Check this out

theGreatRC · Post #1 » by **theGreatRC** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:47 pm

This was our roster at one point

2006-2007

Mike James/Randy Foye/Troy Hudson
Ricky Davis/Rashad McCants/Bracey Wright
Trenton Hassell/Marko Jaric/Justin Reed
Kevin Garnett/Eddie Griffin/Craig Smith
Mark Blount/Vin Baker/Mark Blount

Now

2008

Randy Foye/Sebastian Telfair
Rashad McCants/Corey Brewer
Mike Miller/Ryan Gomes
Kevin Love/Craig Smith/Brian Cardinal
Al Jefferson/Jason Collins/Calvin Booth

Jazz pick, Miami Pick, Boston Pick, second rounders up the yin yang.

I can't believe we actually turned this team around and put good character guys on this team with young talent that could potentially go far.

Brings a tear to my eye, actually
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/ ... 365457.jpg

Tekkenlaw · Post #2 » by **Tekkenlaw** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:07 pm

The Wolves front office hasn't gotten nearly enough credit for what they did with the roster they had. There are probably 6-7 players on last year's roster that could be considered cancers, now there aren't any. Maybe one if you consider McCants to be a cancer (I don't)

4ho5ive · Post #3 » by **4ho5ive** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:21 pm

Haha I remember Vin Bakers minor stint here.

I was gonna post something like this last week too, its crazy how much change has gone on. It really irks me how little credit the national media (ESPN) gives this team. Its like we dont exist.

skEwb · Post #4 » by **skEwb** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:55 am

4ho5ive wrote:Haha I remember Vin Bakers minor stint here.

I was gonna post something like this last week too, its crazy how much change has gone on. It really irks me how little credit the national media (ESPN) gives this team. Its like we dont exist.

Maybe when you guys install some HD cameras :wink:

deeney0 · Post #5 » by **deeney0** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:28 am

They don't deserve credit until it works. It looks O.K. on paper, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

casey · Post #6 » by **casey** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:41 am

deeney0 wrote:They don't deserve credit until it works. It looks O.K. on paper, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

I don't think it even looks good on paper. Though it could pretty soon. It's going in the right direction at least.

shrink · Post #7 » by **shrink** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:02 am

I feel exactly the same way, GreatRC.

You didn't even include Carney and the return of the MIN pick for our FOURTH 1st rounder.

Some day I'm going to add up all the money we saved as well.

Post #8 » by **Klomp** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:19 am

deeney0 wrote:They don't deserve credit until it works. It looks O.K. on paper, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

So what about a team like Seattle then, or even Portland?

Dewey · Post #9 » by **Dewey** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:23 am

"I don't think it even looks good on paper. Though it could pretty soon. It's going in the right direction at least".
--------------------------------------------------------

Compared to what?

If I'm comparing what's on paper now to what was on paper in the original post, I think we're looking mighty fine. We still got a couple holes to fill though. Looking back at the days of KG's giant contract, Blount, THud, Davis, etc, that roster proved it was horrible. This current roster has a very good chance of proving itself a winner.

The current roster would beat that 2006-07 team hands down ... but that isn't saying much. Maybe KG will return for the vet minimum in a couple years as we head to the playoffs ... we may still be looking for a defensive post.

casey · Post #10 » by **casey** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:34 am

Not really compared to anything. Just generally speaking, it looks like a mediocre young team. I understand people's relief of not having a bunch of highly paid older players and not getting many wins though. That team was KG and a bunch of old overpaid average players. Now we have Al and a bunch of young appropriately paid slightly below average players.

deeney0 · Post #11 » by **deeney0** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:45 am

klomp44 wrote:
deeney0 wrote:They don't deserve credit until it works. It looks O.K. on paper, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

So what about a team like Seattle then, or even Portland?

I don't like what OKC is doing at all, I don't think that even looks good theoretically. As for Portland, an unbiased odds maker would have to give them a better shot at succeeding that they would give us, but they haven't proven anything yet either. Their question marks should be talked about more than they have been - Oden's knee, Roy's ability to be more than a second fiddle, can LMA ever grab an effing rebound?

