The Tim Connelly Thread (prev./still Fire Him)

[Note30]

TC - so far, so good.

At the end of the Memphis playoff series, what two things were identified as areas the Timberwolves needed to be better in? Rebounding and a rim presence on defense. They then went out and got the one available player they were sure could help out on both of those points: Rudy Gobert. Great get. Maybe they overpaid, maybe they didn't and I am not going to base that on what happened in one season, since one of the keys missed 63% of the season.

There has been discussion for years about whether KAT should play PF and get a banger of a center to play against Embiid, Gobert, and other "large" centers. The Wolves went out, got Gobert to bang with Embiid and give KAT a chance to play PF. This "Experiment" is still in the trial phase. Yes, there may be a Cap problem down the road, but that is down the road. Let's see how this will play out with healthy players playing together for more than 30% of the season (less if you include MC time with the Wolves).

I would hate to think we would have gotten rid off Ant after 30 games. . .

He's implying that because we haven't given the pairing a healthy season and only seen them play for 30 games that would be the equivalent of trading Ant after an unhealthy season of having played 30 games.

What he fails to realize is that Ant is playing his actual role now, is 21 years old, and on a rookie deal. He's not an experiment.

Playing two centers is an experiment and a super expensive and financially destructive one. It's not a real argument he's making.

Overall he's saying let's give it one more shot, we haven't seen enough to make a conclusion. Which I actually am agreeing with.

Mostly because our options for trading either of them are pretty shiet right now. Yes it'll get worse and we'll most likely have to sell one of them for a horribly low return, but that happens in either scenario, it just gets worse because KATs salary is about to double and he might become a pretty negative contract.

[Klomp]

This roster construction has never been just about Gobert and Towns. That’s why I start to get so annoyed with all of the negativity.

That’s a significant difference between Connelly and Thibs, for example. Thibs doubled down on his win now move by signing guys like Teague and Gibson to significant deals. That arguably limited the franchise’s flexibility more than what Connelly has done.

What youth did Thibs add to his roster? He started in a similar situation as Connelly, but Tim has continued to build out the youth. This is our roster flexibility moving forward.

[cmoss84]

Flexible is a pretty loose term. We just got a mid 1st rounder for dirt cheap. Flexibility is also not needed when making under the radar moves. SloMo. Conley and NAW. NAZ. molding a team is molding a team. This is nearly a finished product. I'll trade that all day for not having flexibility in trading future draft picks

No, Minnesota didn't. Just because several draft sites listed Miller as such doesn't make it true. Now, it may turn out that he should have been taken higher, but, in the end, he was a second round pick.

Finished product? The team was involved in the play-in games and bounced in the first round...

Do you think the games would have been competitive in round 1 with Naz and Jaden? For example, maybe we lose to the eventual Champs in 7? To me, that says we are pretty damn close...

[Calinks]

It pains me that we may have to trade Towns , I think he is extremely talented and a player yo can build around (not a number 1 like Ant but still a huge piece to build around) but I also think we will be ok if/when we move on from him. Gobert is good enough to be a good player for at least a few more years I think, and this team has a lot or good pieces to build up. Even if this Gobert trade winds up being a total disaster, we still have lots of ways to mold this team into a good one in the next 1-3 years. That's why I am still optimistic.

I absolutely see a world where we can trade Towns, Gobert, or both and still have a really good team after a few roster moves. I don't think Center is as important as some other positions we have a lot of young talent in. I believe you can get by with just having a good center where you need to have some great players at the wing/guard spots and we have some talent there locked up.

[minimus]

We already have seen two trades where players were traded because of financial reasons and return is meh:
- Beal
- Collins

I expect this trend to continue. Yes, I think Towns might be higher if MIN overachieve. But it also can be lower if he injuries or MIN fail to impress. Yes, Towns is a generational talent, but so is Edwards and MCD. Build around them will probably mean providing them support with more shooting and decision making. In theory Towns can be both elite shooter and above average facilitator. But first year with Gobert has shown some mixed results. We have one season more to make it work. After that one of Gobert-Towns-Reid will be traded. I see the same approach here, as we saw in DLo situation. Like Rosas used to say "due to diligence", I don't expect a huge return, but I hope we get assets to allow us to make next step in future.

[urinesane]

Flexible is a pretty loose term. We just got a mid 1st rounder for dirt cheap. Flexibility is also not needed when making under the radar moves. SloMo. Conley and NAW. NAZ. molding a team is molding a team. This is nearly a finished product. I'll trade that all day for not having flexibility in trading future draft picks

No, Minnesota didn't. Just because several draft sites listed Miller as such doesn't make it true. Now, it may turn out that he should have been taken higher, but, in the end, he was a second round pick.

Finished product? The team was involved in the play-in games and bounced in the first round...

Isn't that the point and one of the best things about Connelly? He specifically looks for "market inefficiencies" and players that may be in a draft a year too early that he thinks will become solid players. By doing so he gets talent into their development system for a price that would be much higher had they waited a year (or not gotten injured) AND he gets them into the culture/development program one year earlier. It's really f*cking smart and he doesn't get enough credit for it.

