wtd3 wrote:


I would have to disagree with this. Two very ball dominant/scorers/franchise players on the perimeter just cannot coexist i.e. Iverson and Melo. Detroit was just a terrible fit for him because so much of what they do is centered around ball movement.

Pretty much every team in the league (all of the playoff teams plus most of the bad teams as well) already have a ball dominant/scorer perimeter player. The reason no one wants Iverson is because at this point in his career he's not good enough to be The Guy that carries you deep in the playoffs. To do that also requires the way your team plays and strategy. They're better off sticking with the guys they have and going with that.

The wolves are maybe the only team in the league that doesn't have this. We have no go-to guy on the perimeter. No guy that could and should have the ball in his hands out there.

Thank you Roundhouse.

Charlotte is the other team that lacks a scorer of this type and they one of the main teams looking at AI.

The original message in this thread started by suggesting to trade Flynn to entice Rubio to play here.

Probably this idea is correct when Rubio gets rid of the DKV Juventut contract but, as of now, is far better for the buy-out negotiation if Rubio is perceived as not needed in Minnesota.

Kahn is talking this line when he says that he doesn't mind if Rubio stays in Spain, which makes a lot of sense in order to give leverage to Rubio in his negotiation with DKV Juventut.

As an off-topic, about the article appeared 2 days ago in the Spanish press, I would advise to ignore all Spanish newspapers in this issue with the exception of:

1- El Pais (www.elpais.com)

2- El Mundo Deportivo (www.elmundodeportivo.es/).

Cutting Gomes and buying out Bassy would be preposterous. No offense, but those were the two worst comments in this entire thread.

At least Iverson would be interesting to watch. We need his scoring and I don't think he'll "retard development", considering we don't even have a NBA caliber SG on our roster right now.

If we go into next season with the roster we have, we could be an "ok" team. However, we could also win 15 games and average 90 points per game.

I don't think Iverson would be a bad short term signing at all.

pants wrote:


Okay, I can see the other side of it. I'm not a fan of Iverson on this team, but if used in the correct way he could be a boon for the team. However, I would prefer to see him partner with Randolph in the destruction of Memphis.

I also agree with CW and Roundhouse on Telfair and Gomes. Those two are good values. Telfair as a backup PG and Gomes as a glue guy.

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating cutting Gomes and buying out Bassy--just mentioning that it would be possible to do so without incurring significant cap hits. Their contracts are cap-friendly and therefore should be regarded as assets.

I believe Gomes' contract potentially is for five years, with the last three in excess of $4 million a year. If he's not cut by next June 30, the entire contract becomes guaranteed.

wtd3 wrote:

Thank you wtd3, I agree 100% with all that... howl for you!

If I remember correctly, wasn't Iverson the guy who said this in response to the idea of playing off the bench next season:


This is the type of attitude that we shouldn't want in our locker room. That no matter what his current skill level is as a player, he demands to be "the man". I don't understand how this is going to benefit our young core of guys. Yeah, he might bring us an extra W or 2, but at the end of the day, the only relevance of those wins will be lowering our draft position. He obviously is at the end of his road and wants to win a championship (But apparently not if it requires him playing off the bench), what makes you think he's going to be motivated to play here? So teams like Cleveland or Boston will watch his "inspired" performance here and trade their old vets here for him??

As for Gomes and Bassy, like Kurosawa explained, they're POTENTIAL assets that we could trade or buyout. Personally, I like the 2 of them and can see them as part of our future blueprint as solid bench guys. Granted, they'll have to withstand the downgrade from starting 5 to second string, but everybody and their mom's know that the pair of them aren't legit starting 5 quality players. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having the 2 of them here in Sota, but both are solid role players at best.

In order to improve, we have to sacrifice. We have a new leader and a new plan, so we have to go ahead with that instead of looking back and saying "I'm tired of us losing and we've been losing too long, let's just sign people just go get a few wins for the short run."

YoLeo wrote:


It's not about being tired of losing and wanting to get a few extra wins. If you've read my posts over the past few years I have been a huge advocate of losing and improving our draft position as the only way to win championships is by landing superstars.

