# Dime Magazine Power Rankings



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Well it is interesting to see. We are ranked 12th.

LINK 



> 12. Timberwolves
> The Big Ticket is frustrated. He hates to lose and won't let it happen again. With Flip gone and drama still surrounding the team, the Wolves may need another season to regroup. Don't be surprised if K.G. takes them on his back into the first round.


Notable teams ahead of us, Nuggets, Rockets, Bulls.....

If these rankings were playoffs rankings, we would be the 6th seed. I still think the Wolves are underrated coming into this next season. I think we will beat out the Nuggets and the Rockets in terms of playoff positioning.


Your thoughts on all of this? It is pretty interesting to see the rankings... Look how far down the Sixers are...


----------



## SuperHerbie (Jul 11, 2005)

Even better (at least to me...) was how far down the Lakers are. Good lord, I hate me some Kobe!


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Yes agreed. I do not get what went so wrong for them to make them so bad. They lost Vlade and got Phil back...


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

I expect most people to have the Wolves worse than that, but I think it's about right.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

I think we are going to do better... But oh well I think that every year.


----------



## skolvikes19 (Jun 18, 2005)

being #12 means playoffs and thats fine with me, and just like herbie said its kinda funny seing the lakers down so far


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> Well it is interesting to see. We are ranked 12th.
> 
> LINK
> 
> ...


so you go from last years 9th seed to a 4th seed by drafting mccants, and losing spree? very impressive.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Well seriously this team is still really good. They simply came out last year thinking too much of themselves. I think we a new, real head coach and some determined players, it is realistic to be the 4 or 3 seed in the west. Ultimatly though, this team needs to worry about getting to the playoffs. This season is really to show which season was the fluke, 03-04 or 04-05....


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> so you go from last years 9th seed to a 4th seed by drafting mccants, and losing spree? very impressive.


Yep. Look back a few years ago before we had Sam and Spree, 4th best record in the entire NBA. And our roster right now is much better than that team, and we're without the cancers (once Sam gets traded) that hurt us last year.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

I don't think 03-04 was a fluke, but I'm also of the opinion that this team doesn't have much of a chance for success in 2005-2006. Cassell and Spree were playing at an all-star level in the spring of 2004, and that simply wasn't the case last season. They aren't headed back to that level, either. We have no real inside presence, and nobody that can get all the way to the basket. This means getting destroyed on free throws and high percentage opportunities around the basket. Maybe McCants can help, but even his biggest supporters have to admit that a major, "x-factor that leads to the playoffs" type of impact is wishful thinking at best. 

I just fail to see what has changed since last season...


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

There has got to be an improvement from last year... There just has to. I think Cassell can still play almost up at that level still. Not going to be an All-Star though. 

I just do not get what kind of team McHale and Stack are putting around KG anymore...


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

I'm not sure how we could not improve. Doesn't mean we'll get back to where we should be, but outside of KG getting injured and missing time, I can't imagine doing worse than last season.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

We hired a defense-oriented coach for an offense- oriented team.... Without and defensive minded players at all on this whole team.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

socco said:


> Yep. Look back a few years ago before we had Sam and Spree, 4th best record in the entire NBA. And our roster right now is much better than that team, and we're without the cancers (once Sam gets traded) that hurt us last year.


:laugh: love the logic. homecourt in the 1st round is inevitable!


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> There has got to be an improvement from last year... There just has to.


is that a new rule in the new CBA? you HAVE TO improve? no matter what?


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Pretty much....

No but seriously, if you can not make the playoffs with the roster that we have, then there are some very serious problems.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

damn thats a good rule. hope we get a rule like that too.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> :laugh: love the logic. homecourt in the 1st round is inevitable!


Rather than insulting the thought, why don't you explain to me why this team will not be any good? 4th best record a couple years ago with a worse roster. You'd probably bring up the good roster we had last year, but a bad record. And there's a simple answer to that, cancer. There were players on this team that had absolutely no interest in winning. One of those players is gone, and his partner in crime might be as well. What exactly is it that's preventing this team from getting back to their pre-cancer state? I wouldn't say homecourt is inevitable, but I think it's definately possible.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

I think Minny will be in the 6th-8th seed range and will give hell to a team in the first round. If something goes wrong with Denver and Seattle, Minny could actually end up winning the division, and of course that would put them with at least the 3rd seed. 

A pretty big roster change will be needed for Minny to get back to the status of two years ago IMO. A fresh start and a new coach should help out the team, but I think those two things can only help out so much.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

I do not think we can really say what range we will be in because 1) Offseason has just started 2) You really have no idea what to expect from this team


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

socco said:


> I'm not sure how we could not improve. Doesn't mean we'll get back to where we should be, but outside of KG getting injured and missing time, I can't imagine doing worse than last season.


I just have to ask: how are we going to get better? 

Cassell is going to be older and slower. Hudson isn't getting any better, neither is Wally. I don't see Griffin improving on what he did last season - he just doesn't have the mentality. Garnett turned into a jumpshooter last season - why would he all of a sudden start looking to play more of a post game again? Madsen coming back might be a bit of an improvement. 

The things that made us lose games last season simply aren't going away,and we aren't adding any new strengths. 

This team will probably contend for 8th playoff spot again. Anything better than that is overachieving.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I just have to ask: how are we going to get better?
> 
> Cassell is going to be older and slower. Hudson isn't getting any better, neither is Wally. I don't see Griffin improving on what he did last season - he just doesn't have the mentality. Garnett turned into a jumpshooter last season - why would he all of a sudden start looking to play more of a post game again? Madsen coming back might be a bit of an improvement.
> 
> ...


