Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
McHale Jettisoned: The Only Plausible Outcome
If new Timberwolves President of Basketball Operations David Kahn had decided to keep Kevin McHale on as coach of the ballclub, I would have thought owner Glen Taylor had made it a precondition of Kahn's hiring. In other words, no one should be surprised by today's announcement that the Wolves were terminating McHale's 16-year tenure with the franchise--a move that, depending on your logic, was either years or months overdue.
Let's look at the lopsided balance sheet on the pros and cons of McHale continuing to coach the Wolves. The biggest plus is pretty fundamental: McHale is a very capable coach, second only to Flip Saunders in franchise history, in my estimation. He is the uber-"player's coach" in that he'll always view the game with not only a player's eyes, but a player's heart and soul. He has a profound empathy for the ecstasies and agonies pervading a player's existence, and, for better and for worse, he stubbornly refuses to downgrade that perspective as his first point of reference. This makes him a sage teacher and a motivator of inventive durability, whose cheerleading has a greater chance of becoming self-fulfilling prophecy than most coaches under similar circumstances. But it also makes him an equivocal taskmaster and rationalizer for his troops, as anyone who wondered why he couldn't get Al Jefferson to hustle back more often on D or Mike Miller to proactively look for his own shot discovered. McHale also has a strong, albeit under-utilized, grasp and appreciation for the big-picture ebb and flow of the game. His postgame press conferences often succinctly identify the key elements that swung the game either way. If he's less enamored with X's and O's, well, that's what assistants with chalkboards are for.
That said, McHale's first stint coaching the team was more impressive than his second, although both were sufficient to establish his ability. He took over a moribund yet bickering sub-.500 team from Flip Saunders, a squad widely expected to vie for a ring after a conference finals appearance the year before, and through a combination of steady mentorship (Michael Olowokandi probably never played better, and yes, that's faint praise) and tough love (complainer Sam Cassell came off the bench rather than start for much of McHale's stint) guided it to a 19-12 record that nearly made the playoffs. By contrast, last year's performance was easy pickin's. The ballclub has just endured Randy Wittman's too-accurate Bobby Knight imitation, and felt beat-down and ridiculed rather than spurred on by fear and/or respect, which Wittman didn't have the gravitas on his resume to provide as either a player or a coach. After his first game back on the sidelines, he fawned over the effort exhibited by his players and pledged to get better as a coach so he would be worthy of it. His over-the-top praise for both Al Jefferson and Kevin Love during their respective first years with the team was in sharp contrast to his increasingly passive-aggressive stance toward the flaws in Kevin Garnett's game during KG's final years here. No wonder Love and Jefferson would run through a wall for him. Ditto Randy Foye, who McHale freed from the constant badgering Wittman provided on his obvious, and probably unimprovable, lack of natural point guard skills.
Yes, a more confident Wolves team won 10 of its first 12 games in January less than three weeks after McHale took over for Wittman, earning his NBA Coach of the Month honors. Many rose-colored Wolves fans would cling to that period as the potential new status quo had Al Jefferson not gotten hurt in the final minute of the game in New Orleans on Feburary 8. But let's be realistic here, and recall some crucial facts from that stirring upward blip in January. The caliber of the opposition generally ranged from wretched to mediocre, further diluted by the Wolves' freakish run of good fortune that had five or six of their opponents losing at least one or two of their top three players going into the games. You may also recall that at the time Jefferson wrecked his knee in February, that January splurge was becoming a distant memory, and performance outlier--the team was enduring its 6th loss in 7 games that night, and the average margin of those losses was more than 9 points. Also, the largest reason for the January bounce was the best stretch of basketball in Randy Foye's career, a three-week period of excellence that he hasn't come close to duplicating before or since, Al or no Al.
The point is, a Timberwolves team at full strength--Corey Brewer as well as Jefferson ready for action all 82 games--with McHale on the sideline was still not going to play .500 basketball. That's because coach Kevin McHale still had to manage a roster assembled by GM Kevin McHale, who is an inferior talent.
Which brings us back to the no-brainer decision made by David Kahn today. If we stipulate on the "pro" side of the ledger that McHale is a good coach who enjoys the steadfast support and loyalty of his players and is a high-profile Hall of Famer on a franchise with a miniscule Q rating, consider the mountain of baggage in the "con" column. The toxic mixture of antipathy and apathy toward the Wolves organization is at an all-time high. Two or three years ago, *before* the Wolves limped through 22-60 and 24-58 seasons, the default position for the casual sports fan chatting hoops at a party was to disparage McHale with some epithet like "McFail," bemoan the team's inability to win despite the decade-long presence of Garnett, and conclude with a "who cares anyway?" shrug. Seriously, that was probably the least controversial way to parrot conventional wisdom and walk away clean.
Since that time, McHale has done enough credible scut work--stockpiling draft choices while creating cap space by dumping the bloated salaries of Davis, Blount, Jaric, Hassell and Antoine Walker--to polarize the die-hard fan base between those who think he had rebouned into competency and deserved to see part of it through as coach, and those who remembered Roy for Foye, McCants instead of Grainger, and the acquisition of Davis, Blount, Jaric, and Hassell and wanted him gone long ago. But the casual fans are even more entrenched in interrupting their overall indifference only if a gratuitous swipe can be made at the Wolves' mismanagement. It's no secret, folks, that Glen Taylor can't give away Timberwolves tickets. So, along comes David Kahn, the fresh face and new leader, knowing that a clean slate and the promise of change are the only chips he can play for awhile, and somebody actually thinks his first major decision is to going to be retaining the person who unquestionably is most responsible for the current makeup of the Wolves' sorry state of affairs? Really?
The toxic public relations is reason enough to cut McHale loose, but that aspect is actually dwarfed in significance by the philosophical, hierarchical, and temperamental train wreck in the internal affairs of the Wolves braintrust that could have easily occurred if McHale had stuck around. As I've said many times before, what daft, self-destructive gene would compel a new personnel guru like Kahn to put the person who held his job for nearly 14 years on the sidelines in charge of molding and fulfilling his fresh blueprint for restoring the team to respectability?
In case folks hadn't noticed, Kevin McHale is hardly a shrinking violet. Even after his longtime buddy and college teammate took over the coaching reins and guided the club to eight straight playoff appearances, the friction between the two men over how to manage the players both on the court and in the locker room steadily escalated, to the point where less than a year after Flip Saunders had his squad in the conference finals, McHale was bouncing him out the door and replacing him on the sidelines, resulting in bad blood and ill will that lingers to this day. Then, there was Saunders' successor, Dwane Casey. Halfway through his second year, Casey had a team almost everyone had tabbed as one of league's bottom feeders instead ensconced as the 8th seed in the rugged Western Conference, sitting pretty at 20-20. McHale fired him because he felt the ballclub "lacked consistency" under Casey, and continued to mistakenly believe that "a few tweaks" were all that was necessary to restore the club to contender status. (That was January 2007. I entitled my column on Casey's firing "McHale's Last Gasp;" this, after referring to McHale as a "lame duck" back in 2006.)
