Jimmy Butler traded to Philly

[AbeVigodaLive]

I'm liking the recent trade a bit more the more I think about it.

Eager to see if it actually works out on the floor.

[TheFuture]

Go down to the bare bones of each asset, where each player was drafted and it's pretty easy to state the wolves have managed assets poorly.

Dunn the # 5 pick, no questionablely had less value at the time we traded him as it was when we drafted him. The organization didn't maximize that pick or asset.

Markkanen the number 8 pick most likely has more value now after the trade.

And Cam, yes it plenty fair to use Patton and the 16 pick in any argument. The #16 pick in a very good draft holds a ton of value in this league right now. A year after owning that asset it was worth virtually nothing.

You wanna break it down this way. The wolves had in their possession over the last 4 years, the #5, #8, #13, and #16 picks. They turned it into a two players, one undafted, and the other amid teens pick, and a 2nd rounder. That's not maximizing your assets.

Obviously the two players coming from Philly currently have more value now, can't say the same for the wolves and their picks. I'm not an economist by any means but isn't that called diminishing returns or something like that.

Based on this logic team that trades 5th pick to 4th pick and then that 4th pick to 3rd pick and finally received 3rd pick to 2nd pick hasn't used its assets very well because it had 5th, 4th and 3rd pick but ended with only 2nd pick.

Obviously this is flawed logic just like counting 16th pick that was received together with Jimmy Butler, as a part of assets together with Lavine, Dunn and Markkanen that were in the end used to get Covington and Saric.

This is flawed. You're stating that these trades are one offs. Those would all be good deals, going up in theoretical value.

How is it flawed logic to include Patton in the value that Thibs wasted?

LaVine, Dunn, Markannen pick, Patton for Covington, Saric, Bayless, 2nd rounder.

That is not terrible management of assets?

[TheFuture]

So I do like this trade considering the position we were in, but I can't help but find it hilarious that Thibs essentially traded Butler, LaVine, Dunn (his #5 pick after 1 year), a #7 pick, Patton (his #17 pick after 1 year) for Covington, Saric, Bayless, and a 2nd.

If that's not terms for firing ( on top of our on court display ) I'm not sure what is.

That wasn't the trade.

He traded lavine, dunn, and mark for covington, saric, bayless, 2nd rounder, 1 year of playoffs, and 1 year of headaches.

Covington is still the best player in the deal.

I guess that's a fair way to look at it too, though you are forgetting the #17 pick in Patton.

Personally, I'd take LaVine and Markannen over the long haul, especially with the way the league keeps trying to diminish defense. The spacing on that team would be unreal.

You're trying way too hard to make Thibs look like he wasted assets here. Your first post wasn't even remotely close to a realistic view of what assets were traded for what. And then kek accurately laid out what was essentially swapped over the course of two years, and you still came back with "you're forgetting the 17th pick" when the Wolves never would have had that pick to begin with. That pick was a byproduct of giving up LaVine, Dunn, and Markkanen.

It's essentially LaVine, Dunn, and Markkanen for Covington, Saric, Bayless, and a 2nd-round pick. And depending on your individual opinion of each player, that will determine whether it's hilarious and grounds for firing or relatively close to even value, or exceeding, and worthy of some sort of praise aside from the chaos and slander that came with it.

PS: One could argue that Covington (36.9% 3P in 17-18) and Saric (39.3% 3P) are better floor spacers than LaVine (34.1% 3P) and Markkanen (36.2% 3P), but whatever floats your boat.

I don't understand why you're so adamant about defending Thibs.

He has not been good here.

As for the assets, do we have any of those I listed on our team? No, they were all moved for what we do have on our team.

Roco and Saric were spacing for Simmons and Embiid. A bit better combo than our two young ones. We'll see if they keep it up. Meanwhile Markannen has been out and LaVine is looking great. Over the long haul, I'll take the LaVine and Markannen.

