Minnesota Timberwolves - Dinge, die keinen eigenen Thread verdienen

[TrueBlue]

Glaubst du nicht, dass James vor gut einem Jahr nicht auch woanders für die MLE hätte unterschreiben können? Der Vertrag von Jaric ist noch um Längen schlechter. Man sieht es ja, dass sich niemand nur Fünkchen für ihn und seinen widerlich hohen Vertrag interessiert. Mike James konnte wenigstens noch verschifft werden, auch wenn aus jetziger Sicht naürlich Bob Suras Vertrag und nicht Howard Bestandteil des Deals hätte sein müssen.

 

[StephanI]

Oh man oh man! Tailor haette sich dieses Interview echt kneifen sollen. Ich glaube auch ohne dieses Interview war jedem klar was da alles in den letzten Jahren schief gelaufen ist. Es war ja kein Geheimniss das K.G. Probleme mit einigen Spielern und fuer gewisse Zeit auch mit Saunders hatte aber ihm jetzt so den Dreck in die Schuhe zu schieben ist einfach laecherlich. Taylor versucht in diesem Interview auf die billigste und laecherlichste Art und Weise sein Gesicht (und das von McFail) zu wahren.
Viel schlimmer ist das Interview allerdings fuer Fans. Man moechte als Fan zwar gerne so viel wie moeglich Hintergrundwissen haben, aber dieses Interview ist fuer mich schon fast ein bisschen zu viel.
Ich glaube, dass Interview hat noch viel deutlicher die Inkompetenz von McHail unter beweis gestellt, denn wenn jetzt laut Tailor eigentlich Trainer und Spieler am Missmanagment schuld sind, was hat McHail dann eigentlich gemacht? Traurig und laecherlich!

 

[mystic]

Glaubst du nicht, dass James vor gut einem Jahr nicht auch woanders für die MLE hätte unterschreiben können?

Hätte er nicht, ansonsten wäre er doch in Dallas oder Houston gelandet. Soweit ich mich erinnere, wollten die Rockets ihre Trade-Exception für ihn nutzen (waren um die 4 Mio. Dollar), auch die Mavericks haben James nicht die volle MLE über 4 Jahre angeboten. Minnesota hat für James weit mehr geboten, als die beiden anderen Interessenten bereit waren zu zahlen. Ingesamt kostet er den Timberwolves 5.2 Mio. + Howard-Buyout (der hat immerhin einen Vertrag mit garantierten 14.3 Mio.). Das ist ein finanzielles Disaster, was allein schon zur Kündigung führen müsste.

 

[kl3rik3r]

Bildlich: McHale bekommt ein Dutzend Millionen Dollar vom Besitzer der Wolves in kleinen Scheinen und steckt den ganzen Batzen in dessen Beisein in Brand. Und der Chef guckt zu, nickt es ab und weiter gehts. Wieviel Geld da verloren geht (Trades, sportlicher "Erfolg"), ist kaum vorstellbar...

 

[Cuttino]

Hätte er nicht, ansonsten wäre er doch in Dallas oder Houston gelandet. Soweit ich mich erinnere, wollten die Rockets ihre Trade-Exception für ihn nutzen (waren um die 4 Mio. Dollar), auch die Mavericks haben James nicht die volle MLE über 4 Jahre angeboten. Minnesota hat für James weit mehr geboten, als die beiden anderen Interessenten bereit waren zu zahlen. Ingesamt kostet er den Timberwolves 5.2 Mio. + Howard-Buyout (der hat immerhin einen Vertrag mit garantierten 14.3 Mio.). Das ist ein finanzielles Disaster, was allein schon zur Kündigung führen müsste.

also soweit ich mich erinnere war das bei james folgendermaßen: er hatte 3 hauptkriterien, nach denen er ging.