I just have to ask: how can we possibly get any worse?

Cassell is probably gonna be gone, and if he's not he can't be much worse than last year, and his partner in crime (Spree) is gone, so the cancer issues hopefully will be gone. Hudson was injured the entire year, he's going to be better. Wally's coming off of one of his best seasons. I would be shocked if Griffin doesn't improve tremendously. He has all the tools, and finally has his head on straight. Plus he hadn't played in so long when coming in last season, just getting the PT is going to make him better this year. Garnett played with injuries too, and still had a great season. Maybe if he gets some help he'll be able to physically last an entire season again, and a healthy KG for the whole year guarantees at least a playoff spot. We aren't adding any new strengths? That was our problem last year? Not having enough talent to be a playoff team? We had arguably the most talent in the entire league coming into last season, and now all of a sudden we don't have enough to be a playoff team? Worst case scenario is this team contending for the 8th playoff spot again.


----------



## SuperHerbie (Jul 11, 2005)

I'm finding it awful difficult to disagree with socco here. I watched a ton of Wolves basketball last season (just like every season) and Huddy looked a lot like he was still recovering from his injuries. KG was hurt last year and that didn't help, Spree came out frustrated and never really gave himself the chance to succeed and kind of got stuck in that mentality, Hassell looked like he had committed robbery with his new deal the way he played, Wally gave it everything he had, Eddie fell too deep in love with the 3 and didn't realize that it was sleeping with his best friend, Mad Dog was injured, Sam just looked like he was on cruise control, Kandi really did look better after Flip got the axe but still didn't look that good, Ebi looked great in the two garbage games he played, Freddy played awfully well, too.

Truth is, this team was handing out wins left and right and still won 44 games. They absolutely sucked beyond my worst pre-season fears and they still won 44 effing games! I have to believe that this squad will look a whole lot better this year.

Add McCants, Skita, D.Jones and hopefully Finley and we really don't look too bad. I'm stoked for this season, but God knows I'd be a he!! of a lot more excited if we would work out a deal to improve our low-post presence and/or get some more trips to the stripe.

Looking at it objectively I don't expect this team to finish *worse* than 6th in the West. Then again, I thought we'd be in the '04-'05 Finals against the Pacers before last season started.

Guess we all know how that worked out...


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

It is very hard for players NOT to improve when they are in their mid to late 20s. These guys work hard during the summer. I don't see how Hudson won't improve.... Just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## SuperHerbie (Jul 11, 2005)

sheefo13 said:


> It is very hard for players NOT to improve when they are in their mid to late 20s. These guys work hard during the summer. I don't see how Hudson won't improve.... Just doesn't make any sense.



Don't forget our old friend Will Avery though...


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Well are Duke pgs ever good lottery picks??? Daniel Ewing has accomplished as much as Avery has at Duke... Look where he was picked. Chris Duhon was way better than Avery at Duke.... Where was he picked.

That is the problem with picking a guy from a powerhouse school and every one of those guys who had a part of the championship enter the draft.... That Duke team was loaded. The other guys ended up being the better picks, Avery the bust. The Arizona team with Arenas, Jefferson, Woods.... Woods the bust... Now the tail will be told about the 04/05 UNC squad, who will be the bust??? My say will probably be either Felton or May.... Most likely May. But the past has shown that the Wolves seem to draft the bust of those great college teams.... So who knows...

I just hate talking about Avery.... Sorry lol.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

The unabashed homerism is really showing up in these threads. 

Sprewell (a major cog in our successful 2003-2004 lineup) is gone, and that's good because he's a cancer. Spree's energy and defense was absolutely vital to our 2004 playoff run. No matter how poor he was last year, that aspect of our 2004 team isn't coming back. 

But Cassell, another cancer, is returning, and that's good. Cassell's athleticism has been in a downward spiral for several years, and it's simply not coming back. 

Griffin and Hudson are going to improve why? 

Let me clue you folks in on Griffin. Eddie Griffin has been playing soft and away from the basket since his days at Seton Hall. There is absolutely no reason to think that he's all of a sudden going start playing closer to the basket. He's no better in this regard, or as a player on the whole, than he was in his rookie season with Houston. He plays the exact same way. The only thing that's changed is that he's put on weight and isn't nearly as explosive. 

Hudson has had one decent season in his career. Other than that one season, he has always been a very volatile, undersized 2-guard-style chucker. He can put up points on a bad team, but can he play the way he has played his entire career on a successful team? No reason to think that changes this season. 

Even with all the homerism going on about inviduals, the heart of the issue here is how these players mesh as a *team*. There is nobody playing around the basket to pick up easy opportunities. There is nobody driving the ball all the way to the basket to pick up easy opportunities. There is nobody leading the fast break/getting out on the wing to pick up easy opportunities. Our perimeter defense remains horrendous, and always will be as long as Hudson, Cassell, and McCants are on the team. 

I don't care how individual players are forecast to bounce back. Who draws gimmee opportunities around the basket? Who draws defensive attention by driving the ball to the basket? Who forces teams to get back on defense by pushing the ball in fast break situations? Who plays defense on the perimeter? Not to mention, how well does this group fit/buy in to a new coaches system and coaching style? 

