|
Post by levine on Jan 1, 2024 18:16:20 GMT -6
Maybe play him more?
|
|
|
Post by Scorched on Jan 1, 2024 19:00:18 GMT -6
I can't remember that last game where Kyle didn't come in and throw a terrible lob pass to Rudy that ended in a turnover and usually a fast break for the other team.
|
|
|
Post by levine on Jan 1, 2024 19:19:06 GMT -6
I would guess 7 or 8 of our turnovers today were trying to feed Rudy.
|
|
|
Post by kingsxman on Jan 1, 2024 22:01:45 GMT -6
2nd qtr did us in. Great comeback but just not enough. Towns was really good tonight. Knicks are a better team with OG. Toronto might have won the trade but the Knicks are better because of it. I'm not read to say he was "really good" tonight. I thought he was ok but he disappeared for too much of the game. I didnt think anyone was particularily good today.
|
|
|
Post by langcow on Jan 2, 2024 0:30:37 GMT -6
He was always good for us a year or two ago before he got hurt
|
|
jr
Junior Member
Posts: 297
|
Post by jr on Jan 2, 2024 10:24:50 GMT -6
Nah, let's wait til Conley gets a calf strain or pulls a hammy because he needed some rest. Not. I'm having a hard time seeing how valuable Kyle is. There's no place on the floor from which he can't miss a shot, and for all his bball IQ, he can be counted upon to throw away 2-3 passes every game. What has happened to him? Is it the glasses thing? Surely that has a remedy that should have been implemented long ago. I used to feel fairly certain that if he or Conley had the ball, nothing bad will happen. They both were the level headed directors on the floor. Now I see him left totally unguarded on the perimeter for any jump shot because he can not make one, and he knows it. So he always drives and the defense knows it's coming. It's the perfect example of how harmful it is to the offense to have a guy who can't/won't shoot well; the paint gets packed and no one can drive. And unfortunately, he frequently seems to be the last one in a series of passes trying to create an open 3pt shooter.
|
|
|
Post by Bonecrusher on Jan 2, 2024 11:03:34 GMT -6
I'm glad I missed this game it appears.
Now what do we have to offer to Toronto for Quickley and Barrett?
|
|
|
Post by levine on Jan 2, 2024 11:10:11 GMT -6
I'm glad I missed this game it appears. Now what do we have to offer to Toronto for Quickley and Barrett? Probably nothing outside of Ant.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 2, 2024 12:32:24 GMT -6
I’d be looking at Landry Shamet from Wizards. Decent size combo guard who’s a career 40% shooter from three. He’s a young vet who has contributed on winning teams. Makes $10M so Kyle would probably have to go. He doesn’t have a role on the putrid Wizards so will probably be moved. Not sure what it would take- maybe a SRP plus unload WMJ? They’d probably ask for Minott.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 12:45:01 GMT -6
I am confident in games that matter, we will be forced to do more purposeful offense and structure, like we figured out end of Denver series.
Finch likes flow, but it isn't just about an iso scorer in that group, it's about someone that can cue something up, and get into quickly. Which is why J-Mac has such a big impact.
More than shooters, and iso scoring it's how are we generating shots for the Troy Browns, Reids, and NAW's of the world. You can do that with good O, but if we're just going to let folks figure out, you really need both Mac, and Kyle there. Brown and co just aren't going to get into it on their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 12:46:59 GMT -6
I’d be looking at Landry Shamet from Wizards. Decent size combo guard who’s a career 40% shooter from three. He’s a young vet who has contributed on winning teams. Makes $10M so Kyle would probably have to go. He doesn’t have a role on the putrid Wizards so will probably be moved. Not sure what it would take- maybe a SRP plus unload WMJ? They’d probably ask for Minott. Right there has to be some potential upside to what Wizards move anyone for, usually means a pick. Have no idea if Minott has any value, but he would at least be an example of a guy would be worth them flipping Shamet for, taking a flier on. I would like to just see what this looks like with J-Mac for a bit, we're probably not doing anything until the deadline anyway, but adding juice to our second unit offense is equally about purpose as it is make or missing j's.
|
|
|
Post by XRaySpecs on Jan 2, 2024 16:05:15 GMT -6
I’d be looking at Landry Shamet from Wizards. Decent size combo guard who’s a career 40% shooter from three. He’s a young vet who has contributed on winning teams. Makes $10M so Kyle would probably have to go. He doesn’t have a role on the putrid Wizards so will probably be moved. Not sure what it would take- maybe a SRP plus unload WMJ? They’d probably ask for Minott. Shamet has another year left after this and is a sieve defensively. He's been under 38% in four out the last five years and 3s are his only real skill. Seems like he wears out his welcome quickly with every team (probably because of his D). Who would he take minutes from? He's a pass IMO as we don't want to be paying him $11M next year given where are payroll is going.