1. kohle.
2. ego.
3. spielzeit.

im prinzip boten alle 3 teams dasselbe geld, nämlich die mle. punkt 1 war deshalb erstmal kein faktor, wurde aber in späteren verhandlungen dann doch noch einer.

sein ego jedoch konnte es den rockets nicht verzeihen, dass sie ihn 1 jahr vorher getradet hatten. das war besonders in der zeit um die vertragsunterzeichnung über die presse recht deutlich zu erfahren. auch die mavs waren bei punkt 2 nicht die favoriten, da sie bereits gut besetzt waren und james' rolle im team nicht undedingt die größte gewesen wäre. bei den t-wolves hat er sich chancen ausgerechnet, zusammen mit garnett ein top-duo zu bilden. gnadenlose selbstüberschätzung, ich weiß, aber das ist halt mike james. er dachte ernsthaft, er es wäre das fehlende puzzle-stück für ein tiefes eindringen in die playoffs dort. klarer pluspukt für die t-wolves.

bei punkt 3 namen sich die rockets und t-wolves auf den ersten blick nicht viel, die mavs waren klarer außenseiter, da er dort bestenfalls 25 mpg gesehen hätte.

letztendlich war also schnell klar, dass die mavs keine rolle spielen würden, da james ganz andere prioritäten als einfach nur gewinnen hatte.

deshalb ging es am ende darum, ob er zu den rockets oder zu den t-wolves gehen würde. und genau da kam der berüchtigte trade kicker ins spiel. er forderte einen von den rockets, die wollten diesen aber nicht im vertrag haben (typischer le$ alexander move). die wolves gaben ihm diesen trade kicker und alle prioritäten waren geordnet.

er bekam das meiste geld von den t-wolves, er musste sich nicht mit seinem ego rumplagen und er erwartete die meiste spielzeit.

welch ironie, dass er am ende durch einen trade doch wieder in houston gelandet ist. ich glaube auf den trade kicker musste er aber vor dem trade verzichten.

übrigens war james schon während der saison zur deadline bereits in houston gelandet (auch für howard). jvg wollte jedoch howard nicht traden, da dieser gerade ziemlich gut spielte und er um die teamchemie fürchtete. im nachhinein konnte jvg sich wohl entscheiden wie er wollte, diese entscheidung hätte ihm wohl so oder so den kopf gekostet. ich wollte damals auch nicht traden.

verzeiht mir meinen schreibwahn für diese eigentlich recht belanglose sache.

 

[mystic]

im prinzip boten alle 3 teams dasselbe geld, nämlich die mle. punkt 1 war deshalb erstmal kein faktor, wurde aber in späteren verhandlungen dann doch noch einer.

Bist Du Dir da sicher? So weit ich mich erinnere, waren weder die Rockets noch die Mavericks bereit, James die volle MLE über 3 Jahre + Player Option zu geben, das waren nur die Timberwolves. Bei den Mavs weiss ich es gar nicht, aber die Rockets wollten eigentlichen einen Sign&Trade und dafür ihre Trade Exception nutzen. Insgesamt sollten 3 Jahre plus Team Option für etwas um die 20 Mio. Dollar für James dabei herumkommen.

die wolves gaben ihm diesen trade kicker und alle prioritäten waren geordnet.

Stimmt, die Wolves gaben James nicht nur die 3 Jahre volle MLE + Player Option sondern auch noch einen 15% Tradekicker. Hat er beim Trade wirklich darauf verzichtet? Der Trade funktioniert nämlich locker mit dem Tradekicker.

welch ironie, dass er am ende durch einen trade doch wieder in houston gelandet ist.

Wobei ich auch nicht weiß, ob der Trade so sinnvoll für die Rockets war.

 

[Stevie Pine]

Hätte er nicht, ansonsten wäre er doch in Dallas oder Houston gelandet. Soweit ich mich erinnere, wollten die Rockets ihre Trade-Exception für ihn nutzen (waren um die 4 Mio. Dollar), auch die Mavericks haben James nicht die volle MLE über 4 Jahre angeboten. Minnesota hat für James weit mehr geboten, als die beiden anderen Interessenten bereit waren zu zahlen. Ingesamt kostet er den Timberwolves 5.2 Mio. + Howard-Buyout (der hat immerhin einen Vertrag mit garantierten 14.3 Mio.). Das ist ein finanzielles Disaster, was allein schon zur Kündigung führen müsste.