Until these questions are answered, predicting the Wolves as a top-tier team in the West is pure homeristic speculation.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> Now the tail will be told about the 04/05 UNC squad, who will be the bust??? My say will probably be either Felton or May.... Most likely May. But the past has shown that the Wolves seem to draft the bust of those great college teams.... So who knows...


You think Raymond Felton is more likely to be a bust that Williams or McCants? The guy that created nearly every scoring opportunity Rashad McCants ever got?


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

He is way too inconsistent scoring and shooting wise. He is a smaller version of Jeff McGinnis.McCants has too much of a desire to perform to become a bust. That is what Joe Forte lacked. When it comes down to it, the guy is a work horse. People do not want to see him succeed because he has a crazy attitude. He writes poetry. He writes a bunch of initials on his shoes. Wow he is different... We do not want to see Mr. Different succeed.

But back to the point. You are going to say Griffin won't improve because he isn't a beast downlow? He is only 23 years old.... Of course he is going to work on his low-post game during the summer but when it comes down to it, he is going to work with his strengths. He can score, just not the way you want a 4 to score. He is going to shoot 3s. Some days he will be on and other days he will not. But you can not deny his ability to block shots and rebound. He is, in my eyes, the best shot blocker on this team. The second best rebounder on this team.

Hudson has had more than one good season. He was a 6th man candidate with the Magic. He played well for us when he first showed up. He has been bothered by injuries which has depleated his ability to perform.

Yeah JW, there probably is a lot of "homerism" around here but at the same time this team does have the ability to contend for homecourt advantage in the playoffs.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> He is way too inconsistent scoring and shooting wise. He is a smaller version of Jeff McGinnis.


The same Felton that shot 44% on threes this past season? Come on. The only comparison between McInnis and Felton is the college jersey they wore. Felton is infinitely more explosive off the dribble, while McInnis is more effective due to his size. Felton is a true, TJ Ford style, "makes everyone around him better" PG. That included making Rashad McCants look very, very good in college. McInnis is a scorer. You can't seriously compare the two...



> McCants has too much of a desire to perform to become a bust. That is what Joe Forte lacked. When it comes down to it, the guy is a work horse. People do not want to see him succeed because he has a crazy attitude. He writes poetry. He writes a bunch of initials on his shoes. Wow he is different... We do not want to see Mr. Different succeed.


You say McCants has a desire to perform, but it was Felton that was busting his butt on both ends of the floor, tiring himself out to the point where he could barely walk after games. I really think you should go back and watch some UNC games if you think McCants was the one who showed the heart and desire for the Tar Heels this past season. Rashad showed little intensity on the floor, and rarely did the little things that someone with "too much desire" would normally show. IMO, all he really did was hit the open threes that Felton would create for him. McCants talks about having desire - that's what you are going off of - but every player claims they want to win. Actually developing a winner's mentality is tougher than that. Felton absolutely has it, and McCants is a question mark at best at this point. 



> But back to the point. You are going to say Griffin won't improve because he isn't a beast downlow? He is only 23 years old.... Of course he is going to work on his low-post game during the summer but when it comes down to it, he is going to work with his strengths. He can score, just not the way you want a 4 to score. He is going to shoot 3s. Some days he will be on and other days he will not. But you can not deny his ability to block shots and rebound. He is, in my eyes, the best shot blocker on this team. The second best rebounder on this team.


Why would he all of a sudden change his mentality now? He's had 5 years now to change his mentality. It's not about ability or skill. He has that - he doesn't have the mentality. Griffin could end up playing more in the post - but claiming that it's likely just isn't a statement based in reality - it's a wish. 



> Hudson has had more than one good season. He was a 6th man candidate with the Magic. He played well for us when he first showed up. He has been bothered by injuries which has depleated his ability to perform.


He has had decent seasons on mediocre teams. He's never going to be anything more than an off-the-bench shooting specialist on a good team. He takes too many bad shots, and you really can't play him with Cassell. The less he shoots the better on this team. 



> Yeah JW, there probably is a lot of "homerism" around here but at the same time this team does have the ability to contend for homecourt advantage in the playoffs.


I still haven't seen a single valid reason posted on this thread as to why the Wolves would turn it around. Lots of wishes, though.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Felton is playing the point. He is supposed to get the other players involved. Especcially with a team around him like he had. You are making it sound like McCants has no ability to play basketball... He is just the most dangerous scorer on the collegiate level. 

I never said Griff was going to change the way he plays. He just plays with his strengths. And yes, he may add a little post game to his reputiore. But still he is going to stick to his strengths like he has done every year in his basketball carreer, really why he was picked where he was picked.

Hudson was injured.... You can not contribute to a team when you are hurt. When he came and played the few games he did in 03/04 he played really well. And when Cassell was out for his only game during the regular season against the Nets who had won like 13 straight, who was the guy that shined there? Yeah he played poor last year, but it is hard to come back with the confidence to contribute with a new pg in, getting injured twice the past season, getting ankle surgery, and then all the pressure of performing the next season because they gave you all this money.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> Felton is playing the point. He is supposed to get the other players involved. Especcially with a team around him like he had. You are making it sound like McCants has no ability to play basketball... He is just the most dangerous scorer on the collegiate level.


I would equate this argument about Felton to saying, "Big deal about John Stockton. He was supposed to pass the ball to Karl Malone." It's a downright ridiculous thing to say. If you can't differentiate a PG that has the ability to make his teammates better from one that can't, why even bother attempting to analyze the game? McCants was not the most dangerous scorer in college last year, and I don't think even the most rabid UNC fan would say that. He wasn't even the most dangerous scorer on his own team. He barely averaged 16 ppg, and there is no way you would even attempt to make this claim if he hadn't been drafted by the Wolves. 

