Mock Expansion Draft: Protect 8 Wolves

[shrink]

I thought this might be a fun and distracting exercise right now.

Assume the NBA was adding two teams - who do you keep on the Wolves?

If you want to peek and read other people’s opinions....

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2020/03/20/mock-nba-expansion-draft-picking-the-seattle-supersonics-and-flint-tropics/amp/

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1953552

[gandlogo]

Been so long since I looked at the roster, so I'll just do it off gut/head assuming all the contract stuff (like free agency) and this year's draft picks are moot.

KAT
DLO
Reid
Culver
Beas
Herm
Layman
Okogie

If this year's pick count on the eight, then drop Layman and Okogie.

[ClarkeW]

Interesting question! Based on the current roster I think I would protect...

Karl-Anthony Towns
D’Angelo Russell
Malik Beasley
Jarrett Culver
Josh Okogie
Naz Reid
Jordan McLaughlin
Juancho Hernangomez

That’s assuming we work out deals for guys like Beasley/Hernangomez/McLaughlin.

[Jedzz]

Surprised to see Culver in lists of 8 protected. I wonder if this is because of past draft capital value or how they really see him developing from here. I'm hoping Okogie surprises me offensively come next season. I know he's been working on adding things all season but I really hope it culminates for him next season or I'll be stepping out of his parade by then.

[winforlose]

I read the link, but am still unsure of how exactly this works. Basically, we could lose two players for no compensation. In theory this means you need to protect your big three first. KAT, Beasley, Dlo. Then you look at your three most valuable young players Okogie, Naz, Culver. Then for your last two you look at protecting the best value deals. Layman and Juancho’s RFA status.

Assuming our picks don’t count (the new teams get their own,) the only other main roster players we have are four unproven young guys who offer low value compared to other available talent, (Spellman, Vanderbilt, Evans, and Nowell.) As for JJ, while he has proven very valuable, his age and contract make him extremely unlikely to be taken. You could argue that JJ has more trade value for us (contract is only large and disposable one,) in which case you protect him over Juancho or Layman depending on Juancho’s value. If JH will sign a Layman length and value contract then protect him. If JH demands 5 million plus and or refuses to sign at least 3 years then protect Layman and gamble on JH.

[andyhop]

Protect 8 Wolves

Do I have to?

[mandurugo]

This might have been a more interesting question if the wolves hadn't hired Thibs and in subsequent moves traded approximately 90% of their players. I was ready to invest in Rubio and the young kids, it was kind of an exciting time. But now we're in a transactional age and the wolves as currently constructed don't have much of a future. Who cares who stays or goes? I can't remember a time in the wolves long history when I've cared less about the members of the team. Right now everyone feels pretty replaceable.

[ClarkeW]

Surprised to see Culver in lists of 8 protected. I wonder if this is because of past draft capital value or how they really see him developing from here. I'm hoping Okogie surprises me offensively come next season. I know he's been working on adding things all season but I really hope it culminates for him next season or I'll be stepping out of his parade by then.

I can’t speak for others, but I haven’t given up on Jarrett Culver. Did he have a good rookie season? Not particularly, but he’s young and I believe can improve with more experience. Not everybody comes in and lights it up from day one. Some people take a bit more time.

In theory, Jarrett Culver could still give us a lot of things that this team needs in a year or two. He has the potential to be a versatile defender and a secondary ball handler/playmaker in the starting lineup or off the bench. He also needs to make improvements to his 3PT and FT shooting, but that certainly isn’t out of the question either.

Now obviously none of this improvement is guaranteed, but I feel like there were enough flashes this season to not completely write him off. I see some people suggesting he get traded as if he has about as much value as a second round pick and I think that’s just wrong. Sometimes expectations for these kids are so high that I think people lose perspective. If they aren’t met immediately people start looking for the next thing. I think this is happening with so many on this board falling in love with Deni Advija, who also looks like someone who could fill some of those holes the team has just like Culver eventually could. So if we draft Advija and this time next year he hasn’t immediately met our lofty expectations, are we going to be writing him off too?

I don’t know, I’m just rambling now. I guess in essence I think that Culver is not a lottery ticket that I’d be willing to throw out for next to nothing quite yet. I’d like to give it at least another season to see what happens.

[Jedzz]

Surprised to see Culver in lists of 8 protected. I wonder if this is because of past draft capital value or how they really see him developing from here. I'm hoping Okogie surprises me offensively come next season. I know he's been working on adding things all season but I really hope it culminates for him next season or I'll be stepping out of his parade by then.

I can’t speak for others, but I haven’t given up on Jarrett Culver. Did he have a good rookie season? Not particularly, but he’s young and I believe can improve with more experience. Not everybody comes in and lights it up from day one. Some people take a bit more time.

