Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
Open Thread With Minor Prodding: Wolves vs. Wizards game
Related Content
Photo copyright 2009 NBAE (Photo by David Sherman/NBAE via Getty Images)
For those who haven't yet been apprised of the situation, I am in lame duck status as a paid blogger here at SOTC. The site owner/operator has graciously agreed to carry and pay for whatever posts I wish to make between now and the end of the Wolves season, and then to register a blog at brittrobson.com after that. He is doing this out of respect for my work, and for the continuity of regular readers and commenters who want to continue the process until the end of the Wolves' 2008-09 season in about 5 weeks.
In return, I'm only going to write full-fledged posts at certain points, and fill in the gaps with these freebie open threads, where I'll provide some thumbnail comments for discussion and then engage folks in the comments section should they choose to want to get involved. If this doesn't work, I'll simply post the Three Pointers and other lengthier observations at once or twice per week over the next month or so. It's all new territory, and what I'm trying to do is split the difference between making this a worthy stop for hoops wisdom without racking up too big of an invoice for the site manager when the season (and this rendition of On the Ball) is kaput.
So, without further ado...
*Yet another numbing loss for the Wolves tonight, a home defeat against one of the precious few NBA teams with an inferior record. It strikes me that this team can't play defense at all if it goes small (Washington shot 52.6% and the centers and larger power forwards (Collins, Shelden Williams and Madsen) didn't get off the bench. Darius Songalia went 8-9 FG. Should the Wolves ever play big and slow and hope to make some stops or should they just rely on smallball and pace and hope to win shootouts? To what extent does opponent matchups, fostering bad habits, developing young talent, etc, factor into your thinking here?
On a similar note, is it just me or have all the roles gone out the window? Is there is pecking order for go-to shots? For who gets the most touches or initiates the action in the half court sets? If so, what is it? Tonight, all five starters played between 31 and 40 minutes and scored between 15 and 18 points, which may be the most balanced output in franchise history.
Randy Foye dinged his ankle pretty badly down the stretch and is likely doubtful for action over the next few games. Given how little Kevin Ollie and Bobby Brown have contributed from the point guard position backing up Bassy Telfair, I'd propose giving Mike Miller some time at the point--I'm serious, and not trying to be sarcastic. Miller has had a point guard jones all season anyway, and has demonstrated court vision, unselfishness and a desire for passing that, combined with his other skills, makes him as good a backup option for 10-15 minutes as Ollie and Brown.
What's wrong with Rodney Carney? Did he just have a January blip and now he's back to fringe status permanently? His shooting has obviously slipped--ditto his defense? Is he "intriguing" or "on his way out"?
In the comments section of the last post, the poster known as "Just A Fan" put up an interesting series of observations about the front office, obviously drawn on some inside information--but from where and how reliable is unclear. Nevertheless it is worthy of discussion, if anyone is so inclined.
Or better yet, throw out something you noticed last night, or recently wondered about the long or short term future of this ballclub.
35 Reader Comments
I'd like to toss out a general question to add to Britt's:
Are alley-oops (and 3 pointers) now coach-sanctioned means of trying to finish a fast break? And if so, is that because the layup is now considered too difficult (or too easy)? Randy Foye's ankle would like to know about this, too.
I was @ the game last night and only yelled twice at Miller for passing up an open look.
Good to see you're at least staying the rest of the year Mr. Robson, love the blog!
Only looking at Kevin Love's stats when I check the boxscore, could care less about the final score. As someone who was against the Love/Mayo trade just want to see Love do well and be proven wrong; while Mayo is having an amazing rookie year, 18 pts a game with only 2 assists on %43 shooting makes the trade hard to judge so far
Hey Britt -
I'm glad you're staying on through the end of the year; I think it's likely the only way I'll make it through more games like last nights. A few observations:
1) I think that your "pace vs. big and slow" question assumes that when the play smaller, the Wolves run, which I certainly didn't see last night. Even with the variations of the small line-ups last night, it's not like the wolves were running the break all that much - probably due to their mediocre defense and awfully clumsy rebounding (anyone count the number of times two wolves fought over a rebound, only to lose it to a wizard? I lost track at 4).
2) In looking forward to next year, I'm concerned that the wolves already have too much "intriguing young talent" and need to do all that they can to not end up with more. I realize that all the injuries this year have made it a challenge to pin down what could be a regular rotation, but the wolves need better starting talent, not to be deeper. Love, Jefferson, Cardinal, Madsen, Craig Smith, and Shelden Williams are all about the same size. Gomes, Brewer, Carney, Miller, all play the same position. Foye and Brown are too small to play off-guard, not successful at point. My hope is that all the draft picks next year will be turned into a few proven players (specifically at the 1 or 5) rather than amassing more kids with potential.