For the record, I'm not saying McCants can't play basketball. But to use his desire as an argument for why he's less likely to be a bust than Felton? That's downright absurd. This might be at least a bit up for debate, but I also think it's ridiculous to ignore what Felton has done for McCants over the last 3 years, as far as getting him open looks that a normal PG wouldn't have been able create. 



> I never said Griff was going to change the way he plays. He just plays with his strengths. And yes, he may add a little post game to his reputiore. But still he is going to stick to his strengths like he has done every year in his basketball carreer, really why he was picked where he was picked.


His strengths? Shooting 33% on 3's for your career is a strength? Shooting 24% from 3 after the all-star break is a strength? His strength is outside shooting (33%), but then there's the fact that he's got the physical package to average 17/10 in his sleep if he'd simply take his game inside and play a bit more phsyically. But his athleticism and length aren't his strengths. His strength is shooting. 

Oh yeah, and the fact that the last thing the Wolves need is a big man next to Garnett shooting nothing but threes. Griffin plays to what he thinks are his strengths. Not his strengths. Like I previously said, Griffin has been chucking and missing 3's since he first burst onto the scene in college. This isn't going to change anytime soon, and until it does, he isn't helping the Wolves go anywhere. 

And if you honestly think Griffin was picked because he can shoot 30% on NBA 3-pointers and not because he's 6'10 and can jump out of the gym, there's no reason to continue this debate with you. 



> Hudson was injured.... You can not contribute to a team when you are hurt. When he came and played the few games he did in 03/04 he played really well. And when Cassell was out for his only game during the regular season against the Nets who had won like 13 straight, who was the guy that shined there? Yeah he played poor last year, but it is hard to come back with the confidence to contribute with a new pg in, getting injured twice the past season, getting ankle surgery, and then all the pressure of performing the next season because they gave you all this money.


He still doesn't offer this team what it needs. He'll get hot and hit a few 3's, but the Wolves need a guy to come in off the bench and get other people involved (what a PG is supposed to do, right?) and play some really tough defense (to make up for Cassell's deficiencies). He does neither. There's a reason this team played better last year when Anthony Carter was on the floor.

Hudson is a guy that can average 15 ppg for a bad team, but offers little to a team that is actually attempting to contend. He simply demands too many shooting opportunities to be a good roleplayer.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

I said Griff's strengths are rebounding and shot blocking... He happens to know how to score too. I never said his strength was shooting... Never. 

JW man, I think you are going to be very surprised when you see the Wolves in the upcoming season... There is just too much stuff you are saying that I simply do not have the energy to really comment back because too much comes to mind.

Plus you can't expect McCants to score 20+ ppg with a loaded squad that likes feeding the ball downlow... You just can not.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Until these questions are answered, predicting the Wolves as a top-tier team in the West is pure homeristic speculation.


Who predicted them as a top-tier team in the West? Do you agree that we have a better roster than we did before Sam and Spree, when we had the 4th best record in the NBA? Do you agree that the team won't be infected by cancers who have no interest in helping the team win this year? So why is it so hard to think that they can be somewhere between last year and 2003? Thinking logically you'd say that the team should be better than that 4th best team in the league (record-wise). But nobody is suggesting we'll even be that good.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> I said Griff's strengths are rebounding and shot blocking... He happens to know how to score too. I never said his strength was shooting... Never.


Then just what are you trying to argue here? Just how is Griffin going to make improvements this next season? He hasn't improved one iota in the last five years, but you are saying he's going to improve a lot this year. Have fun in fantasyland...



> JW man, I think you are going to be very surprised when you see the Wolves in the upcoming season... There is just too much stuff you are saying that I simply do not have the energy to really comment back because too much comes to mind.


Go right ahead and try me. Personally, I think pointing out the contradictions of the homers on this thread is a bit too easy. All I'm doing is trying to be levelheaded and realistic about why last year went bad and what is likely to happen this season. You admit yourself that you think the Wolves are going to be better every season. For some god-awful reason, I am able to entertain the possibility that this might not be the case every year. 



> Plus you can't expect McCants to score 20+ ppg with a loaded squad that likes feeding the ball downlow... You just can not.


Ok. Didn't you start this McCants vs Felton debate by talking about how Felton doesn't score consistently enough for you? Was he not the PG (not the SG, even) on this same loaded team as McCants? It's just contradiction after contradiction!

And I can expect if we are going to agree on labelling him the most dangerous scorer in the nation!


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

socco said:


> Who predicted them as a top-tier team in the West?


Did you seriously just ask this question? 



sheefo13 said:


> Well seriously this team is still really good. They simply came out last year thinking too much of themselves. I think we a new, real head coach and some determined players, it is realistic to be the 4 or 3 seed in the west. Ultimatly though, this team needs to worry about getting to the playoffs. This season is really to show which season was the fluke, 03-04 or 04-05....





socco said:


> Yep. Look back a few years ago before we had Sam and Spree, 4th best record in the entire NBA. And our roster right now is much better than that team, and we're without the cancers (once Sam gets traded) that hurt us last year.


Still scratching my head on why you would ask that question when you posted what you posted just a few messages up...



> Do you agree that we have a better roster than we did before Sam and Spree, when we had the 4th best record in the NBA?


