Training camp thread 22/23

[winforlose]

Dane Moore thinks that only one of Naz Reid or Nathan Knight will make the team, and I agree. That's what I've been saying for a few weeks as well. I don't know which way they will go. But I do think Naz is maybe our best current chance for pick replenishment. Knight won't have any trade market.

Knight wouldn’t be replaced by a guard. He would be replaced by a big. Maybe Paschall, or Garza, or an outside big.

I doubt it.

They gave Knight a partial guarantee for a reason. I think the only reason you move on from him is to shift how you want the back end of the roster to look. If they want two bigs, they'll just keep the status quo with Reid and Knight. Moving on from one of them tells me they want to build out the depth in a different manner.

Or, he was being courted by someone else, and this was the minimum he would accept. Too many things we just don’t know.

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

Again, I just don't see a need to keep four centers on the active roster. It'd be the equivalent of the Vikings keeping three QBs active on game day.

[SO_MONEY]

Read on Twitter

Again, I just don't see a need to keep four centers on the active roster. It'd be the equivalent of the Vikings keeping three QBs active on game day.

This is the exact reason you need to be 4 deep. Knight is kinda perfect in that he is a 4/5, which is really what is needed. That 4/5 to go 4 deep either needs to be on the roster or a 2W contract... but right now Garza is all we got if we cut Knight. I would rather have Knight on roster than depend on Garza situationally, and I don't much like Knight.

[winforlose]

Read on Twitter

Again, I just don't see a need to keep four centers on the active roster. It'd be the equivalent of the Vikings keeping three QBs active on game day.

This is the exact reason you need another big. If KAT goes down now your out your starting PF and backup C. What happens if KA or Rudy get in foul trouble? What good is having 13 non bigs and only 4 bigs. No team in the league thinks like that, especially if their goal is to go big. Moreover, what happens if both KAT and Naz are sick at the same time? We play small all game? Why box themselves in like that. This isn’t football where the QB plays all the offensive minutes and rests on defense. Foul trouble doesn’t exist in football. The analogy is flawed on every level, and the principle is self defeating. What you are suggesting is making such a log jam at 1-3 that guys never sniff playing time and become malcontents. At least with a balanced roster when one guy goes down the next man up gets a chance to shine.

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

Again, I just don't see a need to keep four centers on the active roster. It'd be the equivalent of the Vikings keeping three QBs active on game day.

This is the exact reason you need another big. If KAT goes down now your out your starting PF and backup C. What happens if KA or Rudy get in foul trouble? What good is having 13 non bigs and only 4 bigs. No team in the league thinks like that, especially if their goal is to go big. Moreover, what happens if both KAT and Naz are sick at the same time? We play small all game? Why box themselves in like that. This isn’t football where the QB plays all the offensive minutes and rests on defense. Foul trouble doesn’t exist in football. The analogy is flawed on every level, and the principle is self defeating. What you are suggesting is making such a log jam at 1-3 that guys never sniff playing time and become malcontents. At least with a balanced roster when one guy goes down the next man up gets a chance to shine.

The team won't "play big" for the entire game. There will be a lot of time with Kyle Anderson or smaller at PF. The choice to "play big" revolves around Towns and Gobert. If one goes down or leaves the court, the team will pivot. They are not going to just plug Nathan Knight into the Gobert role and act like nothing's changed. That'd be foolish.

If it's something longterm, you can call up Paschall or whatever big guy from Iowa the next day. But wasting a roster spot on "what ifs" that go 2-3 steps deep is unwise.

[winforlose]

Read on Twitter

Again, I just don't see a need to keep four centers on the active roster. It'd be the equivalent of the Vikings keeping three QBs active on game day.