Good start.
The alley oop that injured Foye occurred right in front of the media tables, so we all had a ringside seat. Yes, hindsight indicates it was a stupid move, and the timing and height of the pass made it very difficult for Foye (who can really sky) to finish.
But for as much as I criticize Mike Miller, the players do need to have a little bit of fun in the midst of this terrible stretch, and a crowd-pleasing and roster-rousting alley oop would have done the trick. Bottom line, unwise decision, but not one I'm in the mood to dwell upon vis a vis Miller. In fact, I was more aggravated over his increased aggressiveness after Foye went down. *That*'s the Mike Miller I've been waiting to watch all season.
Keith--When I went on Chad Hartman's now defunct radio show in late December, I said "at this point" you'd have to say the Love-Mayo deal tilted in favor of Memphis. As one who endorsed the trade when it happened, I have now flipped back into liking the trade, if only because I'd rather have a long-term pro and complement/redundancy to Al Jefferson than a long-term pro and complement-redundancy to Randy Foye. Neither Mayo nor Love are optimal to the surrounding talent on the ballclub--in hindsight, I'd draft Russell Westbrook and not make any trades, then draft DeAndre Jordan and hope the long term project worked out. But I don't know the college game, am indulging in 20/20 hindsight, and actually think Kevin Love has had the best rookie year of any Timberwolves player since Wally Szczerbiak.
MacAlum--
Agree that last night was the worst of both worlds--small lineup, medium pace. If the Wolves aren't going to push the tempo, giving Collins and Williams some playing time makes the most sense. I also thought Randy Foye deserved more minutes before being injured, especially late in the third when the Wizards made the run that put the game away.
As for position duplicacy, you're preaching to the choir. Glen Taylor shares your desire for quality over quantity in the draft, and I suspect there will be some trade activity before those days arrive. I just hope the front office situation is fully resolved, with an alpha general manager who knows what he's doing at the controls.
I think one of the biggest things that is overlooked in the Mayo/Love deal is each players' compatability with their team's existing star player. I don't know what has happened to Rudy Gay this year but it isn't good. Love, at the very least, showed signs of being able to compliment Jefferson in ways that are much more optimistic than what is going on in Memphis.
I think if there is any crying to be done over spilt milk it is that the Wolves were unable to make anything work with New Jersey and their 2 1st rounders, one of them being Brook Lopez. Headed into this year I think we all were hoping that Foye would continue to grow into the point position and that McCants could be...well, they needed a big and Love's only real competition was Lopez.
Looking forward, I think the number one thing they need to get a handle on is Glen needs to poop or get off the pot with a new Basketball VP. Fans deserve to know if he is going to do this as soon as the season ends. They deserve to know if he, not McHale, is going to make the decision about bringing McHale back as coach. After that, everything is up in the air. They are bad enough where you can make a case that everyone but Big Al and Love are in need of upgrades. They are also flexible enough where you can make the case that they can go in just about any way imaginable: from moving Foye to the bench to playing Bassy at the point to...the list goes on and on. In this sense, they still have me. There is still enough potential here (and assets) to allow for even the boobiest of front offices to walk away with enough decent players to field a competitive product. To be honest, that's all I'm sticking around for with this team right now. This next year is make or break for me as a fan. I'm willing to forgive and forget if they can do some very obvious things to make this team better. If they hold the status quo while still telling me the sky is pink, then I may just have to start talking to my in laws in OKC about finding myself a new favorite team. I can't tell you how big this next year is for the long term development of this squad. They can't afford the status quo anymore. Even with lower ticket prices, a cheaper ride into the ditch is still a ride into the ditch.
Dear Britt,
Thank you for enabling my long-distance fanhood the past few years. Living in San Diego, I have relied on your insight to see beyond the boxscores. Even now that I have League Pass, I still read the Three Pointer to see what I missed. I hope you will continue long into the future in another forum. As near as I can tell, you're the best basketball writer working.
SNP,
In what way do you think the current FO has maintained the status quo? I see a roster that, in just 2 years, has been pretty much turned over from highly paid, long term contract, mediocre, aging vets into something that, as you say earlier, is full of younger, less expensive and flexible players. That does not strike me as status quo. Or our you referring to the "blue print" being status quo?
This off season would have been huge if not for Big Al's injury. The needs were clear (big shooting 2, legit 7' defensive post) and we had a boat load of assets to try and get them. I really expected 1 rookie and 1 proven vet to fill the needs.
Now, there is a big BUT. If Big Al and Brewer are NOT able to revert to form, I think the needs change radically. The top priority becomes a big post that can score. Next comes a point that can create for the rest of the roster. You need a lock down perimeter defender. Quite different from scenario 1.
