Literally Irresistible

Ah, I just can’t resist…

For, you see, I sometimes have a nasty habit of correcting people and pointing out their mistakes. (Not that I myself don’t make mistakes – I am quite certain I do, but nine times out of ten they are 'artistic' mistakes. um. or something.). So please allow me to (re)indulge that habit now, as it pertains to last night’s post.

While perusing the latest fantasy basketball (yes, feel free to poke fun at my enjoyable, and at least in last year’s case, lucrative, timewaster all you wish) prognostications, I came across this wonderful observation written by an Erick Schutte for rotowire.com:

After averaging 12.4 points, 6.8 assists and 3.6 rebounds in 39 games for Illinois last season, Williams is almost guaranteed to start at PG for a Utah team that literally kicked last year's starter, Carlos Arroyo, out the door.

Really, Mr. Schutte?

Now I know Utah was unhappy with Arroyo, but did someone literally strike him with the lower extremity of his or her vertebrate leg, causing Arroyo to be forced across the threshold separating the Jazz facilities and the outside world?

And if so, who?

Did 63-year-old Jazz Coach and primary Arroyo hater Gerald Eugene “Jerry” Sloan take it upon himself to do it? Or did he pass the buck (shoe?) upward to 61-year-old owner Larry H. Miller? Or did they hire someone from the outside? Some sort of Mercenary? Are there ads in the Yellow Pages for that sort of thing? 1-800-IKICKEM?

These questions are extremely important. I will die if I don’t find out the answers. Literally, dude.

An Open Letter to the IMDB

Ah, Internet Movie Database, my dear old friend…

Without your vast wealth of information regarding the latest big-screen talkies, where else would I turn when I feel the urgent need to replace, piece by piece, significant portions of the useful knowledge I learned throughout my years of schooling with trivial facts about the cinema which may or may not be needed someday for a potential war with cultureless government-bred Mega Soldiers, during which the fate of the human race may, to everyone’s surprise, depend on those who have an inordinate amount of useless movie trivia at their disposal. [The answer to that question, by the way, is I don’t know. Thankfully, it hasn’t come to that and I haven’t had to turn elsewhere. And hopefully it will stay that way].

So yes, I’ll admit it: I (but not only I – perhaps the human race as well, somewhere deep in the future) am greatly indebted to you. But the strength of this awe and devotion that characterizes my feelings toward you and your all-knowingness cannot stop me from feeling compelled to take issue with a recent piece of writing that appeared on you.

The piece of writing in question, apparently written by one Mark Englehart, appeared under the IMDB “Movie of the Day” listing this particular day. Now, this we should get straight right off the bat: Mr. Englehart deserves no criticism for his choice of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure as the movie of the day, for, as he so correctly points out, the film “[proves] to be, well, most excellent, dude!”

Instead, my issue with Mr. Englehart’s piece is the presence within it of one of my bigger pet peeves of late. Specifically, his claim that the film “literally catapulted "Excellent!" and "Dude!" into the American vernacular” really burns my goat.

Really, Mr. Englehart?
The film literally catapulted those words into our vernacular?
Really?

I was not aware that films even knew how to build/obtain catapults, let alone were able to operate them sufficiently well enough to catapult two words, themselves not actual physical objects, in a vernacular, itself again not an actual physical object.

This, were it to be true, would thus be quite the amazing feat!

But alas, despite my best attempts to stick to my belief that the universe is indeed filled with both unbridled wonderment and joyous amazement, I have a hard time believing it to be true that the film literally loaded these words into the sling of a catapult and sent them flying directly into the American vernacular.

If I didn’t know better, Mr. Englehart, I would say you are pulling my chain for one reason or another. Perhaps you were exaggerating a tad? I understand that you may enjoy the film quite a bit. Perhaps it was even moving and educational enough to change your life in some fashion. If so, I am happy for you and for the fact that you were able to experience such a successful life change at the hands of this fine piece of cinema. But is it really necessary to give the film credit for an accomplishment that seems so highly improbable? Don’t you think you have taken things a little far?

And you, IMDB…oh you…

Perhaps in your haste, IMDB, you posted his review without reading it carefully enough to notice such a blatant lie. While this is, to some degree, understandable – to keep up with the amount of information you so consistently provide surely must be quite an arduous task – it is by no means acceptable.

