# Stein + Windhorst: Bulls Making Push for Kevin Love



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Sources say that the Bulls, though, have re-entered the race and would appear to be the biggest threat to the Cavs thanks largely to the Golden State Warriors' resolute unwillingness to add longtime Wolves target Klay Thompson in any deal.
> 
> Although the full extent of the Bulls' offer wasn't immediately known, it is believed Minnesota would seek a package from Chicago featuring forward Taj Gibson and defensive ace Jimmy Butler in addition to other assets. The Bulls shelved their Love interest while trying to sign Carmelo Anthony away from the New York Knicks but, according to sources, have re-emerged as contenders.
> 
> ESPN.com reported as far back as May that Golden State and Chicago were prime destinations that interest Love, who holds more than the usual sway in this process because he can become a free agent next summer.


http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/stor...oin-cleveland-cavaliers-kevin-love-trade-push


Pretty interesting. The article and the video clip on the page make it pretty clear that Cleveland is still the presumptive favorite, but that the appeal of the Bulls is they have more pieces to offer that help Minny win now as opposed to later, and that Minny may be sick of losing and impatient. 

You pretty much would have to hope that Minny is impatient right now, because the Cavs (and Celtics) have way more to offer in terms of recent high draft picks and future picks.

Both Cleveland and Chicago are likely to have to wait to do the deal until the 30-day period to consummate post-draft-pick-signing trades. Wiggins is obviously the centerpiece of the Cleveland deal, and I see no scenario in which Nikola would not be included in the Bulls' offer.

What about Taj + Butler + Dunleavy + Mirotic + picks for Love & Martin?

Bulls would then look like:

Rose
Martin
McBuckets
Love
Noah

With Pau as your supersub. You have a 3-man rotation at the 4 and 5, with Pau essentially getting all the backup 4 and 5 minutes. Snell + Hinrich are your primary bench guards.

Sign Marion to the minimum (if at all possible). Sign a big backup C (I hope not Nazr, but realistically, proabably Nazr).

That should be a championship-caliber team, though defensively the rim protection is going to be a massive downgrade when running the Gasol-Love lineup.

If you can do this without Butler, that would be utterly fantastic, but given what we seem to know about Minny's asking price, I'm skeptical it'd be possible.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

Obviously makes sense for the Bulls to do it, but not really sure I'd do it if I was Minnesota. 

Butler for Martin is a wash in terms of talent (although Butler is younger, and a better trade asset), and you'd basically be allowing the Bulls to upgrade from Taj to Love for the price of Dunleavy, Mirotic, and picks. Only advantage for Minny in taking this offer over others is that it has some proven veterans which I read that Minny is keen on.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

If I was a t wolves fan and we dint get any combination of Thompson, Lee, Wiggins or Bennett, I would be super pissed


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'd love that trade. Mirotic is intriguing, but his ceiling is Love. A proven commodity, best PF in the world and only 25, is easily worth giving up that for. I also like Taj and Butler. But elite players are what wins titles anymore. Love is elite. They're not. 

From the Wolves perspective, getting Wiggins would be huge, but he's all potential. In the end it comes down to how they would value Mirotic. If they think he's a guy that would've been a top 5 pick, PLUS they can get guys like Gibson and Butler, then you have something there. In looking at the Wolves, they have Rubio who is a tremendous passer and plays passing lanes well. Lavine is a combo guard that could really turn into a scorer and dynamic player like Westbrook (he looked quite good, potentially, in the summer league games). Pekovic when healthy is a good low post scorer. They really don't have much else besides Love. I like Budinger personally. 

So if you could throw in Butler, Gibson, Mirotic, they'd have a nice team:

Rubio, Lavine
Budinger, Lavine
Butler, Mirotic
Gibson, Mirotic
Pekovic

You'd build your team with Lavine and Mirotic being your nucleus around Rubio.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

The Bulls offer is enticing but why would the Wolves take this when they could take two first overall picks in Bennett and Wiggins. You build your team around star or superstar players. Wiggins and Bennett have the potential to be that. In Wiggins, it may be this coming year if not a couple years. As a Bulls fan, i woulf do it in a heart beat. 

Noah
Love
McDermott
Hinrich
Rose

With Gasol, Brooks, Snell on the Bench? Or Snell in for Hinrich? 

At the end of thr day, you can only have 5 guys on the court each time.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Trade the rookie, keep Butler, and do the deal!

And for the record, I DON'T think Cleveland has offered Wiggins despite the reports. Wiggins' camp maintains that he is being told by Cleveland he is staying and I think Minnesota would've pulled the trigger on it by now.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> I think Minnesota would've pulled the trigger on it by now.


Don't count on it. They might still be harboring the illusion that they can keep him.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I think this chatter about the Bulls being involved again is likely an attempt by Minnesota to put some increased pressure on the Cavs (someone mentioned it on twitter, not an original Dornado thought) so I'm not sure it is worth getting excited over. 