Unfortunately, we will not know Big Al's status until fall. Which means, at least to me, that some assets must be hedged this summer, not for current needs, but for future assets. That is not a very sexy sell - but we need to have options in 2 years should Big Al not return to All Star level.
I'm also an out-of-towner and Wolves fanatic that just discovered Britt and Canis Hoopus (thanks to Britt's plugs) this season. Awesome, awesome material on both fronts. Thank you!
To SNP's point, I think moving forward we have to think of Love-Jefferson as the dual pillars to our rebuilding plans. Neither one is a dominant franchise player in his own right, but together they bring a pretty formidable set of skills. They need a third pillar in the backcourt - could be the 1 or 2, I don't care - that can score and make plays. A rich man's Randy Foye if you will. After that, they need to be surrounded by a combination of shooters, athletes, and length. Craig Smith and Shelden Williams are probably two of the worst possible options you could have as frontline compliments to Jefferson and Love. The sooner The Rhino is bumped from the rotation by a long rangy defensive type, the better.
The staus quo is allowing the same people to operate the franchise with the same culture. I get that they have told McHale to go sit on the bench but I still don't trust it. The law of averages suggests that even a group like this doesn't screw everything up (they never have), but the entire way they operate is what I'm talking about with the status quo. The culture over there needs a change. They need an outside set of eyes.
Now obviously I don't know what is going on behind closed doors and there may have very well been a change that I don't know about. I simply don't trust them at this point. That bugs me with what I consider a hobby. Despite having a blog about the team and spending a fairly significant amount of my non-family free time writing on the site, I have a very small emotional attachment to the team. I enjoy NBA ball and I grew up with this team. It's like being born a Catholic and then giving it up. I've heard all the sermons before and I'm no longer buying it. Now that I'm not being schooled at St. Kevin's or Creighton, I don't have to pretend that I want to stick around for the full service. It's becoming increasingly hard to watch this club without pretending that the off-the-court happenings are about 80-90% of what is interesing about them right now. This club is going on nearly 5 years of giving their fans little more to talk about than draft picks, lottery balls, and expiring contract talk. As much as we write about it over at Hoopus, this gets boring. Eventually, I want to see some good ball. I just have the bad feeling that no matter what they do going forward, the underlying set of decision makers, and the culture that, to me, is fundamentally flawed in its view of basketball operations (again, take this with a grain of salt from someone who is clearly on the outside of things), will continue to do the same things they have always done: over value assets, sign and draft the wrong players, not show any signs of being able to grasp or utilize even the most basic advanced stats, and so on and so forth.
About 20 games into the season I started watching Thunder games on the advice of one of my Okie in laws. I started following what their front office does, who they are, and how they go about their business. They're light years ahead of the Wolves. Light years. They have a dick for an owner but at least he has the good sense to put basketball operations folks in place who really, really, really know what they're doing. They're going to land a big pick this year. They're going to have cap space. They pay attention to detail. They...well, you get the picture.
As Britt noted, kudos for Just-A-Fan's exposition of front office, um, politics(?). If anything, it highlighted for me that there is a big vacuum in top management within the Wolves. Yes, you may read "Taylor" and "McHale".
Several times, I've seen first hand in business where the "guys in the trenches" knew what was needed for success but were unable to get that message past the top dog's "vision". Those companies are no longer around. Two of those were well known Fortune 500.
In my mind, the tragicomic mis-adventures of Taylor and the Wolves go back at least to the Joe Smith debacle. Then (as almost always for the Wolves), the team needed a center to complement KG. Locking up Smith made no sense, even if it had been legal. Losing draft choices, etc., put the team behind the eight ball for at least a decade.
But even before that, the Wolves had me scratching my head with their draft choices and trades. I can only assume that McHale was the one making most of those calls -- with Taylor's approval.
I will grant that putting together a great group of NBA-level players together that complement each other is difficult. It is especially hard in a small market like Minnesota.
But I must opine that both Taylor and McHale are out of touch when it comes to what it takes to succeed in putting a team (and coach) on the floor.
Britt suggests an "alpha general manager" as a solution. I guess we can live with that -- if he's as good as say Popovich. But maybe listening to some of the "little guys" might pay back better.
SNP,
I like OKC too. But I think they have been the beneficiaries of some recent real good fortune that has made some of their decisions quite a bit easier.
OKC had picks 2 & 5 in 2007 - a year with 2 honest to goodness franchise players. No brainer taking the one that was leftover (Durant) Their pick at 5 was considered a little bit of a reach (Green) which has turned out better than most expected.
OKC had pick 4 in 2008 and choose a player most had in the top 5 (Westbrook). Again, he has played somewhat better than expected - but still there was not a lot of risk here.
