Kevin Loughery on Flip
Ikrushlots
(by Keven Loughery--ex nba coach writing for cnnsi)
Some folks may be down on Flip Saunders because of the Timberwolves' five
consecutive first-round losses, but he's one of the most underrated coaches in
the game today. With all the adversity that team faced this year, his getting
them in a position to win almost 50 games was a great accomplishment. It's just
a shame they had to draw San Antonio in the first round, because the Spurs are
the best team in the league.
Saunders' players handle themselves professionally, and they play hard every
night, so he does an outstanding job. But being in a small market such as
Minneapolis hurts Saunders' reputation a bit, because no one knows much about
him.
Saunders played in college with Kevin McHale and coached in the CBA for a long
time. Obviously, McHale knew he had a good talent for the game and hired him.
This season proved McHale knew what he was doing. The death of Malik Sealy and
the Joe Smith situation created a very negative environment for the T'wolves,
but they really overachieved this year.
There's no doubt that everybody thinks Saunders is doing an outstanding job. If
by some chance he did take the fall for the team's postseason struggles, he'd
be hired somewhere else in a minute.
Scott Smith
>There's no reason for Saunders to hang his head
>(by Keven Loughery--ex nba coach writing for cnnsi)
>
>Some folks may be down on Flip Saunders because of the Timberwolves' five
>consecutive first-round losses, but he's one of the most underrated coaches in
>the game today. With all the adversity that team faced this year, his getting
>them in a position to win almost 50 games was a great accomplishment. It's just
>a shame they had to draw San Antonio in the first round, because the Spurs are
>the best team in the league.
I couldn't have said it better myself. This pretty much echoes what many of
us have been saying in this group all along.
>Saunders' players handle themselves professionally, and they play hard every
>night, so he does an outstanding job. But being in a small market such as
>Minneapolis hurts Saunders' reputation a bit, because no one knows much about
>him.
That situation is too bad. Personally I thought Flip was a good candidate
for COY, but the small market status of Minnesota and our low playoff
seeding pretty much squashed that idea. Although, I have no problem
with Larry Brown getting the nod, he's done a great job with the Sixers.
I also think Flip's day may come sometime soon...especially if he can
find a way to overcome the missing draft picks over the next few seasons.
Flip and McHale have their work cut out for them...lets hope they're up
to the challenge.
>Saunders played in college with Kevin McHale and coached in the CBA for a long
>time. Obviously, McHale knew he had a good talent for the game and hired him.
>This season proved McHale knew what he was doing. The death of Malik Sealy and
>the Joe Smith situation created a very negative environment for the T'wolves,
>but they really overachieved this year.
Absolutely! I was really worried about this season, but the Wolves rose to the
occasion and made it a good one, despite all the dark shadows over the
team this season. It's just too bad that the West has gotten so tough and
lopsided compared to the East.
>There's no doubt that everybody thinks Saunders is doing an outstanding job. If
>by some chance he did take the fall for the team's postseason struggles, he'd
>be hired somewhere else in a minute.
I agree, and it doesn't surprise me to hear the rumors about other NBA
teams being interested in Flip as an option for head coach...he does a
great job with the talent he has, year after year. I'm sure any franchise
would love to have a coach like Flip on board.
Thanks for posting the article, it was a good one.
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
> Saunders' players handle themselves professionally, and they play hard every
> night, so he does an outstanding job.
Did this guy miss the stetch of games earlier this season when the Wolves
were losing to the Wizards, Warriors, Clippers, etc. with some regularity?
One of Flip's biggest problems earlier this season was failing to get his
team up for every game.
The Wolves didn't have bad luck in drawing the Spurs, as this guy suggests.
If the Wolves had come out to play every night, they would have beaten
those lowly teams and they would have EARNED a higher seed.
Matt
Scott Smith
>In article <20010503144713...@ng-mq1.aol.com>,
>ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
>
>
>> Saunders' players handle themselves professionally, and they play hard every
>> night, so he does an outstanding job.
>
>Did this guy miss the stetch of games earlier this season when the Wolves
>were losing to the Wizards, Warriors, Clippers, etc. with some regularity?
>One of Flip's biggest problems earlier this season was failing to get his
>team up for every game.
Yes, they had a bad stretch for a couple of weeks, then they went on to have
a lengthy winning streak against some of the best teams in the league.