If a potential package includes Taj, Jimmy and Mirotic and picks consider me on the fence. I really like Love, but I'm not sure he's worth giving up so many assets when he's not really known to be a two-way player. On the other hand he's great offensively, on the boards and is the best outlet passer in the league. 

Anyway, if I'm Minnesota I'm holding out for Wiggins, so the discussion about what we'd give up is probably moot.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

New report from Chris Sheridan:



> he Chicago Bulls have offered a package of Taj Gibson and rookies Doug McDermott and Nikola Mirotic to the Minnesota Timberwolves in exchange for Kevin Love, a league source told SheridanHoops.com on Wednesday.
> 
> The package is extremely intriguing to the Timberwolves, but there is a catch — it cannot be completed for another 29 days after McDermott and Mirotic signed their rookie contracts Tuesday. NBA rules prohibit rookies from being traded within the first 30 days after they sign.
> 
> ...


http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/0...ffered-gibson-mcdermott-and-mirotic-for-love/


This is definitely consistent with Minny leaking it to try to pry more out of the Cavs.

I would certainly do this deal, as much as I am looking forward to seeing McBuckets and Mirotic play.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Why on earth would Taj/McBuckets/Mirotic be a better offer than the last two first overall picks in the draft and an unprotected #1 ? I just can't imagine Flip really feeling that way.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> Why on earth would Taj/McBuckets/Mirotic be a better offer than the last two first overall picks in the draft and an unprotected [URL=http://www.basketballforum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] ? I just can't imagine Flip really feeling that way.



It's not at all remotely difficult to picture why that would be.

Bennett is considered a bust at this point. Sure, on a rookie scale deal, you might take a flyer on him, but I don't think anyone generally believes he is a star-level prospect at this point.

From 1998 to 2012 (the year before Bennett was drafted), the following players were #1 draft picks: Michael Olowokandi, Kenyon Martin, Kwame Brown, Andrew Bogut, Andrea Bargnani, Greg Oden. That means that 6 of 15 of the #1 draft picks in that timeframe have been busts or significant underperformers relative to the #1 status. After a year of watching Bennett, it seems most believe he is in that category.

Do you think the Bulls would trade Bennett for McBucket's straight up? I do not. I don't think many teams would.

Many believe that Wiggins has star potential. He certainly is major prospect. But don't forget that he lacks shooting and ballhandling skills and was not the consensus #1 pick. The Cavs wanted Embiid before his injury situation complicated matters.

It has been widely reported that Mirotic would have gone as high as #4 in this year's draft. Wiggins easily could have gone #3 had Embiid not been hurt. It's not really fair to characterize the difference between those prospects as terribly wide.

With respect to the future #1 pick, the Cavs are going to be really good. That's going to be a low pick. It is not equivalent to the Cavs' picks these past two seasons.

Basically, I could certainly see it this way:

Wiggins = Mirotic or Wiggins slightly > Mirotic
McBuckets > Bennett
Taj > Future #1 

I could certainly see how the Bulls' offer would be viewed as better. It gives more win-now ability plus at least a comparable level of potential. The real question would be how Minny's scouts feel about Wiggins and his potential to be a true superstar. If they are not convinced, then the Bulls' offer appears very strong.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Basically, I could certainly see it this way:
> 
> Wiggins = Mirotic or Wiggins slightly > Mirotic
> McBuckets > Bennett
> Taj > Future #1


Nah.

Wiggins >>> Mirotic

Bennett > McBuckets (as a prospect, Bennett still has more upside and is younger)

Taj >> First Rounder (as a win-now prospect)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> Nah.
> 
> Wiggins >>> Mirotic
> 
> ...


Well, considering there's little analysis here, particularly re: Mirotic vs. Wiggins, I'll respectfully disagree. If you think Wiggins is anything close to a sure thing, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. He has done nothing to give anyone that confidence yet. A SF who cannot shoot or dribble is far from a certainty. These skills can definitely improve, but there's no guarantee.

FWIW, Sheridan said he shares the T-Wolves' belief that the Bulls' offer is superior.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I care not for Butler or Taj. I am very intrigued by what McDermott and Mirotic can bring but I would fully understand if they got traded for Love. I think its giving up a ton, but one also has to consider that blocking a trade to Cleveland is a big win as well.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, considering there's little analysis here, particularly re: Mirotic vs. Wiggins, I'll respectfully disagree. If you think Wiggins is anything close to a sure thing, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. He has done nothing to give anyone that confidence yet. A SF who cannot shoot or dribble is far from a certainty. These skills can definitely improve, but there's no guarantee.
> 
> FWIW, Sheridan said he shares the T-Wolves' belief that the Bulls' offer is superior.


It's hard to give a ton of analysis on two guys with no actual NBA experience like Mirotic and Wiggins, but it is my opinion that Wiggins has a TON more value to NBA GMs than does Mirotic. Right now, the guy's value is at a high point. If Flip happens to value Mirotic more I guess I wouldn't be totally shocked, but I would be surprised.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> It's hard to give a ton of analysis on two guys with no actual NBA experience like Mirotic and Wiggins, but it is my opinion that Wiggins has a TON more value to NBA GMs than does Mirotic. Right now, the guy's value is at a high point. If Flip happens to value Mirotic more I guess I wouldn't be totally shocked, but I would be surprised.