The Twolves, while in the 2 year rebuilding mode, took Brewer at 7 in 2007. There were no sure things left - maybe Thornton was better - but everyone else had serious pluses and minuses. In 2008, the Twolve took the consensus #3 (Mayo).
So, how much of this is skill and how much of this is luck? I think it is probably 50-50 which is why OKC is looking so good right now.
Britt:
When you move to your independent blog, will you accept contributions like others do?
Some of the blogs have a once annual contribution drive and the model they use seems to be effective.
Stay close, you're the only antibiotic against the virus plaguing us Wolves followers.
Just a Fan:
They have Sam Presti. It's skill. They took Westbrook while needing a center and Lopez and Love still on the board. They traded for the most effective player at the trade deadline and they almost walked away with Chandler for nothing (who would have backed up Krstic...who they also got for nothing).
I completely agree with you that luck plays a part in all of this. In order to put together a good team you need luck and competency. The Wolves have been lucky in the past. Having 2 picks in the 99 Draft with a young KG heading into his prime is luckier than anything the Thunder has had so far.
Have the Wolves made some solid moves since KG left? I think your comments about them not trying to surround KG with a patchwork crew is spot on. I think this small change has made all the difference in the world in them being able to make decent moves since the trade. That being said, the talk about building around Miller, targeting Hinrich, drafting Brewer, having Mayo at the top of their draft board in front of Love and Lopez (yes, I get that this is a really, really subjective point so please disregard if need be), and so on and so forth is, to me, more of the same...their fundamental flaw. The Thunder are maximizing their good luck by picking the guys who need to be picked and surrounding them with solid players. Forget Portland, they are going to be the young team to worry about if they get a good starting center or power forward. I didn't get it until I started watching them, but Durant has the upside of Oden and Roy combined. It's not right for one player to have that sort of skill set. I completely didn't get it before. I thought he was just a chucker.
SNP,
I love ya man, but saying that the Twolves having 2 picks in 1999 is luckier than Seattle jumping 3 spots (if I remember correctly) in the lottery to get Durant, well, I just am not going to buy that.
I think all the well managed, rebuilding teams are focused on drafting "Best Player Available" (BPA) and then using assets to fill specific needs. OKC did that by drafting Westbrook - the Twolves by drafting Mayo. The clubs drafting on need seem to be the ones who, more often than not, end up getting the short end of the stick. I am glad the Twolves have moved away from that. I see BPA being the way to go.
Finally, I am only judging the FO on the last 2 years - after the KG trade. I know - they were there well before the trade and maybe were even responsible by their actions/inactions for making the trade necessary. But the KG trade was a such a franchise changing event that I think performance needs to be separated between the 2 eras (KG and post KG). I believe each era had completely different motives in place and performance needs to be judged accordingly.
I can see both sides of the discussion between JAF and SnP. Since I believe that it has been over a decades of gaffes that got the Timberwolves where they are today, I'm not really buying into giving the team management a pass prior to the KG trade. I think it's important in this discussion to know how (and significantly, who) the Wolves got here.
Biggest mistake? KG's 1st huge contract.
2nd biggest? Joe's Smith's secret contract.
What was it S&P said? Overvaluing assets?
I was looking over some of the drafts of the past, and 1999 was one that stuck in my craw. Of course, hindsight is 20-20, etc., etc., but imagine how different the Wolves would be if they had drafted both AK47 and Andre Miller that year. Or Rip Hamilton, Jason Terry, Shawn Marion, Corey Maggette, even Ron Artest. I'll give the Wolves a pass on Manu Ginobilli.
"Best Player Available" is fine if he doesn't play the same position that your franchise's best player does. And that's my rub with Kevin Love for the Wolves when they have Al Jefferson. As far as I'm concerned, that trade is a post-KG "front-office gaffe".
I know the motives may be different, and I completely agree with the take you had in the last thread (that they were patching things together as best they could around KG with diminishing results; I've written as much over at Hoopus), but I still don't trust the competency angle with this group in the front office and it would take a lot to win me back on that front.
As for the luck stuff, I look at it like this. OKC (then Seattle) finished with the 6th worst record the year they ended up with the 2nd pick. They had an 11% chance to land Durant. The Wolves had 2 picks in one of the best drafts in the past 20 years with 5 future All Stars on the board with their first pick and 3 with their second. Not only were the stars aligned, but they had no shortage of players to pick from at the positions they needed. Forget All Stars, Corey Maggette, Jason Terry, Devan George, James Posey, and Jeff Foster all went by them with Will Avery and Wally. There simply aren't that many drafts where that much quality talent is available. They had 2 cracks at it and failed. First, I don't know what the odds are to draft an All Star but they're not very high. Also, the chances of having a draft with that high of a percentage of solid players can't be that high. I'm sure there are a few different ways one could go about measuring this sort of thing but I don't think it's going to be more than 11% odds that a) you would have 2 high first rounders in a historically significant draft and b) that you would use them incorrectly.