This is the exact reason you need another big. If KAT goes down now your out your starting PF and backup C. What happens if KA or Rudy get in foul trouble? What good is having 13 non bigs and only 4 bigs. No team in the league thinks like that, especially if their goal is to go big. Moreover, what happens if both KAT and Naz are sick at the same time? We play small all game? Why box themselves in like that. This isn’t football where the QB plays all the offensive minutes and rests on defense. Foul trouble doesn’t exist in football. The analogy is flawed on every level, and the principle is self defeating. What you are suggesting is making such a log jam at 1-3 that guys never sniff playing time and become malcontents. At least with a balanced roster when one guy goes down the next man up gets a chance to shine.

The team won't "play big" for the entire game. There will be a lot of time with Kyle Anderson or smaller at PF. The choice to "play big" revolves around Towns and Gobert. If one goes down or leaves the court, the team will pivot. They are not going to just plug Nathan Knight into the Gobert role and act like nothing's changed. That'd be foolish.

The fourth active C is a two way. In the playoffs two ways are not allowed to play. What are you truly advocating for? You want Knight replaced by Dozier? What good does it do to have 4 guys on the bench playing the same position with limited to no playing time. If Nowell and JMAC are the backups, then you have Forbes, Rivers, Lawson, and now Dozier, not to mention Moore. How does log jamming the guards and short staffing the bigs help us?

[minimus]

Read on Twitter

Again, I just don't see a need to keep four centers on the active roster. It'd be the equivalent of the Vikings keeping three QBs active on game day.

This is the exact reason you need another big. If KAT goes down now your out your starting PF and backup C. What happens if KA or Rudy get in foul trouble? What good is having 13 non bigs and only 4 bigs. No team in the league thinks like that, especially if their goal is to go big. Moreover, what happens if both KAT and Naz are sick at the same time? We play small all game? Why box themselves in like that. This isn’t football where the QB plays all the offensive minutes and rests on defense. Foul trouble doesn’t exist in football. The analogy is flawed on every level, and the principle is self defeating. What you are suggesting is making such a log jam at 1-3 that guys never sniff playing time and become malcontents. At least with a balanced roster when one guy goes down the next man up gets a chance to shine.

The team won't "play big" for the entire game. There will be a lot of time with Kyle Anderson or smaller at PF. The choice to "play big" revolves around Towns and Gobert. If one goes down or leaves the court, the team will pivot. They are not going to just plug Nathan Knight into the Gobert role and act like nothing's changed. That'd be foolish.

If it's something longterm, you can call up Paschall or whatever big guy from Iowa the next day. But wasting a roster spot on "what ifs" that go 2-3 steps deep is unwise.

Read on Twitter

?

[NebWolvesFan]

This is the exact reason you need another big. If KAT goes down now your out your starting PF and backup C. What happens if KA or Rudy get in foul trouble? What good is having 13 non bigs and only 4 bigs. No team in the league thinks like that, especially if their goal is to go big. Moreover, what happens if both KAT and Naz are sick at the same time? We play small all game? Why box themselves in like that. This isn’t football where the QB plays all the offensive minutes and rests on defense. Foul trouble doesn’t exist in football. The analogy is flawed on every level, and the principle is self defeating. What you are suggesting is making such a log jam at 1-3 that guys never sniff playing time and become malcontents. At least with a balanced roster when one guy goes down the next man up gets a chance to shine.

The team won't "play big" for the entire game. There will be a lot of time with Kyle Anderson or smaller at PF. The choice to "play big" revolves around Towns and Gobert. If one goes down or leaves the court, the team will pivot. They are not going to just plug Nathan Knight into the Gobert role and act like nothing's changed. That'd be foolish.

If it's something longterm, you can call up Paschall or whatever big guy from Iowa the next day. But wasting a roster spot on "what ifs" that go 2-3 steps deep is unwise.

Read on Twitter

?

We need to trade Reid for some draft picks. I feel we are going to lose him for nothing like we did Okogie. Now, maybe there wasn't a market for Josh, but I got to believe there is one for Naz.

[winforlose]

The team won't "play big" for the entire game. There will be a lot of time with Kyle Anderson or smaller at PF. The choice to "play big" revolves around Towns and Gobert. If one goes down or leaves the court, the team will pivot. They are not going to just plug Nathan Knight into the Gobert role and act like nothing's changed. That'd be foolish.

