ImageImageImage

Ricky Rubio #9

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 11,652
And1: 2,389
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1061 » by KGdaBom » Tue Oct 3, 2017 3:16 pm

PharmD wrote:Watched the Jazz game (will watch them all obv). Ricky is LOOKING terrible. He has a man bun and an unkempt beard and some ugly new tats. He looks just friggin terrible. And fat.

I don't care much about how he looks. How did he play?
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 55,968
And1: 12,104
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1062 » by Klomp » Tue Oct 3, 2017 6:12 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
PharmD wrote:Watched the Jazz game (will watch them all obv). Ricky is LOOKING terrible. He has a man bun and an unkempt beard and some ugly new tats. He looks just friggin terrible. And fat.

I don't care much about how he looks. How did he play?

Per the Jazz board, good in fastbreak situations, but a liability in the halfcourt. So considering how much the Jazz (don't) run, not great.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 11,652
And1: 2,389
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1063 » by KGdaBom » Tue Oct 3, 2017 6:51 pm

Klomp wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
PharmD wrote:Watched the Jazz game (will watch them all obv). Ricky is LOOKING terrible. He has a man bun and an unkempt beard and some ugly new tats. He looks just friggin terrible. And fat.

I don't care much about how he looks. How did he play?

Per the Jazz board, good in fastbreak situations, but a liability in the halfcourt. So considering how much the Jazz (don't) run, not great.

Rubio took 4 shots and missed them all. Small sample size, but showing his usual shooting Woes.
User avatar
urinesane
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,371
And1: 2,250
Joined: May 10, 2010
 

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1064 » by urinesane » Tue Oct 3, 2017 9:46 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
Klomp wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:I don't care much about how he looks. How did he play?

Per the Jazz board, good in fastbreak situations, but a liability in the halfcourt. So considering how much the Jazz (don't) run, not great.

Rubio took 4 shots and missed them all. Small sample size, but showing his usual shooting Woes.




Hehehe, how did he play?

Way to take one thing and not mention anything else.

He played 19 minutes had 3 points, on 0/4 shooting (2 of those were 3's), shot 3/4 at the FT line, had 1 reb, 4 ast, 2 Stl, 1 Blk and 1 TOV. +11 on the game and they won by 25.

I could think of worse 1st pre-season games for a guy who was playing all summer and is with an all new group of teammates/coach.

Though he did miss those 4 shots. Good thing we got basically nothing of value for him!
mercgold3
General Manager
Posts: 8,745
And1: 2,821
Joined: Nov 21, 2013
   

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1065 » by mercgold3 » Tue Oct 3, 2017 9:55 pm

To be fair with Ricky, he got like 6/7 assists. Not 4.

I don't know why they only counted 4.
User avatar
Mattya
RealGM
Posts: 14,912
And1: 3,902
Joined: Aug 08, 2008
   

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1066 » by Mattya » Tue Oct 3, 2017 10:16 pm

mercgold3 wrote:To be fair with Ricky, he got like 6/7 assists. Not 4.

I don't know why they only counted 4.


Considering their history with inflating stats I doubt they would miss the opportunity.
mercgold3
General Manager
Posts: 8,745
And1: 2,821
Joined: Nov 21, 2013
   

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1067 » by mercgold3 » Tue Oct 3, 2017 10:19 pm

Mattya wrote:
mercgold3 wrote:To be fair with Ricky, he got like 6/7 assists. Not 4.

I don't know why they only counted 4.


Considering their history with inflating stats I doubt they would miss the opportunity.


That is true, but if you check the video Ricky got 4 assists in the 1st half alone. +2/3 in the 3th quarter.

No big deal tought...
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 11,652
And1: 2,389
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1068 » by KGdaBom » Tue Oct 3, 2017 11:15 pm

urinesane wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
Klomp wrote:Per the Jazz board, good in fastbreak situations, but a liability in the halfcourt. So considering how much the Jazz (don't) run, not great.

Rubio took 4 shots and missed them all. Small sample size, but showing his usual shooting Woes.




Hehehe, how did he play?

Way to take one thing and not mention anything else.

He played 19 minutes had 3 points, on 0/4 shooting (2 of those were 3's), shot 3/4 at the FT line, had 1 reb, 4 ast, 2 Stl, 1 Blk and 1 TOV. +11 on the game and they won by 25.

I could think of worse 1st pre-season games for a guy who was playing all summer and is with an all new group of teammates/coach.

Though he did miss those 4 shots. Good thing we got basically nothing of value for him!