The trick with BPA is correctly identifying the guy. Right now, I'd probably agree with Britt that Westbrook is the 20/20 hindsight 3rd pick. Presti got it right in real time. From what I have read about his 2007 selection, they would have taken Durant with the top pick. Let's see a show of hands from Wolves fans who believe this front office group, with or without McHale, can identify the BPA in a down-year draft? What if they have the 4th pick and Harden, Griffin, and Rubio are off the board? Do you trust them to identify the BPA? What about when the Heat pick rolls around? I don't.
I'd really like to learn more about the guy but in Britt's last column he mentioned Wolves "stat guru" Paul Swanson. I haven't heard of this guy before so I Googled him. Here are the first two results:
http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/randy_foye_or_brandon_roy_070730.html
http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/mavs_too_much_for_wolves_080106.html
The first article is comparing Roy and Foye and it uses things like blocks and dunks to measure "explosiveness". Granted, I have no idea what Swanson's internal work looks like, and this article isn't written by him, but reading something like this seems par for the course from an organization that seems less interested in solid internal analysis than it is in sugar coating a bunch of turds.
The second one is...well, at this point I'm just frustrated with the squad. They seem to be locked in to operating in a certain way and I guess I shouldn't expect much in the way of change. I don't know what Swanson does or how they use any of these stats but it will never cease to amaze me how wrong they have been vis-a-vis some pretty obvious performance indicators when it comes to selecting this player over that one. Again, there are a lot of other factors that could be contributing to this but I, and a lot of other fans, have no way of knowing if these procedural failures have been corrected or weeded out. Who was pushing insane picks like Ebi and Foye? Have they done anything to make sure they shore up the personal interview front after word came out that McHale didn't talk to Roy Williams before the McCants pick? Who on this team has a history of being able to identify the BPA at the highest clip? Have they been keeping track and will they let this person have a greater share this time around if he can explain his method? Does he have a method or is it just blind luck?
Anywho, I'd really like to see them bring in someone with chops...if only to have someone with a fresh set of eyes to look things over. I think we're clear headed enough over at Hoopus to give them a little credit for the good moves they've made since KG was traded, but I expect the odds to play out and for them to have issues going forward if changes are not made. Could they have been made internally and we don't know about it? Yes. That's why I'm giving it another year. I'm pretty sure I'll have all I need to know about this front office by next year at this time.
Those articles linked are pretty depressing. It reminds me of Tice talking about Moss targets or (more appropriately) the guy that Flip and McHale used to analyze players brains. You can only hope that the stat guru is either completely different behind closed doors or just a public relations guy that doesn't make decisions. The articles were hardly complimentary.
Thanks for the discussion SnP and JAF. Great stuff.
I'm with Levi, I can see both sides of your discussion and I think you both make great points. But, I lean toward the Wolves being more the victims of bad luck than poor decisions. Perhaps, it is because of my own ignorance. I'm not a fanatic, but I watch enough college sports - football and basketball -- and I just don't see how you determine the BPA. You can look at a player from every angle and at a certain point it just becomes shutting your eyes and drawing a straw. The only time the Wolves got genuinely lucky was drafting KG. And, Flip and McHale told us at the time they drafted the BPA and he just happened to be a hs player. That certainly seemed with hindsight to be one hell of a pick at the time, but lets just call it what it really was - lucky.
Also, SnP, don't forget that Wally was an all star. I'm not a Wally fan, but KG didn't make it easy for Wally to play with him and JAF's point about Wally's current status with the Cavs and him being considered part of the teams positive chemistry reveals some of the difficulty of finding the right players to surround KG with.
Finally, to Levi
Joe Smith was signed immediately after Googs signed with Phoenix. It was a desparate move made by McHale and Taylor to replace the only Timberwolves allstar at that point. Smith was a former #1 and they thought it would be worth it. It was a bad, and very dumb move. However, I disagree with those who characterize it as a fiasco.
I once went through the drafts and where the WOlves would have picked in each of the years they lost a first round pick because of the Joe Smith signing. There were very few players that were taken either at the WOlves position or after late in the first or second rounds during those years (try it yourself and see if you can find some players. They really did not lose that much with those sanctions because the Wolves draft position was so bad. It is not nearly as awful as the Ebi pick or the Avery pick, where you can be sure the Wolves passed on decent or all star players.
I just want to make perfectly clear that my use of those two articles wasn't to put a name with what I believe to be the Wolves' general lack of analytical prowess. I just heard about the guy yesterday and I Googled his name. For all I know he does a wonderful job with what he is asked to do. In fact, I highly suspect this to be the case.