If it's something longterm, you can call up Paschall or whatever big guy from Iowa the next day. But wasting a roster spot on "what ifs" that go 2-3 steps deep is unwise.

Read on Twitter

?

We need to trade Reid for some draft picks. I feel we are going to lose him for nothing like we did Okogie. Now, maybe there wasn't a market for Josh, but I got to believe there is one for Naz.

Or a good young player. Obviously not a blue chip. But someone like Paul Reed, Payton Pritchard, ect…

[SO_MONEY]

Read on Twitter

Again, I just don't see a need to keep four centers on the active roster. It'd be the equivalent of the Vikings keeping three QBs active on game day.

This is the exact reason you need another big. If KAT goes down now your out your starting PF and backup C. What happens if KA or Rudy get in foul trouble? What good is having 13 non bigs and only 4 bigs. No team in the league thinks like that, especially if their goal is to go big. Moreover, what happens if both KAT and Naz are sick at the same time? We play small all game? Why box themselves in like that. This isn’t football where the QB plays all the offensive minutes and rests on defense. Foul trouble doesn’t exist in football. The analogy is flawed on every level, and the principle is self defeating. What you are suggesting is making such a log jam at 1-3 that guys never sniff playing time and become malcontents. At least with a balanced roster when one guy goes down the next man up gets a chance to shine.

The team won't "play big" for the entire game. There will be a lot of time with Kyle Anderson or smaller at PF. The choice to "play big" revolves around Towns and Gobert. If one goes down or leaves the court, the team will pivot. They are not going to just plug Nathan Knight into the Gobert role and act like nothing's changed. That'd be foolish.

If it's something longterm, you can call up Paschall or whatever big guy from Iowa the next day. But wasting a roster spot on "what ifs" that go 2-3 steps deep is unwise.

It doesn't matter if they won't go big the whole game. You have injury, foul trouble, load management all which could leave you one deep without the fourth guy We chose this direction, I am sure they know they need a 4th big to avoid depth issues.... AND THAT IS ACCOUNTING FOR PIVIOTS IN LINEUPS. Paschall is also not the type of big we need to fill in for potential shortages at the 5. I don't think people are speaking in esoteric terms when they know that you should be 3 deep at center under normal circumstances and when you depend on 2 to start you need a spare because something as simple as an injury would bring you below typical death... you would be down to 2, should I need to do the math.

[fattymcgee]

You all need to work on your reading comprehension.
Klomp said there wasn't a need to keep 4 CENTERS, and you are all arguing we need to keep more than 4 big men. Klomp never said how many PF's he thinks we should keep.

[Klomp]

The team won't "play big" for the entire game. There will be a lot of time with Kyle Anderson or smaller at PF. The choice to "play big" revolves around Towns and Gobert. If one goes down or leaves the court, the team will pivot. They are not going to just plug Nathan Knight into the Gobert role and act like nothing's changed. That'd be foolish.

If it's something longterm, you can call up Paschall or whatever big guy from Iowa the next day. But wasting a roster spot on "what ifs" that go 2-3 steps deep is unwise.

Read on Twitter

?

This is exactly my point. Towns at PF is one of the only times I'd consider us as "playing big." Maybe if Reid is playing with one of them. So if we are playing guys other than Towns and Reid at PF (which is a near guarantee), that's no longer "playing big" in my mind.

[SO_MONEY]

Read on Twitter

?

This is exactly my point. Towns at PF is one of the only times I'd consider us as "playing big." Maybe if Reid is playing with one of them. So if we are playing guys other than Towns and Reid at PF (which is a near guarantee), that's no longer "playing big" in my mind.

