shrink wrote:shangrila wrote:shrink wrote:Some good posts on the last few pages. Personally, I think Simmons is a one-way street to mediocrity, but setting that aside, looking at it solely as a trade exercise…
I like how you say that like it's a bad thing.
I think people are under a misconception that the only path to being a good team is a gradual process that involves being an average team first. That may be true for a free agent destination like the Knicks, but we have just seen a team go from awful to great .. since Covid! The Suns were a horrible team full of very young players until a surprising run in the bubble, and in one season they are legitimate contenders for a ring. Things can change that fast, and that should be our blueprint as well.
So we trade for a future HoFer? Cool. Who've you got in mind?
The Suns are an exception, not the rule. Trying to replicate what they did would be far more difficult than you seem interested in admitting.
Let’s look at the four ways to improve our team, and compare it to stopping at mediocre.
Nobody said anything about stopping at mediocre. Just because we trade for Simmons doesn't mean we'd literally stop all other avenues of improvement.
Free agency. Going from bad to mediocre helps, but we won’t draw top free agents whether we are bad or mediocre. Net zero.
This is an odd point.
We're capped out either way, so "top free agents" are out of the question regardless. What I care about is the good role players that we could afford but that aren't interested in joining a losing team. Jae Crowder, for example, was someone we went after who chose the Suns over us. These are the kinds of players we need to round out the roster but we can't get because we're constantly losing.
So I'd argue becoming "mediocre" (or, let's be honest, a playoff team) would have a positive impact. Atleast where it's relevant.
Trade. No effect. Any player can be traded, and while top ones may have preferences like FA’s, being mediocre isn’t enough.
Sure, maybe.
Draft. Negative effect. Mediocre teams get worse picks in the draft.
And? I think if there's any team that can attest to this, draft position does not guarantee career success. You don't need high picks to find valuable players, you need good scouting departments. And aside from Culver our scouts seem to do just fine finding players with later picks (Nowell, Reid, McDaniels).
Internal growth. Young players have more room for growth than vets.
I'd argue that getting young players into the playoffs would improve their growth, so I'd say that becoming a playoff team would be a positive in this aspect.
I don’t disagree that being mediocre would be a step up for the Wolves historically. But remember, even with our current issues, we ended the season at 11-11 .. almost the definition of “mediocre.” I have enough optimism to prefer to aim higher than “mediocre.”
Didn't we end Smitch's last season on a .500 streak?
Personally I think this way of thinking is delusion. Like turning down a check for a lottery ticket because maybe you'll win more. We are so bad that talking about championships is laughable. We need to make the playoffs first. Once we can do that consistently, then we can start worrying about becoming contenders.
Without question.
