Ronzone: "We're Going to Take the Best Player Available"

[Klomp]

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/audio-on- ... and-dave/#

Ronzone was on with Sid this morning. Sounds like it will be Williams.

[Worm Guts]

Yup, we've got to take Williams. Whether we keep him is the question.

[wildvikeswolves]

The closer we get to the draft the more certain i get that we will keep DW or Kyrie, whichever one is available to us.

[Devilzsidewalk]

tried to listen to it, but had to stop when Sid started talking and realized again that he's a hundred sixty five years old, but I gathered myself and I"m gonna try again here. Really want to hear Ronzone; gives you more basketball talk where Kahn gives you more sales talk.

[Esohny]

Didn't they peg Wes Johnson as BPA last year? And Flynn as BPA the year before?

I would expect them to take Williams, but I wouldn't bet on any outcome with these guys.

[eToasT]

Didn't they peg Wes Johnson as BPA last year? And Flynn as BPA the year before?

I would expect them to take Williams, but I wouldn't bet on any outcome with these guys.

Jan Vesely for #2

[Devilzsidewalk]

Didn't they peg Wes Johnson as BPA last year? And Flynn as BPA the year before?

I would expect them to take Williams, but I wouldn't bet on any outcome with these guys.

that's exactly what I was thinking. Supposed to be reassuring that they're going to take the best player and not reach for somebody, but it doesn't mean they have any clue who the best player is.

Pretty brief interview, best thing was Sid calling him out on not using the #20 and Ronzone had to BS and pretend like they haven't already been ordered to trade the pick for a future pretend asset

[weasel]

Souonds like some people haven't been following any sports long enough to know that EVERY front office from EVERY team in EVERY league says they are going to take the "best player available" in their draft.

Take a deep breath, calm down a little bit. The only thing you need to know about draft week: If the front office is talking, they are blowing smoke.

As far as the Wes and Flynn picks; I still have both feet firmly planted in the 'I like the Wes pick' circle. For Flynn, I put 80% of his failure on Rambis. There is no way to know if Curry or Jennings would be any better if they had been selected instead.

[bluethunder0005]

Taking BPA is good in theory. However, for a team that has been as bad for as long as we have you eventually have to start picking based on need. Williams trade value instantly drops the second we draft him because he'd be a bench player behind Beasley/Love and teams will know we are looking to move one of those 3.

[AQuintus]

Williams trade value instantly drops the second we draft him because he'd be a bench player behind Beasley/Love and teams will know we are looking to move one of those 3.

I don't think either would necessarily be true. If we draft Williams and don't move him immediately in a drat day trade, then he'll be here long term (meaning we won't trade him), and we're not going to trade either Love or Beasley. As for Williams being a backup, I would expect that they'll at least try to have a Beasley (SF) - Williams (PF) - Love (C) lineup.

[bluethunder0005]

Williams trade value instantly drops the second we draft him because he'd be a bench player behind Beasley/Love and teams will know we are looking to move one of those 3.

I don't think either would necessarily be true. If we draft Williams and don't move him immediately in a drat day trade, then he'll be here long term (meaning we won't trade him), and we're not going to trade either Love or Beasley. As for Williams being a backup, I would expect that they'll at least try to have a Beasley (SF) - Williams (PF) - Love (C) lineup.

I'd be alright with trying that but I really just don't see it working. Love is a very poor defender at PF and would be at C as well, though there is a lack of competition there. Beasley is a poor defender at SF and will probably always be like that unless he gets to play at his natural position of PF. I doubt Williams will be a really good defender, probably just an average one. If it doesn't work then we'd be pretty much forced into trading one of the 3 which lowers their value.

[EddyCool]

Williams trade value instantly drops the second we draft him because he'd be a bench player behind Beasley/Love and teams will know we are looking to move one of those 3.

I don't think either would necessarily be true. If we draft Williams and don't move him immediately in a drat day trade, then he'll be here long term (meaning we won't trade him), and we're not going to trade either Love or Beasley. As for Williams being a backup, I would expect that they'll at least try to have a Beasley (SF) - Williams (PF) - Love (C) lineup.

Yeah, I don't buy it, either. His value is unaffected as a high-end prospect until he starts playing. A GM can tell us our bargaining leverage is lessened because we don't have a starting spot for DW, but that's crap if we don't intend to trade him. He comes in and if - and this is worst-case planning - he doesn't pressure Beasley/Love as the starting forwards, then he comes off the bench, and plays in the rotation to reflect his contributions. 20 minutes? 30? The position thing is only a problem if 3 of those guys pan out to be REALLY good - starters on any team, good. He's a rookie, there will be adjustments and growing pains, no matter what.