|
|
|
Post by Nick K on Jan 3, 2024 1:48:27 GMT -6
I’d be looking at Landry Shamet from Wizards. Decent size combo guard who’s a career 40% shooter from three. He’s a young vet who has contributed on winning teams. Makes $10M so Kyle would probably have to go. He doesn’t have a role on the putrid Wizards so will probably be moved. Not sure what it would take- maybe a SRP plus unload WMJ? They’d probably ask for Minott. Shamet has another year left after this and is a sieve defensively. He's been under 38% in four out the last five years and 3s are his only real skill. Seems like he wears out his welcome quickly with every team (probably because of his D). Who would he take minutes from? He's a pass IMO as we don't want to be paying him $11M next year given where are payroll is going.I liked Shamet in the okogie draft. I had De Vincenzo first but he was taken at 18 roughly. We took Josh and I was ok with that as i thought he could shoot the 3. He couldn't shoot chit. Shamet was the better choice but not by much. Offense rules.
I agree with your take. I don't think he can help us. However Shake has been a major disappointment. 11 mil is out of the question.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 3, 2024 9:50:55 GMT -6
You guys could be right, but there’s not a ton of proven shooters available. We’re looking for a shooter off bench who can get buckets when offense bogs down. Malik Beasley is starting for Bucks so it’s not like his defensive deficiencies disqualify him for a bench role. I would think his contract could be moveable after this year but it is a risk.
|
|
|
Post by XRaySpecs on Jan 3, 2024 10:11:36 GMT -6
You guys could be right, but there’s not a ton of proven shooters available. We’re looking for a shooter off bench who can get buckets when offense bogs down. Malik Beasley is starting for Bucks so it’s not like his defensive deficiencies disqualify him for a bench role. I would think his contract could be moveable after this year but it is a risk. Beasley is on a 1 yr vet min deal. Milwaukee isn't trading him. I agree with you though that we need more shooting. I don't see that kind of flamethrower shooter out there though. It seems the best compromise would be to get a PG like Tyus Jones or Monte Morris who are good (maybe not high volume) 3 pt shooters who can add shooting AND can give you 48 min of low TO PG play to keep the offense organized.
|
|
|
Post by levine on Jan 3, 2024 10:29:38 GMT -6
You guys could be right, but there’s not a ton of proven shooters available. We’re looking for a shooter off bench who can get buckets when offense bogs down. Malik Beasley is starting for Bucks so it’s not like his defensive deficiencies disqualify him for a bench role. I would think his contract could be moveable after this year but it is a risk. It'll be interesting to see if the Lillard/Beasley backcourt is tenable in the Playoffs. They've dropped from the #4 Defense last year to #19.
|
|
|
Post by kingsxman on Jan 3, 2024 13:34:54 GMT -6
You guys could be right, but there’s not a ton of proven shooters available. We’re looking for a shooter off bench who can get buckets when offense bogs down. Malik Beasley is starting for Bucks so it’s not like his defensive deficiencies disqualify him for a bench role. I would think his contract could be moveable after this year but it is a risk. its interesting in that we tend to forget how happy we were when we actually got rid of Malik because his D was so bad. I'm going to throw out something thats probably dumb...but just for the sake of argument, lets say we used KAT to get a good volume 3 point shooter who maybe even also plays the 4 and is more a natural 4. Would Lauri Markkenan plus either Sexton or Clarkson interest anyone? We get a great shooter at the 4 and another PG who can hit the 3 off the bench. I also think Markkenan can play the 3. I 100% realize that KAT is at least as good of a 3 point shooter as Markkenan. But....KAT wont shoot them. I was listening to Dane/Chris Hine yesterday complain about how clogged everything is by the basket and how much we need 3 point shooting. If our best 3 point shooter wont shoot them is he providing all the value that he could be to us for 50 million next year? Would Utah be willing to start a rebuild around the best shooting big man in the NBA? Does this even make sense for us? I dont know how Markennans D is however. I dont think its as good as KATs. Just throwing some crap at the wall here...
