RealGM

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 10:15 pm**

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 10:16 pm**

Let's mellow out on personal attacks in this thread. We limit our moderating because it kind of kills the vibe of the board to over-police, so please respect that and attack posts, not posters!

Also, Ben Simmons is good, actually.

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 10:22 pm**

Domejandro wrote:Let's mellow out on personal attacks in this thread. We limit our moderating because it kind of kills the vibe of the board to over-police, so please respect that and attack posts, not posters!

Also, Ben Simmons is good, actually.

He is good, he's just not $35 million good.

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 10:40 pm**

I had a long post written for veritas, since he seems to be insulting everyone for attention. But let me spell it out in broad terms.

It is a logical fallacy to attribute the results of a group to one individual. For example

MIN was a bad team last year
KAT is on the team
Therefore, KAT is a bad player

That is bad logic.

It is also bad logic to see the effect “bad team” and assume the cause “KAT is bad.”

For those that can’t follow this, it is why we shouldn’t say “Simmons (or Embiid, or any individual player) gets your team wins.” It violates two pretty important rules of logic.

( Shangrila - that is my issue, not refusing to say something good about Simmons. In fact, I regularly repeat how good a defender he is, although it might not need to be said - we all agree with that. :wink:

You might want to read my fairly even-handed view on whether Simmons is a bad contract as well.)

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 11:00 pm**

shrink wrote:I had a long post written for veritas, since he seems to be insulting everyone for attention. But let me spell it out in broad terms.

It is a logical fallacy to attribute the results of a group to one individual. For example

MIN was a bad team last year
KAT is on the team
Therefore, KAT is a bad player

That is bad logic.

It is also bad logic to see the effect “bad team” and assume the cause “KAT is bad.”

For those that can’t follow this, it is why we shouldn’t say “Simmons (or Embiid, or any individual player) gets your team wins.” It violates two pretty important rules of logic.

( Shangrila - that is my issue, not refusing to say something good about Simmons. In fact, I regularly repeat how good a defender he is, although it might not need to be said - we all agree with that. You might want to read my fairly even-handed view on whether Simmons is a bad contract as well.)

I did as well.

Cliff notes...

...it is a FACT all players win you games, it is also a FACT all players lose you games. Simmons isn't undefeated. His help costs $35mil in the equation.

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 11:29 pm**

Win or lose since they restarted the thread I can't reply to your last reply to me. That reply was fair. To try to explain it to you are you familiar with the saying that offense starts with defense? Very few players impact this concept more than Simmons. When defense turns to offense very few players can run a transition like he can. On offense despite his inability to shoot from distance he still scores by taking the ball to the rim or gets the ball to his teammates in good position to score.

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 11:32 pm**

shrink wrote:I had a long post written for veritas, since he seems to be insulting everyone for attention. But let me spell it out in broad terms.

It is a logical fallacy to attribute the results of a group to one individual. For example

MIN was a bad team last year
KAT is on the team
Therefore, KAT is a bad player

That is bad logic.

It is also bad logic to see the effect “bad team” and assume the cause “KAT is bad.”

For those that can’t follow this, it is why we shouldn’t say “Simmons (or Embiid, or any individual player) gets your team wins.” It violates two pretty important rules of logic.

( Shangrila - that is my issue, not refusing to say something good about Simmons. In fact, I regularly repeat how good a defender he is, although it might not need to be said - we all agree with that. You might want to read my fairly even-handed view on whether Simmons is a bad contract as well.)

You are correct.... But others are doing what you are accusing Veritas of doing. They say the 76ers were only 11 and 11 when Simmons played, but Embiid didn't. Veritas pointed out that the 76ers were a 50/50 when Embiid played but Simmons didn't. Here's a shocker. They were better when both played than when one was missing.

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 11:35 pm**

SO_MONEY wrote:
shrink wrote:I had a long post written for veritas, since he seems to be insulting everyone for attention. But let me spell it out in broad terms.

It is a logical fallacy to attribute the results of a group to one individual. For example

MIN was a bad team last year
KAT is on the team
Therefore, KAT is a bad player

That is bad logic.

It is also bad logic to see the effect “bad team” and assume the cause “KAT is bad.”

For those that can’t follow this, it is why we shouldn’t say “Simmons (or Embiid, or any individual player) gets your team wins.” It violates two pretty important rules of logic.

