9Deuce wrote:


I agree completely with you that an organization can have a significant impact on a player's development. I do think Love has the potential to be a solid, if unspectacular, starter someday. However, I think players like Roy, Granger, and Mayo were going to be stars on almost any team. They definitely could have been starting for us. Even with terrible management/coaching, the best players from each draft still find a way to be successful. They are too driven and motivated to fail.

For example: What would have happened if Tim Duncan never hooked up with Pops? I still believe he would be a dominate force somewhere in the NBA. He probably would have fewer championships though.

Another example: KG - I think everyone knows the history here. He was an all-star for many years with us but could never put together a championship run. Amazing what happens when KG got a little help in Boston.


Anyway, at this point it's all speculation. The bottom line is our team needs to shake things up in a major way or else we'll be doomed to an increasing amount of haiku poetry to keep entertained. Those Haikus were pretty sweet, though

9Deuce wrote:



Sorry, but that's completely wrong! Roy, Mayo, and Granger are PLAYERS. They would excel on any team in the league. They have IT.

whiskeydizzy wrote:



Nice post, I completely agree. I posted mine below yours before I actually read what you typed. Would have saved me time by just saying "I agree with WhiskeyDizzy" lol.

Anyways, there is nothing wrong with Haiku's. They made me laugh sooooooooo much the past two days.

Unfortunately Tug McGraw is dead. He was a pro baseball player for the Phils and Mets and he is the father of country singer Tim McGraw. I'm not a country buff, but the song "Live Like You Were Dying" was actually written about Tug. Tug also coined the "You Gotta Believe!" phrase.

Don't ask me how I know any of this, because I have absolutely no idea.

Also, if you'd like more optimism, the whole "We could have Granger, Roy, and Mayo" argument is complete B.S.

If we drafted Granger instead of McCants, we would have been better than we were and not have had the opportunity to draft Roy. If we had drafted Roy we would've been better and not have been able to draft Mayo. It was simply one bone-headed move that lead to another and we would've never had all three.

Perhaps in June we'll be able to say that if we had drafted Mayo we would have been better and not gotten the #1 pick. Not that this excuses McHale's pure idiocy by any means, but it's not like we could have three stars from the draft and have none. At best, we'd probably have one. That's still better than none, but we will have our shots down the road sucking as bad as we do.

DeROK wrote:


That argument is not as far fetched as you think, the Blazers got the number 1 pick after drating Roy. I dont think that him and KG would have been that lights out after one year. Same with Granger. After two years of development maybe they would have been solid but saying that they would have had greatness there rookie years is just not valid either.

Yeah... while I know we couldn't have had all three (I just like to complain about it), we definitely could have had 2 of the three. Granger wasn't a "super stud" rookie like he is now. It's not far fetched to think we could have landed Roy the next draft.

Plus, who knows how far players would slip in the draft and whatnot, as well as lottery positioning.

But if we had Roy, Granger, KG... then yeah, we never would have had a chance at Mayo.

College Wolf wrote:


If we had Roy, Granger. Kg we would not need mayo. Oh what if's is all we have with this team, that and next year.

jbird wrote:



Yeah, there's always "next year"...

Is it me or is this thread getting very depressing...

Ugh
Granger=stud
mccants=dud
foye=dud
roy=stud
mayo=stud
love=dud

There are a lot of valid points brought up in this topic. Though I'm not ready to label Love a bust, I am like many other people gutted by the fact that the picks we traded for are performing really well. Would I have loved Granger,Roy or Mayo in the team? sure I would. But I think we place on our draft picks too high an expectation that they would automatically lead a bottom dweller team to become contenders to the point where I do feel sorry for Love. He probably feels like he has to automatically perform now for a crap team, whereas if he were drafted by the Celtics he would've have time to mature and develop his game without the added pressure of needing to win.

I think Love is a phenominal rebounder (his number of rebounds per minute played is great). I ain't no coach or pro player but I would think rebounding is a hard art to learn or to practice for. You can't just go out and say I will pull down so and so amount, unless you are 7ft6 or have superior athletic ability... which we all know Love doesn't possess. Scoring and defending, one can learn with experience and hours of training. Hence I am prepared to wait and see.

If our criteria for Love to be a success is that our team greatly improve our wins, I even think Mayo would be a considered a bust because I'm not sure if he can resurrect this team at this present time... (Memphis isn't exactly kicking arse with Mayo firing up).

Draft lotteries are just that, it's a lottery... you'd be kidding if you can predict 100% of the time that a player drafted will be a star. Everything looks good in hindsight, Sam Bowie looked good at the time (picked before MJ). You might argue that it's not that the front office chose a dud but rather traded for a dud, but wasn't the general consensus that Foye and Roy were very similar after their rookie year until Foye's injury changed everything... how do we know that if we picked Roy and he got injured we wouldn't all be having a discussion about how we shoulda picked Foye???

I'm through with hoping for draft picks to meet my expectations. I want front office to focus on developing players, make good trades to bring stability to our team. The Celtics did it, I can only hope we wake up and realise rebuilding isn't always needed to establish a winning team.

Still, it can be argued Randy Foye had to fight through a crappy rotation of vets (Mike James, Ricky Davis, Trenton Hassell) and got significantly less PT than Roy, who was named the alpha male in Portland (even with Randolph around). Then got injured etc. etc.

But with Love it's a different story. I'm not even saying he should score 20ppg like Mayo does. Mayo can jack up any shot he wants, because if he doesn't, who will on that Grizzlies team. Love on the other hand is at best the 4th banana (5th if McCants gets hot) offensively. So I thought to myself; he won;t score as much, so he should rebound very well (which he does) and defend pretty well (which he doesn't do). So if we're talking usefulness he's only achieving half of it. Scoring-wise he's shooting less than 40%. That's bad for a big man. If he shot better, played with confidence (played more) and averaged 10+ ppg and 10rpg, I wouldn't whine.

DE-FENCE. Someone has t play it on this team, someone...

College Wolf wrote:



Let's compare our bust, Kevin Love, to a preceived stud player and a #1 overall draft pick, Greg Oden.

-------------------Love---Oden
Minutes/game---------22-----22
FG %---------------.385---.520
FT %---------------.739---.625
OR------------------3.3----2.5
DR------------------4.4----4.6
Asst----------------1.1----0.6
Steals--------------0.4----0.3
Blocks--------------0.6----1.3
TO's----------------1.3----1.5
PF------------------2.3----3.8
PPG-----------------7.6----7.7

If you want to call Kevin Love a bust, what is Greg Oden? I think you all would have done back flips had the Wolves gotten him!

Hehe, the 2007 draft class is godawful. Oden's bordering on bust, Durant will be a stud but I also think he'll be a stats guy on a bad team (he doesn't shoot great percentages, just chucks it all up)... Al Horford is a decent 10/10 starter but what's funny K-Love (considered a bust already) may reach his numbers also his rookie season ... the rest of the crop are roleplayers at best sans Al Thornton who has a chance to become someone a'la Danny Granger, altough the Clippers roster doesn't help that at all.

T_Wolf_In_Sydney wrote:


It was plain as day that Love was slow and fat and undersized and would struggle in the NBA to anyone that knows anything about basketball. All of the draft experts were saying the same exact thing as well.

While on the other hand it was easy to see that OJ Mayo has a silky smooth jump shot and is a good perimeter defender, things the wolves desperately needed much more than a backup power forward or center or whatever the hell that blob we know as KLove is. Mayo looked like a stud and is a stud. ROTY.

The wolves were talking up Love's 33-inch vertical. Seriously, do they even watch game tapes on the players their drafting? What the hell are they smoking I want some.