Now, IMDB, I do not know how you are acquainted with Mr. Englehart. Perhaps he is a friend of yours? An old college buddy, maybe? Perhaps he wrote this for you after you asked him “Could you do me a solid”? Maybe you two still sit at the same weekly poker game you have sat at for the last 20 years? Well, IMDB, if this is indeed the case, I strongly urge you to call him out on his lie next time you see him. If this occasion happens to occur at the next poker game, there is no need to make a scene – you can (though it may be difficult, I know) at least attempt to play the game as if nothing was out of the ordinary. But before the night ends - perhaps while you two are shooting the bull in the driveway after the game? - I expect you to have a little conversation with Mr. Englehart. I hope that the situation between you two can be resolved amicably; but, if not, don’t hesitate to throw hands if need be, IMDB. These things need resolution, and sometimes fisticuffs are the only way anything will get resolved around here anymore.

And if it looks like it is going to come to that, IMDB, feel free to give me a call on my cell for backup. I know some pretty wicked Judo moves and between the two of us I’m pretty sure we would literally be able to punch and roundhouse-kick his ass right back to the Stone Age.

President Walken?

(A note for you "West Wing" followers: no, this is not a post about the short-lived fictional Missouri Republican Representative/Speaker of the House turned temporary President Glenallen "Glen" Walken, so memorably (for better or worse...) portrayed on "The West Wing" by John Goodman. Sorry to disappoint.)

Bogus or no? -
Christopher Walken for President 2008.

I'm going with bogus.

But it does bring up the interesting (and truly important, if you ask me) question - If Ronald "Call me Ronnie" "Don't call me Ronnie anymore I prefer to be known as Christopher" "I really prefer being called Chris to Christopher because I think my adopted name Christopher sounds like a sneeze" Walken ran for President, would I vote for him?

Sure, he has that 'capable of taking over the world and subjecting it to his ruthless and totalitarian control and then spending hours laughing maniacally about it with that crazed evil look in his two-different-colored eyes' look about him, but then again on the flip side his choreographing and dancing in the video for Fatboy Slim's 'Weapon of Choice' is almost enough to make me vote for him just out of principle.

So really it's a toss-up between the prospect of slave life under the authoritarian regime of the all-benevolent Walken (I figure he would drop the first name once becoming dictator) and having a leader capable of a level of entertaiment value unparalleled throughout Oval Office history.

But fear not, as there are more factors to consider - The decisive factor for him getting my vote is the following quote of his, which when pictured coming out of his mouth is fairly hilarious:

"Bear costumes are funny... Bears as well."

Indeed. Bear costumes are funny.

How right you are Mr. Walken.

Or should I say, President Walken.

You asked for it, or, possibly as if within a piece of dialogue (some type of drama, perhaps): You: Asked for it

Ok, you asked for it, Alex Garnett.

A blog post just about those of you reading this thing, as you say. This is what you have asked for.

So here, instead of posting my comments in response to your comments in the comments section of my last post (which is the proper place for comments [especially when they are commenting on past comments]) I will post them as an entirely new post. Will this satiate your narcissistic desire for recognition?

I sure hope so.

So now, without further ado, the comments (note, this may, nay won't, make much if any sense unless you first read the comments section of the previous post, entitled "A Fine Mess" [which is not to say it will necessarily make any sense if you do...]):

I read, I read!
I read, and I like.

And while it is without question nice to be loved by an obviously fictitious person named Alex Garnett (there is Kevin Garnett, there is his wife Brandi Garnett, but I believe they have no children. So there is no Alex Garnett. C'mon, get serious here. There are two Garnetts and neither are named Alex, so Alex Garnett must be a nom de guerre. It doesn’t take a world-class detective like Perry Mason to figure that one out…), praise from Perry Mason himself is the true definition of heartwarming.

I am glad that you have found my blog, Perry.

But I must wonder: perhaps your lovely secretary Della Street actually found it for you? Are you trying to out-guile me here by making me believe you found the bloody thing yourself? Trying to pull a fast one? I'm no chicken born the day before today. Did you actually do any legwork here?

Either way, I appreciate the best the fact that you say I am the best. That is the best.

And yes, I know: voids. Can’t be loved. To truly love one must be loved back, I know. I do not mean to be a void. I will do what I can to avoid it. HAHAHA! Get it!?! Because the word 'void' is in the word 'avoid'. HA! And the word 'avoid' is similar to the word 'void' plus the article 'a', as in 'a void'. HAHAHA! So when I wrote in the one sentence 'a void', and then in the next sentence 'avoid', that was a funny. HAHAHAHA!

