Drafting Probabilistically
I wouldn’t want to mount a comprehensive defense of the Minnesota Timberwolves management, but I think Chad Ford’s critique of drafting two point guards is off base:
Ricky Rubio and Jonny Flynn might have been the two best point guards in the draft. But to fall in love with them both and actually take them both amounts to point guard polygamy.
I really don’t know what to think about the Timberwolves’ draft. I keep waiting to hear about a trade that tells us where Rubio or Flynn is really going, but it hasn’t come, and GM David Kahn says that he wants to keep both of them.
The reality is that most draft picks, even lottery picks, don’t work out. Draftniks like Ford tend to just systematically overstate the value of almost everyone in the draft. He tells us that Jermaine Taylor, selected by the Rockets early in the second round, is “a great athlete and scorer” but in the real world there just aren’t 30+ “great” prospects in any given draft. And in particular in this draft everyone beyond Blake Griffin seems to be a bit of a crapshoot.
So if Minnesota wants a point guard and sees two appealing point guard prospects, then drafting two and hoping that one of them works out seems like smart probabilistic thinking to me. The other possibility would be to fall in for some serious GM hubris and assert that Minnesota can definitively answer the question of which of these two guys is the better NBA prospect.
52 Responses to “Drafting Probabilistically”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 26th, 2009 at 11:33 am
So if Minnesota wants a point guard and sees two appealing point guard prospects, then drafting two and hoping that one of them works out seems like smart probabilistic thinking to me.
This assumes, though, that there are no costs involved, that the Wolves get the same chance of development for each of them playing together as they would if they’d drafted only one of Rubio or Flynn.
The problem is that the only way to develop into an NBA point guard is to play point guard in the NBA, and play it a lot. They can’t both play point guard. The Wolves I assume will put together some sort of plan to share minutes between Flynn and Rubio, and find certain moment when the two can play together, but there’s a very real risk of impeding their development by limiting their playing time.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am
You ignore the problem that for a young point guard to develop, he needs playing time. Unlike say wing players who can usually be use interchangeably at either small forward or shooting guard, there really can only be one person handling the ball at a given time. It will therefore be extremely difficult for both Flynn and Rubio to develop simultaneously. Since it takes several years for a point guard to fully mature (especially true in Rubio’s case), it will be impossible to determine if either of them is worth pursuing. Memphis demonstrated this problem when Conley, Lowry and Crittendon all wallowed in mediocrity or worse.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:41 am
And isn’t there some chance that Rubio will stay in Europe?
I agree with the whole crapshoot thing. If you have a weak spot in your roster, I say deal with it by getting a bunch of guys to compete to make it better.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:44 am
we had a real-world example about 20+ years ago, when the knicks drafted mark jackson one year and rod strickland the next. although thanks to the ineptitude of al bianchi as a GM, the knicks managed to trade both of them, leaving patrick ewing without a decent point guard throughout his entire prime, both developed perfectly well, and unless my memory is really fading, games were still only 48 minutes then too….
June 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Matt, i think your onto something here. I follow the NFL Draft much more closely than the NBA draft, but considering at least one of those two guys is likely to bust, drafting two great point guards doesn’t seem as daft as it does at first blush.
Plus, a creative coach may be able to find a way to keep them both on the floor at the same time depending on how they develop.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Howard cites a very good example. Although I think Derek Harper and Doc Rivers were perfectly servicable PGs, even if past their prime.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:50 am
The problem with just playing probabilities is sort of the same as letting Jameer Nelson play starter-esque minutes in the NBA finals and assuming it wouldn’t throw Rafer Alston off his game, which is the reason why coaches learn they need to have a permanent starting lineup rather than shuffling guys in and out of the starting 5 for matchup purposes…
NBA players are in some ways psychologically fragile and don’t respond to potentially confidence-hampering activity by management (and confidence is paramount!) the way you’d hope they would were they as detached as Spock or Data. Maybe one of these guys would thrive, maybe both would, in a “we’re throwing you guys into the Octagon” situation, but history and observation of the average NBA player would suggest that neither guy will play to potential if he gets the feeling that they’re being pit against each other.
