Trade Talks Update

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

We won 60% of our games with Jimmy in the lineup compared to 47% when he was out of the lineup. That's a difference of being the 3 seed or the 11th if you stretch it out over a season. That's a big gap. So yes he was a major part of the 16 game win increase. It's crazy that people are trying to downplay how good we were with him by saying we weren't that bad without him. It was a big difference.

[Crazysauce]

I honestly would just not trade him if they are lowballing the shit out of us. No richardson or bam is ridiculous. I beg if jimmy isnt playing or attending and not making his money his attitude will change fast. Not to mention his money it will cost him after the season if he leaves. Butler is too competetive to not want to be playing. I dont see him sitting out games which is why he is getting all worked up. Dont deal unless its a faur deal.

[Lipoli390]

We won 60% of our games with Jimmy in the lineup compared to 47% when he was out of the lineup. That's a difference of being the 3 seed or the 11th if you stretch it out over a season. That's a big gap. So yes he was a major part of the 16 game win increase. It's crazy that people are trying to downplay how good we were with him by saying we weren't that bad without him. It was a big difference.

Kahns - No one is saying Butler wasn't "a major part of the 16-win increase." Some of us are just pointing out what should be obvious -- that it, that Butler wasn't the SOLE contributor to that increase. He's a terrific player and an allstar. I don't see him on the same level as K. Leonard, Durant, Curry, Harden, or LeBron. That's my assessment.

But my point wasn't that Butler's not a terrific player or that he's not good enough to get good value in return. My point was that he's not great enough to get the value we'd all like to get for him given the circumstances and all the other factors, including but not limited to Butler's age, injury history and contract situation along with the fact that he's demanded to be traded and the timing of that demand. I hope I'm wrong because, based purely his caliber as a player, Butler should command a very nice return in a trade.

[Monster]

One of the things that bugs me the most when it comes to Thibs is the narrative "Thibs is always looking to win now" thing. The last 2 Dane Moore podcasts (lots of good thoughts there even if I don't agree with everything) they hammered this point about Thibs bigtime. It's simply not an accurate portrayal of Thibs time with the Wolves. Heck let's just look at last season.

Thibs trades 3 young assets for Butler. He is going all in right he got his guy!!!

-Drafts a raw big man in Patton when he could have picked a more ready guy in John Collins.

-Doesn't trade the pick he acquired for Rubio not only in the offseason but throughout the season and ends up actually selecting a young player.

-Holds off signing anyone else to bring back a young vet in Bazz.

-signs MGH and keeps him the entire season on the roster.

Now you can argue whether those moves were good basketball moves (Bazz was a disaster, MGH isn't here and Patton has busted feet) but there is simply no way you can tell me Thibs has been all in on the immediate with no eyes toward the future.

Why does this matter?

For one it shows how our biases can shape how we see something. I'm guilty as anyone as one example I was duped about the Butler situation...or hoped Bazz would be a good addition last season. Lol good times right?

Thibs seems to be pretty committed to what he does. Is he going to abandon his principals just to possibly save his job and if he does save his job have a worse outcome because he did some now stuff? That doesn't seem like Thibs to me. He keeps saying he has to do the best thing for the franchise and the team. Do I think Thibs will demand a player that will help the team right now? Yes he probably will which seems reasonable when you are trading a player as good as Butler. I think everyone here wants some sort of player than can help this year but we would certainly want a younger guy. I honestly think Thibs thinks much more about the future than many people give him credit for which is partly why I'm not as freaked out about him making this deal as others. I still don't really think he is the guy going forward for this franchise but I think he might be fine for the next few months especially since it doesn't seem there is another obvious option to replace him.

[mjs34]

We won 60% of our games with Jimmy in the lineup compared to 47% when he was out of the lineup. That's a difference of being the 3 seed or the 11th if you stretch it out over a season. That's a big gap. So yes he was a major part of the 16 game win increase. It's crazy that people are trying to downplay how good we were with him by saying we weren't that bad without him. It was a big difference.