But in serious now for a second too again: I do not mean to trivialize your comments either, Alex Garnett. In spite of your obviously fake moniker/personality, I appreciate your insightful contributions regarding the major motion picture "A Fine Mess". I also appreciate your word of thanks - to make you think is always on my list of goals, though at times it is probably buried below many others. In this case it is below my goal to confuse you with writing that Microsoft Word tells me is at the level of a 5.7th grader. (Mind the decimal point – I am not attempting to brag and say I write like a 57th grader. That’s 5.7.)

And speaking again of motion pictures, have you seen the film "Touching the Void"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Get it?

VOID?!?

har de har har.

ow.

"A Fine Mess"

The task of distilling a feature length movie into a one-sentence synopsis to be used as a guide of sorts is surely a difficult task. But though I recognize the difficulty inherent in such an endeavor and I know that I would without question have tremendous difficulty if I were to try to complete such a task, I often can't help but find many of them hilarious. Not only do they end up sounding ridiculous, but also they just don't entice me to watch the movie. The most recent example of this that I have come across is for the 1986 film "A Fine Mess", the synopsis of which reads:

Two small-timers (Ted Danson, Howie Mandel) win a fixed horse race, buy an antique piano and are chased by gangsters.

Gee, can I please see that? Why must you show it at 3:30am, WB network? Don't you know that I should be sleeping and/or wasting my time on this infernal intranet at that time and that you should be showing such an exciting film at a time more conducive to my watching?

But actually, though my initial reaction was that based on that synopsis there is no way I would want to watch that movie, after some rumination I think I unfairly judged this one. Yes, it does indeed sound ridiculous. But I realize I can't fairly say it does not entice me to watch the film.

Because really: "buy an antique piano"?

If this is a major part of the plot of the film - as it must be if it warrants mention in a sentence-long synopsis, alongside such heavy-hitting plot devices as a fixed horse race and being chased by gangsters - I am left with a burning curiosity as to what is so enthralling about this antique piano. Perhaps it is haunted with the ghost of Franz Liszt? Or began its career as an alien spacecraft?

Because, I mean, really.

Either it has to be a really interesting antique piano, or the process of buying it must be really fascinating. Perhaps they bought the antique piano from Jack Ruby, who needed money to buy his soon-to-be-fateful pistol, thus enmeshing the "two small-timers" in one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all time. Or maybe the seller, before he will agree to sell them the piano, abandons them on a deserted island inhabited with ruthless genetically altered sharks with legs and guns for mouths that live and breathe on land and have a particular blood lust for small-timers. They can only purchase the piano if the two of them somehow manage to survive the sharks with guns for mouths and find their way back to Budapest, where they can finally get their hands on Liszt's old piano.

And are the gangsters chasing the small-timers because they have bought the antique piano? Why? Do the gangsters want the piano? Were they unable to complete the island full of sharks with guns for mouths test set forth by the demanding seller, and thus have resorted to obtaining the piano by less than savory means (less savory than murdering some poor defenseless sharks with guns for mouths, that is...).

Or is it the Jack Ruby connection again?

These questions are 'literally' burning in my mind. [i couldn't resist bringing up the literally complaint here, though that is an issue for another time and another place. well, actually, this is probably a pretty good place. but another time...] Maybe someone has seen the movie and can tell me?

But at the same time, the synopsis does have its shortcomings. By prominently mentioning the film's two "stars" (in this case the quotes are not meant to indicate that I am actually quoting anything, but rather are meant to indicate sarcasm on my behalf) Ted Danson and Howie Mandel, the writer of the synopsis did still manage to un-entice [what? - it's my blog, so I get to use my words] me to see the movie. If it were me and I was writing a synopsis for anything but a sitcom featuring a weathered former baseball player/playboy who owns a bar or a long running cartoon featuring an imaginative young boy called Bobby Generic, I would have left those two out. But nobody can be perfect all of the time, I suppose.

another hastily prepared (yet long) wolves thing for your (dis?)pleasure

Draft Reaction:

It’s funny how quickly things can change. If you had told me in the hours before Tuesday’s 2005 NBA draft that the Timberwolves were going to select Rashad McCants, I would have been if not happy, at least deeply relieved.