...und ist wie gesagt nur die Spitze des Eisberges.

Das bizarre an der momentanen Situation: McHales Auftrag ist es, seine selbst erstellten Schrottverträge sportlich gegenwertslos (also gegen Expirings) wegzuschicken - aber nichtmal das gelingt auch nur ansatzweise (Hudson, James, Jaric, Szerbiak).

 

[mystic]

Genauso sieht es beim Trade Hassell gegen Buckner aus. Er gibt 13 Mio. an Gehalt ab, nimmt aber 15.8 Mio. wieder auf. Wozu soll das gut sein?
Zumal man bedenken muss, dass Hassell auch noch 2.5 Jahre jünger als Buckner ist.

 

[Cuttino]

Bist Du Dir da sicher? So weit ich mich erinnere, waren weder die Rockets noch die Mavericks bereit, James die volle MLE über 3 Jahre + Player Option zu geben, das waren nur die Timberwolves. Bei den Mavs weiss ich es gar nicht, aber die Rockets wollten eigentlichen einen Sign&Trade und dafür ihre Trade Exception nutzen. Insgesamt sollten 3 Jahre plus Team Option für etwas um die 20 Mio. Dollar für James dabei herumkommen.

es gab seitens der rockets versuche, james ohne die mle opfern zu müssen, nach houston zu holen. es war aber klar, dass das nicht funktionieren würde, da es in dem fall keinen heimbonus gab. deshalb war man am ende bereit, die mle zu zahlen. aber nicht den trade kicker.

bei den mavs weiß ich es nicht mehr zu 100 %, bin mir aber ziemlich sicher, dass auch die die volle mle angeboten haben.

Stimmt, die Wolves gaben James nicht nur die 3 Jahre volle MLE + Player Option sondern auch noch einen 15% Tradekicker. Hat er beim Trade wirklich darauf verzichtet? Der Trade funktioniert nämlich locker mit dem Tradekicker.

weiß ich ehrlich gesagt nicht genau. ich vermute nur, dass er darauf verzichten musste. falls nicht, wäre es noch viel größere ironie.

Wobei ich auch nicht weiß, ob der Trade so sinnvoll für die Rockets war.

welcher? howard und reed gegen james? auf jeden fall nach dem trainerwechsel. alston ist kein mann für 40 minuten und die rockets hatten gar nichts. howard hingegen hat einfach nicht mehr genug im tank um eine gesamte saison als starter zu überstehen. in den playoffs hat er total versagt. und so sehr juwan für veteran leadership stand, besser wären seine leistungen auch nicht mehr geworden. zumal er sich als bankspieler als relativ ineffektiv bewiesen hatte. im nachhinein nach der scola-verpflichtung ist die sache sogar noch eindeutiger. scola ist jetzt schon, auch mit umstellungsproblemen, ein insgesamt besserer spieler als es juwan letztes jahr war. das einzige, wo howard wirklich besser ist, ist der mitteldistanzwurf. im endeffekt habe ich einen mike james, der instant offense von der bank bringt und für entlastung auf der 1 sorgt und einen luis scola der frischen wind auf die 4 bringt lieber als juwan howard und vassilis spanoulis. ich denke die meisten bei verstand sehen das ähnlich.

 

[Giftpilz]

Genauso sieht es beim Trade Hassell gegen Buckner aus. Er gibt 13 Mio. an Gehalt ab, nimmt aber 15.8 Mio. wieder auf. Wozu soll das gut sein?

Dieser Trade erklärt sich durch das Interview - reines Loswerden eines "bad apple" aus der Garnett-Clique. Aus Sicht der Teamchemie hat es deshalb sogar Sinn, nur muss man eben verdrängen, dass man für diesen möglichen Effekt nochmal bezahlen muss, um darin mehr Positives als Negatives zu sehen.