What this history demonstrates is that McHale had very strong and definite ideas about how to run the ballclub, and when those expectations weren't met, he opted for scapegoating over patience and compromise. Now, imagine what happens if McHale is back as coach. Consider that as much as "McFail" is derided and disrespected among the casual sporting public at-large, exercising command and being accorded fealty are second-nature to McHale inside the bowels of Target Center, where his tenure with the Wolves predates everyone of consequence--the entire current roster and front office, of course, and on through the departed Garnett (drafted by McHale, traded by McHale) to owner Glen Taylor himself. McHale accepted the personnel job as a personal favor to Taylor, who needed his star power and basketball smarts, and did in fact transform a franchise that hadn't won more than 29 games in a season before he arrived into a perennial playoff team. And many believe (it certainly has been long whispered, anyway) that McHale fell on his sword over the illegal Joe Smith signing, and accepted a year's suspension without a squawk. More recently, nearly every player on the roster knows McHale actively sought their services--the best, or at least most credible, endorsement of all--and publicly defended their performance through good times and bad. They know that McHale has openly linked his fate to theirs.
Consider that the two most dominant aspects of McHale's hoops persona are a take-no-prisoners competitive fire (ask Kurt Rambis about that; or the doctor who correctly informed McHale that he might have trouble walking for the rest of his life if he continued to play in the 1987 playoffs on a broken bone and torn ligaments in his right foot) and a blatantly honest yet mischievous anti-authoritarian streak that brooks no bullshit and isn't afraid to playfully bedevil anyone, even if the perceived bullshitter was a legend like Red Auerbach or a disciplinarian like coach Bill Fitch.
Okay, take all that information and imagine what happens when Kahn and McHale start to work together. It doesn't take long to notice that Kahn is a verbally slick and Machiavellian lawyer, who can speak the language of agents and owners, and, despite never playing the game at a high level himself, has put in the long hours of study and planning and generated enough front office experience to have some very definite ideas about how to operate a franchise so that it is successful on the court and on the bottom line. Kahn has already stated that a five-stage rebuilding of the ballclub will occur over the next 16-months, creating the expectation of dramatic change in the personnel and identity of the club over that period via the draft, free agency and trades. He has stated that, to be a championship contender, he imagines that Al Jefferson will be the team's second best player and Kevin Love may be its 4th best player. He frequently states that "everything is on the table" when considering how best to turn around the fortunes of the Wolves.
Even if McHale was genuinely willing to be the loyal lieutenant moving forward (a longshot at best, although McHale's willingness to risk the indignity of offering himself and being turned down is already a surprise), one would have to be pretty stupid to believe that synergy was a more likely outcome than dissension in the working relationship between the two men. And David Kahn is not stupid.
Indeed, Kahn shrewdly killed McHale with kindness at today's press conference. Exclaiming that it was "an especially sad day" and that his decision was "no fun," Kahn spoke of McHale as a "very special person" who is "warm" and "bright" and "has a big heart" and "cares about his players" and is "a great man" who "did some great things, some really remarkable things" for the franchise. Oh, and going in, Kahn knew of McHale's greatness, but during this process he's discovered that McHale is "a better person than I thought."
Any specifics as to why he decided not to retain McHale would be disrespectful to McHale, and he wasn't going to do that, Kahn purred, and if that bit of PR ju jitsu didn't tell you all you needed to know about why the plainspoken Iron Ranger wasn't on the premises, well, you probably overlooked the 349 good reasons that came before. Kahn did acknowledge that the more he thought about how things would unfold moving forward, "it appeared to me that there would be challenges that would difficult to surmount." Amen to that.
I've referred to Kahn as slick and Machiavellian and of the same ilk as agents and owners thus far, hardly descriptions of endearment. Stylistically, the guy is the sort of smooth operator I intuitively distrust--even his informal jibes and bon mots feel expertly calibrated. But on the nuts-and-bolts substance of his comments and strategies for the Wolves organization thus far, Kahn has been logical, insightful, well-backgrounded, and forthright. He deserves the honeymoon of an open mind from the fans, the media, and especially the players, who are likely plenty piqued at McHale's removal. I'll close with some bullet points on some of the more salient responses during today's press conference, and mention to folks reading this early enough Thursday morning that I'll be on MPR talking about McHale's removal sometime around 8 or 9 a.m.
* In response to my question about where on the continuum he would fall with respect to player disappointment over McHale's departure: Toward empathy for their feelings or in reminding them that the league is a business with consequences and neither they nor McHale should be immune, Kahn said that of course he empathized with the players and has assured them that he wants the next coach to be a positive presence who works in elevating the attitude and enthusiasm of what he anticipates will be a young team for some time to come.
* As to who that next coach would be, Kahn said flatly, "I have no candidate--none. Nothing on the back of a napkin."
* He reminded folks that big changes are probably afoot, pointing out that "we won 24 games last year" and that while even though Jefferson was hurt, the team "has a lot of work to do." He also reminded people that "we won't do it all right away," that the changes would take time. He added that the manuvers he and the front office execute need to be thoroughly grounded in a coherent philosophy, with an eye "toward a 7 to 10 year period." Not that all the moves will be that long-term or unyielding in one direction, but that "the decisions we make need to have some lasting value."
* When a member of the media remarked that McHale had been quoted as saying that Kahn had told him last week that he was moving in a different direction and that McHale had responded that Kahn was making a mistake, Kahn replied that no such conversation took place last week. A smooth sidestep.
* Kahn defended Kevin Love for essentially breaking the story of McHale's departure via a tweet on his Twitter account. "I don't want Kevin to feel bad about that. I don't think it is a big deal," he said. Refreshing.
* Last but not least, the most striking thing Kahn said in his sort-of background-only chat with the media over breakfast last week was that it is best when your best player generates the majority of the plays through ball possession, a la Lebron, Kobe, Wade, etc, as opposed to a Shaq or a Dwight Howard (or an Al Jefferson). He wants a dominant low post force, especially for defense, to work in tandem with Jefferson and Love, but plainly believes a larger and perhaps more realistic priority is to find good shooters and playmakers out on the perimeter and (he didn't say this, but the implication was there) hope that one evolves into a star. He acknowledged and agreed with a consensus that Blake Griffin is the best player in the draft and that Rubio and Thabeet are in the mix at 2-3, but indicated the distance between the second pick and the sixth pick, the Wolves' current slot, might not mean much is terms of the caliber of player chosen.