Relieved because it would have meant that the Wolves had not selected Louisville’s Francisco Garcia, whom most people in the know had forecasted as going to the Wolves. The reasoning for this prediction was solid: both recently hired draft consultant Rex Chapman and recently hired head coach Dwayne Casey were said to be very high on Garcia, and both have strong connections to college basketball in Kentucky where Garcia played. Of course, being of the opinion that Garcia was not at all a good fit for the Wolves’ needs but knowing the draft history of the Wolves franchise, I feared the worst. So, with this fear in mind, the very fact that McCants is not Garcia would have brought me a sense of relief, any maybe even satisfaction.

But, that evening in the minutes and hours after the selection of McCants, I was once again left feeling frustrated and annoyed with the drafting abilities of Kevin McHale and his cronies. Once again they had managed to mess up another draft and let the franchise down.

So what happened to cause such a seesaw type reaction? I wish I could tell you it was because of something exciting, like McCants having been involved in some sort of freak accident involving DNA-altering test drugs that initially threatened his career but ultimately fundamentally altered the structure of his DNA and imbued him with basketball super abilities (sorry…I’ve seen too many “Fantastic Four” movie trailers lately…). But no - the truth, though it appeared a bit surprising on draft night, was far less exciting and far more predictable than it appeared to be at the time.

On its surface, the draft appeared to play out very bizarrely, not conforming to any of the plethora of Mock Drafts that appeared leading up to the event. Specifically, with Toronto’s choice of former UCONN star Charlie Villanueva at #7 (which, at the time, seemed very…um…“inspired?”…or “eccentric?”), the entire first round was thrown on its head. Because of Toronto’s pick and its ramifications, most of the guys who were supposed to go in the #7-#13 range – guys like Gerald Green, Antoine Wright, Joey Graham, and Danny Granger, ended up being supplanted by a group of guys who were expected to go a bit later.

While this initially appeared shocking, in retrospect it really shouldn’t be seen that way. All that happened was that GM’s once again, as is the case every year, couldn’t resist the irresistible lure of that evil temptress known as size when it came down to decision time. Drafting players high based on size has led to more than a few disasters - players like Kwame Brown, Dasagna Diop, and even our own Michael Olowokandi haven’t lived up to their draft position - but that doesn’t seem to stop GM’s from trying. Every year, it seems, GM’s can’t stand the thought of passing on the potential of a big man with any skill. So when Toronto got the ball rolling with Charlie V., teams began to panic and decided to snatch up the big men while they still had the chance. As a result, this year the candidates for big men going earlier than they should have are the aforementioned Charlie Villanueva, as well as Andrew Bynum (#10), Fran Vasquez (#11), and Sean May (#13). As each of these players was selected, the guys who were supposed to have been chosen in this range continued to drop.

Once Los Angeles chose Bynum at #10, it became clear that at least one of the talented swingmen projected to go in the #7-#13 range (Gerald Green, Antoine Wright, Joey Graham, or Danny Granger) would be available at #14. And by the time Charlotte took May at #13, it became apparent that the Wolves could have their pick of any of these four.

At this point, I couldn’t believe our good fortune. Four incredibly talented, top-10 quality picks were ours for the choosing. Sure, McHale and Co. have made some boneheaded draft picks, but there was no way to screw this one up!

(Ok…I should mention that I still couldn’t help but imagine the worst, such as either a) the Wolves being so dedicated to their scouting that they still selected Garcia despite the other talent still on the board, or – and I didn’t think this was entirely out of the realm of possibility – b) the Wolves brass being so surprised at what had happened that they weren’t able to make a pick before their allotted 5 minutes were up and thus would have missed out on their pick).

It turns out that while they didn’t have to give up their pick, I did still manage to give them too much credit, at least in my thinking at the time. Needless to say, I was shocked, frustrated, and disappointed with the selection of Rashad McCants. Just as I would’ve been relieved with McCants because he wasn’t Garcia when I thought Garcia was going to be the choice, I was disappointed immediately with McCants because he wasn’t Green, Wright, Granger, or Graham.

The reasons why were simple to me at the time. Granger was supposedly a lock for #6 before Utah traded out of the pick, and was one of the most NBA ready and versatile players in the draft, being able to play inside and outside and guard four positions. Green is said to have endless potential - the next Tracy McGrady. Graham is an athletic beast, a Corey Maggette clone who can take the ball to the basket and finish fearlessly. Wright is the complete offensive player (his unique combination of slashing ability and great perimeter shot have drawn him comparisons to Ray Allen) as well as a great passer and pesky defender. The Timberwolves needed all of these attributes badly, and any of these guys would have been an absolute steal at #14. .