 

[theGegen]

Ich fand ja bekanntlich auch den Ficky-Davis-Trade blöde, aber musste mich argumentativ geschlagen geben, weil man mir zurecht vorrechnen konnte, dass der deal okay war für Minny.
Immerhin wurde Howard ausbezahlt, was ich schonmal direkt vermutet hatte.

Was man jetzt ausgerechnet mit Toine Walker will, dürften wohl nur die begabtesten Seher oder Insider wissen.

Ich glaube ja, dass Minny quasi automatisch tanken wird müssen, weil mit so einem unorganischem Haufen wird es Jahre dauern, bis man nur mal an den Rand der Playoffs wird schnuppern dürfen.

Und dann erst Recht braucht es einen fähigen GM, damit man nicht nur tankt, sondern auch etliche Spieler darunter sind, die mit den richtig Guten mithalten können.

 

[mystic]

im endeffekt habe ich einen mike james, der instant offense von der bank bringt und für entlastung auf der 1 sorgt und einen luis scola der frischen wind auf die 4 bringt lieber als juwan howard und vassilis spanoulis. ich denke die meisten bei verstand sehen das ähnlich.

Das ist klar. Ich zweifle nur, dass James das wieder einbringt, was man ihm zahlt.

Auch wenn sie nicht gerade äquivalent sind, so nehme ich mal Eddie House als Beispiel, der 1.5 Mio. kassiert, um den gleichen Job zu machen wie Mike James. Wenn man das über James' Vertragslaufzeit sieht, dann hätte man nur Howard für weniger als 13.6 Mio. aus dem Vertrag herauskaufen müssen, dann hätte man schon Geld gespart.
Aber es ist schon klar, dass Howard nur einen Rosterspot belegt hätte, wobei aktuell wohl ein kleines Überangebot bei den Guards herrscht.

@Giftpilz

Eben, da wurde meiner Ansicht nach stark verdrängt.

 

[Cuttino]

hier mal eines der besten interviews, das ich je von einem eigentümer gelesen habe.

In an interview with the Pioneer Press, Wolves owner Glen Taylor candidly discussed why he supports McHale.

Pioneer Press: Fans often ask why McHale remains in charge, given the recent run of poor seasons. Can you explain your loyalty to him? It's something that many people don't understand.

Glen Taylor: I've always been kind of loyal to pretty much everybody. I don't think I have any special loyalty to Kevin that I haven't shown to other people I've worked with. If it was really obvious to me that I knew somebody else could come in and do the job really a lot better than Kevin, I'm not afraid to make that switch. I just look around the league, and I'm not sure that I see so many guys that are really very good at what Kevin does. I think there are some guys that laid out some very good business plans and followed them through, and I think we did for quite a while, too.

Also, some of the things that Kevin gets criticized for, I know it was probably much more complicated between him and (former coach) Flip (Saunders), the relationship and how decisions were being made. I probably would say, just as I like Flip and he's a good friend of mine and he gets a lot of the credit, I think a lot of these things people are saying Kevin did, I would tell you probably Flip did them, and Kevin gets criticized for them. Kevin doesn't say much about things like that.
To me, I know Kevin has taken on a lot of criticism that, if Kevin had his way, he probably wouldn't have done things a certain way. But he did it because Flip was here, and Flip was his coach, and he went with him.

PP: Can you clarify what you're talking about?

GT: Well, some things I won't clarify, but I would say the Chauncey (Billups) thing (in 2002, when Billups left Minnesota as a free agent). Kevin came to me and asked me for the money. He wanted to keep Chauncey, and I OK'd it. And Flip didn't think Chauncey was going to make it. So Kevin said we're crazy to spend this kind of money on a guy if the coach is saying that Chauncey isn't going to make it.

Chauncey really wanted to stay. Chauncey came to us and was like, I really like it here. You guys have really renewed my life. I think this is really a good team. We said, listen, if another team will pay you, you better take it, because if you come here, you may be the backup (point) guard. You probably will be. As it would have worked out, he would have been the starting guard.

Rasho (Nesterovic, former Wolves center who left via free agency in 2003) basically came and said he wouldn't play for Flip. He agreed to the money. He agreed to everything. We had him all done. We didn't want to go public with that at the time.

