Rambis/Kahn Not "Exclusively" Looking For Vets

[Klomp]

The day after he once again emphasized his team's youth, Timberwolves coach Kurt Rambis said Thursday he sees no need to address the issue by adding an older, more experienced player or players.

"I like this team," he said the afternoon after his team lost 119-113 to a Denver team missing four important players, including Carmelo Anthony.

Rambis said he and president of basketball operations David Kahn constantly seek to improve the roster, but that doesn't necessarily mean by making it older.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/wolves/112695814.html

[shangrila]

Makes sense, older doesn't necessarily mean better. Especially when it might come at the expense of the younger guys' development.

[Esohny]

I don't think that quote means that they're not looking for vets. I actually don't think that quote says anything at all.

[Basti]

If they continue to suck so bad at closing out games I'd love to have a real vet presence. Preferably a point guard who can mentor Rubio when he comes over. It's wishful thinking, though.

And by vet presence I mean someone who's going to have a great locker room presence and will provide solid spot minutes off the bench if called upon.

[cpfsf]

I don't think that quote means that they're not looking for vets. I actually don't think that quote says anything at all.

Rambis/Kahn Not Exclusively Looking For Vets

fixed

I don't want to make you feel bad about your mega fail klomp, so I'll post a picture of puppies...

[Klomp]

Is that better everyone?

[southern wolf]

I think we'll eventually get another vet, maybe in a deadline deal, but more as an add-on than a main piece.

[shrink]

Insert traditional "Can't leadership come from the coaches, not older, worse players?" mantra.

It seems to me that Love and Beasley are the leaders of the team. Rambis and Laimbeer have more rings than a jewelry store. Does the team need back-up players that probably won't be on the floor during crunch time with less skill and less rings to fit in the middle to provide leadership?

I'm just saying, because I don't want to have to pay for it, if it can be provided by coaches, and our current players.

[cpfsf]

Insert traditional "Can't leadership come from the coaches, not older, worse players?" mantra.

It seems to me that Love and Beasley are the leaders of the team. Rambis and Laimbeer have more rings than a jewelry store. Does the team need back-up players that probably won't be on the floor during crunch time with less skill and less rings to fit in the middle to provide leadership?

I'm just saying, because I don't want to have to pay for it, if it can be provided by coaches, and our current players.

I notice that you and I say this every time this topic comes up.

Just want to add that you can hire vets as an assistant coach if you really wanted. That way we don't waste a roster spot and mess up our cap space.

[shrink]

Insert traditional "Can't leadership come from the coaches, not older, worse players?" mantra.

It seems to me that Love and Beasley are the leaders of the team. Rambis and Laimbeer have more rings than a jewelry store. Does the team need back-up players that probably won't be on the floor during crunch time with less skill and less rings to fit in the middle to provide leadership?

I'm just saying, because I don't want to have to pay for it, if it can be provided by coaches, and our current players.

I notice that you and I say this every time this topic comes up.

Just want to add that you can hire vets as an assistant coach if you really wanted. That way we don't waste a roster spot and mess up our cap space.

It's a tradition!

I agree completely with your take. I'm not saying back-up vets can't bring some experience/leadership, just questioning if they are worth the investment if it costs higher player-salary (vs a coach), cap space, and roster spot.

[Basti]

Does the team need back-up players that probably won't be on the floor during crunch time with less skill and less rings to fit in the middle to provide leadership?

You can have as much experience from your coaching staff as you want sitting on your bench but the game is played on the floor. The best and most experienced coach can't control the outcome of a game. A vet on the floor can for example calm things down if necessary.

[horaceworthy]

Insert traditional "Can't leadership come from the coaches, not older, worse players?" mantra.

It seems to me that Love and Beasley are the leaders of the team. Rambis and Laimbeer have more rings than a jewelry store. Does the team need back-up players that probably won't be on the floor during crunch time with less skill and less rings to fit in the middle to provide leadership?

I'm just saying, because I don't want to have to pay for it, if it can be provided by coaches, and our current players.

You're sort of creating a false choice here to support your stance.

It seems as if anybody's brought in, they will be brought in because the FO feels they represent an on court upgrade, so the worse/less skill talk really isn't applicable here.

Love and Beasley do seem to be the leaders, but that doesn't mean they know how to lead. Coaches can't always provide that either. People have different learning styles. Some learn by listening, some learn by watching, some learn by doing, etc. Having a player or two on the roster to help the whippersnappers along isn't a bad idea. Not just from an on court standpoint but also in terms of how to prepare for games, hold up through the rigors of an NBA season, deal with off court distractions, all that fun stuff.

Love and Beasley are still both finding their way in the league, it's a tall order to put all the leadership responsibility on them along with all the other responsibility they already have. Might help to have someone who can share in some of that responsibility.