[TAFKASP]

How is it flawed logic to include Patton in the value that Thibs wasted?

LaVine, Dunn, Markannen pick, Patton for Covington, Saric, Bayless, 2nd rounder.

I would suggest it's flawed because the Wolves were never in position to have both the Markannen pick and the Patton pick. On that one point it appears to me to be an either/or situation.

[Monster]

So I do like this trade considering the position we were in, but I can't help but find it hilarious that Thibs essentially traded Butler, LaVine, Dunn (his #5 pick after 1 year), a #7 pick, Patton (his #17 pick after 1 year) for Covington, Saric, Bayless, and a 2nd.

If that's not terms for firing ( on top of our on court display ) I'm not sure what is.

That wasn't the trade.

He traded lavine, dunn, and mark for covington, saric, bayless, 2nd rounder, 1 year of playoffs, and 1 year of headaches.

Covington is still the best player in the deal.

I guess that's a fair way to look at it too, though you are forgetting the #17 pick in Patton.

Personally, I'd take LaVine and Markannen over the long haul, especially with the way the league keeps trying to diminish defense. The spacing on that team would be unreal.

You're trying way too hard to make Thibs look like he wasted assets here. Your first post wasn't even remotely close to a realistic view of what assets were traded for what. And then kek accurately laid out what was essentially swapped over the course of two years, and you still came back with "you're forgetting the 17th pick" when the Wolves never would have had that pick to begin with. That pick was a byproduct of giving up LaVine, Dunn, and Markkanen.

It's essentially LaVine, Dunn, and Markkanen for Covington, Saric, Bayless, and a 2nd-round pick. And depending on your individual opinion of each player, that will determine whether it's hilarious and grounds for firing or relatively close to even value, or exceeding, and worthy of some sort of praise aside from the chaos and slander that came with it.

PS: One could argue that Covington (36.9% 3P in 17-18) and Saric (39.3% 3P) are better floor spacers than LaVine (34.1% 3P) and Markkanen (36.2% 3P), but whatever floats your boat.

I don't understand why you're so adamant about defending Thibs.

He has not been good here.

As for the assets, do we have any of those I listed on our team? No, they were all moved for what we do have on our team.

Roco and Saric were spacing for Simmons and Embiid. A bit better combo than our two young ones. We'll see if they keep it up. Meanwhile Markannen has been out and LaVine is looking great. Over the long haul, I'll take the LaVine and Markannen.

The Pick used on Patton ended up being a expiring deal in the Butler trade. You can say that's patton would t have been good but it's fair to say that if he was healthy he would have had more value than basically a throw in. Obviously other players were better picks at this point but all the injuries rent Thibs and Layden's fault. You gotta give them at least half a pass on that one.

If so had to pick between Markkanen and Saric ultimately I think Markkanen has more upside. Would so rather have Lavine over Covington? Yes. HOWEVER think about this. If the Wolves had stood pat they would be paying over 30 million for Dunn Markkanen and Lavine next season. Covington and Saric are going to get paid half that. I think one way or another you can say the Wolves really came out of this deal down only one asset and part of that is because of Payton's injury. Because of this deal going through the Wolves will have another roster spot and financial flexibility to add another player (or more) they may not have been able to otherwise. Based on the reporting I have seen I do not think this offer was made until recently. I wonder if it was made earlier if Thibs May have pulled the trigger. We will never know. The thing that bugs me the most about Thibs in this whole thing might be playing Butler over 40 minutes a night 2 games in a row? That's ridiculous especially that last game when a trade was actually reported to be in the works.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

I

I'm liking the recent trade a bit more the more I think about it.

Eager to see if it actually works out on the floor.

Yeah, I like it more and more myself. I often fault Thibs for not exhibiting enough patience as a coach, but I think his patience on this deal led to the Wolves getting the best deal they could have gotten. 2 starters from a 52-win team is a good haul by any measure.

