Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

sjm34 wrote:I was pretty high on WIg early on, but I thought the max deal was a mistake. If a team needed a top scorer, I could see how he might have the value, but as a third option I would prefer a guy like otto porter.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Andrew+Wiggins&player_id1_select=Andrew+Wiggins&y1=2018&player_id1=wiggian01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Otto+Porter&player_id2_select=Otto+Porter&y2=2018&player_id2=porteot01&idx=players

If I were a GM, I wouldn't touch him even if I needed a top scorer. He simply isn't efficient enough for today's NBA game. But there may be some GMs (including Thibs) that believe he's worth waiting on. He has an elite spin move, euro step, and can get his shot off pretty easily. May be some day he actually starts making more of them (?). But it's just really hard to see when he's struggling this badly as a 4th year player, even if he is still pretty young age-wise.

Wouldn't touch him? Ok. Overpaid with performance so far makes sense but the rhetoric is a bit overblown I'd say. You may have given Robbie Hummel a max deal so I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Wouldn't touch him with that contract, correct. And I'm just speaking for myself if I were a GM. I really think I could find much better ways to spend that money, either on a different max player or perhaps a couple of players.

I think you are right that there might be a couple actual GMs out there willing to roll the dice, but I think that list gets smaller and smaller each passing month....

Speaking of Robbie Hummel I watched the Nebraska vs Illinois game the other day and he was the TV analyst. He did fine.

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

sjm34 wrote:I was pretty high on WIg early on, but I thought the max deal was a mistake. If a team needed a top scorer, I could see how he might have the value, but as a third option I would prefer a guy like otto porter.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Andrew+Wiggins&player_id1_select=Andrew+Wiggins&y1=2018&player_id1=wiggian01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Otto+Porter&player_id2_select=Otto+Porter&y2=2018&player_id2=porteot01&idx=players

If I were a GM, I wouldn't touch him even if I needed a top scorer. He simply isn't efficient enough for today's NBA game. But there may be some GMs (including Thibs) that believe he's worth waiting on. He has an elite spin move, euro step, and can get his shot off pretty easily. May be some day he actually starts making more of them (?). But it's just really hard to see when he's struggling this badly as a 4th year player, even if he is still pretty young age-wise.

Wouldn't touch him? Ok. Overpaid with performance so far makes sense but the rhetoric is a bit overblown I'd say. You may have given Robbie Hummel a max deal so I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Wouldn't touch him with that contract, correct. And I'm just speaking for myself if I were a GM. I really think I could find much better ways to spend that money, either on a different max player or perhaps a couple of players.

I think you are right that there might be a couple actual GMs out there willing to roll the dice, but I think that list gets smaller and smaller each passing month....

Speaking of Robbie Hummel I watched the Nebraska vs Illinois game the other day and he was the TV analyst. He did fine.

He is clearly just biding his time waiting for his next opportunity, Right Q!

What's the league minimum these days? Not a bad gig if you're a Hummel type. Make a ton of money for a few years and be an analyst as a hobby.

BizarroJerry wrote:What's the league minimum these days? Not a bad gig if you're a Hummel type. Make a ton of money for a few years and be an analyst as a hobby.

League minimum is a pretty nice gig as long as you have 1 year of service time. I think after year after year after year of injuries Hummel is done playing and I believe he said as much. If he wanted to make money playing basketball he would be able to draw a nice paycheck in Europe where he was a fairly valuable player. I wouldn't be surprised if he got into coaching at some point.

Wiggins for Kawhi

One underperforming asset for a injured disgruntled one.

Questions, will Kawhi come back healthy and would he want to play here and for Thibs.

WolvesFan21 wrote:Wiggins for Kawhi

One underperforming asset for a injured disgruntled one.

Questions, will Kawhi come back healthy and would he want to play here and for Thibs.

I think I remember another poster with this idea. Can't remember quite who it was, but man, wouldn't that be a nice deal for Minnesota, assuming Leonard came back healthy.

Camden wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:Wiggins for Kawhi

One underperforming asset for a injured disgruntled one.

Questions, will Kawhi come back healthy and would he want to play here and for Thibs.

I think I remember another poster with this idea too. Can't remember quite who it was, but man, wouldn't that be a nice deal for Minnesota, assuming Leonard came back healthy.

Yeah I think I did see that on here. If Kawhi would come here and it's somewhat a gamble how well he can get healthy, I'd do it. I'm just not sold on Wiggins. Maybe Pop can get more out of him then we can. I didn't make much out of the idea before, because that was before Kawhi was out for the season and some issues of him wanting out were coming up. It's actually a plausible deal now.

Imagine Butler and (Healthy) Kawhi locking down the defense. Man that would be nice.

Acquiring (a healthy) Leonard would make us a contender for sure. However the big question is health. He's been sidelined by a quad injury all season. That's concerning. Although latest news is he's set to return in March.

Although he's definitely a better player than Wiggins there is a stark difference in durability. In his three and a half seasons in the NBA Andrew has missed one game.

The question is:
Is having Leonard for 60 games a season more valuable than Wiggins for 80?

KiwiMatt wrote:Acquiring (a healthy) Leonard would make us a contender for sure. However the big question is health. He's been sidelined by a quad injury all season. That's concerning. Although latest news is he's set to return in March.

Although he's definitely a better player than Wiggins there is a stark difference in durability. In his three and a half seasons in the NBA Andrew has missed one game.

The question is:
Is having Leonard for 60 games a season more valuable than Wiggins for 80?

You never know when an injury may come though. Andrew has been lucky, I wonder if his lack of physicality plays into that too. Meaning he doesn't take charges, doesn't rebound aggressively. By playing soft, he's been able to stay on the floor. Avoids a lot of contact.

To answer your question, heck yeah if healthy I'd take 60 games of Kawhi over 80 for Wiggins. Of course, if he is close to his former self.

How is this Wiggins for Kawhi thing even open for discussion? Sure, Kawhi has been more injured than Wiggins (although he's averaged more like 65-70 games per season than 60).

Regardless, Kawhi's a legit MVP candidate who has been to two Finals and won an NBA Finals MVP and he's gotten much better since then. Many experts would rank him in the top 5 in the entire league, and he's a consensus top 10 player in the NBA at worst. He's an unbelievable two-way talent. Wiggins is nowhere near that level. There's nothing to discuss. 99.9% of all people on earth would take Kawhi over Wiggins in a heartbeat, even with the injuries.