No, I don't.



> Do you agree that the team won't be infected by cancers who have no interest in helping the team win this year?


No, I don't. We still have Cassell. Do you think somebody is just going to magically come along, take him off our hands, and give us something of value in return? We still have Eddie Griffin. We still have Wally Szczerbiak who doesn't get along with KG or Cassell. We drafted a potential cancer in McCants. 



> So why is it so hard to think that they can be somewhere between last year and 2003? Thinking logically you'd say that the team should be better than that 4th best team in the league (record-wise). But nobody is suggesting we'll even be that good.


Well, I guess my points about what was wrong with last year's team and how nothing is fixed have gone straight over your head. I think I've explained myself quite clearly, and you have yet to respond to any of it. No response to my very specific reasoning for why this team won't be better, just a "logically, you'd say", with nothing to really back it up. Keep on dreaming, and we'll see what you're saying in January.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Did you seriously just ask this question?


3rd seed=winning the division. not necesarily being a contender.



Jonathan Watters said:


> Still scratching my head on why you would ask that question when you posted what you posted just a few messages up...


Again, that doesn't mean we're gonna contend. I've said numerous times I think we'll be a 5th or 6th seed, but a 4th seed or winning the division is not out of the question at all.



Jonathan Watters said:


> No, I don't.


-EDIT: No Attacking Other Posters! Thanks!
-sheefo13 



Jonathan Watters said:


> No, I don't. We still have Cassell. Do you think somebody is just going to magically come along, take him off our hands, and give us something of value in return? We still have Eddie Griffin. We still have Wally Szczerbiak who doesn't get along with KG or Cassell. We drafted a potential cancer in McCants.


Who says we need something of value for him? And how do you know that now when he doesn't have Spree to team up with against the rest of the team, that he might act alright? And how is Eddie Griffin a cancer, or anything close to it? Wally certainly doesn't get along with Cassell, but he seems to get along just fine with KG now a days. 



Jonathan Watters said:


> Well, I guess my points about what was wrong with last year's team and how nothing is fixed have gone straight over your head.


Nothing is fixed? You know Spree's gone, right? You paying much attention to this team or what? The team can magically get that much worse after one season, but then when we lose those problems we won't get better at all? I don't expect a title, but just as the Wolves turned bad one season they could turn good the next. We still have the talent to do it.



Jonathan Watters said:


> No response to my very specific reasoning for why this team won't be better, just a "logically, you'd say", with nothing to really back it up. Keep on dreaming, and we'll see what you're saying in January.


I've explained it a million times. There is no doubt we have a better roster than we did pre-Spree/Sam. Last year there were players that did not care about winning. We got rid of the biggest problem, and the other main problem may be gone too. Even if he's not it's very possible that he'll get his act together. He's gonna see how little money Spree will get this summer, and won't want the same thing for himself. Now there's definately a chance that we could have those same attitude problems, but after such a pathetic season like that, the players know they have to get their act together. I'm not gonna guarantee anything, you can't with this team, but we can be good.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

socco said:


> 3rd seed=winning the division. not necesarily being a contender.
> 
> 
> Again, that doesn't mean we're gonna contend. I've said numerous times I think we'll be a 5th or 6th seed, but a 4th seed or winning the division is not out of the question at all.


Now you are just splitting hairs. Top-tier team, winning the division, whatever. Usually when people are losing an argument they tend to try and turn things into a semantics discussion. 



> Then you're an idiot.


They also resort to name-calling and other childish attempts to avoid the real issues. 



> And how do you know that now when he doesn't have Spree to team up with against the rest of the team, that he might act alright?


Oh, there's the outside chance that Spree's removal will change things. But to act like it's guaranteed or even likely to happen? Please. It's something to hope for, but not something to count on. 



> And how is Eddie Griffin a cancer, or anything close to it?


Did you know anything about Eddie Griffin before he joined the Wovles? Did you know he existed? 



> Nothing is fixed? You know Spree's gone, right? You paying much attention to this team or what? The team can magically get that much worse after one season, but then when we lose those problems we won't get better at all?


So basically, all the Wolves problems were Latrell Spreewell. No offensive rebounds? Spree. No easy baskets in the post? Spree. No fast break points? Spree. Fantasyland must be nice. 



> I don't expect a title, but just as the Wolves turned bad one season they could turn good the next. We still have the talent to do it.


I will ask you this again, though I doubt you will respond to it. If the Wolves are going to get back to their division-winning ways of two seasons ago, wouldn't you agree that a content Spree was a major part of that success two years ago? And where is Spree today? 



> I've explained it a million times. There is no doubt we have a better roster than we did pre-Spree/Sam.


No, you haven't. Tell me how we have a better roster. We might have as much individual talent as we did three seasons ago, but our "team" has glaring holes that didn't exist back then. 



> Last year there were players that did not care about winning. We got rid of the biggest problem, and the other main problem may be gone too. Even if he's not it's very possible that he'll get his act together. He's gonna see how little money Spree will get this summer, and won't want the same thing for himself. Now there's definately a chance that we could have those same attitude problems, but after such a pathetic season like that, the players know they have to get their act together. I'm not gonna guarantee anything, you can't with this team, but we can be good.


Again, this is a wish, nothing based on the reality of the situation. How many times have you ever seen a team completely implode to the point of having to get a new coach and then immediately pull it back together the next season? For any of this to be more than pure hope on the part of the fans, you would have to be in the locker room, and actually know that Spree was the #1 root cause of everything negative that happened last season. You weren't. It's not impossible for a miraculous turnaround to happen, but it certainly would be miraculous. To expect it or claim that it's going to happen is just absurd. It's homerism, plain and simple. 

