Bulls vs. Cavs
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
With Butler being Wiggins floor I dont see how theres a question
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
lipoli390 wrote:World -- I think you nailed it. The Cleveland deal is a home run swing and that's what this franchise needs to do. We can't just try to make contact with the ball and expect to get anywhere beyond mediocrity. We have to swing hard That's why I loved the LaVine pick. And that's why I'm hoping for the Cleveland deal. For all we know, Flip may like the Bulls deal better. He may think that he hit the long ball with LaVine and that now he needs to dial down a bit and get something less ambitious but maybe more certain like the Bulls package. We'll see.
By the way, don't believe reports that the Warriors have made a final decision on whether to offer Klay Thompson. Also, I am certain that the Celtics are still trying to come up with a package. Flip isn't going to pull the trigger on anything until he knows he has the best possible deal.
Another thing about Flip. He doesn't blow smoke. That's part of why I think he's been so effective in these negotiations. Others front office executives around the League know Flip is a straight shooter. So when he tells them an offer isn't enough or tells them he's prepared to keep Love, they know he's serious. They've tested him, but his firm resolve has confirmed what they already pretty much knew about him. Flip is honest and firm -- no pretense, no smoke screens, no BS.
The contrast between Flip and his predecessor is striking. Keep doing what you're doing, Flip!![/quote
Made that baseball analogy three weeks ago and got no love. U mustve got new information that swayed ur opinion.:)
- Q12543 [enjin:6621299]
- Posts: 13844
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
PorkChop wrote:With Butler being Wiggins floor I dont see how theres a question
Because there would be more to the Chicago deal than just Butler, whereas the Cleveland deal pretty much just features Wiggins.
I've always been partial to a Chicago deal because I don't buy the Quality > Quantity argument with Wiggins. I think he can be very good, but not necessarily great. Butler, Gibson, + McDermott or Mirotic could give us three good to very good players versus one good to very good player. But others disagree of course.
- SameOldNudityDrew
- Posts: 3010
- Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
I think in general, my mind is in a different place than what seems to be the general consensus on this board.
1. I don't think Wiggins is going to be as good as a lot of people here seem to think. He got a ton of attention before this past year, and he had a very good (not great) freshman year, but I just don't see a star. A very good player, yes, but not a star.
2. On a broader scale, the difference I feel with what seems like most of the rest of the board is this: I just don't have as much faith in rebuilding as a process, by obtaining young players drafted highly and future first rounders. I believe more in getting better by obtaining players who have proven in the NBA that they can play. This is why I'd take Butler and Gibson over Wiggins and Bennett even without considering Mirotic will probably be better than whatever future first the Cavs could give.
I just don't have nearly as much faith as many of the posters here in the potential of highly-touted players like Wiggins to become transcendent superstars, or that an approach of trading your good veteran players for young players and future picks will lead us to becoming a contender. So few players actually become that, and not that many teams get to the top that way either.
Rubio's actually a great example, when thinking about players. There was so much faith among many on this board that Rubio was going to be like Pistol Pete, Magic, and Nash, all rolled in one, or at least in that ballpark. I'm not calling anybody out in particular, because we're all wrong about stuff. But clearly, the general consensus on Rubio after he was drafted and before he actually played for us (even into his first year) has turned out to be way too optimistic (SJM--who I often disagree with--and I were two of the very few skeptics). Rubio's a good player, maybe even a very good one, but it's clear a couple years in now that he's not nearly as good as a lot of people thought. And that's ok, but doesn't that give you pause when the next player comes along and the same people say, no THIS guy will be the one to make us a contender?
Well, I feel like the same kind of thing is happening with Wiggins here a little bit, and with the potential of rebuilding itself. Yes, Wiggins got a ton of attention, put up some great highlights, passes the eye test, and has nice numbers, but he hasn't really proven anything. Not really. I'd rather build around guys who we know are good players than guys who get all the attention. Butler and Gibson are very good players defensively, and good players offensively. We know that, and their contracts are fairly good. Wiggins' rookie contract is nice cap wise, but as a player, we really don't know what Wiggins will become.
