Unpopular opinion: the Wolves should trade Butler this offseason

[Domejandro]

Never, Jimmy Butler has changed this franchise for the better.

[shangrila]

I don't think I could disagree with anything more.

[life_saver]

I understand your point...I don't see us having 3 max contracts at the same time..so I am not sure what we will be doing with Butler's contract situation. Can't have both Jimmy, Wiggs on max, has to be one of them. If we offer Jimmy 5 year $180M deal, then he will be making around 40M+ during last 2 years of his contract(when he is 34-35) which isn't really ideal..Some big decisions coming up for our FO this summer

[AirP.]

I'm not advocating we do this, just pointing out Butler would have more value next year post extension. But I don't think it's a death sentence for the franchise.

Gotcha! Both/either Wiggins or Butler would be enhanced playing next to a primary outside shooting wing.

[Gaijin79]

Not an advocate of trading him per say, but I'm not sure this current version of the Wolves - sans Jimmy - isn't just as good as the version with. Kat is a better offensive player than Butler. When he is emphasized in the offense, that's when the Wolves are at their best IMO. Kat has also proven to be clutch in the 4th quarter. He needs to keep getting the ball in those spots. It remains to be seen if that will be the case. It also remains to be seen how the most recent version of Jeff Teague can play alongside Butler. Without Butler though, Kat and Teague have played on another level.

[MN7725]

I would only do the trade if the Wolves got equal or greater value in return

Not likely to happen with Butler's impending UFA status


Sign him to a new multi-year contract, than trade him if it comes to that for whatever reason

Almost certainly would get a better return than Wolves would get next summer

[LibertyPrime]

Nah. Rather trade Wiggins for a loss and roll with JB/Bjelly as our wings, if it comes down to that.

[wolfen]

Been on the road for the last week, great topic, I'd like to chime in...

We're not "screwed" if we do "this" or "that". The fact is no matter what direction we go, we have 2 facts:
1. Wigs and Towns - They have turned the corner.
2. Jimmy - We have him and he's a huge asset as a player or a trade chip.

We've got Jimmy on contract through the 19-20 season. Although I wouldn't trade him THIS offseason, I would consider it the following offseason or at the trade deadline, depending on how things go. I'm a team guy first and foremost and I'm on this board because it's "GM" and when you run a team, it has to be business and about winning. Nobody is untradeable if it makes your team better or gives you a better chance to win in the short and/or long term.

My first preference would be to keep Jimmy, Wigs, and KAT. Extend Jimmy if he wants it. Thibs loves Jimmy and given the choice between Jimmy and Wigs, he'd choose Jimmy every time. It does sound like there would be teams that would covet Wigs this offseason, so we would have to be open to offers there as well, but only if Jimmy is extended.

I still think Jimmy has "come play we us" power. Free agents will probably consider sota in the next couple years seeing the improvement of our situation. Imagine adding three LEGITIMATE vets who would want to go on the ride with us to the championship. I think that can happen if Jimmy is here. Getting Gorgs and Aldrich's deals off the books would certainly open things up for that to happen this offseason, and getting Crawford off the books the following year could help us add that last piece.

I think that the now that the writing is on the wall for Wigs, that he'll be forced to put in max effort all the time now and will also learn how to play more effectively alongside Butler. I've seen it with my own 2 eyes that Wigs can play like a max player, he just needs to do it consistently. Now that he's getting older and stronger, and hopefully wiser, chances of that happening are probably pretty good.

So, SHOULD we trade Jimmy this off season? I say no, but if they did and got back a haul, I would understand it. I just think the more logical path is to keep him around and make things work with Wigs, attract FA's to come along for the ride, and time things so that we're peaking when the Spurs, Warriors, Rockets, etc. are on the downhill....

[life_saver]

Been on the road for the last week, great topic, I'd like to chime in...

We're not "screwed" if we do "this" or "that". The fact is no matter what direction we go, we have 2 facts:
1. Wigs and Towns - They have turned the corner.
2. Jimmy - We have him and he's a huge asset as a player or a trade chip.

We've got Jimmy on contract through the 19-20 season. Although I wouldn't trade him THIS offseason, I would consider it the following offseason or at the trade deadline, depending on how things go. I'm a team guy first and foremost and I'm on this board because it's "GM" and when you run a team, it has to be business and about winning. Nobody is untradeable if it makes your team better or gives you a better chance to win in the short and/or long term.