Every minute we give to Brown, Smith, Madsen, Cardinal, Songaila, Thomas, and any other crap player on our team I'm failing to remember is a wasted minute. Any way you look at it they have no place in our future whatsoever. As our roster currently stands they stand to get quite a few minutes instead of spot minutes at the end of the bench that they should be getting.

Yea you can make the argument that Iverson has no place in our future either as he is much older than our core. If you look at the big picture he's not wasting minutes. We have a GAPING HOLE at SG. Someone has to take those minutes. These guys on our team need to experience what it's like to win at some point or else they're nothing but losers. Not only that, Iverson would energize the wolves fan base which is non-existant right now and put people in the seats. It is all about money after all. It may make Glen Taylor more willing to spend if he's bringing in more revenue.

Yes, Iverson is not ready to accept a role as a bench player. That's probably most of the reason no teams are after him. He still wants to be the man. But as pants and I have pointed out, the Wolves and the Bobcats are probably the only teams in the league that could take on Iverson and not only not have it affect how the team works, but actually be doing us a huge favor.

He's not the same player he once was, but at one time he carried the 76ers to the Finals on his back without any help at all. We have no one else out there on the perimeter. We don't have Melo in his way. We don't have the Pistons team concept and strategy in his way. We have Bassy and Ellington in his way. Bassy & Ellington? Like really?

Let the man do what he does and enjoy the show.

Really? Minus howl for my opinion?

Well I guess we can just agree to disagree because I still don't think with all the points you made that signing Iverson to a contract is worth it. I don't really plan on furthering this discussion because I've made my points, but as for the whole "GAPING HOLE at SG," yes, it's true. But I would rather take fliers on potential future role players or the next Ariza instead of using washed up former allstars with a bad attitude. We could get these unproven guys, who may or may not prove to be anything, for much cheaper than Iverson. I do agree, Iverson may fill some seats which is important, but I see him turning into more of a Marbury/Tinsley-esque sideshow as opposed to a Wade/LeBron-esque showman. Yeah, people will fill the Target Center to come see Iverson in a Wolves jersey, but I genuinely believe that he's going to tack a bit of a negative reputation to our franchise that has just recently dumped McHale's reign. We threw away unmarketable guys like McCants/Foye/Miller alongside McHale's blunderings as a GM, and then drafted the very marketable (And young) Rubio and Flynn. Wouldn't it just be taking a step back from a marketing standpoint to aim for a instant success homerun play of signing an ex-allstar who's current image isn't very positive (Discluding his past issues with "You talkin' 'bout practice..." ) to "fill arenas," instead of patiently waiting a year or 2 for the goldmine in Rubio-Flynn.

And if you were insinuating that Iverson has the potential to still lead a garbage team (Granted, the '00-'01 had Mutombo at his prime, who was a pure defensive stopper to balance Iverson's offensive game) with HUGE defensive liabilities at almost every position, then I think you just have a bad case of wishful thinking.



But I respect your opinion.

As time passes, Iverson coming to Minnesota is coming less and less of a possibility anyway, as reports are surfacing everywhere that Iverson is interested in Memphis and is close to signing a deal with them.

Agree completely with YoLeo. Nothing to add to the AI argument.

With the state this franchise is in, we must do two things: (a) look beyond 2009-10, and (b) face facts and avoid wishful thinking.

Yes, we have a gaping hole at SG that must be filled this coming season, but let's not pretend we can fill it this year with anything resembling a satisfactory long-term solution. We need a stop-gap. Trade Smith plus filler for an experienced guy with a good attitude, good D, decent handle and shot, and (preferably) an expiring contract.

Moving forward, we'll be set at PG and PF and in dire need at C, SF, and SG. Fortunately, we're in terrific shape to fill ALL those needs NEXT SUMMER:

--Plenty of cap room to lure an outstanding veteran in a loaded free-agent class.

--Potentially a dynamite asset in Rubio to trade for an outstanding vet and/or improve our draft position. (Or we keep Rubio and trade Flynn, whose stock should rise in a draft year that'll be virtually devoid of star-quality PGs after John Wall.)