On the other hand, what the Wolves most definitely did not need, I thought at the time, was Rashad McCants. Sure, he has the ability and skill to take the ball to the basket and score. But he has a reputation for more often than not choosing to settle for a perimeter shot. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as he is a fantastic perimeter shooter; however, barring a trade this off-season, the Wolves already have Wally Szczerbiak, and they don’t exactly need another shooter. They need someone who can score one on one.

But this was a minor issue compared to concerns over McCants’s attitude. For one, though he is clearly athletic enough to be a great defender (as most NBA players are), his defense is often sub par, usually attributed to the fact that he does not have the desire to put forth the effort to play good defense. Following his selection, one of the ESPN analysts said something to the effect of “If I had a nickel for every time he buckled down and actually guarded someone, I’d have a nickel”. Not a good sign for a team that desperately needs help on the defensive end of the floor. And the thought of a backcourt/SF tandem of Cassell, McCants, and Szczerbiak is simply frightening with regard to defense (or mouthwatering, depending on your perspective, I suppose).

Couple that with the fact that he has a long tradition of other character related incidents at UNC (getting thrown off the bench for refusing to cheer for his teammates, likening his time at UNC to being in prison, not being selected for an all-star team despite being more than worthy skill-wise because of his attitude, etc.) and it seemed like McHale and Co. decided that in drafting a SG to replace Latrell Sprewell they decided to draft Latrell Sprewell version 2.0.

Yet somehow, the whole situation just wasn’t that easy. The seesaw didn't end there.

As I think and hear more about McCants, I find my attitude of disappointment and pessimism being gradually overtaken by a growing sense of optimism. Cautious – very cautious – optimism, mind you - but optimism nonetheless. Sure, some of the other guys available might have been great. But then again, maybe not: Do they Wolves (and, more importantly, does KG) really have time to wait for Green to become the next T-Mac? Do they really need someone with questionable knees who has been described as a smaller and less talented Eddie Griffin (Granger)?

And more importantly, while McCants has his shortcomings (questionable defense, lack of size that may make it difficult for him to get his shot off in the NBA against bigger SGs, etc.), he is also a tremendously talented offensive player and brings to the Wolves a number of characteristics that they desperately need. For one, he will provide a heavy dose of athleticism, something they have sorely lacked after having only one first round draft pick in the last five years. In fact, he ranked third overall in athleticism at the Chicago predraft camp, ahead of Wright, Green, and Granger.

And while the Wolves have a number of guys who can score when plays are run for them or when their open (Wally, Hassell, Hoiberg, etc.), they also desperately need someone who can create their own shot and score in a one on one situation. McCants was arguably the best pure scorer in the NCAA last year, and should be able to come in and immediately provide a much-needed scoring punch off the bench. He has the ability the score at the rim if he wants to, but he also has a fantastic perimeter shot. And the combination of great pure shooting and athleticism is not easy to come by (just look at a player like Corey Maggette at one end of the spectrum, and maybe a guy like Kyle Korver at the other). This is exactly what new head coach Dwayne Casey has been looking for – somehow who can not only hit shots but also penetrate and break down the defense and either score himself or set up easy opportunities for his teammates to score. Add to this the fact that uber-role player and three-point specialist Fred Hoiberg may miss a good portion if not all of the season after heart surgery, and McCants’s perimeter shooting will come in very handy.

In addition, while height-wise McCants is undersized at the two position (at around 6’ 3”), his wingspan is actually 6’10.75” and his standing reach is 8’7.5”. These numbers rank him right alongside players like Green, Wright, Granger, and Graham, and are plenty high for him to be a superb defender, should he put his mind to it.

And while his character background is without question worrisome, he did play three seasons for one of the NCAA’s most successful programs, and he did win a national championship. As a result he is both used to winning and has big game experience.

So I can’t help now but to hope that maybe he will be able to have the type of immediate impact that Ben Gordon (another great scorer/questionable defender from a successful college program with a national championship) had last year in Chicago. If the Wolves could rely on McCants to come into the game in the fourth quarter and put up a bunch of points in a hurry and take over the game, the potential downsides will be a lot easier to overlook.

And so while the team might have missed out on the next T-Mac, I’ll gladly take the next Ben Gordon.

