Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
On the Ball
An important little trade
Now the Telfair deal is less troublesome. President of Basketball Operations David Kahn acquired a decidedly sub-mediocre 34-year old backup point guard with an expiring contract in a trade with Oklahoma City the other day, and in terms of short-term tinkering, it was a savvy swap. Unlike the departed Telfair, Atkins shouldn't and won't have any illusions that he is the best long-term answer for the Wolves as a floor general. And because he knows that whatever precious few meal tickets he has left in this league will be contingent on him being a selfless teacher who doesn't make waves, he should be able to help Jhonny Flynn and (if he's here) Rickey Rubio with the ways and means of point guard challenges in the NBA.
Let's have no illusions about Atkins. The high-water mark in his career was five years ago when he started every game for a Lakers franchise treading sludge between championships. He's averaged more than five assists per game just once in ten years in the league, and is shooting 41.3% for his career (36.6% from trey). But on nights when Flynn and/or Rubio are being overwhelmed or dinged up, Atkins can be thrown into the fray and even if he sparkles, there won't be controversy about future minutes. Atkins literally knows the drill of practices and travel and zone traps and pecking orders. He should have one job and one job only--to make Flynn and Rubio better. And despite all his limitations he is better equipped to do that than a hungry, more talented 24-year old Bassy Telfair.
The other player acquired from OKC is Damien Wilkins, who I remember being a particular favorite of ex-Wolves head coach Dwane Casey, who was an assistant coach in Seattle during Wilkins' rookie year. Wilkins is in many respects a poor man's Ryan Gomes, albeit two inches shorter at 6-6 and more likely to swing between the 2 and the 3 instead of the 4. He knows his niche is dirty work--defense, physicality, and role-player intelligence. His $3.3 million deal in 09-10, like Atkins's$3.5 million, comes off the books at the end of the season.
To get these players, Kahn sacrificed Etan Thomas, a power forward-center who is a wonderful and perceptive human being but grossly overpaid at $8 million this year (third behind Jefferson and Q-Richardson on the Wolves roster). I think Darius Songalia (like Thomas, acquired from the Wizards in the Foye-Miller-Rubio deal) can do many of the same things more effectively.
In short, a minor trade in the grand scheme of things, but one that will make the Wolves a better, happier ballclub next season and provide whoever the hell is supposed to coach this squad with more options and locker room cohesion.
Closing note: I'm headed out tomorrow on a three-week camping trip through seven states (Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon and Washington). There will be some occasions when we'll emerge for a shower and wireless connections (plus time with friends and family in Seattle and Olympia) when I'll try and weigh in on the new coach (there will be one, right?). I'm leaving my cell phone coordinates with the Wolves' PR department, so maybe I can talk with the coach and/or Kahn shortly after the decision is announced. Meanwhile, I am perfectly content letting the most intelligent group of inmates on the hoop-oriented web run this particular asylum--and will be monitoring it to see if my trust and instincts are accurate. As always, thanks for reading.
58 Reader Comments
Britt --
Enjoy the camping trip. Perhaps a unicorn and a trail mix of Hopium with light your way. Hell, bring moon man Ethan with you. In all sincerity, enjoy the ride and hurry back, we will miss you.
You're reading more into this inconsequential exchange than I believe warranted. This was purely a minor money play with a likely dump of both Wilkins and Chucky before season start. In essence, a swap of sheep dip for sheep dip.
Wilkins earned a nasty reputation last year, between the whining and moaning about lack of ticks and his injuries. Don't need bad attitude in a locker room.
So far, the Dingus slate of acquisitions looks like the Island of Lost Boys. Welcome to the Wolves, new coach X.
* will light your way
CA- Always a pleasure to hear the other side of the argument. Could you begin to specify precisely which Kahn initiatives you believe have been most suspect? One would be hard pressed, I think, to criticize the current move as something that cost us much to gain a partially guaranteed contract of reasonable size, something currently valued as a result of the economic pinch. As readers know, however, your ire is long-standing. Should begin to let our eyes glaze over when reading your sweeping pessimism, or are there specific points of FO strategy to which you wish to call attention?
*should we
A three-weeker? If anyone deserves it its you, Britt. But still...
I recall an episode of West Wing where the top campaign political guy described his job and his level of commitment in sailing terms. Basically, if there was anything he could do, no matter the danger, to make his boat move just a smidge faster in the water, like remove a wayward leech from the hull, he would do it.
David Kahn reminds me of that West Wing character.
Guys who played 69% of last year's minutes are no longer on the team. He's made three trades in about 35 days. His draft day generated more buzz than any other team. He has interviewed a dozen head coach prospects. He flew to Spain to help reel in his prize catch. He has taken complete control of a major sports franchise.
He promised no one would outwork him and his team and so far he is absolutely right.
The Wolves front office has moved from playing checkers or maybe cribbage to somewhere between chess, speed chess and 3D chess.
TheH:
Always nice to be referred to as a "pleasure." If indeed you have thoughtfully read my comments (as everyone should), you would have learn in great specificity what my issues have been with Dingus and the horrid history of my Timberwolves.
But let me be clear: I am a basketball fan much more than a homer. I don't look at matters with rose colored glasses. In fact, the Timberwolves franchise has been one of the worse ran NBA clubs this century (and before). Moreover, there has been little evidence to date that the club's winning percentage will improve beyond last year's record.
Let's me humor you will a few from the list:
1. Dingus was a lousy choice. He had been toiling away in the D-League when Taylor found him; he never sat in the number one chair before (he was second fiddle behind Donny); his self-proclaimed greatest accomplishment at Indy was drafting Tinsley; much of his effort in Indy was leading the effort to build a new arena -- a quality not needed here;
2. Firing McHale rather than holding on to him until a review at the All Star Break 2010 was an unforced error. While McHale was a terrible GM, his career coaching record will exceed the win/loss record of the Wolves 2009/10;
3. Dingus calling out Al Jefferson (no greater than a #2 option) and Kevin Love was incredibly stupid. Reminds me of a familiar quote on leadership: "Public flocking will continue until morale improves;"
4. I don't quibble with the draft selections, the players. I won't even complain should it later be determined that others picked behind them turn out better. But I do take issue with Dingus decision to select a draftee that others passed on because of his buyout risk. It could turn out well but it too could turn out bad. Either way, for a losing franchise, a risk nonetheless;
5. As for the recent flurry of trades, the only serviceable player is back-up Songalia. The others are on tired legs and bad attitudes.
