Camden wrote:If I recall correctly, Chicago asked for LaVine + Dunn in exchange for Butler. I was against that deal then, as was Thibodeau and Layden, and I'm even more against that deal now.
Wiggins for Butler straight up is perhaps a thinker, but I would still like to keep the young trio together and add other veterans to the roster before breaking it up.
Cam, I'd like to keep the young trio together too if possible, but we're talking about Jimmy Butler here, a guy with still quite a few years of peak play left in the tank. Don't you think he would give us that perfect blend of toughness, veteran leadership - and most importantly - elite production on BOTH sides of the ball?
Your points are all valid and adding Butler does make a lot of sense. It's pretty easy to sell me on Butler; the guy's a top-10 player in the league right now and he's still just 27 years old. I'll even acknowledge that I'm being a hypocrite with this stance because in the past I've said that if you can get a top-10 player in the league, you do it.
For me, I think the trio's personalities, potential ceilings, understanding of each other's games, and acceptance of each other in general is something that could result in a dynasty. That's even without Wiggins becoming a superstar player and instead just a decent player.
Where we could instead get that veteran toughness and leadership is from a marquee free agent addition or via trade for a Rubio or Dieng.
But the Butler idea is a fascinating topic to discuss. I wouldn't hate it unless I felt like we gave up too much.
I actually think Wiggins has more upside than "peak Butler" on offense. Butler takes a lot of tough shots from less-than-ideal ranges and relies a lot on iso-ball. He's basically a better version of Wiggins right now offensively - draws a few more fouls, takes a lot of tough shots, better passer.
It's all the other stuff he brings to the table that puts me over the top - things I'm not sure Wiggins will ever be able to match - defense, toughness, better rebounder, etc.
Ultimately, I doubt anything happens here. But regardless of who we bring in to surround our "big three" with, there has to be some major improvement from these guys defensively. No two additional veteran adds can make up for their shortcomings right now.
Camden wrote:If I recall correctly, Chicago asked for LaVine + Dunn in exchange for Butler. I was against that deal then, as was Thibodeau and Layden, and I'm even more against that deal now.
Wiggins for Butler straight up is perhaps a thinker, but I would still like to keep the young trio together and add other veterans to the roster before breaking it up.
Cam, I'd like to keep the young trio together too if possible, but we're talking about Jimmy Butler here, a guy with still quite a few years of peak play left in the tank. Don't you think he would give us that perfect blend of toughness, veteran leadership - and most importantly - elite production on BOTH sides of the ball?
Your points are all valid and adding Butler does make a lot of sense. It's pretty easy to sell me on Butler; the guy's a top-10 player in the league right now and he's still just 27 years old. I'll even acknowledge that I'm being a hypocrite with this stance because in the past I've said that if you can get a top-10 player in the league, you do it.
For me, I think the trio's personalities, potential ceilings, understanding of each other's games, and acceptance of each other in general is something that could result in a dynasty. That's even without Wiggins becoming a superstar player and instead just a decent player.
Where we could instead get that veteran toughness and leadership is from a marquee free agent addition or via trade for a Rubio or Dieng.
But the Butler idea is a fascinating topic to discuss. I wouldn't hate it unless I felt like we gave up too much.
I actually think Wiggins has more upside than "peak Butler" on offense. Butler takes a lot of tough shots from less-than-ideal ranges and relies a lot on iso-ball. He's basically a better version of Wiggins right now offensively - draws a few more fouls, takes a lot of tough shots, better passer.
It's all the other stuff he brings to the table that puts me over the top - things I'm not sure Wiggins will ever be able to match - defense, toughness, better rebounder, etc.
Ultimately, I doubt anything happens here. But regardless of who we bring in to surround our "big three" with, there has to be some major improvement from these guys defensively. No two additional veteran adds can make up for their shortcomings right now.
I think signing Horford would have gone a long way. But so many here were against big name free agents because of the salary conundrum that would have caused in a few year. Boy has that conversation died down.
There was a 0% chance someone of Horford's caliber was coming here last off season. Those guys don't go places to build something from the ground up. They want to go to proven places where they might be the piece to put it over the top which is what he did in Boston. He helped build ATL up again for the majority of his career. He wasn't going to do that again in MN.
khans2k5 wrote:There was a 0% chance someone of Horford's caliber was coming here last off season. Those guys don't go places to build something from the ground up. They want to go to proven places where they might be the piece to put it over the top which is what he did in Boston. He helped build ATL up again for the majority of his career. He wasn't going to do that again in MN.