56 Reader Comments
Britt, I disagree completely. As to the notion that had Kahn kept McHale that you would have thought there was a precondition placed on Kahn's hiring, that's just replacing logic for cynicism. In other words, let's assume for the moment that keeping McHale was the best choice. Would you in turn fire McHale so as to avoid the conjecture that some would perceive there was a Taylor precondition?
What this tells me is that Kahn, with his own suspect portfolio as GM, would be intimidated by someone of McHale's stature as coach. After all, McHale is a NBA 50 legend and a capable coach.
CA--
If keeping McHale was the best choice, that means the benefits he brings to the table would supercede and eventually make moot any conjecture that Kahn was not his own man.
Kahn's portfolio as GM may currently be suspect, but it's better than McHale's track record in the same job. McHale as personnel guru waited less than three months to can Bill Blair, and dumped Saunders and Casey at the first sign of failure.
Yes, Kevin McHale is a capable coach. But for all the reasons I cited above, which you don't dispute, he is the wrong man at the wrong time to coach the Wolves during the Kahn makeover.
Agree that McHale needed to go. There was too much comfort in the losing, with the current group of players. By the time we reached a 40-win season, it would feel like an NBA title. I hope Kahn's plans involve a high draft pick or two, but also a quality veteran to help turn the culture around, ASAP.
Britt, you eluded to some of the draft prospects. Do you have any thoughts on who would make a good fit for the Wolves? Unless we trade up, it seems like we'll be faced with guys like Curry, DeRozan, Jennings, and Hill at #6. There have been rumors that we'll trade up to #2--if so, it would seem that we'll take either Rubio or Thabeet. I'm curious what you think of any or all of those scenarios.
Andy G--
First the usual cavaet that I don't follow the college game closely and thus have pretty surface opinions on the players involved.
That said, last year's Olympics taught me all I need to know about Rubio. I understand the overwhelming consensus is that Griffin is the best player available, but I'd rather see Rubio in the Wolves uni than anyone else in this draft. The notion of packaging all three first-rounders for the right to draft him is something I would endorse. And as I've said before, Thabeet looks like a bust to me taken anytime before late in the first round: Not enough quickness/hunger/size to win the paint wars at the NBA level.
Of the folks who project at #6, the guy I am most intrigued by is the kid from Memphis, Evans. But a couple of weeks ago I ran into Chris Herrington, the fine blogger for the Memphis Flyer http://www.memphisflyer.com/blogs/BeyondTheArc/, who used to live here and shares my passion for hoops and music. I asked him if he thought Evans could become a point guard in the NBA and he seemed dubious, although he likes Evans overall. If Evans could elevate himself into that control-the-ball combo along the lines of Wade and Roy (even if not at their level), I think he'd be my choice. But if he is a Foye-like 'tweener, then not so much.
CA--
I guess I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make.
To me it boils down to Kahn doing his job--and that is to get this organization back on track. To that end, this decision is (to me) less about McHale's ability as a coach as it is about the inner workings and politics of 600 First Avenue. As Britt pointed out, besides Glen Taylor, McHale predates everyone in the Wolves organization of consequence, and all of them were hired during his tenure and many were directly hired by him. How are you going to facilitate change within an organization's culture if you leave the primary generator of the existing culture within the organization?
I don't think Kahn is intimidated by McHale's stature as an NBA 50 legend and perhaps capable coach. I think Kahn made an organizational--meaning more than just x's and o's, but drafting philosophy, scouting philosophy, marketing, how they identify and negotiate with FA's, business and ticket sales, how the TWolves operate as a complete franchise, basketball team, marketing department, legal department, front office, etc.--decision that for the Wolves to move forward, they had to move through and beyond their past, and that past is engendered most by McHale.
Interesting--I agree, for the most part on Rubio. As a 17-year old, he seemed capable of running an NBA offense, which is pretty remarkable. As long as he can defend on the ball, I think he's a great prospect and agree that he would look better than all other prospects in a Wolves uni, given our power forward situation.
I don't agree on Thabeet. I don't see him as a star in the making, but his shotblocking and incredible improvement over the past three seasons make me think he'll be a good pro. There's nothing very exciting about drafting a future paint defender, but he'll help somebody.
My guess is the Thunder. If OKC has Westbrook hawking the ball, with Thabeet defending the rim, I think Durant can relish the opportunity to (continue to) focus 90% on offense and about 10% on defense.
Britt,
I apologize, this is a little OT, but you said, "and dumped Saunders and Casey at the first sign of failure."
I am still (and always have been) confused as to what Casey's failure was? I have never seen this team play as good team defense before or since Casey's tenure. Any inside ball as to what his failures are? Why is he not coaching today?
biggity--
McHale actually predates Taylor too; he was an advisor to Bob Stein in the old Marv and Harv regime and had a hand in the Marshall for Gugliotta trade that was the very first sign of the Wolves showing a pulse in the history of the franchise.
Andy G--
I know this word is overused, and probably unnecessarily pejorative, but Thabeet looks soft and tentative to me, certainly compared to what I see at the NBA level. I'll never forget one of the very few road trips I have taken in covering the Wolves, down to Orlando, where they seat some of the media almost directly beneath the basket right behind the camera crews. And I saw rookie Dwight Howard battle Kevin Garnett in some of the most physical competition I've ever witnessed outside of boxing matches. There's a reason big men are so unpredictable at the NBA level--it's as much internal fire as external skills. And maybe I'm jumping to conclusions on too small of a viewing sample (part of one regular season game and most of three tournament games), but Thabeet simply doesn't seem like a player who could handle the intensity Howard and KG were bringing to the party.
Matt D.--
He was too nice and too dignified to handle asshole malcontents like Ricky Davis and Mark Blount. Davis ran amok--leaving the court for the locker room after Casey pulled him for not playing all-out, and then later refusing to go back in the game when Casey signalled him in. This was less than a week before Casey was fired.
But as to your greater question, I'd agree that Casey really didn't "fail" so much as not thrive. As to why he's not coaching today, it is a good question, and I don't have an answer.
Thanks Britt, I really appreciate your in depth professional reporting on the Twolves. It's extremely valuable to get excellent coverage of the home club.
I was skeptical of the Kahn hiring but he's said most of the right things so far so I'm keeping my fingers crossed the he knows what he's doing (and not discussing the rumored Al and #6 for Amare deal).
Britt--
I didn't realize that McHale predated Glen. I thought it was a typo in your post, or that I just misread it or something. In my mind McHale is so utterly tied to Glen Taylor that right now it's a little blown over the revelation that McHale predates Taylor.
Wow.
Makes me appreciate all the more just how monumental a shift this is. As Wolves fans it's almost going to be like becoming fans of an entirely new team, because McHale has basically (for most of us, anyways) always been the identity of the Wolves (or at least the management side of it which leads to the court side of it).
