Cavaliers 2020 Draft Discussion.

[Revenged25]

If Oubre is willing to sign in Cleveland, and he's willing to sign for a reasonable amount, then we can just sign him next summer. But those are huge ifs. Unless I'm missing something, he's unrestricted. He could just walk.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Oh I agree, I'm just saying the easiest way to stop tanking and immediately win was that, not that we should do it.

I feel like it's way too early to bring in a high usage guy like Oubre. First we have to see if the version of Sexton we saw in the second half of last season was real. If he actually took the next step, or if he was just playing against inferior competition who took their foot off the gas. That's priority number 1 in my estimation and he has to be lead guard to make to that determination. This will be his third year and we need to know whether we can build around him, or not.

My second priority would be seeing what we have in KPJ, Windler, and whoever we draft - preferably at No. 5. If some team wants to move up, I'd want additional draft capital from a future draft. Swap rights with another likely lottery team would also work.

My third priority would be to see if we can salvage some of Garland's value as a backup PG.

We're still in evaluation mode. We don't really have that good of an idea of what we have in terms of talent. That's a product of the one and done era. But going through the pain of tanking and rushing to judgment on guys who are 19 or even 20 years old is dumb. Everyone should get at least two full years and enough run that you feel like you're making an informed decision on who that player is and who they will be. In terms of development, I'd like to see if these players can start playing as a team instead of a bunch of individuals alongside each other.

I honestly think this team was much better than their record but the forced rotations and minutes caused them to lose a lot more games than they would've otherwise. I mean you can't tell me that forcing a Garland/Sexton backcourt was the best option for winning games when Garland was obviously having issues from the start, but it also gave him more of a chance to try and improve through actually playing in games. I think Garland showed he has potential to be a NBA starter, he just doesn't fit well with Sexton in the starting line-up IMO.

[JonFromVA]

Oh I agree, I'm just saying the easiest way to stop tanking and immediately win was that, not that we should do it.

I feel like it's way too early to bring in a high usage guy like Oubre. First we have to see if the version of Sexton we saw in the second half of last season was real. If he actually took the next step, or if he was just playing against inferior competition who took their foot off the gas. That's priority number 1 in my estimation and he has to be lead guard to make to that determination. This will be his third year and we need to know whether we can build around him, or not.

My second priority would be seeing what we have in KPJ, Windler, and whoever we draft - preferably at No. 5. If some team wants to move up, I'd want additional draft capital from a future draft. Swap rights with another likely lottery team would also work.

My third priority would be to see if we can salvage some of Garland's value as a backup PG.

We're still in evaluation mode. We don't really have that good of an idea of what we have in terms of talent. That's a product of the one and done era. But going through the pain of tanking and rushing to judgment on guys who are 19 or even 20 years old is dumb. Everyone should get at least two full years and enough run that you feel like you're making an informed decision on who that player is and who they will be. In terms of development, I'd like to see if these players can start playing as a team instead of a bunch of individuals alongside each other.

I honestly think this team was much better than their record but the forced rotations and minutes caused them to lose a lot more games than they would've otherwise. I mean you can't tell me that forcing a Garland/Sexton backcourt was the best option for winning games when Garland was obviously having issues from the start, but it also gave him more of a chance to try and improve through actually playing in games. I think Garland showed he has potential to be a NBA starter, he just doesn't fit well with Sexton in the starting line-up IMO.

It was hard to get everyone healthy, Love seemed to be trying to get the coach fired at times, it was hard to get Drummond acclimated, we didn't have a defense, we had a rookie PG learning on the job, and frankly Sexton got off to an awful start.

The team started playing a lot better when JBB took over; but we'll have to see if that was just a reaction to the change, or something he can sustain.

Even with the late improvements, we still finished with the 2nd worst record in the league including losing 4 of our last 6 games.

[jbk1234]

I feel like it's way too early to bring in a high usage guy like Oubre. First we have to see if the version of Sexton we saw in the second half of last season was real. If he actually took the next step, or if he was just playing against inferior competition who took their foot off the gas. That's priority number 1 in my estimation and he has to be lead guard to make to that determination. This will be his third year and we need to know whether we can build around him, or not.

My second priority would be seeing what we have in KPJ, Windler, and whoever we draft - preferably at No. 5. If some team wants to move up, I'd want additional draft capital from a future draft. Swap rights with another likely lottery team would also work.

My third priority would be to see if we can salvage some of Garland's value as a backup PG.

We're still in evaluation mode. We don't really have that good of an idea of what we have in terms of talent. That's a product of the one and done era. But going through the pain of tanking and rushing to judgment on guys who are 19 or even 20 years old is dumb. Everyone should get at least two full years and enough run that you feel like you're making an informed decision on who that player is and who they will be. In terms of development, I'd like to see if these players can start playing as a team instead of a bunch of individuals alongside each other.

