Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 12:12:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by levine on Sept 13, 2022 12:15:58 GMT -6
I have no idea how that link makes your point... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 12:17:37 GMT -6
I have no idea how that link makes your point... I am posting because Bill Simmons needs to do a retraction pod. Woj should be fired, or sued. |
|
|
|
Post by BIG BAD WOLF on Sept 13, 2022 12:22:20 GMT -6
Because he was a pompous ass to most everyone he met? Maybe that had something to do with it. Sometimes i just have a hard time following the "darko stream of consciousness" posts. But I agree with one thing that if we had "lucked" into Kyrie or John Wall Kahn may have lasted longer. But I agree with Tmil70 that good GM's see their mistakes before anyone else does and move them. He lucked into Curry, how did that work out for him? |
|
|
|
Post by levine on Sept 13, 2022 12:24:39 GMT -6
Because he was a pompous ass to most everyone he met? Maybe that had something to do with it. Sometimes i just have a hard time following the "darko stream of consciousness" posts. But I agree with one thing that if we had "lucked" into Kyrie or John Wall Kahn may have lasted longer. But I agree with Tmil70 that good GM's see their mistakes before anyone else does and move them. He lucked into Curry, how did that work out for him? I'm even less qualified than Kahn, and I had us taking Curry, Paul George and Jonas Valančiūnas over Flynn, Johnson and Williams. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 14:00:09 GMT -6
He lucked into Curry, how did that work out for him? I'm even less qualified than Kahn, and I had us taking Curry, Paul George and Jonas Valančiūnas over Flynn, Johnson and Williams. Not Cousins? 2008 was the first year I remember really following the draft closely in part because Wolves had always kind of been in the middle. I don't recall how Westbrook was viewed, if that was considered a "find" at the time or not, other than he was projected towards the top with Rose, Beasley, Mayo. 08' Mayo/Jordan adding to Jefferson. 09' Harden/Rubio, but I knew Harden would be gone, so I would have gone Holiday. 10' George/Whiteside. 11' I had hoped for a deal whether that was trading Williams and moving back for Utah's two first rounders or moving Love/Beas for a George/Batum/Gay/DeRozan type wing. Passing on Curry is hardly the miss it's portrayed as, not near as egregious as passing on Harden for Thabeet although Thabeet, like Oden and Flynn might have got hurt too, I don't recall. No one would have loved pairing Love and Curry in GS more than me. But it's also the wrong way to think about it. I mean in 10' and 11' we're talking George, Wall, Leonard, I guess you'd say Irving, 09' I'd say Blake and Harden. Even if some of us wanted George, it's hard to argue he would have at the time had more trade value than say a package of Flynn and Johnson. In hindsight people see all these things as sure deals, George was a pretty big homerun swing, which common wisdom is you take at 10, but wouldn't do with number 4. Leonard was considered more of a sure floor, but no one imagined he'd become the dominant offensive player he turned into. Most think about process era team building as tanking as a chance to land that guy, but it's really more about being flexible, and having young pieces to move to land one. Kahn was doing it the right way. No one can explain why he was killed every day in a way that has never happened even to like Sarver (until now, or Sterling). Getting the right coverage of it back then was everything. It would have allowed for fans, and Love to understand what was happening, in the new boom/bust style team building. It's been crazy to see all these other gm's do the same thing, have like this cult following. Presti's doing it again and he's the most revered gm in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by tmill720 on Sept 13, 2022 14:06:03 GMT -6
It's funny how much you absolve Kahn's drafting issues by saying "the media dudes and experts all said it was a good pick at the time!", yet also claim those same people had a vengeance against us. I get that you are saying Kahn would look better if he had lucked into Kyrie instead of Derrick Williams. Or won the Wes Johnson lottery for John Wall. What you're saying about Kahn is at best, he is replacement level. He can do what is expected of him and nothing more. If he gets good luck, the Wolves would be good. If we get bad luck, the Wolves would be bad (as we were). I don't know know why you think I love Presti, Hinkie, or Rosas, as I have always thought that teams need to have some baseline veteran talent to establish a foundation to succeed. Having all of us love Presti, Hinkie, and Rosas fits better into your narrative/conspiracy/fantasy though, so have at it  One difference I see between Kahn and those guys though is turning bad luck into further assets. Instead of just keeping Derrick Williams, smart GMs would have either not picked him (despite consensus) or trade him quickly while he still has some value, i.e., pulling a Michael Carter-Williams. Yes, Kahn tried to tear it down and rebuild - he just did a terrible job at it. I don't know where those guys in particular would have had them, but my point is they were mostly in line with the consensus in terms of