Bulls vs. Cavs

[bleedspeed]

I don't think you can say having Beasley/Wes Johnson/Anthony Randolph maximized Rubio's ability. I think the trio would give Rubio a lot more options because they are more skilled and smart players.

[SameOldNudityDrew]

I don't get the argument that Wiggins has superstar potential.

Athletic freak? Check. Very good freshman season? Check. Lots of media attention? Check.

Beyond that, I think there are too many question marks. One of the biggest is can he learn to handle the ball better? Seriously, how many superstar wings out there handle the ball as stiffly as Wiggins? Have any star wings come into the league without the ability to really get wherever they want on the floor with the ball and then learned how to do it? I can't think of any. It's such a crucial skill. Wiggins has a great crossover because he's so quick, and a very nice spin move with the ball, but he doesn't have the ball handling skills to get where he wants with the ball, and that really concerns me. You can't take over a game if you need somebody to be dishing you assists or get your points off of offensive putbacks (both of which are great, but lots of guys can score within a system). Even a great "straight line" driver is still pretty limited in what he can do. He'll probably get a lot of free throws. But superstars can drive in whatever line they want.

And that brings me to maybe the bigger question. Can Wiggins really be the kind of guy you run an offense through? You have to be able to do that with a superstar unless they are a freakish defensive center. I haven't seen impressive passing skills or floor vision from him. He seems to make good decisions whenever he has the ball, but he hasn't really been asked to make tough decisions. He's smart enough not to try to push the ball where he can't, but I also don't see a guy who's going to be managing pick and rolls, running the offense out of the high post, and generally making smart difficult passes when he needs to. Look at the playoff teams. LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Parker, Ginobili, Diaw, Duncan (Leonard to a lesser extent), all of those guys are guys you can give the ball to and run the offense through them. Can Wiggins be that guy? I'm not sure. I see a guy who would be an awesome fast break guy, high flying finisher, very good offensive rebounder/putback guy, a guy who might be a good jump shooter (though we don't have along history to go on here), but the bottom line is that Wiggins, to me, is a finisher. The guy you get the ball to to finish the play. But I don't see him as a creator. And superstars have to be both finishers and creators (again, unless they are 7 foot defensive freaks playing center).

I think that's why I'm wary about the Wiggins trade and would lean toward the Bulls offer (if it's valid, and especially if it included Butler). People who support it say it's a choice between a group of very good but not star players and one guy who could be a superstar (because nobody has hope for Bennet or the Cavs pick). I just don't see Wiggins having a high chance to become a superstar. A very good player? Sure. But I think Wiggins' athleticism and the ESPN hype machine is inflating our sense of how good Wiggins will actually be.

[worldK]

Drew, i have to ask you a question. You were a big Parker fan before the draft. If the cavs have parker instead of wiggins, will you favor the cavs deal over the bulls deal that you favor now?

Your argument is that the bulls have the sure nba players(butler and Gibson) along with potentials in McDermott and mirotic over the cavs who are offering potential in wiggins. Now, wiggins, Parker,McDermott and mirotic are all unproven in the league. For me if you say you will do the cavs deal if they have Parker or any other rookie that you prefer over wiggins, then it's all just a personal preference thing and the proven players argument just happen to make sense for you because of the involvement/non involvement of the players you prefer and became situational instead of a full on quality vs quantity or proven vs potential argument.

For me, whether it's wiggins, Parker or embiid that the cavs took. I still make the trade with them because my stance is to always go for the player who can be a star over a bunch of solid role players who won't move the franchise forward. Iunderstand the concerns on wiggins. But this is not dw who have a few strong games in college or Beasley who has a lot of baggage. This isn't shabazz or mayo who were older than their competition in high school and have a physical advantage over their competition. Wiggins has been highly scouted/covered and followed since high school. If you look at their history, wiggins have the advantage in head to head matchup with Parker thought their careers so far. He is a good kid who is one of the best athletes to come to the league in recent years. People say McDermott is better now and more ready and has as much potential as wiggins. But if McDermott had come out his freshman year, he might not even be in the league right now. Wiggins has the natural tools. By all accounts he has good character and very coach able. It's up to the coaches to bring that out of him and use and develop him to be his best. That's what coaches get paid for.

It's wiggins for me and I believe it's flips preference as well.

[SameOldNudityDrew]

Hey worldK, good question. I'd lean more toward Parker, etc. from the Cavs than I would Wiggins, etc. I'd still definitely consider the Bulls offer though. I think I lean toward the Bulls for two reasons: 1) I'm skeptical about Wiggins reaching his full potential and 2) I think it's actually a better strategy for building to go for sure-fire good players like Gibson and/or Butler (especially if you get a prospect in there as well) than to go all-in for youth and potential (which is basically the case with Wiggins). I've laid out my thinking in terms of 2) before, so I don't want to rehash that in this post, although I generally think even with Wiggins' team-friendly rookie contract, it's better for us to become a legitimate playoff team sometime soon or we are going to become the league's next Clippers (seriously, we're already turning into a laughingstock).