Is that glass half empty or half full, Matt? ;)
>The Wolves didn't have bad luck in drawing the Spurs, as this guy suggests.
>If the Wolves had come out to play every night, they would have beaten
>those lowly teams and they would have EARNED a higher seed.
So it's all Flip's and McHale's fault, right?
I don't think so.
Drawing the Spurs *was* bad luck for the Wolves, because I think the Spurs
are set to win it all again this season...and few (if any) teams would be able
to stop them at this point.
Combine that with the fact that the West is so strong this season, and well...
you start to get the picture (and it isn't a pretty one). Hell, I think the
Wolves could have beaten just about any team in the East in a five game
series this season.
A 47 win season is nothing to be bitter about, especially given all that the
Wolves had to overcome to get there.
Ikrushlots
>Date: 5/3/2001 2:18 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <m_doeden-ya02408000R0305011416520001@news>
>
>In article <20010503144713...@ng-mq1.aol.com>,
>ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
>
>
>> Saunders' players handle themselves professionally, and they play hard
>every
>> night, so he does an outstanding job.
>
>Did this guy miss the stetch of games earlier this season when the Wolves
>were losing to the Wizards, Warriors, Clippers, etc. with some regularity?
>One of Flip's biggest problems earlier this season was failing to get his
>team up for every game.
Almost every team in teh NBA went through bad stretches. The twolves aren't
the only good team the clippers beat. I NEVER saw a game that the team was not
"up" for. They played hard EVERY night. Losing does not mean you are not
motivated or didn't play hard. The wolves had 4 new major contributors this
year, one coming in the middle of the season, and lost two key starters.
Considering what they had to overcome, they had a good season.
Ikrushlots
>
i thought you'd like it scott. It's also nice that it's from an ex coach,
someone who has a deep understanding of what flip has had to overcome.
Matt
<scott...@visi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2001 19:18:08 GMT, m_doeden@*nospam*hotmail.com (Matt) wrote:
>
> >In article <20010503144713...@ng-mq1.aol.com>,
> >ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Saunders' players handle themselves professionally, and they play hard
every
> >> night, so he does an outstanding job.
> >
> >Did this guy miss the stetch of games earlier this season when the Wolves
> >were losing to the Wizards, Warriors, Clippers, etc. with some regularity?
> >One of Flip's biggest problems earlier this season was failing to get his
> >team up for every game.
>
> Yes, they had a bad stretch for a couple of weeks, then they went on to have
> a lengthy winning streak against some of the best teams in the league.
I don't deny the winning streak. I give Flip credit for turning things
around. But the article was praising him for playing hard every night, and
that was a real problem earlier this season. They weren't, and I thought
that saying it was a strength was an oversight at best.
> Drawing the Spurs *was* bad luck for the Wolves
I reject that. We said the same thing last season. Oh, they drew the
Blazers. That was bad luck. And the year before ... oh, we drew the Spurs,
what bad luck. Before that it was the Sonics, before that, the Rockets. It
isn't bad luck. It's a failure to secure a better seed.
> Combine that with the fact that the West is so strong this season, and well...
> you start to get the picture
But it's a new excuse every year, Scott. Every year, we're making apologies
and excuses for why this team doesn't have to prove anything. We're sitting
here convincing ourselves that we shouldn't have any expectations. Half a
decade of that now. I say there are no more excuses. It's time for McFlip
to put up or shut up.
There are some who believe that you make your own luck. If you and bad luck
are always paired together, then perhaps you have to consider that you're a
part of that equation.
Matt
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
> "up" for. They played hard EVERY night. Losing does not mean you are not
> motivated or didn't play hard.
December 12 - loss to the Nets by 22 points
December 19 - loss to Golden State by 21 points
December 20 - loss to the Clippers by 7 points'
December 22 - loss at HOME to Charlotte by 11 points
There's a stretch of 10 days with four losses that are pretty tough to
swallow. I find it hard to believe this team could lose those games to
those teams by those margins without a real lack of motivation. They didn't
play hard all of the time, and these losses are evidence of that. There
were a couple of other stretches in the season where again it becomes
difficult to say that the team was playing hard and was motivated every
night. Keven Loughery was flat-out wring in saying that they did.
All I'm saying is that Flip deserves some credit for turning the season
around when he did. But in praising Flip, some people are far too willing
to overlook and gloss over the bad. Loughery said what he said in
ignorance. Once cannot look at the Wolves' season and say that they were
motivated every night. There are too many really horrific stretches to say
that.