around where they were drafted. Flynn (had he stayed healthy), Ellington, and Johnson were all very reasonable, even if they would have preferred Harden or Favors respectively. The Williams thing is a bummer, but the only trade seemed to have any real traction was Suns for Gortat, who in hindsight with Pek's injuries would have been great, and far and away Rubio's best screening big here. The Carter Williams trade amounted to nothing. The amazing thing about Hinkie is several of the dudes he drafted couldn't play for two years no one seemed to care. Saric was sold as an asset, oppose to how Bjelica, let alone Rubio was covered.. The reason why he was given more runway is because Woj, Lowe, and Morey gave him the hype to do it. Same reason fans here thought Prosas was finally doing it right. It's a miracle that Embiid has been relatively healthy over that time, but it was really down to Wiggins or Embiid that year. Hinkie didn't have some advanced form of drafting that Kahn didn't, it was simply where the draft fell. Same with Noel, Okafor, and Carter-Williams. Kahn clearly had no issues parting with guys he drafted, or signed, it's the same thing all these other teams were doing, but without the benefit of favorable press, and being such an extreme new form of team building way ahead of where Minnesota fans were at the time. I personally do not like the tanking asset collecting era, but that's because I want to watch basketball games where both teams are attempting to win. I think it was bad for the sport overall and it seems like the league is at least aware of it, if not full on addressing it today, but things like that season cup, and the play-in, are all gimmicks to hopefully eliminate some of the tanking and load management that's just part of the league now. None of which would be better than shortening the regular season. That's my point though! Better GMs would not have taken Derrick Williams despite consensus. Why should anyone have a scouting department if they should just go on consensus? Also, who makes that consensus? Would that be Woj, Lowe, etc? Why are they solid, reputable sources of draft analysis but not of GM analysis? |
|
|
|
Post by levine on Sept 13, 2022 14:12:42 GMT -6
Passing on Curry is hardly the miss it's portrayed as He got bluffed. That's an even bigger example of how over his head he was. Dell said "Don't draft my kid - and he's not going to work out for you". He said the exact same thing to Golden State. They called his bluff, we folded the nuts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 14:13:33 GMT -6
I don't know where those guys in particular would have had them, but my point is they were mostly in line with the consensus in terms of around where they were drafted. Flynn (had he stayed healthy), Ellington, and Johnson were all very reasonable, even if they would have preferred Harden or Favors respectively. The Williams thing is a bummer, but the only trade seemed to have any real traction was Suns for Gortat, who in hindsight with Pek's injuries would have been great, and far and away Rubio's best screening big here. The Carter Williams trade amounted to nothing. The amazing thing about Hinkie is several of the dudes he drafted couldn't play for two years no one seemed to care. Saric was sold as an asset, oppose to how Bjelica, let alone Rubio was covered.. The reason why he was given more runway is because Woj, Lowe, and Morey gave him the hype to do it. Same reason fans here thought Prosas was finally doing it right. It's a miracle that Embiid has been relatively healthy over that time, but it was really down to Wiggins or Embiid that year. Hinkie didn't have some advanced form of drafting that Kahn didn't, it was simply where the draft fell. Same with Noel, Okafor, and Carter-Williams. Kahn clearly had no issues parting with guys he drafted, or signed, it's the same thing all these other teams were doing, but without the benefit of favorable press, and being such an extreme new form of team building way ahead of where Minnesota fans were at the time. I personally do not like the tanking asset collecting era, but that's because I want to watch basketball games where both teams are attempting to win. I think it was bad for the sport overall and it seems like the league is at least aware of it, if not full on addressing it today, but things like that season cup, and the play-in, are all gimmicks to hopefully eliminate some of the tanking and load management that's just part of the league now. None of which would be better than shortening the regular season. That's my point though! Better GMs would not have taken Derrick Williams despite consensus. Why should anyone have a scouting department if they should just go on consensus? Also, who makes that consensus? Would that be Woj, Lowe, etc? Why are they solid, reputable sources of draft analysis but not of GM analysis? More like the draft sites is what I'm talking. Are you talking more like Rosas and Culver? Or trading Wiggins + a top 10 pick for D-Loaf? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 14:19:08 GMT -6