I honestly think this team was much better than their record but the forced rotations and minutes caused them to lose a lot more games than they would've otherwise. I mean you can't tell me that forcing a Garland/Sexton backcourt was the best option for winning games when Garland was obviously having issues from the start, but it also gave him more of a chance to try and improve through actually playing in games. I think Garland showed he has potential to be a NBA starter, he just doesn't fit well with Sexton in the starting line-up IMO.

It was hard to get everyone healthy, Love seemed to be trying to get the coach fired at times, it was hard to get Drummond acclimated, we didn't have a defense, we had a rookie PG learning on the job, and frankly Sexton got off to an awful start.

The team started playing a lot better when JBB took over; but we'll have to see if that was just a reaction to the change, or something he can sustain.

Even with the late improvements, we still finished with the 2nd worst record in the league including losing 4 of our last 6 games.

I'd be very interested to know what exactly happened under Beilien. Because outside of running the exact same starting lineup out on the floor, and letting young players YOLO, I'm not sure what the plan was. His rotations were just as rigid. I remember a game against the Bucks where the Brook Lopez v. TT match up was killing the Cavs. The game was particularly painful to watch and wondered if Beilein just didn't see it. There's a Mike Brown quote from the 2013-14 season that's still stuck with me today: "I don't want to respond to what other teams do, I want them to respond to what we do." I was like yeah, on most nights, the other team is responding by running up the score due to a pretty serious match up problems that you refuse to address.

There are many reasons that college coaches struggle to transition to the NBA but I think the biggest one is the inability to adjust to how dynamic lineup changes can impact game plans. You can be relatively dogmatic in your approach to college basketball and it usually won't hurt the team. The standard deviations in skills sets and talent levels aren't as impactful.

Pop is obviously the gold standard. He manages to maintain a system while not being shy about substitutions when certain personnel become a liability or he's losing a match up badly.

Having said all of that, it wouldn't completely shock me if Beilien came forward a couple years from now and says he was under strict orders from the F.O. to do what he did. That job he got in player personnel or whatever may include an NDA.

[JonFromVA]

I honestly think this team was much better than their record but the forced rotations and minutes caused them to lose a lot more games than they would've otherwise. I mean you can't tell me that forcing a Garland/Sexton backcourt was the best option for winning games when Garland was obviously having issues from the start, but it also gave him more of a chance to try and improve through actually playing in games. I think Garland showed he has potential to be a NBA starter, he just doesn't fit well with Sexton in the starting line-up IMO.

It was hard to get everyone healthy, Love seemed to be trying to get the coach fired at times, it was hard to get Drummond acclimated, we didn't have a defense, we had a rookie PG learning on the job, and frankly Sexton got off to an awful start.

The team started playing a lot better when JBB took over; but we'll have to see if that was just a reaction to the change, or something he can sustain.

Even with the late improvements, we still finished with the 2nd worst record in the league including losing 4 of our last 6 games.

I'd be very interested to know what exactly happened under Beilien. Because outside of running the exact same starting lineup out on the floor, and letting young players YOLO, I'm not sure what the plan was. His rotations were just as rigid. I remember a game against the Bucks where the Brook Lopez v. TT match up was killing the Cavs. The game was particularly painful to watch and wondered if Beilein just didn't see it. There's a Mike Brown quote from the 2013-14 season that's still stuck with me today: "I don't want to respond to what other teams do, I want them to respond to what we do." I was like yeah, on most nights, the other team is responding by running up the score due to a pretty serious match up problems that you refuse to address.

There are many reasons that college coaches struggle to transition to the NBA but I think the biggest one is the inability to adjust to how dynamic lineup changes can impact game plans. You can be relatively dogmatic in your approach to college basketball and it usually won't hurt the team. The standard deviations in skills sets and talent levels aren't as impactful.

Pop is obviously the gold standard. He manages to maintain a system while not being shy about substitutions when certain personnel become a liability or he's losing a match up badly.

Having said all of that, it wouldn't completely shock me if Beilien came forward a couple years from now and says he was under strict orders from the F.O. to do what he did. That job he got in player personnel or whatever may include an NDA.

In Beilein's case, I imagine there was tacit agreement with the front office to put player development ahead of winning. But making sure the young players got sufficient minutes shouldn't have precluded him from making adjustments, offering teaching moments, etc.