But to point number 1, about Wiggins himself. Those things I mentioned in the previous thread that Wiggins doesn't have--1) ability to handle the ball well enough to move anywhere on the floor and 2) ability to run the offense and be a playmaker--Parker has those things. Parker's nowhere near as athletic as Wiggins and I do have conditioning concerns, but I think Parker really could become a superstar (which I'd define as top 10 or 15 talent in the league). He's just incredibly skilled for a guy his size, and I see him having an excellent chance of ending up being a player somewhere in between Peirce, Carmelo (less scoring but more playmaking), Harden (bigger with better defense, and more passing like with OKC), and Diaw (at his best in the playoffs). I see Wiggins ending up somewhere between Corey Brewer and Russell Westbrook. I love Brewer (my favorite Wolf for years now), and Westbrook is an amazing player (probably should be an SG). But Brewer is a role player, and while I'm fairly confident Wiggins will be a better Brewer, that's still just a better role player. And as for Westbrook, two things he has that Wiggins doesn't are the ability to handle the ball well enough to get anywhere on the floor, and playmaking skills (though he doesn't always use them very well)--the very two skills I'm wary about, and which Parker has. And those are not two skills players often learn after they get to the NBA. So I'm much more wary of Wiggins reaching his potential than I am of Parker reaching his.

I like both of them and think they are both going to be coachable players. There's no Anthony Randolph or Michael Beasley concerns with those guys. Same with Embiid. I like how the league is getting some more good players who are also good guys. That lessens the likelihood of a Beasley type situation. Realistically, Beasley should have become one of the top 10 players in the league. He should be up there in conversations about Durant, Rose, Love, and those guys, because he had/has all the skill in the world. His freshman year in college was INSANE and showed what he was capable of. But he blew it. That doesn't mean, though, that any guy with his head on straight who is coachable can develop those skills. Wiggins is a freak athlete, and I love his quickness and effort, and he seems like a good guy, but elite ballhandling and playmaking are not the sort of things you just learn like shooting or setting picks or rebounding. They're not as inherent as athleticism, but some guys just have those elite skills by the time they are 18 or 19 and some guys don't. I don't think Wiggins does, and I think Parker looks like he does.

Of course, I could totally be wrong. We're all prognosticating at this point, and that's one of the joys of the sport. You never know for sure what's going to happen.

[bleedspeed]

I think Wiggins will not be a top 10 player in the league . If he showed those signs the Cavs wouldn't trade him. If it was Irving's rookie year they wouldn't have traded him for Love today.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

I don't think you can say having Beasley/Wes Johnson/Anthony Randolph maximized Rubio's ability. I think the trio would give Rubio a lot more options because they are more skilled and smart players.

Exactly. There is this notion that somehow having athletes is the best way to take advantage of Rubio's skill sets, never mind how advanced their skills might be.

If you can make timely cuts, shoot, or draw contact at the rim, you can take just as much advantage of Rubio's skills as someone who can jump really high.

[60WinTim]

While this is a reasonable debate, is there anyone here that doesn't think Love for Wiggins is already a done deal?

I'm convinced it's a done deal. The real question is which PF will we get in return -- Bennett, Thompson or Young. Actually, I would not be surprised if we get two of those three PFs...

[bleedspeed]

The trade is done. Flip is really played it perfectly.

He traded Love and JJ to Cavs for Wiggns, TT, and Waiters.
He then traded Waiters, Shved, and Shabazz for Young
He then traded Wiggins, LRMM and Budinger for Butler, Mirotic, and McDermott.

Roster
PG: Rubio, Mo Williams, Marbury
SG: Martin, LaVine, Brewer
SF: Bulter, McDermott, Hummel
PF: Young, Mirotic, TT
C: Pekovic, Dieng, Turiaf

[60WinTim]

The trade is done. Flip is really played it perfectly.

He traded Love and JJ to Cavs for Wiggns, TT, and Waiters.
He then traded Waiters, Shved, and Shabazz for Young
He then traded Wiggins, LRMM and Budinger for Butler, Mirotic, and McDermott.

Roster
PG: Rubio, Mo Williams, Marbury
SG: Martin, LaVine, Brewer
SF: Bulter, McDermott, Hummel
PF: Young, Mirotic, TT
C: Pekovic, Dieng, Turiaf

My head is still spinning... ;)

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Drew, just to re-iterate your point here, I would say Wiggins had a good freshman year, not great freshman year. Go look at what Durant, Beasley, and Irving did in their freshman years. Those guys immediately showed an advanced skill-set. It's another little caution flag in the Wiggins-as-superstar narrative.

That being said, I still like the Paul George ceiling because he seems like he had a somewhat raw freshman year and underdeveloped handles. Wiggins is still young enough to progress of course, but yeah, it's tough to see him suddenly take a 180 and become an elite ball-handling play maker. The other thing folks don't mention much about Wiggins is that he's pretty light by starting NBA small forward standards. That will affect his ability to defend the bigger, stronger NBA SFs and rebound the ball. Hopefully he gains some weight and strength over the next couple of years, but I don't see him getting much heavier than 210 lbs. or so.

While I favor a Chicago deal, it's a close call. I like Wiggins' floor, because at minimum I think he can be a very good rotation player that does good things on both ends of the court.