May 12, 2026 • 46 mins
Dan Barreiro opens the show reacting to the Wild loss to Colorado and some concerning comments from John Hynes after the Wild went down 3-1 in the series. Dan and Gaardsy also discuss some of the reaction to Victor Wembanyama not getting suspended and how the Wolves may respond.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
This is your when being intentional is not a good thing.
Leader Fan Fan Radio Network. But you know what and
kay fa n dot com. It's two minutes and it's
fifteen seconds past three o'clock Central daylight time. Welcome back.
(00:25):
Bumper to Bumper is live and local. Are we going
to distance tonight? How would it be? Are we out early?
Speaker 2 (00:33):
No?
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Or an extended Timberwolves pregame?
Speaker 3 (00:35):
No, we should go right to six thirty when the
pregame will take over.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
That's good, all right. I mean I'm willing to leave early.
I bet you are too. I'd like to get in place. Yeah,
by bye seven o'clock.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Tip.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
That works, So we'll be here until six thirty and
maybe longer. We'll see how that goes. I'm absolutely gorgeous.
Tuesday afternoon here in the Twin cities of Minneapolis and
Saint Paul. The name of the program is Bumper to Bumper,
sometimes called The Afternoon Ardvarc, the Friday Football Beast, number
of other names that has been called, some disparaging, occasionally
(01:08):
some complimentary as well. Guards he produces the show. My
name is Dan Barrero from Ring Stain Retch newspaper of
the Twin Cities. It does strike me as kind of
intriguing that one of the modern day twenty twenty six
(01:29):
sports cliches spouted. I mean, I guess you could say
trumpeted by sort of the new age managers to a
certain extent, the new age coaches. And this actually goes
beyond the toy department. It's in the real world too.
The term is we're going to be very intentional about
(01:51):
what we do, and silly me, I thought that's what
without calling it that that we're always doing all the time?
He thought was implied. Yeah, I thought it was intentional implied, Yeah,
we don't need to declare it other than I guess
it turns heads and be like, oh, they're serious intention
If they're intentional, they must be in this to get
(02:13):
it done. No accident, No, there's there can be no, no,
there's nothing serendipitous about it. It has to just be
there being intentional. The problem with the guy who ran
the show before, he wasn't intentional. He did things unintentionally
and it caught up with him. And I'm thinking about
this last night and this morning because I can't get
(02:36):
past the words of the Minnesota wild head coach Heinzy
in the wake of a crushing setback in Game four
that took away any chance. You can't have a pivotal
game five if the series isn't two to two, and
in the case of the Wild and the Avalanche, the
(02:58):
series is no longer longer. Well, it was never it's
now three to one, so pivotal's gone. As we discussed yesterday,
my hope was that we could have back to back
pivotal game fives Wolves tonight and Minnesota whild I think
their next game is tomorrow night, if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
So after the game, how did Heinze put it regarding
his own Well, I guess I put it this way.
He was very intentional about his criticism of his team.
Here's the quote that makes no sense to me. I
think the style of game that we needed to play
to win the game, we made the conscious choice not
(03:41):
to play that way tonight, the conscious choice not to
play the game that way or to play it the
right way. And he was asked like, well, when did
you When did you pick up on this? I'd say
from the start? Now, is that just a head coach
(04:03):
very annoyed with the way his team has preceded? Is
that a head coach being too hard on his team.
That still I mean it was a tie game? Was
it midway through the third period? Still tied to we
tied it for a couple of minutes. Yeah, yep, whatever
it was. I can't imagine a worse statement about the
(04:26):
team and about the players. I couldn't believe it when
I saw it.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
It was.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
It's maybe Louis will help translate it. He's going to
join us at five point thirty, and maybe some people
from the hockey community can do the same. We're going
to reboot the branch on Brian cafean text line presently
six four to six eighty six. But that's a new
one on me. I've listened to a lot of coaches
over the decades respond to and comment on a loss,
(04:54):
a significant loss in the postseason. I've seen a lot
of different strategies deployed.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
I've seen some coaches, very in very calculated fashion, say
not so much what they believe, but what they think
the message is that they needed to send to their team.
But this one was extremely curious, and I'm assuming from
his point of view, he's saying, hmm, we just got
(05:22):
done playing the game from the start, we consciously played
the game the right way, the style of game, and
the results were abundantly positive. Yet for whatever reason, we
stubbornly decide now we don't want to try to win
(05:44):
the same way. That's boring. Let's go out and try
to win. Let's experiment. It's only game four, Western Conference
SEMIS is what's a big deal, And by god, we're
going to prove something ourselves if we're intentional about this
and get the thing done. And it did not happen.
It frankly did not end up coming close to happen
(06:05):
and happening.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
And what.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Concerned me and what bugged me was he's right, I mean,
it was whatever it was we decided to do differently,
we did do it from the start. Now, we talked
about this yesterday. Human nature is such that the losing team,
especially if it's a good team, is going to respond
(06:28):
to getting beaten. Colorado got beat pretty soundly and decisively
in game number three. Correct, So we generally then see,
at least at the start, the other team might have
a little extra adrenaline. They might be trying to make
their own point right, They might be very intentional about
what they are attempting to do, and then the cliche
(06:48):
goes ride that adrenaline out. Just make sure it's still
a ballgame or a puck game when that adrenaline has
worn off, and you'll be fine, right But I mean,
other hand, you can't the position the team was in
the wild I'm talking about, you can't experiment that way either.
(07:10):
You at least have to attempt to join the battle,
and it looked like we didn't other than the goaltender,
I mean, and the goaltender clearly, as far as I'm concerned,
is that it's the only reason the game ended up
being as close as it was, and that's not unprecedented hockey.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
You don't have to.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Apologize for that. But in terms of everything we thought,
we learned, everything we thought we understood about how you
beat a very good you know, a team that has
champion Stanley Cup equity. How you going to give yourself
the best chance to push them and to put them
(07:45):
at least back in the situation where they return home
knowing the series is now two to two and it's
best of three. And you can also involve the other cliche.
If you do that, then to a certain extent, in
Game five, the pressure is on the lanch correct on
Colorado big time, so it was has has has Russo
(08:06):
commented on the Hindes approach because I guess some people
may say, well, he's he's trying to send a message
to his team for the next game. But I don't remember.
Like I said, I've heard a lot of explanations, assertions,
analyzes by coaches, some of them calculated, some of them
(08:27):
just you know, emotion after a game from the heart.
But that's a new one on me. We read it again.
I think the style of game that we needed to
play to win the game, we made the conscious choice
not to play that way. Todight was was steam coming
out of his ears when he said it.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
He seems like a pretty level headed guy, I thought.
But I was stunned when I saw that as well.
And the players, they didn't exactly they said, you know, we
really didn't really didn't do what we needed to do
until I don't know, about halfway through the second period,
by the way, they were leading to and actually had
some pretty good chances to go up to Rip if
I remember correctly, that they just couldn't. There was one
(09:09):
in the first period that was right in front of
the net that they missed.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
I can't remember who it was.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
And that's the disappointing part because then once Colorado kind
of got in it, then they were fanning on so
many families, right, exactly right, Yeah, they were chasing and
chasing and chasing and chasing, and it was it felt
inevitable that Colorado was going to find a way to score,
given how many opportunities the Wild gave them, just not
getting it out, not clearing it right, not getting it
(09:36):
deep enough. Like the player said, it seemed like they
had the puck for the entire first ten minutes of
the third period, and so it felt inevitable when they
took the lead.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yeah, it's I don't want to say it's soul crushing,
but pretty close to buzzkill because at the very least,
I think what you're looking for, we're back, We kind
of elevated ourselves back in it, and at the very least,
(10:06):
what we're gonna see is a hammer and tong Titanic
maybe game for the ages, kind of Stanley Cup playoff game, right,
because we knew Colorado was not gonna, you know, curl
up in the fetal position and die. But the assumption
was you're encouraged about your own performance to this point
in the series. You're at home again. The crowd, I'm assuming,
(10:29):
had to be into it. They're waiting to tear the
place down. And that's what you do. That's the state
of hockey. That's I mean, the first thing I thought
of when I read the Heines quotes was, if that's
what Heinze thinks, what does Bill Garen think? I mean
(10:51):
that I can't believe he's in a very good mood
today either. And I get it. The series isn't over
hockey three to one. Deficits not as daunting historically as basketball.
But now you got to go, well, you know the story.
You have to work twice there. I have to come
back and win here too. There's now no margin for
(11:12):
error and your your you got. Is it not fair
to say that the average hockey fan might today have
that same familiar pit in the bottom of the stomach. Yes, yeah,
even if you won, you know, you got out of
first round. That's what it reverts to. I think when
you squander what seems to be an opportunity and the
(11:35):
head coach is confirming it and saying, I am curious,
I wish and I don't know how much follow up
there was with heinsey to say, okay, well, what what
did we not play quote unquote heavy enough? What was
the style we attempted to implement to beat them this time?
That wasn't there before. Maybe that follow up was asked.
(11:57):
I don't know, because to me, that's the next question
about a conscious choice not to play that way you
have to have against the team favor to win the Cup.
It's it boggles the mind really if you think about it.