Beilein either needed to adapt to the NBA game, or convince the vets on the team to buy-in to what he was selling. Easier said then done I suppose. Imagine asking someone who's been working the same job for 10 years to go back to school and re-learn what they'd been doing from the ground up. Probably doesn't sounds so exciting unless the alternative is losing your job - which simply isn't a problem for NBA vets on guaranteed contracts.

On a positive note, it sounds like our assistants connected and made progress with our young players.

It's fun to experiment and try new things, but it would also be nice to have someone in charge of the Cavs who knew what they were doing and how to go about running a team, how to go about bringing a College coach to the NBA, how to construct a roster, how to run a draft, etc, etc.

Maybe we'll get it right with Lindsay Gottleib? Bringing a college coach (let alone a Woman's coach) in to the league as an assistant and letting them learn the game from the ground up makes perfect sense. Alas, it also makes perfect sense that she'll end up accepting a head coaching job with another team a couple of months before we eventually end up firing Bickerstaff.

[Stillwater]

I honestly think this team was much better than their record but the forced rotations and minutes caused them to lose a lot more games than they would've otherwise. I mean you can't tell me that forcing a Garland/Sexton backcourt was the best option for winning games when Garland was obviously having issues from the start, but it also gave him more of a chance to try and improve through actually playing in games. I think Garland showed he has potential to be a NBA starter, he just doesn't fit well with Sexton in the starting line-up IMO.

It was hard to get everyone healthy, Love seemed to be trying to get the coach fired at times, it was hard to get Drummond acclimated, we didn't have a defense, we had a rookie PG learning on the job, and frankly Sexton got off to an awful start.

The team started playing a lot better when JBB took over; but we'll have to see if that was just a reaction to the change, or something he can sustain.

Even with the late improvements, we still finished with the 2nd worst record in the league including losing 4 of our last 6 games.

I'd be very interested to know what exactly happened under Beilien. Because outside of running the exact same starting lineup out on the floor, and letting young players YOLO, I'm not sure what the plan was. His rotations were just as rigid. I remember a game against the Bucks where the Brook Lopez v. TT match up was killing the Cavs. The game was particularly painful to watch and wondered if Beilein just didn't see it. There's a Mike Brown quote from the 2013-14 season that's still stuck with me today: "I don't want to respond to what other teams do, I want them to respond to what we do." I was like yeah, on most nights, the other team is responding by running up the score due to a pretty serious match up problems that you refuse to address.

There are many reasons that college coaches struggle to transition to the NBA but I think the biggest one is the inability to adjust to how dynamic lineup changes can impact game plans. You can be relatively dogmatic in your approach to college basketball and it usually won't hurt the team. The standard deviations in skills sets and talent levels aren't as impactful.

Pop is obviously the gold standard. He manages to maintain a system while not being shy about substitutions when certain personnel become a liability or he's losing a match up badly.

Having said all of that, it wouldn't completely shock me if Beilien came forward a couple years from now and says he was under strict orders from the F.O. to do what he did. That job he got in player personnel or whatever may include an NDA.

yeah Ive never worked at a company that didnt have non disclosure regulations hidden in the details of any pre-employment contract.
It is pretty common if you are working in certain fields. Not sure about the NBA but I guess with marketability hits and wayward fan confidence in a win at all cost product as opposed to a tanking one durring a rebuild driving gen pop ticket sales aka non fanatic type mom and pop with kiddos to the game twice a season type sales( when there is no covid)
I dont know what to make of the plans for 20-21 but I am guessing a lot of these owners are not too thrilled with the odds of staying out of the red.

[Stillwater]

It was hard to get everyone healthy, Love seemed to be trying to get the coach fired at times, it was hard to get Drummond acclimated, we didn't have a defense, we had a rookie PG learning on the job, and frankly Sexton got off to an awful start.

The team started playing a lot better when JBB took over; but we'll have to see if that was just a reaction to the change, or something he can sustain.

Even with the late improvements, we still finished with the 2nd worst record in the league including losing 4 of our last 6 games.

I'd be very interested to know what exactly happened under Beilien. Because outside of running the exact same starting lineup out on the floor, and letting young players YOLO, I'm not sure what the plan was. His rotations were just as rigid. I remember a game against the Bucks where the Brook Lopez v. TT match up was killing the Cavs. The game was particularly painful to watch and wondered if Beilein just didn't see it. There's a Mike Brown quote from the 2013-14 season that's still stuck with me today: "I don't want to respond to what other teams do, I want them to respond to what we do." I was like yeah, on most nights, the other team is responding by running up the score due to a pretty serious match up problems that you refuse to address.

There are many reasons that college coaches struggle to transition to the NBA but I think the biggest one is the inability to adjust to how dynamic lineup changes can impact game plans. You can be relatively dogmatic in your approach to college basketball and it usually won't hurt the team. The standard deviations in skills sets and talent levels aren't as impactful.