Don't be polite. You would be absolutely shocked. 

I was going to enter this discussion but don't think I could do so in a productive manner.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Don't be polite. You would be absolutely shocked.
> 
> I was going to enter this discussion but don't think I could do so in a productive manner.


And I guess Wiggins is a full four years younger as well.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

The idea that Mirotic is worth more than the most hyped prospect since Lebron James is just pure lunacy.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> The idea that Mirotic is worth more than the most hyped prospect since Lebron James is just pure lunacy.



The notion that Wiggins is the "most hyped prospect since Lebron James" is so ludicrous it is not worth comment. He wasn't even a consensus #1 pick!

At no point was I trying to argue that Mirotic is a better prospect than Wiggins. I'm only arguing that Wiggins lacks certain skills right now and is a higher risk. The gap between Mirotic and Wiggins, _who is not even the guy the #1 or #2 teams wanted to draft this year_, is not as great as RollWithEm made it out to be when he indicated he "can't imagine" Flip preferring Mirotic. If you "can't imagine" preferring a player who is in essence is the #3 pick for the player who was projected to be the #4 pick, that says more about your imagination than the players involved!

I agree that more NBA GMs would prefer Wiggins, but I would imagine you'd find a few dissenters and it's possible Flip is one of them. Remember, Mirotic has a professional track record and a polished skill set. Wiggins does not. Many reports are that Minny is in more of a win-now mode, which is a damn big reason they might like the pieces Chicago can offer better.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> And I guess Wiggins is a full four years younger as well.


And if Minny is in win-now mode, this is a detriment, not a benefit.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Wiggins has superstar potential sure, but he also isn't nearly as proven as Mirotic or McDermott. They've played against very high level competition for years, unlike the 1 year for Wiggins. Bennett sucks ass and has a big contract for his putrid production. The Bulls' offer gives them a proven PF I Gibson, and 2 young guys with loads of offensive potential. The Cavs' offer gives them a scrub taking up I presume in the neighborhood of 5 mill in cap space, plus a raw player with elite potential....especially defensively. So in the end I comes down to the Bulls giving you potentially 3 productive players, one of whom is very poven, and 2 with a high floor and great offensive potential, versus a bust and a guy with the highest ceiling but is mainly an athlete that plays defense at this point. Win-now = Bulls' offer. Long-term, but riskier, you go with Cavs banking on Wiggins reaching potential. 

And spare me this bullshit about 2 #1 overalls vs the Bulls' players. I liked the other offer I heard earlier, which was the #4 picks from '11 and '12, plus Wiggins. #1 overall doesn't mean shit I the guy doing the drafting is incompetent.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I care not for Butler or Taj. I am very intrigued by what McDermott and Mirotic can bring but I would fully understand if they got traded for Love. I think its giving up a ton, but one also has to consider that blocking a trade to Cleveland is a big win as well.



I like Taj and Butler, but we know what they are. Those types of players are great to round out a squad around your prime talents, but they are not prime talents themselves. 

I very much would like to see McDermott and Mirotic develop as well, particularly Mirotic. But I'm with you, you've got to consider moving them. As you note, it both blocks Cleveland from completing its team, and even in isolation, it likely puts Chicago into serious championship contention.

Yes, the deal would hurt the Bulls' depth. But let's remember that depth was the consolation prize this offseason, not the goal. I'm all for making an aggressive move for another star-level player.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Welp.... I think I'm just going to stay away from this. You guys are downright crazy. 

I see we've gone back to the days where Bulls fans on this forum were calling Tyrus Thomas a budding superstar, and Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler were the next twin towers. 

There isn't a single person on the planet who thinks Mirotic has even remotely close value to Andrew Wiggins.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Welp.... I think I'm just going to stay away from this. You guys are downright crazy.
> 
> I see we've gone back to the days where Bulls fans on this forum were calling Tyrus Thomas a budding superstar, and Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler were the next twin towers.
> 
> There isn't a single person on the planet who thinks Mirotic has even remotely close value to Andrew Wiggins.



Ha. Well, Chris Sheridan is reporting that the T-Wolves thing the Bulls' offer is better and that he himself agrees, so your thoughts are _per se_ incorrect.

But thanks for stopping by to troll!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ha. Well, Chris Sheridan is reporting that the T-Wolves thing the Bulls' offer is better and that he himself agrees, so your thoughts are _per se_ incorrect.
> 
> But thanks for stopping by to troll!


Oh, really? Chris Sheridan?

With how often guys like Sheridan (who by the way is paid money to pander to Bulls fans) are proven to be false time and time again, I find it humorous that you're acting like his word is gospel.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Oh, really? Chris Sheridan?
> 
> With how often guys like Sheridan (who by the way is paid money to pander to Bulls fans) are proven to be false time and time again, I find it humorous that you're acting like his word is gospel.