In fact, at this point I’ll be happy with even less than Ben Gordon, as long as he contributes more than the last #14 pick the Wolves had (Will Avery) and more than the last shooting guard with big talent and bigger question marks about his attitude the Wolves drafted (J.R. Rider).

Looking at a draft history like that, it’s not hard to understand why it’s difficult for a Wolves fan to escape their sense of pessimism when approaching a situation like this. But why not give the guy a chance, right? At the very least let him play a game first.

So here’s to hoping that McCants, like KG was able to do ten years ago, can bring a sense of optimism and legitimate championship aspirations back to the franchise.

good luck wish for the Mayor

also, as long as i'm on this whole posting kick and as long as i'm on the subject of the timberpups, here's one more:

apparently my favorite timberwolf fred hoiberg must undergo heart surgery. i wish him the best and i hope that he gets all the care and service appropriate to his status as mayor.

Timberwolves 2005 Draft Outlook

In case anyone is curious about the minutiae of the upcoming NBA draft, retransmitted below is a hastily written article thing i wrote that appeared on the excellent and invaluable internet sports resource www.realgm.com (with some typos, unfortunately, though there are probably still plenty more in this version too...haste makes...er...typos).

now i figure i can go another month and a half without posting until you clowns start getting on my case about not posting again, right?

i jest, i jest.

i shall try to be better about it in order to keep all 6 (who am i kidding...3) of you entertained.

here's the link to the article in its native habitat too, in case your curiosity strikes you.

now without further ado...

Timberwolves 2005 Draft Outlook

The 2005 draft class differs from many in recent years in that it clearly lacks a predestined, surefire superstar - someone like Lebron James or Tim Duncan or Yao Ming – at the top. Instead, the potential top two picks are a guy whose best-case scenario comparison is Vlade Divac (Andrew Bogut) and a guy who has a ton of upside but who didn’t even start during the one year he spent in college (Marvin Williams). However, while the draft lacks the marquee star quality at the top, analysts and scouts are calling the class one of the deeper talent pools in recent memory, with an unusually high number of quality players and prospects. As a result, while there is no surefire star, thanks to the uncharacteristic depth there is an even better chance than usual that a team not selecting until the late lottery/mid first round may be able to get lucky and snag a player who will become a major contributor.

This is great news for the Minnesota Timberwolves, who after finishing a disappointing ninth in the Western Conference, choose 14th in the draft.

It’s great news because the team is just now starting to feel the worst of the Joe Smith fiasco (for those who may not know, backdoor salary dealings with Smith prompted the league to strip the Wolves of three of their last four first round draft picks). While it stung at the time, the lack of youth and athleticism caused by not having these picks has, over the past year, becoming glaringly obvious as the team continues to grow old fast. Sprewell’s age showed in the fact that he basically could no longer dunk last season (he bricked more dunk attempts than he made). Cassell can barely walk, let alone play defense or run a team. Hudson is playing on glass ankles, and even if he wasn’t he isn’t athletic enough to be a decent defender or a top-level penetrator. Hoiberg is a fantastic role player, but athleticism and Hoiberg are two words that aren’t often found in the same sentence together. Sure, KG is in his prime, but how long will that last? So when many (ok, some…ok, a few of us at least) fans are looking to potential bust Ndudi Ebi as the great hope of bringing athleticism and youth back to this team, you know the team is in trouble.

Which is why a homerun at #14 is necessary. The Wolves can’t stand to go another year in which they don’t come out with a young guy who will be able to meaningfully contribute in the short and long term. And the fact that the draft class is said to be so deep and uniformly strong in the mid to late first round makes it much more possible for the Wolves to acquire a young stud to help turn them from a group whose best days (and championship hopes) are behind them into a team that has any hope for the future. And that’s the worst-case scenario with a homerun. Best case (a grand slam instead of a home run?) is that with most of the pieces they have now, plus the addition of an athletic young player who can contribute immediately (like Ben Gordon for the Bulls last season?), they can again regain their delicate balance around KG well enough to compete right away. After all, with relatively the same team they did go to the Western Conference Finals 2 years ago. Replace Spree with a younger version of himself and make a few more tweaks and they might be back on track.

The bad news is that the Wolves have a frightening history with the #14 pick. In 1999, they selected Duke point guard Will Avery with the #14 pick, ahead of players like Ron Artest, Andrei Kirilenko, Manu Ginobili, James Posey…heck, even Jeff Foster, Kenny Thomas, and Devean George. Needless to say, Avery turned out to be a major bust. Not a good omen.