Passing on Curry is hardly the miss it's portrayed as He got bluffed. That's an even bigger example of how over his head he was. Dell said "Don't draft my kid - and he's not going to work out for you". He said the exact same thing to Golden State. They called his bluff, we folded the nuts. I think it's more likely there just wasn't that big of a difference between the other top guards. Steph and DeRozan did pass on workouts here. That is fact. But again it's not near the miss of say Roy/Foye. I mean Westbrook clearly would have been the guy to take in 08' in hindsight. Again the point of processing is that you may not hit on that guy. |
|
|
|
Post by levine on Sept 13, 2022 14:21:57 GMT -6
That's my point though! Better GMs would not have taken Derrick Williams despite consensus. Why should anyone have a scouting department if they should just go on consensus? Also, who makes that consensus? Would that be Woj, Lowe, etc? Why are they solid, reputable sources of draft analysis but not of GM analysis? More like the draft sites is what I'm talking. Are you talking more like Rosas and Culver? Or trading Wiggins + a top 10 pick for D-Loaf? How does Rosas making bad moves excuse Kahn? Are you under the impression that we think Rosas was a good GM? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 14:35:40 GMT -6
More like the draft sites is what I'm talking. Are you talking more like Rosas and Culver? Or trading Wiggins + a top 10 pick for D-Loaf? How does Rosas making bad moves excuse Kahn? Are you under the impression that we think Rosas was a good GM? Yeah I think a lot of the new media moguls did, but this is more about the why/coverage, and how misunderstood Kahn's tenure was from the jump, and even more so since, because all this stuff is more or less baked in to how people remember it now. I view it more about the at the time 2010 new media that was going on, creation of the rumor mill, leaks, flame throwers, etc. People act like Kahn wouldn't have taken LeBron and that's completely insane. I do have some questions for those that were in organization at the time, I can do a lot of research on my own, but to be able to talk to some of the people who were in the room would really take this next level. Wohl, Laimbeer, Bickerstaff, Hoiberg, Bayno are names I'm thinking of. Did they understand this new wave team building? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 14:38:37 GMT -6
Was there a staff member in the room that called each of these drafts perfectly?
We know Kevin Love was not on board, because no one understood what this was yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmill720 on Sept 13, 2022 15:29:53 GMT -6
How does Rosas making bad moves excuse Kahn? Are you under the impression that we think Rosas was a good GM? Yeah I think a lot of the new media moguls did, but this is more about the why/coverage, and how misunderstood Kahn's tenure was from the jump, and even more so since, because all this stuff is more or less baked in to how people remember it now. I view it more about the at the time 2010 new media that was going on, creation of the rumor mill, leaks, flame throwers, etc. People act like Kahn wouldn't have taken LeBron and that's completely insane. I do have some questions for those that were in organization at the time, I can do a lot of research on my own, but to be able to talk to some of the people who were in the room would really take this next level. Wohl, Laimbeer, Bickerstaff, Hoiberg, Bayno are names I'm thinking of. Did they understand this new wave team building? But no one was upset about the process Kahn was taking, it was about him making bad decisions. Like we can all agree that Kahn, Presti, and Hinkie are all from the same cloth of complete tear down and rebuild, but Kahn was clearly the worst at doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by tmirvin on Sept 13, 2022 15:42:18 GMT -6
Passing on Curry is hardly the miss it's portrayed as He got bluffed. That's an even bigger example of how over his head he was. Dell said "Don't draft my kid - and he's not going to work out for you". He said the exact same thing to Golden State. They called his bluff, we folded the nuts. Plus, there was a real concern about who curry would guard in the NBA. He was a SG in college - the league was much more position defined back then than it is today - but MIGHT be able to play PG in the NBA. Shooting was also not considered as important of a skill as it is today either (curry basically made it an important skills set). Early in his career, GS had a real debate about who to trade between him & monte Ellis. His ankles were beat up & his style of play wasn't quite vogue yet. I remember thinking at the time, F that guy, he's not good enough to say where he will or won't play. Besides, who knows what's Flynn would have been had he not gotten injured. I really liked his competitive spirit. He's probably doesn't touch curry, but maybe isn't the punching bag he ended up being. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 16:32:34 GMT -6
Was he JJ Redick (who at the time wasn't that impactful), I know there were some comps to Bibby. At the time it was more about can he a starting point guard, and if not can he defend the bigger two guards. No all-star was gifted a more perfect compliment of players, that allowed him to do the Miller, Hamilton, Allen, Korver, Redicking thing. At a certain point defense and all-around game became less important, less offense, and that kind of bled into the later rule changes, DOJ still needs to look into why GS was able to clobber dudes on screens that whole run, maybe a Netflix doc 30 years from now.