Of course, if the intention is not to have a point guard competition and to just throw out a two guard lineup without worrying about nonsensical positional definitions (an approach I theoretically endorse) the issue is whether or not one of these guys can rapidly display an NBA-ready jump shot.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Howard cites a very good example. Although I think Derek Harper and Doc Rivers were perfectly servicable PGs, even if past their prime.
And don’t forget Charlie Ward! He won a Heisman Trophy!
June 26th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Well I suppose they could send the draft picks to the minor leagues and see which one does better.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
There’s a lot of pop psychology in these comments. Anyone have any data to back up any of these psychological / developmental claims?
June 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Seth nails it with the Memphis example. If the Celtics had had another decent young PG on the roster, Rondo’s horrible outside shot would have likely prevented him from getting enough time on the court to develop.
And the picks don’t make any more sense if Rubio is going to stay in Europe for another year or two. Either Flynn works out and, because of the NBA salary structure, it’s extremely hard to get much of anything for Rubio’s rights or Flynn bombs, but you can’t go get a PG because you’re waiting for Rubio to come over.
It especially makes no sense when Curry was there for the taking.
Mike
June 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Yeah, MBunge, if you were drafting two guards to play together taking Curry seemed like the more logical choice.
And I freely admit that I don’t have any data beyond the anecdotal experience of observing multiple situations over the past fifteen years where, in my estimation, players reacted with subpar performance when the “normal” order of things is disrupted. You see this (or, anecdotally, “see” it all the time with rookies especially, particularly with famously impatient coaches, who play like they’re afraid of making the mistake that gets them pulled). But yeah, it’s just some “old ball coach” BSing on my part (from a 26 year old who hasn’t played organized ball since early adolescence).
June 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
One word: Darko
June 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“we had a real-world example about 20+ years ago, when the knicks drafted mark jackson one year and rod strickland the next.”
1. Drafting the same position in consecutive years is not the same as doing it in the same year.
2. Strickland spent only a bit more than one-and-a-half seasons with the Knicks and was clearly Jackson’s back-up during that time.
3. Given the talent level of this draft as a whole, it seems unlikely that either Rubio or Flynn will end up as good as Strickland, let alone Jackson.
Mike
June 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Assuming that two pass-first PGs can’t work out, which I think is the assumption that most people are making, I think this trade is a waste of the 5th and 6th picks. Selecting two PGs this high, takes away the opportunity to take a player at another position of a need with a draft pick this high. Assuming both players turn out to be great or really good, you have a logjam at the PG position. In contrast, if you had spent the draft pick at a player at another position, you could have win with both. What the Wolves GM did was equivalent to chasing a hand in poker with very few outs.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
If an NBA team gets a single legitimate starter out of a year’s draft, it’s a success. He doesn’t even need to be a star, or ever make the All-Star team. If you draft someone who performs as an adequate, workmanlike starter for 4+ years, your draft was a success.
This isn’t the NFL, where someone like NE TE Ben Watson is sometimes described as a “bust” because he’s just a better-than-average starting tight end instead of an All-Pro.
If one of those point guards matures into a starter, this was a good draft for the Wolves.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Also, as Truehoop noted yesterday, the Timberwolves currently own the contract of 10 guys who are probably best suited to playing the 4-spot in the NBA, so they really really really need to make some moves anyway.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
The problem for the Wolves is that they had ten holes to fill and only four first-round picks. And then they tried to fill the same hole twice. And then the Henk Norel pick fills the one hole that didn’t need filling.
Kahn’s shovel seems to be as random as McHale’s was. Guh.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Its the GM’s job to figure out which one will be the better point guard and draft him. It’s what he gets paid the big bucks for and using the roulette strategy of spreading your chips out in hopes of one hitting is not a sound way to run a franchise that needs skill players at many different positions. If he got another PG in the second round that would be one thing but to go back to back in the top 10 of the draft is ridiculous. You only get so many chances that high up in the lottery so you need to make hard decisions because being wishy washy never works in building a team. Why did they trade their 3rd pick in Ty Lawson if you want to play the odds? Doesn’t getting 3 PG’s in the draft increase your odds of finding a good one! Its a dumb way to run a franchise is why.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
You don’t draft for a particular position. You draft for a player. The ‘Wolves picks are just an example of that. This is not the NFL. Neither the original rules of basketball nor it’s present incarnation formalizes position: they are abstracts. And, like all abstracts, if you get hung up on them you’re going to end up just getting hung up.