( Shangrila - that is my issue, not refusing to say something good about Simmons. In fact, I regularly repeat how good a defender he is, although it might not need to be said - we all agree with that. You might want to read my fairly even-handed view on whether Simmons is a bad contract as well.)

I did as well.

Cliff notes...

...it is a FACT all players win you games, it is also a FACT all players lose you games. Simmons isn't undefeated. His help costs $35mil in the equation.

IMO you're way too concerned with how much his help costs. I'm not in favor of acquiring Simmons no matter the cost, but I'm in favor of acquiring him if the cost is reasonable. So what is reasonable. Opinions may vary. I'm very OK with including McDaniels if by doing so we save a couple FRPs.

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 11:48 pm**

A couple of thoughts:

In a recent interview, one of our reporters (Jon?) said that our front office sees Simmons as a PF in our system and not a PG. This is important for those who think he would take the ball out of the hands of Russell and/or Edwards and thus hinder the offense more than help it.

Does he need the ball in his hands constantly in order to maximize his value to a team? I'd actually argue the opposite. Take a little bit off of his plate, and allow him to focus more where he can really shine. Do people think Draymond Green is overpaid for the role he plays in Golden State as a screener, cutter, secondary facilitator, defender? Would he have more value or less to his team if he facilitated more?

When did Simmons play his best? I'd argue it was 2018-19. Don't forget they took the world champs to 7 games that season (the only team to do that). What was different? He was put around great shooters and scorers and it allowed him to focus on what he is best at (his 16.9 ppg was 5th on the team).

People talk a lot about Simmons clogging the lane for a five-out offense (cue shrink). I think where this argument falls short is because we're starting to accumulate players with greater basketball IQ, and Simmons would be no exception. This isn't a situation like Wiggins where you have to tell him when and where to cut. This also isn't an offensive system like Saunders' that has rules about when you should cut. This is a read and react offense predicated on flow and less on play calls. Some people don't like the more street ball nature this can create, but it allows the players with greater IQ to shine because there are no limitations or rules placed on them. It's just basketball. This is where I think Simmons excels. His IQ is among the best in the league.

Spoiler:

The ball will not be taken completely out of Simmons' hands. Just as an example, the coaches give players the green light for whoever rebounds the ball to start the fast break or secondary break. This is where Simmons can truly shine. He's not afraid of rebounding the ball, averaging 8 rebounds per game in his career (I remind you, this is while playing alongside career 11.3 rpg Joel Embiid, so he wouldn't be fazed by playing next to Towns in this category). How many Timberwolves do you know who have averaged 8 rpg in their careers? The list is not long, only six players in fact (Love, Towns, Garnett, Jefferson, Gugliotta, Laettner).

Now for the money talk. He's due $146,684,160 ($36,671,040 AAV) over the next four seasons. It's a lot of money, I admit, especially when Towns ($33,833,400 AAV for three seasons) and Russell ($30,695,625 AAV for two seasons) are also on the books. But this isn't that outlandish compared to the rest of the NBA landscape. Towns will turn 26 this season. Russell will turn 26 this season. Ben Simmons is 25 this season. These are not old players. These are not players on the downturn of their careers. A little context is important. Take this from a recent Hollinger article:

Spoiler:

The NBA salary cap ($112.414 million) is very different from where it was even just a decade ago ($58.044 million).

Another thing in the team's favor is Anthony Edwards and his 11,504,565 AAV over the next three years. This is the time when you make a trade like this. Don't wait until Edwards is on his max contract.

In 2003-04, the Timberwolves Big 3 (+1) made 124% of the salary cap. A potential Big 3+1 in Minnesota (Towns, Edwards, Russell, Simmons) this season would be only 93% of the salary cap by comparison.

Posted: **Fri Aug 20, 2021 11:49 pm**

I get the 35m matters as it pushes us towards the tax. But that seems less of a concern because the cap is expected to rise significantly with the new TV deal coming up.

More importantly, how is that 35m going to help us? We are not going to be under the salary cap as long as DLo, Towns, and Edwards are here. If we have more room under the tax we will probably be more likely to use exceptions, like the MLE, but no team from the Midwest is attracting a real difference maker with the MLE.