As everyone on this board knows, after January 21st last year the Wolves and the Blazers had equal records. Blazers are adding Oden and Bayless, Wolves are adding Miller and Love. And Miller is the only one of those players who has proved diddly squat in the NBA.

shrink · Post #12 » by **shrink** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:04 am

Dewey give casey a break. He has his limitations.

If a guy who can only say negative things about the Wolves says, "They are bad, but not as bad as they were" that's positively RAVING!

He's the Randy Quaid fan at the beginning of Major League.

Post #13 » by **Worm Guts** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:49 am

Casey's not negative, he's realistic. And realistically the Wolves have gotten worse each of the last 4 years. They should be better this year, but are they as good as they could have been? Are they setting up for the future as well as they could have? I think that's up for debate.

theGreatRC · Post #14 » by **theGreatRC** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:02 am

No way in hell would we have the outlook of the future we have now if we kept KG and those players. It works the other way around to. No way would we have the mentality of trying to make the playoffs that we had with our past roster.

I never said in my post we were a better team record wise, just letting everyone know that before I see more "We are actually worse than we were before"

Post #15 » by **Worm Guts** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:27 am

theGreatRC wrote:No way in hell would we have the outlook of the future we have now if we kept KG and those players. It works the other way around to. No way would we have the mentality of trying to make the playoffs that we had with our past roster.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, what works the other way around? Are you trying to argue that trading KG was a good thing? I think we could have kept KG and still have been in a good spot. I don't think anyone would dispute getting rid of Troy Hudson, Mike James, Ricky Davis and Mark Blount was needed. McHale would get more credit for moving those guys if he hadn't put them on the team in the first place.

theGreatRC · Post #16 » by **theGreatRC** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:55 am

I'm saying that with this current roster, nobody is expecting us to make the playoffs like they did with the KG team.

deeney0 · Post #17 » by **deeney0** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:04 pm

theGreatRC wrote:I'm saying that with this current roster, nobody is expecting us to make the playoffs like they did with the KG team.

They're expected to some time, or what's the point? Not this year, to be sure. But if they never make the playoffs, no one deserves any pats of the back.

shrink · Post #18 » by **shrink** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:31 pm

Worm Guts wrote:Casey's not negative, he's realistic.

Look, I know you like to rush to casey's defense, but "realistic?" ROFL!!

Can you think of three positive things casey has said about the Wolves in three YEARS? Not EVERY move is bad. Constantly being negative is just as biased and unrealistic as constantly being positive.

I only posted because I was amused by the irony that casey had probably posted the most positive thing I'd ever heard from him (led off by an insult, of course), and Dewey called him out on it.

casey wrote:I don't think it even looks good on paper. Though it could pretty soon. It's going in the right direction at least.

shrink · Post #19 » by **shrink** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:40 pm

theGreatRC wrote:No way in hell would we have the outlook of the future we have now if we kept KG and those players. It works the other way around to. No way would we have the mentality of trying to make the playoffs that we had with our past roster.

I agree, and I posted something similar on another board.

Garnett is, and will probably always be, my favorite professional athlete. However, that doesn't keep me from realizing that we could not have done these trades without first moving him. We love the Blount trade, and it was a clear victory for us. However, if KG was still here, how do you explain to the media and fans that you're going to trade away your #2 and #3 scorers, and "waste" another year of KG in his prime? Heck, how do you explain it to Garnett?

Right now, I feel we are following the BOS pattern. We have traded our vets, fixed out finances and attitude, and acquired multiple trade assets in picks, and players. Even our RFA signings are at such a low cost, I feel they all have net positive value. While we used to be loaded with bad contracts, we have exactly one bad contract right now (Cardinal), and next summer, he's an expiring. BOS followed a similar plan, and had the biggest one-year turn-around in NBA history.

We can let our players develop to see what we have, or we can trade them, but make no mistake, we're in a far better situation than we were a year ago, even with a great player like KG on the team.

TMo519 · Post #20 » by **TMo519** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:19 pm

I think the only reason people are not as thrilled with the roster now is because they realize that the roster was so poor in the first place because of the same guy who's putting together the current roster, so there's a little issue of trust. I for one like where this is headed, and say it looks real good on paper for the future. Now they just need to put it together.