I don't know what Flynn would have been, but there was precedent for guys like him, in that second unit, change of pace scoring guards like Brooks, Robinson, Boykins. I do think he would have had a solid eight ten year career. He was projected to be a better prospect than Lawson, but if you're under 6 foot, and lose any amount quickness even then you weren't sticking around the league very long. Now they'd be doing the J-Mac thing, but are much more interchangeable, as there's really not the same level of setting the table, or route running and timing of passes set plays required.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 16:33:29 GMT -6
Overall I'm seeing a lot of growth here.
|
|
|
|
Post by levine on Sept 13, 2022 16:39:49 GMT -6
No, Flynn was great...
...If you like small guards that can't shoot or defend and turn it over a ton.
He rode a hot NCAA tournament into the lottery.
He was basically the perfect "McHale" pick. All recency bias, smiles and handshakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick K on Sept 13, 2022 19:18:00 GMT -6
Passing on Curry is hardly the miss it's portrayed as . He said the exact same thing to Golden State. T hey called his bluff, we folded the nuts.That is exactly the way I remember it.
Couldn't have said it better.
How anyone can defend Kahn I'll never understand. He was in way over his head. He made one bad move after another. I think he's oversees now running a low ranking pro team.
BTW, not taking Curry was my lowest point of and Wolves draft night. There were many. I just couldn't believe they were that stupid not to take him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick K on Sept 13, 2022 19:19:20 GMT -6
No, Flynn was great... ...If you like small guards that can't shoot or defend and turn it over a ton. He rode a hot NCAA tournament into the lottery. He was basically the perfect "McHale" pick. All recency bias, smiles and handshakes. And then we did it again with Kris Dunn. Could have had Jamal Murray. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2022 6:45:52 GMT -6
But no one was upset about the process Kahn was taking, it was about him making bad decisions. Except that’s not even remotely true. The whole purpose of this thread is no one was covering or talking about it like this. A big reason why they were not covered the same is in part because it was so new, but more so because of the outsize influence of guys like Simmons, and Woj. Philly's stint is beloved because it was covered as this groundbreaking form of team building. I appreciate Kahn effectively doing the same concept, but in a different way, taking low risk/high reward gambles blue chip prospects, and ultimately adding talent, versus holding guys out and winning ten games year after year. And Kahn unlike some of these other guys was in the hot seat on day one, in a way that never made sense, unless you look at how it was presented, and the intent behind it. It was not objective and the influence it had on fans, Love, and local media can not be overstated. |
|
|
|
Post by tmirvin on Sept 15, 2022 8:05:21 GMT -6
But no one was upset about the process Kahn was taking, it was about him making bad decisions. Except that’s not even remotely true. The whole purpose of this thread is no one was covering or talking about it like this. A big reason why they were not covered the same is in part because it was so new, but more so because of the outsize influence of guys like Simmons, and Woj. Philly's stint is beloved because it was covered as this groundbreaking form of team building. I appreciate Kahn effectively doing the same concept, but in a different way, taking low risk/high reward gambles blue chip prospects, and ultimately adding talent, versus holding guys out and winning ten games year after year. And Kahn unlike some of these other guys was in the hot seat on day one, in a way that never made sense, unless you look at how it was presented, and the intent behind it. It was not objective and the influence it had on fans, Love, and local media can not be overstated. Philly's process wasn't considered ground breaking - a ton of teams have tanked in the past. It's just that philly made it very obvious what they were doing. Up to that point, teams tanked but tried to make it look like they were competing. Philly didn't. They drafted high upside guys that wouldn't play for 1-2 because of injuries or being overseas. Then, they threw out line ups filled with second rounders & undrafted players. If anyone showed a little promise, they were traded for future draft picks. I agree that the national media didn't cover it the same - mainly it was deemed as the wolves didn't know what they were doing, but philly had a clear vision. You make it sound like the wolves and philly had the same rebuilding process, whereas I don't agree with that. Philly blatantly lost games and stockpiled picks. The wolves didn't lose on purpose - they just sucked - and since they didn't have a ton of future picks, took fliers on guys that didn't live up to their initial potential. But because the wolves were terrible at developing players & didn't have a a proper basketball culture in place, nearly all of those guys continued to not pan out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2022 8:20:21 GMT -6