And as you said, the locker room, maybe no, he
(12:18):
was in the mood too, but it wasn't like anybody.
So I just, you know, I respectfully disagree with the
coach that they had something to do with it. There's
some things we didn't do, but we weren't, like consciously,
we weren't intentionally doing what our head coaches is suggesting.
So maybe he was just that front. Maybe maybe his
ass was just that frosted, you know, maybe he was
(12:39):
just that annoyed by what he saw that he said
I'm gonna I'm gonna say something that I don't literally
mean that we consciously did it, but it almost feels
like we did because I don't like the feeling we
now have about the opportunity that we have squandered, now
finding ourselves with no remaining margin for air against a
better team. On top of that, correct, yes, there you have.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
It, fanomigdeck dot com and give you a chance when
Bonus bucks it is our national cash contest. The first
keyword of the afternoon is fun. Go to KFA dot
com and entered the keyword first.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
I'm gonna need help from you as well. I'm gonna
need help from the audience on how the word revenge
has become twisted to a point where it's almost unrecognizable
as we prepare for the Yes, the pivotal game five
(13:33):
Wolves and Spurs tonight on the fan, we'll explain when
we return. You are listening to Barrero on the Fan
from the one eight hundred ask Gary Traffic Center. Over
the Island be a Treasure Island made twenty age and
twenty nine for two shows bursting with last games and
incredible prizes including trips to where else Vegas. Book your
(13:53):
stay say twenty percent with promo code Kfan plus a
huge announcement you won't want to miss. Get the details
now at KFN dot com. Keyword Calendar I am told
that by the end of yesterday's program, so we wrapped
up at regular times six thirty. Is that correct that
by the end of the show the number of paid
Aaron gleaman dot com subscribers had ballooned to three hundred
(14:17):
and fifty thousand.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
He's already hired multiple editors and grab the people.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
That's one hundred percent right, he's got. He might even
open it like a Duluth Bureau for God's sake, you
know a couple other spots. He's a big Minnesota guy.
Is Is he one of us? He is one of us? Yes,
the same uh Saint Paul originally? Is that true? I
think so? Oh that's side that side of the river,
side of the river. Okay, Uh yeah, it's through the roof,
is what it is. That's the we change lives. That's
(14:41):
exactly what we do. I'm sure it's coincidence that Gleaman
was on with us from four till like five oh seven?
Is fallness reminded us? I went a little longer than usual.
I thought I heard something about ninety one percent for
hockey teams winning game four to go up three to one.
Is basketball even higher probability? Or I missed a secondary
(15:05):
variable in that ninety one percent stat. I have no
idea what the rule is he saying if you win
nine percent, if you go up three to one. I
would imagine for teams winning Game four to go up
three to one. Is he saying to go on to
win the series? I would win and go up three one. Yeah,
I that that surprised me. If it's that high, If
(15:27):
it's ninety one percent, obviously your chances are good, especially
when you're playing a team that you're probably better than.
Craig writes, this is out of Boston. The former hockey
player on Nine to Noon was not bothered by the
quote that you referred to. I don't know who that is.
I'm not I didn't. I don't think I'm bothered by it.
I'm just saying it's an indictment. It's not like it
(15:50):
I've ruffled my face. It's unusual because to that extent
it feels very fro We've heard coaches before say, well,
we didn't do the things we need to do to win.
It's unusual to hear a guy say we consciously seem
to be going in a different direction. I don't know
who that was. Aimed at and maybe maybe we'll find
(16:11):
out it's some kind of calculated approach, like I said,
where he thinks he's going to work successfully on the
heads of his players. So I don't know what was
said night and noon on it. And obviously everybody is
entitled to their view on this, but it's not a
matter of being bothered. It's a matter of that that's
that's quite an indictment about the state of your team,
(16:33):
if you really believe it, given the stakes and given
the circumstances too, a combination of all those things. I
always wonder when a coach takes no responsibility and it's
so frontal about calling out his players publicly if they
are in cya mode. We coaches have had a great plan,
but the players. That's from Chris f That is always
(16:53):
a danger. We've talked about that over the years, like
it's because you can the comeback can be well, it's
your team. You're saying you didn't get to them the
right way, or the message didn't get through or whatever.
It's the well that you can go to a few times.
If you're a legend, you can go to it a lot.
If you're less than a legend, you can go there
a few times, but then it might catch up with
(17:15):
you and people start saying, well, it's your deal, you know.
Isn't that part of your responsibility? That might to be
part of the part of the story. I love that
you use the term presently correctly, but I don't agree
about your use of the term pivotal. It's the even
number of games that are pivotal resulting in a two
(17:36):
game swing. After game four, it's either tied to to
or a three to one situation, unless, of course it's
a sweep. Same with game two and six. But can't
you also say that if it's two to two, game
five is considered pivotal because then the team that loses
is one loss away from being eliminated. Yes, I think
(17:57):
that's why they call it. That's why they call it pivot.
I mean, yeah, but he's referring to as a different
kind of pivotal. True, that's true, But there are always
two game swings, I think to a certain extent, and.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
The pivotal I think has more to do with the
percentages for the team that wins the game relating to
the team.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
That loses the game.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Yes, that could be true, and that really starts in
game three. I've seen stats where in a best of seven,
whoever wins game three to go up to to one
typically has a really good chance to win. They're all
I mean, it's the playoffs. They're all important when they're
when there's a one game.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Separately, I blamed the loss and whoever brought in the
Twins what a bad home and that was the Dan Winnesota.
A lot of people have played that card. I thought
that let's play hockey presentation by our new manager was brilliant. Great,
they have into it. Yeah, definitely, he he you know,
he tried to sell it. He seemed to be engaged
(18:52):
in the moment. But yeah, that's the problem for the
Twins right now. They're gonna get blamed for even things
they have actually nothing to do with there, or there's
gonna be a feeling that the vibe is just a mistake.
You're asking, you're you're tempting the sports guys to say,
really you want to bring in members of the Twins.
But I would argue it's that the Twins were mad
(19:14):
at right. It's the owner we're mad at right. Not
necessarily the players are the players and he's the manager.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Done.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Yeah, nothing be a good dude, seems like, and lost
a lot in Pittsburgh. He lost like, you know, ninety,
like one hundred games a season for five years.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Another locked in ownership. From what I've gathered, that's the Pirates.
That's also fairness in Shelton Savage react. They had justin
Jefferson do one as well, and it was as good
a let's play hockey that's ever been done in the building.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
And they lost that game too. So yeah, we well
we get you know, how it goes. I mean we
we there's a lot of psychoses he related to this stuff,
and so we're gonna put we have plenty two and two.
We're gonna put two and two and two together and
come up with ten because when you get that stuff
in your mind, you're going to come up with reasons
that have nothing to do with the actual outcome. The
(20:06):
Wild had a blueprint. Game three was the blueprint for
how to tie the series up, and they did not
execute and bring the same style of play. That's what
Heinze was trying to express and perhaps light of fire
in his team. They clearly had conversations pregame on the
benure between periods, but little adjustments by the team were made.
I loved the comment. Again, I'm not here to praise
(20:26):
or to savage the comment. I'm just saying it's an
unusual comment and it's very telling. It's how does that
happen exactly? And that's what it that's the issue it
raises because to his point, well, he's trying to motivate
for the next game, and you say, okay, that's fine
and good, but this was the game. I mean, game
four was the game. Now, if they turn around and
win three in a row, we'll call it. It will
(20:48):
be called the stroke of psychological genius. Right, it will
be repeated early and often that Heinsey went someplace where
no other coach had gone before with the conscious part,
although he would have been better off saying intentional, because
that's more within in a while in twenty twenty six
than conscious. Don't you think, Yes, we were not intentional.
We're not intentional enough people. I think I think the
(21:09):
kids would have really gone, Oh that's they would have. Yeah,
he no, wonder they didn't win. They weren't intentional enough
or no, in this case, they were intentional about playing
the wrong way, which makes absolutely no sense. By the way,
injury update. I don't know if this is the Spurs
attempt to tease Wolves Nation Wolves fans, but have you
(21:34):
noticed that now not one, but two I have important
Spurs wing players have now popped up on the injured
list for tonight as questionable. We knew about Dearon Fox
already right ankle soreness yep, for me yesterday. And now
Dylan Harper, who, by the way, there are NBA people
who will tell you that today right now, Dylan Harper
(21:57):
is the second best player on the team. He's good.
He had the last game twenty four points. Yep. I
think it was like seven to ten from the foot.
He was clinical. So Harper has got left knee soreness.
Fox has right ankle soreness. They're both being viewed, I
believe as game time decisions. So is that the Spurs
(22:18):
teasing us a little bit? Or are is there a
chance that either of both of those guys are going
to be out? Because if both of them are out,
that's enormous. Oh, it's huge, enormous. Yeah. Now that doesn't
mean even if we're intentional, we automatically win, but that's
a huge swing on the injury scale, right, because those
(22:39):
are two very good. They played well the other layers
and exactly it. So stay tuned. I meant to text
Johnny to see if he's got any inside word, even
off the record, what people are saying on the chances
that either of both of them would play, and if
the even one of them is out, I think that
could have some significance tempered, I mean just playing hampered. Yes,
(23:01):
the day of injury report AD is always more ominous.
