ territory in that regard."
In my opinion, this sentence by CA is believed by a large number of basketball watchers after last season's playoffs. And for the life of me, I can't understand how it gained such traction. I remember posting about this last year during the playoffs (and at various places since), but for some reason it just doesn't stick. If you look PURELY at scoring and ignore everything else like defense, rebounding, passing, intangibles, etc, you still find these interesting facts about the Celtics' '08 title run:
During last season's Celtics title run, in the playoffs KG was the team's leading scorer overall.
KG was the Celtics' leading scorer in all pivotal games where the series was tied and the winner would take the series lead: KG 22.6 ppg, Pierce 20.6 ppg in 10 such games.
KG was the Celtics' leading scorer in the 4th quarter of the playoffs (128 points on 53% FG vs. Pierce's 103 points on 36% FG). KG was the Celtics' leading scorer in the 4th quarter of the 12 games in the playoffs decided by 7 points or less (i.e. close games): KG 66 points/49% FG, Pierce 54 points/31% FG. KG was the Celtics' leading 4th quarter scorer in the REALLY close games (i.e. 3 games decided by 4 points or less): KG 22 points/50% FG, Pierce 3 points/20% FG.
There were 2 times in the playoffs where the Celtics were down by 2 points with less than 2 minutes remaining, and in neither situation did the play run through Pierce. In one of the situations Allen and KG ran a 2-man game, Allen took the shot and missed. In the other situation, Allen passed to KG and KG made the shot to tie the game.
There was only 1 time in the playoffs when the Celtics were tied and had a chance at a game-winning shot with under 24 seconds left. They ran a clear-out for Garnett, who went to the rim and made the game-winning shot.
All of these are facts, and take nothing from Pierce. He is the best creator on the Cs, and he is willing and able to make big plays late. Pierce had an outstanding game 7 against the Cavs, and a great game 5 against the Lakers. He was a deserving Finals MVP. But that said, KG was CLEARLY the player on the Cs that stepped up his game most in the playoffs. KG was clearly their go-to SCORER late in games in last season's playoffs (Pierce was often initiator, but Garnett was taking and making the most shots late).
It's just funny to me how all of the above can be true, yet to many Pierce became a clutch legend based on his playoffs performance while Garnett was "confirmed" as a non-clutch second banana. I'm forced to conclude that either I am so incredibly biased as a KG fan that even my fact-checking skills are in question, or that many went into the playoffs already with the mindset that Pierce was clutch and KG was not and then they saw what they wanted to see and ignored what didn't fit their preconceived notions. Almost nothing else makes sense.
Another clear demarcation between PP and KG would be how each makes their team better. KG for many years was able to take a bunch of scrubs to the playoffs. PP has had four winning seasons with the Celts since he has been drafted (in 1998). With the exception of last season, the Celtics did not win 50 games in any season during that time period.
In 2001-2 the Celts won 49 games. That year, from what I remember, they had Joe Johnson, Walker, and even Tony Delk was playing inspired ball.
By contrast, in 2002-3, KG and co won 51 games. This was with a roster including Wally, Troy Hudson, Rasho, AP, Gary Trent, Kendall Gill, etc.
KG did a more with less. And there should be no question that it was Garnett that was the reason behind that team's success.
God you guys are depressing me. I want my KG back!
You're spot on drza44, and I appreciate your enthusiastic KG loyalty.
I am sickened that the guy is going to retire in another jersey. Thanks Papa Glen- you douchebag.
Peterson's cheerleading for management is hard to listen to, but it probably didn't hurt his successfull campaign to become an assistant coach for the Lynx so it's hard to rip the guy for looking out for #1. On the other hand, if he really believes everything that comes out of his mouth during telecasts, the guy is delusional.
Marginalizing KG and canonizing PP was ludicrous and served no purpose during the broadcast other than being a laughable attempt to make the franchise look less awful for the trade.
I was also annoyed when Peterson kept proclaiming Mayo has peaked as a 20-year-old rookie and won't get better when he has made the "youth" excuse constantly for flawed older players like Al Jefferson and Randy Foye.
So, Jim, do we imagine some kind of pre-broadcast "messaging" meeting with the Wolves marketing department, or does J.Pete just "know" what management wants to hear? It seemed like everyone who depends on the Wolves for a good chunk of their livelihood (`cepting Britt of course) was doing their part to minimalize KG and maximize Jefferson.