|
|
|
Post by levine on Jan 3, 2024 13:40:59 GMT -6
You guys could be right, but there’s not a ton of proven shooters available. We’re looking for a shooter off bench who can get buckets when offense bogs down. Malik Beasley is starting for Bucks so it’s not like his defensive deficiencies disqualify him for a bench role. I would think his contract could be moveable after this year but it is a risk. its interesting in that we tend to forget how happy we were when we actually got rid of Malik because his D was so bad. I'm going to throw out something thats probably dumb...but just for the sake of argument, lets say we used KAT to get a good volume 3 point shooter who maybe even also plays the 4 and is more a natural 4. Would Lauri Markkenan plus either Sexton or Clarkson interest anyone? We get a great shooter at the 4 and another PG who can hit the 3 off the bench. I also think Markkenan can play the 3. I 100% realize that KAT is at least as good of a 3 point shooter as Markkenan. But....KAT wont shoot them. I was listening to Dane/Chris Hine yesterday complain about how clogged everything is by the basket and how much we need 3 point shooting. If our best 3 point shooter wont shoot them is he providing all the value that he could be to us for 50 million next year? Would Utah be willing to start a rebuild around the best shooting big man in the NBA? Does this even make sense for us? I dont know how Markennans D is however. I dont think its as good as KATs. Just throwing some crap at the wall here... I don't think Utah has the pieces to put around a 28 year-old making 50M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2024 13:50:57 GMT -6
I'm going to throw out something thats probably dumb...but just for the sake of argument, lets say we used KAT to get a good volume 3 point shooter who maybe even also plays the 4 and is more a natural 4. Would Lauri Markkenan plus either Sexton or Clarkson interest anyone Yeah, Utah's not looking to add Kat. If Chet were worse I would think OKC would be a possibility, otherwise I'd target Black in Orlando, no idea what else would come back salary wise, but give me a point, point please.
|
|
|
Post by kingsxman on Jan 3, 2024 13:55:40 GMT -6
its interesting in that we tend to forget how happy we were when we actually got rid of Malik because his D was so bad. I'm going to throw out something thats probably dumb...but just for the sake of argument, lets say we used KAT to get a good volume 3 point shooter who maybe even also plays the 4 and is more a natural 4. Would Lauri Markkenan plus either Sexton or Clarkson interest anyone? We get a great shooter at the 4 and another PG who can hit the 3 off the bench. I also think Markkenan can play the 3. I 100% realize that KAT is at least as good of a 3 point shooter as Markkenan. But....KAT wont shoot them. I was listening to Dane/Chris Hine yesterday complain about how clogged everything is by the basket and how much we need 3 point shooting. If our best 3 point shooter wont shoot them is he providing all the value that he could be to us for 50 million next year? Would Utah be willing to start a rebuild around the best shooting big man in the NBA? Does this even make sense for us? I dont know how Markennans D is however. I dont think its as good as KATs. Just throwing some crap at the wall here... I don't think Utah has the pieces to put around a 28 year-old making 50M. How about Pascal Siakum instead. Would Toronto potentially like KAT as a building block? Doubtful...but this is also raising the concern with keeping him long term.
|
|
|
Post by levine on Jan 3, 2024 14:00:20 GMT -6
I don't think Utah has the pieces to put around a 28 year-old making 50M. How about Pascal Siakum instead. Would Toronto potentially like KAT as a building block? Doubtful...but this is also raising the concern with keeping him long term. My guess is Toronto would rather have a strong defender next to Barnes than another offensive player. Plus they're in a weird spot. Kind of stuck between a rebuild and a reload. KAT's 50M could be a real anchor for them.
|
|
|
Post by XRaySpecs on Jan 3, 2024 14:53:44 GMT -6
You guys could be right, but there’s not a ton of proven shooters available. We’re looking for a shooter off bench who can get buckets when offense bogs down. Malik Beasley is starting for Bucks so it’s not like his defensive deficiencies disqualify him for a bench role. I would think his contract could be moveable after this year but it is a risk. its interesting in that we tend to forget how happy we were when we actually got rid of Malik because his D was so bad. I'm going to throw out something thats probably dumb...but just for the sake of argument, lets say we used KAT to get a good volume 3 point shooter who maybe even also plays the 4 and is more a natural 4. Would Lauri Markkenan plus either Sexton or Clarkson interest anyone? We get a great shooter at the 4 and another PG who can hit the 3 off the bench. I also think Markkenan can play the 3. I 100% realize that KAT is at least as good of a 3 point shooter as Markkenan. But....KAT wont shoot them. I was listening to Dane/Chris Hine yesterday complain about how clogged everything is by the basket and how much we need 3 point shooting. If our best 3 point shooter wont shoot them is he providing all the value that he could be to us for 50 million next year? Would Utah be willing to start a rebuild around the best shooting big man in the NBA? Does this even make sense for us? I dont know how Markennans D is however. I dont think its as good as KATs. Just throwing some crap at the wall here... I'd take Markkannen for KAT, but Utah wouldn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 3, 2024 15:13:09 GMT -6