If anything, Dingus has set back the Taylor Plan by a year (or more). The Taylor Plan was the win 40 games in 2009/10 with the 2010 FA supposedly giving the club an added boost.
Another issue I have is with the notion that the flurry of Dingus activity somehow equates to something substantive-- it hasn't. But shouldn't he be making substantive moves to improve the franchise?
The Wolves approach to the 2010 FA is filled with misconceptions: (1) that the losing Wolves will attract tier A free agents, or (2) that the Wolves will pick up players that other clubs cast off in the interest of garnering cap space.
As to the first misconception, no 2010 free agent with a choice is coming to Minnesota. Regarding the second misconception, explain to me how a team like the Wolves build a winning franchise out of the cast-offs from conference leaders while they acquire Tier A free agents?
Grading Kahn so far I, as others have, would give him an incomplete; but I find his moves more interesting and curious than ding(us)dong..
Money still buys whiskey. In this harsh economic environment, the TW's have extremely valuable assets (1st round picks and expiring contracts) that can be a monster benefit for teams battling the bottom line.
Or the expirings position the TW's to make top offers to free agents. Again, money talks. If Team A from the tundra offers a multi-year deal to Player X that is $2 mill a year greater than Team B from the sandy beach offers, my chips are on Team A getting the player. $6-$10 mill more over the life of a 3-5 year contract is a lot of cha-ching. For almost every NBA player, it is about the sweet moola and not about loyalty or the championship ring.
Kahn to date is neither dingus nor maestro. His moves: the prelude not the overture. Fat lady’s are still in wardrobe.
Elastico:
"Money still buys whiskey" which Wolves fans will need in vast amounts in the foreseeable seasons based upon what has been seen to date.
Keep me posted when the Wolves have an equal chance for winning versus losing. I'm prepared to be very patient.
CA- I'll wait until the end of the concert before I'll decide if Kahn struck a sour note. My ability to see the future is obvioulsy not in high-def technicolor as are your Gary Spivey-like proclamations.
You apparently aren't doing your job..Its obvious the wolves arent keeping atkins..he could be gone by the end of the week. you never mentioned anything about his partially guaranteed contract, thats the reason kahn did this..and its obvious if you read some of his quotes..cmon britt you can do better...your reminding me of sid right now....
Bryan-
First of all, it's you're, as in "you are reminding me of Sid right now." I don't mind you being critical of information, but let's figure out the use of the apostrophe before preaching (also, "its obvious" is it is, as in it's--- also "thats" is that's) knowledge to others. Capitalize names and don't use .. unless it's . . . the ending of a thought to be continued or intended to lead someone to a presumed, and therefore obvious, nonstated conclusion.
Bottom line, Bryan, if you're going to throw stones, don't . . .
That's how you do it. Bryan, you can do better.
Britt, thanks for weighing in. Your voice is always appreciated. Camp safe.
Bryan--
If Atkins is gone by the end of the week, then yes, I'll have totally misread the situation. And if the Wolves go into the season with no better PG mentor and Atkins gone, then I'll have underestimated Kahn's desire to clear salary space at the expense of halting short term corrosion. An overeliance on a single minded priority that I believe would be detrimental to the ballclub.
I've got two "jobs" here: To gather all existing available information for context, and to deliver my best analysis of what the team is and should be doing. While putting together the logistics for a three-week camping trip across seven states, the information-gathering end of things was a casualty. If you find my work wanting so much on that score, there are other options for you around the web.
As for the second job, I stand by my position that, contrary to Captain America's assertion that Wilkins is a potential cancer and attitude problem, he will be a good locker room fit. And I double down on my assertion that, if allowed to play out the season, Chucky Atkins is a net upgrade over "nobody" as a point guard mentor.
More...
Dingus is a walking contradiction. He rids vet players because he wants the team to be in the early-20s like Al Jefferson and K-Love. But then he goes out and trades vets from what? More 30-something.
im not sure why people are dissing Chucky's game so bad. That year with tha Lakers, he averaged well over 20 points when Kobe went down.
Then he went to Memphis (after a brief stint with Washington) and played outstanding off the bench (including a game winner from almost half court.)
These last 2 years were the ONLY bad ones of his career. One cuz of injury and last year cuz he fell out of rotation.
He has ALWAYS constributed when given the minutes.
He is a great 3pt shooter (even tho Al dont kick out to his shooters)
As someone who followed the Sonics' death march WAY too closely, I don't think "cancer" is a fair description of Wilkins. He did have a maddening tendency to try and create shots far beyond his ability to make them, kind of the other extreme of Miller. But, as a backup 2/3, he's probably a better contributor than Q; so yeah, sheep dip. But, I've never heard anything about locker room scuffles with him, which is more than could be said for Etan Thomas.
Britt I love your takes as always. I hate to quibble, but the quality of this discussion and constructive thoughts are getting a little tired with Captain America and his "Dingus" Schtick. Every transaction and subsequent blog post is another tired Captain America explanation of all the things David Kahn may have done wrong in his first 2 months on the job. We get it Captain, you don't like David Kahn and think that every single move he has made has been a failure. Yawn.
I sincerely hope that this doesn't turn into another Viking-like comment board with Chilly and T-Joke and all the tired psuedo-nymns that are thrown out as another forum for Minnesota pessimists to spew their uncreative bile, but I guess until their is an ignore feature we are forced to read all that is posted. That's too bad.
I also find it unlikely that Atkins will be kept when the savings are right there. 760,000 of 3.48 million is guaranteed-- Kahn could sign someone with actual long-term potential for 2.7 million (or it could buy whiskey... by the bottle!).
