# Thibs and Ainge want Jimmy



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba...r-jimmy-butler/ar-AAh0f2I?ocid=ansmsnsports11



> The Timberwolves are interested in trading the No. 5 pick in the upcoming draft as part of a deal for Bulls guard Jimmy Butler, ESPN’s Marc Stein and Chad Ford report. Minnesota hired former Bulls coach Tom Thibodeau in April as head coach and president.
> 
> 
> While Stein and Ford report that the Bulls “are not believed to be actively looking to move” Butler, they also report that the Celtics are interested in acquiring the All-Star, with a trade centered around Boston’s No. 3 pick.


to me its obvious the bulls need to rebuild ...so I assume its obvious to everyone else 

the 3rd or 5th pick plus some young players or picks would go a long way to getting the bulls back up and being a real contender.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Bulls should hold out for extremely strong offer. Thomas & 3 or Wiggins & 5. I realize these are unlikely but chicago should feel no pressure to move Butler. If they choose to do so, they should feel like it was an offer they couldn't turn down.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm fairly certain more teams than these two would be coming out of the woodwork if he was for sure on the block.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

I wouldn't trade Butler for the #5 pick, especially since Boston would give the #3 in a heartbeat. 

The Bulls front office need to take advantage of the fact that Minny has a head coach that is calling the shots. Organizations that are run like this can be taken advantage of. The Coach (Thibs) is always in win now mode, and rarely looks to far into the future. 

If I were Chicago, I would absolutely try to get Wiggins. If not, I would look to trade Butler elsewhere.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Firefight said:


> I wouldn't trade Butler for the #5 pick, especially since Boston would give the #3 in a heartbeat.
> 
> The Bulls front office need to take advantage of the fact that Minny has a head coach that is calling the shots. Organizations that are run like this can be taken advantage of. The Coach (Thibs) is always in win now mode, and rarely looks to far into the future.
> 
> If I were Chicago, I would absolutely try to get Wiggins. If not, I would look to trade Butler elsewhere.


First of all, they're not getting Wiggins.

Second of all, I think Minnesota would offer LaVine and Pekovic along with the #5 and possibly even a future first as well. That would be the threshold I would be trying to bargain Boston up to if I were really looking to unload Butler.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

to me it depends on what is offered 

the #5 plus a good young talent like lavine to me is worth more than the #3 alone and if you are rebuilding you want good young talent .

and I am pretty sure the bulls aren't getting wiggins ...I wouldn't trade wiggins for butler straight up 

I am of the opinion the bulls would rather deal with ainge than risk thibs using butler and being better than the bulls next season....which he is likely to be with or without butler.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Do not mention the name Towns and Wiggins.

Wolves can give you whatever you like and anything you want.

#3 is not much better than #5 .


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

curious

Do you want B Griffin?

Blake for jimmy


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

First of all, they're not getting Wiggins.

Second of all, I think Minnesota would offer LaVine and Pekovic along with the #5 and possibly even a future first as well. That would be the threshold I would be trying to bargain Boston up to if I were really looking to unload Butler.[/QUOTE]

I agree the Wolves will not part with Wiggins for Butler...

But don't make it sound impossible if there is more involved. Don't underestimate Thibs' love for Butler plus his desire to win now. 

As far as picks (3 or 5)... I'm not moving Butler for either. Even if a player like Levine is involved. 

Derricks value is going up around the league, and I still believe he is more likely the one that will be dealt.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

First of all, they're not getting Wiggins.

Second of all, I think Minnesota would offer LaVine and Pekovic along with the #5 and possibly even a future first as well. That would be the threshold I would be trying to bargain Boston up to if I were really looking to unload Butler.[/QUOTE]

I agree the Wolves will not part with Wiggins for Butler...

But don't make it sound impossible if there is more involved. Don't underestimate Thibs' love for Butler plus his desire to win now. 

As far as picks (3 or 5)... I'm not moving Butler for either. Even if a player like Levine is involved. 

Derricks value is going up around the league, and I still believe he is more likely the one that will be dealt.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Chicago really wants the No. 5 pick and Andrew Wiggins as part of the deal, Tom Thibodeau have shut off his phone and throw it in the river.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I think the Bulls can get more than just the 5th.

I would ask for 5th, 2018 and 2020 unprotected or slightly protected 1sts.

On paper Minnesota should become much better after getting Butler so those picks might not be worth much. But as we've seen with the Celtics, those picks can become 2 lottery picks if things don't work out.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I'd trade anyone on the roster for Wiggins at this point, though I agree with those saying that the T-Wolves aren't likely to part with him. We need to hit the reset button and getting a guy like Wiggins would give us something to build around over a longer period of time than Butler would.

As a side rant - I heard someone on the radio a few days ago (J Hood maybe?) saying Wiggins and 5 isn't enough to warrant parting with Butler, I have no idea why people seem to view those assets (AW and #5 ) as having such little value. I didn't get the sense that this draft was 4 deep... and I don't see any reason why Andrew Wiggins isn't a major blue-chip prospect. Am I missing something?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I heard someone on the radio a few days ago (J Hood maybe?) saying Wiggins and 5 isn't enough to warrant parting with Butler, I have no idea why people seem to view those assets (AW and #5 ) as having such little value. I didn't get the sense that this draft was 4 deep... and I don't see any reason why Andrew Wiggins isn't a major blue-chip prospect. Am I missing something?