And drza44 -- thanks for the cold hard data re KG in the playoffs. I love myth-busting "inconvenient truths".
Please.. please.. please... can we get beyond Kevin Garnett. He's gone. He is not coming back. You people remind me of one of my poor friends who reminisces about the girl he dates in college. GET OVER IT. Sure, there were good times, even great times. But if you are truly a fan, you need to look to the guys out there playing NOW.
I have been a fan of this team since day one, and it would be nice to have Kevin carrying us to the NBA Championship. He did great things for this team and he WAS the Timberwolves for 10 years. But him coming back ain't happenin' folks. Whether you want to believe it or not, at this point in time this team has a better chance at returning to glory without him.
It's fun to look back, but don't do it at the expense of the guys on the floor today. Or just go pick up a #5 green jersey and stop watching the Wolves.. either way is fine by me.
THANK YOU drza44! KG friggin rules.
I would not rule out a pregame talking points meeting with the PR dudes (they send everyone in the organization talking points regularily) because the points Peterson makes are pretty much always the most obvious rebuttal to legit criticisms of managment.
Such as: trading KG wasn't that bad because he needs a cold-blooded scorer like Pierce (or allegedly Jefferson) to win big, or dealing Mayo wasn't that bad because he may not get that much better than he is. Those are the only two defenses that can be made for the two trades so Peterson makes them, never mind KG was the defensive player of the year on a defensive minded championship team, or that Mayo has been an elite shooter and scorer from the minute he stepped onto an NBA floor as a rookie.
Wolves Fan-
I don't sense that people are writing about KG here because we are having trouble "getting over" the trade. It's just some of us taking umbrage with those who are ready to diminish or dismiss KG's contributions now that he's out the door. And we did just happen to play the Celtics...
I have to agree with WOlvesFan here.
Britt said
"Now Paul Pierce is a marvelous, marvelous player, who may in fact be that rare commodity--an underrated superstar. And you could have a healthy debate about who is more important to the Celts, Pierce or KG. But Petersen wasn't even acknowleding the possibility that there could be such a debate. He was making KG Gasol to Pierce's Kobe. And that's flat-out bullshit that, given the circumstances, smells funny to me."
and then in the comments section
The point being if anyone should pay KG his propers, it is anyone getting a paycheck from the Timberwolves organization.
Well, I love Britt and this blog with all the commentators, KG fans or not, but something smells funny to me also. What we have here is a debate that has grown old and its time we just all acknowledge that KG was the best Timberwolf to ever play in a Wolves uniform. That should be enough. But then there is the debate on whether or not the Wolves should have traded KG and whether or not they got proper value in return.
Well, J-pete struck a nerve in anyone who thinks KG has not been properly lauded as a Wolf and Britt took him to task. I think Britt overreacted to what he previously described as a healthy debate over who is more valuable to the Celtics KG or PP. and since J-Pete is employed by the Timberwolves organization he should take the KG side in this debate. Well, excuse me, but I think that argument is bullshit. Britt love KG and give him proper love for the way he plays the game and wants people to realize that KG wasn't properly respected by the WOlves orgainzation while he was here and after he has left. I don't agree with him, but he makes some great points on KGs value to any team he plays on.
But, enough, J-Pete, McHale, or Taylor owe KG nothing. KG is a champion and he is paid like a champion. J-Pete, McHale and Taylor's loyalties are with the current Wolves and KG is a Celtic. That shouldn't be that hard to understand. KG is a great player like Lebron and Kobe and Duncan. But he now plays for the other team. We can admire him and hope he loses at the same time without diminsishing everything he brought to the Wolves in the past. Its time to get past KG. He's gone.
One more thing, I want to clear up. SOmeone on here said a while back that McHale wanted to take all the credit as a player from the Celtics successes in the 80's. They wanted to say that McHale's legendary status as a player was unwaranted and he wasn't deserving of it (levi?)
Well from this mornings Strib. A quote from Bird.
"Kevin's got a way with people, always has, Kevin even as a player was good, real good, but he never wanted to hear how good he was. That's the way he has always been. He doesn't want any credit, and he won't think he's doing a good job. I think he's a damn good coach."
and Mchale proving Birds point says, also in the strib this morning, on being named coach of the month,
"Well, it's a nice honor to have. What it really shows is the team played well."
Wolves Fan and APB--
If you are going to take issue with what I said, please be accurate in understanding what I said. I flat out never said Kevin Garnett is a better player than Paul Pierce is right now. Quite frankly, I'm not entirely sure one way or the other how I feel about it. As drza44 points out, he was the key to the C's success last season, but Pierce has elevated his game this year and perhaps has moved into parity.
