NBA Power Rankings

[mandurugo]

mnWI is apparently forgetting that the wolves have the second best center currently playing professional basketball. Maybe you better rethink this whole "historically bad" thing, eh?

[4ho5ive]

Mark Blount?

[Devilzsidewalk]

maybe there's a gap in the definition of historically bad, when I think of historically bad, I'm thinking 70+ losses

I don't think there's any way the Wolves lose 70 games unless they get crushed by injuries

[Dewey]

The Wolves are looking at a 25-30 win season and I think we'll more competative on a consistent basis than last season. I really believe the Jefferson/Love tandem will step it up, and with the addition of an actual PG(s), who knows how much that will impact the overall team performance.

We do not deserve a fair ranking, but I think 3/4 of the way through the season, we'll be starting to slowly climb up the power polls.

[GopherIt!]

we don't have any

[john2jer]

I'm willing to go on record as saying we were better off in the rebuilding process before Kahn started trading, including the Foye/Rubio trade. Of course a lot of that depends on if/how much we re-signed Foye for. We'd have a better team, and less salary pegged for 2010, assuming we just cut Foye after the season.

[Worm Guts]

The situations aren't even comparable. This is essentially starting the first year of a rebuilding plan with the Wolves. They traded some proven pieces for younger talent, and became worse on the court this offseason as a result. The Thunder are in the third year of a rebuilding plan, and have much better pieces than the Wolves right now. I think people on this board underestimate how bad this Wolves team will be this year.

I'd be willing to wager that the Thunder finish with a better record than the Wolves. Probably way better.

Actually, we've been rebuilding since we traded KG. We're just doing a better job of it since the arrival of KAAAAAAAAHN.

I understand we'll be bad. We might even be worse than the Thunder. But we won't be the worst team in the NBA. Not when Zach Randolph and OJ Mayo are on the same team.

It's too early to say what type of job Kahn is doing. And we undertook a rebuilding under McHale, yes, but the process has started over with the arrival of a new GM. So we're taking a step back into the year one of a rebuild (by trading away productive veterans), while OKC has had a set plan since the arrival of the very intelligent Sam Presti, and they have quality starters at just about every position now, and a couple decent players off the bench.

I think Memphis finishes with a better record than the Wolves too (pending injuries of course). The Kings are the only team I could see potentially being worse right now, but I may change my opinion depending on any moves before camp on our end. This team could even be historically bad if left as is.

The team took a step back, but I don't think it started over. Still got Jefferson, still got Love, there's no way this team should be historically bad. It should be better than the team from 2 years ago.

[Dewey]

Before Kahn, we were rebuilding just fine except for the fact some of those core players were going to make us a long-term .500 club ... more of a complacent outlook IMO.

Kahn's approach comes off as more exciting, but certainly brings more risk to the table. In a nutshell, Kahn has the vision to take a young high-caliber team and develop them (impact-effect), whereas the McHale group looked to develop good players into a high caliber team (tweek-effect).

Both development minded, but coming from different angles. McHales felt more need for a mix of mature players to help provide quality leadership (Madsen for example or even Miller). Kahn is asking alot from Rambis in terms of leadership, and hopes to build it into the young players from the ground up (Flynn?).

[m2002brian]

with Love's more improved jump shot we should have better spacing. With Flynn and Brewer we will most definitely more athletic. And with Blount we can get high. Oh Yeah, that's NBA style.

[jade_hippo]

the team will be more competative and stay in more games late, but i think there is a potential if not a staggering lean to win fewer games than last year. Our depth is horrible. Even our starting lineup has gaping holes/deficiencies. We have some great pieces but our team is looking like one of the most awful in the league unless a miracle occurs or the angels leave the outfield and come out our way

[revprodeji]

Rubio will make a big difference simply in eating up 20-30 min in the backcourt.

[Dewey]

the team will be more competative and stay in more games late, but i think there is a potential if not a staggering lean to win fewer games than last year. Our depth is horrible. Even our starting lineup has gaping holes/deficiencies. We have some great pieces but our team is looking like one of the most awful in the league unless a miracle occurs or the angels leave the outfield and come out our way

I agree, yet disagree. I feel we lost alot of depth, but I don't feel we lost a lot of talent.

We didn't lose much at all defensively, but the loss of Smith/Miller/Foye could take away some scoring sting. The return of Jefferson, Love with a year under the belt, Flynn creating, and Ellington shooting will make up alot over time. Hollins and the return of Brewer will help the defense a ton, plus, Flynn is a decent defender as well.

Then we have the Rubio factor brewing ... He may not add scorring in a direct way, but I certainly expect him to help create more team scoring. He'll hold his own defensively.

[john2jer]

I've always had this belief that Big Al isn't good on the pick and roll. Is that true, or am I pulling fluff? If he is good on the pick and roll, or he can improve, I can see working with Flynn and Rubio causing Jefferson's scoring to improve even more. Before going down last year he was putting up 25/13 over those last few weeks. Those are world class numbers in today's guard-orientated NBA.