Pop is obviously the gold standard. He manages to maintain a system while not being shy about substitutions when certain personnel become a liability or he's losing a match up badly.

Having said all of that, it wouldn't completely shock me if Beilien came forward a couple years from now and says he was under strict orders from the F.O. to do what he did. That job he got in player personnel or whatever may include an NDA.

In Beilein's case, I imagine there was tacit agreement with the front office to put player development ahead of winning. But making sure the young players got sufficient minutes shouldn't have precluded him from making adjustments, offering teaching moments, etc.

Beilein either needed to adapt to the NBA game, or convince the vets on the team to buy-in to what he was selling. Easier said then done I suppose. Imagine asking someone who's been working the same job for 10 years to go back to school and re-learn what they'd been doing from the ground up. Probably doesn't sounds so exciting unless the alternative is losing your job - which simply isn't a problem for NBA vets on guaranteed contracts.

On a positive note, it sounds like our assistants connected and made progress with our young players.

It's fun to experiment and try new things, but it would also be nice to have someone in charge of the Cavs who knew what they were doing and how to go about running a team, how to go about bringing a College coach to the NBA, how to construct a roster, how to run a draft, etc, etc.

Maybe we'll get it right with Lindsay Gottleib? Bringing a college coach (let alone a Woman's coach) in to the league as an assistant and letting them learn the game from the ground up makes perfect sense. Alas, it also makes perfect sense that she'll end up accepting a head coaching job with another team a couple of months before we eventually end up firing Bickerstaff.

right except these kids dont want teaching moments they want good reps not forced bad rotation reps and they need a coach that will call plays that work with them as they develop.
I mean a lot of people say they were cut loose all season, but I think it was the opposite...they were held back when they followed Beilein and so he was tossed.

[jbk1234]

I'd be very interested to know what exactly happened under Beilien. Because outside of running the exact same starting lineup out on the floor, and letting young players YOLO, I'm not sure what the plan was. His rotations were just as rigid. I remember a game against the Bucks where the Brook Lopez v. TT match up was killing the Cavs. The game was particularly painful to watch and wondered if Beilein just didn't see it. There's a Mike Brown quote from the 2013-14 season that's still stuck with me today: "I don't want to respond to what other teams do, I want them to respond to what we do." I was like yeah, on most nights, the other team is responding by running up the score due to a pretty serious match up problems that you refuse to address.

There are many reasons that college coaches struggle to transition to the NBA but I think the biggest one is the inability to adjust to how dynamic lineup changes can impact game plans. You can be relatively dogmatic in your approach to college basketball and it usually won't hurt the team. The standard deviations in skills sets and talent levels aren't as impactful.

Pop is obviously the gold standard. He manages to maintain a system while not being shy about substitutions when certain personnel become a liability or he's losing a match up badly.

Having said all of that, it wouldn't completely shock me if Beilien came forward a couple years from now and says he was under strict orders from the F.O. to do what he did. That job he got in player personnel or whatever may include an NDA.

In Beilein's case, I imagine there was tacit agreement with the front office to put player development ahead of winning. But making sure the young players got sufficient minutes shouldn't have precluded him from making adjustments, offering teaching moments, etc.

Beilein either needed to adapt to the NBA game, or convince the vets on the team to buy-in to what he was selling. Easier said then done I suppose. Imagine asking someone who's been working the same job for 10 years to go back to school and re-learn what they'd been doing from the ground up. Probably doesn't sounds so exciting unless the alternative is losing your job - which simply isn't a problem for NBA vets on guaranteed contracts.

On a positive note, it sounds like our assistants connected and made progress with our young players.

It's fun to experiment and try new things, but it would also be nice to have someone in charge of the Cavs who knew what they were doing and how to go about running a team, how to go about bringing a College coach to the NBA, how to construct a roster, how to run a draft, etc, etc.

Maybe we'll get it right with Lindsay Gottleib? Bringing a college coach (let alone a Woman's coach) in to the league as an assistant and letting them learn the game from the ground up makes perfect sense. Alas, it also makes perfect sense that she'll end up accepting a head coaching job with another team a couple of months before we eventually end up firing Bickerstaff.

right except these kids dont want teaching moments they want good reps not forced bad rotation reps and they need a coach that will call plays that work with them as they develop.
I mean a lot of people say they were cut loose all season, but I think it was the opposite...they were held back when they followed Beilein and so he was tossed.

