Who won't be on the team in a week?

[Jedzz]

Culver needs to get some real playing time in Gleague. Get his confidence up.

It's too bad the G League season is over, because I think they would seriously entertain the option

There is always year three, since they chose to pick his deal up.

[Jedzz]

The answer to the quetion if anyone was still wondering...

what is nobody

[mplsfonz23]

I'll give you an example and you may not like it, but just entertain it for a second. What if Rose was kept here when Rosas took over and instead of treating him like he's washed up, they treated him like the great vet he still is and just put a rookie PG on his hip to learn from him and fill in when Rose has rest days. Beyond that, they waste no more big assets on PGs or Combos they plan to make into PGs. They could have made JMac that rookie on his hip. Rose is still playing today as he wasn't looking to retire. He said he would have stayed if the new guy wanted him to. Imagine the team keeping that one Vet, trusting JMac as the #2, and not Drafting Culver, not drafting Edwards. Instead, they fill out true Wings, forwards with draft and trades since Rosas took over. The team could look completely different right now and might have 3 times the wins in Rosas tenure so far all from keeping one Vet and playing him for all he's got left to give. Instead, today Rose is playing for Thibs again and attached to his hip is the rookie Quickley who's having a great rookie season.

I was listening to siriusxm give and go today and they were talking up Chris Paul and how he teaches teams to win, not just play but how to win, how to close. Not just scoring but how to bring the defense, how to start working the net when your team has a lead instead of thinking that's a free time to shoot 3s and go cold as dumb teams often do. I remembered Rose' 50 pt game here and how the Jazz were right there with us trying to win that one. It came down to a corner three from Jazz and who was there to misdirect that shot but a leaping Rose to assure the win. That's what leading Vets can do for your team. They aren't all like that, but when you find one you don't treat them like washed up junk and move on. They can treat all your younger players how to win. Another guy like that out there getting moved at deadline this year is Raptors Lowry. They lead the zombies. Too bad Lowry wants a 25/2 deal now from someone. Rose plays on 7.5.yr. Wolves actually thought they could find someone better.

I understand your point, but hindsight is a b*tch. Rose may not have anyone to teach, or JMac may not be able to do what Rose/vet teaches him. Rose may not be a good example because he is a freak. Kind of what I see in Suggs. Vets are nice, but the future is top end talent. Plus, Rose could be giving lip service. He had no plans to stay here. And, he's back in an old system that he knows, and the rookie may struggle. Again, I think the vet thing is overrated, and most don't come here cheap.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. We had him, they just had to offer him the role and a contract and they didn't. He just got done having 1.5 good seasons with us, some special games. That didn't take hindsight. That would take not believing the next new rookie will save the world for you. Recognizing players like that as leading by example. If they would have committed to him he would have stayed. JMac certainly could have emulated his game on his hip learning. Even a different pick choice, as long as they allow him to lead them instead of instantly try to have them takeover like we keep doing. Think of the wasted assets since and claims of better defenders from the role, top end picks futures, its all been BS. Napier, Culver, Nowell, Dlo, Edwards, Rubio, Bolmero. Before them stuck with Teague I suppose.

That's your opinion, and I respect it. But some vets think they should lead by example, and take more shots away from the person they should be mentoring. That hinders development for those who need it. Again, offer him a contract? Doubt he plays for the vet minimum. He's making almost 8 mil with NY. Why would he not take that?
Money talks, vets walk.

[Jedzz]

I understand your point, but hindsight is a b*tch. Rose may not have anyone to teach, or JMac may not be able to do what Rose/vet teaches him. Rose may not be a good example because he is a freak. Kind of what I see in Suggs. Vets are nice, but the future is top end talent. Plus, Rose could be giving lip service. He had no plans to stay here. And, he's back in an old system that he knows, and the rookie may struggle. Again, I think the vet thing is overrated, and most don't come here cheap.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. We had him, they just had to offer him the role and a contract and they didn't. He just got done having 1.5 good seasons with us, some special games. That didn't take hindsight. That would take not believing the next new rookie will save the world for you. Recognizing players like that as leading by example. If they would have committed to him he would have stayed. JMac certainly could have emulated his game on his hip learning. Even a different pick choice, as long as they allow him to lead them instead of instantly try to have them takeover like we keep doing. Think of the wasted assets since and claims of better defenders from the role, top end picks futures, its all been BS. Napier, Culver, Nowell, Dlo, Edwards, Rubio, Bolmero. Before them stuck with Teague I suppose.

That's your opinion, and I respect it. But some vets think they should lead by example, and take more shots away from the person they should be mentoring. That hinders development for those who need it. Again, offer him a contract? Doubt he plays for the vet minimum. He's making almost 8 mil with NY. Why would he not take that?
Money talks, vets walk.

Why would you have attempted Vet Min with him? This is what I'm talking about. Nearly everyone here thinks a top choice in the draft has to start and they are all, every damn one of them, wrong. Same people think Vets are garbage, not to be paid. They talked about Rosse as washed up the whole time he was here. Yeah these are all opinions too and just garbage opinions. You give that vet a fair deal, you think he wasn't worthy of 7.5 or 8? You let them start and lead. In Rose's case, you know he's not going to even play every game. You just give him that respect and you let him lead when he's able to. The top draft pick learns in backup minutes to him and possibly, if ready, gets starts when Rose was "resting" games. The idea of replacing the vet midseason can't be on anyone's mind for the rookie. Again using the Rosse situation is just an example this team could have used to jumpstart after Butler was gone and saved countless wasted assets to this point. But this team and so many here can't even entertain this kind of thinking. Rooks are just garbage, they have to spend a year learning to play. They don't have to do that starting. Yes that's my opinion and I'm just getting sick to death of watching a team with no better ideas of their own.