My first preference would be to keep Jimmy, Wigs, and KAT. Extend Jimmy if he wants it. Thibs loves Jimmy and given the choice between Jimmy and Wigs, he'd choose Jimmy every time. It does sound like there would be teams that would covet Wigs this offseason, so we would have to be open to offers there as well, but only if Jimmy is extended.

19/20 is player option...he might not opt in if there is any other team who comes in with a good deal. Also, can't have all 3 -KAT, Wiggins and Jimmy on max deals, not a realistic option as we will be having literally no cap space left

[FinnTheHuman]

Been on the road for the last week, great topic, I'd like to chime in...

We're not "screwed" if we do "this" or "that". The fact is no matter what direction we go, we have 2 facts:
1. Wigs and Towns - They have turned the corner.
2. Jimmy - We have him and he's a huge asset as a player or a trade chip.

We've got Jimmy on contract through the 19-20 season. Although I wouldn't trade him THIS offseason, I would consider it the following offseason or at the trade deadline, depending on how things go. I'm a team guy first and foremost and I'm on this board because it's "GM" and when you run a team, it has to be business and about winning. Nobody is untradeable if it makes your team better or gives you a better chance to win in the short and/or long term.

My first preference would be to keep Jimmy, Wigs, and KAT. Extend Jimmy if he wants it. Thibs loves Jimmy and given the choice between Jimmy and Wigs, he'd choose Jimmy every time. It does sound like there would be teams that would covet Wigs this offseason, so we would have to be open to offers there as well, but only if Jimmy is extended.

19/20 is player option...he might not opt in if there is any other team who comes in with a good deal. Also, can't have all 3 -KAT, Wiggins and Jimmy on max deals, not a realistic option as we will be having literally no cap space left

Yes we can. Dunno where you get the idea that we can't: we signed Butler knowing that he's getting the max and knowing that we'll have to max Wiggins and Towns. The way you build the team nowadays is max players + role players on rookie contracts/mle/vet minimums.

[life_saver]

Been on the road for the last week, great topic, I'd like to chime in...

We're not "screwed" if we do "this" or "that". The fact is no matter what direction we go, we have 2 facts:
1. Wigs and Towns - They have turned the corner.
2. Jimmy - We have him and he's a huge asset as a player or a trade chip.

We've got Jimmy on contract through the 19-20 season. Although I wouldn't trade him THIS offseason, I would consider it the following offseason or at the trade deadline, depending on how things go. I'm a team guy first and foremost and I'm on this board because it's "GM" and when you run a team, it has to be business and about winning. Nobody is untradeable if it makes your team better or gives you a better chance to win in the short and/or long term.

My first preference would be to keep Jimmy, Wigs, and KAT. Extend Jimmy if he wants it. Thibs loves Jimmy and given the choice between Jimmy and Wigs, he'd choose Jimmy every time. It does sound like there would be teams that would covet Wigs this offseason, so we would have to be open to offers there as well, but only if Jimmy is extended.

19/20 is player option...he might not opt in if there is any other team who comes in with a good deal. Also, can't have all 3 -KAT, Wiggins and Jimmy on max deals, not a realistic option as we will be having literally no cap space left

Yes we can. Dunno where you get the idea that we can't: we signed Butler knowing that he's getting the max and knowing that we'll have to max Wiggins and Towns. The way you build the team nowadays is max players + role players on rookie contracts/mle/vet minimums.

having all 3 on Max means roughly $95M of cap space will be gone for all three of them..Teague(if he opts in for 3rd year) will be on $20M...so with around $115M on 4 starters, how exactly will we be having any cap space remaining for rest of the roster? Glen probably needs to pay **** of luxury tax if he we wanna afford a decent bench..which I am not really sure he will be willing to pay unless we are championship contenders. I don't think there is any team with 3 Max players...even if there is one, it might most probably be some big market team

[wolfen]

Been on the road for the last week, great topic, I'd like to chime in...

We're not "screwed" if we do "this" or "that". The fact is no matter what direction we go, we have 2 facts:
1. Wigs and Towns - They have turned the corner.
2. Jimmy - We have him and he's a huge asset as a player or a trade chip.