There are still plenty of decayed/decaying veteran point guard types who can probably pass and run an offense as well or better and that can be had at bargain prices, even the subsidized veterans minimum. From hoops hype free agent list, apologies if somethings changed already:
Anthony Carter, Jason Hart, Mike Wilks, Tyronn Lue, Royal Ivey, Jacque Vaughn, Brevin Knight, Keith McLeod, Mateen Cleaves, Will Conroy, Bobby Jackson!!!
There are more too... and this is skipping high risk/high production/just plain high options like Tinsley or Freakshow Marbury
My hope for completing the roster would be a scorer/shooter on the wing who could put points up in bunches to help keep games entertaining or even close on low energy nights when embarrassing, spirit-bruising blowouts are likely. When rookies and sophmores are playing like rookies and sophmores. Ideally, this would also be someone young with the potential to grow into more than they are now and who would cost about 2.7 mil, maybe with a team option for year 2.
Someone like... Rashad McCants? Gerald Green?
There are better options though, particularly Von Wafer. Other possibilities include Luther Head, Linas Kleiza, Anthony Roberson, Morris Almond, Marquis Daniels (if the boston deal fell through).
Or do you think Carney is good enough in this role?
Oh and as far as a wing who can score-- it would not surprise me if QRich in a contract year gets it together and is a reliable offensive weapon. But it also wouldn't surprise me if he gets hurt and barely plays.
I agree with Ebomb, Elastico and other posters, the results of Kahn's moves will play out over the course of a few seasons, and its impossible for anyone to grade his performance to date.
I am excited in that he is trying to make changes, which this woebegone franchise desperately needs to do. This franchise was dead in the water under McHale, and it drove KG away. Kahn is busy trying to accumulate assets and position the team to improve, something they weren't likely to do by hanging on to Mike Miller or Randy Foye (both have "journeyman" written all over their games and careers.)
As I've said before, you win in the NBA with superstars, and Kahn is working to be in a position to acquire them. Rubio might be one, and Flynn could turn out to be very good (he has the speed and the hops to make an impact in the game.) Big Al is a scoring machine, if defensive liability, and K-Love has a feel for the game that may compensate for his lack of size. The season will show if anyone else deserves to be on a playoff contender.
The Timberwolves are interesting again, something they certainly were not the past five years. I might even get my season tickets back after a one year hiatus.
Another thought regarding the NBA and the economy. The NBA is not immune to the economic downturn. Salary cap will probably get pinched again next year. For a number of reasons, teams will not have as much money to chase their dreams.
Take a look at the economy: House prices are soft, oil prices have dropped, cars are discounted, and so on. I think free agents, as a whole, will be less expensive, also--fewer dollars available for bidding wars. It is a great time in this economy to be a buyer if you have the capital/cash flow. The same will be true in the NBA.
The TW's are in a tremendous position to capitalize on these difficulties. This is when, where, and how Kahn should be measured.
I know I'm beating a dead horse, and Britt would probably ax me from the site for saying it, but this "Dingus" crap from Captain America is really getting old. As I said before, if you wouldn't say it to a person's face, don't say it when hiding behind the anonymity of the web. It is one of the curses of the web, and it serves no one's good.
Let me say it one time more: this name calling is not clever; it is juvenile. Kahn doesn't strike me as a particularly pleasant fellow, but nothing in his actions or personality requires a writer to act like a twelve year old.
Give it up, Captain America. You write good posts and are interesting to read. But let me make it simple: if in every response to everything you said, I wrote a post in which I called you Captain Ameridork, and did so four or five times a post as if I thought it was the cleverest, funniest thing in the world, wouldn't you find it tiresome?
Please grow up or man up or do whatever it takes to make the quality of your expression rise to the level of the quality of your thought. And I hope that a few of the other posters will support me in this if you also feel that such childishness diminishes the overall quality of this, the most intelligent Twolves discussion site, on the web.
The assumption that I seem to be seeing has been that the moves Kahn has made, will the leave the Wolves with one of the worst teams in the league, a big step back from last years pace.
The danger is that regardless of whether the moves were wise in the long-term, the short term effect of another rebuilding campaign could be really harmful. Harmful to AL Jefferson and his development, harmful to Kevin Love, harmful to the Wolves' ability to lure in at least a decent free-agent.
My question is, How bad will the team be this year? I know if requires a number of rosy outcomes, but I just don't see this team that much worse than last year.
worst case, as it stands now:
FLYNN, backup PG
ELLINGTON, BREWER, WILKINS
GOMES, BREWER, SONGALIA
LOVE, SONGALIA
JEFFERSON, STIFF
is that really any worse that last year's squad?
I'm with you, Dr. K. If I wanted to "Dingus Kahn," I'd go over to the Strib boards.
As a reader of this blog who posts only rarely, I will clock in and concur with Dr. K's recent comment about the "Dingus" appellation. CA's persistence in trotting out this shtick grated me to the point where I no longer read his posts.
Although I think the unremitting pessimism of CA's posts was unreasonable, a person, marshaling the apt facts and using sound reasoning, could at least defend such a position. But the "Dingus" line is trite, petulant, and infantile. It is not provocative or dissenting, if that is CA's intent. More than anything, it is plain boring, and does, I believe, diminish the overall quality of this forum.
Just my $0.02--if worth even that much.
I must admit I find myself waffling between willingness to remain patient in a rebuilding process and desire to see some sign that a dramatic step forward has occured. This latest trade really seems odd in that apart from acquiring a potential poing guard mentor it generally again unbalances the roster (no 5's) and brings in redundancy with Wilkins and Brewer. It also seems to contradict the overall philosophy to develop younger players. For that reason I hope it truly is a stepping stone for yet another move. I wish to give Kahn the benefit of the doubt but I think had McHale made the series of moves we've seen this summer he would have been crucified for them.
Thanks for the support on the "dingus" issue. CA, take note.
Now, on to other issues. What is it I'm missing about the fascination with Mark Jackson as a potential coach?