How is Chris Sheridan paid money to pander to Bulls fans?

And Sheridan is the reporter who broke the LeBron back to Cleveland story. So much for "proven to be false time and time again."

Moreover, both local Minneapolis and Chicago reporters have separately issued reports today to confirm his story.

Again, I am not acting like his words are gospel. You are touting the clearly ridiculous position that _not a single person on the planet could view Mirotic as even *close * to Wiggins_. That is either misinformed or dishonest. All I am noting is that there are those who may believe that the gap is not as dramatic as you contend.

It is absolutely hysterical that you criticize the board for thinking Tyrus Thomas could become a star, when you are doing the same damned thing with Wiggins, who is not enormously different in terms of skill set, potential, experience, etc. Hypocritical much?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Wiggins and Tyrus Thomas have the same skill set now?

This just gets better and better.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> How is Chris Sheridan paid money to pander to Bulls fans?
> 
> And Sheridan is the reporter who broke the LeBron back to Cleveland story. So much for "proven to be false time and time again."
> 
> ...


No offense, but you guys are both wrong. Mirotic has more value than some think... but Wiggins shouldn't be compared to Tyrus Thomas in any meaningful way, and his value and potential are being underrated.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dornado said:


> No offense, but you guys are both wrong. Mirotic has more value than some think... but Wiggins shouldn't be compared to Tyrus Thomas is any meaningful way, and his value and potential are being underrated.


I'm not arguing that Mirotic has value. To compare that value to Andrew Wiggins though? I don't need to explain to you why that is wrong. 

Terrible first year but great showing in summer camp Anthony Bennett? Sure. I could see Mirotic's value being argued around something like that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Wiggins and Tyrus Thomas have the same skill set now?
> 
> This just gets better and better.



I am sure it seems funny to you, since we know Thomas was a bust and we don't know what Wiggins will be. But remember that on draft night, Jay Bilas was going on and on about how Tyrus Thomas was the most talented player in the draft class with the best star potential. 

You might refer to his draft profile before vaulting in to yet another ill-informed trolling post.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tyrus-Thomas-511/



> *Tyrus Thomas NBA Draft Scouting Report
> March 26, 2006*
> 
> Strengths
> ...


Compare to Wiggins:

http://search.draftexpress.com/profile/Andrew-Wiggins-6191/



> *Wiggins has everything you could hope for in a wing prospect physically, as he sports excellent size (6-8 in shoes) and length (7-0 wingspan), and is an elite athlete. His frame is on the narrow side, but will undoubtedly fill out as he matures. *He's incredibly quick and explosive off his feet, and covers a huge amount of ground with his ridiculously long strides, which allow him to get from the 3-point line to the rim with just one dribble, and makes him a lethal threat in transition (1.3 PPP, fourth best among DX Top-100 Prospects). His body control is excellent and he has a devastating second jump, which gives him excellent potential as an offensive rebounder as well.
> 
> 
> *Wiggins is very much an unrefined offensive player, but still scored a solid 21 points per-40 minutes as a freshman, even if his usage rate and efficiency were average. He's for the most part a straight-line ball-handler, as the ball slows him down and doesn't do a great job changing speeds or directions, particularly with his off hand,* but is capable of getting inside the paint effectively regardless thanks to his exceptionally quick first step. Even though he tends to shy away from contact at times around the basket, he still got to the free throw line 7.9 times per-40 minutes, and made 78% of his attempts once there, which helped make up for his otherwise unpolished skill-level in the half-court.
> ...



You were saying?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I am sure it seems funny to you, since we know Thomas was a bust and we don't know what Wiggins will be. But remember that on draft night, Jay Bilas was going on and on about how Tyrus Thomas was the most talented player in the draft class with the best star potential.
> 
> You might refer to his draft profile before vaulting in to yet another ill-informed trolling post.
> 
> ...


I was saying that on no planet has Tyrus Thomas ever been viewed as a similar prospect to Andrew Wiggins. Wiggins was drafted first overall in what has been predicted to be the deepest draft since 2003. Tyrus Thomas on the other hand went in a draft that saw Bargnani go first, and Adam Morrison be selected over him. 

Please. You are embarrassing yourself the more you continue this.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Aw man, this thread is funny. Mirotic is clearly somewhere in between Bennett and Wiggins in terms of value, and not that close to either of them.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> Aw man, this thread is funny. Mirotic is clearly somewhere in between Bennett and Wiggins in terms of value, and not that close to either of them.


What if I can post a quote from Chris Sheridan? Will that change your opinion?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dornado said:


> No offense, but you guys are both wrong. Mirotic has more value than some think... but Wiggins shouldn't be compared to Tyrus Thomas is any meaningful way, and his value and potential are being underrated.



Care to explain why? This thread is full of way too much "because I say so" for my taste.

I am not trying to draw a straight-line comparison that indicates Tyrus and Wiggins are the same player. They are not. They don't play the same position, for starters. The point I am making is that when entering the NBA, both were incredible run/jump athletes considered to have lockdown defensive capabilities, both projected to become talented scorers, but both also in need of serious refinement when it comes to shooting, dribbling, and other basic offensive skills. These were college players with enormous star potential whose success to date had relied upon incredible athletic ability rather than offensive polish.