This is true only very very superficially. The glut of talented players, along with impatience of coaches, conspires to prevent proper development. If you’re not very very ready on day one, then you’re quickly shuttled aside.
The notable exceptions that prove the rule are Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett, two high school drafts who spent the better part of their respective first decade in the NBA learning to play the game. Because of a belief in their promise, they were given opportunities to develop that other players, equally as talented, aren’t given.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I think that Matt’s right. The Timberwolves are not “set” at point guard with either Rubio or Flynn individually, and are a few years from having a good team in any case. If they really liked both players, it makes sense to take both and see who develops. It’s worth keeping in mind that while basketball is not baseball in terms of peop
June 26th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Sorry pet, I won’t buy that others in the league were equally as talented as Garnett and Bryant. Neither Garnett nor Kobe was in the line-up because theey needed to learn. They were there because even as teens they were better than the alternatives.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I think that Matt’s right. The Timberwolves are not “set” at point guard with either Rubio or Flynn individually, and are a few years from having a good team in any case. If they really liked both players, it makes sense to take both and see who develops. It’s worth keeping in mind that while basketball is not baseball in terms of people swithing positions. It’s not exactly football either. You can have two guards who are better suited as point guards and it’s not like playing Peyton Manning at running back.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Mudge,
Rubio may or may not be a success but you can’t compare him to Darko. Unlike Darko, Rubio has actually had professional and international success. Darko was barely playing 5 minutes per game. Hell, about 90% of the Rubio mystique is based on his performance in last year’s olympics.
Also, Rubio should be far more NBA ready than Flynn. The Euroleagues are definitely not as hard as the NBA, but they are a step above college ball. Flynn also was very unimpressive statistically in college. Statistics aren’t the end all but according to the basketball-reference.com blog, very few guards with similar stats have been successful nba players.
I agree with the previous sentiments though that having two young point guards simultaneously is very risky for the psychological development of both. It is so rare to have this situation that I’m not ready to say it can’t work, but it isn’t a risk I’d want to take.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I’ve been watching this team’s moves in despair for so long that I can’t evaluate anything they do rationally. It seems as if anyone who has personnel power in Minny becomes the anti-Auerbach, guaranteed, with the exception of the Garnett pick, to make precisely the wrong move. Pooh Richardson instead of Tim Hardaway. Ray Allen and a draft pick for Marbury. Roy for Foye. Maybe this draft won’t follow the pattern, but I’m not confident.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Garnett was clearly a capable NBA starter from nearly the very beginning, and on the Timberwolves roster he was the first time he showed up in the gym.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
And the picks don’t make any more sense if Rubio is going to stay in Europe for another year or two.
This actually seems like a pretty good reason to draft two point guards, particularly if you prefer Flynn and the league prefers Rubio. The Wolves keep Rubio’s rights in perpetuity, don’t they? If Rubio stays overseas and increases his value, then either Flynn works out and you sell Rubio for more (without having had to pay his contract, as I understand it), or you bring in Rubio and jettison Flynn.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
[...] 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment yglesias: Draftniks like Ford tend to just systematically overstate the value of almost everyone in the [...]
June 26th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“If Rubio stays overseas and increases his value, then either Flynn works out and you sell Rubio for more”
The problem is that, unless you’re dealing with a team under the salary cap, you can only trade for roughly equal money. I believe you can sell a pick or draft rights for cash or trade it for another pick, but it’s rather hard to trade a pick or draft rights for contracted player.
It also usually takes at least a couple of years for PGs to get up to speed in the NBA. So, the T-pups could spend two years evaluating Flynn, then spend another two years on Rubio and still not have the PG they need 4 years from now, yet feel inhibited about trying to trade for one or pick up a free agent PG.
Mike
June 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
27: Except they just increased the likelihood that Rubio stays in Europe. He was already iffy on leaving and having buy out his contract, and to persuade him, Minnesota drafts another PG right after him? This sort of thing decimates his trade value.