That's what the NBA insiders always tell us.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
That's true.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
They put the one out the day before.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Everybody kind of knows, Okay, this is what's going on,
this is what's happening. When things get added day of,
it's almost to me like an automatic doubtful when somebody's
listened as questionable the day of.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Now again, it's the playoffs. You fight your way through it.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Interestingly, the Wolves have an update to their injury reports
as well, where Julius Randall is listed as questionable, but
it has nothing.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
To do with injury. Yeah, I didn't, I mean, might
only have four more days of this. Did you listen
to the things Randall had to say after the last
the victory, No, I didn't listen. I noticed it looks
like Iscoggins was talking to him, He'll get you to
(23:52):
cut up in the van. He didn't acknowledge. I think
he called his performance solid. Yeah, now again, I get it.
Players aren't going to savage themselves, but you'd like to
think at some point, you know, you go, hey, I
I gotta do more to help my guy. I this
is not me. I had a couple of moments, but
he sounded a bit on the defensive side. We talked
(24:14):
about his stats yesterday. They've been awful in this series.
He's shooting in the like thirty thirty three percent thirty
five percent range. He's got three times more turnovers and assists.
That's it. So yeah, the turnovers have been very bad too.
But here's where I need help on the So all
(24:35):
I've read today in preparation or and seen both you know,
broadcast and online written material, is this question being asked
in varying ways? Is will this be Wemby's Will tonight
be the night that Wemby exacts revenge? And what makes
(25:00):
chuckle about that, isn't it? It's a great headline, It
gets people's attention, revenge factor. We love all that stuff.
But let's go back and review how we got to
the current place we are wemby being guarded. I'd say hard,
but I don't think dirtily, to be honest with you,
(25:22):
throws a deliberate, calculated, vicious elbow, gets thrown out of
the game, which was automatic on the basis of the
way the rules are set up for a flagrant troop too,
doesn't get any further suspension, doesn't get fined at all,
(25:43):
leaves his team in the lurch in a key game
in which this team might have gotten control by losing
control of himself, and he's mad as hell, is not
gonna take it anymore. How does that add up to me?
It makes no sense. The guy who has a right
to talk about revenge if you're going to go down
(26:05):
the R word is nasried right, He's the guy who
got knocked big time. And somehow this is being turned
into you woke up, You woke up the sleeping giant
by surrounding him and following him. That that's waking up
(26:29):
the sleeping giant. And then he responds by getting kicked
out of the game, and somehow that's the wolf fault.
So he has a right to say I'm going to
take it out on him. It makes as an angle.
It just doesn't make any sense to me regarding revenge, right, No,
it doesn't. We're just making the and what it is
is we like the angle because is it possible that
(26:50):
he will come back and play the game of his life? Yes,
but I would submit the reason he should be motivated
and wanting to want to do that is he led
his team. Do not that somehow wolves are going to
pay for that. The wolves are going to pay for
me throwing a flagrant, too vicious elbow to an opposing
(27:13):
player's throat. It doesn't make any sense, but we want
it so bad not to take this anymore now, Draymond Green?
Who better? By the way, at a time like this,
the ultimate arbiter? We were waiting for Draymond to weigh
in the the You want to talk about a guy
(27:35):
who's intentional when it comes to cheap shots and even
analyzing them? Who better than dayDay? We got about? I
think it's about three minutes of sound. You can fade
it when you think it's run its course, but it
will sort of set up a different part of this
story that raises other tantalizing questions. I think for tonight,
(27:57):
let's listen to day Day who. By the way, is
there a doubt that when he retires he will be
the single biggest NBA broadcast entity this side of Charles Barkley? Think, oh,
I absolutely, because I think he is good at this.
I think he's No. I think he's gonna be great.
(28:19):
I mean, forget the biases. I'm just saying day to
day his ability to find the story that matters and
to comment on it, I think no. I think he's
going to be absolutely brilliant. But let's listen to what
he had to say about Rudy, I should say, Wemby,
the Wolves and what might be coming next.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
We found out this morning that Wemby won't be suspended,
that Wemby will not be fined, and that life just
goes on. And as someone who's been suspended from a
very important Game five, I think me being suspended from
(28:57):
Game five is actually irrelevant. What I do think is relevant, though,
is what if it was nas read elbow and Winby
like that?
Speaker 4 (29:07):
So if nas reed looked at Winby, turned away.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
Loaded his elbow right to the neck, and proceeded to
follow through with the other hand, as though that wasn't
a mistake.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
I didn't mistakenly elbowed you. I elbowed you to put
you down.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
And now I'm coming through and follow with my left
hand to actually make sure you go down and get
off me. What would have happened now? When I saw
this happening, and then I saw miss Johnson's press conference,
I was like, whoa, he took matters in his own hand,
(29:46):
and if the referees ain't gonna call it, I'm happy
he did. Well, there's intent, guys, there's intent. Y'all won't
get them off, so I'm gonna do it. So as
I posed the question, what if it was the shoe
was on the other foot and it was now its
retaking out winby, I think this situation will look totally different.
(30:09):
There would be fines, there would be suspensions. Listen, I'm
not one to ever want to see guys get suspended,
but standards has been set, finds have happened. Jade, mcdanie's
and Joker just got fine for much less for there
not to even be a fine. It's crazy.
Speaker 4 (30:32):
It's crazy, and I'm not I'm not four guys getting fine.
I'm not four guys getting suspended.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
But for their not to even be a fine, let
alone a suspension, I think it's insane. So what I
would say to the Minnesota Timberward after watching their coach say, well,
I'm happy he took.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
The matters into his own hands and.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Level nas read would another I would say to the
Minnesota Timberwolves, Hey, guys, this is fair game. There's no suspension,
there's no finds. This is fair game. Who coming out
there to night or tomorrow nighting doing it to Wimby?
Who's going to elbow him in the face? That's what
(31:20):
That's what I would be saying, like, who who's getting him?
Because clearly there are no finds for this act. There's
no suspensions. You may get ejected, fine, you may take
Winby at the game. So who's doing this to Wimby?
Because to see the reactions like yo, Mitch, miss Johnson
(31:45):
reactions crazy, To see those reactions, you gotta get your
get back. If nobody's coming back at those guys going
back at Wimby, you lose the war because what he
just did was set of toe and you either go
(32:05):
full force at it or you get rolled. Though, So
we gonna see what the Minnesota Timberwools do there.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
It is a lot to chew on. There an awful
lot to chew on this, uh I. On several points,
I agree with Green. I think the sad reality, you know,
I felt all along that if you don't suspend him,
I'm fine if the reason is history, which often is
(32:37):
taken under history of that player, which is often taken
under consideration, which I think is fair. It shouldn't be
well because he's a star, he was, he's the future
of the league, whatever the case may be. That's what
Kendrick Perkins is going with exactly and there and there
may be some truth to it that I can't countenance.
But there are people because somebody I think the other
day said well, it's like, you know, it's difference between
(33:00):
like Steph Curry and Draymond not saying about history but
talking about stature. And I'm going no, no, no history counts.
History should be a part of as far as I'm concerned,
stature is what shouldn't and sometimes sadly does. But I'm
here to tell you as juicy as those comments were,
and I don't disagree with them about the fine, and
(33:22):
I don't disagree with them. I think the Spurs coach's
reaction has sort of been like, well, that's what we
expect him to say, but it is sort of saying, well,
he did what he had to do. He was frustrated
and he had at some point he had to take
a stand. I mean, that was a very vicious play
that goes beyond even old style basketball. Even then, it
(33:42):
would have be viewed as well, you're gonna get thrown
out of the game. But we have to define terms.
When Draymond says about losing the battle, what's the battle
and what's the war tonight? The battle might well be
(34:02):
confrontations or you know, physical situations that arise and statements
you might want to try to make that you're not
backing down regardless of a concern that the refs are
going to try to protect the player or overcorrect, and
that you're not going to back down just because he
(34:22):
threw a vicious elbow. You're still going to guard him tough.
But the war is the victory, correct, The war is
the game. And so I'll grant you this. If Ingles
is ready to be sacrificed to go to yeah, and
even because I mean, you know, then okay, then yeah,
(34:44):
I guess you'd have to consider it, but you cannot.
That's sadly one of Draymond's weaknesses is you have to
you have to remember that the war isn't just that macho.
I gotta fire back, I gotta we got to stand
up for ourselves. I think there's ways to do that
physically in this game. Test the refs, we'll see how
(35:06):
that goes. Often there is an overreaction. There was an
overreaction in the in the Oklahoma City Lakers series when
Laker head coach whined about officiating in the next two games.
I'm told, okay, Lkac barely went to the line. I
didn't matter. They say they want. They've swept the series,
so there's that danger. But to me, the Finchy objective
(35:28):
and his statements and his speeches pregame is, guys, we
really want to piss off Wemby and the Spurs and
even you know, the powers that be in this league
that have already anointed this guy is the future and
maybe even protected him by not suspending him or at
least fighting him in addition to throwing him out of
the game.