its interesting in that we tend to forget how happy we were when we actually got rid of Malik because his D was so bad. I'm going to throw out something thats probably dumb...but just for the sake of argument, lets say we used KAT to get a good volume 3 point shooter who maybe even also plays the 4 and is more a natural 4. Would Lauri Markkenan plus either Sexton or Clarkson interest anyone? We get a great shooter at the 4 and another PG who can hit the 3 off the bench. I also think Markkenan can play the 3. I 100% realize that KAT is at least as good of a 3 point shooter as Markkenan. But....KAT wont shoot them. I was listening to Dane/Chris Hine yesterday complain about how clogged everything is by the basket and how much we need 3 point shooting. If our best 3 point shooter wont shoot them is he providing all the value that he could be to us for 50 million next year? Would Utah be willing to start a rebuild around the best shooting big man in the NBA? Does this even make sense for us? I dont know how Markennans D is however. I dont think its as good as KATs. Just throwing some crap at the wall here... I'd take Markkannen for KAT, but Utah wouldn't do it. I've pretty much resigned myself that the Wolves aren't trading KAT at this point. As iffy as the offense looks, I think the results are enough to make the FO and ownership hold the line. I think that the second apron penalties, at least for a year, are what we'll be looking at. The optics may look bad for trading KAT as well, even if I still think it's the right thing to do. You'd have the team with one of the best records in the NBA, off to its best start in franchise history, sending out its longest tenured star who's been through thick and thin with the team. I don't think that optic is something Lo-Rod will want on their resume immediately after assuming full control. They want stability amongst all leaders of the team and to be a player-centric organization. Trading KAT right now would directly contradict that notion.
|
|
|
Post by kingsxman on Jan 3, 2024 15:25:39 GMT -6
I'd take Markkannen for KAT, but Utah wouldn't do it. I've pretty much resigned myself that the Wolves aren't trading KAT at this point. As iffy as the offense looks, I think the results are enough to make the FO and ownership hold the line. I think that the second apron penalties, at least for a year, are what we'll be looking at. The optics may look bad for trading KAT as well, even if I still think it's the right thing to do. You'd have the team with one of the best records in the NBA, off to its best start in franchise history, sending out its longest tenured star who's been through thick and thin with the team. I don't think that optic is something Lo-Rod will want on their resume immediately after assuming full control. They want stability amongst all leaders of the team and to be a player-centric organization. Trading KAT right now would directly contradict that notion. I dont disagree and at this point its more of a "thought excercise" as to what we could turn him into. A real 4 would be good and a real 4 who can hit the 3 would be best. That plus a backup PG would be killer. I was leaning towards running it back but the more I think about it, the more I think that we'll never get the value out of KAT that we're paying him. And that salary is just so limiting. Doesnt mean he's not a great player...but I just dont think he's a winning enough player to justify the cost. The offensive fouls are still there. I dont think that its going to change at this point. But i also fully expect that if he went to a larger market those offensive fouls would disappear.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 3, 2024 15:38:47 GMT -6
I've pretty much resigned myself that the Wolves aren't trading KAT at this point. As iffy as the offense looks, I think the results are enough to make the FO and ownership hold the line. I think that the second apron penalties, at least for a year, are what we'll be looking at. The optics may look bad for trading KAT as well, even if I still think it's the right thing to do. You'd have the team with one of the best records in the NBA, off to its best start in franchise history, sending out its longest tenured star who's been through thick and thin with the team. I don't think that optic is something Lo-Rod will want on their resume immediately after assuming full control. They want stability amongst all leaders of the team and to be a player-centric organization. Trading KAT right now would directly contradict that notion. I dont disagree and at this point its more of a "thought excercise" as to what we could turn him into. A real 4 would be good and a real 4 who can hit the 3 would be best. That plus a backup PG would be killer. I was leaning towards running it back but the more I think about it, the more I think that we'll never get the value out of KAT that we're paying him. And that salary is just so limiting. Doesnt mean he's not a great player...but I just dont think he's a winning enough player to justify the cost. The offensive fouls are still there. I dont think that its going to change at this point. But i also fully expect that if he went to a larger market those offensive fouls would disappear. Well and the bolded is the crux of many people's (mine included) argument for why KAT should go. He IS that. He IS a real 4 who can shoot the 3. The problem is that he won't which is just a further indication that he doesn't do what the team truly needs. You almost can't even call it winning because the team is winning. But they're winning in spite of him and rarely because of him. If he truly cared what was best for the team, he would've put a stop to the offensive fouls and would be popping 10 3s per game. But alas...
|
|