# Timberwolves Organization: Cheap?



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Currently, according to the information at the Hoopshype website, we are ranked with the 17th largest payroll in the NBA at around $57.5 million. There are 16 teams in the NBA that pay their players more money than the Wolves pay _their_ players. Of the 16 teams with higher payrolls, 9 of the teams are over .500 with Philly 1 game under, but the 9 should include Houston and Sacramento. Houston, being troubled with injuries all season long should be a top 6 team in the west when healthy. Sacramento, the acquisition of Artest makes them a playoff team next season.

The Dallas Mavericks are spending $96.6 million this season for a championship and to fill those seats. The Knicks? Roughly $125.9 million. The Sixers are spending $83.7 million and they are barely a .500 ball club.

Sure, the Detroit Pistons are spending only $1 million more and have the best record in the NBA. But their players (Tayshaun, Billups, Ben Wallace) are due for hefty contracts in the near future. The Suns? Amare is still on his rookie contract, his salary will be $10 million more for the Suns...putting them in the top 10 highest payrolls.

All of this is happening while the Glen Taylor has one Superstar (Kevin Garnett - about $20 mil/yr) along with his "average" players and their average contracts try to lead this team to victory. Ricky Davis, Mark Blount, Troy Hudson, Marko Jaric, Trenton Hassell all make close to what is the MLE (roughly $5.0 mil/yr), the average contract. 

You can't be cheap and expect to win a lot of games. Teams that are winning on low payrolls have great players still on rookie contracts (doesn't apply to the Wolves) or have TWO high salary players (Washington - Jamison&Arenas) along with cheap ($4/5 million/year) players...again, the Wolves don't have this.

Would it hurt to spend another $10 million on a top player to get us to the next level? Apparently not, as about half of the other NBA teams do it. 

Build a better team, Taylor.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

The Wolves had two high salary players the last four years.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Now they don't, now look where they're at in the seedings.

When they did, look where they went.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Flanders said:


> Now they don't, now look where they're at in the seedings.
> 
> When they did, look where they went.


Just a few weeks ago we did have two big salaries, and look at where we were in the standings.

Well, we were 5th last year and where did that get us? Money doesn't equal wins. 

And Taylor just traded our two big expiring contracts (Kandi and Cassell) for big long contracts (Jaric and Blount).

The main difference between the salaries this year and last year is Spree's contract coming off the books. We could've had Baron Davis with that, so the front office is certainly to blame there. But still, calling Glen Taylor cheap is an extremely unfair criticism.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Wait a minute there, is Glen Taylor responsible for all this salary dilemma? Who does all the work with the roster, making trades, sign free agents, etc? That would go to a general manager.

I don't understand.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Now they don't, now look where they're at in the seedings.


I see. I don't think 1st round exits are really that auspicious, either, but hey, that's just me.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

> *Money doesn't equal wins.*


It has to play a role in the Wolves losing somehow. This team doesn't have enough talent on the floor, that's because the organization has the 17th largest payroll...certainly not enough to win ball games. We are supposed to be an established franchise, and with low payroll, we can't win ball games. You can say that the Knicks have the largest payroll in the league and are the worst team, but that doesn't account for the salaries of Penny Hardaway, Alan Houston, Antonio Davis, and even Mo Taylor...all players (except for Mo) that are either just about done with their career and are there for financial plans for the future...that's about $50 million in expiring contracts. That doesn't even include players such as Jerome Williams, Malik Rose, Shandon Anderson, Jerome James...all of whom are under horrible contracts. 

This would then lead to the argument that Glen Taylor and co. (Glen Taylor DOES indeed run the team, as he has the power to veto any deal that the GM desires...) are doing a horrible job signing free agents and making trades. I remember reading an article where it reads that Glen Taylor was not interested in Steve Francis because he's "being paid too much". Could Steve Francis have helped this team? Absolutely. 

Money, I'll agree, doesn't equal everything...but I am firm to believe that it has a MAJOR role in how well a team does. And we aren't doing too well at the moment.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> I see. I don't think 1st round exits are really that auspicious, either, but hey, that's just me.


Don't forget that WCF run during the only year the Wolves had top money players. Also, those first round exits include rosters filled with players such as Gary Trent, Rod Strickland, Kendall Gill, Joe Smith, and Anthony Peeler.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Please, let me also show you guys this information:

(the number before the words "Minnesota Timberwolves" are what the Wolves ranked in terms of payroll)

*1999-2000 season*

18. Minnesota Timberwolves $42,132,272


*2000-2001 season*

20. Minnesota Timberwolves $47,176,000


*2001-2002 season*

10. Minnesota Timberwolves $54,559,632


*2002-2003 season*

9. Minnesota Timberwolves $58,473,004


*2003-2004 season (WCF run season)*

4. Minnesota Timberwolves *$70,589,120*

*2004-2005 season*

6. Minnesota Timberwolves _$70,744,870_

- Well, we all know what happened last season. Sam Cassell got injured, management did not want to pay the players (who helped us get to the WCF) the salary they desired...so they played poorly, perhaps purposely.