It takes more than one player to destroy a team's chemistry, and getting rid of Spree isn't guaranteed to change anything. Not to mention the fact that team chemisty isn't the reason we were destroyed near the basket, didn't fast break at all, didn't get to the line and played no perimeter defense. This is a team with serious, serious issues. I am willing to recognize them, instead of living in fantasyland the entire offseason.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Guys, how bout we stop trying to bash each other. This is not about who WINS the conversation... Get to the point, do not bash each other. JW, we respect your opinion, but don't come here and post to simply get on others nerves. Socco man, no name-calling either. Lets have a discussion here, if this thing turns out to be a poster bashing thread, its getting closed.




> How many times have you ever seen a team completely implode to the point of having to get a new coach and then immediately pull it back together the next season?


Just a couple years ago the Nets won about 13 or more games straight when they hired Lawrence Frank in the middle of the season... The Wolves ended that streak, when Cassell got hurt the game before and Huddy went on a tear.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> Guys, how bout we stop trying to bash each other. This is not about who WINS the conversation... Get to the point, do not bash each other. JW, we respect your opinion, but don't come here and post to simply get on others nerves.


Well, excuse me for having the nerve to post negatively about your beloved team. I think I have the right to disagree with the optimists that can't back up their opinions. If the people I am disagreeing with could actually back up their opinions, I wouldn't be so ornery about it. The fact of the matter is that I will tell it like I actually see it, and not let my desire to see the Wolves win cloud my judgement. 

You can go back and check my record on these boards. I was as optimistic as anybody when the Wolves acquired Cassell/Spree/Olo. I defended the Wolves against all sorts of naysayers on the main NBA board after the big trades were made. However, I'm not going to blindly support every move the team makes just because I want to see them succeed. It seems like that really bothers people here...



> Just a couple years ago the Nets won about 13 or more games straight when they hired Lawrence Frank in the middle of the season... The Wolves ended that streak, when Cassell got hurt the game before and Huddy went on a tear.


This is almost an example. 

It's not a situation where the team had completely melted down, becuase it was still the middle of the season and the Nets were still on pace to make the playoffs. Of course, McHale made a similar decision last season, and it failed. You are right in that it has happened, but you you know full well that it is the absolute exception to the rule when it does happen.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Pal, I never said you couldn't disagree, I just asked if you are here to just make everyone else mad, then do not bring it here. Seriously though, enough with the individual attacks. We do not need you to say "the people on this board" etc etc.. As you being a fellow mod, I would think you would understand the concept.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Now you are just splitting hairs. Top-tier team, winning the division, whatever. Usually when people are losing an argument they tend to try and turn things into a semantics discussion.


Top tier team=contending to win the division. I didn't consider the Sonics a top tier team last year, because even though they were the 3rd seed, I didn't think they had a realistic shot at getting to the Finals.



Jonathan Watters said:


> They also resort to name-calling and other childish attempts to avoid the real issues.


What? You claim the Wolves roster isn't better at all than it was pre-Sam/Spree, which is one of the bigger points of my argument, and give absolutely no explanation to it.



Jonathan Watters said:


> Oh, there's the outside chance that Spree's removal will change things. But to act like it's guaranteed or even likely to happen? Please. It's something to hope for, but not something to count on.


I don't think it's guaranteed. In fact, here's a quote of mine from that post "I'm not gonna guarantee anything, you can't with this team, but we can be good." It's very possible that we'll be in the same position we were this year, trying to scrap for a playoff spot. But I don't think we will.



Jonathan Watters said:


> Did you know anything about Eddie Griffin before he joined the Wovles? Did you know he existed?


So now you insult my intelligence. Yes I know quite a bit about Eddie. I know about his incident with his girlfriend, I know about him getting in fights with a teammate, but I also know about him not having any of those problems here.



Jonathan Watters said:


> So basically, all the Wolves problems were Latrell Spreewell. No offensive rebounds? Spree. No easy baskets in the post? Spree. No fast break points? Spree. Fantasyland must be nice.


No. But alot of our problems did have to do with Spree. The team didn't give effort last year, and that starts with Spree. I don't expect us to be flawless, I don't expect us to contend, and I think the high end of what we could do is winning the division if it's weak, or getting a 5th seed or so.



Jonathan Watters said:


> I will ask you this again, though I doubt you will respond to it. If the Wolves are going to get back to their division-winning ways of two seasons ago, wouldn't you agree that a content Spree was a major part of that success two years ago? And where is Spree today?


Division winning? You mean conference winning? Pre-Spree/Sam we had the best record of any teams currently in our division (that was back with just 2 divisions). I don't think even under the best case scenario that we get back where we were 2 years ago, I think under teh best case scenario we can get back to where we were 3 years ago, even though we have a better team. Yet I'm supposedly being unrealistic here?



Jonathan Watters said:


> No, you haven't. Tell me how we have a better roster. We might have as much individual talent as we did three seasons ago, but our "team" has glaring holes that didn't exist back then.


Tell me how we don't? You haven't even addressed the subject.