Kahns, I don't think it is fair to just take the records with or without Jimmy. We played 15 games against playoff teams during the two stretches he was out. I also would ask what the wolves record would be if KAT was out injured. I doubt we would have been a .500 team in that situation.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

We won 60% of our games with Jimmy in the lineup compared to 47% when he was out of the lineup. That's a difference of being the 3 seed or the 11th if you stretch it out over a season. That's a big gap. So yes he was a major part of the 16 game win increase. It's crazy that people are trying to downplay how good we were with him by saying we weren't that bad without him. It was a big difference.

Kahns, I don't think it is fair to just take the records with or without Jimmy. We played 15 games against playoff teams during the two stretches he was out. I also would ask what the wolves record would be if KAT was out injured. I doubt we would have been a .500 team in that situation.

We play in the Western Conference and at full strength could lose to the Suns or beat the Warriors on any night. Taking it for what it actually was is literally the only fair way to evaluate it. Trying to deep dive the schedule and pick and choose wins and losses isn't reasonable given that we could win or lose to anyone on a given night and do it frequently against teams we shouldn't lose to and teams we shouldn't beat. There's way too much noise in trying to prove the 15 games he was out were just tougher than an average 15 game stretch so I take it for what it was. We were the 3 seed beating all the teams below us in the standings to the point we had the tiebreaker on all of them but the Spurs. Then he went out and we barely hung on to make the playoffs playing against a lot of those same teams. We'd probably have a similar situation if KAT went down, but we've never seen it and we've never been above .500 with KAT and no Jimmy so it's a lot harder to argue him going down hurts as much or more than Jimmy because we've never been good with KAT and no Jimmy in the lineup anyway across 3 years of data.

[mjs34]

We won 60% of our games with Jimmy in the lineup compared to 47% when he was out of the lineup. That's a difference of being the 3 seed or the 11th if you stretch it out over a season. That's a big gap. So yes he was a major part of the 16 game win increase. It's crazy that people are trying to downplay how good we were with him by saying we weren't that bad without him. It was a big difference.

Kahns, I don't think it is fair to just take the records with or without Jimmy. We played 15 games against playoff teams during the two stretches he was out. I also would ask what the wolves record would be if KAT was out injured. I doubt we would have been a .500 team in that situation.

We play in the Western Conference and at full strength could lose to the Suns or beat the Warriors on any night. Taking it for what it actually was is literally the only fair way to evaluate it. Trying to deep dive the schedule and pick and choose wins and losses isn't reasonable given that we could win or lose to anyone on a given night and do it frequently against teams we shouldn't lose to and teams we shouldn't beat. There's way too much noise in trying to prove the 15 games he was out were just tougher than an average 15 game stretch so I take it for what it was. We were the 3 seed beating all the teams below us in the standings to the point we had the tiebreaker on all of them but the Spurs. Then he went out and we barely hung on to make the playoffs playing against a lot of those same teams. We'd probably have a similar situation if KAT went down, but we've never seen it and we've never been above .500 with KAT and no Jimmy so it's a lot harder to argue him going down hurts as much or more than Jimmy because we've never been good with KAT and no Jimmy in the lineup anyway across 3 years of data.

Why don't' you give me a heads up when Vegas gives you even money on the Warriors against the Wolves!

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

We won 60% of our games with Jimmy in the lineup compared to 47% when he was out of the lineup. That's a difference of being the 3 seed or the 11th if you stretch it out over a season. That's a big gap. So yes he was a major part of the 16 game win increase. It's crazy that people are trying to downplay how good we were with him by saying we weren't that bad without him. It was a big difference.

Kahns, I don't think it is fair to just take the records with or without Jimmy. We played 15 games against playoff teams during the two stretches he was out. I also would ask what the wolves record would be if KAT was out injured. I doubt we would have been a .500 team in that situation.

We play in the Western Conference and at full strength could lose to the Suns or beat the Warriors on any night. Taking it for what it actually was is literally the only fair way to evaluate it. Trying to deep dive the schedule and pick and choose wins and losses isn't reasonable given that we could win or lose to anyone on a given night and do it frequently against teams we shouldn't lose to and teams we shouldn't beat. There's way too much noise in trying to prove the 15 games he was out were just tougher than an average 15 game stretch so I take it for what it was. We were the 3 seed beating all the teams below us in the standings to the point we had the tiebreaker on all of them but the Spurs. Then he went out and we barely hung on to make the playoffs playing against a lot of those same teams. We'd probably have a similar situation if KAT went down, but we've never seen it and we've never been above .500 with KAT and no Jimmy so it's a lot harder to argue him going down hurts as much or more than Jimmy because we've never been good with KAT and no Jimmy in the lineup anyway across 3 years of data.