Also makes me realize why Kahn keeps saying it's going to be a multi-year process. It's going to take time to change the culture, the processes, the relationships and politics, and then to change the on the court philosophies and talent, etc etc. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
As for moving up in the draft, if Kahn thinks your number one needs to be a wing/guard type, then my guess is that he's either targeting Rubio or Harden. After Griffen Harden strikes as the most sure thing in this draft, with very strong potential to be a #2 and maybe #1 guy in the league. Rubio could be very good as well, but he strikes me as a bit more of a feast or famine type player. My fear is that he's more of a European Jason Williams type than John Stockton type. Anyone else see that, or have better comparisons I should be aware of?
Firing McHale as coash was a bad move. In my eyes he's proven himself as a good coach, and there are very few good coaches in the NBA. I would argue there are less than 10 of them.
The idea that he shouldn't be here because he might throw a passive-aggressive comment the GMs way is silly. So what? Coaches don't always agree with personel decisions.
We'll see how Khan does, but he's off to a bad start. If the Jefferson and the 6th pick for Amare rumors are true, he's 0 for 2.
Britt --
Please. Kahn was quoted as saying that he had to get rid of Kevin because he didn't believe Kevin could handle the changes to the team that Kahn has in mind.
But, can you point to any examples in Kahn's history that demonstrate that he has positively recreated an NBA basketball team? Any before or after record comparisons of same?
Defending Kahn's suspect GM porfolio with Kevin's is a false argument to wage. To wit, was Kevin fired Tuesday for being the GM? It makes no more sense than to compare Kahn's coaching record (non existent) with Kevin's GM record.
You seem to adhere to the grass is always greener on the other side concept. But at this stage, I suggest it is no better than 50/50 that the team will do worse or remain the same (which could be construed as repetitious).
Look, I know you are joined by a mass of Wolves fans who rejoice in the McHale firing. I contend that this is a visceral reaction, not an entirely logical one. In fact, we will not know if the grass is greener until the new coach is hired and establishes his win/loss record.
As an aside, I can't believe the poor public relations effort from Kahn on this firing. Kahn never talk contract with Kevin, which implies that Kahn had made up his mind already. Yet, the world finds out through K-Love's tweet because Love thought that Kahn would have had the good sense to have a communications plan in place. This is not rocket science.
krush--
No question, coaches don't always agree with personnel decisions. But how many of those coaches spent more than a dozen years in the job of the person with whom they are disagreeing? For you to blithely discount the difference in this particular circumstance is not realistic. Nobody worries about McHale throwing a passive-aggressive comment the GM's way. The worry is that he'll seize the ear of the owner who remained loyal to him beyond all normal parameters of performance, and that he'll stubbornly continue to pursue a philosophy of play involving specific roles for players on the roster that have proven unsuccessful, and may be directly at odds with the plans of a boss specifically hired to be a change agent--a guy, in other words, compelled to undo much of McHale's organizational handiwork.
I know you're smart enough to realize all of this, so I wonder why you don't frame your argument in this context. Your approach is as specious as the unsubstantiated rumor--already widely discredited--that the Wolves would make a deal that a child would recognize is not in their interest. Conspiracy theorists might have fun with the timing and source--a Celtics-related site--of that rumor.
To me, Kahn might never have the appeal that other GMs do, but it's partially because his personal appearance screams "weaselly." I've been pleased with the way he's answered questions to this point, with the exception of his public assessments of the talent (and I wasn't there, so that's based on secondhand accounts).
I agree with your assessment, Britt: this was based as much on timing as anything else. It's not like McHale has the track record of Sloan, Jackson, or Popovich, and none of those guys are as closely tied to personnel selection (though Pop certainly has his say). Their best choice would be a McHale-plus, someone who could motivate his players while putting together a winning system. It's a fine line: all of the coaches of conference finalists had problems with either strategy or player management, and the team who won was the team with the most talent and perseverance and the best sense of the moment.
As for the #6, this is the big question: which guy would be hardest to guard in the style of play that Kahn wants to play? He's mentioned Orlando, which makes me think that the guy has to be able to create shots for himself and others. The later picks can be used on drivers who aren't great shooters or shooters who aren't great drivers. The best combination of athleticism and offensive skills would be my guess, which leads me to think Curry or Flynn, with Evans/DeRozan/Jennings/Holiday in proximity.
CA--
I get that you think Kevin McHale has a more acute and deeper knowledge of how to create a winning basketball team than David Kahn. So what do you suggest--that Kahn keep McHale around so McHale can mentor him?
If you don't respect Kahn's ability, you're going to *want* McHale to meddle, and that's a blueprint for dysfunction.
It comes down to some fundamental questions:
Do you think the Wolves, as currently constituted, are well on their way to building a championship contender?
Do you think that Kevin McHale could have dutifully followed the direction and philosophy of David Kahn even if he didn't necessarily agree with it, direction that had the potential of besmirching his legacy and his personal relationships with players and other members of the organization?
Do you believe that any newly hired general manager has the right to establish his own imprimatur on the team by bringing in the personnel he feels is best able to exercise his plan for improvement?
Your whole position is that Kahn is an unqualified boob who has no business running this franchise. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that point so as to pose this question: Are the Wolves better off having McHale try to mitigate the damage created by this unqualified boob, or by letting the unqualified boob fall on his own?
biggity2bit --
I'll try to explain myself better with an example.
Early in my career I was hired to evaluate and change an organization. The chairman basically said he was in trouble, the organization was going no where, and shareholders were upset with the lack of growth. He gave me open license to make any and all changes I deemed necessary. He and the board were impressed with by background of having performed well in previous change situations.
It strikes me that Kahn has been tasked to be the wholesale change agent. There is no doubt that change is needed. Yet Kahn has no prior record of making wholesale changes for a NBA team, no prior record that demonstrates his success in such situations. There is no before and after pictures to view.
Naturally, those of us who are Wolves fans are going to give him the "halo" and say from the onset that he is just what the franchise needs. Conversely, McHale gets the "horns' because he is what was wrong with the organization. Much of this is attributed to his track record as GM. But he was not fired Tuesday as the GM. He was fired as coach.
As coach, McHale did as well as could be expected and he garnered the support of his players. Such good will is essential for an organization undergoing massive change. Now the team begins a coach search and the players are left in a quandary while Kahn contemplates draft selections and free agency without a coach.
Kahn wants to clear the decks. He wants to be wholly responsible and accountable for all changes. While, conveniently, not wanting to set a timetable for when the team will turn around.
But fans have been told by Taylor that they should be patient and that the franchise will soon turn the corner with megabucks to go after star 2010 free agents.