Matt
Ikrushlots
>Date: 5/4/2001 12:02 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <m_doeden-ya02408000R0405010001430001@news>
Ignorance is pointing to four losses and making a blanket statement that they
could not have been motivated. They were very motivated to play the nets, they
just couldn't stop marbury and looked very tight. Lack of effort and
motivation--NO
S. Smith
How can McHale and Saunders do much more with the talent they
have? I think they've done a good job of putting together a decent team
year after year, despite the fact that KG has them maxed out with the
salary cap and they can't afford many other strong players to support
him.
Take a good look at the Wolves roster...it really hasn't been too
great over the last few seasons.Which only makes their five
trips in a row to the playoffs even more impressive, IMO.
Flip and McHale do a great job getting the players they have to
give it everything they've got...and occasionally a little extra.
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
>
> Ignorance is pointing to four losses
Four bad losses in a ten-day stretch. That team was not playing inspired,
motivated ball. There are other stretches I could point to if you like.
The column says that Flips team plays hard and motivated every night. It's
just not true. A lack of consistant motivation was one of the Wolves'
biggest problems this season. When the Wolves were on their game, they were
a damn good team. When they weren't focused, they were capable of looking
very bad.
Matt
Matt
<scott...@visi.com> wrote:
> How can McHale and Saunders do much more with the talent they
> have?
McHale is responsible for staffing this team. If he can't do anything to
help the situation, then it's time for him to move over and give someone
else a chance. That's my bloody point.
One of the two isn't getting it done. If Flip is the great coach you say he
is, the it's McHale. Anything else is just more excuses. I'm damned tired
of excuses. Half a decade of excuses is long enough. Someone isn't getting
his job done.
Matt
S. Smith
>In article <r6e4ftgklla65atrq...@4ax.com>, S. Smith
><scott...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> How can McHale and Saunders do much more with the talent they
>> have?
>
>McHale is responsible for staffing this team. If he can't do anything to
>help the situation, then it's time for him to move over and give someone
>else a chance. That's my bloody point.
What else can anyone else do, given the KG salary cap issue? Short of
trading KG, I don't see much that they could be doing better than they
already are. Possibly a Brandon trade, but that wouldn't leave much
at the PG spot for the Wolves to work with. Other than that, they're
left with the NBA journeymen...an area that McHale and Saunders
routinely do an excellent job with, IMO.
>One of the two isn't getting it done. If Flip is the great coach you say he
>is, the it's McHale. Anything else is just more excuses. I'm damned tired
>of excuses. Half a decade of excuses is long enough. Someone isn't getting
>his job done.
You seem to be the only one I've heard blaming McHale and Saunders
for all of the Wolves woes. Everyone else I've talked to is a bit more
realistic in their expectations for the Wolves.
Matt
<scott...@visi.com> wrote:
> What else can anyone else do, given the KG salary cap issue?
LA was once even more strapped by Shaq's contract. They managed to trade
some refuse for a young player by the name of Kobe Bryant.
Is Minnesota's an ideal situation? Nope. But it isn't enough to shrug our
shoulders and say "oh well, it's hard - I guess that means we should have
no expectations." Damn right it's hard. But it isn't impossible. If McHale
can't find a way to do something, then let someone else try. Anything less
is accepting defeat.
Matt
Rick Mons
wrote:
Yep, it's clearly Flip's fault for not personally motivating a team to
play hard. The players have no responsibility.
Of course, if the players had any responsibility, then it's McHale's
fault for picking such lousy players when motivated players were
clearly available.
"Which other players were motivated?" you ask. Well, I'm not
qualified to tell you ... just rest assured that they're out there and
Flip and Kevin just let their petty egos get in the way of signing
them.
/sarcasm mode off/
Rick Mons
Purveyor of truth, objective opinion and subjective thought. I know which is which!
Rick Mons
wrote:
>In article <jri4ftcro8vf6dt4m...@4ax.com>, S. Smith
Yep, let's bring in someone who will try something -- anything -- to
change things. Bring in someone who will shake things up, take the
wild chance in the hopes of finding that elusive key to make things
happen.
Hey, I've got an idea: let's bring back Trader Jack McCloskey.