As a fan, I guess I'm just more pessimistic, but I believe in what I've seen, not what DraftExpress videos or highlight reels tell me will happen. Even among so-called experts, they often collectively "read" players wrong, and I think it's because they're kind of just guessing too, and they tend to guess with the pack. As fans, I think we have a tendency to conflate how we think a player will turn out with how we HOPE a player will turn out. I think also think this is the same for the total rebuilding process itself. I think this happened with Rubio and it's happening with Wiggins. I think this happened with Khan (people really believed in that rebuild, remember?), and I think that's why more people are willing to push for a young players and picks approach again. I just don't have faith in that anymore.
I've seen this franchise at its peak, and I've seen it hit rock bottom and start to claw its way back in recent years. I generally don't believe that the best way to go is young players with high potential and future picks. I just don't think it's the right approach, especially for a team that seems to have developed a losing culture in the last decade. And I get the sense that a lot more guys here are ready for and open to rebuilding with young guys and picks. I respect that view, but I just don't share it.
1. I don't think Wiggins is going to be as good as a lot of people here seem to think. He got a ton of attention before this past year, and he had a very good (not great) freshman year, but I just don't see a star. A very good player, yes, but not a star.
2. On a broader scale, the difference I feel with what seems like most of the rest of the board is this: I just don't have as much faith in rebuilding as a process, by obtaining young players drafted highly and future first rounders. I believe more in getting better by obtaining players who have proven in the NBA that they can play. This is why I'd take Butler and Gibson over Wiggins and Bennett even without considering Mirotic will probably be better than whatever future first the Cavs could give.
I just don't have nearly as much faith as many of the posters here in the potential of highly-touted players like Wiggins to become transcendent superstars, or that an approach of trading your good veteran players for young players and future picks will lead us to becoming a contender. So few players actually become that, and not that many teams get to the top that way either.
Rubio's actually a great example, when thinking about players. There was so much faith among many on this board that Rubio was going to be like Pistol Pete, Magic, and Nash, all rolled in one, or at least in that ballpark. I'm not calling anybody out in particular, because we're all wrong about stuff. But clearly, the general consensus on Rubio after he was drafted and before he actually played for us (even into his first year) has turned out to be way too optimistic (SJM--who I often disagree with--and I were two of the very few skeptics). Rubio's a good player, maybe even a very good one, but it's clear a couple years in now that he's not nearly as good as a lot of people thought. And that's ok, but doesn't that give you pause when the next player comes along and the same people say, no THIS guy will be the one to make us a contender?
Well, I feel like the same kind of thing is happening with Wiggins here a little bit, and with the potential of rebuilding itself. Yes, Wiggins got a ton of attention, put up some great highlights, passes the eye test, and has nice numbers, but he hasn't really proven anything. Not really. I'd rather build around guys who we know are good players than guys who get all the attention. Butler and Gibson are very good players defensively, and good players offensively. We know that, and their contracts are fairly good. Wiggins' rookie contract is nice cap wise, but as a player, we really don't know what Wiggins will become.
As a fan, I guess I'm just more pessimistic, but I believe in what I've seen, not what DraftExpress videos or highlight reels tell me will happen. Even among so-called experts, they often collectively "read" players wrong, and I think it's because they're kind of just guessing too, and they tend to guess with the pack. As fans, I think we have a tendency to conflate how we think a player will turn out with how we HOPE a player will turn out. I think also think this is the same for the total rebuilding process itself. I think this happened with Rubio and it's happening with Wiggins. I think this happened with Khan (people really believed in that rebuild, remember?), and I think that's why more people are willing to push for a young players and picks approach again. I just don't have faith in that anymore.
I've seen this franchise at its peak, and I've seen it hit rock bottom and start to claw its way back in recent years. I generally don't believe that the best way to go is young players with high potential and future picks. I just don't think it's the right approach, especially for a team that seems to have developed a losing culture in the last decade. And I get the sense that a lot more guys here are ready for and open to rebuilding with young guys and picks. I respect that view, but I just don't share it.
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
Q12543 wrote:PorkChop wrote:With Butler being Wiggins floor I dont see how theres a question
Because there would be more to the Chicago deal than just Butler, whereas the Cleveland deal pretty much just features Wiggins.