[mplsfonz23]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. We had him, they just had to offer him the role and a contract and they didn't. He just got done having 1.5 good seasons with us, some special games. That didn't take hindsight. That would take not believing the next new rookie will save the world for you. Recognizing players like that as leading by example. If they would have committed to him he would have stayed. JMac certainly could have emulated his game on his hip learning. Even a different pick choice, as long as they allow him to lead them instead of instantly try to have them takeover like we keep doing. Think of the wasted assets since and claims of better defenders from the role, top end picks futures, its all been BS. Napier, Culver, Nowell, Dlo, Edwards, Rubio, Bolmero. Before them stuck with Teague I suppose.

That's your opinion, and I respect it. But some vets think they should lead by example, and take more shots away from the person they should be mentoring. That hinders development for those who need it. Again, offer him a contract? Doubt he plays for the vet minimum. He's making almost 8 mil with NY. Why would he not take that?
Money talks, vets walk.

Why would you have attempted Vet Min with him? This is what I'm talking about. Nearly everyone here thinks a top choice in the draft has to start and they are all, every damn one of them, wrong. Same people think Vets are garbage, not to be paid. They talked about Rosse as washed up the whole time he was here. Yeah these are all opinions too and just garbage opinions. You give that vet a fair deal, you think he wasn't worthy of 7.5 or 8? You let them start and lead. In Rose's case, you know he's not going to even play every game. You just give him that respect and you let him lead when he's able to. The top draft pick learns in backup minutes to him and possibly, if ready, gets starts when Rose was "resting" games. The idea of replacing the vet midseason can't be on anyone's mind for the rookie. Again using the Rosse situation is just an example this team could have used to jumpstart after Butler was gone and saved countless wasted assets to this point. But this team and so many here can't even entertain this kind of thinking. Rooks are just garbage, they have to spend a year learning to play. They don't have to do that starting. Yes that's my opinion and I'm just getting sick to death of watching a team with no better ideas of their own.

Yeah, but Rose, Gibson, Teague, Butler didn't take time to mentor KAT Wigs etc. Covington, Bayless, Tolliver couldn't and didn't. So yeah, I don't think every vet has a mentor role in mind. Some are trying to get theirs...….Just take Crawford for example. Do you think was here to mentor? And pay should be based on play. See Rubio as an example. He is playing well, and he's being a team mentor, but should he make $14 Mil for it?

[Jedzz]

Yeah, but Rose, Gibson, Teague, Butler didn't take time to mentor KAT Wigs etc. Covington, Bayless, Tolliver couldn't and didn't. So yeah, I don't think every vet has a mentor role in mind. Some are trying to get theirs...….Just take Crawford for example. Do you think was here to mentor? And pay should be based on play. See Rubio as an example. He is playing well, and he's being a team mentor, but should he make $14 Mil for it?

It depends what you describe as mentor as. You, we, we don't really know that Rubio is doing anything to mentor per say. What is that description? Being willing to talk to a rookie? Not give him the cold shoulder? Show him some tricks he doesn't know yet? Maybe some mentor just by playing and preparing to play and allowing rooks to learn by watching them. Or is it staying in a rooks ear while playing whether a game or practice? Some of this is just plain being a good communicator and or being on good terms. Communicating during games is a big part of teams anyway. Part of being on good terms with each other is everyone knowing their place and accepting that, even if everyone knows it's not going to be a 4 year situation. Edwards had to be told by Towns to accept Rubio's help, to accept Rubio as a vet and even worthy of his respect I would guess. Because he didn't start the season looking like he respecting anyone's role before his own and Towns did leak that he bridged that gap for those two. Probably something he noticed he needed to help with while watching games when out.

It is important to know, for vets, whether this is their job for the season or whether a rookie will ultimately steal his job one month into the season no matter what. Vets feeling that kind of pressures may not react the way you'd like, especially if the rookie's play isn't pro level yet and they are losing their minutes to them anyway. Call them being or pro about it or not, they are humans. But if your team operates in such a way that Rookies need to reach a certain level or pro playing before they are considered good enough to earn a starting role...now everyone on the team will sort of know just by how they play where or when they might be pressuring to take a role. It's not just when they show a one time 30 pt result. Did they otherwise lose even though they had a good game? Did their performance cause others to suffer and ultimately help lose that game? Probably, or at least that can be the case. If so, yeah... back to the bench and keep watching the pros lead and learn. Takes time to put it all together and really deserve that spot. If those kinds of things are defined, I would assume all vets would be better mentors.

Going back to the Rose situation...he wasn't brought in as a leader/starter. All those names you listed. Thibs wasn't playing any young guys much when they came. So that situation was a little different and yet none of us can claim we know they weren't mentoring anyone. Rose was an addin initiatlly directly to the bench under Thibs. He was getting a chance to help the team from there and a chance to prove his level of play is still there. So you can't claim that he wasn't mentoring players back then. It wasn't something claimed he was asked to do that we know of. But I would argue when Ryan took over he was mentoring some purely by example of play. When he got starts he played like a starter does. I can't tell you how much he communicated with younger guys or not. None of us know that. But his teammates always looked very close to him when good things were happening. So I wouldn't describe him as having been all about himself. The team has generally seemed to be fairly close knit over the years aside from Butler and vet issues that started to come to a head with Wiggins/Towns at one point. But we all know what that really was about.