Krawczynski: Tim Connelly as POBO (Official! page 6)

[Note30]

We'd need something more than Vanderbilt though and he's never going to be even a respectable offensive threat. You can't have 1 pure defensive player and 1 pure offensive player at the 4 & 5 and think that will get the job done. There is a reason Vanderbilt is a 22 minute a night guy and he does great for those minutes but he's basically playing 4 v 5 on offense and you can't get away with that in the NBA, especially from someone who isn't a rim protector.

You'd need someone like an Antony Davis playing at the 4 to pair up with KAT and they're just aren't many of those guys around. We can hate advanced analytics all we want but Gobert has been a top 15 (easily) player in the NBA by almost all good metrics and they don't lie. The eye test lies, the metrics don't, not when all of the good ones say the same thing.

What do your metrics say about Gobert this year? How does Vanderbilt compare? Nevermind the fact that at age 23 Vanderbilt is clearly trending one way and Gobert trending the other way. And Vanderbilt already has more offensive skill than Rudy does. His jump shot has made big strides this year.

Vanderbilt has next to no offensive skill besides shooting a corner 3 (only on the right side) if he's wide open and serving as a cutter. The Jazz were 5 points better with Vanderbilt off the court than on it and he was sharing the court with the starters. He shoots 21% on shots in the paint that aren't in the restricted area (league average is 46%). Vanderbilt will never average 15 points a game in his career, he just doesn't have that capability and as much as we fans might like to wish otherwise, 99% of the league don't just develop skills later in their career that they don't possess when coming into the league.

The best metrics still have Gobert being a good (not amazing) player where as they have Vanderbilt as being a negative to the team.

Vanderbilt didnt cost $40M and 5 picks.

Vanderbilt was always a backup player but a good one at that.

Also metrics don't mean anything clearly. If Gobert was so good, he'd be so good here. And he hasn't been. He's not the number one option on either end of the floor.

[shrink]

I don’t think the anti-Gobert crowd can be appeased.

One guy asks for metrics, and when you give them to him, the next guy says metrics don’t matter.

If there is no way to agree on a fair way to access Gobert, then we’ll have to resort to inflammatory rhetoric, illogical tests we don’t want to apply to our favorite players, and biased “eye tests,” .. which seems to be exactly where we’re at right now.

[coolcono]

I don’t think the anti-Gobert crowd can be appeased.

One guy asks for metrics, and when you give them to him, the next guy says metrics don’t matter.

If there is no way to agree on a fair way to access Gobert, then we’ll have to resort to inflammatory rhetoric, illogical tests we don’t want to apply to our favorite players, and biased “eye tests,” .. which seems to be exactly where we’re at right now.

I feel like Tim Connelly is the best front office man we have ever had, and he knows what he is doing. We should trust him.

[Krapinsky]

We'd need something more than Vanderbilt though and he's never going to be even a respectable offensive threat. You can't have 1 pure defensive player and 1 pure offensive player at the 4 & 5 and think that will get the job done. There is a reason Vanderbilt is a 22 minute a night guy and he does great for those minutes but he's basically playing 4 v 5 on offense and you can't get away with that in the NBA, especially from someone who isn't a rim protector.

You'd need someone like an Antony Davis playing at the 4 to pair up with KAT and they're just aren't many of those guys around. We can hate advanced analytics all we want but Gobert has been a top 15 (easily) player in the NBA by almost all good metrics and they don't lie. The eye test lies, the metrics don't, not when all of the good ones say the same thing.

What do your metrics say about Gobert this year? How does Vanderbilt compare? Nevermind the fact that at age 23 Vanderbilt is clearly trending one way and Gobert trending the other way. And Vanderbilt already has more offensive skill than Rudy does. His jump shot has made big strides this year.

Vanderbilt has next to no offensive skill besides shooting a corner 3 (only on the right side) if he's wide open and serving as a cutter. The Jazz were 5 points better with Vanderbilt off the court than on it and he was sharing the court with the starters. He shoots 21% on shots in the paint that aren't in the restricted area (league average is 46%). Vanderbilt will never average 15 points a game in his career, he just doesn't have that capability and as much as we fans might like to wish otherwise, 99% of the league don't just develop skills later in their career that they don't possess when coming into the league.

The best metrics still have Gobert being a good (not amazing) player where as they have Vanderbilt as being a negative to the team.

Why not provide apples to apples metrics? Seems like you’re picking and choosing.