He's a point guard and can help mentor the young guns? So is/was Avery Johnson.
He's got coaching experience? Not that I know of.
He's got basketball smarts? So do a lot of other people.
He'll come cheap? Does Glen really want to roll the dice to that extent with a fan base ready to walk away?
I just don't get it. Can someone enlighten me? And, just to show there's no hard feelings, I'd be happy to hear from you, CA, because I value your opinion.
I admit to being intrigued by Jackson, though of the two putative finalists, Rambis is arguably the smarter, more sensible choice.
As to the Kahn's alleged fascination with Jackson, I agree that none of the above reasons passes muster. The eons-ago Pacers' connection is a weak explanation, too. Seriously. How much do you think Kahn and Jackson interacted in any significant way during their time together in Indiana?
Does Kahn prefer a novice, unconventional choice for coach so he (Kahn) can further put his own imprint on the team, without having to worry about contending with the authority a more experienced coach would naturally have? I don't know if I buy that notion, either. Kahn's ego does not seem so fragile as to fret about public perceptions of who really is in charge of the team.
Alternatively, maybe Jackson is simply one of those rare compelling personalities who, given the right opportunity and circumstances, has the potential for greatness. (Note the emphasis.) It is a quality hard to define, but you know it when you see it, and perhaps Kahn believes truly that he sees it in Jackson.
Then again, who knows.
Fans/posters are nervous because Kahn's moves leave so many things up in the air. Long time followers of the team want some kind of hope, as they feel they've been holding their collective breath for years now. I've been attending games since the initial year and I grow weary when Kahn implies that nothing good will really happen for a couple of years. A point should be made that it doesn't matter as much how patient posters here will be with Kahn, but how patient other potential ticket buyers will be. Jerry Zgoda is indicating the team will drastically cut back on televised games this season, at a time when the Wolves' profile is disappearing from MN sports fans. Bad idea. Not only won't locals know who is on the team, the team will likely be losing a lot and not be on local TV. Sounds like a sure recipe for irrelevance.
I prefer Turner or Rambis to Jackson, because they have been assistants under two of the game's great coaches. Rambis has the added experience of playing for one of the best dynasties in NBA history (and for one of the game's greatest coaches.)
Jackson doesn't really wow anybody with his insights as a color analyst, but maybe he's sharper behind the scenes, working with and motivating players. From the outside looking in, he doesn't seem like the best candidate being considered, here.
I am pretty ambivalent about Jackson too. The "we're all new to this thing, let's figure it out together" approach seems fraught with bad outcomes. Maybe Bill Simmons is David Kahn's secret interviewee. Seriously, I'd be a lot more comfortable with Rambis.
A subject that has fallen well beneath the radar, but is bound to crop up fairly soon is the rest of the FO. Does Kahn sweep the place clean? Keep everybody around? Pick and choose? I wonder how many conversations he's had with Basketball Operations people around the League. My guess is there are some up and comers who see the activity level and might have an appetite to "get in on the ground floor" of something that has the POTENTIAL to take off.
D.Puddy -
FLYNN, backup PG
ELLINGTON, BREWER, WILKINS
GOMES, BREWER, SONGALIA
LOVE, SONGALIA
JEFFERSON, STIFF
This is obviously a worse team than last year's opening day roster, at least in the near term; the backcourt has been turned over two rookies and the backups look weaker as well. If this turns out to be more or less what we put on the floor opening day, it'll be a long season whose success won't be measured in the win column, but by the much more difficult to measure player development.
But having said that, as others have pointed out, at least there's a bit of intrigue hanging over the whole project (a project that Kahn has made clear is longer term). The open ended nature of the moves made (both the trades and the draft picks) lends itself to wild speculation and a bit of fantasy on the part of those of us who are still thinking (and posting) about the Wolves at the end of July. I'm certainly more excited for this season that last (although I'm always excited come October). And frankly, the reality of the next season will require a bit of fantasy (call it delayed gratification if you're an optimist) to live through.
Gee, yous guyz are really hurting my feelings (tear drops down cheek).
Dr. K takes issue with my referring to Dingus Kahn as (well) Dingus Kahn and then proceeds to slander my pseudonym, Captain America, huh, how does that work again?
Another guy takes issue with my very explicit and detailed list of issues with Dingus yet fails to address the issues mentioned only to say he is tired of the critique. He seems to long for the good old days of echo chamber where everyone agrees with his perspective and didn't pose any threat to his point of view.
As you can imagine, I don't care what you think. I do believe in freedom of expression. If you don't like my comments, it's very simple, don't read them. Only read the ones that don't make your heads explode, the ones that agree with your personal point of view.
Let's see Dingus Kahn, McFail, McFail, Dingus Kahn. Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.
Sheal --
I concur with your take on the new roster: dreadful.
My disagreement is that if anything Dingus has regressed the advancement of the club while he puts his own personal stamp on it. He, of course, is entitled to do that but it all comes down to butts in seats at Target Center.
Recent years have more frequently than not been painful to watch the home club. There has been plenty of cringe factor on display. Now with the prospect of fewer televised games, will the folks who avow their loyalty to Dingus pony up for seats at multiple games?
As for prospective coaches, the best prospect will not get an interview: Del Harris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Harris
Del has expressed interest in being a head coach again and would be a excellent choice. But we all know that Mr. "you know who" will not interview him.
Del Harris brought Kobe into the NBA. He won coach of the year honors as head coach of the Lakers in 1994/95.
Since Dingus wants a coach who can develop players, is there a better option amongst the aforementioned names? I think not.
CA --
In the two years I've been visiting this site, I can count the number of times "McFail" has been used on one hand. So much for your big ending point.
The only problem people have is with the name. You're not the only one holding an opposing view but are the only one people are calling out, and they're being very specific in why they're calling you out. If you have the right to say it, they have the right to call you out.
CA has a negative slope to his arguments. Nothing wrong with that. However, while some may have a rose-tinted outlook, his vision is one tinted with a dark brown matter and is now predictable.