I'm just saying, a lot of the guys that left here, K.G. (Kevin Garnett) kind of points out that it was Kevin. I say, K.G., you even know better. You were here on the gosh-darn team. K.G. says, well, I really liked it when Flip was here; when we got rid of Flip, that's what made it bad for me. I says, well, K.G., where were you when I asked you, do you want Flip? You didn't want Flip. He says (he wanted him) now.

We knew that (Sam) Cassell and (Latrell) Sprewell had given up on Flip. That was a problem. But I was willing to deal with that issue. As a matter of fact, I told Flip to sit them on the bench and don't even play them, if that's a problem. And he didn't do it.

Then K.G. came along and he says, well, Flip doesn't have it anymore. That really puts McHale on the spot. He says, well, now if the star guy says the coach doesn't have it and we can't make it, it's kind of like, did Kevin (McHale) get rid of Flip, or did K.G. say none of us on the team trust Flip anymore? I will tell you this: Flip came to me earlier and asked to resign, said he'd resign. And McHale talked him into staying on.

I know when Flip did go, I called up Flip and said, OK, you're out, and he says yeah. I told Flip, I'd like to maybe keep you in the organization in another spot. He said OK, I'll do that. I know that two weeks later, he changed it all around, that he got fired and nobody talked to him. I know it didn't go down that way, and I know (McHale) got blamed for that.

That's not to say Kevin hasn't done some things wrong that I got kind of ticked at him for. But they're kind of other things, some of the trades, some of this type of stuff that he probably should have looked at more, checked into the character of guys more, done more work on them. So, then I go back and say, well, is it because I didn't give him enough support? I don't always just shoot a guy down like that. Maybe I didn't give him enough help.

I can assure you he holds nothing over me. I can tell you that Fred Hoiberg isn't ready yet. But Kevin wouldn't have any problem stepping down if, say, Fred was ready.

I think I'd have to go outside the organization right now to find somebody. I don't know if I want to do that to Freddie, because I've kind of told Freddie that we're preparing him. You see, it gets kind of complicated.

I have changed things on Kevin a little bit in the sense that I'm more involved and we have more of a committee (approach). I thought Kevin would say, I don't like this, I'll quit. He could have. He didn't. He chose not to.

PP: If Fred Hoiberg is McHale's successor to run the basketball department, what more does he need to do that job? Experience?

GT: I think it's just experience in the tough decisions. He's in all the meetings. I'm trying to have him go through each area. He was in charge of all the fitness on the players. I had him go through the draft, to see how we could do it better. He can see some of the stuff that we did wrong, and he's come to me about that. I said, why don't you do it better?

I think at the end, you just have to throw him out there anyhow. I don't think you can ever get somebody quite ready.

I mean, (general manager) Jim Stack has a lot of experience down in Chicago. Rob (Babcock, assistant general manager) has some experience. But I'm not sure they're the best guys to talk to the public to sell the program. McHale is very good at that. That's one of his best things. People like him. He's smart. He's witty, and all that type of stuff.

I think Fred is different, but I think Fred has the ability to do that. To me, if I could get Freddie and have him with the right, strong support staff around him, then I think he would be ready. I just don't think I'm going to ask him to do everything, just like Kevin.

Kevin is very poor on details. You've got to recognize what he is good at and what he's not good at. And generally, if we've kind of failed, it's been some of the details stuff.

PP: What kind of details?

GT: Let's just say if you're doing a trade. Checking a little bit more, checking into background a little bit more. I think some of the other teams probably have done a little bit better job. Going to Europe, knowing the guys a little bit better. Some of the details like that.

I think Kevin is a little bit like me. Either I like somebody or I don't like somebody, which is fine. But you better have some detail people behind you supporting that, making sure your feelings are right. I'm talking more about business, but I still see Kevin's job as more business.

Could we run as good without Kevin? I'm not sure we couldn't run as good without Kevin. If Kevin came and resigned, would I accept? I probably would. Do I want to fire him? Why would I want to embarrass him? He's done a lot of good.

