Cut the Roster to 15

[minimus]

Sorry but that is possibly why this team has failed to develop so many players. Those are the worst reasons to start a player you could possibly have come up with, even if they are the defining reasons most have started here since the team started. If none of the other examples over the years helped, did the Wiggins example not help anyone to see this? Just starting them doesn't mean you put them in the best position to become the best player they can be. I think your answer puts a lot of pressure on the decisions to make that trade and the player itself and leaves very little time to develop a player.

I always like to offer the James Harden example. Drafted and played for Thunder for three years with a total of 7 starts. But he still got plenty of minutes increasing each year culminating in a 6th man honor in the finals for Thunder. Can't entirely be sure why, but they then traded him to Houston where he went on to play a leading role as a starter. Harden was a Top 3 pick and had to put in his time to earn a starting role. People claim the talent differences from the Thunder those years to what the Timberwolves have had is all the reason they need to excuse the difference in handling of top picks. But I disagree. There is no telling how horribly different things could have went for Harden had the Wolves drafted him and immediately started him with 36 minutes a game regardless of his play for the next 5 years giving no thought to his mental and physical development and for no other reason than to prove the pick at 3 a correct choice. But I supoose others would claim he would have instantly been the Harden we know today all the same.

James Harden as a rookie: 22.9 mpg
Jarrett Culver as a rookie: 23.9 mpg

Boy, that extra minute per game is going to ruin Culver's career and any chance at development!

You just touched very sensitive topic for Jedzz...

[gandlogo]

I love that when Thibs was here it was he doesn’t play rookies or young players enough! Now it’s the Wolves play young players too much. Or that certain young players play only because of draft position (even though an undrafted rookie is playing a ton of minutes and allowed the team to dump vets). At the end of the day the coaching staff and front office have a lot more riding on this than us fans. Literally their livelihoods. They see the players in every situation every single day. They get more info than highlights and box scores from Iowa. By in large they know sooooooooooooo much more than any of us. If they get it wrong they are out of a job. They can’t afford to be sinister or nefarious with their personnel decisions. They are doing the best with the assets they have. As fans, that means they are actually aligned with us in terms of attempting to produce the desired outcome. We are mutually aligned with the staff because we all want development and success - they just happen to be on the inside and privy to things we can’t see from the outside.

[Jedzz]

Sorry but that is possibly why this team has failed to develop so many players. Those are the worst reasons to start a player you could possibly have come up with, even if they are the defining reasons most have started here since the team started. If none of the other examples over the years helped, did the Wiggins example not help anyone to see this? Just starting them doesn't mean you put them in the best position to become the best player they can be. I think your answer puts a lot of pressure on the decisions to make that trade and the player itself and leaves very little time to develop a player.

I always like to offer the James Harden example. Drafted and played for Thunder for three years with a total of 7 starts. But he still got plenty of minutes increasing each year culminating in a 6th man honor in the finals for Thunder. Can't entirely be sure why, but they then traded him to Houston where he went on to play a leading role as a starter. Harden was a Top 3 pick and had to put in his time to earn a starting role. People claim the talent differences from the Thunder those years to what the Timberwolves have had is all the reason they need to excuse the difference in handling of top picks. But I disagree. There is no telling how horribly different things could have went for Harden had the Wolves drafted him and immediately started him with 36 minutes a game regardless of his play for the next 5 years giving no thought to his mental and physical development and for no other reason than to prove the pick at 3 a correct choice. But I supoose others would claim he would have instantly been the Harden we know today all the same.

James Harden as a rookie: 22.9 mpg
Jarrett Culver as a rookie: 23.9 mpg

Boy, that extra minute per game is going to ruin Culver's career and any chance at development!

I'm unsure why you can't stick to the point of anything. Maybe because it doesn't fit your decision to put an excuse slant on everything.

The starts and starting gigs are the problem. If a player does not start, then when he plays during the game is all up to when the coaches feel it's a good time. But naming him a starter means there are specific points in games where he will automatically be on the court and means he will automatically be facing opponent starters most of the time.

Your limited response comparing minutes is pure trash and meaningless to the conversation. Thanks for the half effort yet again to not only destroy talking points but to beg for everyone to leave the place.

You want a comparison that means something?

Culver starts (1 partial season) 35 starts. Obviously this number could have been higher had the season continued.
Harden starts (3 seasons) 7 starts.
VanVleet starts (3 seasons) 28 starts. (zero first two season starts)


As I've said before. Not only does the rookie starts hurt his development, but it hurts the teams ability to be its best those years. He's Not a Pro Yet. Just getting drafted doesn't make them automatically a pro level player. Forcing unready players as starters on us the viewing fans also isn't great entertainment no matter how inpatient and foolish so many fans are about this.