Jonathan Watters said:


> Again, this is a wish, nothing based on the reality of the situation. How many times have you ever seen a team completely implode to the point of having to get a new coach and then immediately pull it back together the next season? For any of this to be more than pure hope on the part of the fans, you would have to be in the locker room, and actually know that Spree was the #1 root cause of everything negative that happened last season. You weren't. It's not impossible for a miraculous turnaround to happen, but it certainly would be miraculous. To expect it or claim that it's going to happen is just absurd. It's homerism, plain and simple.


Miraculous turn around is going from the 9th best team to the 5th or 6th best team? Because that's what I've been predicting. If we do better than I expect, I think it's possible to win the division. If we do worse than I expect, I think it's possible to miss the playoffs. I don't expect the Wolves to win the division, or claim they will, that's just the high end. You can insult people and call them homers all you want, but you're just doing the opposite of what you claim, anti-homerism if you will. 



Jonathan Watters said:


> It takes more than one player to destroy a team's chemistry, and getting rid of Spree isn't guaranteed to change anything. Not to mention the fact that team chemisty isn't the reason we were destroyed near the basket, didn't fast break at all, didn't get to the line and played no perimeter defense. This is a team with serious, serious issues. I am willing to recognize them, instead of living in fantasyland the entire offseason.


So explain to me how this team went from having very few problems, probably being the best team in the league, to a team that is severely flawed and has no future unless they completely revamp the roster in one season? And while doing that please try not to insult my intelligence like you have done time after time after time. Just because you clevelry try to disguise it instead of flat out saying it like I did doesn't mean you're not doing it.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

socco said:


> Top tier team=contending to win the division. I didn't consider the Sonics a top tier team last year, because even though they were the 3rd seed, I didn't think they had a realistic shot at getting to the Finals.


It's still splitting hairs. You claimed you didn't say something that you did, and now you are trying to use semantics to get out of it. 



> What? You claim the Wolves roster isn't better at all than it was pre-Sam/Spree, which is one of the bigger points of my argument, and give absolutely no explanation to it.


It's a major point of your argument, and you have yet to back it up. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Personally, I feel the roster was more balanced 3 seasons ago, and the bottom of the WC is improved. But I'm just an idiot, right? 



> I don't think it's guaranteed. In fact, here's a quote of mine from that post "I'm not gonna guarantee anything, you can't with this team, but we can be good." It's very possible that we'll be in the same position we were this year, trying to scrap for a playoff spot. But I don't think we will.


And like I said, thinking that we'll be doing anything more than scrapping for a playoff spot just doesn't make sense. It's always possible, but it's wishful thinking. The loss of Spree making everybody better is pure conjecture, and he actually did contribute on the court somewhat last season. We also lose his primary backup. 



> So now you insult my intelligence. Yes I know quite a bit about Eddie. I know about his incident with his girlfriend, I know about him getting in fights with a teammate, but I also know about him not having any of those problems here.


Well, don't play dumb when I mention a guy who has been very much a chemistry problem nearly everywhere he has been in the past as potential chemsitry problem. Then I won't have to insult your intelligence. By the way, did you read the espn.com article on the Madsen signing? McHale says he is "moving down the list", and Eddie Griffin is unsigned. What does it say about Eddie Griffin when Mark Madsen is higher up the list? 



> No. But alot of our problems did have to do with Spree. The team didn't give effort last year, and that starts with Spree. I don't expect us to be flawless, I don't expect us to contend, and I think the high end of what we could do is winning the division if it's weak, or getting a 5th seed or so.


Why did it start with Spree? Whose to say Cassell, Hudson, or Wally's inability to get along with anybody wasn't just as big of a problem? Team chemistry is a team problem. There's no reason to think that just because Spree is gone, Griffin, Cassell, and Hudson are going to pull their heads out of their butts. In fact, I think that's selling those players a bit short. They played lousy because Spree was around?



> Division winning? You mean conference winning? Pre-Spree/Sam we had the best record of any teams currently in our division (that was back with just 2 divisions). I don't think even under the best case scenario that we get back where we were 2 years ago, I think under teh best case scenario we can get back to where we were 3 years ago, even though we have a better team. Yet I'm supposedly being unrealistic here?


Again, what makes you think we have a better team? You haven't addressed this at all, and just expect me to blindly take it as fact. You admit it's one of the major points of your argument. Tell me why our current team is so much better? 

You have yet to tell me why the absolute facts behind Minnesota's failures a season ago will change. Lack of offensive rebounding. Lack of easy buckets. Lack of a fast break. Last of free throw attempts. No perimeter defense. How does the lack of Spree and us having a better roster than before the "Big 3" era solve these problems? 



> Miraculous turn around is going from the 9th best team to the 5th or 6th best team? Because that's what I've been predicting. If we do better than I expect, I think it's possible to win the division. If we do worse than I expect, I think it's possible to miss the playoffs. I don't expect the Wolves to win the division, or claim they will, that's just the high end. You can insult people and call them homers all you want, but you're just doing the opposite of what you claim, anti-homerism if you will.


I have nothing against the Wolves. They are my home team. I defended them passionately on the main boards after McHale got flack for originally acquiring Cassell, Spree, and Olo. The difference is, I actually thought they were going to do something that season. I'm able to see through my desire to see my team win, and look at things realistically. Labelling me anti-homer is fine by me, because as I know from years of experience, homers are rarely right at this time of year. I prefer to think of myself as anti-bias. 