It is no coincidence that the Wolves made the WCF when the payroll exceeded $70 million. During the previous seasons, as you can see, the Wolves paid roughly $40-$58 million to win ball games. Throw in another $12 million dollars and you've got success. 

So, would it help to get another $12 million player? Sure.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Juxtaposed said:


> Wait a minute there, is Glen Taylor responsible for all this salary dilemma? Who does all the work with the roster, making trades, sign free agents, etc? That would go to a general manager.
> 
> I don't understand.


The owner doesn't necessarily determine what players are on the team, but he does determine how much those players get paid. 



Flanders said:


> It has to play a role in the Wolves losing somehow. This team doesn't have enough talent on the floor, that's because the organization has the 17th largest payroll...certainly not enough to win ball games.


Again, how do you explain last season? The money was given out, and they didn't come close to playing decent. 

And it's not like we're cheap at all. The Wolves are right at the luxury tax limit. Adding another $10Mil means adding another $20Mil. There's only 10 teams over the luxury tax, the next 10 or so are teams that are right at the luxury tax, and that includes us. Plus we just lost a couple million in the Wally trade. There's essentially no difference between 17th and 11th.



Flanders said:


> So, would it help to get another $12 million player? Sure.


You can't just get a $12Mil player. It doesn't work like that. You have to give up $12Mil to get $12Mil. The onlly way to take on salary is to trade short contracts for long contracts. And that's just what we've done, trading Cassell and Olowokandi for Jaric and Blount.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

> *Again, how do you explain last season?* The money was given out, and they didn't come close to playing decent.


With this:



> 2004-2005 season
> 
> 6. Minnesota Timberwolves $70,744,870
> 
> - Well, we all know what happened last season. Sam Cassell got injured, management did not want to pay the players (who helped us get to the WCF) the salary they desired...so they played poorly, perhaps purposely.



It certainly would have helped had we traded Sprewell last season, instead of letting him walk...for nothing, wouldn't it? Could have gotten an All Star, that's for sure.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Flanders said:


> It certainly would have helped had we traded Sprewell last season, instead of letting him walk...for nothing, wouldn't it? Could have gotten an All Star, that's for sure.


Yes it would've helped. But you can't label them cheap just because they didn't want to take on a huge salary after (during, but the season was over by then) a horrible season like that. You can't expect them to constantly shell out money and never care about it.


----------



## The King of the World (Dec 28, 2003)

Obviously adding good players would help, and obviously good players don't come cheap. Like Socco said, it's not like McHale can just go out, pick out a player who makes $12mil and pick him up...there would have to be a trade involved, and outside of Davis (who I list here because I would drop him in a second if it gave us the chance to land a top tier player like Ray Allen or Pierce), Hassell and Griffin, we just don't have that many tradeable assets (I'm not counting KG or Banks...they should not be traded). We can say all we want that the Wolves should trade Hudson, and trade Jaric, and trade whoever else...but really, can you see many teams lining up to trade good players for some combination of our overpaid scrubs? And really, are there many teams looking to dump players that are useful? The majority of the highly paid players that are available are available because they are underproducing...just like Hudson, Jaric, and the rest of the chumps that WE want to have moved. Basically, I don't fault the front office for not trading for an overpriced second-tier "superstar". I do, however, fault them for compiling a roster of players that makes it nearly impossible to trade for a legit difference maker.

I agree that Francis would help the team, but he's not the answer either. Having Francis on the team still wouldn't elevate the team past the 5th or 6th seed, especially when you consider that we'd have to trade what decent players we have just to get him. He's just another one of those second tier superstars. If we can get him for Jaric, Hudson, and a sign and traded Spree, go for it...otherwise it's pointless.


----------



## The King of the World (Dec 28, 2003)

We did get a $5 million (I think) trade exception from Boston in the Davis/Wally trade that can be used before next January. If we have any hope of possibly landing a decent player for the pittance that we can offer, that's it. Seattle's ownership is crying over losing money...offer Jaric, Hassell and the trade exception for Ray. Seattle needs defenders, and they would come cheaper than Ray does. Plus, without Ray's $80 million salary, they can start to rebuild. Just throwing ideas around, as unlikely as they are.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

> Please, let me also show you guys this information:
> 
> (the number before the words "Minnesota Timberwolves" are what the Wolves ranked in terms of payroll)
> 
> ...