Speaker 4 (35:48):
Beat him.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Come back here up three games to two with a
chance to do what we did against Denver and end
the series right here. That's that's that's how you thread
the needle on this thing. You can't now you want
to get to the regular season next year. Sure, you know,
because that happens in hockey some and even in basketball. Okay, yeah,
but this is our this is our playoff life. These
are playoff lives on the line here in the next
(36:12):
three games. That's the one part of the discourse today,
and you nailed it.
Speaker 4 (36:17):
Is.
Speaker 3 (36:18):
What I also don't agree with is, yeah, of course
you want to keep the physicality, you want to keep
doing exactly what you've been doing. Yes, you want to
keep following your game plan. But to go in there
because Kendrick Perkins said the same thing. He said, someone's
got to go get him. He said, I'm a thousand
percent on what Draymond said. Yeah, someone's got it, which
I don't agree with because and it.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Depends on what that means. Because I saw Perkins in
that segment showed a couple of shots of when he
basically sat a couple of mean picks knocking I can't
remember who the player was down, Yeah, to stand up
for a teammate. And I still just don't like that. Well,
the danger of it is if it escalates. Yeah, but
there there may be to be physical to try to
(37:01):
get the point across. But in the end, I think
you got to You gotta fight that battle another day
unless you don't care about winning the war. All you
care about is you know what we did. We stood
up ourselves. Well we we Yeah, technically we lost, you
know the series and six, but we stood.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
Up our tried. That's what That's what I rebel against.
It's like to me, I'm thinking, Gordon Bombay, Mighty Ducks.
We beat him on the scoreboard. Yes, that's what I'm thinking.
I'm thinking, Happy Gilmore, Shoot h mcavin, you're gonna kick
your ass on the course, That's what I'm thinking. I'm
not trying to think about right, settling scores because just
because this dude lost his mind and got himself tossed,
(37:41):
and you're mad about it because he didn't get any
further suspension or fine. And I'm sure the Wolves are
mad about it, even though they knew that he probably
wasn't going to be.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Knock him out of the playoffs. This whole season has
been about them going up against Oklahoma City in the
Western Conference Finals. That's how you get him back. Double
T on this subject and much more at the top
of the hour, Louis to talk puck at five thirty.
We've got some women's hockey to discuss when we come
back in a couple of other texts to get to
as well. Don't away you're listening to Berrero on the fan.
(38:12):
Carboni's Pizza Ria ready to run the floor for your
Game five playoff party tonight. Swing by one of their
thirty plus locations, grab championship level pizza. Gets set for
another deep playoff run. Find your nearest Carbonis at Carboni's
Pizza dot com. Double t at the top of the hour,
and Luigi will join us at his customary five thirty time.
(38:32):
On this edition of the A Bumper to Bumper program,
a seven to one guy writes, calculated equals intentional. Well,
we know that the idea was certain buzzwords have arisen,
have sort of been popularized by the with it and
wild crowd, and they don't use calculated because it doesn't
(38:56):
sound as impressive as intentional. So that was the point.
We're well aware that the word that Heinze used in
his quote basically means the same thing, but you got
to follow along here. Seven to one guy, the word
intentional has become kind of a catch word and a
(39:17):
subject we've had some fun with from time to time.
Seven six to three, rights, Dan. The way of the
word revenge is using the context of Wemby is against
the league and not the Wolves or nas. He's going
to come out tonight and put up a quadruple double
and drop fifty plus on the Wolves tonight? He might,
(39:39):
but I'll ask seven sixth three guy, the same thing
against the league for what the league had. First of all,
didn't make the decision to have him thrown out of
the game. There is no one even in the San
Antonio Spurs organization has disputed the decision to have him
(40:03):
thrown out of the game. The behavior literally defined a
flagrant too, So he's mad at the league. He's going
to be mad at the league for throwing him out
and not any additional punishment when they could have levied
additional punishment. That's what doesn't make sense. This is all
(40:24):
about the Wemby mythology. I hate to say it is
he's the guy, and he should be. He's tremendous, and
I think there's no reason to think he's not gonna
be anything but an all time player. But we're getting
caught up. A lot of even people in my business are.
They're getting caught up in the mythology of he's execut
he's mad. Now, okay, he might. Michael Jordan used to
(40:47):
lie to himself about being disrespected. Wemby was not disrespected
by the league. Literally, his action with the elbow is
textbook of it. Wasn't even like a borderline call that
he had to be thrown out of the game. But
the idea that he's going to take it out in
(41:07):
the league for that when they actually could have punished
him more, that's just you wanting to believe the mythology
of god. I can't wait when he scores one hundred
against the Wolves. Now we'll say, and again he might.
He might play very very well. He's a great player.
We've already seen that. So the wise I should say,
(41:30):
the Frost and the Montreal team, they are going to
play game five tonight.
Speaker 4 (41:34):
Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (41:35):
As of now? Games on?
Speaker 3 (41:38):
I see if anybody else gets to sniffles from Montreal.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
I stand by my position yesterday. This whole thing smells
it may well be that it was a league. Remember,
there really are no There are individual teams, but they're
all run by the same people. Right, that's the way
this league is set up. Right now, they're saying that's
the only way can work financially, at least early. So
(42:03):
I'm not here saying this was not that necessarily this
was a Montreal team conspiracy. But nobody's going to tell
me again it's unfortunate. But what I've read, and I
think their indications they had enough players to play, They didn't.
They were going to be missing some key players. But
this notion that something that it's basically the intestinal flu.
(42:25):
You're going to tell me that that health officials are
going to say it's too dangerous to expose the other
team to intestinal flu in a hockey game. Sorry, Now,
we all know things do go through hockey teams fast,
but that to me is feeble and frankly, part of
(42:45):
the problem has been there's not been just the way
this story has been handled. It hasn't been handled, you
know that to give people a better idea. Okay, here's
the reason we did this. This this and if there's
been any kind of pressure to that point or any
kind of statements I've missed. Forgive me, I'll look for them.
(43:06):
I haven't able to find them. But it's all been
very vague about that. This was that league health officials
kind of made this call and it's not the hauntavirus
and it's not yeah, and so it's thin to me,
and it comes off whether it's intended or now. I
also say I have been told in terms of extra players,
(43:27):
because you know, finances are still relatively limited compared to
certainly the NHL, that they don't have as many extra
players that might make this more problematic. But I keep
reading that there were enough players to play and it's
their bad luck if their main players are not available.
I don't deny that, but you got to play it.
It's an unfortunate circumstance. But to me, if you've got
enough people, you have to play the game, and if
(43:51):
you don't, it it falls under that classification to we
have looking kind of patronizing, well, we got to protect
these female athletes. Come on, I mean, it's and everything
I've been told indicated that our club wanted to play.
Of course they're ready to go. And again you could say, well,
what if the shoe was on the other foot. You're right.
(44:11):
I mean you may look at it differently, and it's
an unfortunate circumstance. But also giving these scheduling issues that
have to do with arena availabilities for the next round,
now it's getting really complicated. No time to sell tickets,
hardly at all. You got to play the game. And
and nothing I've seen yet takes away my suspicion that
this was a bad decision that was that was done
(44:37):
for all the wrong reasons. If you're a bit, if
you're trying to become big time and want to be
taken seriously as a league, as unfortunate as that circumstance
would be, I think, you got to play the game, don't.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
You Knowing now what we know that it was four
or five players that were sick, you have to play
the game because, to quote Draymond Green from earlier, now,
what's the precedent, Yeah, that's exactly what.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
Moving forward, we can go, hey, we got three, Yeah,
that's right, we got three, and what's the line might
be our top line and we don't have a lot
of secondary scoring like that. I'm stunned that this is
what it was. Once we learned that it was basically
five players.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
I'm shocked that they made this entire accommodation for that,
because I don't we were I was with Parker Fox
last night's fiance, Taylor's on the team. We were talking
about it, and we're going to be doing Hollom with
the homies tonight after game five, and we were talking
about he found a game in like two thousand and
four in the NHL that was canceled.
Speaker 1 (45:31):
I don't think it was playoffs. I don't think it
was anything like this where you can find random games,
these random one offs, right, not many, and not for
something like this.
Speaker 4 (45:40):
No.
Speaker 1 (45:40):
Well, unless in your constitution ahead of time, you've got
a set of rules that mean yeah, that sort of
dictate and you say, well, here, let me show you,
here's what we already have in our in our constitution
or rule book, whatever the case may be. But I
don't think that exists in this case. I think I
think they got caught. They didn't quite know what to do,
(46:00):
and they said, oh, you know, you got some players
who are you know, who are sick, and come on
the idea that you're worried about other players because it's
not COVID, it's not any of those sorts of things.
It's not hantavirus, it's the intestinal flu basically as well,
and that's not fun. But no, you if you want
to be taken seriously, you got to go ahead and
(46:20):
play no matter. And I would say the same thing
whether the frost or on the other side of that,
we would I think, I think we would double tea
on Wolves Spurs. By the way, Wolves still double digit
underdogs tonight, make a lot of money Ben Wolve's money line,
and that's what's interesting. So we'll talk to double T.
What's the formula for success from the Wolves tonight? What
chance does he give the Wolves tonight? His reaction to
(46:42):
the wimby fury, and oh so much for he's always
got the coolest head in the room. Double T. Trent
Tucker is next Bumper to Bumper with Dan Burrera
This is your when being intentional is not a good thing.
