pants wrote:


I would have traded with the Knicks for Chandler + #8, if that rumor was true. Sounds like it might not have been true though.

I think the only other choice for us at #6 was DeRozan. Not sure what other player would fit on our team. I hated the Flynn pick at first, but I am really warming up to it the more I think about it.

I don't think this team will have any gaping holes in the roster when camp rolls around. If another 2 isn't added in a trade, there will be someone available who is capable of playing the 2 in the NBA that they can sign to a one-year deal. The other option is to give Brewer minutes at the 2, which was something they've done before, anyway.

As for the team being unwatchable, I think some things are being overlooked. There's a potential loss of perimeter shooting, obviously (even though neither Foye nor Miller shot well and the team had the worst FG% in the league last year). But this team had one of the worst if not the worst PG situations last year, and Flynn as a rookie is probably an upgrade from Kevin Ollie. Also, one of Flynn's strengths offensively is drawing free-throw attempts, which the Wolves sorely lacked with their perimeter players last year. Another thing is that their perimeter D was atrocious last year, and adding Brewer to go along with at least a decent defender in Flynn will help there. I'm not saying it evens out because the team lost a lot of scoring, but more efficiency and diversity might be more helpful than it might seem at first glance.

Also, most reports indicate that the Knicks' offer was for #5, not #6.

College Wolf wrote:


That new front page article on the PG situation is great.

Everything I read concur's with what PSR said about the New York deal being for the #5. Even if it was for the #6 AND the Wolves scouts though Flynn was way better than DeRozan it would have been a bad deal. Wilson Chandler isn't a bad player but he isn't going to be a star... there is no reason degrade your pick for another rotation guy.

We have to do something. Period. As much as I think Wayne Ellington is a steal and will put up really solid numbers as a rookie, I am actually just about on board with the idea.

Lets remember not every move has to be for the "future" of our team so to speak. No matter how the cookie crumbles, eventually we will need veteran players and scoring. All teams have short term needs.

While I wouldn't call Iverson an esteemed veteran leader, he is a scorer in the backcourt, and one we desperately need.

And I am in favor of improving this draft position, but two 20-win seasons is enough for me. At this point, I would rather see steady improvement toward a playoff spot, with hopes of adding significant pieces each year. The roster as-is is is 22 wins at best. Iverson at least gets us 3 more wins

I would be ok with it, but man we would get absolutely flamed for making this move.

I can't decide what I want to happen more:


- For the Wolves to sign him (because we NEED him and for the entertainment of watching his game. Don't hate, he can still bring it.)

or

- For Memphis to sign him and absolutely implode. Granted, Memphis will probably implode anyways, with or without Iverson. Their two additions this off-season were Thabeet and Zach Randolph for crying out loud!!! HAHAHAHA!

The Memphis outcome would be hilarious.

Lets think of this another way:

Say the Wolves are on the verge of signing Player X, who has averaged 10 rebounds a game for his career. Player X is 34 years old. Would you simply say 'no way' because he would "steal" minutes and rebounds from Kevin Love and Al Jefferson? Absolutely not. You sign that player immediately.

This is well before we factor in the attitude issue, however. That is not part of this point.

As a short term need, we need scorers badly. You can't lose what you never had.