slimcalhoun27 wrote:lipoli390 wrote:Actually, KAT, Butler and Wiggins isn't necessarily a winning combination. We'd be very weak behind the arc with that combo. KAT would be our best 3-point shooter by far in that lineup. That wouldn't work in today's NBA. Oh, then there's Butler's consistent inability to play more that 67 games.
Lip I typically am on board with all your posts, but feel you are off on this one. When has Thibs been a coach of a 3point chucking offense in the past? I don't feel we need to play like GS. Also, just because GS is deciding to play that way, teams that can defend with athleticism and length give them fits.
Plus, having a PG (Rubio) with vision and guys who can play above the rim, ISO and attack, Post up, and extend out and space whoch all three Wiggins, Butler and KAT can do, would be dangerous. Frankly I feel having more aggressive confident players on this team will be the ultimate benefit for Wiggins in particular.
Lastly, when has Rubio played more then 67 games in a season besides this year? I hate this point and Rubio has had more significant issues then Jimmy.
Slim --
I'm not expecting a "3-point chucking" offense from Thibs. (By the way, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the Warriors offense). But a Wiggins/Butler combo with Rubio would leave us with no (that's zero) bona fide 3-point shooters in our starting lineup expect perhaps for KAT, but even if he is and even if one is enough, you can't have your center as your one 3-point shooter in the starting lineup. Having essentially no bona fide 3-point shooters in your starting lineup won't work in today's NBA. I think Thibs would agree with me. In fact, Thibs has repeatedly listed three-point shooting as one of the two or three key areas for improvement -- and that's WITH LaVine here.
As for Ricky, he played all 82 games a couple seasons ago before playing 76 games this season. Butler played 82 games in one season several years ago. Otherwise, he's never played in more than 67 games. So amazingly, Ricky has proved to be more durable than Butler. That's no ringing endorsement of Ricky, but it's a particularly strong indictment of Butler's durability.
I don't see the Wolves giving up Wiggins plus #5 for Butler. But to get Butler we'd have to give up our #5 pick and at least LaVine and Bazz or Dieng if not both. As good as Butler clearly is, that's too steep a price to pay for a poor 3-point shooter who typically doesn't play more than 67 games. If we did trade for Butler I think we'd be better off trading Wiggins and keeping Zach because I see Butler and Zach as a better fit together. But I'd still see it as a bad deal for the Wolves.
I see no need to start dealing away any of our core assets, especially for a guy with durability issues and especially if the deal would further compromise our already challenged 3-point shooting. It makes even less sense knowing that we'll have the cap space this summer to sign a Noah, Deng or possibly even a Horford if Thibs really thinks we need to make a big move right away.
You might disagree with me, but there are some key facts suggesting that a Butler deal would be a bad move for the Wolves unless by some miracle the Bulls were willing for some strange reason to give us Butler for our 5th pick and Shabazz.