THAT is what a franchise like the Wolves needs far more than this perceived "flexibility" since we aren't exactly a top FA destination (which also factors in when trading for a star that you need to sign a new contract to be worth it a la Jimmy).

The core the Wolves have is probably the best it's ever been and Connelly just stocked the pantry with young players that look like they could develop into impact players (and potentially create future flexibility through their value).

I think the major issue in this discussion is that there are a lot of people that want flexibility AND they want to be playing meaningful games, which is fine, but sort of a "having your cake and eating it too mentality".

My belief that when it comes to Ant's future, that him playing as many meaningful games as possible is FAR more valuable (for us) than having flexibility/draft picks to surround him with in the future. When people look back at Jordan, he didn't come into the league and just take over, he needed to face adversity in his rookie year, by getting bounced in 4 games by the Bucks and the following year (after breaking his foot) getting swept by the Celtics two seasons in a row. 1988 they got pieces around him and made it out of the first round, but were eliminated in 5 games by the Pistons. He needed to experience losing in the playoffs to better teams to understand what was necessary not only for himself, but for his teammates to overcome that hurdle.

People think of player development as some sort of automatic thing, if they got it, they got it, and would be the same player regardless of situation/team/etc... but that's not true at all. Just like with any person, environment, support, and adversity make a huge difference in who we become (and what we achieve). Ant needs the right environment (check), support (check), and the right kind of adversity (check). The RIGHT adversity is important, Jordan wasn't a young star putting up huge numbers on a lottery team to start his career. He was in the playoffs getting to know the difference between what it takes to win in the regular season and in the post season.

We've seen incredibly talented players enter the league and put up huge numbers on bad teams, only to get moved to a different team (as if their first team was a minor league team) and have success. Why haven't we learned from it? The most important thing for this franchise's future is Anthony Edwards and the most important thing for Anthony Edwards development is to be playing in meaningful games RIGHT NOW. Which means winning in the regular season. Whatever it takes for him to get that experience FAR outweighs the moving pieces we are arguing about constantly.

HE'S THE GUY. It's not enough to say "we are building around him", they need to make sure to maintain a good enough team, so that his development isn't interrupted by a roster full of players that aren't ready for prime time.

Also when it comes to the idea of "future flexibility"... guess what? The future doesn't exist yet. The flexibility is not simply gone, it's just not there RIGHT NOW, it can be gained back through plenty of potential future moves (maybe not 100%, but enough to make the moves they need to). What they REALLY NEED is quality data, so that when they make their next big move, it's informed by what we need to add to the roster in order to get Anthony Edwards over the next hurdle.

You can hate the price of the Gobert trade, I don't think many will argue too strongly against you that it was an overpay... but when Connelly came in and saw what was stopping the Wolves from beating the Grizzlies, the major things were defense and rebounding. I know he didn't play up to his normal level, but that's basically what Gobert specializes in and has been DPOY 3x in large part due to those things.

They didn't go out and get another alpha, or Paul George as a star/mentor for Ant. They looked at the TEAM weakness and tried to address it (in a massive move). We can argue results and prices, but that's sound logic and a breath of fresh air from the "throw things at a wall and see what sticks" method the franchise has been using post KG.

I know that people think that we could have still had Ant playing in big games without making that big move, but that can't be known and unless you are being intellectually dishonest for the sake of argument, it's pretty hard to sell the Wolves making the playoffs last season without having Gobert while losing KAT for as many games as they did. Which meant that YES, we would have had more flexibility, but we also would have lost out on Ant playing in big games (the playoffs, but also the super important games the last few months where the playoffs were in the balance nearly every night).

I guess the question becomes, "What do you believe is MORE important for the future of Anthony Edwards and his success with the Wolves... future flexibility or playing meaningful games?".

I am in the camp that believes that him playing as many meaningful games as possible is far better for the Wolves long term than having less first round draft capital (especially based on how well Connelly has drafted the last few seasons). Not based on a fear of him leaving, but based on the fact that the best way for him to learn what he needs to work on, is by feeling the disappointment of losing in big games. He needs to be in big enough situations to figure out the next step when he fails... but if he's not in those situations early and often, the next step is usually to find a place where he can be in those situations.

[frankenwolf]

TC - so far, so good.

At the end of the Memphis playoff series, what two things were identified as areas the Timberwolves needed to be better in? Rebounding and a rim presence on defense. They then went out and got the one available player they were sure could help out on both of those points: Rudy Gobert. Great get. Maybe they overpaid, maybe they didn't and I am not going to base that on what happened in one season, since one of the keys missed 63% of the season.

There has been discussion for years about whether KAT should play PF and get a banger of a center to play against Embiid, Gobert, and other "large" centers. The Wolves went out, got Gobert to bang with Embiid and give KAT a chance to play PF. This "Experiment" is still in the trial phase. Yes, there may be a Cap problem down the road, but that is down the road. Let's see how this will play out with healthy players playing together for more than 30% of the season (less if you include MC time with the Wolves).

I think this is off base on a few things. .

Pertaining to the highlighted part, a direct quote from Coach Finch: “It was the perfect fit at the perfect time for the organization,” Finch said. “It’s not often you get the chance to add somebody who brings such a level of professionalism, maturity and experience alongside a young core who fits seamlessly into what we need — and what we need most." The Timberwolves have coveted a piece like Gobert, who can turn certain weaknesses (such as their rebounding and defense) into strengths.

Not me saying it, but the team.

[SO_MONEY]

Flexible is a pretty loose term. We just got a mid 1st rounder for dirt cheap. Flexibility is also not needed when making under the radar moves. SloMo. Conley and NAW. NAZ. molding a team is molding a team. This is nearly a finished product. I'll trade that all day for not having flexibility in trading future draft picks

No, Minnesota didn't. Just because several draft sites listed Miller as such doesn't make it true. Now, it may turn out that he should have been taken higher, but, in the end, he was a second round pick.

Finished product? The team was involved in the play-in games and bounced in the first round...

Isn't that the point and one of the best things about Connelly? He specifically looks for "market inefficiencies" and players that may be in a draft a year too early that he thinks will become solid players. By doing so he gets talent into their development system for a price that would be much higher had they waited a year (or not gotten injured) AND he gets them into the culture/development program one year earlier. It's really f*cking smart and he doesn't get enough credit for it.

THAT is what a franchise like the Wolves needs far more than this perceived "flexibility" since we aren't exactly a top FA destination (which also factors in when trading for a star that you need to sign a new contract to be worth it a la Jimmy).

The core the Wolves have is probably the best it's ever been and Connelly just stocked the pantry with young players that look like they could develop into impact players (and potentially create future flexibility through their value).

I think the major issue in this discussion is that there are a lot of people that want flexibility AND they want to be playing meaningful games, which is fine, but sort of a "having your cake and eating it too mentality".

My belief that when it comes to Ant's future, that him playing as many meaningful games as possible is FAR more valuable (for us) than having flexibility/draft picks to surround him with in the future. When people look back at Jordan, he didn't come into the league and just take over, he needed to face adversity in his rookie year, by getting bounced in 4 games by the Bucks and the following year (after breaking his foot) getting swept by the Celtics two seasons in a row. 1988 they got pieces around him and made it out of the first round, but were eliminated in 5 games by the Pistons. He needed to experience losing in the playoffs to better teams to understand what was necessary not only for himself, but for his teammates to overcome that hurdle.

People think of player development as some sort of automatic thing, if they got it, they got it, and would be the same player regardless of situation/team/etc... but that's not true at all. Just like with any person, environment, support, and adversity make a huge difference in who we become (and what we achieve). Ant needs the right environment (check), support (check), and the right kind of adversity (check). The RIGHT adversity is important, Jordan wasn't a young star putting up huge numbers on a lottery team to start his career. He was in the playoffs getting to know the difference between what it takes to win in the regular season and in the post season.

We've seen incredibly talented players enter the league and put up huge numbers on bad teams, only to get moved to a different team (as if their first team was a minor league team) and have success. Why haven't we learned from it? The most important thing for this franchise's future is Anthony Edwards and the most important thing for Anthony Edwards development is to be playing in meaningful games RIGHT NOW. Which means winning in the regular season. Whatever it takes for him to get that experience FAR outweighs the moving pieces we are arguing about constantly.

HE'S THE GUY. It's not enough to say "we are building around him", they need to make sure to maintain a good enough team, so that his development isn't interrupted by a roster full of players that aren't ready for prime time.

Also when it comes to the idea of "future flexibility"... guess what? The future doesn't exist yet. The flexibility is not simply gone, it's just not there RIGHT NOW, it can be gained back through plenty of potential future moves (maybe not 100%, but enough to make the moves they need to). What they REALLY NEED is quality data, so that when they make their next big move, it's informed by what we need to add to the roster in order to get Anthony Edwards over the next hurdle.

You can hate the price of the Gobert trade, I don't think many will argue too strongly against you that it was an overpay... but when Connelly came in and saw what was stopping the Wolves from beating the Grizzlies, the major things were defense and rebounding. I know he didn't play up to his normal level, but that's basically what Gobert specializes in and has been DPOY 3x in large part due to those things.

They didn't go out and get another alpha, or Paul George as a star/mentor for Ant. They looked at the TEAM weakness and tried to address it (in a massive move). We can argue results and prices, but that's sound logic and a breath of fresh air from the "throw things at a wall and see what sticks" method the franchise has been using post KG.

I know that people think that we could have still had Ant playing in big games without making that big move, but that can't be known and unless you are being intellectually dishonest for the sake of argument, it's pretty hard to sell the Wolves making the playoffs last season without having Gobert while losing KAT for as many games as they did. Which meant that YES, we would have had more flexibility, but we also would have lost out on Ant playing in big games (the playoffs, but also the super important games the last few months where the playoffs were in the balance nearly every night).

I guess the question becomes, "What do you believe is MORE important for the future of Anthony Edwards and his success with the Wolves... future flexibility or playing meaningful games?".

I am in the camp that believes that him playing as many meaningful games as possible is far better for the Wolves long term than having less first round draft capital (especially based on how well Connelly has drafted the last few seasons). Not based on a fear of him leaving, but based on the fact that the best way for him to learn what he needs to work on, is by feeling the disappointment of losing in big games. He needs to be in big enough situations to figure out the next step when he fails... but if he's not in those situations early and often, the next step is usually to find a place where he can be in those situations.

You dwell too much in this meaningful games stuff, if the team is competitive the games will be meaningful. That doesn't have anything to do with flexibility, the team is competitive or it isn't. The team has flexibility or it doesn't. This franchise is at a place where the young players can almost carry a team on their own, which is good and why you want flexibility to add talent to them via draft or trade... it isn't one or the other, they are completely divorced from each other. You want to build on both.

[frankenwolf]

What they REALLY NEED is quality data

This is what is truly missing on the "Two big experiment". 30 games is a small sample size.

After the Wolves win the championship next year, then they will know what they have.

[SO_MONEY]

What they REALLY NEED is quality data

This is what is truly missing on the "Two big experiment". 30 games is a small sample size.

After the Wolves win the championship next year, then they will know what they have.

actually 30 games is not a small sample size, many predictive models are based on only 4 games. That is about the minimum needed sample size to project over 82 games. Just saying...

[urinesane]

Flexible is a pretty loose term. We just got a mid 1st rounder for dirt cheap. Flexibility is also not needed when making under the radar moves. SloMo. Conley and NAW. NAZ. molding a team is molding a team. This is nearly a finished product. I'll trade that all day for not having flexibility in trading future draft picks

Essentially, Connelly has already recouped the 2023 pick by managing to snag Miller, too. Now the Gobert trade is basically down to Kessler and three (3) picks most likely in the 20's. Throw in grabbing Conley, NAW and three (3) SRP's for Russell and I'd say things are starting to even out.

I'd rather have a GM that swings and misses rather than one that never takes the bat off of his shoulder. He just needs to make contact more often than miss to be deemed successful.

I agree that TC recouped some value via the Conley trade and outside of the Gobert trade he's done pretty well. But saying that he made up for it isn't true because he could have still done those moves without that trade.

Let's not about this whole he recouped the pick. We picked #33 while giving up future second round picks. We did good, but it was still a second round pick, and we still could have made that trade had we not done the Gobert trade.

Our actual pick that we traded was Keyonte George at #16. That's who we missed out on. I don't think we would have picked Leonard Miller at #16. We would/could have still had Miller at #33 because we could have still made that trade.

In the current situation where every dollar and contract matters, getting an early 2nd round pick over a mid 1st round pick is HUGE for flexibility. Keyonte George may be a better player (that can't really be known yet), but he will FOR SURE be a more expensive rookie than Miller.

The expected first season salary for Keyonte George is $3.2 million +5% raise in his 2nd season (though that number fluctuates based on the source). The cheapest a 1st round pick is $1.8 million for their first season.

With Miller they have flexibility (that magic word!) when it comes to his contract. Unless you think that having a player like Keyonte George developing in the G League for potentially $3.2 million his first season (there is zero chance he cracks the rotation in MN) is better than having someone viewed as a lottery level talent on a 2nd round contract developing in the G League (which he has already played a season in and made major jumps in development)... Leonard is a MUCH better pick for this team at 33 than George would have been at 16.

[gandlogo]

TC - so far, so good.

At the end of the Memphis playoff series, what two things were identified as areas the Timberwolves needed to be better in? Rebounding and a rim presence on defense. They then went out and got the one available player they were sure could help out on both of those points: Rudy Gobert. Great get. Maybe they overpaid, maybe they didn't and I am not going to base that on what happened in one season, since one of the keys missed 63% of the season.

There has been discussion for years about whether KAT should play PF and get a banger of a center to play against Embiid, Gobert, and other "large" centers. The Wolves went out, got Gobert to bang with Embiid and give KAT a chance to play PF. This "Experiment" is still in the trial phase. Yes, there may be a Cap problem down the road, but that is down the road. Let's see how this will play out with healthy players playing together for more than 30% of the season (less if you include MC time with the Wolves).

I think this is off base on a few things. .

Pertaining to the highlighted part, a direct quote from Coach Finch: “It was the perfect fit at the perfect time for the organization,” Finch said. “It’s not often you get the chance to add somebody who brings such a level of professionalism, maturity and experience alongside a young core who fits seamlessly into what we need — and what we need most." The Timberwolves have coveted a piece like Gobert, who can turn certain weaknesses (such as their rebounding and defense) into strengths.

Not me saying it, but the team.

Shocking - someone from the team saying something glowing about a player it just acquired.

[urinesane]

It didn't translate to wins shinks. When you make posts like this it infers I don't want to win, that I am incapable of analysis. I have never said it can't work, I say it is unlikely to work based on what we have seen. Now you can point to all the stats in the world pro and con, what matters is wins. Observationally the team looks better with Reid and Gobert than it does with KAT and Gobert, now there are stats that say that is not true, but I am not the only one that sees the difference, it has been noticed, moreover W&Ls showed a slim difference in the positive. You can have all the optimism in the world, the reality is it is a show me league and they haven't showed anything to make you think this is going to work. Nothing you say can undo the results of the past. You could be right maybe it works out, in a vacuum we both could be right, meaning no matter what path you take it could result in failure or success... but I have seen enough to make my call.

When the Net Rtg for Towns-Gobert is 0.6, and the Net Rating for Naz-Gobert is -12.6, and you say “the team looked better with Reid and Gobert than KAT and Gobert,” I find it difficult to trust your observations. Moreover, when your observations are so dissimilar from the actual evidence, you should try to determine why your observations are so far off, and whether you are injecting personal bias into what you see. Especially if you are taking the position “I have evidence and those that disagree don’t have evidence, just faith.”

And if you were really implying you were talking about Wins, you are talking about an extremely small sample. Remember, the bulk of the KAT-Rudy minutes came at the start of the season (20 games, .500), with just 6 games together at the end (4-2, I believe). Wins are a team endeavor, and at the start of the season, neither DLo or Ant could feed Rudy, plus both Rudy and Towns were coming into the season weak. They Wolves still played .500, even if it felt like they should have done better. That is not the situation that the Wolves will face next year, with Conley, a more experienced Ant, and a healthier KAT and Rudy.

In the end, we both end up in the same place though. We need to see more to make the call. Game 1 can’t come soon enough for me!

Shrink it is not just me who has seen it, hell it was in an article about the signing from one of the two major papers. It is fine if you disagree with me, but you are also in disagreement with people's who's job it is to cover the team or sports in general. I agree with them you don't.

Dude, come on. You're pointing to a couple Wolves writers as if they are evidence? Well, since they are local guys, they must know more! That's just silly, nobody is using editorials about sports as evidence, so please stop with that garbage. Those homers know just as much as the rest of us, they just get their opinions published. If getting your opinions out there meant that they were somehow more valid, Kendrick Perkins and Stephen A. Smith would have front office jobs (instead of being knee jerk clowns debating nonsense for ratings).

[urinesane]

No, Minnesota didn't. Just because several draft sites listed Miller as such doesn't make it true. Now, it may turn out that he should have been taken higher, but, in the end, he was a second round pick.

Finished product? The team was involved in the play-in games and bounced in the first round...

Isn't that the point and one of the best things about Connelly? He specifically looks for "market inefficiencies" and players that may be in a draft a year too early that he thinks will become solid players. By doing so he gets talent into their development system for a price that would be much higher had they waited a year (or not gotten injured) AND he gets them into the culture/development program one year earlier. It's really f*cking smart and he doesn't get enough credit for it.

THAT is what a franchise like the Wolves needs far more than this perceived "flexibility" since we aren't exactly a top FA destination (which also factors in when trading for a star that you need to sign a new contract to be worth it a la Jimmy).

The core the Wolves have is probably the best it's ever been and Connelly just stocked the pantry with young players that look like they could develop into impact players (and potentially create future flexibility through their value).

I think the major issue in this discussion is that there are a lot of people that want flexibility AND they want to be playing meaningful games, which is fine, but sort of a "having your cake and eating it too mentality".

My belief that when it comes to Ant's future, that him playing as many meaningful games as possible is FAR more valuable (for us) than having flexibility/draft picks to surround him with in the future. When people look back at Jordan, he didn't come into the league and just take over, he needed to face adversity in his rookie year, by getting bounced in 4 games by the Bucks and the following year (after breaking his foot) getting swept by the Celtics two seasons in a row. 1988 they got pieces around him and made it out of the first round, but were eliminated in 5 games by the Pistons. He needed to experience losing in the playoffs to better teams to understand what was necessary not only for himself, but for his teammates to overcome that hurdle.

People think of player development as some sort of automatic thing, if they got it, they got it, and would be the same player regardless of situation/team/etc... but that's not true at all. Just like with any person, environment, support, and adversity make a huge difference in who we become (and what we achieve). Ant needs the right environment (check), support (check), and the right kind of adversity (check). The RIGHT adversity is important, Jordan wasn't a young star putting up huge numbers on a lottery team to start his career. He was in the playoffs getting to know the difference between what it takes to win in the regular season and in the post season.

We've seen incredibly talented players enter the league and put up huge numbers on bad teams, only to get moved to a different team (as if their first team was a minor league team) and have success. Why haven't we learned from it? The most important thing for this franchise's future is Anthony Edwards and the most important thing for Anthony Edwards development is to be playing in meaningful games RIGHT NOW. Which means winning in the regular season. Whatever it takes for him to get that experience FAR outweighs the moving pieces we are arguing about constantly.

HE'S THE GUY. It's not enough to say "we are building around him", they need to make sure to maintain a good enough team, so that his development isn't interrupted by a roster full of players that aren't ready for prime time.

Also when it comes to the idea of "future flexibility"... guess what? The future doesn't exist yet. The flexibility is not simply gone, it's just not there RIGHT NOW, it can be gained back through plenty of potential future moves (maybe not 100%, but enough to make the moves they need to). What they REALLY NEED is quality data, so that when they make their next big move, it's informed by what we need to add to the roster in order to get Anthony Edwards over the next hurdle.

You can hate the price of the Gobert trade, I don't think many will argue too strongly against you that it was an overpay... but when Connelly came in and saw what was stopping the Wolves from beating the Grizzlies, the major things were defense and rebounding. I know he didn't play up to his normal level, but that's basically what Gobert specializes in and has been DPOY 3x in large part due to those things.

They didn't go out and get another alpha, or Paul George as a star/mentor for Ant. They looked at the TEAM weakness and tried to address it (in a massive move). We can argue results and prices, but that's sound logic and a breath of fresh air from the "throw things at a wall and see what sticks" method the franchise has been using post KG.

I know that people think that we could have still had Ant playing in big games without making that big move, but that can't be known and unless you are being intellectually dishonest for the sake of argument, it's pretty hard to sell the Wolves making the playoffs last season without having Gobert while losing KAT for as many games as they did. Which meant that YES, we would have had more flexibility, but we also would have lost out on Ant playing in big games (the playoffs, but also the super important games the last few months where the playoffs were in the balance nearly every night).

I guess the question becomes, "What do you believe is MORE important for the future of Anthony Edwards and his success with the Wolves... future flexibility or playing meaningful games?".

I am in the camp that believes that him playing as many meaningful games as possible is far better for the Wolves long term than having less first round draft capital (especially based on how well Connelly has drafted the last few seasons). Not based on a fear of him leaving, but based on the fact that the best way for him to learn what he needs to work on, is by feeling the disappointment of losing in big games. He needs to be in big enough situations to figure out the next step when he fails... but if he's not in those situations early and often, the next step is usually to find a place where he can be in those situations.

You dwell too much in this meaningful games stuff, if the team is competitive the games will be meaningful. That doesn't have anything to do with flexibility, the team is competitive or it isn't. The team has flexibility or it doesn't. This franchise is at a place where the young players can almost carry a team on their own, which is good and why you want flexibility to add talent to them via draft or trade... it isn't one or the other, they are completely divorced from each other. You want to build on both.

Well doi. That doesn't mean that the team last season would have made the playoffs without Gobert when KAT misses that many games, which means they lose more, and aren't as competitive. Silver linings don't work nearly as well for development as winning. Winning raises the stakes and creates a pressure that simply "being competitive" doesn't. Being competitive just means losing, but not as badly.

Since you put so much stake into what local writers have to say, are you aware that Jon Krawczynski (probably the best local Wolves writer) flat out stated that without Gobert last season that the Wolves wouldn't have made the playoffs?

Do you think a 1st round pick in 2025/2027/2029 are more valuable than Ant playing against the best team in the league in the playoffs this last season? Those picks at best wouldn't be contributing to winning until at least 2-3 seasons after they are drafted (if they end up contributing at all, which the odds are against).

[SO_MONEY]

When the Net Rtg for Towns-Gobert is 0.6, and the Net Rating for Naz-Gobert is -12.6, and you say “the team looked better with Reid and Gobert than KAT and Gobert,” I find it difficult to trust your observations. Moreover, when your observations are so dissimilar from the actual evidence, you should try to determine why your observations are so far off, and whether you are injecting personal bias into what you see. Especially if you are taking the position “I have evidence and those that disagree don’t have evidence, just faith.”

And if you were really implying you were talking about Wins, you are talking about an extremely small sample. Remember, the bulk of the KAT-Rudy minutes came at the start of the season (20 games, .500), with just 6 games together at the end (4-2, I believe). Wins are a team endeavor, and at the start of the season, neither DLo or Ant could feed Rudy, plus both Rudy and Towns were coming into the season weak. They Wolves still played .500, even if it felt like they should have done better. That is not the situation that the Wolves will face next year, with Conley, a more experienced Ant, and a healthier KAT and Rudy.

In the end, we both end up in the same place though. We need to see more to make the call. Game 1 can’t come soon enough for me!

Shrink it is not just me who has seen it, hell it was in an article about the signing from one of the two major papers. It is fine if you disagree with me, but you are also in disagreement with people's who's job it is to cover the team or sports in general. I agree with them you don't.

Dude, come on. You're pointing to a couple Wolves writers as if they are evidence? Well, since they are local guys, they must know more! That's just silly, nobody is using editorials about sports as evidence, so please stop with that garbage. Those homers know just as much as the rest of us, they just get their opinions published. If getting your opinions out there meant that they were somehow more valid, Kendrick Perkins and Stephen A. Smith would have front office jobs (instead of being knee jerk clowns debating nonsense for ratings).

I am saying I am not alone in my observation. Nothing more nothing less.

[urinesane]

Shrink it is not just me who has seen it, hell it was in an article about the signing from one of the two major papers. It is fine if you disagree with me, but you are also in disagreement with people's who's job it is to cover the team or sports in general. I agree with them you don't.

Dude, come on. You're pointing to a couple Wolves writers as if they are evidence? Well, since they are local guys, they must know more! That's just silly, nobody is using editorials about sports as evidence, so please stop with that garbage. Those homers know just as much as the rest of us, they just get their opinions published. If getting your opinions out there meant that they were somehow more valid, Kendrick Perkins and Stephen A. Smith would have front office jobs (instead of being knee jerk clowns debating nonsense for ratings).

I am saying I am not alone in my observation. Nothing more nothing less.

Since you put so much stake into what local writers have to say, are you aware that Jon Krawczynski (probably the best local Wolves writer) flat out stated that without Gobert last season that the Wolves wouldn't have made the playoffs?

Neither are we... what's your point? You hate the Gobert trade and want to compound that mistake by trading KAT for pennies, because he apparently doesn't help the team win (which Shrink pointed out was not the case backed up by evidence rather than observations and opinions).

[urinesane]

What they REALLY NEED is quality data

This is what is truly missing on the "Two big experiment". 30 games is a small sample size.

After the Wolves win the championship next year, then they will know what they have.

actually 30 games is not a small sample size, many predictive models are based on only 4 games. That is about the minimum needed sample size to project over 82 games. Just saying...

Now you're just being silly.

Just stop man. You can disagree without getting ridiculous.

Would you be confident in giving someone a max extension based on 30 great games?

[SO_MONEY]

Isn't that the point and one of the best things about Connelly? He specifically looks for "market inefficiencies" and players that may be in a draft a year too early that he thinks will become solid players. By doing so he gets talent into their development system for a price that would be much higher had they waited a year (or not gotten injured) AND he gets them into the culture/development program one year earlier. It's really f*cking smart and he doesn't get enough credit for it.

THAT is what a franchise like the Wolves needs far more than this perceived "flexibility" since we aren't exactly a top FA destination (which also factors in when trading for a star that you need to sign a new contract to be worth it a la Jimmy).

The core the Wolves have is probably the best it's ever been and Connelly just stocked the pantry with young players that look like they could develop into impact players (and potentially create future flexibility through their value).

I think the major issue in this discussion is that there are a lot of people that want flexibility AND they want to be playing meaningful games, which is fine, but sort of a "having your cake and eating it too mentality".

My belief that when it comes to Ant's future, that him playing as many meaningful games as possible is FAR more valuable (for us) than having flexibility/draft picks to surround him with in the future. When people look back at Jordan, he didn't come into the league and just take over, he needed to face adversity in his rookie year, by getting bounced in 4 games by the Bucks and the following year (after breaking his foot) getting swept by the Celtics two seasons in a row. 1988 they got pieces around him and made it out of the first round, but were eliminated in 5 games by the Pistons. He needed to experience losing in the playoffs to better teams to understand what was necessary not only for himself, but for his teammates to overcome that hurdle.

People think of player development as some sort of automatic thing, if they got it, they got it, and would be the same player regardless of situation/team/etc... but that's not true at all. Just like with any person, environment, support, and adversity make a huge difference in who we become (and what we achieve). Ant needs the right environment (check), support (check), and the right kind of adversity (check). The RIGHT adversity is important, Jordan wasn't a young star putting up huge numbers on a lottery team to start his career. He was in the playoffs getting to know the difference between what it takes to win in the regular season and in the post season.

We've seen incredibly talented players enter the league and put up huge numbers on bad teams, only to get moved to a different team (as if their first team was a minor league team) and have success. Why haven't we learned from it? The most important thing for this franchise's future is Anthony Edwards and the most important thing for Anthony Edwards development is to be playing in meaningful games RIGHT NOW. Which means winning in the regular season. Whatever it takes for him to get that experience FAR outweighs the moving pieces we are arguing about constantly.

HE'S THE GUY. It's not enough to say "we are building around him", they need to make sure to maintain a good enough team, so that his development isn't interrupted by a roster full of players that aren't ready for prime time.

Also when it comes to the idea of "future flexibility"... guess what? The future doesn't exist yet. The flexibility is not simply gone, it's just not there RIGHT NOW, it can be gained back through plenty of potential future moves (maybe not 100%, but enough to make the moves they need to). What they REALLY NEED is quality data, so that when they make their next big move, it's informed by what we need to add to the roster in order to get Anthony Edwards over the next hurdle.

You can hate the price of the Gobert trade, I don't think many will argue too strongly against you that it was an overpay... but when Connelly came in and saw what was stopping the Wolves from beating the Grizzlies, the major things were defense and rebounding. I know he didn't play up to his normal level, but that's basically what Gobert specializes in and has been DPOY 3x in large part due to those things.

They didn't go out and get another alpha, or Paul George as a star/mentor for Ant. They looked at the TEAM weakness and tried to address it (in a massive move). We can argue results and prices, but that's sound logic and a breath of fresh air from the "throw things at a wall and see what sticks" method the franchise has been using post KG.

I know that people think that we could have still had Ant playing in big games without making that big move, but that can't be known and unless you are being intellectually dishonest for the sake of argument, it's pretty hard to sell the Wolves making the playoffs last season without having Gobert while losing KAT for as many games as they did. Which meant that YES, we would have had more flexibility, but we also would have lost out on Ant playing in big games (the playoffs, but also the super important games the last few months where the playoffs were in the balance nearly every night).

I guess the question becomes, "What do you believe is MORE important for the future of Anthony Edwards and his success with the Wolves... future flexibility or playing meaningful games?".

I am in the camp that believes that him playing as many meaningful games as possible is far better for the Wolves long term than having less first round draft capital (especially based on how well Connelly has drafted the last few seasons). Not based on a fear of him leaving, but based on the fact that the best way for him to learn what he needs to work on, is by feeling the disappointment of losing in big games. He needs to be in big enough situations to figure out the next step when he fails... but if he's not in those situations early and often, the next step is usually to find a place where he can be in those situations.

You dwell too much in this meaningful games stuff, if the team is competitive the games will be meaningful. That doesn't have anything to do with flexibility, the team is competitive or it isn't. The team has flexibility or it doesn't. This franchise is at a place where the young players can almost carry a team on their own, which is good and why you want flexibility to add talent to them via draft or trade... it isn't one or the other, they are completely divorced from each other. You want to build on both.

Well doi. That doesn't mean that the team last season would have made the playoffs without Gobert when KAT misses that many games, which means they lose more, and aren't as competitive. Silver linings don't work nearly as well for development as winning. Winning raises the stakes and creates a pressure that simply "being competitive" doesn't. Being competitive just means losing, but not as badly.

Since you put so much stake into what local writers have to say, are you aware that Jon Krawczynski (probably the best local Wolves writer) flat out stated that without Gobert last season that the Wolves wouldn't have made the playoffs?

Do you think a 1st round pick in 2025/2027/2029 are more valuable than Ant playing against the best team in the league in the playoffs this last season? Those picks at best wouldn't be contributing to winning until at least 2-3 seasons after they are drafted (if they end up contributing at all, which the odds are against).

It is not about what is more important when it is two unrelated things. You can have both. But to humor you...if you are taking a first round exit, I probably would rather have the pick, if it is advancing past the fist I would feel picks are less important than the success. Flexibility helps you advance by adding talent if you are only good enough to make the playoffs.

[urinesane]

You dwell too much in this meaningful games stuff, if the team is competitive the games will be meaningful. That doesn't have anything to do with flexibility, the team is competitive or it isn't. The team has flexibility or it doesn't. This franchise is at a place where the young players can almost carry a team on their own, which is good and why you want flexibility to add talent to them via draft or trade... it isn't one or the other, they are completely divorced from each other. You want to build on both.

Well doi. That doesn't mean that the team last season would have made the playoffs without Gobert when KAT misses that many games, which means they lose more, and aren't as competitive. Silver linings don't work nearly as well for development as winning. Winning raises the stakes and creates a pressure that simply "being competitive" doesn't. Being competitive just means losing, but not as badly.

Since you put so much stake into what local writers have to say, are you aware that Jon Krawczynski (probably the best local Wolves writer) flat out stated that without Gobert last season that the Wolves wouldn't have made the playoffs?

Do you think a 1st round pick in 2025/2027/2029 are more valuable than Ant playing against the best team in the league in the playoffs this last season? Those picks at best wouldn't be contributing to winning until at least 2-3 seasons after they are drafted (if they end up contributing at all, which the odds are against).

It is not about what is more important when it is two unrelated things. You can have both. But to humor you...if you are taking a first round exit, I probably would rather have the pick, if it is advancing past the fist I would feel picks are less important than the success.

What are the options, 1st round exit (in this case playing the best team in the NBA better than most teams while missing key players) or what sort of pick are we talking? How many wins in the regular season?

Winning and flexibility in this case are not mutually exclusive. If they had retained flexibility they would have won less games, imo a lot less (probably 10+ less), by giving up short term flexibility (because the future picks don't matter until they become something), they gained that many more wins PLUS two play-in games (that are super intense) and 5 playoff games against the best team in the league.

So the question is, does that extra value of 10+ more wins in the regular season plus 7 Playoff type games outweigh a lottery ticket player that may or may not contribute to winning 2-3 years down the line?

When it comes to Ant (aka The Franchise) I think those games are much more valuable than a rookie contract player potentially helping him win in 2-3 seasons (which may or may not come to fruition).

[SO_MONEY]

Well doi. That doesn't mean that the team last season would have made the playoffs without Gobert when KAT misses that many games, which means they lose more, and aren't as competitive. Silver linings don't work nearly as well for development as winning. Winning raises the stakes and creates a pressure that simply "being competitive" doesn't. Being competitive just means losing, but not as badly.

Since you put so much stake into what local writers have to say, are you aware that Jon Krawczynski (probably the best local Wolves writer) flat out stated that without Gobert last season that the Wolves wouldn't have made the playoffs?

Do you think a 1st round pick in 2025/2027/2029 are more valuable than Ant playing against the best team in the league in the playoffs this last season? Those picks at best wouldn't be contributing to winning until at least 2-3 seasons after they are drafted (if they end up contributing at all, which the odds are against).

It is not about what is more important when it is two unrelated things. You can have both. But to humor you...if you are taking a first round exit, I probably would rather have the pick, if it is advancing past the fist I would feel picks are less important than the success.

What are the options, 1st round exit (in this case playing the best team in the NBA better than most teams while missing key players) or what sort of pick are we talking? How many wins in the regular season?

Winning and flexibility in this case are not mutually exclusive. If they had retained flexibility they would have won less games, imo a lot less (probably 10+ less), by giving up short term flexibility (because the future picks don't matter until they become something), they gained that many more wins PLUS two play-in games (that are super intense) and 5 playoff games against the best team in the league.

So the question is, does that extra value of 10+ more wins in the regular season plus 7 Playoff type games outweigh a lottery ticket player that may or may not contribute to winning 2-3 years down the line?

When it comes to Ant (aka The Franchise) I think those games are much more valuable than a rookie contract player potentially helping him win in 2-3 seasons (which may or may not come to fruition).

You can say they would win less games, that is true right up to the point it isn't. Flexibility is the only pathway to significant improvement, development alone could never compare.