So, now, R-Star argues that we are overvaluing Mirotic (a polished, more mature prospect) vis-a-vis Wiggins (an athletic guy with big potential but no polish yet) and points to what is supposedly an embarrassing history of the Bulls' fanbase overvaluing potential-laden draft picks, _while at the same time doing the same darn thing himself_! It's so crazy not to realize when making that criticism that Tyrus is a more similar type of prospect to Wiggins than Mirotic is.

Again, I am not trying to argue that Mirotic is more valuable than Wiggins, generally. I agree Wiggins would be the more valuable guy league-wide. All I am saying is that he does have some bust potential due to the nature of his game. Mirotic is probably (though by no means certainly) a more known quantity, has meaningful professional experience, and is likely to be able to contribute right away. If Minny is in win-now mode, then Mirotic's relative value compared to Wiggins might be narrowed _for Minnesota specifically_. Given that McBuckets and Taj are substantially better assets than Bennett and a low 1st rounder, _it is not crazy to think that the Bulls might have an offer on the table that Minny preferred, which is exactly what is being reported today_.

It is like I am saying water is wet and yet getting flak for it. Craziness.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I was saying that on no planet has Tyrus Thomas ever been viewed as a similar prospect to Andrew Wiggins. Wiggins was drafted first overall in what has been predicted to be the deepest draft since 2003. Tyrus Thomas on the other hand went in a draft that saw Bargnani go first, and Adam Morrison be selected over him.
> 
> Please. You are embarrassing yourself the more you continue this.



I would take that as a compliment coming from you, considering the general content of your posts.

If you can't recognize that Thomas and Wiggins are both guys who were highly touted prospects due to athleticism rather than skill set, then I can't help you. Again, I am not trying to say Tyrus is as good a prospect, only that your criticism was incredibly ironic in that you picked the same "type" of player to make what was an uninformed critique.

And everyone thinks new draftees are awesome before they play NBA games. It's easy for you to take this position now.

You also fail to acknowledge that Wiggins was to be the #3 pick until Embiid got hurt. And, more or less everyone by the time the draft actually rolled around and the hype died down stopped believing this was a star-laden draft.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I would take that as a compliment coming from you, considering the general content of your posts.
> 
> If you can't recognize that Thomas and Wiggins are both guys who were highly touted prospects due to athleticism rather than skill set, then I can't help you. Again, I am not trying to say Tyrus is as good a prospect, only that your criticism was incredibly ironic in that you picked the same "type" of player to make what was an uninformed critique.
> 
> ...


You do understand how moronic it is for you to continually call Wiggins the #3 pick in the draft and use guys like Sheridan as sources, when Dan Gilbert himself came out on draft day and went on a rant about how Wiggins was always their top selection and never once did they consider anything else.

I mean sure, lets value the words of Sheridan, Broussard, and the rest of the guys _paid_ to get you to click on links, but not that of an actual NBA GM. 

Makes sense.

Also, this is what you said about Wiggins and Thomas:



jnrjr79 said:


> Wiggins, who is not enormously different in terms of skill set, potential, experience, etc.


So lets not go trying to rewrite our position just a few posts later please.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Care to explain why? This thread is full of way too much "because I say so" for my taste.
> 
> I am not trying to draw a straight-line comparison that indicates Tyrus and Wiggins are the same player. They are not. They don't play the same position, for starters. The point I am making is that when entering the NBA, both were incredible run/jump athletes considered to have lockdown defensive capabilities, both projected to become talented scorers, but both also in need of serious refinement when it comes to shooting, dribbling, and other basic offensive skills. These were college players with enormous star potential whose success to date had relied upon incredible athletic ability rather than offensive polish.
> 
> ...


You are drastically altering your original position.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Aaaaaanyways, we've stated our opinions. Nothing good will come of me continuing in this thread.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You do understand how moronic it is for you to continually call Wiggins the #3 pick in the draft and use guys like Sheridan as sources, when Dan Gilbert himself came out on draft day and went on a rant about how Wiggins was always their top selection and never once did they consider anything else.


You can't honestly be naive enough to think that Gilbert is credible when making that statement, can you?



> I mean sure, lets value the words of Sheridan, Broussard, and the rest of the guys _paid_ to get you to click on links, but not that of an actual NBA GM.
> 
> Makes sense.


What "actual NBA GM" are you referring to? You have not made mention of a single NBA GM with a contrary opinion.

What is your weird issue with Chris Sheridan? And where did I mention Chris Broussard? You're just setting up strawmen. I suppose you feel you need to resort to dishonesty. 



> Also, this is what you said about Wiggins and Thomas:
> 
> 
> So lets not go trying to rewrite our position just a few posts later please.