I think the point is that it's not really suppose to be about what the kids want, it's suppose to be about what the organization wants.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Stillwater]

In Beilein's case, I imagine there was tacit agreement with the front office to put player development ahead of winning. But making sure the young players got sufficient minutes shouldn't have precluded him from making adjustments, offering teaching moments, etc.

Beilein either needed to adapt to the NBA game, or convince the vets on the team to buy-in to what he was selling. Easier said then done I suppose. Imagine asking someone who's been working the same job for 10 years to go back to school and re-learn what they'd been doing from the ground up. Probably doesn't sounds so exciting unless the alternative is losing your job - which simply isn't a problem for NBA vets on guaranteed contracts.

On a positive note, it sounds like our assistants connected and made progress with our young players.

It's fun to experiment and try new things, but it would also be nice to have someone in charge of the Cavs who knew what they were doing and how to go about running a team, how to go about bringing a College coach to the NBA, how to construct a roster, how to run a draft, etc, etc.

Maybe we'll get it right with Lindsay Gottleib? Bringing a college coach (let alone a Woman's coach) in to the league as an assistant and letting them learn the game from the ground up makes perfect sense. Alas, it also makes perfect sense that she'll end up accepting a head coaching job with another team a couple of months before we eventually end up firing Bickerstaff.

right except these kids dont want teaching moments they want good reps not forced bad rotation reps and they need a coach that will call plays that work with them as they develop.
I mean a lot of people say they were cut loose all season, but I think it was the opposite...they were held back when they followed Beilein and so he was tossed.

I think the point is that it's not really suppose to be about what the kids want, it's suppose to be about what the organization wants.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

what is supposed to be the case really rarely is by the looks of it...I mean if you are drafted in the lottery you are getting paid a heck of a lot of $ and the org investing in you that much will guarantee your getting undeserved minutes in the name of development. Its not the same as playoff teams drafting non lottery level prospects or paying as much for who they drafted where there is as much pressure to use them too soon.

[JonFromVA]

right except these kids dont want teaching moments they want good reps not forced bad rotation reps and they need a coach that will call plays that work with them as they develop.
I mean a lot of people say they were cut loose all season, but I think it was the opposite...they were held back when they followed Beilein and so he was tossed.

I think the point is that it's not really suppose to be about what the kids want, it's suppose to be about what the organization wants.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

what is supposed to be the case really rarely is by the looks of it...I mean if you are drafted in the lottery you are getting paid a heck of a lot of $ and the org investing in you that much will guarantee your getting undeserved minutes in the name of development. Its not the same as playoff teams drafting non lottery level prospects or paying as much for who they drafted where there is as much pressure to use them too soon.

The rooks don't know better though. They're still used to college style coaching, but they do follow the lead of the vets.

[jbk1234]

right except these kids dont want teaching moments they want good reps not forced bad rotation reps and they need a coach that will call plays that work with them as they develop.
I mean a lot of people say they were cut loose all season, but I think it was the opposite...they were held back when they followed Beilein and so he was tossed.

I think the point is that it's not really suppose to be about what the kids want, it's suppose to be about what the organization wants.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

what is supposed to be the case really rarely is by the looks of it...I mean if you are drafted in the lottery you are getting paid a heck of a lot of $ and the org investing in you that much will guarantee your getting undeserved minutes in the name of development. Its not the same as playoff teams drafting non lottery level prospects or paying as much for who they drafted where there is as much pressure to use them too soon.

I know you're the president of the Sexton stan club and all, but I really hope on some level you understand why it's important that players, particularly young players, do what's best for the team and not just what they believe is best for themselves. I was thinking the other day about Kyrie and how he hasn't exactly lit up the world since he left Cleveland. Bad habits stay with talented players for a long time when they're not corrected early. If LBJ hadn't come back to Cleveland, I'm not sure Kyrie would've had much success in the NBA at all.

[Stillwater]

I think the point is that it's not really suppose to be about what the kids want, it's suppose to be about what the organization wants.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

what is supposed to be the case really rarely is by the looks of it...I mean if you are drafted in the lottery you are getting paid a heck of a lot of $ and the org investing in you that much will guarantee your getting undeserved minutes in the name of development. Its not the same as playoff teams drafting non lottery level prospects or paying as much for who they drafted where there is as much pressure to use them too soon.

I know you're the president of the Sexton stan club and all, but I really hope on some level you understand why it's important that players, particularly young players, do what's best for the team and not just what they believe is best for themselves. I was thinking the other day about Kyrie and how he hasn't exactly lit up the world since he left Cleveland. Bad habits stay with talented players for a long time when they're not corrected early. If LBJ hadn't come back to Cleveland, I'm not sure Kyrie would've had much success in the NBA at all.

