Wild's more likely to shine first, but Wolves' long-range future brighter

A recent long drive from Minneapolis to Denver, split over two days, gave the five guys in the vehicle plenty of time to embrace some sports debates.

Among the ones that grew the most heated was a discussion of Minnesota teams that are in the best shape for the future. After acknowledging the Lynx dynasty (best chance to win immediately) and that the Vikings have the best mix of present and future potential, eventually the gloves came off.

The biggest dust-up came over a discussion of the Timberwolves and Wild — and which is in the best shape going forward.

On one hand, there is the Wild: a team that has made the playoffs four consecutive years — including advancing to the second round twice — and still has quite a few core players to go with a new coaching staff. My friend argued the Wild is in better shape going forward.

On the other hand, there are the Wolves: a team that won 13 more games last year than it did the year before, added another top-five draft pick along with a new coach, and seems to be loaded with potential as talented young core players mature. The majority in the car were on the side of the Wolves — as were many of you when this question was posed online Wednesday.

Basically what we ended up having is an argument over what constitutes success — and also how we define "the future."

What the Wild has done over the past four years should not be taken lightly. When measured against the Timberwolves of the past four years, the Wild has accomplished so very much more.

That said, the Wolves seem to be building a team that has a higher ceiling. Where that will take them is anyone's guess, and it is fair to snicker at the constant notion of potential before there is even, you know, a single winning season in the past decade on the books.

The nature of both the NHL and NBA also factors into and complicates the argument. Basically, in the NHL, underdogs historically have had a much better chance of getting hot and making a playoff run — so being good, as the Wild has been, is sometimes good enough. In the NBA, it almost always takes an elite team to win a title. So in that regard, perhaps the way both franchises are constructed differently makes sense.

Where I left it eventually — and where there was some middle ground in the vehicle, though not an enthusiastic consensus — was that if we're talking about "best shape for the future" as defined by the ability to make the playoffs and have a chance to do damage once there, the Wild and Wolves break down like this:

• Next season, it's the Wild.

• In two seasons, based on what we know now, it would be a coin flip.

• In three seasons, based on what we know now, it's the Wolves.

All of those, of course, are points in the future — which we are staring at from the present. The further we cast our gaze into the future, the harder it is to predict. That's an edge to the more-established Wild. The more we live in the past, the more we're destined to be blind to what's ahead. That's an edge to the Wolves.

Like all debates that involve things that haven't happened yet, we'll just have to wait and see.