My suspicion with the Wolves, and what I should have made clearer in the above comment, is that they do precious little statistical analysis and what they do ask folks to do is the sort of glossing over the obvious PR work we've all grown to love over the years.
I write this because I don't really like to speculate a whole lot about things I know nothing about and I feel bad about associating a guy I don't know the first thing about with an opinion about something I think I know a bit about. That wasn't fair of me to do and I just don't want anyone who reads this to think that this guy is responsible for...well, I could have made the point without using his name. That was a bad judgment on my part. I have no idea what the guy does or what he is tasked with.
"Also, SnP, don't forget that Wally was an all star."
...I know, isn't that amazing? They should shut the game down after that selection ;)
Without kidding, he did have some very good years. He was a solid behind-the-arc threat. Of course, he may have been the worst defender in Wolves history and his selection...well, it's spilt milk. I view that 99 Draft as the one thing that set this franchise back more than anything else. Andre Miller + Ron Artest or Jason Terry + James Posey were very realistic options and they chose a guy who was a post season small college darling and a Dukie. Ish. Never pick a Dukie.
The greater point regarding the current front office situation is to me about everyone being on the same page. I just don't think it is a healthy situation to have the guy who essentially created the culture and makeup of the current franchise being called upon to now develop a roster that will necessarily be undergoing dramatic changes that he himself is not initiating.
McHale obviously has a certain style and mode of development. It is pretty idiosyncratic. And whether it is the Stack/Hoiberg committee or a brand new guy, the people supposedly making the call on all these draft picks, never mind free agents, is going to have a different style and mode of development that McHale is either going to further or retard. Even if he tries to be on board with the new mentality, does anyone who has watched him all these years--a person who has enjoyed nothing but tremendous success in his playing days and nothing but lordship in his post-playing days--think he can be an enabler of someone else's plan?
Perhaps more importantly--and this was essentially the opening point of my last trey--what desireable general manager candidate from outside the organization is going to come in and accept as head coach the man who has been in charge for more than a dozen years and who has been the decision-maker on personnel the entire time Glen Taylor has owned the team?
This is why--if Taylor is being totally honest in letting McHale decided on his tenure as coach while maintaining that his days as personnel guru are over--I believe the odds of this franchise getting things right in the upcoming months is problematical.
Britt - now that you're not going to be paid for this, any thoughts on becoming part of the True Hoop network of blogs?
Yes, APB, in 2000-2002 there were only a few good players left that the Timberwolves might have drafted. But they were out there -- and good teams, like Detroit and San Antonio, found them.
Your description of front office "panic" at the loss of Gugliotta just illustrates more of what I've been saying about the ineptitude at the top of the organization. For me, the debate between SnP and JAF is about the staff.
I'm with Levi on this one on both points. A good FO would've had a better backup plan in that situation than "sign someone to an illegal deal"; for example, if Googs really left because they wouldn't trade Steph, maybe they should've explored a few deals before letting Googs leave or accepted that it would be a short season and that help could be on the way in the draft.
As for the players they missed, they might not have been great, but they would've been assets -- guys who could've been added to sweeten a trade or improved with the team enough that they became good players.
I also dispute that there wasn't talent available. Here are some names: 2000 (technically a pick dealt for Dean Garrett and Bobby Jackson): Morris Peterson, DeShawn Stevenson, Michael Redd, Eddie House, Marko Jaric
2001: Zach Randolph, Brendan Haywood, Gerald Wallace, Samuel Dalembert, Tony Parker, Jamaal Tinsley, Gilbert Arenas, Mehmet Okur
2002: Nenad Krstic, John Salmons, Roger Mason, Carlos Boozer
2004: Anderson Varejao, Chris Duhon, Trevor Ariza
The list isn't necessarily great, but there are some definite gems, including some upcoming free agents who might fit well with this squad (Ariza, Varejao) and other guys who have been mentioned as possible good targets for the team in a trade (Dalembert, Wallace, Salmons).
Mainly, I think the Smith deal severely crippled the team in the post-WCF era. Having 1-2 of these guys on the team could've kept them from deals like Olowokandi-Szczerbiak for Davis-Blount, Jaric for Cassell and a 1st, or trading a 2nd-rounder for Ronald Dupree (which is probably coming this year). It might've also kept them from having to re-sign guys like Trenton Hassell and Troy Hudson and finding stop-gap solutions like Mike James.