You realize I am a big Rubio fan. I just posted what I did in response to what was reportedly the Jazz fans complaints about Rubio. He played just over half a games worth of minutes based on his getting his usual 36 MPG. So once again Rubio shot poorly which is not unordinary. One rebound would be below his expected 2 or 3. 4 assists is about right. The 2 steals would translate to 4 and the one block is just a fluke LOL. Rubio does not block shots. The one TO was very nice. They played the Sydney Kings not an NBA team so the plus/minus can pretty much be thrown out. Thanks for sharing. All in all a solid game for Ricky and a stat line that is not outside normal expectations.
User avatar
PharmD
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,954
And1: 4,795
Joined: Aug 21, 2015
 

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1069 » by PharmD » Wed Oct 4, 2017 5:30 am

Ricky played okay-ish. His shot selection was terrible and his shot looked really bad. Ricky isn't really the kind of guy that's going to shine against overmatched competition.

One thing i definitely noticed was that the Jazz bigs were really slow at getting him the ball to get out and go in transition. They'll get used to playing with him quickly, i'd imagine.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 45,239
And1: 5,867
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1070 » by shrink » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:15 pm

Around what date did Thibs give Rubio the responsibilities for running the offense, and not standing in the corner?

After that date, did he have 100% responsibility in the last five seconds of the shot clock?
Narf
Head Coach
Posts: 6,550
And1: 880
Joined: Sep 05, 2009

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1071 » by Narf » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:22 pm

urinesane wrote:Good thing we got basically nothing of value for him!

Teague and a late 1st is not nothing.
ace625214
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,463
And1: 604
Joined: May 31, 2014

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1072 » by ace625214 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:58 pm

We didn't get Teague for him. Sure, moving Rubio gave the space to sign Teague, but he was not part of the deal. If you're going to include cascading effects, you could also say that we traded Rubio and Millsap for Teague, Gibson, and a first, since signing Jeff to the big deal took up extra cap room that could have made the difference in Millsap's choice.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 55,968
And1: 12,104
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1073 » by Klomp » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:11 pm

ace625214 wrote:We didn't get Teague for him. Sure, moving Rubio gave the space to sign Teague, but he was not part of the deal. If you're going to include cascading effects, you could also say that we traded Rubio and Millsap for Teague, Gibson, and a first, since signing Jeff to the big deal took up extra cap room that could have made the difference in Millsap's choice.

We had cap space to sign Millsap when Rubio was on the roster?
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 11,652
And1: 2,389
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1074 » by KGdaBom » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:31 pm

ace625214 wrote:We didn't get Teague for him. Sure, moving Rubio gave the space to sign Teague, but he was not part of the deal. If you're going to include cascading effects, you could also say that we traded Rubio and Millsap for Teague, Gibson, and a first, since signing Jeff to the big deal took up extra cap room that could have made the difference in Millsap's choice.

Ace you are talking semantics or whatever. Teague was already in the bag to be signed when we traded Rubio. We did get Teague by trading Rubio.
ace625214
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,463
And1: 604
Joined: May 31, 2014

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1075 » by ace625214 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:12 pm

Klomp wrote:
ace625214 wrote:We didn't get Teague for him. Sure, moving Rubio gave the space to sign Teague, but he was not part of the deal. If you're going to include cascading effects, you could also say that we traded Rubio and Millsap for Teague, Gibson, and a first, since signing Jeff to the big deal took up extra cap room that could have made the difference in Millsap's choice.

We had cap space to sign Millsap when Rubio was on the roster?


No, I said could have made the difference. If they dumped Aldrich it would have been close, but not quite a max offer. Giving up a couple million is understandable to be on a contender, but giving up $7 mil+ is a lot to ask.
Narf
Head Coach
Posts: 6,550
And1: 880
Joined: Sep 05, 2009

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1076 » by Narf » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:17 am

ace625214 wrote:No, I said could have made the difference. If they dumped Aldrich it would have been close, but not quite a max offer. Giving up a couple million is understandable to be on a contender, but giving up $7 mil+ is a lot to ask.

Look bud, I like Teague an awful lot and still think we made the wrong trade. But we literally traded Rubio for raw cap space equal to Teague's market value and a first round pick.

That raw cap space *at the beginning of free agency* absolutely has the value of the player signed with it.

I would have rather kept Rubio, I understand going with Teague. We'll see if you and I are wrong and Teague was the better choice. But we clearly got value for Rubio.
ace625214
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,463
And1: 604
Joined: May 31, 2014

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1077 » by ace625214 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:46 am

Narf wrote:
ace625214 wrote:No, I said could have made the difference. If they dumped Aldrich it would have been close, but not quite a max offer. Giving up a couple million is understandable to be on a contender, but giving up $7 mil+ is a lot to ask.

Look bud, I like Teague an awful lot and still think we made the wrong trade. But we literally traded Rubio for raw cap space equal to Teague's market value and a first round pick.

That raw cap space *at the beginning of free agency* absolutely has the value of the player signed with it.

I would have rather kept Rubio, I understand going with Teague. We'll see if you and I are wrong and Teague was the better choice. But we clearly got value for Rubio.


