Filling Roles

[shrink]

In a recent interview, Kahn pointed out that while he likes Hollins, he signed him to be a fourth big off the bench, and I think that's a nice fit. He's locked in for a few years cheap, has the length and athleticism our team needs, and is young with physical upside to develop. As a fourth big, he's a nice fit. Same goes for Sessions - he's a very capable back-up PG.

His comment about signing Hollins as our fourth big has given me a lot to think about. Unlike our normal "acquire talent and keep adding," approach, it seems to me that Kahn wants to build a team like a director filling roles in a play. Unfortunately, while it seems like he's been able to cast great fits for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he's still looking for a Hamlet or two.

So let's see if we can figure out what he's aiming for:

PG: [RUBIO], Sessions
SG: ?????, Brewer?
SF: ?????
PF: Jefferson?, Love?
C: ????, Hollins

It looks to me like we have lots of holes to fill, and pieces that don't fit as well.

PG: In a recent Chalk Talk, Kahn says that he's as sure as he can be that Rubio will be here in 2011, and that all of our personnel decisions take that into account. But of course, we need a starting PG before Oct 2011, and that's been Flynn. It often takes over a year to know how good your PG prospect is - for example Chris Paul looked good out of the gate, and Deron Williams was mediocre his first season. Flynn needs time to not only develop as a PG, but learn Rambis' system. However, will this lead him to only be trade bait?

SG/SF: I think we all agree that the Wolves could really use the 20 PPG star swing man that nearly every team in the NBA has. Rudy Gay looks more appealing than perhaps he deserves to be, because our need is so great, and many fans debate the fit that players like Luol Deng, Monta Ellis or Kevin Martin would provide.

I think Brewer has the physical tools to fit the up-tempo game Kahn would like to run. He could be part of a three-man swingman rotation, providing athleticism and defense, if our scorer was strong enough. However, clearly the swingman roles are far from being filled. Could Ellington be our back-up SG? He hasn't wowed me so far.

PF: I think one of the biggest questions from the last month is whether Kahn loves Jefferson as much as he says, and is willing to have Kevin Love be a sixth man. The Wolves clearly need a go-to scorer, and Jefferson, in the middle of his most trying season ever, is still the wolves best offensive option by a good margin. Yet the team needs even more out of Al, starting with defense and more court awareness. I believe Kahn when he says he's needs to blown away by an offer, but if one is out there, making Love a starter is not a bad situation.

C: I think we've inked Hollins in as the back-up, but who's the starter? I've loved the audition Darko has made, and the Wolves clearly need a big defensive center to improve the games of Jefferson and Love. Can we convince him to stay? Pekovic doesn't seem to be a good fit, and may be likely to be traded?


So there we have it. A few of the roles seem to have been cast, but there is huge uncertainty about who'll be starring for the wolves. We may have decent players like Flynn, Pekovic, even Al Jefferson on the trading block, without a good role for them. AWe have draft picks, and a player like Evan Turner would solve so many questions. Perhaps cap space can solve part of the swing man dilema. But if the Wolves are going to be auditioning players for these roles, I think it will be a wide open casting call, and no one knows yet who will be starring in "Minnesota Timberwolves: 2010-11"

[GopherIt!]

it seems the ideal line up looks something like this:

PG: Rubio???
SG: ????????
SF: %%%%%
PF: #####
C: @@@@@
6th: Jefferson, Love, Flynn, Sessions, Brew, Gomes, yo mama, etc.

It @#X^%* @$$&*() when %%%% & ##### >>> the @$%^# we currently have @ almost every @()#$% position.

[the_bruce]

it seems the ideal line up looks something like this:

PG: Rubio???
SG: ????????
SF: %%%%%
PF: #####
C: @@@@@
6th: Jefferson, Love, Flynn, Sessions, Brew, Gomes, yo mama, etc.

It @#X^%* @$$&*() when %%%% & ##### >>> the @$%^# we currently have @ almost every @()#$% position.