Actually given it is a prove yourself league I will let Sexton and KPJ and maybe if we are lucky Garland do just that in the hopes it makes the team better equiped to contend eventually, their bad habits are only in need of correction by reps and film and not to be subject to the rigid restictions of playing selfless team ball theories that never work unless the entire roster is a role player with no iso ability and with zero players that can take what the defense gives them and get buckets.
I dont know about you, but to me the NBA is such a different animal than most organized basketball that all the rules are just a choke collar.

[jbk1234]

what is supposed to be the case really rarely is by the looks of it...I mean if you are drafted in the lottery you are getting paid a heck of a lot of $ and the org investing in you that much will guarantee your getting undeserved minutes in the name of development. Its not the same as playoff teams drafting non lottery level prospects or paying as much for who they drafted where there is as much pressure to use them too soon.

I know you're the president of the Sexton stan club and all, but I really hope on some level you understand why it's important that players, particularly young players, do what's best for the team and not just what they believe is best for themselves. I was thinking the other day about Kyrie and how he hasn't exactly lit up the world since he left Cleveland. Bad habits stay with talented players for a long time when they're not corrected early. If LBJ hadn't come back to Cleveland, I'm not sure Kyrie would've had much success in the NBA at all.

Actually given it is a prove yourself league I will let Sexton and KPJ and maybe if we are lucky Garland do just that in the hopes it makes the team better equiped to contend eventually, their bad habits are only in need of correction by reps and film and not to be subject to the rigid restictions of playing selfless team ball theories that never work unless the entire roster is a role player with no iso ability and with zero players that can take what the defense gives them and get buckets.
I dont know about you, but to me the NBA is such a different animal than most organized basketball that all the rules are just a choke collar.

AI never won a championship and the one time he got to the Finals, on a team that was constructed perfectly around him, it wasn't a close series. Westbrook has played alongside Durant, PG, and Harden. I doubt he ever comes close to winning a championship. It's no secret that Westbrook's style of play was a big factor in Durant leaving. The Cavs as a team are more important to me than any single player.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[JonFromVA]

We should be doing both both ... get our young player development minutes so they can get used to the league, learn from their mistakes, and we can evaluate what we've got before deciding if we want to invest more time. And we need to teach them NBA systems and concepts while holding them responsible.

Can we do that?

Not sure. It takes patience and coaches that know what they're doing, that can inspire confidence, and vets that are on-board with the end-goal. Every time we've had to "simplify" our systems just so we can enjoy some success we've effectively failed.

There certainly are alternatives if you have a LeBron, Luka, or a James Harden type player, but good luck finding one of them.

[Stillwater]

We should be doing both both ... get our young player development minutes so they can get used to the league, learn from their mistakes, and we can evaluate what we've got before deciding if we want to invest more time. And we need to teach them NBA systems and concepts while holding them responsible.

Can we do that?

Not sure. It takes patience and coaches that know what they're doing, that can inspire confidence, and vets that are on-board with the end-goal. Every time we've had to "simplify" our systems just so we can enjoy some success we've effectively failed.

There certainly are alternatives if you have a LeBron, Luka, or a James Harden type player, but good luck finding one of them.

See thats just it, I am not at all optimistic that this org knows how to rebuild, nor do they have a clue how to get any player to buy in to losing while they are developing...they didnt do it right before Lebron came back either...
I do hold out a little more hope for this regime but its still the same Man upstairs calling the shots unless hes not with it yet. idk

[JonFromVA]

We should be doing both both ... get our young player development minutes so they can get used to the league, learn from their mistakes, and we can evaluate what we've got before deciding if we want to invest more time. And we need to teach them NBA systems and concepts while holding them responsible.

Can we do that?

Not sure. It takes patience and coaches that know what they're doing, that can inspire confidence, and vets that are on-board with the end-goal. Every time we've had to "simplify" our systems just so we can enjoy some success we've effectively failed.

There certainly are alternatives if you have a LeBron, Luka, or a James Harden type player, but good luck finding one of them.

See thats just it, I am not at all optimistic that this org knows how to rebuild, nor do they have a clue how to get any player to buy in to losing while they are developing...they didnt do it right before Lebron came back either...
I do hold out a little more hope for this regime but its still the same Man upstairs calling the shots unless hes not with it yet. idk

Well, on the bright side JBB is the most qualified head coach we've hired since Byron Scott (not that hiring Scott worked).

No wonder fans are looking back at the Fratello and Karl days more and more fondly...

[gflem]

We should be doing both both ... get our young player development minutes so they can get used to the league, learn from their mistakes, and we can evaluate what we've got before deciding if we want to invest more time. And we need to teach them NBA systems and concepts while holding them responsible.