You'd think his post footwork would translate over to pick and roll fundamentals. The screen, seal, and drop/pop.

[Worm Guts]

I'm willing to go on record as saying we were better off in the rebuilding process before Kahn started trading, including the Foye/Rubio trade. Of course a lot of that depends on if/how much we re-signed Foye for. We'd have a better team, and less salary pegged for 2010, assuming we just cut Foye after the season.

No. A resigned Foye means probably less cap space, and no chance at Rubio.

[john2jer]

I'm willing to go on record as saying we were better off in the rebuilding process before Kahn started trading, including the Foye/Rubio trade. Of course a lot of that depends on if/how much we re-signed Foye for. We'd have a better team, and less salary pegged for 2010, assuming we just cut Foye after the season.

No. A resigned Foye means probably less cap space, and no chance at Rubio.

Yes. Notice the part where I said, "depends on if/how much we re-signed Foye for"? But to get Rubio we had to take on $4.8mil in Songalia's deal. So it all depends on what Foye signs for next year. And then does the difference between Foye's and Songalia's contract added to the cost of Rubio end up being justified by what we have in Rubio. If end just waive Foye outright, we're sitting at $4.8mil more to spend on free agents in 2010, but we don't have Rubio.

[Worm Guts]

I'm willing to go on record as saying we were better off in the rebuilding process before Kahn started trading, including the Foye/Rubio trade. Of course a lot of that depends on if/how much we re-signed Foye for. We'd have a better team, and less salary pegged for 2010, assuming we just cut Foye after the season.

No. A resigned Foye means probably less cap space, and no chance at Rubio.

Yes. Notice the part where I said, "depends on if/how much we re-signed Foye for"? But to get Rubio we had to take on $4.8mil in Songalia's deal. So it all depends on what Foye signs for next year. And then does the difference between Foye's and Songalia's contract added to the cost of Rubio end up being justified by what we have in Rubio. If end just waive Foye outright, we're sitting at $4.8mil more to spend on free agents in 2010, but we don't have Rubio.

So you'd rather have more cap space than Rubio?

Still, I think we can create more cap space if that's what we're desperate for. I think we'll be able to move Songaila, and we have the opportunity to cut Gomes if there's a need for more cap space, or we could just not re-up Brewer. I think all those would be better options than not trading for Rubio. I don't think we need more than a max level amount, and we can get there if we need to.

[john2jer]

You can't use Gomes or Brewer as reasons we're better off, though, because they were already on the team before Kahn started wheeling and dealing. So scratch that from your reasoning.

It all comes down to if we can combine Atkins and Songalia to clear 2010 space. IF we can, then sure, Kahn's done an amazing job. If he can't, then it's just a so-so effort so far.

Is Rubio worth 2mil plus Rubio's contract added on to the 2010 payroll? 2mil being the net difference in Wolves trades in 2010 with players we were contractually obligated to, which is Songalia MINUS Telfair. That's taking a big picture view, but considering it was possible to shed Telfair without taking on Songalia, is Rubio worth Rubio's salary plus Songalia's?

Probably.

But is essentially tanking into one of the worst team's in the league worth it? Wouldn't a 30+ win team with Jefferson/Love/Flynn/multiple 1sts be better than a 20 win team, but Rubio added in?

I think the one thing that sways me to really liking what we're doing now is that we'll likely be so bad this year that there's no fear of losing our pick to the Clippers, and this is a strong draft year. If we didn't make the trades, there was a good chance of us losing the pick.

I'm definitely willing to be patient this year, lose 70 games, and get a top pick. Just seriously hope we can find a way to move Songalia. But packaging him will take waiting until late September.

[Worm Guts]

But is essentially tanking into one of the worst team's in the league worth it? Wouldn't a 30+ win team with Jefferson/Love/Flynn/multiple 1sts be better than a 20 win team, but Rubio added in?.

If that's you're thought process, it can't involve cutting Foye. It has to be about building on what we had. Otherwise you're implying that Rubio's not worth capspace plus Telfair. I'm sure we could move Songaila plus Rubio to clear out capspace and be exactly where we would be (in 2010) if we hadn't made the trade and cut Foye.

I think the one thing that sways me to really liking what we're doing now is that we'll likely be so bad this year that there's no fear of losing our pick to the Clippers, and this is a strong draft year. If we didn't make the trades, there was a good chance of us losing the pick.

I'm definitely willing to be patient this year, lose 70 games, and get a top pick. Just seriously hope we can find a way to move Songalia. But packaging him will take waiting until late September.

We're not losing 70 games barring serious injuries. The Wolves will win 20-30 games depending on how healthy Jefferson is. Go look at the 2007-08 roster that won 22 games, how is that team better than this team? But as to you're main point, yes we're far more likely to keep our pick.

[john2jer]

To be honest I think I lost my main point in all this, I was talking in circles for a bit, I believe. I confused myself.

Package Songalia and Atkins for an expiring and I'm happy.