[shrink]

From what little I know about sports psychology, there isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” method to developing individual players.

These are often 19 year old kids, and they often got to this level with very different mindsets. Some need to be brought along slowly, against lesser (bench?) competition, as failure may shatter their confidence. Others are better off thrown into the deep end, and thrive on the challenge of competing at the highest level.

Markell Fultz is not Jimmy Butler,

[gandlogo]

From what little I know about sports psychology, there isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” method to developing individual players.

These are often 19 year old kids, and they often got to this level with very different mindsets. Some need to be brought along slowly, against lesser (bench?) competition, as failure may shatter their confidence. Others are better off thrown into the deep end, and thrive on the challenge of competing at the highest level.

Markell Fultz is not Jimmy Butler,

And then wrap that dynamic into a team situation. Playoff team with depth at any given position will lead to a different playing time scenario than a poor team without any depth. Each team is as unique as each player.

[Jedzz]

From what little I know about sports psychology, there isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” method to developing individual players.

These are often 19 year old kids, and they often got to this level with very different mindsets. Some need to be brought along slowly, against lesser (bench?) competition, as failure may shatter their confidence. Others are better off thrown into the deep end, and thrive on the challenge of competing at the highest level.

Markell Fultz is not Jimmy Butler,

And then wrap that dynamic into a team situation. Playoff team with depth at any given position will lead to a different playing time scenario than a poor team without any depth. Each team is as unique as each player.

Gandlogo, what you've just said has literally nothing to do with what shrink posted. "wrap that dynamic into a team situation"? Excuse me but you just said nothing there. All you've done is repeat the exact same excuse I already suggested people use and it is absolutely full of holes and because of the team dynamic. Team dynamics is the very reason not to use that excuse. In that you risk destroying any team dynamic, and any chance at competing by forcing a 4 on 5 starter situation every year upon your team if this is in fact a player that needs a slo roll to begin.

What shrink offered can be true. It will vary by the player. Whether he meant to support my case on this or not, he has. Because with the mentality that you have, Grandlogo, it doesn't matter who the player is or what he needs, you are going to start him with impunity to attempt to instantly validate the pick choice and you are just going to live or die with forcing him to bust early or not. I fully admit there are players and people that will rise to any occasion and are ready to do so. We've seen the rare examples over the years. That's suppose to be a good coaches role to recognize and discern. It's their job to pushback on pressuring ownership or sales idots if selling instant seats is all they care about. NBA coaches are much more powerful and stable given their guaranteed deals. It's also plausible that mistakes in that choice happen often. I don't care about that mistake being made. I care about it not being corrected right away should it prove clearly needing to be fixed.

It does you no good to think in terms of what your roster is compared to a finals built team situation when making these decisions. These decisions are about the individual that can only help your team from a starters level once he's ready to provide a starter's skills, wisdom and drive for your team. It does your team no good to start such a questionmark. Any positive moments are outweighed by how you destroyed the team dynamic and put the team between a rock and a hard place to start each game and soon that player becomes the fall guy for it all.

Beyond all that and in addition to it, even if a player could show you smart enough and consistant enough play to not be a total curse on your team as a starting rookie while developing, you still are removing a carrot from the process by starting them without putting in the work for it. This is likely the only thing left after them already getting paid as a high draft pick that is left for them to earn and such a thing can change them forever. People wonder why there are millionaire kids acting like princesses with thumbs in their mouth with massage tables down on practice courts and skipping games at alarming rates. You've created an environment and process for them to become that, as well as an environment that never demands more development.

[gandlogo]

From what little I know about sports psychology, there isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” method to developing individual players.

These are often 19 year old kids, and they often got to this level with very different mindsets. Some need to be brought along slowly, against lesser (bench?) competition, as failure may shatter their confidence. Others are better off thrown into the deep end, and thrive on the challenge of competing at the highest level.

Markell Fultz is not Jimmy Butler,

And then wrap that dynamic into a team situation. Playoff team with depth at any given position will lead to a different playing time scenario than a poor team without any depth. Each team is as unique as each player.

Gandlogo, what you've just said has literally nothing to do with what shrink posted. "wrap that dynamic into a team situation"? Excuse me but you just said nothing there. All you've done is repeat the exact same excuse I already suggested people use and it is absolutely full of holes and because of the team dynamic. Team dynamics is the very reason not to use that excuse. In that you risk destroying any team dynamic, and any chance at competing by forcing a 4 on 5 starter situation every year upon your team if this is in fact a player that needs a slo roll to begin.