The more difficult the, "we have too many forwards that we like and want to start," situation gets, the more sweet our bench is and the more enticing players get in trade dialogues. You think GMs are going to call saying, "we know you have to trade one of them - you can't have 2 or 3 awesome forwards on the floor at all times." It'd be more likely that they'd come calling and hoping we'd be willing to part with one, because we have the others.

And if the fear is that Williams would want out (and right away?!), he was talking at his workout here about working out with Wes and Beas in Cali, and specifically stated that he feels that the 3 of them can definitely exist and create a lot of problems for other teams as a unit. That would still leave us with a center of Love or Randolph or Darko or Pek or whatever.

I'd be alright with trying that but I really just don't see it working. Love is a very poor defender at PF and would be at C as well, though there is a lack of competition there. Beasley is a poor defender at SF and will probably always be like that unless he gets to play at his natural position of PF. I doubt Williams will be a really good defender, probably just an average one. If it doesn't work then we'd be pretty much forced into trading one of the 3 which lowers their value.

You're not forced, though. I don't think Beasley's as much of a 4 of people say, and if you do entertain trading one for defensive help, it isn't as though the situation changes all that much from what it is now. If Milwaukee is interested in 2 for Bogut (essentially), they clearly want Williams. We've definitely seen situations like Randolph where circumstances absolutely KILLED trade value, but that was over a few years and with D'Antoni helping us out. Are we hesitant on Williams because we are concerned that, 2-3 years down the line, if it doesn't work we're in tough spot? That's not good planning.

[AQuintus]

I'd be alright with trying that but I really just don't see it working. Love is a very poor defender at PF and would be at C as well, though there is a lack of competition there.

Love's biggest problem on D is not closing out on jump shots, which is much less of an issue at the Center spot. He's actually pretty good defending post ups.

Beasley is a poor defender at SF and will probably always be like that unless he gets to play at his natural position of PF.

Beasley is actually much better guarding the perimeter than he is defending in the post. His biggest problems at the SF are leaving his man open for 3s (which is more Rambis' D than anything) and just general lack of awareness, which should hopefully improve over time.

[Worm Guts]

I don't think Beasley, Williams, Love is a long term front court. It's sort of a stall tactic that gives us a better chance to look at Beasley and Williams before making a decision. It also has the potential to be a lot fun to watch.

[phonzadellika]

^ Excited to watch a Rubio-led offense where the other 4 guys can hit a shot from anywhere on the court.

[eyeteeth]

Beas/Williams/Love at the 3/4/5 is a rotation lineup. It happens when the matchup is right at center (which favors us amazingly well) or when the other team's starting top-level center is on the bench. In either of those situations this lineup kills for us. It's a total win. Beas and Williams' shooting and driving + Love's rebounding and lane presence (as a distraction for opposing D's) makes this a winning combo.

It doesn't work out well for us that this lineup does not work well against the best team's best lineups. In that sense, we still need a legit center. But Williams can fit on this team for at least a couple years, maybe more. Him working with Beas and Wes just means he is prepared to be Love's backup. Which doesn't suck.

For us on D, nothing matters right now more than coaching. When we get a real NBA defensive system, then we can evaluate our players' defensive play. Until then, they all get a pass in my book.

[karch34]

I'm inclined to believe unless it's a deal for a SG on a reasonable deal (Gordon or Derozen) we're not trading Williams. I think the price for Iggy, Ellis, Bogut, etc is going to be too high, unless management thinks it makes them a contender. All of those would significantly improve our team, but probably not enough for how it's going to remove flexibility.

I think we go with Williams and then #20, Flynn, Pekovic, Webster, and possiblyTolliver then become the pieces to get a veteran at SG, but I dont think it's going to be a very sexy deal. I mention Pek and Tolliver as I think they will try to get Williams, Beasley, Love, and Randolph a lot of minutes with Darko as the true C when needed, so those two become the odd men out.

[Esohny]

Jonas info:

"Valanciunas update: Sources say buyout agreement close, however, buyout won't allow Valanciunas to play in NBA next season. If Valanciunas can't play in NBA next year, he'll drop. Cavs won't take him at 4. Still I doubt he slips past the Rockets at 14."

Does that effectively eliminate him as a realistic option for Kahn?

[Klomp]

Jonas info:

"Valanciunas update: Sources say buyout agreement close, however, buyout won't allow Valanciunas to play in NBA next season. If Valanciunas can't play in NBA next year, he'll drop. Cavs won't take him at 4. Still I doubt he slips past the Rockets at 14."

Does that effectively eliminate him as a realistic option for Kahn?

Was he ever a realistic option?

[phonzadellika]

I could see Kahn trading up for 20 for him if he dropped past 10. I think Ronzone would be pushing for it.