Minnesota Sports Forum

For what it's worth I still feel the exact same way about going after a bigger FA that I did going into the offseason.

monsterpile wrote:For what it's worth I still feel the exact same way about going after a bigger FA that I did going into the offseason.

Yeah, my views haven't changed either, monster. I'm frustrated with this season, but prefer to stay the course. I would consider trading one of the big 3 if it clearly made us better, but don't want to land a big free agent that may cause us to lose one of our Big 3 down the line...unless it is a top 5 player that really moves the needle!

longstrangetrip wrote:

monsterpile wrote:For what it's worth I still feel the exact same way about going after a bigger FA that I did going into the offseason.

Yeah, my views haven't changed either, monster. I'm frustrated with this season, but prefer to stay the course. I would consider trading one of the big 3 if it clearly made us better, but don't want to land a big free agent that may cause us to lose one of our Big 3 down the line...unless it is a top 5 player that really moves the needle!

If it's really worth it we're going to have to eventually pay the luxury tax. If all of our 3 are worth it they all need the max and will have to get it if we are even close because of the pressure of our market. Then we will be looking for complimentary players on the cheap which will really hamstring us and still force us to eventually pay the tax (i.e overpaid players that we trade for). If we sign a free agent now yes it will guarantee we will have to pay the tax but it is one more player who we know what we have. Hypothetical progress shouldn't be dictating a sure fire way of acquiring more talent without losing anyone (free agency). I still say the single smartest move GS made was signing Igoudala. Without that move they never lock in a player of his talent with the Mid Level exemption and may not win the championship without their MVP that year. The only reason they could make that signing was because they were in a similar situation as us where their core hadn't matured into max players and they could offer real money to one of the biggest FAs on the market that summer. We should be thinking the same way.

There's no way around it if the talent of riches are truly there. Better to bite the bullet and pay it when we know what we have than to assume our guys are going to get there and being cautious about building around them now. After the money that these owners are bringing in from the last few CBAs there just isn't room for complaints about the luxury tax when you have a chance. If Taylor doesn't like it he can sell the Wolves for a billion dollars and he'd have plenty of suitors. The only way we lose our core guys is if Taylor cheaps out. All great teams make moves to make themselves better in the present, I don't know why we should be any different.

All that being said if we are worried about 3 years from now then offer a solid FA the max for 3 years. We free up Rubio and Pek's money I bet there's some great basketball players that would take a 3 year 90 million dollar deal.

At the risk of repeating myself, Butler is not one of the 10 players I would trade Wig for. I prefer the untapped potential, upside, and youth offered by Andrew.

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

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.

You're probably right that they're playing it safe, but they did reportedly offer Pau Gasol a two-year, $40M deal. To me, at least, that shows that they're willing to make a splash as long as it fits with the future mini-max contracts of the young trio.

Keep in mind that a medical retirement of Nikola Pekovic looks likely and the franchise probably isn't as set on keeping Ricky Rubio as it was six months ago either. That's money on the books that could be gone as soon as this off-season if they wanted it so.

Camden0916 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:

thedoper wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

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.

You're probably right that they're playing it safe, but they did reportedly offer Pau Gasol a two-year, $40M deal. To me, at least, that shows that they're willing to make a splash as long as it fits with the future mini-max contracts of the young trio.

Keep in mind that a medical retirement of Nikola Pekovic looks likely and the franchise probably isn't as set on keeping Ricky Rubio as it was six months ago either. That's money on the books that could be gone as soon as this off-season if they wanted it so.

Sure the Iggy signing looks good now and I'll be honest I thought it was a weird deal at the time. They gave up a lot to make it happen. It paid off but a big reason it did was they had their own guys exceeded expectations but Iggy was significant. The thing is you want to sign the right guy which I'm sure everyone would agree with. The Wolves looked into both Gasol and Deng last offseason. Deng got a crazy deal and Gasol picked a contender. Maybe they considered other guys but they seemed to have certain guys they were interested in. I still think they need to sign the right guy for the right price and right length of contract. I'm still not exactly sure what position I would want to shore up on this team with a bigtime FA. By the end of the year hopefully that's much more clear.