This is bleak, but I'd argue that it's a lot closer than would appear. At a glance

PG: Rubio???
SG: Turner
SF: cap space?
PF: Love
C: Al/Athletic 5 from Cha pick/Hollins

Mn needs as follows:
Athletic 5/4 - complimentary
Athletic 3/4
SG

MN has these Assets:
Flynn
Al
#2
Cap Space
Gomes
Sessions
Cha pick
Utah Pick

I envision a team with these sorts of players to fill the roles I mentioned
Athletic Long 5/4 - McGee or Aldrich
Athletic 3/4 - Clark or Randolph
SG - Turner

I've got probably a dozen scenarios that work for me...although most involve getting turner @2 and Varnado @ utah pick.

Assets to Value:
Flynn - pick 5-15 in PG weak draft
Al - Pick 5-10
Rubio - Pick 3-5
CHA pick + Cap Space + Gomes + Sessions - could be valuable as a combo, pick swap with IND?

[jballer_13]

If we get Turner we have to get a wing opposite him who can consistently knock down 3's otherwise we're in danger of turning into the 76ers.

[allweneedisLOVE]

If we get Turner we have to get a wing opposite him who can consistently knock down 3's otherwise we're in danger of turning into the 76ers.

Hello Danny Granger.

[Klomp]

Rudy Gay?

[Foye]

If we get Turner we have to get a wing opposite him who can consistently knock down 3's otherwise we're in danger of turning into the 76ers.

Hello Danny Granger.

Hello Corey Brewer.

[Biff Cooper]

His comment about signing Hollins as our fourth big has given me a lot to think about. Unlike our normal "acquire talent and keep adding," approach, it seems to me that Kahn wants to build a team like a director filling roles in a play. Unfortunately, while it seems like he's been able to cast great fits for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he's still looking for a Hamlet or two.

When we have 10 missing spots on our depth chart, there isn't much difference between acquiring talent and filling roles.
I really don't think this slot idea is his thought process. In Kahn's TV commercial he says something about "doing everything they can to add talent and not missing the chance to add a special player" or something along those lines. If he is looking at slots, he is already throwing away the opportunity to draft a difference making PG or PF. It just doesn't make sense at this stage in our rebuild.

[skorff26]

He shouldn't be filling the 4th big man role yet; you never know when you pick up a player as a throw-in and they could surprise you *Darko* or even Pecherov or Jawai might have done something... or a 2nd rounder in a draft... or so many other places to find that 4th big.

that 2.3 million next year looks like a waste on a project big man

I'm fine with bringing in Sessions for 4 mil next year; we knew that he can play and I think Sessions will have a larger role since my guess is Flynn has a decent chance of being moved.

[moss_is_1]

If we get Turner we have to get a wing opposite him who can consistently knock down 3's otherwise we're in danger of turning into the 76ers.

I think Turner could at least develop a solid 3 point shot, unlike Young or Iggy.

[Krapinsky]

Here's another way to look at --

10 spots --

PG - (1) Starter, (2) Reserve
SG - (1) Starter, (2) Reserve
SF - (1) Starter, (2) Reserve
PF - (1) Starter, (2) Reserve
C - (1) Starter, (2) Reserve

Rubio (pg) +
Jefferson (pf/c) +
Wolves #1 (sg/sf/pf/c) +
Cap Space (sg/sf/pf/c)
------------------------------
= 4 Starting Spots

Flynn or Sessions (pg) +
Brewer or Gomes (sf) +
Love (pf) + Bobs #1/Utah #1
Ellington or Brewer (sg) +
Hollins or Pekovic (c)
------------------------------
= 5 reserve spots

That means we can use our additional assets for one more starting spot, so

Flynn/Sessions (1 of), Pekovic/Hollins (1 of), Gomes/Brewer/Ellington (1 of) + Bobs #1/Utah #1

That gives us the flexibility to offer up to a package of Flynn/Pekovic/Gomes/Bobs #1 for a legit starting SG/SF/PF/C