RealGM

http://dberri.wordpress.com/

The first article today is the article on Love and the roster. Or look for "The Tragedy of Kevin Love" on the side bar.

As much as we would all hate to see yet another roster restructuring, i can't help but agree with the article stating Kahn is committed to these unproductive players.

Do we keep just Love and Ridnour?

I think Randolph deserves a full season. Wes Johnson deserves at least a sophomore season. Tolliver can be a bench big on a playoff team IMO. Outside of those five i'm okay with moving the rest of the roster including Beasley if we receive an enticing package for him. Also it is important to remember the scraps we paid for him.

What should be our new core? Because it's definitely no longer Flynn, Darko and Beasley.

The reason that some of those players have terrible advanced stats is because we use them in a bigger role then they deserve. Brewer was one of the worst players in the NBA last year in advanced numbers, but we wasn't near as bad this year since he was in a reduced role. Or do people really believe Andrea Bargnani is the worst player in the NBA?

Topic from the stats board on Berri and Wins produced: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1037764&start=0

Conclusion: It's very flawed and you shouldn't take it too seriously.

For me, the keepers are

blank, Ridnour
Johnson, Webster
Beasley, Hayward
Love, Tolliver
blank, Randolph

That's 8 guys from this year's roster and Hayward is more of a personal preference, but give Johnson a sophomore season, give Beas a sophomore "perimeter" year, Tolliver and Randolph, if he beefs up, make for a decent big duo off the bench and Webster, if healthy, and Ridnour give some veteran experience. Replace the blanks with Rubio/Irving and Chandler/Bismack and fill out some of the other spots with Juwan Howard-like veterans, then cruise to 82 wins.

shangrila wrote:(Snipped for space)

This is pretty much exactly what I want to see happen. Combine that roster with a coach that demands strong defense and has a simple but effective offense and that team could win 30+ games next year.

This is what the Wolves have.

PG ???? - Ridnour
SG Wesley - Webster
SF ????? - Tolliver - Randolph
PF Love - Beasley - Randolph
C ???? - Darko - Love

They have one guy good enough to be a top 3 guy on a quality playoff team in Love. They have an above average backup PG in Ridnour who provides shooting, solid ball handling, veteran leadership.

They have a potential sixth man candidate in Beasley if he were to accept that role. They have a pair of athletic, lengthy, shooters at SG who can provide solid floor spacing and are both capable of being more effective with better playmakers at PG & SF if the Wolves can find such players.

They have a backup center who can defend and who has untapped or perhaps untappable offensive skills, either way he's better then most backup centers.

They have two hustling garbage players, one in Tolliver who knows how to play but has almost no upside and a second in Randolph who has considerable upside but doesn't have any polish and does everything on hustle and athletic ability.

They have two real options in finding the PG they need in Rubio and possibly being in position to draft Irving should they land a top two pick. I personally would hope to draft Irving and then package Rubio with a draft pick to dump the wasted roster spots under contract like Flynn, Ellington, etc.

JMillott wrote:SF ????? - Tolliver
PF Beasley

Come on, dude.

AQuintus wrote:

JMillott wrote:SF ????? - Tolliver
PF Beasley

Come on, dude.

No, I agree. Beasley is a PF.

mandurugo wrote:
No, I agree. Beasley is a PF.

Except that he plays like a SF on O and is much better guarding the perimeter than he is guarding the post.

AQuintus wrote:

shangrila wrote:(Snipped for space)

This is pretty much exactly what I want to see happen. Combine that roster with a coach that demands strong defense and has a simple but effective offense and that team could win 30+ games next year.

That's what she said

AQuintus wrote:

JMillott wrote:SF ????? - Tolliver
PF Beasley

Come on, dude.

Yeah, seriously. It's one thing to think Beasley is a better as a 4, it's another to think Tolliver is better suited as a 3 than Beasley.

JMillott wrote:This is what the Wolves have.

PG ???? - Ridnour
SG Wesley - Webster
SF ????? - Tolliver - Randolph
PF Love - Beasley - Randolph
C ???? - Darko - Love

Here is the way I see it. I can live with shoehorning Johnson into a SG if he's playing off of Rubio, but as is, I think he's better suited to be a SF.

PG: ?????? - Ridnour (Rubio rights)
SG: ?????? - ??????? - Ellington
SF: Beasley - Johnson - Webster - Hayward
PF: Love - Randolph - Tolliver
C: ????? - Darko - Pekovic

Krap, you're full of great insight but your avatar really annoys the "Krap" outta me. I just wish Rambis would go away.

END RANT.

shangrila wrote:For me, the keepers are

blank, Ridnour
Johnson, Webster
Beasley, Hayward
Love, Tolliver
blank, Randolph

That's 8 guys from this year's roster and Hayward is more of a personal preference, but give Johnson a sophomore season, give Beas a sophomore "perimeter" year, Tolliver and Randolph, if he beefs up, make for a decent big duo off the bench and Webster, if healthy, and Ridnour give some veteran experience. Replace the blanks with Rubio/Irving and Chandler/Bismack and fill out some of the other spots with Juwan Howard-like veterans, then cruise to 82 wins.

its sad when "blank" > ridnour AND "blank" > randolph & our C's.
if only we could sign blank to a multi-year contract.

God we suck...

Rubio and top 4 pick/Irving and whatever rubio rights gets us, Johnson, Beasely and Love is all I want to see stay.

You guys still trying to trade Beasley huh?

No, nobody mentioned trading Beasley. They're arguing about whether he should be an undersized overmatched PF or a laterally slow SF.

AQuintus wrote:

mandurugo wrote:
No, I agree. Beasley is a PF.

Except that he plays like a SF on O and is much better guarding the perimeter than he is guarding the post.

I agree he likes to play from outside in (or, as you say, a SF) - but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing from a PF. There have been plenty of other PF's like that, including a couple great ones such as KG and Nowitzki. But I think he guards the post much better than the perimeter, even if he is guarding PF's and not SF's. That's more of an impression then a fact based assertion though.

mandurugo wrote:But I think he guards the post much better than the perimeter, even if he is guarding PF's and not SF's. That's more of an impression then a fact based assertion though.

Beasley in PF defensive situations:

Beasley guarding the post: 1 PPP (248th in the NBA)
Beasley guarding P&R Roller (like he would as a PF): 1.35 PPP (No ranking)

Beasley in SF defensive situations:

Beasley guarding iso plays: 0.69 PPP (54th in the NBA)
Beasley guarding P&R ball handler: 0.75 PPP (49th in the NBA)

Beasley in defensive a situation for both positions

Beasley guarding spot ups: 1.03 PPP (245th in the NBA) (I would blame a lot of this on Rambis' over-helping defense, because everyone on the team sucks at spot ups).

Thanks for the numbers - very interesting; definitely support your position. Once again I'll have to re-think. Actually, those numbers seem pretty good, I'd hardly expected Beasley to be ranked so high defensively. Why are they so much better than his overall ranking, does Synergy think he played more time at PF then SF?