Except that’s not even remotely true. The whole purpose of this thread is no one was covering or talking about it like this. A big reason why they were not covered the same is in part because it was so new, but more so because of the outsize influence of guys like Simmons, and Woj. Philly's stint is beloved because it was covered as this groundbreaking form of team building. I appreciate Kahn effectively doing the same concept, but in a different way, taking low risk/high reward gambles blue chip prospects, and ultimately adding talent, versus holding guys out and winning ten games year after year. And Kahn unlike some of these other guys was in the hot seat on day one, in a way that never made sense, unless you look at how it was presented, and the intent behind it. It was not objective and the influence it had on fans, Love, and local media can not be overstated. Philly's process wasn't considered ground breaking - a ton of teams have tanked in the past. It's just that philly made it very obvious what they were doing. Up to that point, teams tanked but tried to make it look like they were competing. Philly didn't. They drafted high upside guys that wouldn't play for 1-2 because of injuries or being overseas. Then, they threw out line ups filled with second rounders & undrafted players. If anyone showed a little promise, they were traded for future draft picks. I agree that the national media didn't cover it the same - mainly it was deemed as the wolves didn't know what they were doing, but philly had a clear vision. You make it sound like the wolves and philly had the same rebuilding process, whereas I don't agree with that. Philly blatantly lost games and stockpiled picks. The wolves didn't lose on purpose - they just sucked - and since they didn't have a ton of future picks, took fliers on guys that didn't live up to their initial potential. But because the wolves were terrible at developing players & didn't have a a proper basketball culture in place, nearly all of those guys continued to not pan out. Kahn’s was more creative. The biggest difference is Hinkie branded his the process, which was language Presti used during OKC’s first stint. That only worked because of the media that backed him as a great signing/hire. He was gifted a runway, as well as players understanding what was going on there in Philly, oppose to headlines like “Are the Wolves the dumbest team of all-time?” And so nearly every move he made was viewed as an asset, oppose to yeah that’s just a second round pick, or that’s actually TJ McConnell. It was smart to brand it that way, but it worked because he received glowing pub. As it went on, I think both players and fans were like eventually we should try to win right? A big reason Thad Young did not want to stick here in Minny during the Towns tank was because he just spent several years doing it in Philly. How weird would it be to be an NBA player to travel, play all these games, knowing your being set up to lose? I mean maybe you’re auditioning for other teams but still team building, and basketball is a different game to asset collecting his closet surrounded by spread sheets. And teams had tanked, but until Presti it was never for multiple seasons. The unique thing with Hinkie compared to Presti is he was taking Noel, Embiid, Saric, all guys they had to wait on, versus Presti landing KD, Westbrook, Harden. If Rubio, Calathes, and Bjelica we’re all drafted by Hinkie those dudes in his bag would have talked about how brilliant it was to collect assets. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2022 8:32:56 GMT -6
Ultimately my take is less about Kahn, and more about how two petty writers successfully killed what should have been and incredibly fun, interesting decade of Wolves basketball.
Remove the personality, or whatever you thought of Kahn the person, this was the craziest thing I have ever seen in sports media, and there isn’t anything comparable to it.