Can we do that?

Not sure. It takes patience and coaches that know what they're doing, that can inspire confidence, and vets that are on-board with the end-goal. Every time we've had to "simplify" our systems just so we can enjoy some success we've effectively failed.

There certainly are alternatives if you have a LeBron, Luka, or a James Harden type player, but good luck finding one of them.

See thats just it, I am not at all optimistic that this org knows how to rebuild, nor do they have a clue how to get any player to buy in to losing while they are developing...they didnt do it right before Lebron came back either...
I do hold out a little more hope for this regime but its still the same Man upstairs calling the shots unless hes not with it yet. idk

Well, on the bright side JBB is the most qualified head coach we've hired since Byron Scott (not that hiring Scott worked).

No wonder fans are looking back at the Fratello and Karl days more and more fondly...

Fratello was a better coach than Lenny Wilkens imo. And Karl became a great head coach, he was good but was still learning while he was here. I can't think of anyone else I would consider in that conversation. Maybe Ty Lue, but mostly because the team won it's only title under him.

[KGdaBom]

Hey Cavs fans. A wolves fan stopping by to get your thoughts on something. If you had the #1 pick who would you want. My personal nightmare is that we are going to draft Ball. That idea scares me so much that I'm hoping we trade down far enough to assure he is gone LOL.
Many brilliant basketball minds are saying Ball is by far the best prospect in this draft. You have Garland and Sexton. Sexton impressed the hell out of me last year with his volume and efficiency of scoring. Garland had a pretty brutal year. Neither is a pass first PG. Would you want Ball? Would you want Edwards or perhaps the much more versatile Wiseman to move on from Drummond?

If we are going to trade back a while ago somebody came to our board suggesting #1 for Larry Nance Jr and #5. Some people on our board thought we would be getting ripped off in that deal. I don't! I see Nance as an ideal PF for us. Can shoot 3s, can pass, defend the Rim and Perimeter. At #5 one of Okongwu or Avdija will be available. Since we'd have Nance Avdija would be preferable. Perhaps we go for Vassell. There's not a lot of downside to that deal and IMO Nance is a heck of a lot better than DeAndre Hunter who it was rumored we would accept to trade down to #6.

I'm asking for your best honest opinions and I know it's hard to do because we are all biased. Myself very much included. Would that be too much to give, too little or just right.

[Revenged25]

Hey Cavs fans. A wolves fan stopping by to get your thoughts on something. If you had the #1 pick who would you want. My personal nightmare is that we are going to draft Ball. That idea scares me so much that I'm hoping we trade down far enough to assure he is gone LOL.
Many brilliant basketball minds are saying Ball is by far the best prospect in this draft. You have Garland and Sexton. Sexton impressed the hell out of me last year with his volume and efficiency of scoring. Garland had a pretty brutal year. Neither is a pass first PG. Would you want Ball? Would you want Edwards or perhaps the much more versatile Wiseman to move on from Drummond?

If we are going to trade back a while ago somebody came to our board suggesting #1 for Larry Nance Jr and #5. Some people on our board thought we would be getting ripped off in that deal. I don't! I see Nance as an ideal PF for us. Can shoot 3s, can pass, defend the Rim and Perimeter. At #5 one of Okongwu or Avdija will be available. Since we'd have Nance Avdija would be preferable. Perhaps we go for Vassell. There's not a lot of downside to that deal and IMO Nance is a heck of a lot better than DeAndre Hunter who it was rumored we would accept to trade down to #6.

I'm asking for your best honest opinions and I know it's hard to do because we are all biased. Myself very much included. Would that be too much to give, too little or just right.

If we wanted to move up to the #1 spot, only giving up Nance is a no brainer no matter how much we like him. He's a high value big that can back-up both PF and C for us, but moving up to #1 if there was someone they wanted it needs to be done.

Now if they moved up to #1 the only options are Edwards and Wiseman, maybe an off chance of Avdija. I don't think Ball would even be in the discussion.

[KGdaBom]

Hey Cavs fans. A wolves fan stopping by to get your thoughts on something. If you had the #1 pick who would you want. My personal nightmare is that we are going to draft Ball. That idea scares me so much that I'm hoping we trade down far enough to assure he is gone LOL.
Many brilliant basketball minds are saying Ball is by far the best prospect in this draft. You have Garland and Sexton. Sexton impressed the hell out of me last year with his volume and efficiency of scoring. Garland had a pretty brutal year. Neither is a pass first PG. Would you want Ball? Would you want Edwards or perhaps the much more versatile Wiseman to move on from Drummond?

