WildWolf2813 wrote:Easy answer: Wiggins. I don't think LaVine is that talented of a player but he tries. Teams tend to take on the personalities of their stars. The Spurs were perceived as boring but unbelievably effective because Duncan was that. The Warriors are exciting and deadly because Curry is that. This team is perceived to be this ultra exciting young team with a future because Towns, Wiggins and LaVine are perceived to be that. What I don't wanna see is this team become viewed as overrated underachievers because Wiggins will wind up one, and that's what they look like now.
For three years now you have bagged on LaVine. I want to ask why you don't see him as a great talent? He has exceeded every expectation thus far. Is it simply a personal vendetta?
I don't have a personal vendetta against the guy, but I think much of the infatuation with him from day 1 is that he's super athletic and nobody wants to see a guy with that kind of athleticism fail, regardless of whether he has any skill to back that up. It's why people thought you could throw him in at PG and it would work. It's why people hold out hope for him defensively. While my stance on him has softened (and I've become a much harsher critic of guys like Wiggins and Dieng), he still looks like someone who looks the part. I have taken note of how hard he works and I wish Wiggins worked as hard as LaVine.
A huge issue I had with him is that we were waiting 3 years so he can wind up a 6th man, but those players usually go somewhere else because some other team would view him and pay him as a starter. While I think LaVine is doing enough to not pigeonhole himself to that role, Wiggins may make it so one has to go because he's not doing enough to make himself a great SF.
WildWolf2813 wrote:Easy answer: Wiggins. I don't think LaVine is that talented of a player but he tries. Teams tend to take on the personalities of their stars. The Spurs were perceived as boring but unbelievably effective because Duncan was that. The Warriors are exciting and deadly because Curry is that. This team is perceived to be this ultra exciting young team with a future because Towns, Wiggins and LaVine are perceived to be that. What I don't wanna see is this team become viewed as overrated underachievers because Wiggins will wind up one, and that's what they look like now.
For three years now you have bagged on LaVine. I want to ask why you don't see him as a great talent? He has exceeded every expectation thus far. Is it simply a personal vendetta?
I don't have a personal vendetta against the guy, but I think much of the infatuation with him from day 1 is that he's super athletic and nobody wants to see a guy with that kind of athleticism fail, regardless of whether he has any skill to back that up. It's why people thought you could throw him in at PG and it would work. It's why people hold out hope for him defensively. While my stance on him has softened (and I've become a much harsher critic of guys like Wiggins and Dieng), he still looks like someone who looks the part. I have taken note of how hard he works and I wish Wiggins worked as hard as LaVine.
A huge issue I had with him is that we were waiting 3 years so he can wind up a 6th man, but those players usually go somewhere else because some other team would view him and pay him as a starter. While I think LaVine is doing enough to not pigeonhole himself to that role, Wiggins may make it so one has to go because he's not doing enough to make himself a great SF.
I've never understood the people that thought he was basically just an athlete. The guy had actual skill from the beginning it was all about refining that and whether mentally he could make the jump which was a legit question. The progess he has made as an offensive player is nearly startling and defensively he isn't great but compared to what he was early in his career he has made some pretty legit strides. He turns 22 in a few weeks and is an efficient 20+ ppl scorer. When do you give the guy more than somewhat begrudging credit and maybe project him as a good player? I guess he will continue to prove the non believers credit and those folks will all be pleased with the outcome. :)
Easy answer for me. I trade Lavine for a top PG. Roster building is about balance and Towns and Wiggins have position versatility Lavine does not. Zach is a pure 2 while Wiggins can play either wing spot and Towns either big spot. A real PG, Wiggins and Towns would be a slightly better big 3 in my opinion than Lavine, Wiggins, Towns just from the standpoint that I know the ball is always going to be in one of my big 3's hands and not a 4th guy running the show.
khans2k5 wrote:Easy answer for me. I trade Lavine for a top PG. Roster building is about balance and Towns and Wiggins have position versatility Lavine does not. Zach is a pure 2 while Wiggins can play either wing spot and Towns either big spot. A real PG, Wiggins and Towns would be a slightly better big 3 in my opinion than Lavine, Wiggins, Towns just from the standpoint that I know the ball is always going to be in one of my big 3's hands and not a 4th guy running the show.
Roster building is about balance and versatility. I definitely agree with that, but I think Zach LaVine is the more versatile scorer and the more creative player with the ball in his hands. His elite three-point shooting almost single-handedly provides the offense with a balanced attack as well. It comes down to how you personally want to build your team so I'm not saying your way is wrong and mine is right as I feel like there are multiple ways to produce a winning blueprint.
I'd be extremely surprised -- and rather upset -- if either of them are dealt any time soon, however.
khans2k5 wrote:Easy answer for me. I trade Lavine for a top PG. Roster building is about balance and Towns and Wiggins have position versatility Lavine does not. Zach is a pure 2 while Wiggins can play either wing spot and Towns either big spot. A real PG, Wiggins and Towns would be a slightly better big 3 in my opinion than Lavine, Wiggins, Towns just from the standpoint that I know the ball is always going to be in one of my big 3's hands and not a 4th guy running the show.