It probably was the right thing bringing in (Stephon) Marbury (in exchange for the draft rights to Ray Allen and a first-round draft choice in 1996). But we couldn't stop that (Marbury wanting out of Minnesota). I don't hold Kevin responsible for that. That was a big upset in our plan. Wally (Szczerbiak), we probably could have gotten more out of Wally. But I think that was K.G. I really do think that was K.G. and Wally (not getting along well). I don't know what Kevin (McHale) could have done. He met with them and met with them and met with them.

PP: If McHale came to you and offered to resign, and you'd probably accept that resignation, why not go ahead and make a change now?

GT: I'm not sure what good it does, other than the media people will be happy for one week. What good does it do? I could. But I don't know how it betters our team. There's nobody quite like Kevin in that group (in the front office) that duplicates Kevin.

Kevin brings an outlook, and how to get along with players, and he can talk to players a little different than anybody I have in there. I have a lot of little parts of Kevin, but I still see Kevin as a unique individual.

He never says to me, I want to quit. If he said he wanted to quit, I'm saying I don't think it'd be a problem. I'm not having him there for the sake of having his name there.

PP: So when you say you'd probably accept his resignation, are you saying you think he's not capable?

GT: No, it's just if he said, "I'm not having fun. I don't want to do it." I thought sometimes he might say that, because he's taken a lot of criticism in the media. As you just indicated, it's kind of like I'm supporting him. Maybe I'm a little stubborn. It might be a little of that.

You've heard what I've said about Kevin before. When things go good, he's not that good. When things go bad, he's not that bad. That's what I really believe.

Probably when Kevin leaves, I want it on my terms. I don't want it because other people are beating up on him.

I've been very loyal to guys in business in general. Some guys have gone through drug-treatment programs. Some people have said, well, why don't you just get rid of them? And there's a part of me saying, yeah, but they also worked for 15 years for me before that, and they worked very hard, and I remember what they did good. I'm not sure life is that simple, that you use people when they do good and you get rid of them when you don't like them.

What Kevin would like to do, now I'm not sure. Let's just say in the last couple years, if we would have had a good year, I think he would have resigned. I think he would have resigned, because he would have felt good that we got it back (to being a successful team).

I'm not quite so sure, now that we've brought in young guys, what this does. He may want to stay with them a little bit longer. I'm just not sure. He's engaged.

In an interview with the Pioneer Press, Taylor discussed why he traded Kevin Garnett this summer to Boston, hired coach Randy Wittman and fired former coach Dwane Casey last season, among other issues.

Pioneer Press: What are your expectations for Wittman this season?

Glen Taylor: I just think that he is somehow able to figure out a rotation. It's a difficult challenge. But if he can figure out a rotation that sort of works and sort of keeps all these guys happy - I'm saying I think this is going to be really difficult.

I think he will get them to play as a team. That's my expectation. I think if they don't, he will take them out (of the game). I think we'll have 15 guys on the team, and you might see some guy sitting on the 13th or 14th or 15th spot. And I think you can figure out why they're sitting there. Randy says, "I don't think you've been playing as a team member in practice, and I'm going to discipline you and you're going to sit there." I think those guys are not going to like that. He's going to have to handle that. I'm a believer in that, so I'll back him on that.

I don't know on the wins and losses. I know I saw some other teams last year that had young guys on them, and they beat us a lot. What I saw on those teams is that they played hard. I guess if I had guys that really played hard and lost, I'm not sure that I'd be upset with that, as long as they played hard.
I thought last year, in a lot of games, we were the better team, but we just didn't play hard. So even when we won by two points, I didn't even feel good about it. We should have put them away in the third quarter by 10 points, and our guys relaxed and let them back in the game. Yeah, we won. But we shouldn't have won on a last-second shot, and I didn't like it.

I think fans like to see people give their best effort. I just didn't see that we did that last year a lot.

PP: You didn't see enough effort when Wittman was the coach or when Casey was in charge, before he was fired in January?

GT: I didn't see it in either one. I thought I was going to see it when Randy took over. I don't think I saw it like what I expected to see. There was some improvement, but I don't think he ever got it.