I'm enjoying the back and forth on the end result of the Butler saga. I'm ignoring Dunn, because there's not much evidence he will ever be much of an NBA player...constantly injured, some unknown personal issues, and ultimately not very good. The comparison then comes down to Saric vs. Markkennen, and LaVine vs. Covington, and while it's close, I'll take Saric and Covington. Covington was a valuable starter for Philly the last few years, and I can't imagine Zach cracking that starting lineup with his porous defense...clear advantage to RoCo. The 2 foreign stretch 4's is a tougher comparison, because we have so little data on Lauri with his difficulty staying healthy. My opinion is that Dario is a more complete and smarter player, so I give him the slight nod.

Ultimately it will come down to how Thibs is able to incorporate the 2 newcomers into the current roster. Obviously I have my doubts as to whether Thibs is the right guy to do this, but I'm hoping he can get the most out of two talented guys.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The Covington vs. LaVine discussion is an interesting one if for nothing else... they're so vastly different as players.

It's always hard to measure defensive impact... so how can a person offer tangibles to differentiate the two on the end of the court when that's really the primary differentiator for those siding with Covington.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The Covington vs. LaVine discussion is an interesting one if for nothing else... they're so vastly different as players.

It's always hard to measure defensive impact... so how can a person offer tangibles to differentiate the two on the end of the court when that's really the primary differentiator for those siding with Covington.

Yeah, besides eye test, you have to really patch together a bunch of different data points to build a case, all of which have some noise. DRPM from ESPN, Drtg (from nba.com, not Bball reference), hustle stats from nba.com), and the box score stats (Dreb%, Stls, blks). None by themselves paint a complete picture.

What we do know is that RoCo kicks Zach's ass in all of those areas mentioned without being a liability offensively since he hits 3s and generally stays in his lane. He does need others to create for him though.

[Lipoli390]

The best way to look at this is as follows:

1. The Thibodeau had the following assets, among others:
- LaVine
- #5 pick in 2016 Draft
- #7 pick in 2017 draft

2. He turned those assets into the following:
- Jimmy for one year, which got us a playoff birth, but quick exit and subsequent drama
- Covington at a very reasonable contact for 4 seasons
- Saric on a short-term deal with the option to make him a restricted FA in 2020.

That's the clearest way to look at this if you're trying to evaluate Thibodeau's performance in this set of decisions connected to Butler. The evaluation should consider opportunity costs, or in other words, the players Thibodeau could have had with those assets. With the 2016 pick he could have had Hield or Murray. With the 2017 pick he could have had Marrkenan, but he also could have had Donovan Mitchell. In fact, he could have traded down and gotten Mitchell plus other assets. He could have those players plus LaVine. Would that be better than Covington and Saric given where those players are at in their careers and their contracts? Reasonably minds can reach different answers to that question.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The best way to look at this is as follows:

1. The Thibodeau had the following assets, among others:
- LaVine
- #5 pick in 2016 Draft
- #7 pick in 2017 draft

2. He turned those assets into the following:
- Jimmy for one year, which got us a playoff birth, but quick exit and subsequent drama
- Covington at a very reasonable contact for 4 seasons
- Saric on a short-term deal with the option to make him a restricted FA in 2020.

That's the clearest way to look at this if you're trying to evaluate Thibodeau's performance in this set of decisions connected to Butler. The evaluation should consider opportunity costs, or in other words, the players Thibodeau could have had with those assets. With the 2016 pick he could have had Hield or Murray. With the 2017 pick he could have had Marrkenan, but he also could have had Donovan Mitchell. In fact, he could have traded down and gotten Mitchell plus other assets. He could have those players plus LaVine. Would that be better than Covington and Saric given where those players are at in their careers and their contracts? Reasonably minds can reach different answers to that question.

Yeah, one can build a narrative either way. I think it's fair to say though that he didn't completely get screwed. Even if one thinks Thibs ultimately lost on all of these moves, the floor is still pretty high (Saric + Covington).