More to add: just looking at the guys available 2001 could lead one to conclude that this was a huge mistake. I would trade any of those players straight-up for Smith, and that was just one year's draft. Even the two worst players on that list (Haywood and Dalembert) would've spared any Olowokandi era, and if they'd taken a PG (even Tinsley), it would've spared them from signing Hudson and maybe trading for Cassell. From the '02 list, even if they didn't get Boozer, any of those guys would've filled a hole (Krstic to replace Rasho, Salmons or Mason instead of dealing with Hassell). From '04, even if they'd had Duhon (the worst of that list), that's a guy who would be a decent tandem with Telfair right now.
These are probably more realistic what-ifs than "The Wolves should have Josh Howard, Danny Granger, and Brandon Roy" because none of the guys drafted would've had enough of an immediate impact that it would've changed their draft status in the following years.
Britt, I think you hit the nail right on the head with "idiosyncratic" -- it'd be nice for someone to make picks "systematically." They could've found guys who fit Dwane Casey's system (which made them a much better defensive team than their talent indicated), but he overruled him on the Roy pick and possibly the McCants pick.
THat is a pretty good list PSR and I agree that with hindsight a FO could have made all the right picks and surrounded KG with players to win the championship. I think all we would have really needed was a FO that could have identified Tony Parker for one of those later round picks. So, yes, in that sense the Joe Smith signing was a fiasco.
But, I don't think SA even thought there was a good chance the TP would become the player that he has become. They had some hope, the same hope that we had with Ebi. One hope turned out to be reality. the other didn't. My point is that is luck and the players taken in the spots after MN would have picked over those years there was much greater chance for failure than success. I think the porblem that many people have is they think there is some indicator that tells us beforehand that a player will succeed or not and they point to a team like SA as proof that some FO make better decisions than others. But, I don't believe that is true in most cases. I really believe that at the time of the Roy FOye pick it was evenly split amongst the experts as to who would be the better player and there was also the added measure of finding the player who would fit better alongside KG that already had veteran swingmen Hassell, Marko and Ricky Davis on the roster. We take facts as we know them now and use that as evidince that people don'tknow what they are doing.
I think it is likely possibility that there will come a day that Memphis fans will fault their FO for trading Love for Mayo. I don't yet know how the chips will fall, but its a likely scenario. We just don't know yet and we didn't know at the time of the draft, but there will come a day when someone somewhere is going to get blamed for making a stupid decision that day. Who it is that made the bad decision is at the mercy of the random fall of a coin, not some statistical measure or astute bball knowledge. THat's just my opinion though. Not that there is no such thing as Bball knowledge, but at some point we know all we can know and we just sort of make a pick. There is no such thing as a process for making great decisions all the time in pro bball.
There are good coaches and good players and you basically just hope you can have a good mixture of the two.
Britt asks about a "desireable general manager candidate from outside the organization"...
Well, wunderkids Sam Presti (formerly of the Spurs, now in OKC) and Steve Perry (back with the Pistons) aren't likely.
Hoopshype has links to current GMs here:
http://hoopshype.com/general_manager.htm
Here's a list (and ranking) of "Personnel Bosses" from a year ago:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/kelly_dwyer/06/25/gm.ranki...
Gulp. Bernie Bickerstaff, having tasted the executive suite life in Charlotte...and the wrath of Michael Jordan...is toiling as an assistant coach in Chicago.
PSR:
I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment about wishing they would do something systematically. This also kind of dove tails into what Britt is saying about having everyone on the same page.
I don't doubt for a second that Kevin McHale knows more about basketball than all of us on this site combined. The problem I believe he has is that I'm not sure there is any method to the madness. From all the talk they used to have about brain types to hearing time and time again that he saw "something" in player x, y, or z, this is a relatively useless way of going about things because it's a) not easily reproducible and b) it's hard to relay to co-workers, and c) it's immune to effective quality control. "Kevin likes him" is a pretty damn hard thing to argue with if the guy is at the top of the food chain with 3 rings, a hall of fame bust and, the owner's ear/eternal gratitude for letting him take part in his own personal 86 Celtics Fantasy Camp is calling the shots. I've always viewed McHale as an intellectual bully; always falling back on his superior past performance as evidence of superior basketball judgment whether or not that is actually the case or not.
On one hand I get that this team probably couldn't do better right now in terms of player development with another coach. I also get that this off season is THE off season in terms of future success and that if they made a big front office change they may not have enough time to do it right. On the other hand, the guy needs to go. He needs to go with Taylor telling fans he won't be back and that this decision isn't Kevin's to make because...wait for it...it's his frickin' team and he calls the shots.
This team can still put a good product on the court with McHale on the bench. They have enough assets where they can back into a good product. That being said, if they had a new front office, I believe they'd increase their chances of success by a ton. They could make clear headed decisions about starting Foye or bringing him off the bench. They could make clear headed decisions about what to do with the #1 pick and maybe having to pick between Love, Jefferson, and Griffin.