In theory, Jarrett Culver could still give us a lot of things that this team needs in a year or two. He has the potential to be a versatile defender and a secondary ball handler/playmaker in the starting lineup or off the bench. He also needs to make improvements to his 3PT and FT shooting, but that certainly isn’t out of the question either.

Now obviously none of this improvement is guaranteed, but I feel like there were enough flashes this season to not completely write him off. I see some people suggesting he get traded as if he has about as much value as a second round pick and I think that’s just wrong. Sometimes expectations for these kids are so high that I think people lose perspective. If they aren’t met immediately people start looking for the next thing. I think this is happening with so many on this board falling in love with Deni Advija, who also looks like someone who could fill some of those holes the team has just like Culver eventually could. So if we draft Advija and this time next year he hasn’t immediately met our lofty expectations, are we going to be writing him off too?

I don’t know, I’m just rambling now. I guess in essence I think that Culver is not a lottery ticket that I’d be willing to throw out for next to nothing quite yet. I’d like to give it at least another season to see what happens.

I wouldn't say just give up on him. But being that the team feels a need to play him so much, even giving starts, to a player unready for such a role; this maybe has me willing to see him outside the 8. Because it would possibly allow currently better players to play more, or other players to develop as well. The top of draft players just get way too much burn here even when they are showing they aren't ready for it. It's a problem that almost has to get out of the way for the rest of the team to respond if they end up being a rookie that isn't ready yet. Not all teams force players to play regardless of their individual readiness. This team has always and Rosas didn't change that sadly. There seems to be a mindset that if we don't have 5 stars starting, then the top draft pick will be planned for a leading role while developing and it's a major problem if that isn't decided on a personal case by case level. So next year he's likely already annointed as a possible starter or massive minutes bench player like this season, no matter what he really shows he's ready for. It limits the teams chances for wins and others to develop. This is my personal opinion though, obviously not the teams.

[ClarkeW]

Surprised to see Culver in lists of 8 protected. I wonder if this is because of past draft capital value or how they really see him developing from here. I'm hoping Okogie surprises me offensively come next season. I know he's been working on adding things all season but I really hope it culminates for him next season or I'll be stepping out of his parade by then.

I can’t speak for others, but I haven’t given up on Jarrett Culver. Did he have a good rookie season? Not particularly, but he’s young and I believe can improve with more experience. Not everybody comes in and lights it up from day one. Some people take a bit more time.

In theory, Jarrett Culver could still give us a lot of things that this team needs in a year or two. He has the potential to be a versatile defender and a secondary ball handler/playmaker in the starting lineup or off the bench. He also needs to make improvements to his 3PT and FT shooting, but that certainly isn’t out of the question either.

Now obviously none of this improvement is guaranteed, but I feel like there were enough flashes this season to not completely write him off. I see some people suggesting he get traded as if he has about as much value as a second round pick and I think that’s just wrong. Sometimes expectations for these kids are so high that I think people lose perspective. If they aren’t met immediately people start looking for the next thing. I think this is happening with so many on this board falling in love with Deni Advija, who also looks like someone who could fill some of those holes the team has just like Culver eventually could. So if we draft Advija and this time next year he hasn’t immediately met our lofty expectations, are we going to be writing him off too?

I don’t know, I’m just rambling now. I guess in essence I think that Culver is not a lottery ticket that I’d be willing to throw out for next to nothing quite yet. I’d like to give it at least another season to see what happens.

I wouldn't say just give up on him. But being that the team feels a need to play him so much, even giving starts, to a player unready for such a role; this maybe has me willing to see him outside the 8. Because it would possibly allow currently better players to play more, or other players to develop as well. The top of draft players just get way too much burn here even when they are showing they aren't ready for it. It is not something all teams do. It would be different if he was showing more earlier than he had. But there simply appears to be no chance that a player will ever be developed here based on who and what he currently is. If a Harden type player can play from bench completely for 3 seasons, we need to wake up. Fred VanVleet had zero starts his first two seasons and only 28 in his third season. Some say players like these were only handled like that because their team had so many other options at the time. But it can be critical to development of some players not to heap the starting hype and minutes on them so early. It allows them to work on specific things for them, not focus on how to keep up with other opponents allstar starters best they can. Just like Okogie has had to during all his play for two seasons. Yet it's already probably a lock that Culver again is written into starting lineups or locked into 20+-26 minutes again for next year, purely on his draft slot. It's not a winning formula for development of players that might need more time. It's not a winning formula for team wins during a season. On a team such as this, a top draft pick top10 guy either needs to be more ready for this level or just trade down.

I can agree on the Timberwolves sometimes having a “too much too soon” mentality for rookies. I think that comes more from need and our current level of team talent than anything else. We’re in a very different position than Toronto was when they were bringing up Fred VanVleet, as they were a perennial playoff team.

In general I think our team’s approach on this would shift as we bring in more proven talent and become playoff contenders. How long that takes and how exactly we go out about doing that is another question...