We've got Jimmy on contract through the 19-20 season. Although I wouldn't trade him THIS offseason, I would consider it the following offseason or at the trade deadline, depending on how things go. I'm a team guy first and foremost and I'm on this board because it's "GM" and when you run a team, it has to be business and about winning. Nobody is untradeable if it makes your team better or gives you a better chance to win in the short and/or long term.

My first preference would be to keep Jimmy, Wigs, and KAT. Extend Jimmy if he wants it. Thibs loves Jimmy and given the choice between Jimmy and Wigs, he'd choose Jimmy every time. It does sound like there would be teams that would covet Wigs this offseason, so we would have to be open to offers there as well, but only if Jimmy is extended.

19/20 is player option...he might not opt in if there is any other team who comes in with a good deal. Also, can't have all 3 -KAT, Wiggins and Jimmy on max deals, not a realistic option as we will be having literally no cap space left

Yes we can. Dunno where you get the idea that we can't: we signed Butler knowing that he's getting the max and knowing that we'll have to max Wiggins and Towns. The way you build the team nowadays is max players + role players on rookie contracts/mle/vet minimums.

I would say optimally you don't want 3 max players on a team, but in some cases it's ok. The problem if we end up with our current 3 max players is that 2 of them are somewhat redundant. Ultimately if I had 3 max guys I'd like 1 wing, 1 PG, and 1 post. If I could flip flop Wigs for a guy like Kemba Walker or Isaiah Thomas I'd do it.

[shrink]

Branch Rickey once said, "You should trade a player a year too early, rather than a year too late."

I like the out of the box thinking in this thread, and from an asset management view, trading Butler (who we'd get a lot for) vs Wiggins (who we wouldn't) makes sense in the abstract. However, for practical terms, it does not.

1. Jimmy Butler is responsible for our change in culture, and the biggest increase in wins in any team in the NBA. I do not believe that we would have the same culture without him. Towns and Wiggins have not seemed like leaders yet to me.

2. Jimmy Butler represents an important win-now transition for the team. I think this signals our intent to our players and to other teams. Butler makes us more of a free agent destination, or at least a team that a star player might put on his list to be traded to. In addition, bringing Butler in for one season and peddling him the next is a bad image to give of the Timberwolves to future free agents.

3. Personally, in a switch-oriented NBA, I have no problem having Jimmy and Wiggins on the same team. Swingmen with length is the most coveted position in the NBA right now, and we have two! We can start both, and each can back up the other at SF, and we can easily find a third wing, especially with all the SG's out there.

4. Only teams with multiple superstars can win a title these days. Jimmy and Towns are both top 15 players.

The only way I realistically see us trading Jimmy is if he refuses to sign a max extension this summer. I believe this would signal that he wants out, and rather than lose him for nothing, we may listen to offers. However, even in these circumstances, I would not put it past Thibs to keep him, and hope he changes his mind.

[TaylorTag]

I understand the reasoning of it, but I strongly disagree with it.

This would've been more realistic if the pups took a big step forward without him in this stretch, and Jimmy was selfish enough to demand out because he wants to be the guy.

I don't see any of that being the case.

I get your point. But let's say the Wolves win 7 of their final ten games. That's a 12-8 record without Butler. That's a pretty big step, especially if you compare it to earlier in the season when the Wolves were without Butler

[TaylorTag]

I understand your point...I don't see us having 3 max contracts at the same time..so I am not sure what we will be doing with Butler's contract situation. Can't have both Jimmy, Wiggs on max, has to be one of them. If we offer Jimmy 5 year $180M deal, then he will be making around 40M+ during last 2 years of his contract(when he is 34-35) which isn't really ideal..Some big decisions coming up for our FO this summer

Yes, this was definitely part of my calculus

[TaylorTag]

Not an advocate of trading him per say, but I'm not sure this current version of the Wolves - sans Jimmy - isn't just as good as the version with. Kat is a better offensive player than Butler. When he is emphasized in the offense, that's when the Wolves are at their best IMO. Kat has also proven to be clutch in the 4th quarter. He needs to keep getting the ball in those spots. It remains to be seen if that will be the case. It also remains to be seen how the most recent version of Jeff Teague can play alongside Butler. Without Butler though, Kat and Teague have played on another level.

exactly. the defense is not as good, but the offense has not lost a step. and Teague's play has definitely made me realize that Butler's presence on the court has not just hampered Wiggins, but Teague also.