Roster building is about balance and versatility. I definitely agree with that, but I think Zach LaVine is the more versatile scorer and the more creative player with the ball in his hands. His elite three-point shooting almost single-handedly provides the offense with a balanced attack as well. It comes down to how you personally want to build your team so I'm not saying your way is wrong and mine is right as I feel like there are multiple ways to produce a winning blueprint.
I'd be extremely surprised -- and rather upset -- if either of them are dealt any time soon, however.
If the PG you replace him with can shoot 3's you take care of that problem. Also Zach is better with the ball in his hands now, but it's not by much and Wiggins' handle is still a worn in progress. There's no doubt Wiggins is a better option attacking the basket than Lavine because of his length and ability to finish that Zach really hasn't shown much yet. I'm not looking to trade either guy, but if I had to I think it's pretty obvious to me at least that Wiggins is the better keep due to versatility along with room for growth.
khans2k5 wrote:Easy answer for me. I trade Lavine for a top PG. Roster building is about balance and Towns and Wiggins have position versatility Lavine does not. Zach is a pure 2 while Wiggins can play either wing spot and Towns either big spot. A real PG, Wiggins and Towns would be a slightly better big 3 in my opinion than Lavine, Wiggins, Towns just from the standpoint that I know the ball is always going to be in one of my big 3's hands and not a 4th guy running the show.
This was my thinking with the idea of Lavine for Kemba Walker. Would never happen as Walker is so much better right now. But I think a well rounded PG give us something at every level of our team. As long as Towns is our main guy I think we need a point that is adept at running a two man game with him. Towns and Ricky have developed some legit chemistry the only problem is that Ricky can't score when Towns gives him the ball back.
khans2k5 wrote:Easy answer for me. I trade Lavine for a top PG. Roster building is about balance and Towns and Wiggins have position versatility Lavine does not. Zach is a pure 2 while Wiggins can play either wing spot and Towns either big spot. A real PG, Wiggins and Towns would be a slightly better big 3 in my opinion than Lavine, Wiggins, Towns just from the standpoint that I know the ball is always going to be in one of my big 3's hands and not a 4th guy running the show.
Roster building is about balance and versatility. I definitely agree with that, but I think Zach LaVine is the more versatile scorer and the more creative player with the ball in his hands. His elite three-point shooting almost single-handedly provides the offense with a balanced attack as well. It comes down to how you personally want to build your team so I'm not saying your way is wrong and mine is right as I feel like there are multiple ways to produce a winning blueprint.
I'd be extremely surprised -- and rather upset -- if either of them are dealt any time soon, however.
If the PG you replace him with can shoot 3's you take care of that problem. Also Zach is better with the ball in his hands now, but it's not by much and Wiggins' handle is still a worn in progress. There's no doubt Wiggins is a better option attacking the basket than Lavine because of his length and ability to finish that Zach really hasn't shown much yet. I'm not looking to trade either guy, but if I had to I think it's pretty obvious to me at least that Wiggins is the better keep due to versatility along with room for growth.
Lavine's ability to finish at the rim has certainly been a pleasant surprise to me. I think he has shown plenty in that department.
So if you are moving Lavine for a scoring PG it seems like you better have a plan of what to do with 1-2 of the PGs on this team and adding a SF. Thats a lot of roster turnover.
I know the thread is speculative but we find ourselves in a position that 90% of the league would like to be in. Having three studs all the same young age to build around. I've been waiting for this team for almost 30 years. I just hope we don't do anything stupid and make the right choices on how to supplement these guys. The hard part is done, we have the foundation. Now we just need to smartly add to it at the right time.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I know the thread is speculative but we find ourselves in a position that 90% of the league would like to be in. Having three studs all the same young age to build around. I've been waiting for this team for almost 30 years. I just hope we don't do anything stupid and make the right choices on how to supplement these guys. The hard part is done, we have the foundation. Now we just need to smartly add to it at the right time.
Right, I couldn't agree more with you here. And why our situation is special is because we have three legitimate building blocks whereas other teams only have one or two. On top of that, we're already getting legitimate production from our three whereas the other situations are closer to the "wait and see" side of things.
The funny thing is, we'd rightfully feel pretty good about just having Towns, or just having LaVine, or just having Wiggins as our one franchise piece to build around. We'd feel even better having any two of them to build around. But nope, hold the phone, we have all three. We're spoiled with young talent. We just need to be patient, "trust the process", and the results should come in time.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:I know the thread is speculative but we find ourselves in a position that 90% of the league would like to be in. Having three studs all the same young age to build around. I've been waiting for this team for almost 30 years. I just hope we don't do anything stupid and make the right choices on how to supplement these guys. The hard part is done, we have the foundation. Now we just need to smartly add to it at the right time.
Right, I couldn't agree more with you here. And why our situation is special is because we have three legitimate building blocks whereas other teams only have one or two. On top of that, we're already getting legitimate production from our three whereas the other situations are closer to the "wait and see" side of things.
The funny thing is, we'd rightfully feel pretty good about just having Towns, or just having LaVine, or just having Wiggins as our one franchise piece to build around. We'd feel even better having any two of them to build around. But nope, hold the phone, we have all three. We're spoiled with young talent. We just need to be patient, "trust the process", and the results should come in time.
I very much agree with these two posts. This has been a season of epic disappointment for me, but the promise of what these guys could do together is downright exciting. This is why Thibs called this the best young roster in the league. God knows we long-suffering Wolves' fans deserve some light at the end of a very long tunnel.