I didn't say it was possible. Only that many here were against trying for a big name Free agent due to future salary cap implications. Many people here said they wouldn't want us to sign Durant here for the same reason.
It should be noted that at the beginning of the season it didn't look like the ground up, we had a rep of the next thing. Oh how times have changed.
Camden wrote:If I recall correctly, Chicago asked for LaVine + Dunn in exchange for Butler. I was against that deal then, as was Thibodeau and Layden, and I'm even more against that deal now.
Wiggins for Butler straight up is perhaps a thinker, but I would still like to keep the young trio together and add other veterans to the roster before breaking it up.
Cam, I'd like to keep the young trio together too if possible, but we're talking about Jimmy Butler here, a guy with still quite a few years of peak play left in the tank. Don't you think he would give us that perfect blend of toughness, veteran leadership - and most importantly - elite production on BOTH sides of the ball?
Your points are all valid and adding Butler does make a lot of sense. It's pretty easy to sell me on Butler; the guy's a top-10 player in the league right now and he's still just 27 years old. I'll even acknowledge that I'm being a hypocrite with this stance because in the past I've said that if you can get a top-10 player in the league, you do it.
For me, I think the trio's personalities, potential ceilings, understanding of each other's games, and acceptance of each other in general is something that could result in a dynasty. That's even without Wiggins becoming a superstar player and instead just a decent player.
Where we could instead get that veteran toughness and leadership is from a marquee free agent addition or via trade for a Rubio or Dieng.
But the Butler idea is a fascinating topic to discuss. I wouldn't hate it unless I felt like we gave up too much.
I actually think Wiggins has more upside than "peak Butler" on offense. Butler takes a lot of tough shots from less-than-ideal ranges and relies a lot on iso-ball. He's basically a better version of Wiggins right now offensively - draws a few more fouls, takes a lot of tough shots, better passer.
It's all the other stuff he brings to the table that puts me over the top - things I'm not sure Wiggins will ever be able to match - defense, toughness, better rebounder, etc.
Ultimately, I doubt anything happens here. But regardless of who we bring in to surround our "big three" with, there has to be some major improvement from these guys defensively. No two additional veteran adds can make up for their shortcomings right now.
I agree Q those guys have to get better on defense. Here is another reminder that Butler's first season in the NBA he had just turned 22. Wiggins turns 22 in a few weeks.
Camden wrote:If I recall correctly, Chicago asked for LaVine + Dunn in exchange for Butler. I was against that deal then, as was Thibodeau and Layden, and I'm even more against that deal now.
Wiggins for Butler straight up is perhaps a thinker, but I would still like to keep the young trio together and add other veterans to the roster before breaking it up.
Cam, I'd like to keep the young trio together too if possible, but we're talking about Jimmy Butler here, a guy with still quite a few years of peak play left in the tank. Don't you think he would give us that perfect blend of toughness, veteran leadership - and most importantly - elite production on BOTH sides of the ball?
Your points are all valid and adding Butler does make a lot of sense. It's pretty easy to sell me on Butler; the guy's a top-10 player in the league right now and he's still just 27 years old. I'll even acknowledge that I'm being a hypocrite with this stance because in the past I've said that if you can get a top-10 player in the league, you do it.
For me, I think the trio's personalities, potential ceilings, understanding of each other's games, and acceptance of each other in general is something that could result in a dynasty. That's even without Wiggins becoming a superstar player and instead just a decent player.
Where we could instead get that veteran toughness and leadership is from a marquee free agent addition or via trade for a Rubio or Dieng.
But the Butler idea is a fascinating topic to discuss. I wouldn't hate it unless I felt like we gave up too much.
I actually think Wiggins has more upside than "peak Butler" on offense. Butler takes a lot of tough shots from less-than-ideal ranges and relies a lot on iso-ball. He's basically a better version of Wiggins right now offensively - draws a few more fouls, takes a lot of tough shots, better passer.
It's all the other stuff he brings to the table that puts me over the top - things I'm not sure Wiggins will ever be able to match - defense, toughness, better rebounder, etc.