Did anyone not read this post? Here is clear evidence that shows when you pay big money for a team, you usually succeed. It is *NO COINCIDENCE*. Timberwolves management is cheap. The Wolves had a legit opportunity to grab an All Star last season (Baron Davis) if they traded Sprewell. There is no question about that. _IF_ they traded him though. Save lots of money or get a player to help this team get better? Obviously management chose the first option.

If there is anyone not going to acknowledge that the truth behind these _facts_, then I've said all I can say on this particular topic.


----------



## The King of the World (Dec 28, 2003)

Flanders said:


> Did anyone not read this post? Here is clear evidence that shows when you pay big money for a team, you usually succeed. It is *NO COINCIDENCE*. Timberwolves management is cheap. The Wolves had a legit opportunity to grab an All Star last season (Baron Davis) if they traded Sprewell. There is no question about that. _IF_ they traded him though. Save lots of money or get a player to help this team get better? Obviously management chose the first option.
> 
> If there is anyone not going to acknowledge that the truth behind these _facts_, then I've said all I can say on this particular topic.


How does that prove that paying more for a team equates success? The Wolves didn't win more games in the WCF season because they spent a certain amount on players...they won because they added players that fit the dynamic of the team well. It just so happens that they paid more for them. The Lakers have a payroll of nearly $73 million...their second high paid player doesn't fit the dynamic of the team (well, Team Kobe anyway), and as a result they're average at best. Philly's payroll is over $83 million this season, and they're healthy, and they're still just as bad as the Wolves are. Why? AI and Webber just don't mesh. And I won't bother getting into the Knicks. That said, I agree with you that you have to spend money to win games. You can't build a championship calibur team on $50 million. 

I also agree that letting Spree's contract expire rather than trying to trade him to a team wanting cap relief was a wasted opportunity...absolutely a sign of a GM being all too willing to wallow in mediocrity. But it would depend what kind of player they would have traded for. If you think that going and paying $12 million for Shareef Abdur-Rahim is gonna put us over the top, you're crazy. Same with Steve Francis, Baron Davis, or 80% of the other players out there who make that kind of money. It's gotta be somebody who can be Sam Cassell in the fourth quarter of a close game. Like I said a few weeks ago, this team misses Sam more than anyone on the team (outside of probably KG) will ever admit.

If they have the opportunity to pick up a player that can close out a game like Sam could, and McHale passes up the chance, I'd fly down there and shoot him myself. But why load the team up with more untradeable "assets" if it's not gonna be a building block towards a championship?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Flanders said:


> Did anyone not read this post? Here is clear evidence that shows when you pay big money for a team, you usually succeed. It is *NO COINCIDENCE*. Timberwolves management is cheap. The Wolves had a legit opportunity to grab an All Star last season (Baron Davis) if they traded Sprewell. There is no question about that. _IF_ they traded him though. Save lots of money or get a player to help this team get better? Obviously management chose the first option.
> 
> If there is anyone not going to acknowledge that the truth behind these _facts_, then I've said all I can say on this particular topic.


Um, they were in the middle of a season with a very large payroll where they weren't succeeding. It's completely understandable that Taylor wouldn't want to dish out that much more money for a guy with serious injury problems during such a disastrous season. The fact that he gave up his expiring contracts this season for long term deals clearly shows that this franchise is not cheap.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

I give up. If I'm going to debate whether or not Timberwolves management isn't doing a good job of running a team (which they aren't) and have posters defend that management (the same management that has yet to build a respectable team around Garnett)...then I give up, really. :no:


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Huh? You can say that they're not doing a good job running the team, you're right there. But that doesn't give you free reign to criticize anything and everything about them. They're bad, but that doesn't mean they're cheap.


----------



## The King of the World (Dec 28, 2003)

I agree with Socco...they're bad, but not because they're cheap. I'm sure that they would spend money on the right players...so, which team is willing to give up a productive contributer so they can take on our overpaid underperformers?


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Timberwolves are a cheap organiztion.


----------



## JBoog35 (Nov 21, 2005)

It's all about the cap man, the most we can give one player this offseason is 5 mil with the MLE, not Taylor's fault. This team will never have cap room with KG's contract. The only thing to do is trade, but none of our assets are any good, we got stuck in this position because of McHale's bad management, not because Taylor won't pony up the dough, and I take a little offense to that. Keep in mind this is the man who offered to buy the Vikings just to keep them in Minnesota. Not Taylor's fault, If he could spend 20 mil this offseason, I am sure he would, we're stuck with a bad team, no assets, and no cap room, all McHale, can't stress it enough.


----------