Essentially, their choices are having 2 first-round PGs on their roster, which a waste of opportunity; keeping Rubio and trading Flynn, which looks like their best option at this point, but not a likely one due to Rubio’s iffiness; keeping Flynn and trading Rubio, but for below market value because your trade partner isn’t sure if they’re acquiring a player or an absentee; or keeping Flynn and Rubio stays in Europe and they can’t move him, which is, again, a waste of a high-fifth round pick.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
The probability argument only makes sense if the Wolves don’t need to improve ANYWHERE else. If they do, then it makes much more sense, from a probability standpoint, to draft players who can both start at the same time.
In the case neither works out, the result is the same (0 starters).
In the case only one works out, the result is the same (1 starter).
In the case both work out, drafting two PGs leaves you with 1 starter. Drafting a PG and SF, say, leaves you with 2 starters.
It only makes sense if they think everyone else sucked.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
And to everyone mentioning positional flexibility in the NBA vs MLB or NFL, that’s true to an extent. But there are still skill sets which work best at certain positions, and a PG has a set that requires the ball in his hands. To ask him to do other things, which he may be worse at, is something you do if you have to, not by choice. Nevermind that PGs are generally the shortest guys on the floor and have trouble matching up on defense against many 2’s (not a hard and fast rule, but generally true).
June 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I believe you can sell a pick or draft rights for cash or trade it for another pick, but it’s rather hard to trade a pick or draft rights for contracted player.
But if Rubio stays overseas, he won’t have a contract with the Wolves, will he? It would still be pick for pick. If so, it seems like a pretty smart way of preserving your draft pick for future years. (I’m assuming you can get at least a #5 for Rubio in the future.) Even without, kludges exist to make this work.
It also usually takes at least a couple of years for PGs to get up to speed in the NBA.
I think this depends a lot on the guard. CP3 was special right away, wasn’t he? And Rubio will continue to gain experience (and physical maturity) if he plays overseas.
I dunno. As long as they don’t actually sign him–and maybe even then–it seems pretty smart to me. I guess it could all go to hell if it turns out Rubio sucks (as I sort of suspect). Kahn would have to be sort of a cold-blooded motherfucker to do this, but that isn’t the worst sort of person to have as a a GM.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
from a probability standpoint, to draft players who can both start at the same time.
I don’t understand this. Doesn’t it depend on the likelihood that Player X will work out?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
This sort of thing decimates his trade value.
Why? I’d rather have him in Europe getting better. It’s not like LeBron would have been worth less if he’d decided to do a PG year or something after being drafted.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Your still forgetting the opportunity cost of this strategy. You’ve just wasted the 5th pick in the draft on nothing. Unless you believe that there aren’t going to be any good to great players drafted below Flynn, you’ve made an egregious error. You’ve wasted the opportunity to improve your team and will probably get back 70cents on the dollar if you trade Rubio instead of trading his draft rights when you have leverage. I just think that the odds are better than even that this looks to be a bad trade in a year or two when a guy like James Johnson, Earl Clark or Stephen Curry turns into a legitimate starting player in the NBA.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
mbunge, the point under discussion (and only you and al and i care) was whether two young point guards could both develop together. the answer, in the jackson/strickland scenario, was yes and it was perfectly evident in real time that they were both going to at least good nba 1s.
if 2 years out, the wolves can realize value for the “surplus” of the two, then it pans out; if not, it doesn’t, and i make no judgement at all about their level of talent.
all i’m saying it that it’s perfectly possible for two point guards to develop simultaneously.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
SomeCallMeTim Says:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
from a probability standpoint, to draft players who can both start at the same time.
I don’t understand this. Doesn’t it depend on the likelihood that Player X will work out?
Assume each player has a 50% chance of working out. Then you have 3 scenarios:
25% chance both suck
50% chance one works out
25% chance both work out
In the case where neither or one works out, it doesn’t matter.
In the case where both work out, obviously you want two starters. Not a starter and a backup.
Like I said, if they think everyone else sucked then it makes the most sense. Otherwise… not so much.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Ed,
But drafts a always a crap shoot. There’s no way to know with any certainty how anyone you draft is going to turn out. A good draft pick is one with a good probability.
Burning the midnight oil to pick the one “right” point guard could up the chances of having a point guard from this draft start for the Timberwolves from, say, 52% to 57%. Picking two point guards ups the chances from 58% to 76%.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Matt Yglesias, you ignorant slut. While in football, a prospect may develop on the bench, it works the opposite in basketball.