Ultimately, I doubt anything happens here. But regardless of who we bring in to surround our "big three" with, there has to be some major improvement from these guys defensively. No two additional veteran adds can make up for their shortcomings right now.
I agree Q those guys have to get better on defense. Here is another reminder that Butler's first season in the NBA he had just turned 22. Wiggins turns 22 in a few weeks.
To be fair, when Butler was 22... he hadn't played any NBA games. He improved immensely over the next 198+ games.
Eventually, we can't keep going back to the age thing without acknowledging that nearly 2.5 seasons is a pretty solid sample size for improvement.
khans2k5 wrote:There was a 0% chance someone of Horford's caliber was coming here last off season. Those guys don't go places to build something from the ground up. They want to go to proven places where they might be the piece to put it over the top which is what he did in Boston. He helped build ATL up again for the majority of his career. He wasn't going to do that again in MN.
I didn't say it was possible. Only that many here were against trying for a big name Free agent due to future salary cap implications. Many people here said they wouldn't want us to sign Durant here for the same reason.
It should be noted that at the beginning of the season it didn't look like the ground up, we had a rep of the next thing. Oh how times have changed.
As they say, "the facts on the ground changed". No one thought we'd be this terrible with this roster and coach heading into the season. We were a hot commodity for the talking heads. Zach LaVine is the only player in the regular 9-man rotation that has shown material improvement from an advanced stats perspective. Everyone else has either regressed or stood still. Of course, the season isn't over yet, but...yikes, it's been bad.
Camden wrote:If I recall correctly, Chicago asked for LaVine + Dunn in exchange for Butler. I was against that deal then, as was Thibodeau and Layden, and I'm even more against that deal now.
Wiggins for Butler straight up is perhaps a thinker, but I would still like to keep the young trio together and add other veterans to the roster before breaking it up.
Cam, I'd like to keep the young trio together too if possible, but we're talking about Jimmy Butler here, a guy with still quite a few years of peak play left in the tank. Don't you think he would give us that perfect blend of toughness, veteran leadership - and most importantly - elite production on BOTH sides of the ball?
Your points are all valid and adding Butler does make a lot of sense. It's pretty easy to sell me on Butler; the guy's a top-10 player in the league right now and he's still just 27 years old. I'll even acknowledge that I'm being a hypocrite with this stance because in the past I've said that if you can get a top-10 player in the league, you do it.
For me, I think the trio's personalities, potential ceilings, understanding of each other's games, and acceptance of each other in general is something that could result in a dynasty. That's even without Wiggins becoming a superstar player and instead just a decent player.
Where we could instead get that veteran toughness and leadership is from a marquee free agent addition or via trade for a Rubio or Dieng.
But the Butler idea is a fascinating topic to discuss. I wouldn't hate it unless I felt like we gave up too much.
I actually think Wiggins has more upside than "peak Butler" on offense. Butler takes a lot of tough shots from less-than-ideal ranges and relies a lot on iso-ball. He's basically a better version of Wiggins right now offensively - draws a few more fouls, takes a lot of tough shots, better passer.
It's all the other stuff he brings to the table that puts me over the top - things I'm not sure Wiggins will ever be able to match - defense, toughness, better rebounder, etc.
Ultimately, I doubt anything happens here. But regardless of who we bring in to surround our "big three" with, there has to be some major improvement from these guys defensively. No two additional veteran adds can make up for their shortcomings right now.
I think signing Horford would have gone a long way. But so many here were against big name free agents because of the salary conundrum that would have caused in a few year. Boy has that conversation died down.
No doubt, but there are still those here that are worried about what happens two/three years from now.
Camden wrote:If I recall correctly, Chicago asked for LaVine + Dunn in exchange for Butler. I was against that deal then, as was Thibodeau and Layden, and I'm even more against that deal now.
Wiggins for Butler straight up is perhaps a thinker, but I would still like to keep the young trio together and add other veterans to the roster before breaking it up.
Cam, I'd like to keep the young trio together too if possible, but we're talking about Jimmy Butler here, a guy with still quite a few years of peak play left in the tank. Don't you think he would give us that perfect blend of toughness, veteran leadership - and most importantly - elite production on BOTH sides of the ball?