Leader Fan Fan Radio Network. But you know what and
kay fa n dot com. It's two minutes and it's
fifteen seconds past three o'clock Central daylight time. Welcome back.
(00:25):
Bumper to Bumper is live and local. Are we going
to distance tonight? How would it be? Are we out early?
Speaker 2 (00:33):
No?
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Or an extended Timberwolves pregame?
Speaker 3 (00:35):
No, we should go right to six thirty when the
pregame will take over.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
That's good, all right. I mean I'm willing to leave early.
I bet you are too. I'd like to get in place. Yeah,
by bye seven o'clock.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Tip.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
That works, So we'll be here until six thirty and
maybe longer. We'll see how that goes. I'm absolutely gorgeous.
Tuesday afternoon here in the Twin cities of Minneapolis and
Saint Paul. The name of the program is Bumper to Bumper,
sometimes called The Afternoon Ardvarc, the Friday Football Beast, number
of other names that has been called, some disparaging, occasionally
(01:08):
some complimentary as well. Guards he produces the show. My
name is Dan Barrero from Ring Stain Retch newspaper of
the Twin Cities. It does strike me as kind of
intriguing that one of the modern day twenty twenty six
(01:29):
sports cliches spouted. I mean, I guess you could say
trumpeted by sort of the new age managers to a
certain extent, the new age coaches. And this actually goes
beyond the toy department. It's in the real world too.
The term is we're going to be very intentional about
(01:51):
what we do, and silly me, I thought that's what
without calling it that that we're always doing all the time?
He thought was implied. Yeah, I thought it was intentional implied, Yeah,
we don't need to declare it other than I guess
it turns heads and be like, oh, they're serious intention
If they're intentional, they must be in this to get
(02:13):
it done. No accident, No, there's there can be no, no,
there's nothing serendipitous about it. It has to just be
there being intentional. The problem with the guy who ran
the show before, he wasn't intentional. He did things unintentionally
and it caught up with him. And I'm thinking about
this last night and this morning because I can't get
(02:36):
past the words of the Minnesota wild head coach Heinzy
in the wake of a crushing setback in Game four
that took away any chance. You can't have a pivotal
game five if the series isn't two to two, and
in the case of the Wild and the Avalanche, the
(02:58):
series is no longer longer. Well, it was never it's
now three to one, so pivotal's gone. As we discussed yesterday,
my hope was that we could have back to back
pivotal game fives Wolves tonight and Minnesota whild I think
their next game is tomorrow night, if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
So after the game, how did Heinze put it regarding
his own Well, I guess I put it this way.
He was very intentional about his criticism of his team.
Here's the quote that makes no sense to me. I
think the style of game that we needed to play
to win the game, we made the conscious choice not
(03:41):
to play that way tonight, the conscious choice not to
play the game that way or to play it the
right way. And he was asked like, well, when did
you When did you pick up on this? I'd say
from the start? Now, is that just a head coach
(04:03):
very annoyed with the way his team has preceded? Is
that a head coach being too hard on his team.
That still I mean it was a tie game? Was
it midway through the third period? Still tied to we
tied it for a couple of minutes. Yeah, yep, whatever
it was. I can't imagine a worse statement about the
(04:26):
team and about the players. I couldn't believe it when
I saw it.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
It was.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
It's maybe Louis will help translate it. He's going to
join us at five point thirty, and maybe some people
from the hockey community can do the same. We're going
to reboot the branch on Brian cafean text line presently
six four to six eighty six. But that's a new
one on me. I've listened to a lot of coaches
over the decades respond to and comment on a loss,
(04:54):
a significant loss in the postseason. I've seen a lot
of different strategies deployed.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
I've seen some coaches, very in very calculated fashion, say
not so much what they believe, but what they think
the message is that they needed to send to their team.
But this one was extremely curious, and I'm assuming from
his point of view, he's saying, hmm, we just got
(05:22):
done playing the game from the start, we consciously played
the game the right way, the style of game, and
the results were abundantly positive. Yet for whatever reason, we
stubbornly decide now we don't want to try to win
(05:44):
the same way. That's boring. Let's go out and try
to win. Let's experiment. It's only game four, Western Conference
SEMIS is what's a big deal, And by god, we're
going to prove something ourselves if we're intentional about this
and get the thing done. And it did not happen.
It frankly did not end up coming close to happen
(06:05):
and happening.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
And what.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Concerned me and what bugged me was he's right, I mean,
it was whatever it was we decided to do differently,
we did do it from the start. Now, we talked
about this yesterday. Human nature is such that the losing team,
especially if it's a good team, is going to respond
(06:28):
to getting beaten. Colorado got beat pretty soundly and decisively
in game number three. Correct, So we generally then see,
at least at the start, the other team might have
a little extra adrenaline. They might be trying to make
their own point right, They might be very intentional about
what they are attempting to do, and then the cliche
(06:48):
goes ride that adrenaline out. Just make sure it's still
a ballgame or a puck game when that adrenaline has
worn off, and you'll be fine, right But I mean,
other hand, you can't the position the team was in
the wild I'm talking about, you can't experiment that way either.
(07:10):
You at least have to attempt to join the battle,
and it looked like we didn't other than the goaltender,
I mean, and the goaltender clearly, as far as I'm concerned,
is that it's the only reason the game ended up
being as close as it was, and that's not unprecedented hockey.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
You don't have to.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Apologize for that. But in terms of everything we thought,
we learned, everything we thought we understood about how you
beat a very good you know, a team that has
champion Stanley Cup equity. How you going to give yourself
the best chance to push them and to put them
(07:45):
at least back in the situation where they return home
knowing the series is now two to two and it's
best of three. And you can also involve the other cliche.
If you do that, then to a certain extent, in
Game five, the pressure is on the lanch correct on
Colorado big time, so it was has has has Russo
(08:06):
commented on the Hindes approach because I guess some people
may say, well, he's he's trying to send a message
to his team for the next game. But I don't remember.
Like I said, I've heard a lot of explanations, assertions,
analyzes by coaches, some of them calculated, some of them
(08:27):
just you know, emotion after a game from the heart.
But that's a new one on me. We read it again.
I think the style of game that we needed to
play to win the game, we made the conscious choice
not to play that way. Todight was was steam coming
out of his ears when he said it.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
He seems like a pretty level headed guy, I thought.
But I was stunned when I saw that as well.
And the players, they didn't exactly they said, you know, we
really didn't really didn't do what we needed to do
until I don't know, about halfway through the second period,
by the way, they were leading to and actually had
some pretty good chances to go up to Rip if
I remember correctly, that they just couldn't. There was one
(09:09):
in the first period that was right in front of
the net that they missed.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
I can't remember who it was.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
And that's the disappointing part because then once Colorado kind
of got in it, then they were fanning on so
many families, right, exactly right, Yeah, they were chasing and
chasing and chasing and chasing, and it was it felt
inevitable that Colorado was going to find a way to score,
given how many opportunities the Wild gave them, just not
getting it out, not clearing it right, not getting it
(09:36):
deep enough. Like the player said, it seemed like they
had the puck for the entire first ten minutes of
the third period, and so it felt inevitable when they
took the lead.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yeah, it's I don't want to say it's soul crushing,
but pretty close to buzzkill because at the very least,
I think what you're looking for, we're back, We kind
of elevated ourselves back in it, and at the very least,
(10:06):
what we're gonna see is a hammer and tong Titanic
maybe game for the ages, kind of Stanley Cup playoff game, right,
because we knew Colorado was not gonna, you know, curl
up in the fetal position and die. But the assumption
was you're encouraged about your own performance to this point
in the series. You're at home again. The crowd, I'm assuming,
(10:29):
had to be into it. They're waiting to tear the
place down. And that's what you do. That's the state
of hockey. That's I mean, the first thing I thought
of when I read the Heines quotes was, if that's
what Heinze thinks, what does Bill Garen think? I mean
(10:51):
that I can't believe he's in a very good mood
today either. And I get it. The series isn't over
hockey three to one. Deficits not as daunting historically as basketball.
But now you got to go, well, you know the story.
You have to work twice there. I have to come
back and win here too. There's now no margin for
(11:12):
error and your your you got. Is it not fair
to say that the average hockey fan might today have
that same familiar pit in the bottom of the stomach. Yes, yeah,
even if you won, you know, you got out of
first round. That's what it reverts to. I think when
you squander what seems to be an opportunity and the
(11:35):
head coach is confirming it and saying, I am curious,
I wish and I don't know how much follow up
there was with heinsey to say, okay, well, what what
did we not play quote unquote heavy enough? What was
the style we attempted to implement to beat them this time?
That wasn't there before. Maybe that follow up was asked.
(11:57):
I don't know, because to me, that's the next question
about a conscious choice not to play that way you
have to have against the team favor to win the Cup.
It's it boggles the mind really if you think about it.
And as you said, the locker room, maybe no, he
(12:18):
was in the mood too, but it wasn't like anybody.
So I just, you know, I respectfully disagree with the
coach that they had something to do with it. There's
some things we didn't do, but we weren't, like consciously,
we weren't intentionally doing what our head coaches is suggesting.