It’s an even worse omen when you consider many people’s views on what the Wolves’ draft priorities should be. Along with a center (since when does a team not need a center?), many are saying a point guard should be the top priority. While there is no question that the team’s pg situation is not is the best of shape (Hudson’s glass ankles and bad defense backing up Cassell’s rundown body and atrocious defense…), the Wolves shouldn’t rush out to get a pg just to get a pg, unless they are planning on trading Hudson or Cassell. They met with disastrous results in 1999 by drafting Avery to backup up Terrell Brandon – they don’t want to repeat the mistake this year.

If the best player available at #14 happens to be a PG, then by all means they should grab him. However, there is no logic in reaching down to grab a third string pg when there are plenty of other holes to fill (basically every position except Garnett’s). With Spree likely gone and now the news that role player extraordinaire Fred Hoiberg may miss a portion of the season – or, even worse, may have to retire - after heart surgery, the SG/SF position suddenly is much more open. And with new coach Dwayne Casey most likely looking both to run more and to acquire someone who can penetrate and break down the defense and score at the rim, a young athletic swingman could be very helpful. At the same time, last year’s center platoon of Michael Olowokandi, CBA vet and mid-season signee John Thomas, and locker room leader/dinosaur Ervin Johnson (likely to be gone this summer) could use a makeover too.

So with all of that in mind, the most promising prospects who the Wolves should hope drop to #14 are:

Antoine Wright -
6’7”, 210 lbs., Texas A&M.
Wright is very athletic – he is very quick, with a quick first step, and is a very good leaper. These qualities make him an excellent slasher, able to get into the paint and finish at the rim. In addition, he is a superb perimeter shooter, which, coupled with his slashing ability, makes him a total offensive threat. His ability to create his own offense with his athleticism would be extremely helpful for a Wolves team that lacks any one on one offensive players. Also a good passer and, thanks to his quickness, wingspan, and effort, a quality defender. Draftexpress.com lists his best-case scenario as Ray Allen, worst case the Miami Heat version of Eddie Jones

Joey Graham
6’7”, 216 lbs., SF, Oklahoma St.
Even more so than Wright, Graham is a superb athlete. He tested as the number one athlete at the Chicago pre-draft combine, and his body type, athleticism, and finishing abilities are often compared to Corey Maggette. And while his jumping ability and strength allow him to finish at will around the basket, he also has a great mid range game. An extremely effective defender as well, especially against smaller swingmen. Like Wright, he would provide the Wolves with a much needed slasher-type swingman.

Yaroslav Korolev
6’9”, 215, SF, Russia
While this pick would be more about potential (a risky move as Garnett’s – and the team’s – window of opportunity creeps toward closing), Korolev’s upside is almost too much to pass on. He’s a much better athlete than most Europeans are, and his athleticism is a great match for his length and wingspan. With his above average ball-handling skills (he could easily be a point-forward type), he is very successful at driving to the basket and scoring. He is also a great passer and playmaker, and a nice outside shooter as well. In addition, his father was a former pro basketball player, so his work ethic and dedication are more reliable than some. Word has it that he may have a promise from the Clippers at #12, however.

Raymond Felton
6’, 200 lbs., PG, North Carolina
If he even lasts that long to begin with, he is almost assured to go to Charlotte at #13. But if he somehow happens to drop to #14, the Wolves would have a hard time passing up such a quality future point guard option. He is one of the fastest players in the draft, which would fit in well with the philosophy of new coach Dwyane Casey. He is also a great playmaker and floor leader. His outside shot could be better, but it is still much improved and he continues to work on it. He would be great backing up Cassell for a season if the Wolves could find a way to unload Hudson.

Ike Diogu
6’9”, 250 lbs, PF/C?, Arizona State
While PF is the one position that the Wolves are most set at, Diogu’s above average length and shot blocking ability (aided by a 7’4” wingspan) might be enough to pair him alongside Garnett in a center-less frontcourt. With his wingspan, he is often compared to Elton Brand. He is a great rebounder, and together he and KG would dominate the glass. Offensively, he can bang down low like a big man and score effectively with his back to the basket. But, he also has the ability to shoot, including from 3-point range. Though he may lack the explosiveness of some of the others in his class, his polished skills, tremendous wingspan, and willingness to get dirty in the paint make him an attractive prospect nonetheless.