If we are going to trade back a while ago somebody came to our board suggesting #1 for Larry Nance Jr and #5. Some people on our board thought we would be getting ripped off in that deal. I don't! I see Nance as an ideal PF for us. Can shoot 3s, can pass, defend the Rim and Perimeter. At #5 one of Okongwu or Avdija will be available. Since we'd have Nance Avdija would be preferable. Perhaps we go for Vassell. There's not a lot of downside to that deal and IMO Nance is a heck of a lot better than DeAndre Hunter who it was rumored we would accept to trade down to #6.

I'm asking for your best honest opinions and I know it's hard to do because we are all biased. Myself very much included. Would that be too much to give, too little or just right.

If we wanted to move up to the #1 spot, only giving up Nance is a no brainer no matter how much we like him. He's a high value big that can back-up both PF and C for us, but moving up to #1 if there was someone they wanted it needs to be done.

Now if they moved up to #1 the only options are Edwards and Wiseman, maybe an off chance of Avdija. I don't think Ball would even be in the discussion.

Thanks for the reply. Regarding Ball you and I may see him as being a terrible choice, but many supposedly brilliant minds see him in a tier by himself as the best prospect in the draft. Wolves have D'Angelo Russell who I believe most unbiased observers would consider superior to Sexton and Garland and they still think we should draft him #1. To me that's the biggest benefit of trading down so we don't draft him #1 .
I think people underrate Nance, but maybe I'm missing something. His stats are superb. Isn't his defense pretty good too or am I wrong about that? Can he defend the perimeter?

[Revenged25]

Hey Cavs fans. A wolves fan stopping by to get your thoughts on something. If you had the #1 pick who would you want. My personal nightmare is that we are going to draft Ball. That idea scares me so much that I'm hoping we trade down far enough to assure he is gone LOL.
Many brilliant basketball minds are saying Ball is by far the best prospect in this draft. You have Garland and Sexton. Sexton impressed the hell out of me last year with his volume and efficiency of scoring. Garland had a pretty brutal year. Neither is a pass first PG. Would you want Ball? Would you want Edwards or perhaps the much more versatile Wiseman to move on from Drummond?

If we are going to trade back a while ago somebody came to our board suggesting #1 for Larry Nance Jr and #5. Some people on our board thought we would be getting ripped off in that deal. I don't! I see Nance as an ideal PF for us. Can shoot 3s, can pass, defend the Rim and Perimeter. At #5 one of Okongwu or Avdija will be available. Since we'd have Nance Avdija would be preferable. Perhaps we go for Vassell. There's not a lot of downside to that deal and IMO Nance is a heck of a lot better than DeAndre Hunter who it was rumored we would accept to trade down to #6.

I'm asking for your best honest opinions and I know it's hard to do because we are all biased. Myself very much included. Would that be too much to give, too little or just right.

If we wanted to move up to the #1 spot, only giving up Nance is a no brainer no matter how much we like him. He's a high value big that can back-up both PF and C for us, but moving up to #1 if there was someone they wanted it needs to be done.

Now if they moved up to #1 the only options are Edwards and Wiseman, maybe an off chance of Avdija. I don't think Ball would even be in the discussion.

Thanks for the reply. Regarding Ball you and I may see him as being a terrible choice, but many supposedly brilliant minds see him in a tier by himself as the best prospect in the draft. Wolves have D'Angelo Russell who I believe most unbiased observers would consider superior to Sexton and Garland and they still think we should draft him #1. To me that's the biggest benefit of trading down so we don't draft him #1 .
I think people underrate Nance, but maybe I'm missing something. His stats are superb. Isn't his defense pretty good too or am I wrong about that? Can he defend the perimeter?

Oh Russell is definitely better than Sexton and Garland at this point, though I do have high hopes for Sexton surpassing him. Also I think the reason a lot of people still want the T'Wolves to draft Ball is that Russell can also play off-ball and with Ball's size they would have more than enough to not be destroyed defensively. I definitely don't see Ball as this tier alone player personally. I think he's vastly overrated after playing in a subpar league where he didn't even bother trying to play defense and the fact that he has the Ball family name and the hype that it seems to bring.

People definitely underrate Nance and I think he could even be a starting PF for a lot of teams, but he's also 27 and by the time that Love is off the books and our young core of players would be ready to start really competing he'll already be 30 and might not fit the timeline perfectly. So I wouldn't trade Nance for just scraps like people on T&T like to think he's worth, heck I don't know if I would even trade him for a late lotto pick in this draft, but for the right deal and scenario I don't think anyone on the team should be considered off-limits even Sexton who I'm super high on. Granted I would only trade Sexton if it was a key factor in getting a guy like Ben Simmons without having to gut the rest of the young core and future assets.