As I was commenting over at Canis Hoopus yesterday, I fully support firing McHale. Even though I believe he is a pretty able NBA coach, he just has way too much baggage with this franchise in terms of his former position as GM and personal relationship with the owner for Kahn to keep him on.
My only issue is with the timing. Everything about McHale's unsuitability going forward was apparent from the moment Kahn was hired--so why didn't he do it then? A lot of organizational turnover is the standard when a new guy comes in anyway, and particularly considering this situation, I don't think anyone would have questioned Kahn's desire to make a change.
Instead of firing McHale immediately, though, Kahn said he was going to leave any head coaching decisions until after the draft, so that they could concentrate on that....but then, just a week before the draft, goes ahead and fires him anyway!
Kahn had to know it would only generate controversy and distraction from the team's draft preparations; plus it offers another instance of his going back on his word (the other being his "adamant" insistence that the team wouldn't draft anyone who didn't work out for them, then backpedaling when Curry announced he would not work out for the Wolves). Minor quibbles, you say, but let's just hope they are not a harbinger of his standard MO....I want to be able to trust what our GM says in public.
Personally I would prefer the GM to be a little more circumspect in his statements--the less you say, the less you have to take back--but so far he has done what he needed to do. Next week's draft will be his real test.
There's plenty of theoretical ways that McHale could have coached this team, and his track record as a coach suggests that he knows how to do a good job.
But, it's nowhere near realistic in this case, for the reasons that Britt and others mention. Kahn is going to reconstruct a roster that McHale proudly assembled, and McHale then is asked to do his best job at making Kahn look great, and in turn, make McHale the GM look stupid? There's a perverse incentive there, and given the common problem with GM's and coaches battling over rookie and young players' minutes, it would probably happen right away after the '09 Draft.
Imagine if Kevin Love gets traded, and McHale is in the position of controlling the new bodies in his place. It's awkward and just a stupid, preventable idea. Kahn put this in a very gracious way, from the comments I read, and tried to explain that it's an unworkable situation, despite McHale's likeable and admirable traits as a basketball man.
Thanks Britt --
I would want any coach (Kevin or the new yet-to-be identified) to have significant input as to the re-fabrication of the Wolves team.
A seasoned GM would be comfortable with that and fully capable of setting the boundaries of such input based upon well defined roles and responsibilities as coach vis-a-vis GM.
McHale (the discredited GM) would not be the best mentor for Kahn the novice GM. I suspect Kahn wouldn't accept Kevin's input in that regard anyway.
But successful change requires some amount of continuity (as paradoxical as that sounds). I would have kept McHale as coach and reevaluated him at the All Star break. It is then when Kahl could determine, based on facts, whether McHale would foster or derail Kahl's master plan for glory.
Look, any GM who is fully accountable (no eventual excuses) has the right to pick his/her own horses. Just as we have the right to question his decision and especially the timing of his decision on McHale.
It's not that I disrespect Kahl's ability. It's just that he doesn't have a track record of success for what he has been tasked to do.
No, I don't think the presently constituted Wolves are destined for glory. But there are two forms of organizational change: (1) wholesale and (2) incremental.
Now, incremental is not popular right now because of the jaded history of the Wolves franchise. You, I and other followers have been sold the "glory is just around the corner" jive for far too long to accept that today.
However, wholesale change turns out to be very disruptive to the formation of a team and does not lead to a near term positive outcome any more than incremental change.
As for letting the unqualified boob fall by his own weight or letting McHale intervene, I don't accept the premise. A coach is not the GM; the GM is not the coach.
But given Kahl's portfolio, I would be taking advice from anyone who is credible and experienced in reconstituting a franchise.
On another note:
Many of you have suggested that McHale would have been small and petty had he stayed on.
That McHale, due to an over-sized ego, would not allow Kahl to whatever he deems necessary.
That McHale would only engage in legacy protection, etc. etc.
This seems a bit of a stretch. On what basis would you come to that conclusion?
CA-
I base it on human nature. McHale was demoted, and his replacement is going to blow up his previous work, that McHale was publicly very proud of. It doesn't seem like a positive situation to have McHale then in the position to be the on-the-ground general of Kahn's troops.
Almost anybody would consider that to be unhealthy, compared to a fresh face with pure excitement about the situation. It's not like we can prove either way how McHale would have done with a new team--but it's about what's best in this situation, right now. It seems like most agree that what's best right now is for somebody who is not Kevin McHale to be put in charge of coaching David Kahn's team.
As for the timing issue, a lot of people (not on this blog but others) have placed the blame on Kahn, but not many have pointed the finger at McHale. I'm not saying it's McHale, but isn't it at least plausible that he forced Kahn's hand and Kahn isn't saying it because he doesn't want to get into a pissing match?
CA--
Vices and virtues are generally not black and white but contribute to each other. The very things that make McHale a good coach--staunch support for his players, an abiding, somewhat unconventional philosophy on how the game should be played, and unflagging optimism and self-confidence in what he is doing--also make him liable to sabotage Kahn's emerging blueprint, either purposefully or with the most charitable of intentions.
Remember, this guy has had more personal authority over the course of the Timberwolves than anyone in franchise history. From the time he was a high school star in Hibbing, he has done a pretty good job of controlling his own destiny (remember his holding out for a better contract his rookie year?) while at the same time disdaining the petty politics and incremental compromises to which lesser mortals have long ago been forced to adjust. For example, consider his attitude and posture toward player agents. Consider his itchy trigger finger on Dwane Casey.
You are the one couching this potential friction with Kahn's blueprint as "legacy protection" and "small and petty." I could just as easily define exactly the same behavior as McHale honestly trying to do everything possible to ensure what he regarded as the best possible outcome for his ballclub. And so could McHale. Hence, the problem.
McHale was like that old, lovable mutt Taylor loved so much that he had to hire an axe man to put the old boy down. I don't mean this snidely: sometimes we are so blinded by loyalty, admiration and fondness that we can't do what is right because of the pain we will inflict on a loved one. So it was with Taylor and McHale. Kahn saw the writing on the wall and did what was necessary for the franchise to move on.
As far as the draft is concerned, I agree with Brit that after Griffin, Rubio is the guy the Wolves should target. There are a ton of young, potential-laden point guards in this draft even after Rubio: Evans (who is the only guy I have seen play), Brandon Jennings, Johnny Flynn, Ty Lawson, and the list goes on. Unless they get a vet in a trade and hang onto Bassy as a backup then the Wolves almost have to take a point guard somewhere in the first round.
Britt --
Based on what? There seems to be a running narrative that Kevin is some dark, insidious character of ill intent.
As GM, Kevin fired Casey in what seemed to be a hasty impulsive move. But Kevin wasn't fired Tuesday as GM.
But on what predictive basis can you say that McHale would have torpedoed Kahl's grand design? Answer: You can't.