What shrink offered can be true. It will vary by the player. Whether he meant to support my case on this or not, he has. Because with the mentality that you have, Grandlogo, it doesn't matter who the player is or what he needs, you are going to start him with impunity to attempt to instantly validate the pick choice and you are just going to live or die with forcing him to bust early or not. I fully admit there are players and people that will rise to any occasion and are ready to do so. We've seen the rare examples over the years. That's suppose to be a good coaches role to recognize and discern. It's their job to pushback on pressuring ownership or sales idots if selling instant seats is all they care about. NBA coaches are much more powerful and stable given their guaranteed deals. It's also plausible that mistakes in that choice happen often. I don't care about that mistake being made. I care about it not being corrected right away should it prove clearly needing to be fixed.

It does you no good to think in terms of what your roster is compared to a finals built team situation when making these decisions. These decisions are about the individual that can only help your team from a starters level once he's ready to provide a starter's skills, wisdom and drive for your team. It does your team no good to start such a questionmark. Any positive moments are outweighed by how you destroyed the team dynamic and put the team between a rock and a hard place to start each game and soon that player becomes the fall guy for it all.

Beyond all that and in addition to it, even if a player could show you smart enough and consistant enough play to not be a total curse on your team as a starting rookie while developing, you still are removing a carrot from the process by starting them without putting in the work for it. This is likely the only thing left after them already getting paid as a high draft pick that is left for them to earn and such a thing can change them forever. People wonder why there are millionaire kids acting like princesses with thumbs in their mouth with massage tables down on practice courts and skipping games at alarming rates. You've created an environment and process for them to become that, as well as an environment that never demands more development.

It’s pretty simple to comprehend - but it certainly isn’t worth my time explaining. We get it, you like Nowell and don’t like Culver.

[Jedzz]

And then wrap that dynamic into a team situation. Playoff team with depth at any given position will lead to a different playing time scenario than a poor team without any depth. Each team is as unique as each player.

Gandlogo, what you've just said has literally nothing to do with what shrink posted. "wrap that dynamic into a team situation"? Excuse me but you just said nothing there. All you've done is repeat the exact same excuse I already suggested people use and it is absolutely full of holes and because of the team dynamic. Team dynamics is the very reason not to use that excuse. In that you risk destroying any team dynamic, and any chance at competing by forcing a 4 on 5 starter situation every year upon your team if this is in fact a player that needs a slo roll to begin.

What shrink offered can be true. It will vary by the player. Whether he meant to support my case on this or not, he has. Because with the mentality that you have, Grandlogo, it doesn't matter who the player is or what he needs, you are going to start him with impunity to attempt to instantly validate the pick choice and you are just going to live or die with forcing him to bust early or not. I fully admit there are players and people that will rise to any occasion and are ready to do so. We've seen the rare examples over the years. That's suppose to be a good coaches role to recognize and discern. It's their job to pushback on pressuring ownership or sales idots if selling instant seats is all they care about. NBA coaches are much more powerful and stable given their guaranteed deals. It's also plausible that mistakes in that choice happen often. I don't care about that mistake being made. I care about it not being corrected right away should it prove clearly needing to be fixed.

It does you no good to think in terms of what your roster is compared to a finals built team situation when making these decisions. These decisions are about the individual that can only help your team from a starters level once he's ready to provide a starter's skills, wisdom and drive for your team. It does your team no good to start such a questionmark. Any positive moments are outweighed by how you destroyed the team dynamic and put the team between a rock and a hard place to start each game and soon that player becomes the fall guy for it all.

Beyond all that and in addition to it, even if a player could show you smart enough and consistant enough play to not be a total curse on your team as a starting rookie while developing, you still are removing a carrot from the process by starting them without putting in the work for it. This is likely the only thing left after them already getting paid as a high draft pick that is left for them to earn and such a thing can change them forever. People wonder why there are millionaire kids acting like princesses with thumbs in their mouth with massage tables down on practice courts and skipping games at alarming rates. You've created an environment and process for them to become that, as well as an environment that never demands more development.

It’s pretty simple to comprehend - but it certainly isn’t worth my time explaining. We get it, you like Nowell and don’t like Culver.

It has nothing to do with Nowell. When Nowell first got his chance he looked more like he knew where to be and chip in but couldnt' hit any baskets. I immediately said he should go back to the Gleague for a while. My only gripe about him is that they never once gave him a true game test for all the times they brought him up. I'm not a fan of 1-3 minute outtings. Better off in Gleague than that.