[Jedzz]

I can agree on the Timberwolves sometimes having a “too much too soon” mentality for rookies. I think that comes more from need and our current level of team talent than anything else. We’re in a very different position than Toronto was when they were bringing up Fred VanVleet, as they were a perennial playoff team.

In general I think our team’s approach on this would shift as we bring in more proven talent and become playoff contenders. How long that takes and how exactly we go out about doing that is another question...

That's my point. Your answer on this is always the same answer this team has. But it ruins the development of players that need a backseat role to start more slowly. It could very well be why so many end up busts here. It might not be the choices of who, but how they are handled.

[Klomp]

There are only 15 players on a roster. You have to play 5 of them at a time. With a team in the current position of the Wolves, someone had to play those minutes. You can only play the guys on the roster. We can't just decide to have LeBron James play those minutes because Culver needs to start slowly.

[Jedzz]

There are only 15 players on a roster. You have to play 5 of them at a time. With a team in the current position of the Wolves, someone had to play those minutes. You can only play the guys on the roster. We can't just decide to have LeBron James play those minutes because Culver needs to start slowly.

What a silly response, really. This year the team could have developed more young players, and probably put all of them in better positions for each individually had they not been forcing 21-26 minutes of Culver every game like it was a written rule. Worse, placing him at PG and shuffling other PGs into secondary shooting guard roles at times. This also pushing some young shooting guards into wing roles against taller opponents. He was not better than any of the 10 nonstarters, and certainly never was good enough to be a starter. It was about nothing more than being a top6 draft pick and this is the mistake. The injury moments may have provided opportunity for starts, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea to do it. They didn't have to start him ever. And they don't have to have Lebrons to fill in with just to go out there and have one of the worst win/loss records of the entire league like they do year after year. Just silly even having to respond to such posts.

This idea that the team doesn't have five Lebrons so any top draft pick will start or get 25 minutes at minimum regardless of their readiness is ludicrous. It's a perrenial losing teams plan.

[ClarkeW]

I can agree on the Timberwolves sometimes having a “too much too soon” mentality for rookies. I think that comes more from need and our current level of team talent than anything else. We’re in a very different position than Toronto was when they were bringing up Fred VanVleet, as they were a perennial playoff team.

In general I think our team’s approach on this would shift as we bring in more proven talent and become playoff contenders. How long that takes and how exactly we go out about doing that is another question...

That's my point. Your answer on this is always the same answer this team has. But it ruins the development of players that need a backseat role to start more slowly. It could very well be why so many end up busts here. It might not be the choices of who, but how they are handled.

I understand your point and agree to an extent, but I do think you take it a bit too far. Of course a higher draft pick is going to receive earlier and more opportunities than someone drafted much later or perhaps not even drafted at all. There’s a reason that Culver was taken 6th overall, and it’s because the team believes he is a better player or at least has the potential to be a better player than every other single player taken later. That means Culver is prioritized and provided more opportunities than someone like Kelan Martin, at least initially. It’s not so much about spent draft capital (at least it shouldn’t be) as it is about projected talent.

I am totally okay with the approach as I described it above and am willing to let a rookie work out their kinks and learn on the floor. Where I tend to side more with you is when it comes to their sophomore year. I am curious to see how Culver develops during this break and over the course of next year. By the time your second season is done you would hope most players have shown substantial improvement in their game. If not, then a decision needs to be made.

The Fred VanVleet example you brought up is an interesting one because he was an undrafted player going to a playoff team. It only stands to reason that he would not be rushed into a prominent role. I find it a bit interesting that you vouch for putting similar types of players from our team (I believe you are a strong proponent of Kelan Martin so I’ll use him as an example) into a heavier part of the rotation when your argument is that FVV became great because he had time to learn outside of the main rotation.

The truth is there are a million other factors why players in those types of situations sometimes end up as better players. This includes continuity, team culture and of course scouting better talent to be put into those situations. FVV is a success story for Toronto but not every player they would have plugged into that spot would have succeeded just as much as he did. It’s the combination of factors together that determine success, and overall I think the level of initial playing time is just a small part of it.

[Jedzz]

I can agree on the Timberwolves sometimes having a “too much too soon” mentality for rookies. I think that comes more from need and our current level of team talent than anything else. We’re in a very different position than Toronto was when they were bringing up Fred VanVleet, as they were a perennial playoff team.

In general I think our team’s approach on this would shift as we bring in more proven talent and become playoff contenders. How long that takes and how exactly we go out about doing that is another question...

That's my point. Your answer on this is always the same answer this team has. But it ruins the development of players that need a backseat role to start more slowly. It could very well be why so many end up busts here. It might not be the choices of who, but how they are handled.