PP: So why did you re-sign Wittman to be the permanent coach?

GT: I don't know if we could have made those changes with K.G. here. I don't know that Randy would have made any difference if K.G. was here. I think without K.G., with new guys, it might work with Randy.

It has more to do with K.G., and K.G. not liking Mike James, and Marko (Jaric), and he didn't like Mark Blount. Heavens, half the starting team. And Ricky (Davis) didn't listen to (Wittman). So it was kind of like, holy gripes. But I don't know who I could have brought in. I know I would have had to bring in a really experienced guy. There weren't too many guys available.

Maybe the Houston coach (former Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy). I probably would have gone after him, because he could have come up here and maybe set the tone. You would have had to have had a guy like that. But once I made up my mind, which I did pretty early after the season ... that K.G. was gone, by that time, it was like, well then I think if I do that, then I think Randy can work.

PP: Was Garnett's personality, or something else about him, pushing you to trade him?

GT: I think there was a lot of stuff going on that we just couldn't talk about publicly. K.G. wanted Trenton (Hassell, forward) around. K.G. wanted Troy (Hudson, guard) around. And those guys took advantage of the situation, and it drove me nuts. I thought both of those guys could have been better players. But somehow because K.G. stuck up for them, they probably would have both been better players this year without K.G. But they had gone down the rope so far.

There was just a lot of little things going on. Ricky did some things, said some things that were wrong. K.G. should have confronted him. And he didn't do it. Then Dwane didn't do it, either. I asked K.G. about it, and his answer kind of was, 'I just don't want to baby-sit him.' I know those are kind of harsh words, but that's what leadership is about. None of us like to call it baby-sitting.

But leadership is taking on things at times when you might think it's beneath you. But it's not beneath you because you cut them off when they're little things. That's the time to cut them off, before they become major things. K.G. could have said it in a way that they would have done it.

PP: In what ways did Hassell and Hudson take advantage of their relationship with Garnett?

GT: They just didn't put the effort into it like they should have. Somehow, Trenton thought he had earned the starting role, and K.G. would keep him on the starting role. Neither guy would help certain teammates out on the floor. It wasn't as apparent to me until Wittman said, "here's what they're doing, watch them". They would run a play, and Trenton was supposed to cover for the other guy, and he wouldn't cover for the other guy. The fans didn't know that. So the other guy looked pretty stupid.

It was little stuff that ticked their teammates off. They did it to Mike James. They did it to Ricky sometimes. Of course, Ricky did it to them sometimes. Ricky was smart enough to figure things out. You don't cover my guy, I don't cover your guy. It was that type of little crap. What I'm kind of saying is, if they do it this year, pull them out of the gosh-darn game. Sit them down right there. So now you know, I'm pulling you out. I'll put you back in, but you're not doing what you just did. I saw what you did. And he can have Jerry (Sichting, assistant coach) tell them that. Or he can have Bob (Ociepka, assistant coach) tell them that. But don't make it like, well, the coach is going to jump on that guy in public.

PP: It sounds like trading Garnett almost became a necessity. Do you have any regrets about trading him?

GT: Business-wise, yes. Only in the sense that I like K.G. as a person. We put a lot of time in together. Also, I saw fans loved to watch him. He was an interesting player you hate to give up because you could build something around him. I felt bad that we never got what we wanted to. If your question is right now, do I know it's absolutely the right decision that had to be made, I do, for some reasons that you know and the other ones you're guessing at, yeah.

PP: Do you wish you had made the coaching change with Casey at a different point?

GT: I would have done it earlier, and I suggested doing it earlier. Randy wouldn't accept (taking over), and I don't think Kevin (McHale, vice president) was ready to (make a change). I'm not saying I was right. But if you're asking me, yeah, I probably saw how we went and how we got off so badly right at the very beginning. I didn't know how you were going to resurrect that. To me you had to resurrect that during the preseason.

PP: Was Wittman's disciplinarian style attractive because there was some dissension on the team last season?