What’s the Wolves record without Gobert this year?

Vanderbilt scores and makes an impact when you don’t run plays for him. Unlike Gobert, you have to guard him around the floor because of his ability to cut. Unlike Gobert, you can’t play 5 out and run him off the floor.

Is he a perfect player? No, but when you have two max players (Ant eventually) that are high volume offensive players he is a perfect low salary, low volume compliment.

[minimus]

After Connelly signed here, I was reading a lot of articles about DEN and I read many times that Connelly basically was lucky to draft Jokic, but after that he ruined DEN future with Porter and Murray contracts. Gordon's trade was also considered as average.

Right now DEN have the best NBA offense... Just thinking aloud...

[Guest84]

Some interesting info about Connelly's tenure in Den starting at about the 28:30 mark.

Watch on YouTube

[shrink]

Way to go, Klomp!

I’ve often thought that I’d like to see you do a regular gig on one of the local shows.

[Klomp]

Some interesting info about Connelly's tenure in Den starting at about the 28:30 mark.

Hey thanks!

[Baseline81]

Hey thanks!

Can I ask what you were hoping to get from asking such a question?

From what Theige mentioned, Denver was an aging team on the backend of its window. Thus, it may have made sense for Connelly to make immediate changes. Minnesota's situation, though, was that of an emerging young team. It just seems Connelly wanted to put his own stamp on things.

[Klomp]

Hey thanks!

Can I ask what you were hoping to get from asking such a question?

From what Theige mentioned, Denver was an aging team on the backend of its window. Thus, it may have made sense for Connelly to make immediate changes. Minnesota's situation, though, was that of an emerging young team. It just seems Connelly wanted to put his own stamp on things.

Honestly, it wasn't even a question to them...more of a statement that they ran with. I was making the point that I've made here, that building a roster is a process that's more than about what happens in Year 1.

Read on Twitter

To your comment about window, the Denver starters on that 57-win team were 25, 29, 24, 23, 23. Andre Miller (36) was the only other player on the roster older than 26. They were definitely not too old.

But here's where I really saw the similarity between the situations...it was a group that you could say likely maxed out its production in a mostly-healthy season. The most-injured starter, Danilo Gallinari, missed just 11 games, but an ACL tear with 6 games remaining held him out of the next season as well. That team didn't even have a 17-point per game scorer. I don't think they would have replicated it if they simply ran it back. I don't think that's a hot take.

[younggunsmn]

I'm probably never going to like the Gobert trade, but I like the Russell/Conley trade a lot so far, and it will probably look even better once KAT comes back.

I'm liking the team's developing defensive identity, NAW looks like he can carve out a role as another perimeter defender, and the 3 2nd round draft picks were sorely needed.

I give him an F from his hire up until september and an A- beginning with the Garza signing.

[Guest84]

Considering the injuries, trade, etc...is this season a failure if we miss the playoffs? Miss the play-in?

Is it a failure even if we make the play-in or playoffs?

[Klomp]

Considering the injuries, trade, etc...is this season a failure if we miss the playoffs? Miss the play-in?

Is it a failure even if we make the play-in or playoffs?

It's definitely a disappointment, but it's been such a wacky season around the West that I'm not sure I would classify it as a failure

Read on Twitter

[Guest84]

Sounds like there’s speculation associating Tim with the new GM position opening up in Washington. Sounds like he initially wanted the job a few years back but he declined it due to a lowball offer.

[Klomp]

Sounds like there’s speculation associating Tim with the new GM position opening up in Washington. Sounds like he initially wanted the job a few years back but he declined it due to a lowball offer.

I'm not certain, but I think Washington has a rep like Denver had in that they don't really pay their execs much. Considering Tim turned them down before and has since gotten a payday, I would be surprised if he bailed for that job just because its his hometown area.

[urinesane]

What do your metrics say about Gobert this year? How does Vanderbilt compare? Nevermind the fact that at age 23 Vanderbilt is clearly trending one way and Gobert trending the other way. And Vanderbilt already has more offensive skill than Rudy does. His jump shot has made big strides this year.

Vanderbilt has next to no offensive skill besides shooting a corner 3 (only on the right side) if he's wide open and serving as a cutter. The Jazz were 5 points better with Vanderbilt off the court than on it and he was sharing the court with the starters. He shoots 21% on shots in the paint that aren't in the restricted area (league average is 46%). Vanderbilt will never average 15 points a game in his career, he just doesn't have that capability and as much as we fans might like to wish otherwise, 99% of the league don't just develop skills later in their career that they don't possess when coming into the league.

