If you could ask Wittman 1 question what would it be.

Post #1 » by **revprodeji** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:16 pm

Just an interesting topic. You get 1 question. Be adult about it.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #2 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:24 pm

revprodeji wrote:Just an interesting topic. You get 1 question. Be adult about it.

Post #3 » by **revprodeji** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:25 pm

btw, on his chat today Witt basically made 2 points

-Foye would split the 1 and 2
-We are drafting by need.

Post #4 » by **revprodeji** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:26 pm

Devilzsidewalk wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I did leave that open for you. Thanks for being mature about calling me on it.

Funniest thing I have seen today.

shrink · Post #5 » by **shrink** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:26 pm

revprodeji wrote:btw, on his chat today Witt basically made 2 points

-Foye would split the 1 and 2
-We are drafting by need.

Sort of "ick!" and complete "Ick!"

theGreatRC · Post #6 » by **theGreatRC** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:35 pm

revprodeji wrote:btw, on his chat today Witt basically made 2 points

-Foye would split the 1 and 2
-We are drafting by need.

Then I guess i'll ask him what # Jordan is going to wear.

Post #7 » by **revprodeji** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 pm

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/ ... AN_AM_1130

That link should work. Classic Wittman interview, but those 2 gems were unexpected. (Gem meaning him actually saying something, not just jargon. Not that either of those are good news)

Devilzsidewalk · Post #8 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:37 pm

revprodeji wrote:-We are drafting by need.

I'd like to think he means that any potential draftee would fill a need because Wolves suck, but I think that means he wants a center.

Post #9 » by **revprodeji** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:48 pm

Besides the 4 we could argue "need" everywhere else. (foye can do 2 or 1, Brewer can do 2 or 3)

Maybe he means the 1 with Rose/ he did also say Foye is a 1/2.

McHale likes upperclassmen from programs on the east coast. It is also the belief of many that he only watches the tourney. You know that means Hibbert.

Sorry guys

theGreatRC · Post #10 » by **theGreatRC** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:50 pm

revprodeji wrote:Besides the 4 we could argue "need" everywhere else. (foye can do 2 or 1, Brewer can do 2 or 3)

Maybe he means the 1 with Rose/ he did also say Foye is a 1/2.

McHale likes upperclassmen from programs on the east coast. It is also the belief of many that he only watches the tourney. You know that means Hibbert.

Sorry guys

LOL, whatever helps you sleep at night, Rev.

Post #11 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:07 am

I was not hinting Hibbert. Just saying he fits the Mchale-isms for pre-draft.

If we get a top 2 pick then I do not want hibbert unless we trade down. Simply because the value is not there. If we get the 4th or 5-7 then Hibbert is value. But do not worry, but Hibbert love does not want him for a top 2 pick.

theGreatRC · Post #12 » by **theGreatRC** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:12 am

I'm cool with getting Hibbert if we trade down and get another player in the deal(Lowry is a guy I want, him and Foye are good buddies). Getting Hibbert though would probably set the tone for what kind of style we are going to run in the future, which would probably be a half-court set.

Foye/Lowry
McCants/Jaric
Brewer/Gomes(Re-sign)
Jefferson/Smith(sign)
Hibbert/Richard(sign)

Nice young team with good defense, only defensive hole may be Jefferson, and McCants if he doesn't make those dumb fouls.

Post #13 » by **Worm Guts** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:15 am

There will be no trading down.

Post #14 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:20 am

yes sir (**rev giggles sarcastically)

Lowry is not enough to move down from top 1 to a 5-7, I proposed a deal on the memphis board and on the Deandre Jordan thread that looks like

Our pick(1)/filler/Boston pick/2nd rd for Conley/their pick(5-7)

I am sure they will laugh it out, but if they love Rose they might do it. This would allow us to have a dynamic guard and then draft a big with the 5-7

theGreatRC · Post #15 » by **theGreatRC** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:21 am

^
They will laugh it off, but it's basically a fair deal.

It looks like this:

Our Picl+Boston Pick for 4th Pick(Conley) + their pick

Post #16 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:26 am

You are not considering a couple factors. The most important that if they love Rose but not really another player they could do it. if they think they are that 1 dynamic away from moving to the next level they might do it. Also they see rose every day and it would be easy to fall in love if you see it everyday.

So I am not talking 4th pick+7th for 1st+mid I am talking about quality for quanity for a team that is looking for the home run hit.

Post #17 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:32 am

Also there has been talk about trading Conley in order to get Rose

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=742165

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=742107

theGreatRC · Post #18 » by **theGreatRC** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:35 am

Wouldn't that just be us helping them?

If Jordan is there, then we trade our pick for theres on draft day, if not, we keep the pick and go BPA.

I don't want Hibbert that bad.

Post #19 » by **Calinks** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:40 am

Alot of people think our biggest need is PG. Maybe the wolves plan on drafting Rose.

Post #20 » by **Basti** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:43 am

Calinks3 wrote:Alot of people think our biggest need is PG. Maybe the wolves plan on drafting Rose.

we better decide that after randy played some games. I'm quite confident that he does well as a pg