# Gerald Green



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

What's the deal on him, I don't see any Timberwolves games so I'm curious. Why doesn't he get more playing time?


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

same here?


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

The coaching staff and commentators say that the reason his time has been limited (at least until quite recently when McCants and Jaric were out sick) is that 1) he was slow to pick up the offense, 2) he was slow to pick up the defense, 3) he is a generally poor defender and 4) he gets too worked up about every good or bad thing, and so can't maintain his cool and just keep playing hard and smart.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

He's athletically as gifted as almost anyone, and has a nice stroke... other then that, defensively, ball movement, rebounds, dribbling he struggles.

There is potential there, but with such a young team only so many guys can get a run if we want to be competitive and we are far better off trying to develop telfair, mccants, smith.... even Richard as opposed to green at this point, his bbiq is next to nothing


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

The thing is, hes shown he could play in this league. Hes avg more than some of the guys you have in front of him


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

^ I struggle with that, and go back and forth, honestly. What has he shown? That he can score in double figures--and give up more than he gets--on a terrible team, without doing anything other than getting those points. In other words, he has shown he can do what about 50 other guys could step in and do if plugged into a wing spot. There are a LOT of athletic wings who can score some points at the NBA level who are picking up D-League, CBA and overseas paychecks.

That said, Green is a better athlete than the vast majority of them. He's got a purer stroke than the vast majority of them. And he's got ideal size. Plus, he's young. So then you start asking, well, is he worth more investment? Maybe.

But then you ask how he's gotten better...and he really hasn't. You realize his issues are primarily the same effort- and mental issues that he's always had, and you wonder why he isn't improving on them.

So really, I struggle with it. I probably would have picked up his fourth-year option, meaning we hang on to him next season for $2.2 million (or whatever it was--something like that) and learn a little more about him. Instead he's a free agent and we'll be bidding for his services if we decide we like him. 

For me, it comes down to indecision. I don't think he's a bust or a lost cause, but I don't think he's proved he's any kind of centerpiece of the future, or even one of the key building blocks.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

He should at least get a shot. But McHale doesn't like him, in fact he wasn't interested in him when Ainge was trying to sway the KG deal during summer league. McHale doesn't like him, so he probably told Whittman not to play him. But he should get a chance because McCants is not a starter quality shooting guard.

Green's pretty rad in 2k8 by the way


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Mateo said:


> Green's pretty rad in 2k8 by the way


That's funny.

I do believe you're right, by the way. Like I said, I understand some hesitation about him, but I don't think there was a good reason not to take his fourth-year option and _really_ find out.

Re McCants, though, I'm not set on saying he's not a quality starter, either. I sort of doubt it, but due to his scoring ability, tenacity on both ends (sometimes) and pretty decent passing, I am encouraged somewhat: he can be a legitimate, valuable NBA rotation player, at the very least. That's more than Green has proved. And while Green hasn't had a shot here, he did get an extended audition last year in Boston. (But then, of course, the youth argument comes in again, and a person would question whether an audition at age 19 or 20 even matters...)

Anyway, I'd have picked up the option and would be playing him a lot more than they are. And either this or next trade deadline, I'd probably move one of those two.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

It seems like Gerald Green should have just went to college if nothing else but to gain discipline. I guess he's just another player who could benefit from the Phil Jacksons and Greg Popovichs of the basketball world, someone who could discipline him without isolating him from the rest of the team.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Nightmute said:


> It seems like Gerald Green should have just went to college.


Like 99.9% of the rest of high school star players...

Unless there is a true minor league or some other, different developmental system, almost everyone should go to college for basketball purposes. Even some of those guys who have worked out in the pros (Jermaine O'Neal, for example) probably should have. Almost nobody is ready to earn his money as an NBA player by contributing to the team at that level right out of high school.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

It's easier for an outsider to say that so and so should go to college. When millions of dollars are placed in front of you especially if you're not from a wealthy family, it is very difficult to turn it down. Green was a potential lottery pick and a definite first rounder, which means guarantee money.

My view is that if you know that you are going to be a first round pick, knowing means guarantee from a team rather than just scouts telling you that you are good enough, you should always choose to go pro. The reason why most young players fail is because they lacked the mental discipline and work ethic. If a player has these attributes, he will do fine in the pros even if he is very raw in terms of basketball skills. If you are willing to do the hard work, there are more opportunities as a pro nowadays to improve your skills than if you are in college. With the D-Leagues that are in place and some teams even send their prospects to Europe for a few years, you will get an opportunity to be playing basketball all the time as oppose to the distractions that you will have being in college. But for those that lack the work ethic, then perhaps staying in college is better though unless they improve in that area, chances are they still won't make it in the NBA.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Believe me, I'm not against guys making their money. In fact, I am not sure that Maurice Clarett's lawsuit wasn't valid, and that it is illegal to prevent anyone who is no longer a minor from making a living.

But I do question the judgment of someone taking the immediate--and admittedly voluminous--cash when he could hold off a year or two and make considerably more. Had Gerald Green gone to Oklahoma St., as planned, he probably would have had the time to develop that defense that currently is lacking (it is a Sutton trademark). And he'd have had a chance to develop those other skills. Maybe he comes out after his sophomore year, in which he probably would have been an All-American. Instead of going 18th in 2005, maybe he goes 5-10th in 2007. His starting salary is higher, and because he's more ready to contribute, the odds of him getting a bigger extension go up dramatically. Instead of a pro career that earns him, say, $8-10 million total, he's getting that on his rookie deal alone, and signs a second deal that nets him another $25 million or more.

My personal opinion is that a true minor league system would be better for all involved, letting the not-academically inclined go pro and make a living while pro teams would have a better chance to develop guys without the play-now/win-now pressure.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

I agree with what you're saying, luther, but the final decision is being made by the players themselves. There is nothing we can do about it but to watch them blossoming into legends or busts.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Who is starting at the 3 spot that a young player with as much upside as Gerald Green isn't starting, I understand he may only be able to shoot the three and dunk but that still seems more then any other small forward on the Timberwolves roster can do.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

No, Corey Brewer is significantly better. Green deserves playing time but let's not go overboard here.


----------



## luther (Nov 2, 2007)

Mateo said:


> No, Corey Brewer is significantly better. Green deserves playing time but let's not go overboard here.


Emphatically 2nded. It's not even close. If you are talking about offensive highlights, Green wins. If you are talking about someone more likely to help you win basketball games, Brewer by far.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

:biggrin: My bad for being an idiot and just checking stats.


----------