--Potentially three first-round draft picks (including ours, which is almost certain to be top six) in a deep and talented draft class that's especially strong at C, SF, and SG. (With Boozer deciding not to opt out of his contract, it's almost a lock Utah makes the playoffs--meaning we get its pick. I like Charlotte's chances in the East as well.)

Kahn preaches patience. To a guy like me who wants to win as bad as anybody on this board, that is sweet music indeed. Let's keep our eyes on the ultimate prize and not settle for some short-term gratification (like an Iverson signing) that will at best delay our quest, and at worst derail it.

I realize waiting and patience. Believe me, I've been doing it for a long time now. It's one thing to keep losing, but man, this team might be almost unwatchable next year. If we don't have Rubio and don't make any significant additions (Any trades, FA signings, Iverson, etc), then this team is going to be garbage and we'll struggle to score 95 points per game. I dunno about you guys, but that doesn't excite me too much. I can only imagine what any remaining "casual Wolves fans" would think.

Maybe it's selfish to want Iverson, but if we didn't have Rubio and only gave him a 2 year deal it wouldn't be bad at all. You'd also assume he'd have a good attitude, or don't sign him. It's not like I'd want him here if he was going to be a malcontent from the start.

But whatever I guess.


On the other hand, Memphis is one team I'd LOVE for Iverson to go play for, because we might get to see an epic implosion! I mean, how does Iverson, Gay, Mayo, and Zach Randolph play on the same team, let alone the same court at the same time?!?! Seriously, how is that going to work? 10 basketballs at one time still wouldn't be enough for those 4 guys, and they are going to have to share 1??? I think Chris Wallace is the worst GM in the league now that McHale is gone.

YoLeo wrote:


It wasn't me that gave you a negative howl but I was tempted just now to give you one for thinking that I did. You worry about your Howls too much.

Kurosawa wrote:


Absolutely no way Smith could get us the guy you are describing.



I am looking beyond 09-10. Is Kahn?

If we really are on a new rebuilding plan and need to wait 18-months or whatever why was it so vital that we take Flynn when Rubio is our PGOTF? Was Flynn really the BPA at #6? I would have to disagree with that as would most others. Curry, Hill, or DeRozan is probably BPA there. He didn't want to look stupid by drafting Rubio and then having him not come over right away and then having no PG.

If we're on a new rebuilding plan why does that matter? Last year our PGs were Bassy and Ollie. KEVIN FREAKIN OLLIE. Is Bassy and Brown so much worse? I'd actually say that's an upgrade.

So we have a huge hole at SG and instead of Rubio and DeRozan we have Rubio and Flynn. One of whom will need to be traded at some point just like AL & Love. Wouldn't you want your core to be together for as long as possible?

I guess I don't really know what the plan is. Besides drafting Rubio, it's not making a whole lot of sense to me yet.

We are in a completely rebuilding mold. All that Blue Print stuff that McHale and Taylor were doing a couple years back is completely out the door.
So there is nothing to do but wait to see what happens the next two years.

I heard a good statement on the Paul Allen show last week on the status of the Wolves.
He said that this year and next year we will have at least 8 new players here, either from free agency or draft picks.
We already have 3 from this years draft, Flynn, Ellington, and Rubio(maybe Rubio, maybe not but no matter what we will get something from or for Rubio). Then 3 more players for next years draft. Plus, at least 2 free agents. So, that makes 8.
So out of those 8 if we could hit on at least 2 of those to go with what we already have, we will have a pretty solid and competitive team. So, for now we have put ourselves in a pretty good situation for the future.

I agree with him so all we could do is wait to see what will happen this year and next summer.

This year will be another year for our young guys to develop and then next summer will be the big summer to see if we will move forward to become competitive or not.

I believe the team felt strongly that Flynn was the best player available at #6. Given all the hubub about taking 2 PG's I haven't heard much consensus about who should have been taken there instead. I guess most people would say Curry but Kahn addressed Curry specifically in the press conferences afterward (plus Curry claims to be a PG too).