Playing big has nothing to do with anything, if you are planning on starting a 5 at PF and playing them big minutes you need additional depth, you could apply this logic to any position that would potentially leave you 1 deep due to injury, foul trouble or load management. Positional flexibility is key to cover these gaps based on hopefully short-term need and as we have done with all other aspects of the roster. The reality is without a 4th guy to play the 5 with some size this teams season could get upended by losing some games we might struggle to matchup in... a 4/5 is of great value to us to prevent that. You are treating this, the regular season, like the playoffs where rotations are shortened... that is when you might want better talent than a worst case need and why teams make late season moves.

[SO_MONEY]

dp

[SO_MONEY]

The team won't "play big" for the entire game. There will be a lot of time with Kyle Anderson or smaller at PF. The choice to "play big" revolves around Towns and Gobert. If one goes down or leaves the court, the team will pivot. They are not going to just plug Nathan Knight into the Gobert role and act like nothing's changed. That'd be foolish.

If it's something longterm, you can call up Paschall or whatever big guy from Iowa the next day. But wasting a roster spot on "what ifs" that go 2-3 steps deep is unwise.

Read on Twitter

?

We need to trade Reid for some draft picks. I feel we are going to lose him for nothing like we did Okogie. Now, maybe there wasn't a market for Josh, but I got to believe there is one for Naz.

I don't think we would trade Reid for draft pick(s) right now. I think having him this season or part of it is far more valuable. If we can make it to the deadline we might make an assessment then, but he is a better player than most which is out there. I don't think we weaken the team when the point is to win games. In fact this might be the deepest team we will have for the foreseeable future since Reid and Nowell are on the cheep, we could possibly loose both next year or get back lesser contributions. Right now Reid is a luxury.

[winforlose]

Read on Twitter

?

We need to trade Reid for some draft picks. I feel we are going to lose him for nothing like we did Okogie. Now, maybe there wasn't a market for Josh, but I got to believe there is one for Naz.

I don't think we would trade Reid for draft pick(s) right now. I think having him this season or part of it is far more valuable. If we can make it to the deadline we might make an assessment then, but he is a better player than most which is out there. I don't think we weaken the team when the point is to win games. In fact this might be the deepest team we will have for the foreseeable future since Reid and Nowell are on the cheep, we could possibly loose both next year or get back lesser contributions. Right now Reid is a luxury.

What about Hassan Whiteside as a replacement? The only major drawback I see is his attitude. Another minor drawback is he might also object to lack of minutes without foul trouble or injury to Rudy or KAT.

[Klomp]

This is exactly my point. Towns at PF is one of the only times I'd consider us as "playing big." Maybe if Reid is playing with one of them. So if we are playing guys other than Towns and Reid at PF (which is a near guarantee), that's no longer "playing big" in my mind.

Playing big has nothing to do with anything, if you are planning on starting a 5 at PF and playing them big minutes you need additional depth, you could apply this logic to any position that would potentially leave you 1 deep due to injury, foul trouble or load management. Positional flexibility is key to cover these gaps based on hopefully short-term need and as we have done with all other aspects of the roster. The reality is without a 4th guy to play the 5 with some size this teams season could get upended by losing some games we might struggle to matchup in... a 4/5 is of great value to us to prevent that. You are treating this, the regular season, like the playoffs where rotations are shortened... that is when you might want better talent than a worst case need and why teams make late season moves.

Starting a 5 at PF =/= always playing a 5 at PF.

How do I propose covering these gaps? You stop playing big. If Gobert leaves a game, your main 4 and 5 become Towns and Anderson. Reid is your backup C. Backup PF is filled in by Prince, McDaniels, etc.

There will be no game where we would struggle to match up due to cutting Nathan Knight.

[Zonarosa]

you get yourself way, way too caught up in these strict positional assignments. with the versatility we have, it'll likely be matchup dependent and change game to game. this isn't the 90's. it's just guards, wings and bigs these days.