I understand your point and agree to an extent, but I do think you take it a bit too far. Of course a higher draft pick is going to receive earlier and more opportunities than someone drafted much later or perhaps not even drafted at all. There’s a reason that Culver was taken 6th overall, and it’s because the team believes he is a better player or at least has the potential to be a better player than every other single player taken later. That means Culver is prioritized and provided more opportunities than someone like Kelan Martin, at least initially. It’s not so much about spent draft capital (at least it shouldn’t be) as it is about projected talent.

I am totally okay with the approach as I described it above and am willing to let a rookie work out their kinks and learn on the floor. Where I tend to side more with you is when it comes to their sophomore year. I am curious to see how Culver develops during this break and over the course of next year. By the time your second season is done you would hope most players have shown substantial improvement in their game. If not, then a decision needs to be made.

The Fred VanVleet example you brought up is an interesting one because he was an undrafted player going to a playoff team. It only stands to reason that he would not be rushed into a prominent role. I find it a bit interesting that you vouch for putting similar types of players from our team (I believe you are a strong proponent of Kelan Martin so I’ll use him as an example) into a heavier part of the rotation when your argument is that FVV became great because he had time to learn outside of the main rotation.

The truth is there are a million other factors why players in those types of situations sometimes end up as better players. This includes continuity, team culture and of course scouting better talent to be put into those situations. FVV is a success story for Toronto but not every player they would have plugged into that spot would have succeeded just as much as he did. It’s the combination of factors together that determine success, and overall I think the level of initial playing time is just a small part of it.

We are both repeating ourselves here and it's going to seem like neither is listening so let it be known that I see where the logic is in your thinking. Have a playoff team already? Then no reason to rush someone, and that is a different situation. Got it. You also seem to believe in the idea that minutes will develop the potential and you are fine with the team going that route based on their educated guess in the draft. So I understand what you would like me to believe.

I don't believe in one track decisions. And I don't believe you are understanding the waste that can result from your way of thinking. New player waste, pick waste, team roster waste. Seasons of time waste.

I believe there are multiple ways to develop players after that choice has been made. A team should be wise enough to see which track that player needs and honest enough with themselves to put the player on the right track. That's not only best for the player, but it's best for all the roster that is watching your decisions and that have to play the season.

I also believe you don't build playoff winners simply by drafting great players. It takes more than just drafting them. So many said Philly did it right. Tanking until they had enough talent. Years later now, many trades later, and this season all the talk is now about breaking up that young talent that can't play as a team no matter who is around them. Drafting right isn't the only thing needed.

Teams get the playoffs. Individuals don't. By throwing away seasons like this team so often does putting the entire season into one track overloaded development minutes for one player each season, they are never focusing on the team. They never do. Where is a playoff team supposed to come out of that? It can't, and it likely hasn't here because of this reason.

[shrink]

1. I think Towns is the only no-brainer, and on a level all by himself.

2. Russell. Dunc’d On mentioned him briefly in their “Worst Contracts” podcast, but he did not make their Top 3. However, this is the direction our team has set course on, and he’s Towns buddy. He stays.

3, 4. Okogie and Culver. These are two of our most promising young players, recent first rounders, and they would likely be snatched up by any expansion team.

5. Naz Reid. With only 8 spots, it’s hard to use one on a player that is unlikely to be a starter here, but his contract is just too good to pass up. He would be snatched up for sure.

6. Jake Layman. When healthy, he is definitely getting lots of minutes, with a skill-set that fits this team well, in an area we need it. He has two years left at $3.8 and $3.9, and at 26, is still young enough to fit the plan.

7. Malik Beasley. It’s painful to use a slot for a player that isn’t under contract yet, and one that has been paid so little, that we will need to match the best offer he gets in free agency. However, he looks like the third wheel on this team, either as a starter or a super-sixth man. If we don’t keep him, he could get snatched, and keeping his Bird rights allows us to make him an offer north of the MLE. Without them, we simply lose him.

8. Omari Spellman. It’s difficult for me to choose between many of the Wolves young prospects, but I chose Spellman because we have two years of team control. I also have seen other mock expansion drafts, and he is one of the first players chosen off the 30 other teams

Others: I didn’t protect Juancho because he may be someone we can afford with the MLE if we really wanted him back. James Johnson has value to us as a player and a salary we can use to match in a trade (think GSW this year), but I would bet no expansion team would touch him, Jordan McLaughlin was probably our third most useful player of the ones I didn’t protect, but I think the PG market is saturated and we’ll likely be able to keep him. Nowell has a nice contract, but he probably, hasn’t shown other teams enough to be selected. I worry about Vanderbilt getting picked up though, but chose Spellman over him.

[Klomp]

5. Naz Reid. With only 8 spots, it’s hard to use one on a player that is unlikely to be a starter here, but his contract is just too good to pass up. He would be snatched up for sure.

With 8 spots, don't three have to be used on players unlikely to be starters?