RealGM

Having Butler, Wiggins and drafting Okogie who is a sg means to me that there will not be enough playing time for any of our pgs to be shifted and play as a sg.
So, I think that if not a wing will get traded then it is possible that one of Teague, Rose, Jones will not be with us next year.
I think that a trade will happen there and one of our pgs or sgs will get traded and I have a feeling(or hope) that this will be Teague

Calinks wrote:I could see Jimmy really taking a shine to him and propelling him. I could also see this causing friction with Wiggins because his ego could possibly get hurt if the rook is being praised and coming across as having more heart than he does.

I just don't see it working and this draft probably just made it worse. I could absolutely see practices between the starters and the bench with Butler applauding the young guys effort level and at some point Wiggins just thinking Butler's against him without realizing he's encouraging players giving effort. Then again, Wiggins is so laid back he may not really care plus he'll get his points here and there based off his talent and may think that's enough.

I'm not sure how much more Butler can say about Wiggins in the media without just coming out and saying he's lazy. Even this being put out there in the media didn't light a fire under Wiggins. I don't think Butler's met too many people that are as laid back in personality as Wiggins is.

Similar player to Jimmy Butler ,,,,,,let's hope

Thibs doesnt play rookies. So dont worry about minutes and rotations.

He played dunn more than he should have and maybe if Patton wasn’t injured he would have played some too.

TheFinishSniper wrote:Thibs doesnt play rookies. So dont worry about minutes and rotations.

Well, except Mirotic who came in 2nd for ROY, even with the FO not moving the glut of bigs in front of him(Noah, Gasol and Gibson), unluckily when rookie McDermott went down early(who had played 15+ minutes 5 times in his first 17 games before he was hurt but yeah no playing rookies narrative) and it was an extended time off injury he moved Mirotic to SF to get him time on the court.

The only one who may have had a gripe was Butler but he was picked 30th in the draft, wasn't ready and had Deng, Hamilton, Korver and Brewer in front of him.

Snell was a horrible pick, M.Teague was a horrible pick, not really sure who was good enough that the Chicago FO picked to actually play their rookie season.

The problem for the perception for Bulls fans were... they just got done being a bad team where they had a lot of high picks and then became a good team with low 1st round picks, normally those situations don't have many rookies contribute, especially how bad the Bulls FO drafted most of those years.

TheFinishSniper wrote:Thibs doesnt play rookies. So dont worry about minutes and rotations.

Actually historically he does. Gibson, Mirotic, and Snell were all in the rotation as rookies, as was Dunn. Who has he held back?

Calinks wrote:I could also see this causing friction with Wiggins because his ego could possibly get hurt if the rook is being praised and coming across as having more heart than he does.

Could also be a wakeup call

Calinks wrote:I could see Jimmy really taking a shine to him and propelling him. I could also see this causing friction with Wiggins because his ego could possibly get hurt if the rook is being praised and coming across as having more heart than he does.

At this point I'd like to see Wiggins get angry. I'm beginning to think the only thing that will motivate him is to realize that there are capable guys on the bench who are working hard to take his minutes, something he's never had to worry about due to the truly awful bench wings the Wolves have had in recent years. Let's face it, going against the likes of Crawford/Muhammad in practice doesn't provide an example of how to defend or force Wiggins to exert effort.

I do wonder how Wiggins would react if some rookie was destroying him in practice. Like I said, I could also see Jimmy fueling the fire by encouraging it. Wiggins could take it on the chin and just improve or he could get mad and then we would have chemistry issues.

Sugarless wrote:

Bucketgetter wrote:

Sugarless wrote:
You need to read my message again.

No, I don't

Yes, you do. And you should use that thing the smiley is pointing to between its ears.

The text you quoted is about his scoring efficiency being sustained by an exorbitant and extremely out of the ordinary (for a guard anyway) free throw rate that will be beyond implausible in the NBA. Now, it looks like you don't know what free throw rate -or FTr like I used in that message- means, so you chose to focus on the FT shooting percentage, which is obviously consistent for the most part regardless of the competition you play in.

So stop LOLing, stop calling people crazy, and learn to take a hint instead.

Maybe you should work on your sentence construction to get your point across better. Take the time to go over your paragraphs to make sure they make sense before getting so defensive. If you want to talk about free throw RATE not translating to the NBA, don't talk about free throw PERCENTAGE directly before declaring that it won't translate. Even if you were able to form a coherent sentence to get your point across, it is still a questionable one. There is reason to believe that his efficiency will go up since he is no longer the #1 option. His game is not to create for himself, even though that is what he was asked to do at Georgia Tech. And you say that he was able to draw a lot of fouls with space and in transition. Well that is perfect, given there is much more pace to the NBA game. Not being able to create in a set offense as you say doesn't mean a whole lot when you're playing with Teague, Butler, Towns, and Wiggins. He won't be asked to do that.