We are not good enough as-is. Plain and simple. I see this as a rare occasion that we can get a real difference maker to add to this core that is locked in for four years. Oh, and he’s buds with Towns and DLo, so it may be good for team chemistry too.

Did I mention he’s also an elite passer and defender, two things we don’t have on the roster at the moment.

I do understand others hesitation. He looked awful last postseason and hasn’t improved. But this is a situation that will not come around again. I think we need to take the risk.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:31 am**

KGdaBom wrote:
SO_MONEY wrote:
shrink wrote:I had a long post written for veritas, since he seems to be insulting everyone for attention. But let me spell it out in broad terms.

It is a logical fallacy to attribute the results of a group to one individual. For example

MIN was a bad team last year
KAT is on the team
Therefore, KAT is a bad player

That is bad logic.

It is also bad logic to see the effect “bad team” and assume the cause “KAT is bad.”

For those that can’t follow this, it is why we shouldn’t say “Simmons (or Embiid, or any individual player) gets your team wins.” It violates two pretty important rules of logic.

( Shangrila - that is my issue, not refusing to say something good about Simmons. In fact, I regularly repeat how good a defender he is, although it might not need to be said - we all agree with that. You might want to read my fairly even-handed view on whether Simmons is a bad contract as well.)

I did as well.

Cliff notes...

...it is a FACT all players win you games, it is also a FACT all players lose you games. Simmons isn't undefeated. His help costs $35mil in the equation.

IMO you're way too concerned with how much his help costs. I'm not in favor of acquiring Simmons no matter the cost, but I'm in favor of acquiring him if the cost is reasonable. So what is reasonable. Opinions may vary. I'm very OK with including McDaniels if by doing so we save a couple FRPs.

McDaniels kills the deal.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:39 am**

SO_MONEY wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
SO_MONEY wrote:
I did as well.

Cliff notes...

...it is a FACT all players win you games, it is also a FACT all players lose you games. Simmons isn't undefeated. His help costs $35mil in the equation.

IMO you're way too concerned with how much his help costs. I'm not in favor of acquiring Simmons no matter the cost, but I'm in favor of acquiring him if the cost is reasonable. So what is reasonable. Opinions may vary. I'm very OK with including McDaniels if by doing so we save a couple FRPs.

McDaniels kills the deal.

I get that in your opinion this young never was player is more valuable than a young multiple time all star. I think that stand is very homer and not reasonable. Your opinion differs.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:46 am**

Read what Chris Finch just said about McDaniels, in the McDaniels thread.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:52 am**

Interesting point Dane and Britt brought up on the Thursday podcast. Having multiple timelines actually in some ways lessens the bargaining leverage Towns/Russell might have to try to force moves or an eventual trade.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 12:58 am**

shrink wrote:Read what Chris Finch just said about McDaniels, in the McDaniels thread.

The comment is interesting to be sure. However, it's still potential. Multiple people always said Wiggins was the most gifted player on the roster. Doesn't guarantee anything.

Having coach in his corner will make it harder to deal him, but not impossible. It's up to Rosas to determine where that line is drawn.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:22 am**

Klomp wrote:
shrink wrote:Read what Chris Finch just said about McDaniels, in the McDaniels thread.

The comment is interesting to be sure. However, it's still potential. Multiple people always said Wiggins was the most gifted player on the roster. Doesn't guarantee anything.

Having coach in his corner will make it harder to deal him, but not impossible. It's up to Rosas to determine where that line is drawn.

Can you post the exact quotes from Brit’s article in The Athletic? I only heard him relaying Finch’s words on the pod.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:48 am**

shrink wrote:
Klomp wrote:
shrink wrote:Read what Chris Finch just said about McDaniels, in the McDaniels thread.

The comment is interesting to be sure. However, it's still potential. Multiple people always said Wiggins was the most gifted player on the roster. Doesn't guarantee anything.

Having coach in his corner will make it harder to deal him, but not impossible. It's up to Rosas to determine where that line is drawn.

Can you post the exact quotes from Brit’s article in The Athletic? I only heard him relaying Finch’s words on the pod.