So maybe he was just that front. Maybe maybe his
ass was just that frosted, you know, maybe he was
(12:39):
just that annoyed by what he saw that he said
I'm gonna I'm gonna say something that I don't literally
mean that we consciously did it, but it almost feels
like we did because I don't like the feeling we
now have about the opportunity that we have squandered, now
finding ourselves with no remaining margin for air against a
better team. On top of that, correct, yes, there you have.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
It, fanomigdeck dot com and give you a chance when
Bonus bucks it is our national cash contest. The first
keyword of the afternoon is fun. Go to KFA dot
com and entered the keyword first.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
I'm gonna need help from you as well. I'm gonna
need help from the audience on how the word revenge
has become twisted to a point where it's almost unrecognizable
as we prepare for the Yes, the pivotal game five
(13:33):
Wolves and Spurs tonight on the fan, we'll explain when
we return. You are listening to Barrero on the Fan
from the one eight hundred ask Gary Traffic Center. Over
the Island be a Treasure Island made twenty age and
twenty nine for two shows bursting with last games and
incredible prizes including trips to where else Vegas. Book your
(13:53):
stay say twenty percent with promo code Kfan plus a
huge announcement you won't want to miss. Get the details
now at KFN dot com. Keyword Calendar I am told
that by the end of yesterday's program, so we wrapped
up at regular times six thirty. Is that correct that
by the end of the show the number of paid
Aaron gleaman dot com subscribers had ballooned to three hundred
(14:17):
and fifty thousand.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
He's already hired multiple editors and grab the people.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
That's one hundred percent right, he's got. He might even
open it like a Duluth Bureau for God's sake, you
know a couple other spots. He's a big Minnesota guy.
Is Is he one of us? He is one of us? Yes,
the same uh Saint Paul originally? Is that true? I
think so? Oh that's side that side of the river,
side of the river. Okay, Uh yeah, it's through the roof,
is what it is. That's the we change lives. That's
(14:41):
exactly what we do. I'm sure it's coincidence that Gleaman
was on with us from four till like five oh seven?
Is fallness reminded us? I went a little longer than usual.
I thought I heard something about ninety one percent for
hockey teams winning game four to go up three to one.
Is basketball even higher probability? Or I missed a secondary
(15:05):
variable in that ninety one percent stat. I have no
idea what the rule is he saying if you win
nine percent, if you go up three to one. I
would imagine for teams winning Game four to go up
three to one. Is he saying to go on to
win the series? I would win and go up three one. Yeah,
I that that surprised me. If it's that high, If
(15:27):
it's ninety one percent, obviously your chances are good, especially
when you're playing a team that you're probably better than.
Craig writes, this is out of Boston. The former hockey
player on Nine to Noon was not bothered by the
quote that you referred to. I don't know who that is.
I'm not I didn't. I don't think I'm bothered by it.
I'm just saying it's an indictment. It's not like it
(15:50):
I've ruffled my face. It's unusual because to that extent
it feels very fro We've heard coaches before say, well,
we didn't do the things we need to do to win.
It's unusual to hear a guy say we consciously seem
to be going in a different direction. I don't know
who that was. Aimed at and maybe maybe we'll find
(16:11):
out it's some kind of calculated approach, like I said,
where he thinks he's going to work successfully on the
heads of his players. So I don't know what was
said night and noon on it. And obviously everybody is
entitled to their view on this, but it's not a
matter of being bothered. It's a matter of that that's
that's quite an indictment about the state of your team,
(16:33):
if you really believe it, given the stakes and given
the circumstances too, a combination of all those things. I
always wonder when a coach takes no responsibility and it's
so frontal about calling out his players publicly if they
are in cya mode. We coaches have had a great plan,
but the players. That's from Chris f That is always
(16:53):
a danger. We've talked about that over the years, like
it's because you can the comeback can be well, it's
your team. You're saying you didn't get to them the
right way, or the message didn't get through or whatever.
It's the well that you can go to a few times.
If you're a legend, you can go to it a lot.
If you're less than a legend, you can go there
a few times, but then it might catch up with
(17:15):
you and people start saying, well, it's your deal, you know.
Isn't that part of your responsibility? That might to be
part of the part of the story. I love that
you use the term presently correctly, but I don't agree
about your use of the term pivotal. It's the even
number of games that are pivotal resulting in a two
(17:36):
game swing. After game four, it's either tied to to
or a three to one situation, unless, of course it's
a sweep. Same with game two and six. But can't
you also say that if it's two to two, game
five is considered pivotal because then the team that loses
is one loss away from being eliminated. Yes, I think
(17:57):
that's why they call it. That's why they call it pivot.
I mean, yeah, but he's referring to as a different
kind of pivotal. True, that's true, But there are always
two game swings, I think to a certain extent, and.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
The pivotal I think has more to do with the
percentages for the team that wins the game relating to
the team.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
That loses the game.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Yes, that could be true, and that really starts in
game three. I've seen stats where in a best of seven,
whoever wins game three to go up to to one
typically has a really good chance to win. They're all
I mean, it's the playoffs. They're all important when they're
when there's a one game.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Separately, I blamed the loss and whoever brought in the
Twins what a bad home and that was the Dan Winnesota.
A lot of people have played that card. I thought
that let's play hockey presentation by our new manager was brilliant. Great,
they have into it. Yeah, definitely, he he you know,
he tried to sell it. He seemed to be engaged
(18:52):
in the moment. But yeah, that's the problem for the
Twins right now. They're gonna get blamed for even things
they have actually nothing to do with there, or there's
gonna be a feeling that the vibe is just a mistake.
You're asking, you're you're tempting the sports guys to say,
really you want to bring in members of the Twins.
But I would argue it's that the Twins were mad
(19:14):
at right. It's the owner we're mad at right. Not
necessarily the players are the players and he's the manager.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Done.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Yeah, nothing be a good dude, seems like, and lost
a lot in Pittsburgh. He lost like, you know, ninety,
like one hundred games a season for five years.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Another locked in ownership. From what I've gathered, that's the Pirates.
That's also fairness in Shelton Savage react. They had justin
Jefferson do one as well, and it was as good
a let's play hockey that's ever been done in the building.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
And they lost that game too. So yeah, we well
we get you know, how it goes. I mean we
we there's a lot of psychoses he related to this stuff,
and so we're gonna put we have plenty two and two.
We're gonna put two and two and two together and
come up with ten because when you get that stuff
in your mind, you're going to come up with reasons
that have nothing to do with the actual outcome. The
(20:06):
Wild had a blueprint. Game three was the blueprint for
how to tie the series up, and they did not
execute and bring the same style of play. That's what
Heinze was trying to express and perhaps light of fire
in his team. They clearly had conversations pregame on the
benure between periods, but little adjustments by the team were made.
I loved the comment. Again, I'm not here to praise
(20:26):
or to savage the comment. I'm just saying it's an
unusual comment and it's very telling. It's how does that
happen exactly? And that's what it that's the issue it
raises because to his point, well, he's trying to motivate
for the next game, and you say, okay, that's fine
and good, but this was the game. I mean, game
four was the game. Now, if they turn around and
win three in a row, we'll call it. It will
(20:48):
be called the stroke of psychological genius. Right, it will
be repeated early and often that Heinsey went someplace where
no other coach had gone before with the conscious part,
although he would have been better off saying intentional, because
that's more within in a while in twenty twenty six
than conscious. Don't you think, Yes, we were not intentional.
We're not intentional enough people. I think I think the
(21:09):
kids would have really gone, Oh that's they would have. Yeah,
he no, wonder they didn't win. They weren't intentional enough
or no, in this case, they were intentional about playing
the wrong way, which makes absolutely no sense. By the way,
injury update. I don't know if this is the Spurs
attempt to tease Wolves Nation Wolves fans, but have you
(21:34):
noticed that now not one, but two I have important
Spurs wing players have now popped up on the injured
list for tonight as questionable. We knew about Dearon Fox
already right ankle soreness yep, for me yesterday. And now
Dylan Harper, who, by the way, there are NBA people
who will tell you that today right now, Dylan Harper
(21:57):
is the second best player on the team. He's good.
He had the last game twenty four points. Yep. I
think it was like seven to ten from the foot.
He was clinical. So Harper has got left knee soreness.
Fox has right ankle soreness. They're both being viewed, I
believe as game time decisions. So is that the Spurs
(22:18):
teasing us a little bit? Or are is there a
chance that either of both of those guys are going
to be out? Because if both of them are out,
that's enormous. Oh, it's huge, enormous. Yeah. Now that doesn't
mean even if we're intentional, we automatically win, but that's
a huge swing on the injury scale, right, because those
(22:39):
are two very good. They played well the other layers
and exactly it. So stay tuned. I meant to text
Johnny to see if he's got any inside word, even
off the record, what people are saying on the chances
that either of both of them would play, and if
the even one of them is out, I think that
could have some significance tempered, I mean just playing hampered. Yes,
(23:01):
the day of injury report AD is always more ominous.