That is easy to say, but like Finch said “you are what you can guard.” If you believe Prince can guard PF, then so be it. I don’t, most of the Minnesota beat writers don’t, and if you go back and really watch him on defense last year, you won’t either. JO couldn’t guard PFs, and JMAC cannot guard SFs. The positions PG, SG, SF, ect… have been relevant on offense for a long time. If you look back on this board I have said so many times. MCD cannot effectively guard PFs without getting fouls or beat inside because he isn’t strong enough. V8 had the same problem. On offense V8 was a C, but on defense he was out of position at PF, he is like MCD, a classic tall and long SF.

look, like i said before it's all about the matchups. you're just flat out ignoring that, and it seems to me that you're misinterpreting finch's statement too. if the lakers trot out both davis and bryant together, prince shouldn't be sliding over there. but toronto could easily run out some combo of siakam/barnes/boucher, and prince would likely fare just fine.

[SO_MONEY]

This is exactly my point. Towns at PF is one of the only times I'd consider us as "playing big." Maybe if Reid is playing with one of them. So if we are playing guys other than Towns and Reid at PF (which is a near guarantee), that's no longer "playing big" in my mind.

Playing big has nothing to do with anything, if you are planning on starting a 5 at PF and playing them big minutes you need additional depth, you could apply this logic to any position that would potentially leave you 1 deep due to injury, foul trouble or load management. Positional flexibility is key to cover these gaps based on hopefully short-term need and as we have done with all other aspects of the roster. The reality is without a 4th guy to play the 5 with some size this teams season could get upended by losing some games we might struggle to matchup in... a 4/5 is of great value to us to prevent that. You are treating this, the regular season, like the playoffs where rotations are shortened... that is when you might want better talent than a worst case need and why teams make late season moves.

Starting a 5 at PF =/= always playing a 5 at PF.

How do I propose covering these gaps? You stop playing big. If Gobert leaves a game, your main 4 and 5 become Towns and Anderson. Reid is your backup C. Backup PF is filled in by Prince, McDaniels, etc.

There will be no game where we would struggle to match up due to cutting Nathan Knight.

Not playing big doesn't cover the gaps... you are down to two centers, injury, foul trouble or load management leaves you 1 deep. I am taking in circles. The chances of or opportunity of this happening in magnified by playing two 5s starting minutes. None of this is overly complicated and you keep repeating yourself addressing nothing said because you have it in your mind you don't want a 4th center regardless of the consequences. I am against playing big to begin with, but it is what we did, it is how the roster will be built, regardless of me not liking it.

[winforlose]

you get yourself way, way too caught up in these strict positional assignments. with the versatility we have, it'll likely be matchup dependent and change game to game. this isn't the 90's. it's just guards, wings and bigs these days.

That is easy to say, but like Finch said “you are what you can guard.” If you believe Prince can guard PF, then so be it. I don’t, most of the Minnesota beat writers don’t, and if you go back and really watch him on defense last year, you won’t either. JO couldn’t guard PFs, and JMAC cannot guard SFs. The positions PG, SG, SF, ect… have been relevant on offense for a long time. If you look back on this board I have said so many times. MCD cannot effectively guard PFs without getting fouls or beat inside because he isn’t strong enough. V8 had the same problem. On offense V8 was a C, but on defense he was out of position at PF, he is like MCD, a classic tall and long SF.

look, like i said before it's all about the matchups. you're just flat out ignoring that, and it seems to me that you're misinterpreting finch's statement too. if the lakers trot out both davis and bryant together, prince shouldn't be sliding over there. but toronto could easily run out some combo of siakam/barnes/boucher, and prince would likely fare just fine.

As I said above a small ball center and a center are not the same thing. I agreed above that there are times we will match up, and times we will make them match up with us. But, matching up is not the same as being able to guard legit PFs or Cs. You are what you can guard. If the opponent plays small than you can be a small ball X. If the opponent doesn’t play small than the question is can you player X guard position Y. Prince cannot guard MOST PFs. If Prince is big enough, quick enough, and strong enough to guard a small ball PF, then so be it. But a lot of the time there is incentive to play bigger and keep the rebounding and offensive advantage that size allows. Even if costs you some points on defense.