So explain to me how this team went from having very few problems, probably being the best team in the league, to a team that is severely flawed and has no future unless they completely revamp the roster in one season? And while doing that please try not to insult my intelligence like you have done time after time after time. Just because you clevelry try to disguise it instead of flat out saying it like I did doesn't mean you're not doing it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## kentuckyfan13 (Dec 26, 2003)

you need to stop this thread sheffo its getting to be a huge argument.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> It's still splitting hairs. You claimed you didn't say something that you did, and now you are trying to use semantics to get out of it.


Um, no. 



Jonathan Watters said:


> And like I said, thinking that we'll be doing anything more than scrapping for a playoff spot just doesn't make sense. It's always possible, but it's wishful thinking. The loss of Spree making everybody better is pure conjecture, and he actually did contribute on the court somewhat last season. We also lose his primary backup.


The loss of Spree making everybody better is pure conjecture? I guess my idiot comments really do apply. They were really meant just because you completely ignored a huge part of what I'm saying, but maybe those words were in fact correct. From the looks of it you think it's a stretch to say that losing Spree will make this team better. And to that, I am speachless.




Jonathan Watters said:


> Well, don't play dumb when I mention a guy who has been very much a chemistry problem nearly everywhere he has been in the past as potential chemsitry problem. Then I won't have to insult your intelligence. By the way, did you read the espn.com article on the Madsen signing? McHale says he is "moving down the list", and Eddie Griffin is unsigned. What does it say about Eddie Griffin when Mark Madsen is higher up the list?


Well, when he's had absolutely no signs of anything close to chemistry problems here, it's just you being as negative as you possibly can be. That's what you're doing. You insult everybody else for supposedly being so positive, yet you do the same thing in the other direction. I agree with alot of the things you've said, but they're all the worst case scenario. That's fine if you expect the worse case scenario to become reality, it certainly might end up that way, but don't insult everybody else for disagreeing. And why does it matter if Madsen was higher on the list in terms of signings than Griffin? Again, you being as negative as possible. You can be that way if you like, I am like that at times too, but don't blow up on the rest of the people here for having a positive attitude.



Jonathan Watters said:


> Why did it start with Spree? Whose to say Cassell, Hudson, or Wally's inability to get along with anybody wasn't just as big of a problem? Team chemistry is a team problem. There's no reason to think that just because Spree is gone, Griffin, Cassell, and Hudson are going to pull their heads out of their butts. In fact, I think that's selling those players a bit short. They played lousy because Spree was around?


"Why would I want to help this team win a championship?" End of discussion.



Jonathan Watters said:


> Again, what makes you think we have a better team? You haven't addressed this at all, and just expect me to blindly take it as fact. You admit it's one of the major points of your argument. Tell me why our current team is so much better?


I expect you to use your head and realize the obvious. But once again you take the most negative possible approach to the upcoming season. To you it doesn't matter if our roster is better now than it was then. 



Jonathan Watters said:


> You have yet to tell me why the absolute facts behind Minnesota's failures a season ago will change. Lack of offensive rebounding. Lack of easy buckets. Lack of a fast break. Last of free throw attempts. No perimeter defense. How does the lack of Spree and us having a better roster than before the "Big 3" era solve these problems?


And you have yet to tell me how we magically went from maybe the best team in the league to being a team with a gigantic amount of holes in it.



Jonathan Watters said:


> I have nothing against the Wolves. They are my home team. I defended them passionately on the main boards after McHale got flack for originally acquiring Cassell, Spree, and Olo. The difference is, I actually thought they were going to do something that season. I'm able to see through my desire to see my team win, and look at things realistically. Labelling me anti-homer is fine by me, because as I know from years of experience, homers are rarely right at this time of year. I prefer to think of myself as anti-bias.


I'm not saying you have anything against the Wolves. You just for whatever reason chose to take the most negative possible approach to the upcoming season. That in itself is fine, but when you start insulting everybody else on this board for having any hope at all for this team, that's where you're wrong.


As for 2003 vs now: I'd say the center position is slightly better right now. Kandi and Rasho are about the same, but Griffin has the edge on Jack. I liked what Jackson brought to us, though he was completely out of control at times, but the Griffin/KG combo is going to be a really good one, as shown by their success together last year. Smith backing up KG is better than Madsen backing up KG, but Garnett has improved alot since 2003. And I expect him to have a probably his best season yet, i don't think he liked all the losing. Wally had one of his best seasons last year, and is just slightly ahead of his 2003 version. Right now we don't really know who will be backing him up, but Peeler and Gill didn't give a whole lot to him back then. Plus he did so well last year coming off the bench, and in sometimes sporatic minutes. Getting the clear job as starting SF should make him even better. At SG it's pretty even. Trenton and AP are equal, Trenton with the slight edge in defense, but Peeler's 3 point shooting makes up for it. At PG it's tough to tell, because we don't know how we'll be this year. Huddy was pretty good, and Strickland was alright backing him up. But it looks like Troy has finally healed from his ankle injury that still bothered him all last season, and hopefully Sam is healthy as well. If so, it's a huge advantage for now.

Now what's going to happen with how they mesh on the court? There's no way to tell. All I said is that we have a better roster right now. On paper, I think that's pretty clear. Of course we have holes, but we had them back then too. You need to not look at everything so negatively. It's alright to be critical, but don't insult others for looking at it realistically, that's all.



kentuckyfan13 said:


> you need to stop this thread sheffo its getting to be a huge argument.


All I'm asking is for him not to insult the posters of this board for having any bit of optimism on the upcoming season. Doesn't seem to far fetched to me, I guess not.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Consider this thread closed.


----------