Why don't' you give me a heads up when Vegas gives you even money on the Warriors against the Wolves!

Ya because every single game ends up playing out exactly according to the odds. I didn't catch the Warriors going undefeated the last 2 years. How did they ever lose a game when they were favored in every single game?

[mjs34]

We won 60% of our games with Jimmy in the lineup compared to 47% when he was out of the lineup. That's a difference of being the 3 seed or the 11th if you stretch it out over a season. That's a big gap. So yes he was a major part of the 16 game win increase. It's crazy that people are trying to downplay how good we were with him by saying we weren't that bad without him. It was a big difference.

Kahns, I don't think it is fair to just take the records with or without Jimmy. We played 15 games against playoff teams during the two stretches he was out. I also would ask what the wolves record would be if KAT was out injured. I doubt we would have been a .500 team in that situation.

We play in the Western Conference and at full strength could lose to the Suns or beat the Warriors on any night. Taking it for what it actually was is literally the only fair way to evaluate it. Trying to deep dive the schedule and pick and choose wins and losses isn't reasonable given that we could win or lose to anyone on a given night and do it frequently against teams we shouldn't lose to and teams we shouldn't beat. There's way too much noise in trying to prove the 15 games he was out were just tougher than an average 15 game stretch so I take it for what it was. We were the 3 seed beating all the teams below us in the standings to the point we had the tiebreaker on all of them but the Spurs. Then he went out and we barely hung on to make the playoffs playing against a lot of those same teams. We'd probably have a similar situation if KAT went down, but we've never seen it and we've never been above .500 with KAT and no Jimmy so it's a lot harder to argue him going down hurts as much or more than Jimmy because we've never been good with KAT and no Jimmy in the lineup anyway across 3 years of data.

Why don't' you give me a heads up when Vegas gives you even money on the Warriors against the Wolves!

Ya because every single game ends up playing out exactly according to the odds. I didn't catch the Warriors going undefeated the last 2 years. How did they ever lose a game when they were favored in every single game?

Were not talking about every single game, but Vegas seems to be doing fine regardless.

[BloopOracle]

One of the things that bugs me the most when it comes to Thibs is the narrative "Thibs is always looking to win now" thing. The last 2 Dane Moore podcasts (lots of good thoughts there even if I don't agree with everything) they hammered this point about Thibs bigtime. It's simply not an accurate portrayal of Thibs time with the Wolves. Heck let's just look at last season.

Thibs trades 3 young assets for Butler. He is going all in right he got his guy!!!

-Drafts a raw big man in Patton when he could have picked a more ready guy in John Collins.

-Doesn't trade the pick he acquired for Rubio not only in the offseason but throughout the season and ends up actually selecting a young player.

-Holds off signing anyone else to bring back a young vet in Bazz.

-signs MGH and keeps him the entire season on the roster.

Now you can argue whether those moves were good basketball moves (Bazz was a disaster, MGH isn't here and Patton has busted feet) but there is simply no way you can tell me Thibs has been all in on the immediate with no eyes toward the future.

Why does this matter?

For one it shows how our biases can shape how we see something. I'm guilty as anyone as one example I was duped about the Butler situation...or hoped Bazz would be a good addition last season. Lol good times right?

Thibs seems to be pretty committed to what he does. Is he going to abandon his principals just to possibly save his job and if he does save his job have a worse outcome because he did some now stuff? That doesn't seem like Thibs to me. He keeps saying he has to do the best thing for the franchise and the team. Do I think Thibs will demand a player that will help the team right now? Yes he probably will which seems reasonable when you are trading a player as good as Butler. I think everyone here wants some sort of player than can help this year but we would certainly want a younger guy. I honestly think Thibs thinks much more about the future than many people give him credit for which is partly why I'm not as freaked out about him making this deal as others. I still don't really think he is the guy going forward for this franchise but I think he might be fine for the next few months especially since it doesn't seem there is another obvious option to replace him.

Great post