Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:

thedoper wrote:I think there are downsides and we are by no means a top tier destination for Durant, there is no way around that. I think the point should stand that we have already talked ourselves out of even having a chance without even trying to conceive of a scenario where it works. We all know the Lakers and Knicks will pitch with less promise on their rosters than either of us. Shouldn't we at least try to be creative?

Well, first of all, when you say "we", do you mean us knuckleheads that have absolutely zero influence on the Wolves or do you literally mean Taylor/Thibs/Layden? Because we don't know what those guys are really thinking. Perhaps they are thinking bigger than we think.

I actually think your scenario of trading LaVine + #5 either in a package together or in two separate deals to bring on a significant vet or two is a viable option as part of a push to get Durant here.

Who would you target with an offer like that? Jimmy Butler was talked about for LaVine + #5 + Filler, and the majority seemed to be against that trade for our future/LaVine's potential. Would people's opinion on that trade change if there was a legitimate shot of signing Durant? How about if Horford was the second free agent?

If this team gets Durant why would it need to make any moves? sign whatever random dudes that can still play for the vet min and compete for a championship for the next however many years. That was easy.

It's fun how these threads get off on various tangents.

monsterpile wrote:If this team gets Durant why would it need to make any moves? sign whatever random dudes that can still play for the vet min and compete for a championship for the next however many years. That was easy.

It's fun how these threads get off on various tangents.

It did go off on a tangent but the original question for the thread seemed to be answered. The vast majority of us would take the Wolves roster. The differing opinion seemed to just be who we thought was best set up for success of the next 5 young teams.

The next question posed was do the Wolves + assets with their current roster have a better chance to attract a FA like Durant than the Celtics do with their current roster + assets? With the Wolves in the West I don't think he'd come here as it sits. A trade like LaVine + 5 for Butler certainly could change that, and with more thought I may do that trade just to improve my chances at a top free agent over the next 2 offseasons.
Even as it sits Rubio/Butler/Wiggins/KG/Towns with Dieng/Shabazz/Bjelica off the bench would get us in the playoffs next season. I don't see that being the case if we keep LaVine and whoever from #5. Keep in mind Butler at 16mil over the next 4 seasons is going to be a huge bargain for the player he is. We've talked about #5 being our last chance at a top talent from the draft. That means it's also our last big trade chip from the draft. Maybe packaging the gamble that is a draft pick with a high potential player like LaVine for a star two-way player was too easily dismissed.

Even if Minnesota did get Kevin Durant to sign with them, I still wouldn't trade Zach LaVine -- even for a player like Jimmy Butler, who I've liked since his second year in the association.

Raise your hand if you can tell me why Oklahoma City lost in the Western Conference Championship? What key aspect of the game did they get dominated in?

If you answered three-point shooting, you'd be correct. The Thunder had more rebounds, the same amount of assists, less turnovers, but got destroyed from behind the arc.

So, no, I have practically zero interest in trading LaVine. He's already shown that he is one of the better shot-makers in basketball, evident by his career 3P percentage of 37.3% on 3.0 attempts, his 2015-16 3P percentage of 38.9% on 3.9 attempts and 44.4% from 3P in 33 games as a starter on 5.4 attempts. He's also an excellent shooter from the corners (46.8% in 15-16; 43.7% career).

I'm probably sounding extra homer-ish today, but there's a lot of reasons to keep LaVine, in my opinion, regardless of who we would be able to sign in free agency. His shot-making ability is just one of them.

TheFuture wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

thedoper wrote:I think there are downsides and we are by no means a top tier destination for Durant, there is no way around that. I think the point should stand that we have already talked ourselves out of even having a chance without even trying to conceive of a scenario where it works. We all know the Lakers and Knicks will pitch with less promise on their rosters than either of us. Shouldn't we at least try to be creative?

Well, first of all, when you say "we", do you mean us knuckleheads that have absolutely zero influence on the Wolves or do you literally mean Taylor/Thibs/Layden? Because we don't know what those guys are really thinking. Perhaps they are thinking bigger than we think.

I actually think your scenario of trading LaVine + #5 either in a package together or in two separate deals to bring on a significant vet or two is a viable option as part of a push to get Durant here.

Who would you target with an offer like that? Jimmy Butler was talked about for LaVine + #5 + Filler, and the majority seemed to be against that trade for our future/LaVine's potential. Would people's opinion on that trade change if there was a legitimate shot of signing Durant? How about if Horford was the second free agent?

I don't think targeting Jimmy Butler makes sense in a scenario where Wiggins is being kept. Presumably Wiggins would be our starting 2, with Durant at the 3. Then our small-ball lineup would be Wiggins at the 3 and Durant at the 4. Something would have to give between Butler and Wiggins and I don't think either player or their agent would be too keen on coming off the bench!