Yeah. I think — and this is obviously a stretch goal for anybody — but he can be Scottie Pippen-esque. We talked about competing every time down; well, he’s guarding Luka Doncic and guarding James Harden. These guys are phenomenal players, and (if) they beat him one time, he is right back guarding them the next. I love the kid. He, to me, has such a great foundation. I think his ceiling is high. Very high.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:17 am**

KGdaBom wrote:IMO you're way too concerned with how much his help costs. I'm not in favor of acquiring Simmons no matter the cost, but I'm in favor of acquiring him if the cost is reasonable. So what is reasonable. Opinions may vary. I'm very OK with including McDaniels if by doing so we save a couple FRPs.

And yet, with those saved first round picks, you are hoping they turn out to be as good as McDaniels. And the likelihood isn't that great, especially since they'll be outside the top-10.

Even Moore, in his latest podcast, questioned whether to actually include him in a deal for Simmons. It seems a lot of folks are coming around as to how good McDaniels is and can further become.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:33 am**

Baseline81 wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:IMO you're way too concerned with how much his help costs. I'm not in favor of acquiring Simmons no matter the cost, but I'm in favor of acquiring him if the cost is reasonable. So what is reasonable. Opinions may vary. I'm very OK with including McDaniels if by doing so we save a couple FRPs.

And yet, with those saved first round picks, you are hoping they turn out to be as good as McDaniels. And the likelihood isn't that great, especially since they'll be outside the top-10.

Even Moore, in his latest podcast, questioned whether to actually include him in a deal for Simmons. It seems a lot of folks are coming around as to how good McDaniels is and can further become.

He's not good. He has potential to become good. Out of people who have that potential maybe one in 5 achieve it. I'm not going to let him be a sticking point in acquiring a great player.

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:10 am**

shrink wrote:I had a long post written for veritas, since he seems to be insulting everyone for attention. But let me spell it out in broad terms.

It is a logical fallacy to attribute the results of a group to one individual. For example

MIN was a bad team last year
KAT is on the team
Therefore, KAT is a bad player

That is bad logic.

It is also bad logic to see the effect “bad team” and assume the cause “KAT is bad.”

For those that can’t follow this, it is why we shouldn’t say “Simmons (or Embiid, or any individual player) gets your team wins.” It violates two pretty important rules of logic.

( Shangrila - that is my issue, not refusing to say something good about Simmons. In fact, I regularly repeat how good a defender he is, although it might not need to be said - we all agree with that. You might want to read my fairly even-handed view on whether Simmons is a bad contract as well.)

This feels like semantics, if not an outright strawman.

Nobody is arguing Simmons single handily pulls out wins. He's not going .500 with 3rd stringers like a certain legendary figure, for example, and that's fine. But when judging impact it's more than fair to bring up the winning record his teams have had while he was a core player and that, by all available metrics (both team and individual), he has a positive impact on winning. Since the goal is winning games, it's a significant feather in his cap.

This is especially relevant when put up against the claim that you and others make that he's a serious liability on the court. As I've said, I won't dispute his flaws, but the end result is an outcome we want. And this is why I accused you of trying to minimize one of his strengths to serve your point. You can't just hand wave away a teams success when talking about an individual because then...how do we ever define winning players? What other metric is available to measure their impact on team success then, well, the team's success? Especially when this is not a small sample size we're talking about. It has to count for something.

Even if we did toss out the team's success with him around, we should take a moment to put his individual abilities in the context of our team as a whole, such as (I'll use only this past season for relevancy);

His .153 WS/48 would tie him with KAT
His .584 TS% would put him 4th, behind KAT, Vando and Naz
His 3.3 Defensive Win Shares would put him 1st by a country mile. Closest is KAT at 1.6.
His 1.9 Defensive Box Plus/Minus would put him 1st. Next is Vando at 1.0.
His 18.7 Defensive Rebounding % would put him 5th, behind KAT, Davis, Vando, Naz and Juancho, two of whom are gone.
His 31.3 Assist % would put him 3rd, only just behind Rubio and DLo (both around 33%)

So essentially, without any improvement at all, he'd be our best defender, one of our most efficient scorers, one of our best passers and significantly help us on the boards. At this point, given the significant holes we still have on this team (and as I keep saying) we can't afford to be picky. Nobody we can realistically acquire is going to tick every single little box. Get guys that tick as many as you can and try to work out the rest. And Ben ticks just about everything aside from "shooting", where even then he still manages to remain efficient offensively.

RealGM

Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)

Re: Trade Talk (Part Eight)