Well, if you bothered to exercise any care while reading, you would notice I never said Wiggins and Thomas were equally likely to succeed or that I thought Wiggins was an equal or worse prospect. Heck, because we have the benefit of time and know that Thomas failed, we know that Wiggins is inherently more valuable because he at least has the _potential_ to succeed. Don't forget, _Tyrus Thomas was the guy *you* brought up to draw a comparison, not me._ I am only noting that Tyrus shares more similarities as prospect with Wiggins than he does with Mirotic, which is the person to whom you compared him.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> You are drastically altering your original position.



Well, no, but you are indeed continuing to be dishonest rather than simply facing facts.

My original position was laid out in Post #11 above. I responded to RollWithEm, who asked "why on earth" would the reported Bulls' offer be better than the current Cavs offer. Each team is offering three assets, if you believe the current reports. I argued that two of the Bulls' assets were superior to two of the Cavs' assets, and that the gap between Cleveland's only arguably superior asset - Wiggins vs. Mirotic - might not be as wide as one would think:



jnrjr79 said:


> Many believe that Wiggins has star potential. He certainly is major prospect. But don't forget that he lacks shooting and ballhandling skills and was not the consensus #1 pick. The Cavs wanted Embiid before his injury situation complicated matters.
> 
> It has been widely reported that Mirotic would have gone as high as #4 in this year's draft. Wiggins easily could have gone #3 had Embiid not been hurt. *It's not really fair to characterize the difference between those prospects as terribly wide.*


Again, I didn't argue that Mirotic was a better prospect. I only argued that some might view the gap between Mirotic and Wiggins as narrower than those in the thread were indicating. This is particularly true if Minny is in win-now mode.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Dornado said:


> I think this chatter about the Bulls being involved again is likely an attempt by Minnesota to put some increased pressure on the Cavs (someone mentioned it on twitter, not an original Dornado thought) so I'm not sure it is worth getting excited over.
> 
> If a potential package includes Taj, Jimmy and Mirotic and picks consider me on the fence. I really like Love, but I'm not sure he's worth giving up so many assets when he's not really known to be a two-way player. On the other hand he's great offensively, on the boards and is the best outlet passer in the league.


On the other hand Joey Noah is really the perfect guy to cover for Love defensively. So it could work out and make Chicago a darkhorse contender from day one.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Care to explain why? This thread is full of way too much "because I say so" for my taste.
> 
> I am not trying to draw a straight-line comparison that indicates Tyrus and Wiggins are the same player. They are not. They don't play the same position, for starters.



I guess from my perspective Wiggins is just in a different value tier than Tyrus and the comparison does some harm to your other arguments, which are valid. I'll concede that they were both athletic freaks with great measurables coming out of college. 




> The point I am making is that when entering the NBA, both were incredible run/jump athletes considered to have lockdown defensive capabilities, both projected to become talented scorers, but both also in need of serious refinement when it comes to shooting, dribbling, and other basic offensive skills. These were college players with enormous star potential whose success to date had relied upon incredible athletic ability rather than offensive polish.


In terms of value (so not just basketball related) Wiggins is a guy who has been on the national/international radar for a long time despite his young age... Tyrus was a relative unknown until he really emerged as a breakout star in the second half of his one and only college season. Wiggins has dealt with expectations and attention (from the media and opposing defenses) that only a few players his age have dealt with and has mostly lived up to the hype... mostly. 

I haven't gone back to look at the draftexpress profiles or anything, but I do not recall Tyrus really being projected to be a 'talented scorer', but rather an adequate one. As raw as some of Wiggins' offensive game may be, I believe he is more refined than Tyrus was. Positional differences make the comparison difficult, but Wiggins shot well from three and was able to create more offense for himself as a college player than Tyrus was. Tyrus was also an idiot. 

I have to admit...As I've been typing this I went back to look at some of the numbers and it is altering the direction of my post. Interestingly, Tyrus scored essentially the same amount of points per 40 minutes that Wiggins did in their only college season, and at a higher TS%. Tyrus was arguable the better college player. 

I think for me it mostly comes down to perception. I think in the minds of NBA GMs Wiggins is considered to be far more valuable than Thomas ever was. Whether it is fair or not, that perception becomes reality when you're talking about making trades and player values. 




> So, now, R-Star argues that we are overvaluing Mirotic (a polished, more mature prospect) vis-a-vis Wiggins (an athletic guy with big potential but no polish yet) and points to what is supposedly an embarrassing history of the Bulls' fanbase overvaluing potential-laden draft picks, _while at the same time doing the same darn thing himself_! It's so crazy not to realize when making that criticism that Tyrus is a more similar type of prospect to Wiggins than Mirotic is.


I'm not going to defend R-Star, I think your biggest mistake in this thread might be taking him a little too seriously. Or taking him seriously at all.