How do you develop a prospect in basketball? You play him a bunch of minutes against the toughest competition you can find (without sacrificing wins for the sake of development). This is why the NBA instituted the NBADL–so that players could get more playing time, in order to develop better/faster than riding the pine.
How do you know if a prospect is developing in the right manner? You play him and analyze his production.
Now, how in the hell are you going to give 2 top-flight rookie PGs the playing time (building rapport, learning the NBA game, honing skills against the first team)? There are only a limited number of minutes to go around at each position and one of the players (if they both stayed on the team and/or played in the NBA next season) is going to lose out on minutes and development.
This was a ploy to purely to maximize value with the picks available and hope to make a trade sometime down the line. Personally, I think they’re gonna ship out Rubio as he must have a much higher trade value than Flynn (and would be a lot less likely to play in the frozen North).
June 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
A tangent, since you realize the Wizards could have simply kept the pick and gotten Rubio instead of Foye and Miller I assume your not commenting on it is because it is too painfull:-)
As for the Wolves, you can’t develop 2 PGs at once. There simply isn’t a way to play them both enough. I’d say the best case for them is they wanted Flynn and saw Rubio as simply too good to pass up. The fact that he makes no money is not a problem in trade, they have plenty of bad contracts they can pair with him to match salary with the player they want. Or worst case he stays in Europe and they trade him for the #1 pick next year.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
@pet
“You don’t draft for a particular position. You draft for a player.This is not the NFL. Neither the original rules of basketball nor it’s present incarnation formalizes position: they are abstracts”
I think, in the NBA, you have much less leeway to draft for value than need than in the NFL. In the NFL, you have 53-man rosters and about 25-positions to fill, with a lot of turnover due to injuries. With a 7-round draft, you often have room on the roster for better caliber players who don’t fit obvious needs (they’ll play eventually and there’s probably at least get into the rotation).
In basketball, on the other hand, you have a maximum roster of 15 players and a limited number of minutes available (rather than an indefinite number of snaps) with which to distribute them. Furthermore, there are only 5 (rather than 25) unique positions. And, while you can often play around with the archetypal positions a bit, you’re probably not going to play two centers or two pure-point guards at the same time (in fact, you may have match-up troubles just playing different types of wings at the same time).
While in football, you may have some flexibility in your roster, carrying maybe 7-9 DL, 5-7 running backs, and 8-10 OL, in basketball, you always need at least 2 PG (one to start, one to backup), 2 centers, a PF and a mess of wings (which are able to complement the rest of the team and match-up well against various types of opponents). In the NBA, you may have more flexibility with the wings, but you still have to worry about match-ups if you play with a more “flexible” lineup.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
to add to the historic record, mark jackson was a knick top draft pack in ‘87-’88, and played nearly 40 minutes a game.
the knicks nonetheless drafted rod stickland number 1 the next year (as the best player available), reduced jackson to about 33 a game and stickland got 16. in those 16 minutes, he showed many people enough to lead jackson’s absolute seniority in question, and in the following season, the minutes further tilted to strickland until the knicks traded him to san antonio partway through the year.
so i’ll repeat: it is possible to develop 2 good point guard prospects at once within the 3 year window and still make a determination which is the better asset and which could be traded.
i have no clue whether this was or was not a good move for the t-wolves, because i don’t have a clue about college talent and the nba these days.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
There’s another wrinkle to this discussion. Financially, the Wolves aren’t doing so hot. While 1st round picks have guaranteed contracts (which range up to something like $5 million per year), I don’t think you have to pay the players if they’re ballin in Europe. So whoever has rights to Rubio gets a top-5 pick that they get to develop overseas without having to pay him. I imagine there are a lot of teams that may see Rubio’s rights alone as a valuable asset(not least among them the Wolves).
Portland did something similar by drafting Victor Claver at the 22, allowing them to stash a player overseas without having to pay his salary this year (when they are trying to save their pennies for a free agent or a lopsided trade).