Kevin should have been extended to the All Star break as coach and reevaluated at that time. It is at the juncture that Kahn could make a fair assessment; the franchise isn't going to turn glorious by then anyway no matter what kind of pixie dust Kahn is spreading.
No more than you or anyone else can be completely confident as to whether Kahn is the solution or just another problem in a long series.
It seems like a great deal of personal projection going on without much fact to support it. How can anyone reliably say with any certitude that Kevin would be a hindrance to Kahn's grand design? How can anyone say with any certitude that Kevin's batch of "virtues and vices" will turn detrimental to the grand change wizard?
Again, for you and others, it all relates back to Kevin the GM. He wasn't fired Tuesday as GM, folks.
CA--
My patience is running pretty thin with this continual line of reasoning.
If you don't see how Kevin McHale is compromised in his role of coach by the enormous length and influence of his tenure as VP of personnel, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you any better or further than I've already attempted.
And if you don't see why Kahn would want a clean slate, for reasons that go beyond his supposed insecurity with McHale's exalted status, then we just look at the world and human relations in a very different manner.
CA, it's illogical to assume that McHale the GM won't have any bearing on McHale the coach. No one's saying he got fired as coach just because he was a bad GM. What I'm inferring from reading others' comments is that McHale isn't worth the conflict of interest or the awkwardness that bringing him back could create. That means that while he's not a bad coach, he's not worth the trouble. No one here is saying he would try to intentionally harm Kahn. But you're assuming that he's just going to play nice and follow Kahn's orders, and that can't be assumed, either.
Also, what makes you think that a)McHale would take a one-year deal; b)Taylor would give him a multi-year deal while giving Kahn the authority to fire McHale at midseason of the first year of that deal; or c) bringing him back for a one-year evaluation would be good for the players? If Kahn was just going to evaluate him for half a season, there's no way he'd get more than a one-year offer.
Bottom line: Kahn deserves the same opportunity to do things his way that McHale received. If he made this decision because he thought McHale-as-coach would significantly impede that, it's his call. Larry Bird fired Isiah Thomas despite the Pacers making the playoffs in each of his seasons as coach, and Bird had less FO experience than Kahn does. Sam Presti came to Seattle/OKC with similar experience as Kahn and replaced Bob Hill with P.J. Carlesimo even though Hill has a better record. Daryl Morey came to Houston with almost no experience and didn't stand for Jeff Van Gundy's waffling; he fired him despite three playoff appearances in four years. All of those guys have better career winning %s than McHale. If Kahn fails, it won't be because he made this move.
CA-
To separate Kevin the GM from Kevin the coach is not possible: they are the same man. Having a GM lose his position and be given the position of coaching the team he as GM put together is, at best, a strange and strained attempt of Glenn Taylor to change without changing.
This situation is more about Glenn Taylor and his affinity/loyalty to Kevin McHale. Kahn is doing what Taylor couldn't do but what had to be done.
Kevin McHale is no villain: he built the current Wolves team and the teams that preceded it for the last decade-and-a-half. He has emotional and professional ties to that team is inextricably linked to its fate even now that he is gone. To say that this only applies to Kevin the GM is too much for me to go along with. His "role" as coach of the club was different than his "role" as GM of the club but that does not discount his relationship to individuals on the court and in the front office and in the stands. McHale was an Albatross around the neck of this organization. That doesn't mean he was evil. That doesn't denigrate him as a coach or GM. He weighed heavy on every aspect of the Timberwolves and to actually move on and rebuild requires his being cut loose.
No one can say anything either way about Kahn yet. This is his first move and, let's face it, a fairly obvious one. The big test will be what kind of talent he puts together and at what price. If the Wolves stumble along as they have then his only legacy will be as the hatchet man Glenn Taylor could not be. If the Wolves make it back to the playoffs in the next three years then he will be a success.
CA, you are right on about predictability in these situations. If anyone accurately predicts what the Wolves do in the next week much less the next months and years, it will be either pure luck or by throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. The jettisoning of McHale was the most predictable situation we will see from this franchise for what may be several years. The fact that Kevin McHale has had his last say into what happens with the Timberwolves should not elate anyone. It is cold comfort to anyone who follows a team that is in the unenviable situation the Wolves find themselves in. McHale had more than his fair share of chances to right this ship. It is time someone else gets a shot.
I have enjoyed watching McHale as both a player and a coach. Not so much as a GM. I think Kahn eased him out as gently as possible, but he had to go. McHale still thinks the current team is good enough to compete in the NBA. No one else thinks that. Kahn can't keep a coach that overvalues his players.
As for Rubio, if he falls to #5, I would trade up for him. My strong preference is to trade with Washington for the #5 regardless of where Rubio falls to. The Wolves need a new backcourt, and if they had both the #5 and #6, they could get one. Curry - Evans - Brewer/Gomes - Love - Jefferson.
Britt makes many fine points. Myself, I'm going to go with pretty much the stated reason: It had become obvious that McHale had far too many basic objections to Kahn's vision wrt to how to build an NBA team.
For example, I believe that there is plenty of validity for using statistical analysis in team/player evaluation. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that Kahn would want to use all the metrics now available and that McHale would pooh pooh the whole process, relying on his gut instincts. There simply *must* be disagreement between the two on whether Jefferson is best utilized at the 4 or the 5. There's likely a dozen or more subjects where Kahn disagree, perhaps none of them fatal by themselves or worth mentioning in public/ So as (I believe) it became clear to Kahn that McHale just didn't see things the same way, the firing became inevitable.
In my opinion there were far more reasons to fire McHale than reasons to keep him. He's gone. I'm fine with that -- which is not to say I'm necessarily fine with Khan.
There's one of Kahn's opportunity windows open this month. Let's see what he does with them.
BTW, although this firing is pretty big news, I anticipate a future where the playres and coach make all the headlines, not the GM.
Britt --
My patience is thread worn with your illogical conclusions too.
It is unfortunate that you can't see beyond your misconceptions and misguided conjecture regarding Coach McHale. It would make you a better, more informed scribe.
I don't doubt, nor have I lead anyone to believe, that I didn't think Kahn wants to have a clean slate -- that is incredibly obvious.
What is equally obvious is that he was a lousy hire with zero track record of accomplishments in the area of which he is tasked to perform.
I give him less than a 30 percent chance of improving the future fate of this franchise.
I also predict that you and your ilk will be on his rear like flies on poop, whining and moaning, by this time next year.
CA,
As a corporate veteran myself, I am surprised at your statements. It would be SOP anyplace else to get rid of someone who has been demoted and who has long-standing ties to the head guy, with the potential to undermine not only the new boss, but all the underlings as well. I think Kahn did it as well as he could, under the circumstances. In my experience, someone in McHale's position would have made a graceful exit and tried to make the path smoother for the employees that remained in the organization.