The best metrics still have Gobert being a good (not amazing) player where as they have Vanderbilt as being a negative to the team.

Why not provide apples to apples metrics? Seems like you’re picking and choosing.

What’s the Wolves record without Gobert this year?

Vanderbilt scores and makes an impact when you don’t run plays for him. Unlike Gobert, you have to guard him around the floor because of his ability to cut. Unlike Gobert, you can’t play 5 out and run him off the floor.

Is he a perfect player? No, but when you have two max players (Ant eventually) that are high volume offensive players he is a perfect low salary, low volume compliment.

Apples to apples, Vando is not a shot blocking threat, nor is he the kind of defensive rebounding talent the Wolves needed.

Why even talk about their offense? They are both extremely limited, but there's no arguing that Gobert draws more gravity from defenses due to his lob threat (Vando does not). Which is why it's really weird that you are acting as if opposing teams didn't leave Vando alone last season (especially in the playoffs) to double KAT. At least Gobert can finish around the basket at a decent rate (and be a legit lob threat, not just on flashy plays). Gobert also draws more fouls, which even if he isn't a great FT shooter is a benefit because it can put other team's in foul trouble (the Wolves just need to make them pay by hitting FTs).

Vando has some flashes of exceptional rebounding on the offensive end, but for some reason it does not translate to the defensive end (where it's most important). Watching the Lakers against the Grizzlies last night showed exactly what we saw last playoffs and was the major reason the Wolves lost that series. The Grizzlies were too physical for Vando on the offensive boards and it really limited his impact (and gave the Grizzlies extra possessions). When Vando has room to use his leaping, he shows some incredible skills as a rebounder, when someone puts a body on him, most of that is nullified.

You can argue contracts etc, and that's fine, but player vs player and what they contribute in terms of defensive rebounding and shotblocking threat (which is often shown by players not even attacking how they normally would) isn't an argument, Gobert is far better in those areas than Vando.

You can say it was a bad value trade wise (and you'd be right), but let's not start warping reality to fit your own narratives.

[younggunsmn]

You are not giving Vando near the credit he deserves for his defense.
He has absolutely locked Ant down twice including 3/17 shooting.
He's a roleplayer, but he can play any style of defense and guard 1 through 5.
He's the glue that makes Davis and Lebron very hard to score against in the frontcourt.

Gobert is also a role player, just a much much much much more expensive one.
Vanderbilt is also a very good rebounder, that's not his primary role though and it's less necessary on the Lakers.
That he was just seen as a throw-in by Connelly in the Gobert trade was an egregious mistake.

[younggunsmn]

Getting out of Connelly's contract and letting him leave for Washington might be best case scenario for this franchise.
I won't ever trust him to make another big trade after the Gobert disaster, and it's going to take another couple of very big trades to get this franchise headed in the right direction.
I'd be very curious to see where Gupta stood on the Gobert trade and would be willing to give him a full time shot if you could surround him with some really good scouts.
Gupta did stay the course to a season that exceeded expectations after Rosas got canned when he could have made a bunch of flashy trades. I'd be curious what his big picture vision for the team was had he been hired full time instead of TC.

[shangrila]

All of the local reporters have said the entire FO, from Connelly and Gupta to Finch, were onboard with the Gobert trade. So if that's your metric for getting rid of someone it's going to take a full clean house, probably including incoming ownership too.

[TimberKat]

Getting out of Connelly's contract and letting him leave for Washington might be best case scenario for this franchise.
I won't ever trust him to make another big trade after the Gobert disaster, and it's going to take another couple of very big trades to get this franchise headed in the right direction.
I'd be very curious to see where Gupta stood on the Gobert trade and would be willing to give him a full time shot if you could surround him with some really good scouts.
Gupta did stay the course to a season that exceeded expectations after Rosas got canned when he could have made a bunch of flashy trades. I'd be curious what his big picture vision for the team was had he been hired full time instead of TC.

I am not giving up on Connelly yet. Seems like every GM we had was bad. Could you name one good one? If we look at SAC at the end of last season, I am sure their fans wanted to fire their GM too. Gupta didn't do much, so, if that is the qualifications for good than they should hire me instead.

Looking back, maybe we should had wanted until mid season or end of this season to make a big move. He at least has a track record of being good or lucky. Let's give him some time to work his magic.