None of that is the point of what I said, however.
What I said was that a KG/PP discussion should be a very healthy debate, with ammunition on both sides of the argument. And I accurately said that Jim Petersen discounted the possibility that such a debate could be had. Not only did he say that the Celtics were Paul Pierce's team, but he compared the relationship between Garnett and Pierce to the relationship betweeen Pau Gasol and Kobe Bryant.
Got it? I didn't raise this issue. Garnett didn't even play on Sunday. But a longtime color analyst for the Wolves, who was around calling games when Garnett was finishing up his 12th year as the rock of the franchise, utterly discounted what kind of a player Kevin Garnett is *right now*. And I took umbrage because if somebody is as smart about the game of basketball as Petersen is, and watched Garnett in action as much as Petersen did, then to not even put Garnett in the conversation about the best player on the Celtics (or, worse, to mention and then dismiss him), despite much visual and factual evidence to the contrary, smells fishy to me.
And you guys telling me to "get over" Garnett is really rich. Ah, the last two times I have ever mentioned Garnett in the context of the Timberwolves occurred when Glen Taylor popped off about him last year, and now when Petersen popped off this weekend. Meanwhile, I have written tens of thousands of words about the post-KG Timberwolves. I have regularly been derided by serious and casual hoops fans alike for even bothering to notice the fortunes of this franchise.
So, if you've got a problem with my argument, state your piece. If you're tired of Kevin Garnett talk, tell Glen Taylor and Jim Petersen to "get over it" and figure out a way to average more than 21 wins a season without Garnett on your team.
Oh, and one more thing I didn't address. I never said Jim Petersen "should take Garnett's side" in the debate over KG and PP. I said that he should pay KG his propers, meaning his proper respect. And to discount that there could even be a debate about who is better Garnett or Pierce, is disrespectful to Kevin Garnett.
feeling a bit touchy it seems.
keep in mind that forum posters are often responding not only the article's substance but also to the cumulative effect of the thread as a whole.
and this thread is leaning pretty hard in kg's direction.
just my 2cents.
Yes, APB, it was I who wrote something about McHale (that you seem to have misunderstood -- no biggie). I too read Bird's quotes today and wondered when the "Come To Jesus Meeting" happened. For some decades now, from time to time I'll see something written that McHale and Bird "have issues" with each other.
But the Bird quotes don't particularly disprove my hypothesis re McHale's apparent (perhaps subconcious) desire to "prove" a team could win with a McHale clone (now starring Al Jefferson) and without a Robert Parish.
And jumping in on KG thing here, it's pretty obvious to me that KG's game is generally the antithesis of McHale's. I think that has always stuck in McHale's craw -- particularly that he could never get KG to be a banger in the paint. I think it's quite possible that we're seeing some continued aftershocks of that antipathy.
Florida A&M coach, Jake Gaither said of Coach Bear Bryant, "He can take his'n' and beat you'rn', and he can take you'rn' and beat his'n'." I don't think anyone is ever going to say that about Kevin McHale. As GM or coach.
5thpants--
Maybe it was the "I think Britt overreacted" part of APB's post, or perhaps the "excuse me but I think that argument is bullshit," or possibly the "I don't agree with him" part, that got me thinking he was talking about things I wrote and not the comments board in general. Why don't you go back and read his comments and see who has the more accurate take on that, me or you.
If you think reiterating what I said after it has been misconstrued is "touchy," that's your right. But if you had bothered to read the substance of what I wrote rather than the tone of it (which is biting because people aren't reading the substance) than you'd see that it is not a matter of me "taking KG's side" it is a matter of me objecting to the dismissal of KG--a minor but crucial distinction. When it comes to KG vs. PP, I have no "side" or can take "both sides" at different points--it is a worthy debate either way.
I've now weighed in on this four times. Go back and read all four things--the original post, the first comments, the second comments, and these comments.
That's my 8 cents.
To add to the pointless chit chat given that a certain Kobe-Gasol team was humiliated by a certain Pierce-Garnett team last year during a certain championship series, it's a point on a certain inside player's resume that his fellow interior starter is listed at the top of an honor list shared with Rashad McCants, but not by anyone on that certain Kobe-Gasol team:
Players who Players think are over-rated
Britt,
No disrespect to you or KG intended. I've been around here for awhile and I usually agree with everything you say. I still think your argument is bullshit (I don't think you are bullshit) and I think J-Pete would say the same thing to you and you called J-Pete's argument bullshit.