So while most posters take each circumstance and attempt a fresh analysis, CA's perpectives come across
as having to fit the negative postion he has staked out.
I, too, will just skip over his future posts. I'm sure his response is he could care less. Mine is then "back atcha."
Paging...:
Deal wit it
Elastico:
Wow, "his vision is one tinted with a dark brown matter and is now predictable."
And, how would you know about the dark brown matter unless you were in a recessed location?
For folks who profess to not be negative, I encourage you review your comments and then the mirror in front of you.
As far as this site goes, Britt is god, and god has gone on a camping trip. Without extrapolating that into a general theological principle about the contemporary world, I'd like to make a suggestion for when god returns from the woods and mountains.
It's simple. Everyone about whom we write and discuss has a name. Insist that posters use them. If they don't, remove their post. A good writer can get his or her point across without name-calling.
Engage in name-calling, lose your post.
It's going to be a long season. We need to keep the discourse at a civil level.
First of all, wonderful wonderful blog, and thank you again to Britt and his regular commentors.
Second, to CA: I strongly believe the content of your posts make it worth overlooking the distracting elements, such as the name calling. As long as Britt is ok with it, I'll be ok with it and so should everyone else.
To everyone else: I also humbly suggest that if your sole comments do not include anything topic-specific (in this case, the Timberwolves), your comments should not be posted.
With that said, I'd like to go to a third topic and refer to the substance of the summarized response CA made a while back to TheH and comment on them.
Regarding Kahn being a lousy choice - Yes, there probably were better choices. But those better choices probably came with not only a significantly higher salary but also only slightly higher performance expectations. I am assuming Kahn sold himself well to Taylor during the interview about hiring a smart and affordable candidate with a well-designed overall plan or paradigm and a hunger to succeed. It boils down to a business decision Taylor made on an unproven commodity, and I hope this risk-to-reward ratio pays off.
Everything else is mostly downhill on there. He's the head honcho, he gets to make the decisions. Perhaps we can only surmise some of the logic behind the decisions. Such as the logic behind firing McHale - How much of it was McHale's desire to remain a coach? We already knew he was a reluctant coach, regardless of his capabilities, so I'd wager it would be a stretch to say it was a mutual decision rather than one-sided.
Regarding the calling-out on Jefferson and Love as well as the recent trades, they seem to make sense both business-wise (for several reasons Britt and others have pointed out) as well as staying truthful and honest to the players/employees. In fact, from the player's perspectives, I'd say he went out of his way to find either better understanding of their roles (in the calling out) and a better team situation (for the trades) without sacrificing his long-term goals.
Regarding the comment on Rubio's draft selection - every draft is a risk. And I'm surprised that you don't support it because it works out, it will be the largest reason for any increase of ticket sales (outside of actual and yet-to-be-determined team performance reasons). (I don't recall any evaluations you made on him as a player, so I'm only commenting on the buyout risk you mentioned.)
Topic #4: Everything in #3 is likely rehash of everything everyone has already said, so let me try to add something new and something from left field: These trades are Kahn's way of vetting the existing front office.
Yes, the big things on his desk are both the coach and Rubio's situation. So how much time is he personally putting into these comparitively minor and (to CA's point) insubstantial trades? My guess is he's challenged or dictated to the front office to get on the phones, get discussions going, and make moves that fit within guidelines he had set (likely increasing flexibility for long-term change, finding good homes to those that aren't trade-proof, and feeling-out the other teams to gauge their long-term interests).
The upshot to this unexpectedly long post is that I agree with the consensus - it's too soon to say if any of these decisions, from GM to recent trades, can be graded, but it certainly makes fun e-banter.
Grunscion- I agree with many of your points but would say this: If Kahn was chosen for the position because of lower salary/expectations, he was hired for the wrong reasons, will fail, and Glen Taylor will be to blame. How can a franchise rebuild with a championship as the ultimate goal if the owner isn't 100% on board?
CSE - To clarify (which I might have to do often as my post was more long-winded than I thought it would be and in review, I see many grammatical errors)...
I meant to merely say that in light of the hiring decision, cost was likely a factor.
The idea of lower expectations I tried to broach was that if you got the best possible GM possible (where money and availability and other extenuating circumstances are not an issue), you still can't guarantee success. However, if that GM fails, you would be more disappointed in that failure than you would of the other candidates.
The main point here is that Glen hired a relative unknown as GM. CA reviewed a lot of valid concerns about Kahn's limited past. But, after listening to a few of Kahn's pressers and looking at the moves he's made and the reasons Kahn's presented to making those moves, I really believe Glen got a clear picture of Kahn's ability to successfully execute the plan to rebuild the franchise.
While writing this, I realized I don't know who "owns" or designed this rebuilding plan. It does seem like a continuation of the past years, and Kahn so far hasn't done anything to change from past years activities. That to me, is another interesting idea to speculate.
ps, CSE, I saw your original post and it looks like you deleted it. I applaud your decision and hope I won you over on that other issue. :)
CA's five criticisms of Kahn:
1) He was the wrong choice: This isn't a criticism of Kahn, but Taylor.
2) Firing McHale as an unforced error: I disagree, but it's not an unreasonable argument. My own opinion is that it wouldn't work from a practical perspective. Kahn is busy reworking the roster that McHale assembled, trading away guys that have become his friends. It just can't be easy to work for a guy who holds your old job. Plus, McHale said explicitly that he didn't like the travel.
3) Calling out Jefferson and Love was stupid: First, I can't remember, but did he ever say anything publicly or were those all hearsay accounts from some season ticketholder lunches? And second, I don't think he called them out, if he called Al the 2nd best and Love the 4th best player on a title contender. Those sound like accurate statements to me.
4) Taking issue with drafting Rubio because of the buyout risk: this might go down as one of the bigger steals in draft history, if Rubio pans out the way that more than a few analysts think he will. Kahn would have been (rightfully) crucified by the national press if he DIDN'T take Rubio at 5 or 6. This is an unreasonable argument.
5) The trades haven't brought back serviceable players: If Rubio comes over, that's not an accurate statement. Since we traded away rotation players, and we've added cap flexibility, I'm not sure that any of the trades have been very controversial.