You are not missing something. Wiggins and 5 has more value than Jimmy Butler at the moment. That is why I doubt Minnesota would pull the trigger on that deal.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ballscientist said:


> Do not mention the name Towns and Wiggins.
> 
> Wolves can give you whatever you like and anything you want.
> 
> #3 is not much better than #5 .



There is no deal with the Wolves that makes sense that does not include Wiggins. Maybe that means no deal is feasible, but Lavine, et al. is not good value.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dornado said:


> I'd trade anyone on the roster for Wiggins at this point, though I agree with those saying that the T-Wolves aren't likely to part with him. We need to hit the reset button and getting a guy like Wiggins would give us something to build around over a longer period of time than Butler would.
> 
> As a side rant - I heard someone on the radio a few days ago (J Hood maybe?) saying Wiggins and 5 isn't enough to warrant parting with Butler, I have no idea why people seem to view those assets (AW and [URL=http://www.basketballforum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=5]#5 [/URL] ) as having such little value. I didn't get the sense that this draft was 4 deep... and I don't see any reason why Andrew Wiggins isn't a major blue-chip prospect. Am I missing something?



The draft isn't four deep, it's two deep, according to draft prognosticators, anyway. 

Wiggins + #5 probably makes sense for the Bulls. It probably doesn't for Minny. Wiggins + #5 for Butler + #14 might be close. 

I think Boston makes more sense as a trading partner. I'd be after next year's BK pick in that event.

Overall, though, if Derrick can be moved for a late first, I can certainly see dealing him, freeing up a bunch of cap space to use this year and next, and potentially re-signing Jo to a deal if the numbers can be worked out.

Also, I hate myself for saying this, but I'd kick the tires on Kevin Love. He seems like the ultimate buy-low candidate these days.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

jnrjr79 said:


> Overall, though, if Derrick can be moved for a late first, I can certainly see dealing him, freeing up a bunch of cap space to use this year and next, and potentially re-signing Jo to a deal if the numbers can be worked out.


If Philly was looking at moving Noel for Teague, I'd imagine you could get them to part with one or even maybe both of their picks in the 20s for Rose.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Bogg said:


> If Philly was looking at moving Noel for Teague, I'd imagine you could get them to part with one or even maybe both of their picks in the 20s for Rose.


I'll pack Derrick's bags.


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

jnrjr79 said:


> T
> Also, I hate myself for saying this, but I'd kick the tires on Kevin Love. He seems like the ultimate buy-low candidate these days.



I don't think this is a bad idea, although we'd still have to have Jimmy on the roster and have a hard time imagining what we could realistically offer Clev to induce them to part with him.


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'll pack Derrick's bags.


Seconded. 

Noel and a pick for Rose? I'd have to say yes.

I don't have any faith that he'll be a big performer on his new contract. Perhaps this season during his contract year.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

K4E said:


> Seconded.
> 
> Noel and a pick for Rose? I'd have to say yes.
> 
> I don't have any faith that he'll be a big performer on his new contract. Perhaps this season during his contract year.


Yeah, the contract year thing basically makes it worse. If he plays well for the first time in years, what are you going to do, sign him to a big multi-year contract? It's probably best for both sides to move on, and if you can get a positive-value asset for him, I'd go for it now.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

K4E said:


> I don't think this is a bad idea, although we'd still have to have Jimmy on the roster and have a hard time imagining what we could realistically offer Clev to induce them to part with him.



My guess is Cleveland is going to want some salary relief if they move him. Thompson can start, and Cleveland really needs to improve their bench. Maybe you package a deal around this or next year's first rounder and the Sacramento swap. With my rudimentary cap knowledge, I think the Bulls don't have to match salaries if they can move Love into their cap space (which means renouncing Noah and Pau, I believe).


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

jnrjr79 said:


> The draft isn't four deep, it's two deep, according to draft prognosticators, anyway.
> 
> Wiggins + #5 probably makes sense for the Bulls. It probably doesn't for Minny. Wiggins + #5 for Butler + #14 might be close.
> 
> ...


Cleveland trading Love is probably at an all time high right now in terms of unlikeliness.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Cleveland trading Love is probably at an all time high right now in terms of unlikeliness.


I could not disagree more. The guy crapped himself all through the playoffs and is a terrible fit next to LBJ. The Cavs' salary cap/luxury tax situation is abysmal. They already won a championship, so a bit of the pressure is off. If you think the fact that Love had a nice Game 7 is enough to change all that, I think that's incredibly unrealistic.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

K4E said:


> jnrjr79 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll pack Derrick's bags.
> ...


Oh, you're not getting Noel for Rose, that proposal was just the pick or two with a salary dump of Rose's contract into Philly's space. I can't imagine Colangelo getting desperate enough to do Noel and picks for Rose.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

K4E said:


> jnrjr79 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll pack Derrick's bags.
> ...


Oh, you're not getting Noel for Rose, that proposal was just the pick or two with a salary dump of Rose's contract into Philly's space. I can't imagine Colangelo getting desperate enough to do Noel and picks for Rose.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Embiid maybe though


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Stay away from Noel, he needs to go to Atlanta on draft night.


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

Bogg said:


> Oh, you're not getting Noel for Rose, that proposal was just the pick or two with a salary dump of Rose's contract into Philly's space. I can't imagine Colangelo getting desperate enough to do Noel and picks for Rose.


Yes, I can't think of any really good reason why Philly would want to do that trade.


----------



## Ma Baker (May 12, 2015)

They won't let Butler go anywhere because they let Rose just because they wanna make the team around the Butler. Butler is gonna take Rose's place.


----------