That's what the NBA insiders always tell us.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
That's true.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
They put the one out the day before.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Everybody kind of knows, Okay, this is what's going on,
this is what's happening. When things get added day of,
it's almost to me like an automatic doubtful when somebody's
listened as questionable the day of.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Now again, it's the playoffs. You fight your way through it.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Interestingly, the Wolves have an update to their injury reports
as well, where Julius Randall is listed as questionable, but
it has nothing.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
To do with injury. Yeah, I didn't, I mean, might
only have four more days of this. Did you listen
to the things Randall had to say after the last
the victory, No, I didn't listen. I noticed it looks
like Iscoggins was talking to him, He'll get you to
(23:52):
cut up in the van. He didn't acknowledge. I think
he called his performance solid. Yeah, now again, I get it.
Players aren't going to savage themselves, but you'd like to
think at some point, you know, you go, hey, I
I gotta do more to help my guy. I this
is not me. I had a couple of moments, but
he sounded a bit on the defensive side. We talked
(24:14):
about his stats yesterday. They've been awful in this series.
He's shooting in the like thirty thirty three percent thirty
five percent range. He's got three times more turnovers and assists.
That's it. So yeah, the turnovers have been very bad too.
But here's where I need help on the So all
(24:35):
I've read today in preparation or and seen both you know,
broadcast and online written material, is this question being asked
in varying ways? Is will this be Wemby's Will tonight
be the night that Wemby exacts revenge? And what makes
(25:00):
chuckle about that, isn't it? It's a great headline, It
gets people's attention, revenge factor. We love all that stuff.
But let's go back and review how we got to
the current place we are wemby being guarded. I'd say hard,
but I don't think dirtily, to be honest with you,
(25:22):
throws a deliberate, calculated, vicious elbow, gets thrown out of
the game, which was automatic on the basis of the
way the rules are set up for a flagrant troop too,
doesn't get any further suspension, doesn't get fined at all,
(25:43):
leaves his team in the lurch in a key game
in which this team might have gotten control by losing
control of himself, and he's mad as hell, is not
gonna take it anymore. How does that add up to me?
It makes no sense. The guy who has a right
to talk about revenge if you're going to go down
(26:05):
the R word is nasried right, He's the guy who
got knocked big time. And somehow this is being turned
into you woke up, You woke up the sleeping giant
by surrounding him and following him. That that's waking up
(26:29):
the sleeping giant. And then he responds by getting kicked
out of the game, and somehow that's the wolf fault.
So he has a right to say I'm going to
take it out on him. It makes as an angle.
It just doesn't make any sense to me regarding revenge, right, No,
it doesn't. We're just making the and what it is
is we like the angle because is it possible that
(26:50):
he will come back and play the game of his life? Yes,
but I would submit the reason he should be motivated
and wanting to want to do that is he led
his team. Do not that somehow wolves are going to
pay for that. The wolves are going to pay for
me throwing a flagrant, too vicious elbow to an opposing
(27:13):
player's throat. It doesn't make any sense, but we want
it so bad not to take this anymore now, Draymond Green?
Who better? By the way, at a time like this,
the ultimate arbiter? We were waiting for Draymond to weigh
in the the You want to talk about a guy
(27:35):
who's intentional when it comes to cheap shots and even
analyzing them? Who better than dayDay? We got about? I
think it's about three minutes of sound. You can fade
it when you think it's run its course, but it
will sort of set up a different part of this
story that raises other tantalizing questions. I think for tonight,
(27:57):
let's listen to day Day who. By the way, is
there a doubt that when he retires he will be
the single biggest NBA broadcast entity this side of Charles Barkley? Think, oh,
I absolutely, because I think he is good at this.
I think he's No. I think he's gonna be great.
(28:19):
I mean, forget the biases. I'm just saying day to
day his ability to find the story that matters and
to comment on it, I think no. I think he's
going to be absolutely brilliant. But let's listen to what
he had to say about Rudy, I should say, Wemby,
the Wolves and what might be coming next.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
We found out this morning that Wemby won't be suspended,
that Wemby will not be fined, and that life just
goes on. And as someone who's been suspended from a
very important Game five, I think me being suspended from
(28:57):
Game five is actually irrelevant. What I do think is relevant, though,
is what if it was nas read elbow and Winby
like that?
Speaker 4 (29:07):
So if nas reed looked at Winby, turned away.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
Loaded his elbow right to the neck, and proceeded to
follow through with the other hand, as though that wasn't
a mistake.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
I didn't mistakenly elbowed you. I elbowed you to put
you down.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
And now I'm coming through and follow with my left
hand to actually make sure you go down and get
off me. What would have happened now? When I saw
this happening, and then I saw miss Johnson's press conference,
I was like, whoa, he took matters in his own hand,
(29:46):
and if the referees ain't gonna call it, I'm happy
he did. Well, there's intent, guys, there's intent. Y'all won't
get them off, so I'm gonna do it. So as
I posed the question, what if it was the shoe
was on the other foot and it was now its
retaking out winby, I think this situation will look totally different.
(30:09):
There would be fines, there would be suspensions. Listen, I'm
not one to ever want to see guys get suspended,
but standards has been set, finds have happened. Jade, mcdanie's
and Joker just got fine for much less for there
not to even be a fine. It's crazy.
Speaker 4 (30:32):
It's crazy, and I'm not I'm not four guys getting fine.
I'm not four guys getting suspended.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
But for their not to even be a fine, let
alone a suspension, I think it's insane. So what I
would say to the Minnesota Timberward after watching their coach say, well,
I'm happy he took.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
The matters into his own hands and.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Level nas read would another I would say to the
Minnesota Timberwolves, Hey, guys, this is fair game. There's no suspension,
there's no finds. This is fair game. Who coming out
there to night or tomorrow nighting doing it to Wimby?
Who's going to elbow him in the face? That's what
(31:20):
That's what I would be saying, like, who who's getting him?
Because clearly there are no finds for this act. There's
no suspensions. You may get ejected, fine, you may take
Winby at the game. So who's doing this to Wimby?
Because to see the reactions like yo, Mitch, miss Johnson
(31:45):
reactions crazy, To see those reactions, you gotta get your
get back. If nobody's coming back at those guys going
back at Wimby, you lose the war because what he
just did was set of toe and you either go
(32:05):
full force at it or you get rolled. Though, So
we gonna see what the Minnesota Timberwools do there.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
It is a lot to chew on. There an awful
lot to chew on this, uh I. On several points,
I agree with Green. I think the sad reality, you know,
I felt all along that if you don't suspend him,
I'm fine if the reason is history, which often is
(32:37):
taken under history of that player, which is often taken
under consideration, which I think is fair. It shouldn't be
well because he's a star, he was, he's the future
of the league, whatever the case may be. That's what
Kendrick Perkins is going with exactly and there and there
may be some truth to it that I can't countenance.
But there are people because somebody I think the other
day said well, it's like, you know, it's difference between
(33:00):
like Steph Curry and Draymond not saying about history but
talking about stature. And I'm going no, no, no history counts.
History should be a part of as far as I'm concerned,
stature is what shouldn't and sometimes sadly does. But I'm
here to tell you as juicy as those comments were,
and I don't disagree with them about the fine, and
(33:22):
I don't disagree with them. I think the Spurs coach's
reaction has sort of been like, well, that's what we
expect him to say, but it is sort of saying, well,
he did what he had to do. He was frustrated
and he had at some point he had to take
a stand. I mean, that was a very vicious play
that goes beyond even old style basketball. Even then, it
(33:42):
would have be viewed as well, you're gonna get thrown
out of the game. But we have to define terms.
When Draymond says about losing the battle, what's the battle
and what's the war tonight? The battle might well be
(34:02):
confrontations or you know, physical situations that arise and statements
you might want to try to make that you're not
backing down regardless of a concern that the refs are
going to try to protect the player or overcorrect, and
that you're not going to back down just because he
(34:22):
threw a vicious elbow. You're still going to guard him tough.
But the war is the victory, correct, The war is
the game. And so I'll grant you this. If Ingles
is ready to be sacrificed to go to yeah, and
even because I mean, you know, then okay, then yeah,
(34:44):
I guess you'd have to consider it, but you cannot.
That's sadly one of Draymond's weaknesses is you have to
you have to remember that the war isn't just that macho.
I gotta fire back, I gotta we got to stand
up for ourselves. I think there's ways to do that
physically in this game. Test the refs, we'll see how
(35:06):
that goes. Often there is an overreaction. There was an
overreaction in the in the Oklahoma City Lakers series when
Laker head coach whined about officiating in the next two games.
I'm told, okay, Lkac barely went to the line. I
didn't matter. They say they want. They've swept the series,
so there's that danger. But to me, the Finchy objective
(35:28):
and his statements and his speeches pregame is, guys, we
really want to piss off Wemby and the Spurs and
even you know, the powers that be in this league
that have already anointed this guy is the future and
maybe even protected him by not suspending him or at
least fighting him in addition to throwing him out of
the game.
Speaker 4 (35:48):
Beat him.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Come back here up three games to two with a
chance to do what we did against Denver and end
the series right here. That's that's that's how you thread
the needle on this thing. You can't now you want
to get to the regular season next year. Sure, you know,
because that happens in hockey some and even in basketball. Okay, yeah,
but this is our this is our playoff life. These
are playoff lives on the line here in the next
(36:12):
three games. That's the one part of the discourse today,
and you nailed it.
Speaker 4 (36:17):
Is.