Sugarless wrote:

SmokeyPaw wrote:

Bucketgetter wrote:No, I don't

He may be referring to FT rate as opposed to FT percentage. FT rate certainly could change, which would affect TS %. I would expect FT percentage to translate.

My message was indeed (and quite plainly) about his extremely high FT rate.

Of course talking about efficiency being sustained by his FTr means nothing if the guy's not a good FT shooter, so you obviously have to cite his FT% too. Bucketgetter, who I presume is still rather young, couldn't wait to piss on me or maybe anybody that didn't support the pick, so he decided to bold the part of my message that he thought would make him look good, like anyone who's watched a basketball game in his life didn't know that FT% is one of the most (if not *the* most) persitent aspects of basketball.

LOL. Pointing out your mistake in thinking that free throw percentages don't translate to the NBA is not pissing on you or anyone that didn't support the pick. I don't care if you liked the pick or not, I was responding to a poor point you made. Turns out it was just bad sentence construction and you really meant something else, so you could have just said that. But instead you got super defensive

Calinks wrote:I do wonder how Wiggins would react if some rookie was destroying him in practice. Like I said, I could also see Jimmy fueling the fire by encouraging it. Wiggins could take it on the chin and just improve or he could get mad and then we would have chemistry issues.

Will ask for trade

Bucketgetter wrote:

Sugarless wrote:

Bucketgetter wrote:No, I don't

Yes, you do. And you should use that thing the smiley is pointing to between its ears.

The text you quoted is about his scoring efficiency being sustained by an exorbitant and extremely out of the ordinary (for a guard anyway) free throw rate that will be beyond implausible in the NBA. Now, it looks like you don't know what free throw rate -or FTr like I used in that message- means, so you chose to focus on the FT shooting percentage, which is obviously consistent for the most part regardless of the competition you play in.

So stop LOLing, stop calling people crazy, and learn to take a hint instead.

Maybe you should work on your sentence construction to get your point across better. Take the time to go over your paragraphs to make sure they make sense before getting so defensive. If you want to talk about free throw RATE not translating to the NBA, don't talk about free throw PERCENTAGE directly before declaring that it won't translate. Even if you were able to form a coherent sentence to get your point across, it is still a questionable one. There is reason to believe that his efficiency will go up since he is no longer the #1 option. His game is not to create for himself, even though that is what he was asked to do at Georgia Tech. And you say that he was able to draw a lot of fouls with space and in transition. Well that is perfect, given there is much more pace to the NBA game. Not being able to create in a set offense as you say doesn't mean a whole lot when you're playing with Teague, Butler, Towns, and Wiggins. He won't be asked to do that.

LOL at my text not being coherent and not being able to get my point across, when somebody else got it and you didn't.

And who's getting defensive here? My first reply was a mere "read it again" and a friendly wink, despite your obnoxious response, which you followed up with the crazy emoji. I'm not even a native English speaker, and yet I think I'm not the one who doesn't understand what defensive means.

Again, just learn to take a hint and that's all. And consider that no basketball fan would think something as dumb as FT% going down the drain just because you go from college to the NBA, which is the first thing you should have thought before jumping to conclusions.

Now feel free to write one last message, insist on how difficult it is to understand my writing, and let's move on to a more fruitful debate.

Sugarless wrote:

Bucketgetter wrote:

Sugarless wrote:
Yes, you do. And you should use that thing the smiley is pointing to between its ears.

The text you quoted is about his scoring efficiency being sustained by an exorbitant and extremely out of the ordinary (for a guard anyway) free throw rate that will be beyond implausible in the NBA. Now, it looks like you don't know what free throw rate -or FTr like I used in that message- means, so you chose to focus on the FT shooting percentage, which is obviously consistent for the most part regardless of the competition you play in.

So stop LOLing, stop calling people crazy, and learn to take a hint instead.

Maybe you should work on your sentence construction to get your point across better. Take the time to go over your paragraphs to make sure they make sense before getting so defensive. If you want to talk about free throw RATE not translating to the NBA, don't talk about free throw PERCENTAGE directly before declaring that it won't translate. Even if you were able to form a coherent sentence to get your point across, it is still a questionable one. There is reason to believe that his efficiency will go up since he is no longer the #1 option. His game is not to create for himself, even though that is what he was asked to do at Georgia Tech. And you say that he was able to draw a lot of fouls with space and in transition. Well that is perfect, given there is much more pace to the NBA game. Not being able to create in a set offense as you say doesn't mean a whole lot when you're playing with Teague, Butler, Towns, and Wiggins. He won't be asked to do that.