> Again, I am not trying to argue that Mirotic is more valuable than Wiggins, generally. I agree Wiggins would be the more valuable guy league-wide. All I am saying is that he does have some bust potential due to the nature of his game. Mirotic is probably (though by no means certainly) a more known quantity, has meaningful professional experience, and is likely to be able to contribute right away. If Minny is in win-now mode, then Mirotic's relative value compared to Wiggins might be narrowed _for Minnesota specifically_. Given that McBuckets and Taj are substantially better assets than Bennett and a low 1st rounder, _it is not crazy to think that the Bulls might have an offer on the table that Minny preferred, which is exactly what is being reported today_.
> 
> It is like I am saying water is wet and yet getting flak for it. Craziness.


Based on this post I don't think you've said anything too unreasonable, but the Tyrus Thomas comparison did immediately raise a red flag for me... again, probably mostly based on perceived value. I think that perception/reality is similar with regard to Wiggins/Mirotic


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Dornado said:


> Wiggins shouldn't be compared to Tyrus Thomas is any meaningful way, and his value and potential are being underrated.


Well, they're both 6'8". But I think the similarities end there.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I'm not arguing that Mirotic has value. To compare that value to Andrew Wiggins though? I don't need to explain to you why that is wrong.
> *
> Terrible first year but great showing in summer camp Anthony Bennett? Sure. I could see Mirotic's value being argued around something like that.*


I think Mirotic has a lot more value in the minds of GMs than Bennett... none of us can really prove any of this stuff, but I'd expect Mirotic to attract more on the trade market. If Mirotic was in that draft last year I think he may have gone #1 , and that was before Bennett's terrible rookie campaign.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dornado said:


> I guess from my perspective Wiggins is just in a different value tier than Tyrus and the comparison does some harm to your other arguments, which are valid. I'll concede that they were both athletic freaks with great measurables coming out of college.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is all fair. It is hard to weigh perception in a relative sense when considerable years have passed. The perception of Tyrus was that he had the most star potential in that draft, though my sense is you are correct that Wiggins has an even better perception in this year's and therefore more value.

Again, though, I did not bring up Tyrus! He is not someone whom I would have looked to to draw a comparison. He was brought up by R-Star as a jokey "Oh, those Bulls fans who think Mirotic is a great prospect are the same idiots who thought Tyrus was a great prospect!" My point was just that Tyrus and Wiggins probably have more in common as prospects than Mirotic and Wiggins do, so what was intended to be a critique of the Bulls fanbase was in fact something that displayed the ignorance of the post. 

But you're right, there's probably little sense in debating with those who aren't here to contribute meaningful basketball talk.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is all fair. It is hard to weigh perception in a relative sense when considerable years have passed. The perception of Tyrus was that he had the most star potential in that draft, though my sense is you are correct that Wiggins has an even better perception in this year's and therefore more value.
> 
> *Again, though, I did not bring up Tyrus! *He is not someone whom I would have looked to to draw a comparison. He was brought up by R-Star as a jokey "Oh, those Bulls fans who think Mirotic is a great prospect are the same idiots who thought Tyrus was a great prospect!" My point was just that Tyrus and Wiggins probably have more in common as prospects than Mirotic and Wiggins do, so what was intended to be a critique of the Bulls fanbase was in fact something that displayed the ignorance of the post.
> 
> But you're right, there's probably little sense in debating with those who aren't here to contribute meaningful basketball talk.


Sorry, you're right, my bad on that one.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I think Mirotic has a lot more value in the minds of GMs than Bennett... none of us can really prove any of this stuff, but I'd expect Mirotic to attract more on the trade market. If Mirotic was in that draft last year I think he may have gone #1 , and that was before Bennett's terrible rookie campaign.


1st overall for a guy drafted 23rd? 

Come on man. You take that opinion outside the Bulls board and you aren't going to be seeing much for agreement.

Since we love draft profiles on here, here is Mirotics.

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/nikola-mirotic

Zarko Carbakapa/Jason Kapono.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

R-Star said:


> 1st overall for a guy drafted 23rd?
> 
> Come on man. You take that opinion outside the Bulls board and you aren't going to be seeing much for agreement.
> 
> ...


NBAdraft.net is a joke. Not to mention, that profile was written before the 2011 draft and we're talking about the 2013 draft... maybe I wasn't clear, I meant that if Nikola Mirotic was eligible for the 2013 draft at the age he was in 2013, not if you picked up 2011 Mirotic (who was younger, was expected to stay in Europe longer having just signed a 5 year extension, etc...) and time-traveled him ahead to 2013. Those 2011 scouting reports were written when Mirotic was a bench player... he subsequently became a starter, then became one of Europe's premier power forwards, an MVP, and garnered a shitload of accolades along the way. 

Here's an article from the winter before the 2013 draft where a scout describes him as the best player not currently in the NBA, including college:
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/sto...-boozer-joakim-noah-nikola-mirotic-gar-forman

I don't think it is unreasonable to think he may have gone number 1 in 2013.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't think the draft position thing has any strong bearing on whether Mirotic would be swapped for Bennett now. Tony Parker was drafted 28th, ergo nobody would trade Bennett for him, by that logic. Manu was picked 57th!

Draft position matters little once people get some games under their belts, in terms of value. It also has less application when you're analyzing a foreign player. 