I'm not arguing Rubio is better than Teague or that cap space has no value. My point is that we got back space for Rubio, not Jeff Teague. Ricky was traded on the 30th, two days before the Wolves were allowed to contact Jeff. It's entirely possible, though unlikely, that someone else could have offered Teague more and Thibs would have been scrambling for a PG. Look at what happened with the Rockets when they made salary dumps and Carmelo didn't sign, or any number of teams that made moves and then struck out.

If you want to say that we traded Ricky for a first and $14.1 mil in space, that's fine, but Jeff Teague was not part of the deal. We very well could have ended up having to overpay for Shaun Livingston or Patty Mills when our target signed with another team.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 11,652
And1: 2,389
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1078 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:11 am

ace625214 wrote:
Narf wrote:
ace625214 wrote:No, I said could have made the difference. If they dumped Aldrich it would have been close, but not quite a max offer. Giving up a couple million is understandable to be on a contender, but giving up $7 mil+ is a lot to ask.

Look bud, I like Teague an awful lot and still think we made the wrong trade. But we literally traded Rubio for raw cap space equal to Teague's market value and a first round pick.

That raw cap space *at the beginning of free agency* absolutely has the value of the player signed with it.

I would have rather kept Rubio, I understand going with Teague. We'll see if you and I are wrong and Teague was the better choice. But we clearly got value for Rubio.


I'm not arguing Rubio is better than Teague or that cap space has no value. My point is that we got back space for Rubio, not Jeff Teague. Ricky was traded on the 30th, two days before the Wolves were allowed to contact Jeff. It's entirely possible, though unlikely, that someone else could have offered Teague more and Thibs would have been scrambling for a PG. Look at what happened with the Rockets when they made salary dumps and Carmelo didn't sign, or any number of teams that made moves and then struck out.

If you want to say that we traded Ricky for a first and $14.1 mil in space, that's fine, but Jeff Teague was not part of the deal. We very well could have ended up having to overpay for Shaun Livingston or Patty Mills when our target signed with another team.

I could have swore we got Teague the same day we traded Rubio? Am I wrong about this?
It might have been that Teague agreed to terms, but couldn't officially sign for a couple days.
theGreatRC
RealGM
Posts: 17,499
And1: 4,013
Joined: Oct 12, 2006
Location: California
 

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1079 » by theGreatRC » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:28 am

KGdaBom wrote:
ace625214 wrote:
Narf wrote:Look bud, I like Teague an awful lot and still think we made the wrong trade. But we literally traded Rubio for raw cap space equal to Teague's market value and a first round pick.

That raw cap space *at the beginning of free agency* absolutely has the value of the player signed with it.

I would have rather kept Rubio, I understand going with Teague. We'll see if you and I are wrong and Teague was the better choice. But we clearly got value for Rubio.


I'm not arguing Rubio is better than Teague or that cap space has no value. My point is that we got back space for Rubio, not Jeff Teague. Ricky was traded on the 30th, two days before the Wolves were allowed to contact Jeff. It's entirely possible, though unlikely, that someone else could have offered Teague more and Thibs would have been scrambling for a PG. Look at what happened with the Rockets when they made salary dumps and Carmelo didn't sign, or any number of teams that made moves and then struck out.

If you want to say that we traded Ricky for a first and $14.1 mil in space, that's fine, but Jeff Teague was not part of the deal. We very well could have ended up having to overpay for Shaun Livingston or Patty Mills when our target signed with another team.

I could have swore we got Teague the same day we traded Rubio? Am I wrong about this?
It might have been that Teague agreed to terms, but couldn't officially sign for a couple days.


We traded Ricky on the eve of Free Agency & there were rumblings that Teague had a deal in place to sign here.

I don't think we trade Ricky unless Teague lets Thibs know he was coming
2020 Wolves will make the playoffs
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 11,652
And1: 2,389
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Ricky Rubio #9 

Post#1080 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:30 am

theGreatRC wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
ace625214 wrote:
I'm not arguing Rubio is better than Teague or that cap space has no value. My point is that we got back space for Rubio, not Jeff Teague. Ricky was traded on the 30th, two days before the Wolves were allowed to contact Jeff. It's entirely possible, though unlikely, that someone else could have offered Teague more and Thibs would have been scrambling for a PG. Look at what happened with the Rockets when they made salary dumps and Carmelo didn't sign, or any number of teams that made moves and then struck out.

If you want to say that we traded Ricky for a first and $14.1 mil in space, that's fine, but Jeff Teague was not part of the deal. We very well could have ended up having to overpay for Shaun Livingston or Patty Mills when our target signed with another team.

I could have swore we got Teague the same day we traded Rubio? Am I wrong about this?
It might have been that Teague agreed to terms, but couldn't officially sign for a couple days.


We traded Ricky on the eve of Free Agency & there were rumblings that Teague had a deal in place to sign here.

I don't think we trade Ricky unless Teague lets Thibs know he was coming

Yeah I'm pretty sure the idea that we traded Ricky without Jeff in place is very unlikely.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves