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

[Baseline81]

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).

The Mavs, despite having Doncic, tanked to hold onto the 10th pick in this past draft. And you're asking if I would give up a first round exit, for Edwards' development, for three first round picks?

YES

[urinesane]

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).

The Mavs, despite having Doncic, tanked to hold onto the 10th pick in this past draft. And you're asking if I would give up a first round exit, for Edwards' development, for three first round picks?

YES

The Mavs are way more starved for talent, made a terrible trade for Kyrie (who unlike Gobert, they may not be able to keep), and MAJORLY pissed off their franchise player to narrowly miss the playoffs for a #10 pick (who is a 20 year old guard out of Kentucky).

The people who are obsessed with draft picks and their new shininess almost always forget that IF they do develop into legit players, it almost always takes at least 2-3 seasons (there are some rare exceptions). Can the Mavs afford to waste 2-3 more seasons of Doncic before he wants to gtfo? They gave up Finney-Smith, Dinwiddie, and a 2029 1st with two 2nd round picks to get a rental of Kyrie only to tank right before the end of the season... do you really want to use them as an example of a franchise making good choices?

Regardless, the Wolves/Mavs were in completely different situations with their roster (desperate to put talent around Doncic vs the Wolves being pretty well stocked on talent) and their objectives are completely different (Mavs need to acquire talent, Wolves need to season theirs with winning).

I will take Anthony Edwards taking a step closer to his full potential over lottery tickets (not even projected to be good ones) any day.

[urinesane]

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.

Flexibility is only as good as you use it, it's options not a guarantee of success. Development is something you can actually gauge and put value on (it's also infinitely more valuable to a small market team than flexibility). With development you can GAIN flexibility, because if you develop talent that is undervalued into talent that is highly valued (NAZ REID), you've created flexibility not only with your current roster, but who you can acquire with that developed talent.

Flexibility cannot develop players, but development can add flexibility.

Development>>>>>>Flexibility

[urinesane]

Not sure how we would find this, but when we talk about the importance of Ant winning early in his career in order to help keep him with the franchise longterm... I wonder how many super stars have started their careers on teams that were losing a lot (and constantly in the lottery) and actually had it turn around and end up working (i.e. championship contention with their first franchise).

It's gotta be very rare, right?

[SO_MONEY]

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.

Flexibility is only as good as you use it, it's options not a guarantee of success. Development is something you can actually gauge and put value on (it's also infinitely more valuable to a small market team than flexibility). With development you can GAIN flexibility, because if you develop talent that is undervalued into talent that is highly valued (NAZ REID), you've created flexibility not only with your current roster, but who you can acquire with that developed talent.

Flexibility cannot develop players, but development can add flexibility.

Development>>>>>>Flexibility

You have your mind made up... I disagree with the premise entirely. They are two unrelated things and it is not either or. I have said this for the third and final time. Feel free to type another 4 paragraphs.

[urinesane]

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.

Flexibility is only as good as you use it, it's options not a guarantee of success. Development is something you can actually gauge and put value on (it's also infinitely more valuable to a small market team than flexibility). With development you can GAIN flexibility, because if you develop talent that is undervalued into talent that is highly valued (NAZ REID), you've created flexibility not only with your current roster, but who you can acquire with that developed talent.

Flexibility cannot develop players, but development can add flexibility.

Development>>>>>>Flexibility

You have your mind made up... I disagree with the premise entirely. They are two unrelated things and it is not either or. I have said this for the third and final time. Feel free to type another 4 paragraphs.

You're one to talk about having minds made up...

So you don't think that developing young players and increasing their value creates flexibility? Does flexibility aid in success?

As I said, that depends on how you use it, flexibility for flexibilities sake doesn't move the needle. Please educate me on how my premise here is wrong.

Do you have some examples of teams that have both flexibility and are competing at the level the Wolves are striving for?

[SO_MONEY]

Flexibility is only as good as you use it, it's options not a guarantee of success. Development is something you can actually gauge and put value on (it's also infinitely more valuable to a small market team than flexibility). With development you can GAIN flexibility, because if you develop talent that is undervalued into talent that is highly valued (NAZ REID), you've created flexibility not only with your current roster, but who you can acquire with that developed talent.

Flexibility cannot develop players, but development can add flexibility.

Development>>>>>>Flexibility

You have your mind made up... I disagree with the premise entirely. They are two unrelated things and it is not either or. I have said this for the third and final time. Feel free to type another 4 paragraphs.

You're one to talk about having minds made up...

So you don't think that developing young players and increasing their value creates flexibility? Does flexibility aid in success?

As I said, that depends on how you use it, flexibility for flexibilities sake doesn't move the needle. Please educate me on how my premise here is wrong.

Do you have some examples of teams that have both flexibility and are competing at the level the Wolves are striving for?

Your premise places greater importance on one thing when team building is holistic in nature.

[shrink]

Flexibility is the only pathway to significant improvement, development alone could never compare.

Why? Ant could develop into a true superstar. I don’t know what Jaden’s ceiling is either.

[SO_MONEY]

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.

Why? Ant could develop into a true superstar. I don’t know what Jaden’s ceiling is either.

Chicken or the egg... Obviously needed picks/flexibility to get them. But I probably should have put a qualifier in there "immediate" significant improvement. My point is that flexibility is the pathway to get players who have already developed and it significantly improves the team because of it. I would call this if I were coining a phrase "time value of players" and it is achieved via flexibility and no other way.

[urinesane]

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.

Why? Ant could develop into a true superstar. I don’t know what Jaden’s ceiling is either.

Chicken or the egg... Obviously needed picks/flexibility to get them. But I probably should have put a qualifier in there "immediate" significant improvement. My point is that flexibility is the pathway to get players who have already developed and it significantly improves the team because of it. I would call this if I were coining a phrase "time value of players" and it is achieved via flexibility and no other way.

The problem is that at least a certain % of those players that have already developed will only be available because the team selling them doesn't think they will re-sign with them (or has actively demanded a trade). When it comes to teams like the Wolves with their mix of horrible history and sh*tty weather (compared to many other places), they aren't exactly at the top of the list for these players (especially because the REAL value comes from being able to sign them to an extension).

A small market team MUST have development otherwise you become too top heavy AND don't get enough value on the fringes to fill out the roster with capable players. They need to create value in their players (not only on their team but in the eyes of the league) in order to maintain/create future flexibility.

Draft picks are not the only form of currency in the NBA when it comes to acquiring immediate impact players (just look at how we had to throw in 1-2 more FRP to keep Jaden out of the deal). A big part of Jaden's perceived value by both teams was due to his DEVELOPMENT, because it certainly wasn't based off his college career.

[shrink]

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.

Why? Ant could develop into a true superstar. I don’t know what Jaden’s ceiling is either.

Chicken or the egg... Obviously needed picks/flexibility to get them. But I probably should have put a qualifier in there "immediate" significant improvement. My point is that flexibility is the pathway to get players who have already developed and it significantly improves the team because of it. I would call this if I were coining a phrase "time value of players" and it is achieved via flexibility and no other way.

I still disagree. Ant and Jaden are the right age for “immediate significant improvement,” much better than future picks.

If you are talking trading those picks, that’s exactly what we did for Gobert.

[SO_MONEY]

Why? Ant could develop into a true superstar. I don’t know what Jaden’s ceiling is either.

Chicken or the egg... Obviously needed picks/flexibility to get them. But I probably should have put a qualifier in there "immediate" significant improvement. My point is that flexibility is the pathway to get players who have already developed and it significantly improves the team because of it. I would call this if I were coining a phrase "time value of players" and it is achieved via flexibility and no other way.

I still disagree. Ant and Jaden are the right age for “immediate significant improvement,” much better than future picks.

If you are talking trading those picks, that’s exactly what we did for Gobert.

They were picks, they were a product of flexibility. We wouldn't have them otherwise. They are not strictly a result of development.

You can even take an UDFA like Reid and demonstrate he isa product of flexibility and not development alone. We had the roster spot, we signed him to a flexible contract with little risk, we kept him because we had the flexibility to do so.

Development isn't standalone.

[KGdaBom]

If we hadn't made the Gobert trade would KAT/Kessler have been an experiment? There was no experiment. Just basketball players.

Running two players who primarily play the center position in your lineup is pretty uncommon. Outside of Minnesota, not one team runs two centers. The only team that comes close is the Cavs. But even then it's not all that close, because Towns has never played the PF slot, and Mobley has, it's just that you can run small ball with Mobley at the 5. It's why players like AD were so valuable four to five years ago, they could play both spots and the team could go small ball.

However our lineup doesn't allow for that unless one of the two is off the floor.

The problem is that they are both starting caliber players. One has a very limited game and can't score outside of 2 ft of the basket, and the other can score anywhere on the floor but also does his best work in the post. As a result unless you can run offensive schemes to cover that both of their strengths are in the paint you are screwed.

That's why it's considered an experiment because you are choosing to run two players who are both starting caliber players at the same position in the same lineup that play roles they conventionally can't do.

So yes it is an experiment, just as much as Towns / Kessler would have been. The only difference is that we could rotate Kessler to the bench and we would be fine because we're not paying him $41 million.

To me they're just basketball players. You made a decent explanation for calling it an experiment, but I totally disagree with it being an experiment.

[KGdaBom]

If we hadn't made the Gobert trade would KAT/Kessler have been an experiment? There was no experiment. Just basketball players.

Running two players who primarily play the center position in your lineup is pretty uncommon. Outside of Minnesota, not one team runs two centers. The only team that comes close is the Cavs. But even then it's not all that close, because Towns has never played the PF slot, and Mobley has, it's just that you can run small ball with Mobley at the 5. It's why players like AD were so valuable four to five years ago, they could play both spots and the team could go small ball.

However our lineup doesn't allow for that unless one of the two is off the floor.

The problem is that they are both starting caliber players. One has a very limited game and can't score outside of 2 ft of the basket, and the other can score anywhere on the floor but also does his best work in the post. As a result unless you can run offensive schemes to cover that both of their strengths are in the paint you are screwed.

That's why it's considered an experiment because you are choosing to run two players who are both starting caliber players at the same position in the same lineup that play roles they conventionally can't do.

So yes it is an experiment, just as much as Towns / Kessler would have been. The only difference is that we could rotate Kessler to the bench and we would be fine because we're not paying him $41 million.

It was clearly an experiment, one they didn't know would work going into it, which really makes you question what we gave up, but it is not something being done, in fact teams are far more inclined to do the opposite. I would say comparing the drafting of Kessler is a false equivalence because you are not forced to or have pressure to play the two together nor do you have as much tied to the need for success to push the issue. It is one thing to experiment it is another to bank everything on a result you don't know will happen.

Not an experiment clearly or otherwise. Just playing basketball.

[Baseline81]

To me they're just basketball players. You made a decent explanation for calling it an experiment, but I totally disagree with it being an experiment.

Do you even know what the word "experiment" means?

It sounds as if you don't...

[KGdaBom]

He's got a lot of digging to do to get out of the hole he dug himself with the Gobert trade, but if he keeps making good decisions I'll stick with him.
I do think he's got an eye for talent and I like that he seems to value character/BBIQ and culture more than a lot of previous regimes.

That’s honestly a big thing to do with the Gobert trade though that gets forgotten…character/BBIQ and culture.

