RealGM

espn.com just posted future rankings and the timberwolves are ranked 27. I'm not concerned about the ranking because we can't change are market which drops us a lot.

My complaint is that they say we have the worst management. Then in the next paragraph they talk about beasley being a steal and Darko showing he has potential.

I'm just not getting how these are future and the nets are ranked 12th?

What are they ranking? Success or $$$?

Honestly, I would think we would be in the top half of the future rankings.

Rubio (20)
Top 10 2011 pick
Love (21)
Beasley (21)
Darko (25)
Johnson (23)
Webster (24)
Flynn (21)
*these ages are off the top of my head, some could be off by a year


Two picks owed to us. Rights owed to Prestes, Bjelica. Capspace flexibility. Easily movable contracts in Pekovic, Tolliver, Ridnour, Telfair, Ellington, Brewer, and Hayward.

(Please Use More Appropriate Word).

They said Rambis in his career here has made eyebrow rising moves. Like his "distaste" for keeping Love on the floor despite his "obvious production". These "experts" haven't watched a Wolves game since opening night.

Just another reason why ESPN has lost all credibility.

It was probably written by Ford or Hollinger. Those two get so much love for being absolute retards. When they start making meaningful contributions to basketball coverage or are fired, I will start going to ESPN.com again.

Teams above us include Phoenix and freaking Detroit. I won't argue about whether they're better then us now, but going forward? No chance. I also don't get how teams like the Mavericks and LA, who don't have much of a future after their guys start the inevitable decline, are ranked so high.

It should be called the Ford and Hollinger "Who We Like Best" rankings.

I think they listed us around this mark about 2 to 3 years ago, and look where we are.

Awful. This is the kind of list we should do okay on. I am not saying top ten, but top 2/3 at least.
Some examples why this is terrible...
Market, Minnesota 29, Milwaukee 24...
What? Have you been to Milwaukee? Have you been to Minneapolis? They are both cold, Minneapolis is a much larger metro area. The Target Center is far nicer than the Bradley Center. Minneapolis is a great city. If market it strictly "Market" Minneapolis should be WAY higher. 29? For the next 5 years Minneapolis will be one of the most financially secure markets out there. New Orleans? Sacramento? Charlotte? Detroit? ESPN should be embarrassed...
Management 30? what the hell? I don't get that. In their explanation they cite one bad move, owing the Clips a pick, that was done by previous management. What can even be done about that by our current management. They also state that Love Beasley is a formidable young core... Who brought Beasley in for nothing? Management did.
Also, the shot at Taylor with no fact behind it. What are they even arguing? "He ranks low to most league observers"... Low in what? Not spending? No, because they said right after that he is willing to spend... How is he negatively seen? He is the President of the board of owners???? I am sure a **** owner would be President.
ESPN is garbage. They should be embarrassed for publishing that.

funkatron101 wrote:I think they listed us around this mark about 2 to 3 years ago, and look where we are.

Yes and I know back then we wer playing with Jefferson, Foye and Miller... No assests, no cap space only Al was a potential star but he got injured or else espn may have been prove worng again.

How can a team with so much potential be ranked so low

Twolves98 wrote:

funkatron101 wrote:I think they listed us around this mark about 2 to 3 years ago, and look where we are.

Yes and I know back then we wer playing with Jefferson, Foye and Miller... No assests, no cap space only Al was a potential star but he got injured or else espn may have been prove worng again.

How can a team with so much potential be ranked so low

But back then, we said the same thing!

Anything can happen in two to three years. Look at the turnover we had. I think these lists are stupid in general, but it's silly to get so up in arms about it every time.

jballer_13 wrote:It was probably written by Ford or Hollinger. Those two get so much love for being absolute retards. When they start making meaningful contributions to basketball coverage or are fired, I will start going to ESPN.com again.

It was actually written by Ford AND Hollinger (for real).

big3_8_19_21 wrote:

jballer_13 wrote:It was probably written by Ford or Hollinger. Those two get so much love for being absolute retards. When they start making meaningful contributions to basketball coverage or are fired, I will start going to ESPN.com again.