Here's the deal. 5th pants is right. You opened up the can of worms and the cummulative effect of your taking umbrage with J-Pete was a bunch of commentors going on and on about KG was the greatest and the Wolves franchise sucks since he left becaue they can't win more than 21 games without him and presumably never will. All because J-Pete didn't show, in your mind, KG proper respect and acknowledge that there was a debate over who was better KG or PP. Holy crap. Yes, get over KG.
Sorry. I don't mean to jnot give you proper respect because I do respect you. I just think your argument is BS. Like you think J-Pete's is bs. Nothing against J-pete i assume. well nothing against you.
One more thing. Taking a side in a debate is not necessarily saying that there is not a heathy debate. J-Pete does color. He is not on TV debating. He is paid to do analysis and give opinion. THe healthy debate comes in after he gives his opinion. J-Pete and you could have a healthy debate over who is better KG or PP on the current Celtic. Or someone else and J-Pete. J-Pete weighed in on the debate and came down on the side of PP. I don't agree with J-Pete, but he certainly can state his opinion and is under no obligation to give other peoples opposing opinion. I don't even think it would be entertaining color analysis for the color guy to essentialy have a debate with himself over evey opinion he might give during a game. It's an unrealistic expectation.
APB--
Read what I said. I said Jim Petersen likening the situation between KG and Paul Pierce to the situation between Pau Gasol and Kobe Bryant was bullshit. I said flatly dismissing Garnett--who finished third in the MVP voting last season with 670 points while Pierce was 14th, with 1 point--from the debate was bullshit.
Do you agree or disagree with the above paragraph? You really have never said. And that above paragraph has been my contention all along.
What I have gotten from your various comments is that you don't think Petersen should be called into account for what he said. You do know that I have ripped Pete when I have thought he was out of line on non-KG commentary in the past--very recently when he was bitching about the refs just a week or two ago. And you do remember that I prefaced my comments with a very respectful notation that I consistently learn about the game from the things J-Pete says, right? So, let's expore your take a little more thoroughly. You say Petersen is under no obligation to state other people's opinion and that it wouldn't be entertaining to have Petersen constantly debating himself. Furthermore, you say it is an "unrealistic expectation."
Well, what do you think analysis is? Analysis is weighing the pros and cons of a matter and coming down with what you regard as the proper weight. It inherently involves some sort of internal debate, that, if the matter is compelling enough on both sides, deserves to have both sides mentioned. And that is exactly why I enjoy Petersen on occasion, because he generally demonstrates a good sense of proportion. But when he rips the ref calls that go against the Wolves but ignores the ref calls that favor the Wolves, I call him on it. When he says Mark Blount is the best center in franchise history, I call him on it. And when he says essentially that Kevin Garnett is Pau Gasol to Paul Pierce's Kobe Bryant, I call him on it. And when I defend myself against people who criticize me for calling him on it, you tell me to "get over it."
Well, I'm done with it as soon as you are. In case you haven't noticed, I've already moved on with a post about the next two games. Maybe it is your turn now to focus on something else, eh?
Britt,
I noticed. I can take a shot.
Three more things and I'm done. (nice write-up on the last two games btw.)
1. I don't agree with J-Pete's comparison of Kobe/Paul with PP/KG. But I don't think its a bullshit argument. He was doing exactly what you ask of him. Analysis and backing up his opinion. I agree with you that this comparison doesn't quite hold up or provide J-Pete with the support he wishes for his argument. But, it does give his opinion some weight and analysis behind his opinion. You just don't agree with it.
2. I do think J-Pete should be called into account. I might be wrong, but I think your argument is bs, mostly becaue you imply that J-Pete owes KG something because both are or were employed by the Timberwolves. J-Pete owes KG nothing anymore. No Timberwolf employee does. my calling your argument bs, intends no disrespect to you, just as you made known that you intend no disrespect to J-Pete.
3. Despite my taking issue with you, I only did because you provided the inspiration for others to go off on the whole notion that KG gets no respect from the Timberwolves organization and trading him was the absolute worse thing that the organization could have ever done proving that the WOlves never would have won without KG and now never will again. The Frontoffice is populated by inept losers, KG trade exhibit 1. 5th pants was absolutely right on the cumulative effect of the thread.
And thats my one-cent.
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