Everyone loved the trash talking and dawg mindset that Beverley and Vando brought, but I think it’s part of what Connelly was trying to correct. We talked a lot about how whining to the officials needed to stop, and Beverley was arguably the biggest culprit of that group. I think his influence is part of why Ant gets a little chirpy and has been near the top of the league in techs. Hoping Conley will rub off on him in a major way.

Character BBIQ and Culture? Gobert? They guy who punched a teammate in a huddle?
The guy who has all his teammate extremely frustrated with his utter lack of skill and IQ on offense?
The guy you can only play one defensive scheme with because he can't switch or close out on the perimeter?
The guy who spent an entire season using international summer play as an excuse for his poor season and bad back and then turns around and plays again ANYWAY in a meaningless odd numbered year?

Beverly wore out his welcome, but he was also appreciated here enough to be given an extension mid season.
Beasley and Russell needed to go, but we didnt need to trade for Gobert to be rid of them.
Vanderbilt was a huge part of our culture and defense and beloved by his teammates, maybe Ant's best friend on the team.

I'm done being gaslit by certain posters here about the Gobert trade.
This is how people feel about it outside our bubble here:

Read on Twitter

That's Nate Silver, who makes analytic models for a living.
Worst of all time may be hyperbole, but it was very very very bad.

And the opportunity cost goes well beyond just the 5 draft picks plus a swap.
1. There are the limitless possibilities of other or future trades we could have made with those draft picks, and that opportunity cost spans the next SIX Seasons.
This offseason alone Bradley Beal was had for peanuts.
2. There is the salary opportunity cost of Gobert's enormous contract.
Already this year it will most certainly cost us a MLE signing.
And this is still in a year where we can avoid the luxury tax, which will be impossible in the next 2 offseasons.
It may also cost us Prince or NAW.
The future pain is going to be much much worse and it looks like with the new CBA Gobert with his contract already is in negative value territory.

Something bad happened to our team. I think you are still stuck in the bargaining phase of your grief.
It's time to move on to acceptance.
Splitting hairs about what constitutes "all in" is disengenuous.

This was the one opportunity we had to add another big time player to a KAT/Ant/Jaden core.
The assets to do that are now gone and cannot be recovered.
If you refuse to accept a negative you will not be able to move on to identify the problem and find a solution.

On his last podcast Dane was talking about the trade being a D- and having a hard time reconciling how bad that trade was with the other positive moves Connelly has made.
They even spent time speculating as to whether he was forced/pressured into it by ownership.

If Connelly keeps making good moves going forward I will support him, but the biggest move hasn't worked out close to the way he hoped. I think that has been widely acknowledged by now.

IMO it was only a bad trade because Kessler turned out so good and that is what concerned me about the trade in the first place. We still made the playoffs with KAT missing 52 games. If McDaniels and Reid had been available for the playoffs maybe we beat Denver.

[KGdaBom]

I'm interested to know people's thoughts on the biggest asset we gave up in the Gobert trade. Any feedback is appreciated.
1st round picks? (Mid to late)
Kessler?
Vanderbilt?

I was super high on Kessler (self back pat). IMO by far the biggest asset we gave up.

[KGdaBom]

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...

We played the team that steamrolled the entire NBA missing two of our better players. Who's to say we don't beat them if McDaniels and Naz had been available.

[KGdaBom]

Well, one observation about last year is that despite some of the worse circumstances, like the bulk of the Rudy-KAT minutes coming in the first 20 games, when Gobert was beat up and KAT was coming from a hospitalization, that pair STILL had a positive Net Rating.

Another observation is that Connelly has still called it an experiment, and Finch has shown he knows how to work with two bigs, and has intimated that this is a big off-season for the pairing.

I think there are observations that can lead to optimism, optimism that some people flat out reject. I don’t know if it’s going to work, but I certainly am not at a point that I can say it won’t.

But KGdaBom said it isn't an experiment?

It isn't. It's playing basketball. Not experimenting.

[Baseline81]

It isn't. It's playing basketball. Not experimenting.

It's mixing chemicals. Not experimenting.