Matt
<Ri...@RickMons.com> wrote:
> Yep, it's clearly Flip's fault for not personally motivating a team to
> play hard.
The column listed Flips motivational abilites as one of his strengths. I'm
just saying that it's bullshit and empty praise. I feel it's now
fashionable for the experts to kiss Flip's ass, and that some of what
they're saying is completely unfounded, like the comment that his teams
play hard and motivated every night.
If they want to write pretty columns about what a great and underrated
coach Flip is, then that's fine by be. But when they try to sell stuff that
just isn't true, like the Wolves playing hard and motivated every night,
it's worth pointing out.
Matt
Matt
<Ri...@RickMons.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 07:11:44 GMT, m_doeden@*nospam*hotmail.com (Matt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <jri4ftcro8vf6dt4m...@4ax.com>, S. Smith
> ><scott...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What else can anyone else do, given the KG salary cap issue?
> >
> >LA was once even more strapped by Shaq's contract. They managed to trade
> >some refuse for a young player by the name of Kobe Bryant.
> >
> >Is Minnesota's an ideal situation? Nope. But it isn't enough to shrug our
> >shoulders and say "oh well, it's hard - I guess that means we should have
> >no expectations." Damn right it's hard. But it isn't impossible. If McHale
> >can't find a way to do something, then let someone else try. Anything less
> >is accepting defeat.
>
> Yep, let's bring in someone who will try something -- anything -- to
> change things. Bring in someone who will shake things up, take the
> wild chance in the hopes of finding that elusive key to make things
> happen.
I know you're being sarcastic, but we have two choices. DO NOTHING and know
that we're never going anywhere, that we're destined to be permanantly
mired in mediocrity, or DO SOMETHING and take the chance that we could move
in either direction.
I say do something. Is there a chance we'll be worse? Sure. But there's
also a chance we'll be better. I'll take a chance over gaurenteed
mediocrity.
Matt
Ikrushlots
>in either direction.
Basically do something just for the sake of doing something without considering
circumstance . . .bad business practice.
Scott Smith
>In article <ljb5ft4mpa8ki0n35...@4ax.com>, Rick Mons
><Ri...@RickMons.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Yep, it's clearly Flip's fault for not personally motivating a team to
>> play hard.
>
>The column listed Flips motivational abilites as one of his strengths. I'm
>just saying that it's bullshit and empty praise.
Wow, Matt. You're really taking the playoffs hard this season, aren't you?
I think just about everyone that follows the NBA would consider Flip
and excellent coach.
I thought Loughery's comments on Flip were right on target...and he's
an ex-coach himself, so I tend to think he knows a little more about the
game and what's involved in coaching in the NBA than most of us fans do.
>I feel it's now
>fashionable for the experts to kiss Flip's ass, and that some of what
>they're saying is completely unfounded, like the comment that his teams
>play hard and motivated every night.
I don't think it's unfounded at all. Sure, not every member of the team
is inspired or motivated *every* night, but they most certainly are more
often than not. Flip gets a excellent effort from his players, and he has
since he took over as head coach.
>If they want to write pretty columns about what a great and underrated
>coach Flip is, then that's fine by be. But when they try to sell stuff that
>just isn't true, like the Wolves playing hard and motivated every night,
>it's worth pointing out.
The funny thing is, YOU are the only one claiming they aren't true...most
fans, sportswriters, NBA analysts, etc. all agree that Flip is an outstanding
coach.
Face it, you might be wrong on this issue, Matt.
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
Of course you consider circumstances. I'm not telling them to grab the
first person they find off the street. But if you'd like to consider
circumstance, then you've got to take into account the following
circumstance: Half a decade with little or no progress or movement.
I believe the word for that is stagnation.
Matt
Matt
<scott...@visi.com> wrote:
> I thought Loughery's comments on Flip were right on target
Then how do you explain the way this team is hot and cold? If Loughery is
right and Flip's teams ALWAYS play hard and are motivated, how do you
explain the 10-day stretch I posted about earlier, compared to an 11-game
winning streak. Same team, same talent. Difference is that they weren't
always up every night.
Basically, the reason Loughery gave for Flip being good is bunk. Flip's
teams aren't always motivated. If they were, they wouldn't have such a
disparity between highs and lows.
> Flip gets a excellent effort from his players, and he has
> since he took over as head coach.
I don't think the evidence supports this conclusion.