Anyway, I like the attempt to rip Kahn, because it gives us all some perspective. Until we see what happens with Rubio, both contractually and on the court, it's hard to evaluate this. Sid Hartman and Captain America are all-in on Kahn being a failure, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Sid has never been a friend of rationality, but his rancor toward Kahn is inexplicable and jarring even by Sid's low standards. Either Kahn really snubbed him at Murray's one evening or Sid has, finally and forever, entered his dotage.
That Kahn deep-sixed McHale is also not a good enough explanation. Of course, Sid is quick to anger when any local team changes its regime. For example, when Leipold fired Risebrough, Sid--who writes about hockey almost as knowledgeably and well as I do on the art of the slam dunk--predictably wrote an idiotic berzerker column savaging Leipold as a Johnny-come-lately jerkoff. Yet Sid is a champion self-server, knows which side his bread is buttered on, and has since played nice with the Wild. This is what makes his ongoing animus for Kahn truly weird.
CA, I don't think anyone's trying to hurt your feelings. They're trying instead to maintain the integrity of a refreshingly adult board. The incessant "Dingus" crap undercuts that.
Grunscion - Understood on your first several graphs. Per the last, my first post appears to have been deleted by the powers that be. Guess I'll just have to "Deal wit it."
I think this trade is pretty inconsequential. On one hand it might net the Wolves several million dollars to use towards another good player when they waive Atkins. On the other he might be used to trade for another good player. Or he might get a few tiny minutes behind Flynn, and (cross your fingers) Rubio.
I think it is a good trade for Telfair. He is in a better place. It is true that he is still relatively young, but I think that at 24 you start to see how a player's career arc will progress. Telfair still might blossom but he is most likely going to be an average player. A good backup. I hope that he surpasses my expectations but at this point I don't see it happening.
Likewise with Craig Smith. He was one of my favorites. He has some real talent that was fun to watch, but he also had some limitations. Maybe in the right situation he will grow and achieve more but I don't think the place is here.
So I don't mind the Wolves giving these guys up.
The Wolves really had a glut of players like this. Mediocre guys who were ok but didn't have a really high ceiling. I think we knew where the ceiling was for most of the players that were and are on the Wolves' roster.
What we want to get are players that we don't know where their ceiling is. Sound funny but isn't that what we are looking for? Players with the potential to achieve a lot?
Flynn is a player who could achieve a heck of a lot. He could really turn out to be great if things work out as we would like them to.
Rubio is often sited as having a ridiculously high ceiling. People do seem to be hyping him a little too much even. I've watched his highlights and it seems like the extent of it is him on a fastbreak spinning the ball around his waist twice and then passing it to some big guy who slams it in while the opposing Europlayers look befuddled.
I have a suspicion that when he tries that with some of the players in the NBA he is going to see their handspeed is much faster than he is used to and they are going to knock that ball into the stands. But I hope not.
So after seeing the Wolves for all these years make no real changes to a mediocre crew while hoping that they somehow "get good", it is nice to see Kahn taking some strides towards hopefully better things.
It does go without saying that it is really too early to tell what will become of his moves, but he has had some success in the face of massive skepticism.
People were skeptical when he was hired but he got rid of McHale, who was a complete drag on this franchise and needed to be excised as soon as possible. To hear anyone speak as a proponent of McHale after all he did to this franchise is really galling. Thank goodness Kahn had the stomach to take the action that he did.
Then people doubted the actions he took before the draft. His trades that got him another pick, and his lack of trading it all to move up to 2 or 3 to take someone like Rubio.
But he stuck to his guns and what he thought was right and what happened? He got Rubio anyway! A slamdunk. The best player in the draft, many said. For the Wolves to wind up with him at 5 was really something special. You can call it luck or whatever you want but Kahn was in charge, he ran the draft, and we got the most exciting player in it. A real coup for the Wolves.
As I said, it is too early to see how things will pan out, but we will have to revisit these moves after Kahn finishes his trades, as he has said he will. He has intimated that Atkins is really just a chip to get someone else, so that would be nice if we used that to enhance and balance our roster. I guess we will have to wait and see what will happen since we really can't see the future.
As for the rancorous discourse recently present on this board, I have to say I'm disappointed. That is about it. I feel that there is a real lack of civil discourse in today's society. It is a symptom of a sickness in our nation that is very unfortunate. People cannot discuss things in a civil manner. They always seem to be more interested in creating discord than they are in discussing the various points of a topic. It if very unfortunate and disappointing. I find this lack of civility present on tv, most of all. It is also present on the internet unfortunately. It is in our games and social gatherings too, sorry to say.
There are some pockets of civility still here and there, and it is good to experience them as they are refreshing and show evidence that people still have some manners.
This site used to be one such place where a person could go freely and read intelligent discourse on a very interesting topic, but recently it has been sidetracked by some comments that are less concerned with communication and more concerned with provocation. That is a real disappointment. I've found myself less inclined to read this site than I was in the past. It seems that there are less comments regarding the Wolves than there are comments trying to anger other readers. And that is a real shame.
An interesting sidenote comparing American style of discussion with a British style of discussion. I heard it said in a good way and it might be pertinent here.
They say that British people discuss or argue in a different manner than Americans. British people can talk about things and get very heated, but even when they are ridiculing something they are careful to criticize the idea, but not the person espousing it. There is a real separation there that seems to aid arguments. They can be as heated as they want, but they only attack the concept or idea being put forth, but not the person. That way they can be civil and sit down and have a heated exchange with someone and then at the end say, I don't like your ideas but I am not attacking you as a person, lets still go have a beer. As a result there seems to be less animosity and a higher level of discourse present.
The American style on the other hand, is to make it as personal and as ugly as possible as quickly as possible. Often the ideas are just ignored as the person themselves are attacked. It really hurts intelligent and rational discussion. And I think that is true in the present instance as well.
So with that said lets all try to keep a civil discussion here so we don't have to waste time with things like this.