Maybe Teague's performance down the stretch will make him a trade candidate this offseason. I think the common perception around the league is that the Wolves overpaid for Teague, but if he keeps up his play, which has garnered praise from Zach Lowe recently, maybe the Wolves can flip Teague for someone. That would make giving Butler the max more palatable.

I guess the whole point of the thread is that the Wolves are poorly constructed in that we have two wing players, in Wiggins and Butler, and a PG in Teague who all have similar style of play. They all need the ball and they all love driving to the rim. None are great catch and shoot scorers.

That doesn't bode well for Towns, who needs the ball in his hands. That should be the #1 priority of the franchise, making sure Towns is the first threat on offense

[TaylorTag]

Branch Rickey once said, "You should trade a player a year too early, rather than a year too late."

I like the out of the box thinking in this thread, and from an asset management view, trading Butler (who we'd get a lot for) vs Wiggins (who we wouldn't) makes sense in the abstract. However, for practical terms, it does not.

1. Jimmy Butler is responsible for our change in culture, and the biggest increase in wins in any team in the NBA. I do not believe that we would have the same culture without him. Towns and Wiggins have not seemed like leaders yet to me.

2. Jimmy Butler represents an important win-now transition for the team. I think this signals our intent to our players and to other teams. Butler makes us more of a free agent destination, or at least a team that a star player might put on his list to be traded to. In addition, bringing Butler in for one season and peddling him the next is a bad image to give of the Timberwolves to future free agents.

3. Personally, in a switch-oriented NBA, I have no problem having Jimmy and Wiggins on the same team. Swingmen with length is the most coveted position in the NBA right now, and we have two! We can start both, and each can back up the other at SF, and we can easily find a third wing, especially with all the SG's out there.

4. Only teams with multiple superstars can win a title these days. Jimmy and Towns are both top 15 players.

The only way I realistically see us trading Jimmy is if he refuses to sign a max extension this summer. I believe this would signal that he wants out, and rather than lose him for nothing, we may listen to offers. However, even in these circumstances, I would not put it past Thibs to keep him, and hope he changes his mind.

good post. I do have some contention with your first point. I think we are underestimating Teague and Gibson's influence on the team. Teague has never missed the playoffs, and if you read The Athletic's recent piece on him, you can tell the guy has the drive and that he demands respects from his teammates, especially when he plays at the level he's at now..

I also think Towns and Wiggins can grow in the leadership role. It's been hard for them this season considering Butler has a dominating personality and carries himself like a alpha. I think the Wolves would be fine if the power center in the locker room was Towns, Wiggins, Teague and Gibson...

As far as your 2nd point, being free agent destination with Butler, it's not like the Wolves have a lot of cap space to pursue free agents. Sure, we can sign some quality vets to the minimum, but I also think that (a) Thibs rarely relies on our bench anyways and (b) Thibs has relationships with players in the league, so I think we would still be able to build a roster without Butler.... Having said that, no question that Butler made the Wolves a landing spot, so for that we are forever in debt to him

[Klomp]

As far as your 2nd point, being free agent destination with Butler, it's not like the Wolves have a lot of cap space to pursue free agents. Sure, we can sign some quality vets to the minimum, but I also think that (a) Thibs rarely relies on our bench anyways and (b) Thibs has relationships with players in the league, so I think we would still be able to build a roster without Butler.... Having said that, no question that Butler made the Wolves a landing spot, so for that we are forever in debt to him

Minimum isn't the only cap exception available. There's also the MLE and BAE.

[cpfsf]

I don't see any scenario where he would be traded. Maybe a lateral move for another position (if that was the goal to trade him), but I have trouble thinking of good trades. And a lot of teams won't risk trading for him since he can walk away soon.

But I'll play along. I guess you can argue fit, but I think my criticisms are a few things. His age doesn't really fit the teams core and I certainly hope his body won't follow in the footsteps of rose, noah, and deng. do I think he will break down? No, but I'll just say it wouldn't shock me. Im actually a little salty about him praising teague for his bump to Rubio, but that's not really a deal breaker for me. Just gahhhh I love our spaniard.

[LordBaldric]

I'd only trade Jimmy if he refuses to sign an extension.