Bennett's value is clearly not what it was when he was drafted #1 (and most people didn't think he was worth a #1 at the time). He is considered a terrible bust at this point.

Heck, Love was picked fifth, so I guess Minnesota would be fleecing the Cavs if they could get a #1 like Bennett!


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Bennett's value is clearly not what it was when he was drafted #1 (and most people didn't think he was worth a #1 at the time). He is considered a terrible bust at this point.


This is the point that you keep harping on that I probably disagree with the most. HE IS NOT A BUST much less a TERRIBLE BUST yet. He's still 21 years old and, for the first time in his life, he's actually gotten himself into NBA shape. He's still every bit as unknown a quantity as is Mirotic... he's just two years younger. He might be "considered a terrible bust at this point" by Bulls fans on message boards, but I think GMs still probably see some pretty good potential in Bennett.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> This is the point that you keep harping on that I probably disagree with the most. HE IS NOT A BUST much less a TERRIBLE BUST yet. He's still 21 years old and, for the first time in his life, he's actually gotten himself into NBA shape. He's still every bit as unknown a quantity as is Mirotic... he's just two years younger. He might be "considered a terrible bust at this point" by Bulls fans on message boards, but I think GMs still probably see some pretty good potential in Bennett.


Start typing his name into Google. An autocomplete to "bust" is the #2 result. 

(I'm mostly kidding. I know that's not meaningful.)

I would disagree sharply that he is just as much of an unknown quantity as Mirotic. Mirotic has a significant professional track record wherein he performed well and won lots of awards. Bennett had one NBA season and was, well, not so good.

Could Bennett improve, particularly that he is now in shape? Absolutely. But Mirotic likely would have been picked ahead of Bennett last year, and Bennett's stock has plunged significantly since that time. I am confident saying that Bennett's relative stock is presently markedly lower than Mirotic's.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

R-Star said:


> 1st overall for a guy drafted 23rd?
> 
> Come on man. You take that opinion outside the Bulls board and you aren't going to be seeing much for agreement.
> 
> ...


Draft position is irrelevant at this point. Anthony Bennett should have never gone #1 overall, even in last year's weak draft. I am pretty sure that Cleveland is the only team who would've taken him #1 ...most draft experts and mocks had Bennett going around #7 /#8, or at best #4 /#5, and so far that looks like the more correct assessment. Mirotic being a widely known commodity last year, he definitely would've been considered for the #1 pick last year in the weak draft that it was. Even in the strong draft this year, smart draft experts like Jonathan Givony are on record saying Mirotic could've gone top 5 in this year's draft. Mirotic only went 23rd back in 2011 b/c nobody knew when he was coming over and he also wasn't as much a known commodity yet. The guy really exploded the 1-2 years after he was drafted.

Now that he's locked into an NBA contract, I am pretty confident Mirotic's trade value is higher than Bennett. Wiggins on the other hand...I don't think the Bulls are going to outbid any package involving Wiggins. IMO, the Wolves are just using the Bulls as leverage.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

One thing of note here. Since people are bringing up draft analysis on guys, one guy that Wiggins is compared to is a guy I really wanted the Bulls to draft: Rudy Gay. The weaknesses listed for him are all the same ones that Gay has. Mainly the mental makeup: not aggressive/assertive or tough enough. The other comparison is Vince Carter: my favorite collegiate player ever, who really was a big letdown in the NBA to me (since I expected the next Jordan out of him, and he fell 10 ppg short of that)....I would've taken him #1 overall for sure and in hind-site was still probably the 2nd best player in the draft behind Dirk. Meanwhile the #1 pick was a scrub from hell, #2 was decent, etc. Draft position truly means nothing. Durant was better than Oden. Beasley was in talks of going #1 and is a scrub.....he has all the talent in the world but doesn't have it mentally. Bargnani is another one, talented but it just doesn't click. 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if McDermott is always the better offensive player, and might be better period even with his physical shortcomings, simply because he is so advanced mentally and wired perfectly to compete. I doubt it, but it is possible and I wouldn't be shocked.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

I really don't like the proposal 3 for 1. I like one player for one player. 2 for 1 is okay also.

*Danny Ainge has told Saunders how impressive the Celtics package is and how bad Bulls package is.*


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Sun-Times Basketball @suntimes_hoops · 2h
> Here's some interesting news: according to a Bulls source, team is still aggressively in on Love - long shot or not.... And .....
> https://twitter.com/suntimes_hoops/statuses/494203206239412224
> 
> ...


Interesting.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> The other comparison is Vince Carter: my favorite collegiate player ever, who really was a big letdown in the NBA to me (since I expected the next Jordan out of him, and he fell 10 ppg short of that)....I would've taken him #1 overall for sure and in hind-site was still probably the 2nd best player in the draft behind Dirk.


Ahem, I think you mean _third best_.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Yeah, how could he forget about Larry Hughes?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Dornado said:


> Yeah, how could he forget about Larry Hughes?


Admittedly Larry Hughes was the 13th best lottery pick. Kandy Man was 14th.


----------