Your points are all valid and adding Butler does make a lot of sense. It's pretty easy to sell me on Butler; the guy's a top-10 player in the league right now and he's still just 27 years old. I'll even acknowledge that I'm being a hypocrite with this stance because in the past I've said that if you can get a top-10 player in the league, you do it.
For me, I think the trio's personalities, potential ceilings, understanding of each other's games, and acceptance of each other in general is something that could result in a dynasty. That's even without Wiggins becoming a superstar player and instead just a decent player.
Where we could instead get that veteran toughness and leadership is from a marquee free agent addition or via trade for a Rubio or Dieng.
But the Butler idea is a fascinating topic to discuss. I wouldn't hate it unless I felt like we gave up too much.
I actually think Wiggins has more upside than "peak Butler" on offense. Butler takes a lot of tough shots from less-than-ideal ranges and relies a lot on iso-ball. He's basically a better version of Wiggins right now offensively - draws a few more fouls, takes a lot of tough shots, better passer.
It's all the other stuff he brings to the table that puts me over the top - things I'm not sure Wiggins will ever be able to match - defense, toughness, better rebounder, etc.
Ultimately, I doubt anything happens here. But regardless of who we bring in to surround our "big three" with, there has to be some major improvement from these guys defensively. No two additional veteran adds can make up for their shortcomings right now.
I agree Q those guys have to get better on defense. Here is another reminder that Butler's first season in the NBA he had just turned 22. Wiggins turns 22 in a few weeks.
To be fair, when Butler was 22... he hadn't played any NBA games. He improved immensely over the next 198+ games.
Eventually, we can't keep going back to the age thing without acknowledging that nearly 2.5 seasons is a pretty solid sample size for improvement.
Sure absolutely it was more of a "just sayin" thing.
We have been over this Wiggins Butler stuff comparing careers, upside, value, possibly trading them for each other (which is unlikely to happen) for months now and the parallels are there but they have pretty different career paths in some ways also.
Camden wrote:If I recall correctly, Chicago asked for LaVine + Dunn in exchange for Butler. I was against that deal then, as was Thibodeau and Layden, and I'm even more against that deal now.
Wiggins for Butler straight up is perhaps a thinker, but I would still like to keep the young trio together and add other veterans to the roster before breaking it up.
Cam, I'd like to keep the young trio together too if possible, but we're talking about Jimmy Butler here, a guy with still quite a few years of peak play left in the tank. Don't you think he would give us that perfect blend of toughness, veteran leadership - and most importantly - elite production on BOTH sides of the ball?
Your points are all valid and adding Butler does make a lot of sense. It's pretty easy to sell me on Butler; the guy's a top-10 player in the league right now and he's still just 27 years old. I'll even acknowledge that I'm being a hypocrite with this stance because in the past I've said that if you can get a top-10 player in the league, you do it.
For me, I think the trio's personalities, potential ceilings, understanding of each other's games, and acceptance of each other in general is something that could result in a dynasty. That's even without Wiggins becoming a superstar player and instead just a decent player.
Where we could instead get that veteran toughness and leadership is from a marquee free agent addition or via trade for a Rubio or Dieng.
But the Butler idea is a fascinating topic to discuss. I wouldn't hate it unless I felt like we gave up too much.
I actually think Wiggins has more upside than "peak Butler" on offense. Butler takes a lot of tough shots from less-than-ideal ranges and relies a lot on iso-ball. He's basically a better version of Wiggins right now offensively - draws a few more fouls, takes a lot of tough shots, better passer.
It's all the other stuff he brings to the table that puts me over the top - things I'm not sure Wiggins will ever be able to match - defense, toughness, better rebounder, etc.
Ultimately, I doubt anything happens here. But regardless of who we bring in to surround our "big three" with, there has to be some major improvement from these guys defensively. No two additional veteran adds can make up for their shortcomings right now.
I think signing Horford would have gone a long way. But so many here were against big name free agents because of the salary conundrum that would have caused in a few year. Boy has that conversation died down.
No doubt, but there are still those here that are worried about what happens two/three years from now.
Yeah, I'm one of those...probably Lip too. But of course it doesn't matter what we here think...it only matters what the marching orders the ownership group has given to Thibs and Layden. And you can be certain that group is very concerned about what happens 2/3 years from now.