> The funny thing is, YOU are the only one claiming they aren't true
Which doesn't speak at all to the truth or falsity of the claim. Appeal to
majority is one of the most basic logical fallacies.
> Face it, you might be wrong on this issue, Matt.
I might. So might you.
Matt
Ikrushlots
>circumstance, then you've got to take into account the following
>circumstance: Half a decade with little or no progress or movement.
>
That is not circumstance. That is a RESULT from circumstances that should be
taken into account.
Ikrushlots
><scott...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought Loughery's comments on Flip were right on target
>
>Then how do you explain the way this team is hot and cold? If Loughery is
>right and Flip's teams ALWAYS play hard and are motivated, how do you
>explain the 10-day stretch I posted about earlier, compared to an 11-game
>winning streak. Same team, same talent. Difference is that they weren't
>always up every night.
>
>Basically, the reason Loughery gave for Flip being good is bunk. Flip's
>teams aren't always motivated. If they were, they wouldn't have such a
>disparity between highs and lows.
high's and lows: loss of two starters, 4 new key contributors, streaky jump
shooting players and no inside presence. It's easy to play hard and lose when
these circumstances are factored.
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
It's a poor result. That's my point. Circumstance is another word for
"excuse." I'm tired of excusing failure. At some point, enough is enough.
No more exucses.
Matt
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
> >In article <a2v5ftoujchuoebss...@4ax.com>, Scott Smith
> ><scott...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I thought Loughery's comments on Flip were right on target
> >
> >Then how do you explain the way this team is hot and cold? If Loughery is
> >right and Flip's teams ALWAYS play hard and are motivated, how do you
> >explain the 10-day stretch I posted about earlier, compared to an 11-game
> >winning streak. Same team, same talent. Difference is that they weren't
> >always up every night.
> >
> >Basically, the reason Loughery gave for Flip being good is bunk. Flip's
> >teams aren't always motivated. If they were, they wouldn't have such a
> >disparity between highs and lows.
>
> high's and lows: loss of two starters, 4 new key contributors,
Same team through the 10-day stretch I mentioned as the team that won 11
straight. It's inconsistent play. The talent wasn't different. It was the
same players. They didn't always play with fire. During the 10-day stretch,
the didn't play with fire. During the winning streak, they did. It's the
same team in every respect in mid-December that it was in mid-January. The
only difference is in how hard they played.
As for the "we lost two starters, poor us" mentality. No disrespect to
Sealy (RIP), but he wasn't a starter much of the previous year. And he was
a free agent anyway, with no gaurentees that we would have re-signed him.
As for Smith, they've got no one to blame but theselves. They'll get no
pity from me as far as Joe Smith goes. You reap what you sew.
Matt
Ikrushlots
>same team in every respect in mid-December that it was in mid-January. The
>only difference is in how hard they played.
And the fact that just about every team the wolves played during the winning
streak was losing there best or second best player. I recall you being the
voice of pessemism because of that, and now you conveniently cast that aside.
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
> > During the winning streak, they did. It's the
> >same team in every respect in mid-December that it was in mid-January. The
> >only difference is in how hard they played.
>
> And the fact that just about every team the wolves played during the winning
> streak was losing there best or second best player.
Which still leaves most teams better than the Nets, Nuggets, and Wizards.
> I recall you being the
> voice of pessemism because of that,
You do? Because I don't. Care to reference what you're saying, or are you
just taking blind shots hoping you might hit?
> and now you conveniently cast that aside.
I think you ought to come up with some proof that I discounted the winning
streak. Failing that, I think you should come up with, at the least, a
retraction, or *gasp* an apology.
Matt
Rick Mons
wrote:
>I know you're being sarcastic, but we have two choices. DO NOTHING and know
>that we're never going anywhere, that we're destined to be permanantly
>mired in mediocrity, or DO SOMETHING and take the chance that we could move
>in either direction.
>
>I say do something. Is there a chance we'll be worse? Sure. But there's
>also a chance we'll be better. I'll take a chance over gaurenteed
>mediocrity.
Guaranteed mediocrity? Let's see what the front office can do with
this year's pool of free agents. I'm just as disappointed about the
first-round exit from the playoffs. OTOH, a number of folks had
written off the chances of the Wolves even making the playoffs this
year with the loss of both Sealy and Smith.