I've always been partial to a Chicago deal because I don't buy the Quality > Quantity argument with Wiggins. I think he can be very good, but not necessarily great. Butler, Gibson, + McDermott or Mirotic could give us three good to very good players versus one good to very good player. But others disagree of course.
In the Cavs deal we're banking on potential and future 1st round picks and its quite likely the Wolves will struggle to score and win games next year. But theres a foundation.
With the Bulls deal ur getting proven players and the Wolves will still struggle to score and lose plenty of games. And no potential for a star player.
- Q12543 [enjin:6621299]
- Posts: 13844
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
Good thoughts Drew. I think I'm mostly on the same page.
People like hope. They like the anticipation of a new cast of characters and watching young guys play. Hell, just look at how popular Summer League has become, not just with Wolves fans, but NBA fans in general. It's a playground where everyone's brand new shiny toys are out for all to see!
But an 82-game season is a grind, and the shiny new toys soon have their flaws exposed and hope can turn quickly to disillusionment.
I happen to think it's possible to maintain a competitive squad, while at the same time selectively taking calculated risks (with LaVine being a recent example).
People like hope. They like the anticipation of a new cast of characters and watching young guys play. Hell, just look at how popular Summer League has become, not just with Wolves fans, but NBA fans in general. It's a playground where everyone's brand new shiny toys are out for all to see!
But an 82-game season is a grind, and the shiny new toys soon have their flaws exposed and hope can turn quickly to disillusionment.
I happen to think it's possible to maintain a competitive squad, while at the same time selectively taking calculated risks (with LaVine being a recent example).
- SameOldNudityDrew
- Posts: 3010
- Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
Q, I'm a grumpy old man, and I've got a spot on my porch for you to come and grumble with me about all these young whippersnappers think they run the neighborhood. :)
- Q12543 [enjin:6621299]
- Posts: 13844
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
SameOldNudityDrew wrote:Q, I'm a grumpy old man, and I've got a spot on my porch for you to come and grumble with me about all these young whippersnappers think they run the neighborhood. :)
I hear ya! We ain't getting younger.
Where is 60WinTim? There is a dude (er, I think he's a guy) that is young at heart. He can help snuff out this curmudgeonly behavior!
- Q12543 [enjin:6621299]
- Posts: 13844
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
PorkChop wrote:Q12543 wrote:PorkChop wrote:With Butler being Wiggins floor I dont see how theres a question
Because there would be more to the Chicago deal than just Butler, whereas the Cleveland deal pretty much just features Wiggins.
I've always been partial to a Chicago deal because I don't buy the Quality > Quantity argument with Wiggins. I think he can be very good, but not necessarily great. Butler, Gibson, + McDermott or Mirotic could give us three good to very good players versus one good to very good player. But others disagree of course.
In the Cavs deal we're banking on potential and future 1st round picks and its quite likely the Wolves will struggle to score and win games next year. But theres a foundation.
With the Bulls deal ur getting proven players and the Wolves will still struggle to score and lose plenty of games. And no potential for a star player.
Are you sure about that? And since when was getting proven players a bad thing!? Especially good, proven players! I like that kind of player! As for scoring, let me make a little side bet with you: Doug McDermott will most likely end up with a higher career scoring mark than Andrew Wiggins. And I might even be willing to make that same bet with Mirotic, but I am admittedly going off of scouting reports on him. Wiggins is far from a finished offensive player and he may never totally get there.
This vision of stardom for Andrew Wiggins is premature.
- mrhockey89
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Bulls vs. Cavs
I like Flip's patience on this too and it's clearly going to pay dividends (amazing how much better the offers look now than pre-draft actually), and amazing how Flip had the patience to ask for more from the Cavs in the face of getting a blue chip prospect in return already. It's pretty incredible that he's been able to keep his poker face like he has and will deal when he's ready and sees everything he expects in return in front of him.
With that said, we're all kids waiting for Christmas morning and it's no fun checking daily to see if we made a deal yet! Hopefully we can pull the trigger soon and get a great return.
With that said, we're all kids waiting for Christmas morning and it's no fun checking daily to see if we made a deal yet! Hopefully we can pull the trigger soon and get a great return.