Also, you wouldn't have to pay for it. That's what Glen Taylor's for. If he'd like to see a few more wins when he makes his way to the Target Center, adding a vet who can at least be an option to come in and help close out games if the current cast isn't getting it done may help ease his frustrations.

[shrink]

Insert traditional "Can't leadership come from the coaches, not older, worse players?" mantra.

It seems to me that Love and Beasley are the leaders of the team. Rambis and Laimbeer have more rings than a jewelry store. Does the team need back-up players that probably won't be on the floor during crunch time with less skill and less rings to fit in the middle to provide leadership?

I'm just saying, because I don't want to have to pay for it, if it can be provided by coaches, and our current players.

You're sort of creating a false choice here to support your stance.

It seems as if anybody's brought in, they will be brought in because the FO feels they represent an on court upgrade, so the worse/less skill talk really isn't applicable here.

I see what you're saying. I tend to think that this was a point to justify the long Ridnour contract, but if Ridnour is on the floor during crunchtime rather than Rubio, then we made a giant mistake.

So who would be on the floor during crunchtime? I assume we'd want Rubio, Love and Beasley for sure. Darko seems to fit those three, but maybe not. Does that mean we are looking for crunchtime vet leadership from a SG?

To be honest, even the most expensive SG's we've talked about (Iguodala, Monta, maybe OJ Mayo) seem to be longer on talent than leadership.

Or does it mean that that the leadership doesn't have to be crunchtime, but it needs to be embodied in a player and not a coach?

[shrink]

Let me add one more thing, that may provoke debate and name-calling.

While I think Kevin Garnett was the greatest, hardest-working player in Wolves history by a large margin, I don't think he was a true leader, because he didn't want that role. He was "da kid" for a while, and then he wanted to be "an employee" alongside Sprewell and Cassell. In fact, I'd argue Cassell was more the leader of those teams even when KG was winning an NBA MVP.

I understand that other players may want to follow someone because of success, and I'd also say that Garnett provided a terrific example for work ethic and passion. However, I don't think he ever really liked the role of leading the team, and telling other people what they did right .. and wrong.

Does that mean a guy like Madsen can lead a team as a player? I don't think so -- his authority would have to come from coaching. But if leadership comes from a player, I think its easier to lead as a talented player.

[horaceworthy]

Going off your response, I'm not quite certain you see what I'm saying.

Rubio playing at crunch time isn't an issue until next year at the earliest. There's still a lot that's up in the air there. Tough to figure him into this particular discussion.

The on court product can be improved, there are parts of the rotation that can be upgraded. Probably wouldn't be too hard to, in the process of upgrading the rotation, also add some experience.

I specifically said in my post that the vet wouldn't necessarily have to be a main crunch time option. Just good enough to play during crunch time should the need arise. Situations like injuries or foul trouble could cause a need to crop up even when it comes to Love or Beasley. Having a vet option to come in who could pick up the slack, at just about any position would be nice.

My personal favorite would be Billups if he becomes available. He can play either backcourt position and fits well with how Rambis has said he'd like to play. He's got a wealth of experience, and he's also a guy who had to bounce around the league before finding his niche. The contract's pricey, but he could be bought out for around the price of Ridnour's contract at the end of the season if that's the direction he and Kahn choose to go.

Yes, leadership doesn't have to be crunchtime, and it also doesn't have to just come from Love, Beasley, or the coaching staff. There's what, a thirtysome year age gap between most of the roster and the coaching staff? Wouldn't hurt to have a player or two to help bridge that.

[Fire Mchale]

I don't think I have the juice to go lengthy on this post, so here's the short version:

1) I think all teams can use a vet bench presence - a guy that is there to help demonstrate effort, energy and professionalism. I just don't want to lose assets to acquire this guy. If he comes as part of a deal, great. If not, I'm willing to leave things be.
2) Some people "have it" when it comes to being a clutch player, others learn it. In our case acquiring that Robert Horry, Eddie Fisher type of player makes no sense since we don't have any clutch shots to make. I would rather let our young guys figure it out on their own - and I think they're slowly getting there.
3) KG is the definition of being the #2 guy on a championship team. He's a great player, but he doesn't want that last shot.

[fattymcgee]

I don't think I have the juice to go lengthy on this post, so here's the short version:

1) I think all teams can use a vet bench presence - a guy that is there to help demonstrate effort, energy and professionalism. I just don't want to lose assets to acquire this guy. If he comes as part of a deal, great. If not, I'm willing to leave things be.
2) Some people "have it" when it comes to being a clutch player, others learn it. In our case acquiring that Robert Horry, Eddie Fisher type of player makes no sense since we don't have any clutch shots to make. I would rather let our young guys figure it out on their own - and I think they're slowly getting there.
3) KG is the definition of being the #2 guy on a championship team. He's a great player, but he doesn't want that last shot.

Who is Eddie Fisher?