Who could we target? I'd search for a starting-caliber PF like Favors or Milsap and a 3 & D bench wing.

I'm not even necessarily advocating for this by the way. I'm just riffing off of what Doper started!

Camden wrote:Even if Minnesota did get Kevin Durant to sign with them, I still wouldn't trade Zach LaVine -- even for a player like Jimmy Butler, who I've liked since his second year in the association.

Raise your hand if you can tell me why Oklahoma City lost in the Western Conference Championship? What key aspect of the game did they get dominated in?

If you answered three-point shooting, you'd be correct. The Thunder had more rebounds, the same amount of assists, less turnovers, but got destroyed from behind the arc.

So, no, I have practically zero interest in trading LaVine. He's already shown that he is one of the better shot-makers in basketball, evident by his career 3P percentage of 37.3% on 3.0 attempts, his 2015-16 3P percentage of 38.9% on 3.9 attempts and 44.4% from 3P in 33 games as a starter on 5.4 attempts. He's also an excellent shooter from the corners (46.8% in 15-16; 43.7% career).

I'm probably sounding extra homer-ish today, but there's a lot of reasons to keep LaVine, in my opinion, regardless of who we would be able to sign in free agency. His shot-making ability is just one of them.

So you're saying you would not trade LaVine for Butler?

Based off of 30+ games from a guy playing on a team that had no chance at the playoffs... and all because of one part of the game? Three point shooting?


[Note: OKC made it within minutes of the NBA Finals by the way... ]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:Even if Minnesota did get Kevin Durant to sign with them, I still wouldn't trade Zach LaVine -- even for a player like Jimmy Butler, who I've liked since his second year in the association.

Raise your hand if you can tell me why Oklahoma City lost in the Western Conference Championship? What key aspect of the game did they get dominated in?

If you answered three-point shooting, you'd be correct. The Thunder had more rebounds, the same amount of assists, less turnovers, but got destroyed from behind the arc.

So, no, I have practically zero interest in trading LaVine. He's already shown that he is one of the better shot-makers in basketball, evident by his career 3P percentage of 37.3% on 3.0 attempts, his 2015-16 3P percentage of 38.9% on 3.9 attempts and 44.4% from 3P in 33 games as a starter on 5.4 attempts. He's also an excellent shooter from the corners (46.8% in 15-16; 43.7% career).

I'm probably sounding extra homer-ish today, but there's a lot of reasons to keep LaVine, in my opinion, regardless of who we would be able to sign in free agency. His shot-making ability is just one of them.

So you're saying you would not trade LaVine for Butler?

Based off of 30+ games from a guy playing on a team that had no chance at the playoffs... and all because of one part of the game? Three point shooting?


[Note: OKC made it within minutes of the NBA Finals by the way... ]

I think you just took my argument for LaVine and watered it down completely. I have no interest in using LaVine to acquire Butler.

Also, if we have Durant and Wiggins in this hypothetical situation, why the hell are we targeting Butler? Is Durant going to be our PF instead? Rubio-LaVine-Wiggins-Durant-Towns works too.

From my perspective LaVine for Butler on paper might be a no-brainer, but in practicality a) Chicago would never do it without a bigger/better asset, and b) even if they did, Butler and Wiggins' agents would be opposed to the deal - they are too redundant and one of them would need to become the 3rd wheel. If they were both established vets hunting for a title by getting a super-friends team together, perhaps they would put their egos aside and make it happen.

Now Wiggins for Butler? That's a different story because I think a Butler/LaVine duo works better together and LaVine is already the 3rd wheel as it is. But I don't think Minnesota does that deal and I'd have to agree.

Saw this quote on Twitter and thought it should be included here.

@Celticsblog
To recap: Celts got beat by the Hawks who got smoked by the Cavs who are getting smoked by the Warriors. We gotta be a lot better.

Q12543 wrote:From my perspective LaVine for Butler on paper might be a no-brainer, but in practicality a) Chicago would never do it without a bigger/better asset, and b) even if they did, Butler and Wiggins' agents would be opposed to the deal - they are too redundant and one of them would need to become the 3rd wheel. If they were both established vets hunting for a title by getting a super-friends team together, perhaps they would put their egos aside and make it happen.

Now Wiggins for Butler? That's a different story because I think a Butler/LaVine duo works better together and LaVine is already the 3rd wheel as it is. But I don't think Minnesota does that deal and I'd have to agree.

While we both agree that Chicago would say no... I'd make the deal just because it's so ridiculously lopsided that the Wolves could move Wiggins or Butler for an All Star type of player.

I know we're going from A + B = C + D a bit there... but Butler offers so much more value than LaVine around the league that I would make that deal in a heartbeat and figure it out from there. After all... it's not like the team with LaVine is making a late postseason run next season anyways.