Culver should have gotten the same treatment when they found out where he actually was at. You will never agree with that. You will never have an honest convo about either of these guys or any top picks. You will never admit to or entertain anything I'm saying because all you've learned from watching this horrid franchise is that we draft high and insta start and cross fingers and then call them busts and start the process over. Waiting for a Lebron to fall in your lap is all you know.

[gandlogo]

Gandlogo, what you've just said has literally nothing to do with what shrink posted. "wrap that dynamic into a team situation"? Excuse me but you just said nothing there. All you've done is repeat the exact same excuse I already suggested people use and it is absolutely full of holes and because of the team dynamic. Team dynamics is the very reason not to use that excuse. In that you risk destroying any team dynamic, and any chance at competing by forcing a 4 on 5 starter situation every year upon your team if this is in fact a player that needs a slo roll to begin.

What shrink offered can be true. It will vary by the player. Whether he meant to support my case on this or not, he has. Because with the mentality that you have, Grandlogo, it doesn't matter who the player is or what he needs, you are going to start him with impunity to attempt to instantly validate the pick choice and you are just going to live or die with forcing him to bust early or not. I fully admit there are players and people that will rise to any occasion and are ready to do so. We've seen the rare examples over the years. That's suppose to be a good coaches role to recognize and discern. It's their job to pushback on pressuring ownership or sales idots if selling instant seats is all they care about. NBA coaches are much more powerful and stable given their guaranteed deals. It's also plausible that mistakes in that choice happen often. I don't care about that mistake being made. I care about it not being corrected right away should it prove clearly needing to be fixed.

It does you no good to think in terms of what your roster is compared to a finals built team situation when making these decisions. These decisions are about the individual that can only help your team from a starters level once he's ready to provide a starter's skills, wisdom and drive for your team. It does your team no good to start such a questionmark. Any positive moments are outweighed by how you destroyed the team dynamic and put the team between a rock and a hard place to start each game and soon that player becomes the fall guy for it all.

Beyond all that and in addition to it, even if a player could show you smart enough and consistant enough play to not be a total curse on your team as a starting rookie while developing, you still are removing a carrot from the process by starting them without putting in the work for it. This is likely the only thing left after them already getting paid as a high draft pick that is left for them to earn and such a thing can change them forever. People wonder why there are millionaire kids acting like princesses with thumbs in their mouth with massage tables down on practice courts and skipping games at alarming rates. You've created an environment and process for them to become that, as well as an environment that never demands more development.

It’s pretty simple to comprehend - but it certainly isn’t worth my time explaining. We get it, you like Nowell and don’t like Culver.

It has nothing to do with Nowell. When Nowell first got his chance he looked more like he knew where to be and chip in but couldnt' hit any baskets. I immediately said he should go back to the Gleague for a while. My only gripe about him is that they never once gave him a true game test for all the times they brought him up. I'm not a fan of 1-3 minute outtings. Better off in Gleague than that.

Culver should have gotten the same treatment when they found out where he actually was at. You will never agree with that. You will never have an honest convo about either of these guys or any top picks. You will never admit to or entertain anything I'm saying because all you've learned from watching this horrid franchise is that we draft high and insta start and cross fingers and then call them busts and start the process over. Waiting for a Lebron to fall in your lap is all you know.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

I’m extremely confident in my intellectual capacity , so speculating on what I’m capable of processing or making ad hominem remarks is unwarranted.

[Jedzz]

It’s pretty simple to comprehend - but it certainly isn’t worth my time explaining. We get it, you like Nowell and don’t like Culver.

It has nothing to do with Nowell. When Nowell first got his chance he looked more like he knew where to be and chip in but couldnt' hit any baskets. I immediately said he should go back to the Gleague for a while. My only gripe about him is that they never once gave him a true game test for all the times they brought him up. I'm not a fan of 1-3 minute outtings. Better off in Gleague than that.

Culver should have gotten the same treatment when they found out where he actually was at. You will never agree with that. You will never have an honest convo about either of these guys or any top picks. You will never admit to or entertain anything I'm saying because all you've learned from watching this horrid franchise is that we draft high and insta start and cross fingers and then call them busts and start the process over. Waiting for a Lebron to fall in your lap is all you know.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

I’m extremely confident in my intellectual capacity , so speculating on what I’m capable of processing or making ad hominem remarks is unwarranted.

Went deep in search of a response that time did you.

Ad hominem has nothing to do with my remarks. Your empty prior responses gave me all that I needed.