Good luck in your career. We would have differed in our approach to other managerial challenges. But who knows who is correct. You have made it clear you have confidence in your approach.
I'm in the camp that thinks McHale was a great head coach. And while we waited an entire two years (typed with all the sarcasm I could muster) to see how quickly we could turn it around, we didn't see much from this team at multiple times this season. It's unfortunate that he's leaving - I'd *really* like to see him continue teaching our big men - but fan perception would be that he's still got a hand in our affairs. I think the firing is also a combination of Kahn's need for a new start, and McHale's unwillingness to be a long-term coach.
That said, I hope we're all paying attention to Washington for more than trade purposes - Flip, Witt, and Sam I Am on the coaching staff? I think a Mike Miller would be good for that team, despite his lack of mid-range game - are the rumors that Miller is valuable enough to really get the #5? That seems a little farfetched for a contract year guy with game left.
Also, I'm officially on the Brandon Jennings bandwagon, but I'm also excited about our #18 pick - I think a good value can definitely be had at the PG position between Lawson, Maynor, and Teague. Keeping Bobby Brown off the court should be a priority, and all three of those guys can score. I'm a little shaky on how much pick-and-roll these guys ran on a regular basis, but I think Love's play could be improved by a 2nd unit PG who plays it well.
CA,
Why is Kahn's lack of a track record so important, yet not McHale's record as a coach?
..and let me remind you, his record is worse than Caseys and not much better than the terrible Whittman.
CA --
Of course Kahn will be criticized if he fails. But he deserves the opportunity to do things his way; then, everyone can evaluate him on the way it's turned out. Every other GM in the NBA gets this chance, but if they screw up, they will hear about it. I'm guessing most of the posters on this board are skeptical about Kahn, but the time for evaluation will come. It's just not now. Congratulations, you'll have bragging rights if he doesn't succeed.
It's obvious you don't like the hiring of Kahn and are fixated on using this as an example of his incompetence. No one's buying it. Not because we're McHale haters or because we're seduced by Kahn, but because any new guy deserves an opportunity to prove themselves. And because, frankly, there are better coaches out there than McHale. A lot of them.
To be fair, there was exactly one former GM who expressed interest in the Wolves' job, Randy Pfund, and even his credentials were suspect because he was associated with Pat Riley for so long. Everyone the Wolves interviewed was involved in the personnel decisions of an NBA (Kahn with the Pacers from 95-04), but most or all had never had final say over personnel. It's not like they picked Kahn over Jerry West and Red Auerbach. Saying he has no experience is like saying a vice president has no experience with being president. Technically, it's true, but there's a lot more to it than that.
CA-
I will say what no one else will say because this board is so mature and polite. Yer stupid.
McHale deserves to be fired for gift wrapping Kevin Garnett to former teammate Danny Ainge and replacing him on the prospective roster by wasting a draft pick on Duluth East and two year Gopher Rick Rickert
Let's just substitute "Glen Taylor's son" into this coaching equation. If Kahn was hired after Glen Taylor's son had, well, ruined the franchise in order to clean up the mess, who with an ounce of pride in doing his job would agree to the clause that Glen Taylor's son can stay on as coach?
Secondly, couldn't you make this same argument to justify keeping Isiah Thomas on as coach of the Knicks when Donnie Walsh was brought in to GM? After all, Thomas was an ok coach too? Yet, it was obvious to anybody who could tell you that the Knicks were from New York that there is no way that keeping Isiah on as coach was a realistic scenario that you could sell to the fans.
The ONLY way you can justify keeping McHale on as coach would be if his abilities were so top-shelf and unduplicable that it was worth the potential disrupting in the authority hierarchy and continued alienation of the fan base. The guy's a decent coach and I think did a good job getting a lot out of limited resources, but I don't think anybody can reasonably consider him one of the league's top coaches. Why is he worth the trouble?
If you don't like Kahn as a GM hire, that's fine, but that's an irrelevant issue entirely. You could make Bill Simmons or T-Pain the GM of the Wolves, and it would be wrong to retain McHale as coach.
Fact is, I'm not *overly* thrilled about the Kahn hire. However, I am beaten down to the point where I am willing to except a GM with no experience, maybe even a failed stop somewhere, and Brad-Childress like media relation skills at this point for a chance that we might not botch the NBA Draft -- something that was a virtual certainty under McHale's watch.
@Neil:
I would totally get behind a "T-Pain" for Wolves GM campaign. But only if he wears his top hats to the games.
Big Al and the #6 for Amare, eh? Interesting. Thoughts? - even though it probably won't happen.
I think Kahn wants to draft Curry.
NO NO NO to that Amare "deal". These are the kind of rumors that are almost too laughable to even discuss with a straight face. I wouldn't even do Amare for Al straight up. You get about the same amount of defense, less rebounding, and far less post game. Amare can see the floor a bit better (eye almost avoided making an eye joke there), but the guy is not worth a top pick AND our best player.
Yeah, I'm glad that there don't seem to be any legs to the Amare for Al and the #6. Amare is a phenomenal player, but I don't think he's much of an upgrade over Jefferson, especially as a center.
I'm also hoping they don't trade Love for the to move up and draft Rubio. With all the points in this draft (and few other positions seemingly strong) I'd think they could get Curry or Jennings and be in just as good of shape. Maybe I'm way off base and Rubio will be a transcendent talent.
Finally, in regards to Britt's original post, I wish McHale the coach could work with the young bigs and continue to train them, but the weirdness of him trying to ignore the team he built get cast aside is probably too much. I don't have abundant faith in Kahn, but I'm willing to be disappointed by someone new for a change.
Britt - thanks for your write up. Insightful as always.
I always enjoy reading the comments by everybody, even if I don't agree with them. My question for CA is, have you ever bossed your former boss? I can tell you it doesn't work very well, especially if you are doing a better job than your boss did. There are all kind of "little" problems that can come up. One thing that I would like to point out, based on my (faraway) observation of McHale as coach is the fact that he thinks rookies need to earn thier time. How well do you think it would go over if Kahn gets Rubio to come in here and McHale only played him for 13-15 min a night? That right there would be a major conflict, even if McHale is just doing what he thinks is right. He is not backstabbing Kahn ( at least in his eyes), but doing what he has done in the past. That is an example of what could happen and (probably) why Kahn thought McHale had to go.
Britt,
Let me start by thanking you for all of your superb writing in the past. You are objective and to the point, you call it as you see it. Hopefully there are many more columns to come.
You opened my eyes to a point of view that I did not consider. I thought McHale was fired simply because the majority of season ticket holders and fans wanted him gone. I still think that is true.