June 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Wolves badly need a SG. They have NO shooting guards on their roster. None! I guess they drafted 6′4″ Wayne Ellington last night, so he counts. I don’t know if he can be a Courtney Lee -type sleeper hit, though.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
This was a really dumb move. You can’t argue that the value difference was so high as to overcome the fact that the Wolves need multiple starters and need to leave the long odds play of getting two quality players out of the deal. Sure, a team may only land a quality starter every couple years, but the average 1st round draft pick isn’t #6- it’s #16. It’s hardly crazy to expect you could get two starters in the top 10. In poker terms this isn’t not leaving yourself enough outs- this is failing to recognize plays like semi-bluffing with overcards or an inside straight draw or finding good opportunities to play a middle pocket pair.
Also, I agree with Ben over Pet. You generally draft for value in the NFL, except at QB. I follow the NFL draft, and I’m pretty sure this is what teams do. Of course, they have limited scouting resources, so I don’t really think they’re looking at every player on the board for each of their picks but focusing on where their needs are. But usually passing up a value pick is a mistake in the NFL.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Me, I’m trading 5 & 6 for Thabeet (great compliment to KLove and Al Jefferson) and keeping Ty Lawson (best PG in the draft according to both Berri and Hollinger).
June 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
The chances of Thabeet being a superstar: 0%. The chance of Rubio being a superstar >0%. As dumb as the ‘Wolves move seems to me, I’d still prefer that to Thabeet at #2. Guys like Thabeet (who really only do one thing well) can be useful, but you don’t want to burn big resources on them.
It just struck me that if the Wolves really wanted to make things interesting, they should have taken Jennings. Now that would have been amazing.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The comparisons to the NFL draft make some sense, but it’s also worth pointing out that basketball isn’t baseball.
In baseball, if you acquire a guy who works out, that’s useful. You continue to accumulate assets and eventually you can put together a team with a shot to win it all.
In basketball, things don’t work nearly as neatly. All your moves need to fit together in a coherent strategy.
Regardless of whether the “percentages” or “probabilities” of this particular pick make sense in a vacuum, the reality is that the T-Wolves are poorly run, none of their moves have anything to do with one another, and they are never, ever, ever going to win a title.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I think Rubio has a 10% chance of becoming a Mark Price/Kevin Johnson-level very good point guard, and Thabeet has 0% chance of being a superstar, but I think Thabeet/Lawson as a package would have more impact on the TWolves over the next three years than Flynn & Rubio. OTOH, who cares about the TWolves?
June 26th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Mark Price and especially Kevin Johnson were pretty damn good so I think any team would be happy if he developed that well. That said, I think you’re really selling Rubio short though. Rubio is not a Darko or even a Bargnani. He actually has put up very solid numbers and played meaningful minutes in Europe. His euro stats easily best every other PG in the draft except Lawson, who is 3 years older, 5 inches shorter and was playing inferior competition. Even if his offensive game doesn’t really develop he has a decent chance of being a Jason Kidd type of player. In a very weak draft, I’d much rather roll the dice with Rubio than with Thabeet (who could easily be the next Desagna Diop) and Lawson.
As far as I know, the TWolves aren’t playing for next year so they have time to develop a PG.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:42 am
joe from Lowell Says:
Burning the midnight oil to pick the one “right” point guard could up the chances of having a point guard from this draft start for the Timberwolves from, say, 52% to 57%. Picking two point guards ups the chances from 58% to 76%
Joe,
I’m not saying the odds aren’t better if you draft two players at one position but by that logic why did they trade Ty Lawson? The odds of finding a good one with three Pg’s is really good, right? Its just not the prudent thing to do for a franchise thats starting Ryan Gomes and Craig Smith at the forward spot who aren’t that good. The strategy your advocating ignores their depth problems at other positions that even though the draft is a crap shoot a forward or shooting guard would have probably helped the team more then a second PG. A Rubio or Flynn and a Jordan Hill with the 6th pick is a way more solid move for the franchise. If your GM is employing basically a fantasy basketball strategy be very worried.
That said I don’t think he drafted Flynn and Rubio to play together. He is playing the odds but its not on if one will be a great player its if one will refuse to play in Minnesota like Rubio has been intimating. If Rubio decides to play in Minnesota Flynn will be traded as soon as possible. You can’t develop two PG’s at once. They need minutes.