Re: CA
Do what I do, ignore all his posts. Saves time reading and rolling the eyes…
I was just killing time over at Canis watching the Rubio video, which was not an enlightening experience since I can't understand Spanish. But it occurred to me that I have never heard any comments from the NBA Spanish players, or other Euros in the NBA who played against Rubio, about whether or not Rubio's game will translate well to the NBA.
We all have our fantasies and/or biases about whether he is Maravich 2, too slight and slow, unable to work in the hard trenches against an NBA defense, etc. But none of us knows what we're talking about because all we've seen are a few clips of him on youtube. The ones who might know are the Gasols, Baragnas, etc.
Have any of you ever seen their comments about Ricky's game relative to the challenges of the NBA?
I agree with Kahn that Rubio is only 18, he's 6-4 and 180 lbs. and has a good likelihood of filling out physically. And the passing and court vision translate well in the NBA regardless of your position. There was a reason that many pre-draft predictions has him going in the top 2 or 3.
Britt - I know you won't read this until after vacation (hope it was relaxing), but good writing again. I do think you missed it about Atkins, but time will tell.
There has been discussion on hoopus about how bad the team will be this year and what does Kahn think he is doing. From day one, he has said the roster would change dramatically by the end of seventeen months. While he has drastically changed it already, I'm confident there are more moves to be made and another draft to go through. Now, if this is current roster is similar (8 or more players)to the one that takes the floor in 2010/11 season, then I would have to consider the project as sinking fast and looking to move. Until then, I'm hanging on for the ride and enjoying the fact that we are debating what Kahn has done rather than what we think McHale will do.
So somebody asked me this question to bring the rubio situation into focus: Would you trade rubio for Sergio Rodriguez straight up? If you were the wolves or the trailblazers?
I value sergio above rubio, well above. And yet he is merely an international wizkid guard sitting on the bench while his team doesn't make it out of the first round. Are we really fussing this much over a potentially similar player? A rookie even? I wish him the best, but we need to simmer down. Good draft pick, esp because it wasnt our only one at that position; lets hope he pans out in the LONG RUN as we would with any other rookie (except blake griffin who is ready to go: just add NBA jersey).
I think when Kurt Rambis becomes our coach, we should demand that he wear his old-school glasses.
Once again, I am pleased with Kahn's choice here, I was worried it would be Jackson. He did not earn my respect, listening to him all playoffs. Boring, and not terribly insightful.
Andy G-
Thank you for your reasoned counter arguments.
As I mentioned, it doesn't affect me one bit how others respond to my posts. I was being sarcastic earlier.
It's very simple: you don't like it, don't read it. This is not a mutual rear slapping society for me.
1. Yes, the Kahn hiring was a criticism of Taylor, no question.
2. Firing McHale was indeed an unforced error. First off, McHale wanted to coach this season, so travel was a non-issue. Your opinion, that McHale couldn't have handled the changes Kahn was making is widespread. Taylor said as much last week. Yet, how would he know unless he gave McHale a chance, a probationary period to make such a determination? Given that the Wolves players liked McHale and wanted him to continue to coach, Kahn should have given McHale the opportunity to prove or disprove himself. McHale wasn't new to the rodeo, he has seen the business end of the league for many years. He obviously knew who was in charge yet wanted to stay on to coach. Why not instead give him until the All Star Break before firing him?
3. Yes, Dingus was indeed publicly calling out his best player and his best emerging player. Even if he eventually wanted to trade either one, does anyone think this would improve their marketability?
4. Other teams passed on Rubio, as we were number 5, no? And who can dispute now that there wasn't considerable buyout risk in drafting Rubio? For example, the reason Sac stated they bypassed Rubio is because of the contentious buyout.
5. I stand by the fact that the trades, in aggregate, have not brought us serviceable players. Rubio is more uncertain than ever. Trade pieces does not equate to serviceable players for this coming season, aside of Sangala. We'll see what the roster looks like in November, but for now, it looks like weak tea with the new pieces.
As for McHale's relations with the players, I know Al Jefferson is still upset with the decision. Just watched his interview on NBA.com the other day and it still bothers him.
CA-
This Rubio thing is going to go a long way in defining Kahn's tenure (however long it may be) as our GM. He made the aggressive trade to land the number five pick, and whether it be by luck or his own intuition, he had Ricky fall to him at that spot. My guess is that, if Washington knew he would be there, they would not have done the Foye-Miller Trade, and would have taken Rubio and let the auctioning begin.
I like Kahn and what he has done. But I will grant you this much: if Rubio doesn't come over here this year, it's probably going to be a crappy season. I think we'll win more than the last two years--maybe something like 27 wins. But, Jefferson isn't going to be happy with that, and it could cause all sorts of problems. It'll take patience and great individual efforts from both Love and Jefferson to make this season a productive one. I think if Rubio comes over, there will be a whole lot of excitement and a fun style that leads to highly entertaining basketball.
Most expect more trades from Kahn, so this will be an ongoing conversation.
These criticisms of Kahn - thus far - are somewhat ludicrous. Time will tell whether he's visionary or clueless, but let's look at the facts.
Criticizing Kahn for firing McHale seems odd. What did he do behind the bench that led you to think he wasn't interchangeable? He was better than Wittman? So were 98% of the coaches who have ever paced the sideline during an NBA game. The players liked him? So what? Jazz players probably don't care for Jerry Sloan a ton, but he's a hell of a coach. Lots of NBA players like their coaches. I'm not saying he was a bad coach, but CA suggests a level of competency that rivals Jackson and Popovich when he implies the degree to which Kahn supposedly erred when firing McHale. Specifically, how many wins was McHale bringing to the table that your average performing NBA coach wasn't?
With Rubio, the consensus on his talent is that he was the second best player in the draft talentwise behind Griffin. I heard very little that disputed that. To pass up on a player at his caliber at the slot they were drafting is completely and totally irresponsible. So what if the buyout takes two years? Last I checked, it was highly likely the Wolves will participate in the 2011-2012 NBA Season, and will likely need NBA caliber talent at that time as well. In the NHL and MLB high round draft picks cut their teeth in the minors and are just as susceptible to injury, but in the NBA you're an idiot for drafting a talent that might not come over right away??