LOL at my text not being coherent and not being able to get my point across, when somebody else got it and you didn't.

And who's getting defensive here? My first reply was a mere "read it again" and a friendly wink, despite your obnoxious response, which you followed up with the crazy emoji. I'm not even a native English speaker, and yet I think I'm not the one who doesn't understand what defensive means.

Again, just learn to take a hint and that's all. And consider that no basketball fan would think something as dumb as FT% going down the drain just because you go from college to the NBA, which is the first thing you should have thought before jumping to conclusions.

Now feel free to write one last message, insist on how difficult it is to understand my writing, and let's move on to a more fruitful debate.

It was obvious you were talking about FT rate, your English is fine

Killboard wrote:If Obi-Wan Okogie can top that he will be a solid pick for the years to come.

I dig it!

I can't recall where I saw this, but on draft night someone tried to say this would be a bad pick just like Dunn was a bad pick, both being similar prospects. Yeah, because drafting a 19-year old at pick 20 is totally the same as drafting a 22-year old at pick 5...

Bucketgetter wrote:

Sugarless wrote:

SmokeyPaw wrote:
He may be referring to FT rate as opposed to FT percentage. FT rate certainly could change, which would affect TS %. I would expect FT percentage to translate.

My message was indeed (and quite plainly) about his extremely high FT rate.

Of course talking about efficiency being sustained by his FTr means nothing if the guy's not a good FT shooter, so you obviously have to cite his FT% too. Bucketgetter, who I presume is still rather young, couldn't wait to piss on me or maybe anybody that didn't support the pick, so he decided to bold the part of my message that he thought would make him look good, like anyone who's watched a basketball game in his life didn't know that FT% is one of the most (if not *the* most) persitent aspects of basketball.

LOL. Pointing out your mistake in thinking that free throw percentages don't translate to the NBA is not pissing on you or anyone that didn't support the pick. I don't care if you liked the pick or not, I was responding to a poor point you made. Turns out it was just bad sentence construction and you really meant something else, so you could have just said that. But instead you got super defensive

He did not say that free throw percentages don't translate. I understood him to be indicating that FT rate may not translate (true) although I understand why it wasn't clear.

I think everyone could chalk this up to a misunderstanding and let it go.

Sugarless wrote:

Bucketgetter wrote:

Sugarless wrote:
Yes, you do. And you should use that thing the smiley is pointing to between its ears.

The text you quoted is about his scoring efficiency being sustained by an exorbitant and extremely out of the ordinary (for a guard anyway) free throw rate that will be beyond implausible in the NBA. Now, it looks like you don't know what free throw rate -or FTr like I used in that message- means, so you chose to focus on the FT shooting percentage, which is obviously consistent for the most part regardless of the competition you play in.

So stop LOLing, stop calling people crazy, and learn to take a hint instead.

Maybe you should work on your sentence construction to get your point across better. Take the time to go over your paragraphs to make sure they make sense before getting so defensive. If you want to talk about free throw RATE not translating to the NBA, don't talk about free throw PERCENTAGE directly before declaring that it won't translate. Even if you were able to form a coherent sentence to get your point across, it is still a questionable one. There is reason to believe that his efficiency will go up since he is no longer the #1 option. His game is not to create for himself, even though that is what he was asked to do at Georgia Tech. And you say that he was able to draw a lot of fouls with space and in transition. Well that is perfect, given there is much more pace to the NBA game. Not being able to create in a set offense as you say doesn't mean a whole lot when you're playing with Teague, Butler, Towns, and Wiggins. He won't be asked to do that.

LOL at my text not being coherent and not being able to get my point across, when somebody else got it and you didn't.

And who's getting defensive here? My first reply was a mere "read it again" and a friendly wink, despite your obnoxious response, which you followed up with the crazy emoji. I'm not even a native English speaker, and yet I think I'm not the one who doesn't understand what defensive means.

Again, just learn to take a hint and that's all. And consider that no basketball fan would think something as dumb as FT% going down the drain just because you go from college to the NBA, which is the first thing you should have thought before jumping to conclusions.

Now feel free to write one last message, insist on how difficult it is to understand my writing, and let's move on to a more fruitful debate.

A better response would be to clarify what you actually meant. Instead of continuing to tell me to take a hint over and over again, explain the point and don't make me guess at what you're trying to say.

I am stoked with this pick.

We have the offensive weapons already in place.

He can play tight D and he has a good three point shot. Sold.