Even if McHale sticks around they need a guy who can listen to him talk about how Ty Hansborough is his guy and explain to him (and Papa Glen) in terms that are supported by facts (and can be reproduced on a year-to-year basis) that there are better fish available and that you will simply have to cook with the ingredients I give you.
If they don't bring in a new guy, they at least need to start creating a process by which they will evaluate players from here on out. They need a baseline formula that they can start tracing over a period of years while working to increase the percentage by which they select the correct player. Do they do this now above and beyond "well, Kevin liked him"? I would highly, highly doubt it.
A quick comment...
Like poker, luck is involved in NBA personnel decisions. And luck "favors the prepared mind". Sam Presti was the guy who pushed for Tony Parker.
I'll opine that some people can "see" real players. Others seem to "imagine" them. I believe that McHale is in the latter category.
Levi:
Over at Hoopus, Wyn is running an executive search and he has covered the following guys so far:
David Morway
Dennis Lindsey
Chris Grant
http://www.canishoopus.com/search?q=executive+search&btn=Go
Daryl Morey is my personal favorite but he is Houston's top guy right now and would be tough to pry away.
I ususally wouldn't pimp Bill Simmons, but since SNP mentioned Daryl Morey I'll make an exception.
For anyone interested, there is a Podcast between Daryl and Bill on ESPN.com right now. In it, Daryl talks about how he became a GM and his reliance on stats to make decisions. Daryl used to work with Bill James before he started with the Celtics. He definitely comes from that "Moneyball" background.
To me, it sounds like Paul Swanson may come from this background as well. I have no proof about that, but it's my guess. I'd love to see if we could get an interview with him for this blog. I know the economic reality makes it unlikely, but it could be really enlightening.
If interested, head to espn.com and check the Pod Center for March 9th and you'll find it. Warning, it's about an hour and fifteen minutes long. But there is some good stuff in there.
Again, as usual, a very entertaining and informative discussion here.
To put it in Rumsfeld speech.
There are known knowns
There are known unknowns
And then there are unknown unknowns.
FO evaluate the first two. I think most NBA FO are competent in these evaluations and they can do a sort of risk analysis on the known unknowns. But the unknown unknowns is where the luck comes in and that pretty much separates the good franchise from the bad in my humble opinion.
Great discussion about the direction of the franchise.
Glen Taylor needs to ask himself how to make the Timberwolves a better organization rather than how to improve their draft picks or their use of statistics. As we all know, these are just parts of the entire organization.
It's pretty clear that from top to bottom the Spurs organization and the Rockets organization (for example) are just better than the Twolves organization. They probably have better scouting, training, coaching, stat people, general managers, player development, d-league programs. Heck they probably have better official team websites. mascots, fan relations, and laundry detergent.
And finally, the #1 question that Glen Taylor needs to ask himself, will a high profile front office overhaul increase season ticket sales? I say a big YES. I can't think of another way to more energize the fan base. Of course, luring top GM talent will cost money, so Mr. Taylor will have to weight the costs and benefits.
At least the franchise would generate some positive headlines at the end of season if they made a big change. They could have articles in the papers discussing what the new front office might do in the draft and via trades, rather than articles that poke fun at the franchise and its chances for success. How is it not obvious? He has to do it, there is no other way.
This organization needs a Dennis Green "There's a new sheriff in town" moment, minus the Dennis Green.
It's not luck that the Spurs were able to find and develop a gem in Parker. It's consistent with every move they've made. They pick guys who they think can fit into what they do, don't give them more responsibility than they can handle, and get them to become good players. They always make sure they have enough guys who can play and can play their way, and they don't break the bank for them. Also, their international scouting was advanced enough that the reason they could take Parker (and Ginobili) was mainly because they knew enough about him.
Are there mistakes made? Yes (Luis Scola, Jackie Butler, Rasho Nesterovic). But they're low-cost mistakes. They would've never committed that much to Joe Smith (legally or not). They would never trade a future first and Sam Cassell for Marko Jaric. They would never trade an expiring contract like Michael Olowokandi for a guy like Mark Blount with a long-term deal and an attitude problem.
And they and the Rockets know what style of play they want and don't change it constantly. Switching from Saunders to Dwane Casey and then Casey to Wittman meant the team's direction shifted 3 times in 4 years, and the result was a bunch of mismatched parts. That's bad planning on McHale's part, not bad luck.
That's the most important part of this whole situation: coach and GM/VP have to be on the same page, as SnP was referring to. It was the key to the Wolves' success in the early McHale and Flip era and part of the reason for failure since then. It's too bad the Wolves aren't a popular team; I'd really like to read a behind-the-scenes book about them like Breaks of the Game.
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