It was actually written by Ford AND Hollinger (for real).

well obviously, whats the point of lying together in bed spooning if you're not going to write an article together

funkatron101 wrote:

Twolves98 wrote:

funkatron101 wrote:I think they listed us around this mark about 2 to 3 years ago, and look where we are.

Yes and I know back then we wer playing with Jefferson, Foye and Miller... No assests, no cap space only Al was a potential star but he got injured or else espn may have been prove worng again.

How can a team with so much potential be ranked so low

But back then, we said the same thing!

Anything can happen in two to three years. Look at the turnover we had. I think these lists are stupid in general, but it's silly to get so up in arms about it every time.

funk, have you overtaken Calinks, wolvesfan82au, and LordBaldric as our resident pessimist?

Krapinsky wrote:What are they ranking? Success or $$$?

Honestly, I would think we would be in the top half of the future rankings.

Rubio (20)
Top 10 2011 pick
Love (21)
Beasley (21)
Darko (25)
Johnson (23)
Webster (24)
Flynn (21)
*these ages are off the top of my head, some could be off by a year


Two picks owed to us. Rights owed to Prestes, Bjelica. Capspace flexibility. Easily movable contracts in Pekovic, Tolliver, Ridnour, Telfair, Ellington, Brewer, and Hayward.

(Please Use More Appropriate Word).

They assigned arbitrary values according to how they felt teams stacked up in a variety of criteria based on where Ford and Hollinger felt they stacked up for the next three years. They didn't mention Rubio (as an asset or a player) or the other guys playing in Europe. Just mentioned the pick owed to the Clippers and took a couple shots at Taylor and Kahn.

Although they did give out 20 points for having the worst management in the league as opposed to the 6 they gave the FO last time.

Klomp wrote:funk, have you overtaken Calinks, wolvesfan82au, and LordBaldric as our resident pessimist?

Which reminds me. Where did Casey go?

Klomp wrote:

funkatron101 wrote:Anything can happen in two to three years. Look at the turnover we had. I think these lists are stupid in general, but it's silly to get so up in arms about it every time.

funk, have you overtaken Calinks, wolvesfan82au, and LordBaldric as our resident pessimist?

His statement doesn't look all that pessimistic to me. It is silly to get up in arms about these lists. I guess it would be pessimistic if you're a big Ford or Hollinger fan, but they don't have their own forum...yet.

horaceworthy wrote:

Krapinsky wrote:What are they ranking? Success or $$$?

Honestly, I would think we would be in the top half of the future rankings.

Rubio (20)
Top 10 2011 pick
Love (21)
Beasley (21)
Darko (25)
Johnson (23)
Webster (24)
Flynn (21)
*these ages are off the top of my head, some could be off by a year


Two picks owed to us. Rights owed to Prestes, Bjelica. Capspace flexibility. Easily movable contracts in Pekovic, Tolliver, Ridnour, Telfair, Ellington, Brewer, and Hayward.

(Please Use More Appropriate Word).

They assigned arbitrary values according to how they felt teams stacked up in a variety of criteria based on where Ford and Hollinger felt they stacked up for the next three years. They didn't mention Rubio (as an asset or a player) or the other guys playing in Europe. Just mentioned the pick owed to the Clippers and took a couple shots at Taylor and Kahn.

Although they did give out 20 points for having the worst management in the league as opposed to the 6 they gave the FO last time.

Yeah, as soon as someone said it was a Ford/Hollinger poo combo platter I lost all interest in this. Hollinger provides a somewhat unique take once in a while, albeit a wrong one. Ford is jsut bias to the GM's that give him access, hence why Detoit is so high on his list. Greg Monroe! Jerebko! Hamilton, Bynum, Villanueva and Gordon for $35M/year!!

C.lupus wrote:

Klomp wrote:funk, have you overtaken Calinks, wolvesfan82au, and LordBaldric as our resident pessimist?

Which reminds me. Where did Casey go?

What's worse, Casey's huge Ronzone for the Blazers, or the misspelled Wolves jersey?