GT: I think it was really important for us. It was probably the mistake we made in Dwane. I think Dwane was really a nice guy. I think a lot of guys liked him. But boy, I tell you, they just ate him up. It wasn't fair to him. I saw what happens when you can't do it that way (be a disciplinarian).

I think you have to learn about each of the guys and maybe do it a little bit different. Yeah, to me, in my speeches (to fans and the public) what I will say is that Randy will have discipline, and he will hold them accountable. I guess I'm really kind of saying that that is a quality we're asking him to do to all of the guys on the team. Then we're bringing in a couple veteran guys. And (forward) Mark Madsen will be one of our veteran guys who will adhere to that and reinforce that. Jerry and the coaches that he has on his staff, I think they're pretty much all in tune with that. They're pretty serious guys.

PP: You mentioned Wittman will keep vice president Kevin McHale further from the team than his predecessors, Casey and Flip Saunders. Why should Wittman take that approach?

GT: I think Randy will want to run the team. Randy's kind of tough in that. I think he's tough enough to tell Kevin don't talk to my team unless I tell you to talk to my team. The other two guys, they didn't do that.

There's times to talk to the team. I wouldn't go talk to the team without my coach's OK because I think you're really sending a mixed message sometimes. Kevin probably has done that. He used to do it in practice with Flip around. I used to see him talking in practice. I think it ticked the heck out of Flip.

I think Randy has already told him not to. I'm sure he has. I see what's happening. I'm sure Randy just said, "Kevin, if you've got something to say about the team, and you want it to be better, just meet with me". I think that's good. It's probably good for Kevin, too.

finde die geschehnisse hinter den kulissen ziemlich krass...

 

[Mahoney_jr]

Hm... kommt mir teilweise wie eine versteckte Antwort auf KG's versteckte Schläge in den ersten Interviews in Boston vor.

 

[Vash]

Irgendwie bestätigt das meinen Verdacht, dass KG ein mieser Leader ist und neben dem Intellekt auch das Verhalten eines großen Kindes an den Tag legt.

 

[Billups]

Sorry da ist mir wohl der Finger beim tippen verrutscht. Meinte natuerlich Richard (11. Pick 2nd Round 2007 Draft - damit es keine Missverstaendnisse mehr gibt). Zu meiner verteidigung muss ich auch sagen, dass ich waerend ich meinen Beitrag geschrieben habe, gearbeitet habe und am Telefon war...ich weiss, Ausreden ueber Ausreden..


Falls jemand in Frage stellt, dass ich ein echter Timberwolves Fan bin, weil ich mich vertippt habe, dann muss ich sagen, dass ich damit leben kann. Ich kann immerhin sagen, dass ich 98% aller Heimspiele in den letzten 2 Jahren live im Target Center gesehen habe, seit mehreren Jahre True Blue Member bin und sogar (dank eines gewonnenen Preisausschreibens) an einem Teamdinner teilgenommen habe. Ich glaube ich wuerde mich von daher schon als Fan bezeichnen!

war ja auch nur ein Spass.

 

[Cudi]

Wie schätzt ihr die Rolle von McCants in dieser Saison ein? Wird er SG spielen und Foye PG oder Telfair PG und Foye SG und McCants auf der Bank?

 

[KillerHornet]

Nein. Alle jungen Backcourtspieler der Wolves werden zunächst auf der Bank platznehmen. Es ist sicher, dass Jaric und Gomez im Backcourt starten...

 

[bigdog8]

by the way:
kriegt man jetzt nen Preis dafür, nie Pot geraucht zu haben?
Wie schön....
ich glaube, auch wenn man zu den 98% gehört, muss man damit kein Problem haben- im Gegenteil!

Ertapp mich grad dabei, dass mir verdammt langweilig is :cry:

 

[Sweet Minny]

Nein. Alle jungen Backcourtspieler der Wolves werden zunächst auf der Bank platznehmen. Es ist sicher, dass Jaric und Gomez im Backcourt starten...

Und was macht dich da so sicher? Gomez ist dann doch eher ein Brett- als Flügelspieler oder?