Besides, who were the Wolves supposed to draft? Curry's the only player you can make a legit argument for, and there are FAR more questions about whether his game will transfer to the pros given his size. It was a weak draft, but to act like the Wolves made a terrible pick by selecting Rubio is almost unfathomable logic. Especially the guy who said he'd rather have Rodriguez than Rubio. Come on. Rodriguez couldn't even start over Steve Blake on a team that was contending for playoff success. Maybe Rubio will be a bust, but you're really going to tell me the consensus #2 talent in the draft is a worse asset to have on your team than Sergio Rodriguez?
As far as "calling out" Jefferson and Love, I guess I can't necessarily dispute it since I don't hang out with these guys day in and day out. However, having followed sports for quite a while, the statement "I envision a team where Al J is our 2nd best player and K-Love is the 4th" seems pretty mild compared to some of the incendiary dialogue that takes place between GMs and owners. Given the fact that I haven't read even a rumor on Hoopshype, Truehoop, CNNSI, Tribune, or anything site that remotely passes as NBA gossip that Jefferson or Love took offense to that statement, I'm going to file this claim under "mountain/molehill."
None of us here have crystal balls, and nobody here can accurately forsee fortune or failure for sure. But if you could rewind the tape six months, what would a "perfect" GM do differently that is going to result in a better Timberwolves squadron both in the short and long term? If there was an obvious other path to take that Kahn didn't have the foresight to take, I don't know what it is.
Hello all:
Captain America:
Everytime you use the term "Dingus", God kills a kitten.
Do you really want that on your conscience???
;)
Jackson:
Point well taken about British debates and civility. I think not only is the tone more respectful, but it also makes the argument more intelligent, since, you know, you have to actually attack the argument, not the person. It also makes for some brilliantly funny back-and-forth verbal sparring in Parliament (would to God we would at least have that in Congress!).
When we lose civility, we lose democracy, folks, because when we vilify people, it's far easier to justify taking away their rights and freedoms. I would think that both conservative types and liberal types could agree with this concern--liberals because they fear how the prevailing status quo can take away rights from minorities (if only they saw the potential for that going both ways) and conservatives because they know that "absolute power corrupts absolutely", as in arrogance is the first sign of tyranny. It's true in government, it's true in politics, it's true in life. It's true of each one of us. God help us all.
Oh yes...basketball...I've been a fan of the T-Wovles for awhile too. I'm excited about Rambis--he seems like a good, down to earth guy. But I also thinks he knows his stuff--the fact that Jackson empowered him to handle the team's defensive strategies, and the fact that, moreover, his efforts paid off is no small statement.
Kahn strikes me as a genuinely good person too, in fact--at first I thought he was a smooth-talker/conniver type, but more and more he seems genuine, gracious, professional, and meticulous, and he seems to be bringing a level of professionalism to the team that hasn't been around in awhile. We shall see.
As for Rubio, I hear that his latest statement that he's staying on the DKV team is all about positioning--trying to force the team's hand to negotiate with him. They have said that he wouldn't play this year if he stayed, so it really seems like they're both feeling each other out for weaknesses. I think Rubio has the upper hand if in fact DKV is as cash-strapped as has been reported.
Quoting Captain America:
"2. Why not instead give him until the All Star Break before firing him?"
Really? Is this a plan for future success? Rather than make a clean break in the off season and give a new coach a pre-season with his new team, you advocate a foreseen firing and then throwing the next hire to the wolves (so to speak) in mid-season? I know you wanted McHale coaching and I sympathize, so did I. But I also understand the choice that was made and once you decide to make a change the ONLY reasonable time to do it is in the off-season.
"3. Yes, Kahn was indeed publicly calling out his best player and his best emerging player. Even if he eventually wanted to trade either one, does anyone think this would improve their marketability?"
Players marketability has nothing to do with what Kahn says about them. Jefferson and Love's respective levels of marketability will be determined by what they do on the court. I also don't think either Jefferson or Love is pouting about what Kahn said. They're grownups, they can handle someone challenging them. Also, Kahn hasn't belabored the point; talk radio and the blogosphere have. And who knows, maybe it'll light a fire under someone's ass.
"4. Other teams passed on Rubio, as we were number 5, no? And who can dispute now that there wasn't considerable buyout risk in drafting Rubio?"
Nobody disputed the risk or does now. The point was the Wolves were in a pretty unique position to to be able to draft him even if he did NOT make it here to play immediately. They got another point in the draft who looks as ready to play (or maybe more ready) in the NBA. They're also at the beginning of a rebuilding phase and will be just as happy to welcome him as a 20 year old rookie two seasons from now (which also means his rookie contract will run until he's 24 instead of 22). Further, the fact also remains that while he's not here now, if, as looks pretty likely, he is here to start the season this whole discussion becomes a forgotten and moot point.
"5. I stand by the fact that the trades, in aggregate, have not brought us serviceable players. Rubio is more uncertain than ever. Trade pieces does not equate to serviceable players for this coming season, aside of Sangala. We'll see what the roster looks like in November, but for now, it looks like weak tea with the new pieces."
Largely, this is true. I can't imagine Quentin Richardson suiting up for the Wolves somehow. But really, this season is about player improvement and hopefully starting to learn to win. And at least we've got some players to be excited about for a change. I'm especially excited to see Flynn and see how Love looks this year and would be really stoked to see Rubio here as well. But really, anyone who expects more than a 20-30 win season this year is pretty high on the Wolves.
"As for McHale's relations with the players, I know Al Jefferson is still upset with the decision. Just watched his interview on NBA.com the other day and it still bothers him."
Sure it's easy to say that now, he hasn't had a new coach until today. So there hasn't been anybody for Jefferson to consider. Once he's had a chance to meet and work with Rambis it'll be a different story. If he's still complaining about it in pre-season there's a problem brewing.
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