I also think it’s a bit of a mirror in terms of the voices that gain a following, are generally pro trolls to a degree, which is the parallel I was making with talk radio. That and it’s outsized influence that was so unique to it’s time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmill720 on Sept 15, 2022 9:17:15 GMT -6
Philly's process wasn't considered ground breaking - a ton of teams have tanked in the past. It's just that philly made it very obvious what they were doing. Up to that point, teams tanked but tried to make it look like they were competing. Philly didn't. They drafted high upside guys that wouldn't play for 1-2 because of injuries or being overseas. Then, they threw out line ups filled with second rounders & undrafted players. If anyone showed a little promise, they were traded for future draft picks. I agree that the national media didn't cover it the same - mainly it was deemed as the wolves didn't know what they were doing, but philly had a clear vision. You make it sound like the wolves and philly had the same rebuilding process, whereas I don't agree with that. Philly blatantly lost games and stockpiled picks. The wolves didn't lose on purpose - they just sucked - and since they didn't have a ton of future picks, took fliers on guys that didn't live up to their initial potential. But because the wolves were terrible at developing players & didn't have a a proper basketball culture in place, nearly all of those guys continued to not pan out. Kahn’s was more creative. The biggest difference is Hinkie branded his the process, which was language Presti used during OKC’s first stint. That only worked because of the media that backed him as a great signing/hire. He was gifted a runway, as well as players understanding what was going on there in Philly, oppose to headlines like “Are the Wolves the dumbest team of all-time?” And so nearly every move he made was viewed as an asset, oppose to yeah that’s just a second round pick, or that’s actually TJ McConnell. It was smart to brand it that way, but it worked because he received glowing pub. As it went on, I think both players and fans were like eventually we should try to win right? A big reason Thad Young did not want to stick here in Minny during the Towns tank was because he just spent several years doing it in Philly. How weird would it be to be an NBA player to travel, play all these games, knowing your being set up to lose? I mean maybe you’re auditioning for other teams but still team building, and basketball is a different game to asset collecting his closet surrounded by spread sheets. And teams had tanked, but until Presti it was never for multiple seasons. The unique thing with Hinkie compared to Presti is he was taking Noel, Embiid, Saric, all guys they had to wait on, versus Presti landing KD, Westbrook, Harden. If Rubio, Calathes, and Bjelica we’re all drafted by Hinkie those dudes in his bag would have talked about how brilliant it was to collect assets. June 24, 2010: Selected Wesley Johnson (1st round, 4th pick), Luke Babbitt (1st round, 16th pick), Trevor Booker (1st round, 23rd pick), Paulão Prestes (2nd round, 45th pick) and Hamady N'Diaye (2nd round, 56th pick) in the 2010 NBA Draft. - No hits in the 2010 draft June 23, 2011: Selected Derrick Williams (1st round, 2nd pick) and Donatas Motiejūnas (1st round, 20th pick) in the 2011 NBA Draft. June 23, 2011: Traded Jonny Flynn, Donatas Motiejūnas and a 2012 2nd round draft pick (Will Barton was later selected) to the Houston Rockets for Brad Miller, Nikola Mirotić, Chandler Parsons and a 2013 1st round draft pick (Andre Roberson was later selected). June 23, 2011: Traded Nikola Mirotić to the Chicago Bulls for Norris Cole, Malcolm Lee and cash. June 23, 2011: Traded Norris Cole to the Miami Heat for Bojan Bogdanović. June 23, 2011: Traded Bojan Bogdanović to the New Jersey Nets for cash and a 2013 2nd round draft pick (Lorenzo Brown was later selected). June 23, 2011: Traded Chandler Parsons to the Houston Rockets for cash. Just look at this string of transactions in the offseason 2011. Kahn drafted Derrick Williams (obviously didn't work out, but yeah the draft can be a crapshoot sometimes). Then, at one point on that day, had the rights to Nikola Mirotic, Chandler Parsons, Bojan Bogdanovic, Norris Cole, and Brad Miller.... yet the only guy he decided to keep was Brad Miller? - Also, no hits in the 2011 draft. If we are in asset accumulation mode like Hinkie, why did he do these transactions in 2012? June 26, 2012: Traded a 2012 1st round draft pick (Terrence Jones was later selected) to the Houston Rockets for Chase Budinger and Lior Eliyahu. June 28, 2012: Selected Robbie Hummel (2nd round, 58th pick) in the 2012 NBA Draft. July 13, 2012: Traded Brad Miller, a 2013 2nd round draft pick (Lorenzo Brown was later selected) and a 2016 2nd round draft pick (Rade Zagorac was later selected) to the New Orleans Hornets for a 2017 2nd round draft pick. Conditional 2017 2nd-rd pick did not convey I tried to account for all of the deals he made on BBall reference, and I had it as a net gain of 3 1sts by trading Al Jefferson, Randy Foye, and Mike Miller, while ending up giving out a net 2 2nds. I'm not going to go through all of Hinkie's deals, but again, Kahn was not doing the same "asset accumulation" like Hinkie was. It's not just petty writers crafting a narrative about how bad he was... he actually was bad, and they wrote about that! His process may have been similar to Hinkie in that they were both bad for a bit, he just did not do it as well or as significantly. |
|