You then suggested that McHale was removed because Khan was going to dismantle the team that McHale built. He then would be left with players he didn't have strong feelings about like the players he has now. How could McHale be happy coaching the new squad he was presented with? I don't think he could be.
As Mr. Spock would say...Your logic is flawless.
With McHale gone, Khan can do anything he wants to do, without looking over his shoulder, wondering if Mr. Taylor, through McHale would disagree with him.
I like Kevin Love, but it looks like Khan will send him packing for the right deal. Just imagine what McHale would think about that!
This was Khan's only move.
One caveat here, this is a poor draft. Teams are going to get burned this year and I hope it is not Khan!
I love Curry at number six, and a tall SF or SG who can shoot at eighteen. Also, I like someone like Omri Casspi at twenty eight if he is there.
Yes, we do need a center who can defend. Maybe we can pick one up through a trade. Lastly, I think Thabeet is a major risk early on.
Teams will be burned in this draft. It will be interesting.
Thanks again Britt
Nick
Mac is gone, for better or worse. I think for better. I work in corporate America too, does that give my opinions more weight? Because what could possibly be more awesome?
Anyone who hasn't seen this yet should read it: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-41-116/Minnesota-s-Massive-Point-G...
It's pretty easy to get hyped over a player, in this case, Tyreke Evans. He's a 6'5" PG who goes to the hoop like LeBron -- and that looks great in a workout against other point guards. But an NBA PG will encounter a lot of defensive pressure from some really big people, and Tyreke will be forced to make the other plays, i.e., pass and shoot. Unfortunately, those are things that Evans is not so good at -- according to the Draft Express writeup:
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tyreke-Evans-1110/
The problem is that he's an incredibly ball-dominant point guard, often looking like a fish out of water when he's forced to give up the rock for more than a few seconds. Memphis' offense often looks quite stagnant, with Evans over-dribbling the ball at the top of the key as his four teammates stand around and twiddle their thumbs. He can be pretty sloppy with the ball at times, displaying questionable decision-making skills and incredibly poor shot-selection, which wouldn't be as much of an issue if he was able to make shots at a respectable rate from the perimeter.
With his poor shooting mechanics (he fades away unnecessarily on every attempt) Evans is very streaky with his feet set in catch and shoot situations, and downright dreadful shooting the ball off the dribble. He only converts a dismal 25% of his jump-shots according to Synergy Sports Technology, but the problem is that he settles for them on a regular basis—they make up about 40% of his possessions, often with a hand in his face and early in the shot clock no less. While his skill-set may develop in time, Evans' mentality looks extremely questionable — it's hard not to come away with the impression that he's a pretty selfish player. He's likely going to have to revamp his shooting stroke entirely if he's to ever become even a decent threat from the NBA 3-point line, something he's been unwilling to do up until this point.
It doesn't sound to me like the best teammate for a guy named Al Jefferson, who also looks like a fish out of water when the ball is out of his hands.
Kahn's mileage may vary.
Well my thoughts on the draft are mixed. I would love to see Rubio. He looks great and everyone forgets, he is so young. He has played at top competition and has been in the spotlight. He seems to have a great attitude, is someone everyone can cheer for, would bring in international attention(and cash). He does have some athleticism issues but really he seemed ok in the Olympics when alot of people looked foolish vs. US.
Fact is. We dont have a top 2 pick. So I would not mind us trading up or trading the number 6. I think Calathes will be available later and as I have stated before I think he is a mini-version of Rubio. Less skilled, less developed but same mold. He is a pass first PG that has experience running an offense. That said he can shoot and play off guard. I know were afraid of tweeners but this guy is a PG 1st, SG 2nd. His defense is suspect. Yet he has size at 6'6 and has collected a respectable amount of steals.
Unlike everyone else I like Thabeet. I think he will develop the fire to play and he already blocks like a monster, then again if I am wrong we will end up with a Olwakandi or Kwami Brown.
Rubio is the Gold, but Jennings is GoldA. Not a bad consolation if we can get him.
I wouldn't mind Evans, either. I could probably be talked into Lawson.
Anyone else, no.
Jennings just strikes me bad. Attitude wise reminds me of Rashad. I could be wrong but the guy looks to try and take over games but he really isnt as solid as he tries to be. Sometimes he will wow you but mostly he will disrupt flow and ruin team chemistry.
TRADE
Mike Miller and Randy Foye for the 5th pick, Etan Thomas, Darius Songila and Oleksiy Pecherov.
Discuss.
There are still more moves to come - I have no idea how we're going to play all these big men at once. Love and Al are hopefully staying, Gomes is a good two-way player with a sane contract, so either Craig or Cardinal are the odd men out, we make a big splash with Jefferson or Love, or...??
Nice move for both teams - now that I'm cheering for Flip's team again as well - but I'm not sold on an all-rookie backcourt. At least we've positioned ourselves to acquire the players we've targeted (Evans and Curry most likely), or catch Thabeet or Rubio on the off-chance they fall. Gutsy move, but I like pressing the reset button on our perimeter D...was anyone really sold on Foye or Miller contributing significantly to this team in the future?
Whaaaat? I am the only one thinking this? Are we going to go with a completely new backcourt next year?
Not to derail any comments on the trade, but am I the only person not drinking the Curry-spiked Kool-Aid? I won't deny that he does things that I wish every SG prospect could do (use a screen and shoot like Reggie Miller), but a six-foot PG who never really ran the pick-and-roll? And isn't he going to be posted up all day, especially with our worse-than-average weak-side D? I do like Brandon Jennings (and Rubio of course), despite the attitude.
Also, I'd like to point out that it appears Taylor is opening his wallet and spending money (barring a future trade that negates this one). Glad he's willing to fully support his decision to go with Kahn, rather than just make him a hatchet-man.
Reports have us trying to move up to the second spot. If we pull it off, I say we go with Rubio. For all the same reasons Britt and others have already stated. Thabeet strikes me as a clone of Dalembert, while an ok starting center not worthy a #2 pick.
Portland is always willing to trade. Work a deal to bring us the Vanilla Gorilla Pryzbilla. That should be Kahn's "perfect fit" center.
Post new comment
Blogs
Sports
Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Alex Halsted
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson
Society
Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines
A&E
Fiction:
Write Now! by Terry Faust
Retired
Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff
- Contact:
- Secrets Staff
- Write to Editors
- Send Press Release
- Reprint Request
- Work at Secrets of the City
- Our Address:
- Secrets of the City
- PO Box 3690
- Minneapolis, MN 55403
- (651) 356-8714
©2002-2009 Entropy Publishing, LLC. No part of this site may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Entropy Publishing, LLC. except that an individual may print for personal use and/or forward articles via e-mail to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes. Thanks to FAMFAMFAM and Tango Project for their icons.
Media Partners