Saunders and McHale have been pretty successful in "reclamation
projects" like Smith, Sealy, Ellis, Slater, etc. I'm willing to give
them more time to see how they resolve the loss of Smith and Sealy
which came shortly after the loss of Guigliotta and Mebury.
Matt
<Ri...@RickMons.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 18:13:32 GMT, m_doeden@*nospam*hotmail.com (Matt)
> wrote:
>
> >I know you're being sarcastic, but we have two choices. DO NOTHING and know
> >that we're never going anywhere, that we're destined to be permanantly
> >mired in mediocrity, or DO SOMETHING and take the chance that we could move
> >in either direction.
> >
> >I say do something. Is there a chance we'll be worse? Sure. But there's
> >also a chance we'll be better. I'll take a chance over gaurenteed
> >mediocrity.
>
> Guaranteed mediocrity? Let's see what the front office can do with
> this year's pool of free agents. I'm just as disappointed about the
> first-round exit from the playoffs.
It's not just the one. It's the five.
> OTOH, a number of folks had
> written off the chances of the Wolves even making the playoffs this
> year with the loss of both Sealy and Smith.
I certianly wasn't one of them. The Wolves were always a playoff team in my
mind.
> Saunders and McHale have been pretty successful in "reclamation
> projects" like Smith, Sealy, Ellis, Slater, etc.
Eh, they've found a couple of players, but there have been just as many
misses. Nobody that is a ture difference-maker. They've let go as many
players of this calibur as they've signed - Porter, Jackson, etc. (and you
could include Smith on this list as well). It cancels out when you're
letting go of as many role players as you're signing.
Matt
Ikrushlots
>> projects" like Smith, Sealy, Ellis, Slater, etc.
>
>Eh, they've found a couple of players, but there have been just as many
>misses. Nobody that is a ture difference-maker. They've let go as many
>players of this calibur as they've signed - Porter, Jackson, etc. (and you
>could include Smith on this list as well). It cancels out when you're
>letting go of as many role players as you're signing.
>
>Matt
Comparing Jackson to Smith, Ellis and Sealy. You should be a comedian.
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
Smith is on the list of the players they've pissed away.
> Ellis and Sealy.
Smith is at least equal to Ellis, and Porter not that different than Sealy.
So yeah, it cancels. Jackson is just another one they've pissed away, I
know you're strongly anti-Jackson, but he's a solid backup PG and he's
proven that. I'd take Jackson as my backup PG over Billups any day.
> You should be a comedian.
If you say so ... and you should be a spin-master for the Wolves, because
you have an incredible ability to spin everything in a light that absolves
the Wolves' brass of any responsibility for this team's inability to be a
contender. I hereby crown you Master of Excuses.
Matt
Ikrushlots
>you have an incredible ability to spin everything in a light that absolves
>the Wolves' brass of any responsibility for this team's inability to be a
>contender. I hereby crown you Master of Excuses.
>
>Matt
i don't do any spinning. I state the facts. I don't make unwarranted
assumptions about what has happened (as you have with jones and smith). I
don't make ridiculous predictions on how a traded player might have done had he
not been traded (West). I dont make unwarranted accusations regarding how hard
the players are trying, I don't expect a team that lost two starters and has 4
new major contributors contributors to play like world champions, I don't spin
bad players the wolves didn't resign into "major losses"(jackson). I don't
overestimate the wolves talent and underestimate the other teams in the west. i
don't blame the gm for the salary cap situation created by signing its star
player before the new rules were created ("orlando put themselves in that
position"), I don't expect that gm to be able to bring star players to
minnesota and play for peanuts, I don't expect him to make second round picks
into stars. I do recognize the adversity this team has gone though and how the
gm has miraculously kept this team a playoff team after losing arguably the
best point guard in the nba.
I also have stated, after examing the circumstances (what you would call
excuses) that mchale has made some bad moves. The biggest being the
jackson/garret trade. I don't think that would warrant firing. Every GM has
made a bad move or two.
Matt
ikrus...@aol.com (Ikrushlots) wrote:
> >If you say so ... and you should be a spin-master for the Wolves, because
> >you have an incredible ability to spin everything in a light that absolves
> >the Wolves' brass of any responsibility for this team's inability to be a
> >contender. I hereby crown you Master of Excuses.
> >
> >Matt
>
> i don't do any spinning.
Well there's a quote for the ages. I think we may just about be done here.
Matt