Speaker 3 (36:18):
What I also don't agree with is, yeah, of course
you want to keep the physicality, you want to keep
doing exactly what you've been doing. Yes, you want to
keep following your game plan. But to go in there
because Kendrick Perkins said the same thing. He said, someone's
got to go get him. He said, I'm a thousand
percent on what Draymond said. Yeah, someone's got it, which
I don't agree with because and it.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Depends on what that means. Because I saw Perkins in
that segment showed a couple of shots of when he
basically sat a couple of mean picks knocking I can't
remember who the player was down, Yeah, to stand up
for a teammate. And I still just don't like that. Well,
the danger of it is if it escalates. Yeah, but
there there may be to be physical to try to
(37:01):
get the point across. But in the end, I think
you got to You gotta fight that battle another day
unless you don't care about winning the war. All you
care about is you know what we did. We stood
up ourselves. Well we we Yeah, technically we lost, you
know the series and six, but we stood.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
Up our tried. That's what That's what I rebel against.
It's like to me, I'm thinking, Gordon Bombay, Mighty Ducks.
We beat him on the scoreboard. Yes, that's what I'm thinking.
I'm thinking, Happy Gilmore, Shoot h mcavin, you're gonna kick
your ass on the course, That's what I'm thinking. I'm
not trying to think about right, settling scores because just
because this dude lost his mind and got himself tossed,
(37:41):
and you're mad about it because he didn't get any
further suspension or fine. And I'm sure the Wolves are
mad about it, even though they knew that he probably
wasn't going to be.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
Knock him out of the playoffs. This whole season has
been about them going up against Oklahoma City in the
Western Conference Finals. That's how you get him back. Double
T on this subject and much more at the top
of the hour, Louis to talk puck at five thirty.
We've got some women's hockey to discuss when we come
back in a couple of other texts to get to
as well. Don't away you're listening to Berrero on the fan.
(38:12):
Carboni's Pizza Ria ready to run the floor for your
Game five playoff party tonight. Swing by one of their
thirty plus locations, grab championship level pizza. Gets set for
another deep playoff run. Find your nearest Carbonis at Carboni's
Pizza dot com. Double t at the top of the hour,
and Luigi will join us at his customary five thirty time.
(38:32):
On this edition of the A Bumper to Bumper program,
a seven to one guy writes, calculated equals intentional. Well,
we know that the idea was certain buzzwords have arisen,
have sort of been popularized by the with it and
wild crowd, and they don't use calculated because it doesn't
(38:56):
sound as impressive as intentional. So that was the point.
We're well aware that the word that Heinze used in
his quote basically means the same thing, but you got
to follow along here. Seven to one guy, the word
intentional has become kind of a catch word and a
(39:17):
subject we've had some fun with from time to time.
Seven six to three, rights, Dan. The way of the
word revenge is using the context of Wemby is against
the league and not the Wolves or nas. He's going
to come out tonight and put up a quadruple double
and drop fifty plus on the Wolves tonight? He might,
(39:39):
but I'll ask seven sixth three guy, the same thing
against the league for what the league had. First of all,
didn't make the decision to have him thrown out of
the game. There is no one even in the San
Antonio Spurs organization has disputed the decision to have him
(40:03):
thrown out of the game. The behavior literally defined a
flagrant too, So he's mad at the league. He's going
to be mad at the league for throwing him out
and not any additional punishment when they could have levied
additional punishment. That's what doesn't make sense. This is all
(40:24):
about the Wemby mythology. I hate to say it is
he's the guy, and he should be. He's tremendous, and
I think there's no reason to think he's not gonna
be anything but an all time player. But we're getting
caught up. A lot of even people in my business are.
They're getting caught up in the mythology of he's execut
he's mad. Now, okay, he might. Michael Jordan used to
(40:47):
lie to himself about being disrespected. Wemby was not disrespected
by the league. Literally, his action with the elbow is
textbook of it. Wasn't even like a borderline call that
he had to be thrown out of the game. But
the idea that he's going to take it out in
(41:07):
the league for that when they actually could have punished
him more, that's just you wanting to believe the mythology
of god. I can't wait when he scores one hundred
against the Wolves. Now we'll say, and again he might.
He might play very very well. He's a great player.
We've already seen that. So the wise I should say,
(41:30):
the Frost and the Montreal team, they are going to
play game five tonight.
Speaker 4 (41:34):
Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (41:35):
As of now? Games on?
Speaker 3 (41:38):
I see if anybody else gets to sniffles from Montreal.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
I stand by my position yesterday. This whole thing smells
it may well be that it was a league. Remember,
there really are no There are individual teams, but they're
all run by the same people. Right, that's the way
this league is set up. Right now, they're saying that's
the only way can work financially, at least early. So
(42:03):
I'm not here saying this was not that necessarily this
was a Montreal team conspiracy. But nobody's going to tell
me again it's unfortunate. But what I've read, and I
think their indications they had enough players to play, They didn't.
They were going to be missing some key players. But
this notion that something that it's basically the intestinal flu.
(42:25):
You're going to tell me that that health officials are
going to say it's too dangerous to expose the other
team to intestinal flu in a hockey game. Sorry, Now,
we all know things do go through hockey teams fast,
but that to me is feeble and frankly, part of
(42:45):
the problem has been there's not been just the way
this story has been handled. It hasn't been handled, you
know that to give people a better idea. Okay, here's
the reason we did this. This this and if there's
been any kind of pressure to that point or any
kind of statements I've missed. Forgive me, I'll look for them.
(43:06):
I haven't able to find them. But it's all been
very vague about that. This was that league health officials
kind of made this call and it's not the hauntavirus
and it's not yeah, and so it's thin to me,
and it comes off whether it's intended or now. I
also say I have been told in terms of extra players,
(43:27):
because you know, finances are still relatively limited compared to
certainly the NHL, that they don't have as many extra
players that might make this more problematic. But I keep
reading that there were enough players to play and it's
their bad luck if their main players are not available.
I don't deny that, but you got to play it.
It's an unfortunate circumstance. But to me, if you've got
enough people, you have to play the game, and if
(43:51):
you don't, it it falls under that classification to we
have looking kind of patronizing, well, we got to protect
these female athletes. Come on, I mean, it's and everything
I've been told indicated that our club wanted to play.
Of course they're ready to go. And again you could say, well,
what if the shoe was on the other foot. You're right.
(44:11):
I mean you may look at it differently, and it's
an unfortunate circumstance. But also giving these scheduling issues that
have to do with arena availabilities for the next round,
now it's getting really complicated. No time to sell tickets,
hardly at all. You got to play the game. And
and nothing I've seen yet takes away my suspicion that
this was a bad decision that was that was done
(44:37):
for all the wrong reasons. If you're a bit, if
you're trying to become big time and want to be
taken seriously as a league, as unfortunate as that circumstance
would be, I think, you got to play the game, don't.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
You Knowing now what we know that it was four
or five players that were sick, you have to play
the game because, to quote Draymond Green from earlier, now,
what's the precedent, Yeah, that's exactly what.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
Moving forward, we can go, hey, we got three, Yeah,
that's right, we got three, and what's the line might
be our top line and we don't have a lot
of secondary scoring like that. I'm stunned that this is
what it was. Once we learned that it was basically
five players.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
I'm shocked that they made this entire accommodation for that,
because I don't we were I was with Parker Fox
last night's fiance, Taylor's on the team. We were talking
about it, and we're going to be doing Hollom with
the homies tonight after game five, and we were talking
about he found a game in like two thousand and
four in the NHL that was canceled.
Speaker 1 (45:31):
I don't think it was playoffs. I don't think it
was anything like this where you can find random games,
these random one offs, right, not many, and not for
something like this.
Speaker 4 (45:40):
No.
Speaker 1 (45:40):
Well, unless in your constitution ahead of time, you've got
a set of rules that mean yeah, that sort of
dictate and you say, well, here, let me show you,
here's what we already have in our in our constitution
or rule book, whatever the case may be. But I
don't think that exists in this case. I think I
think they got caught. They didn't quite know what to do,
(46:00):
and they said, oh, you know, you got some players
who are you know, who are sick, and come on
the idea that you're worried about other players because it's
not COVID, it's not any of those sorts of things.
It's not hantavirus, it's the intestinal flu basically as well,
and that's not fun. But no, you if you want
to be taken seriously, you got to go ahead and
(46:20):
play no matter. And I would say the same thing
whether the frost or on the other side of that,
we would I think, I think we would double tea
on Wolves Spurs. By the way, Wolves still double digit
underdogs tonight, make a lot of money Ben Wolve's money line,
and that's what's interesting. So we'll talk to double T.
What's the formula for success from the Wolves tonight? What
chance does he give the Wolves tonight? His reaction to
(46:42):
the wimby fury, and oh so much for he's always
got the coolest head in the room. Double T. Trent
Tucker is next Bumper to Bumper with Dan Burrera
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The MeatEater Podcast
Building on the belief that a deeper understanding of the natural world enriches all of our lives, host Steven Rinella brings an in-depth and relevant look at all outdoor topics including hunting, fishing, nature, conservation, and wild foods. Filled with humor, irreverence, and things that will surprise the hell out of you, each episode welcomes a diverse group of guests who add their own expertise to the vast world of the outdoors. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.