Jamal Murray?

Draft talk all year round

Moderators: Marcus, Ruzious

DrCoach
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,306
And1: 2,454
Joined: May 24, 2014

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#61 » by DrCoach » Wed May 18, 2016 1:44 pm

RationalGaze wrote:
wolves_89 wrote:If the Wolves don't win the lottery I'd be very happy to get Murray at 5. Minnesota already has guys who can drive to the bucket in Wiggins/LaVine/Muhammad, they desperately need a knock down shooter to spread the floor and Murray seems like a great fit. He could also play some minutes at backup PG on nights when Tyus Jones lack of size leaves him at a disadvantage. I'd also prefer to have Murray as our 3rd PG instead of trying to have LaVine play a position he just isn't suited for. Murray's age and potential to play some PG would put him ahead of Hield on my draft board.


I don't get Wolves fans' logic when it comes to drafting Murray. You have LaVine and Wiggins headed for their breakout years and will probably be playing 34 minutes a game for you and you all want to draft Murray? He'll get about 14-17 minutes a game to be a backup when he's a starter. Drafting a guy 5th overall to be a backup makes sense how? LaVine's shooting is definitely becoming a highlight as he shot 47% from 3 for March and is currently 40% from 3 for April as well as being almost 40% for the season.
I suggest becoming familiar with all the forwards, because that's likely to be the pick.


Your logic is the same logic Portland used as they passed on the greatest player ever in the NBA
RationalGaze
Junior
Posts: 377
And1: 63
Joined: Jun 07, 2015
   

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#62 » by RationalGaze » Thu May 19, 2016 3:14 pm

DrCoach wrote:
RationalGaze wrote:
wolves_89 wrote:If the Wolves don't win the lottery I'd be very happy to get Murray at 5. Minnesota already has guys who can drive to the bucket in Wiggins/LaVine/Muhammad, they desperately need a knock down shooter to spread the floor and Murray seems like a great fit. He could also play some minutes at backup PG on nights when Tyus Jones lack of size leaves him at a disadvantage. I'd also prefer to have Murray as our 3rd PG instead of trying to have LaVine play a position he just isn't suited for. Murray's age and potential to play some PG would put him ahead of Hield on my draft board.


I don't get Wolves fans' logic when it comes to drafting Murray. You have LaVine and Wiggins headed for their breakout years and will probably be playing 34 minutes a game for you and you all want to draft Murray? He'll get about 14-17 minutes a game to be a backup when he's a starter. Drafting a guy 5th overall to be a backup makes sense how? LaVine's shooting is definitely becoming a highlight as he shot 47% from 3 for March and is currently 40% from 3 for April as well as being almost 40% for the season.
I suggest becoming familiar with all the forwards, because that's likely to be the pick.


Your logic is the same logic Portland used as they passed on the greatest player ever in the NBA

Arguably the greatest. 8-)
You let me know when he gains Jordan's athleticism and I'll tell you who the first pick in the draft will be.
RationalGaze
Junior
Posts: 377
And1: 63
Joined: Jun 07, 2015
   

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#63 » by RationalGaze » Thu May 19, 2016 5:02 pm

TheZachAttack wrote:
RationalGaze wrote:
wolves_89 wrote:If the Wolves don't win the lottery I'd be very happy to get Murray at 5. Minnesota already has guys who can drive to the bucket in Wiggins/LaVine/Muhammad, they desperately need a knock down shooter to spread the floor and Murray seems like a great fit. He could also play some minutes at backup PG on nights when Tyus Jones lack of size leaves him at a disadvantage. I'd also prefer to have Murray as our 3rd PG instead of trying to have LaVine play a position he just isn't suited for. Murray's age and potential to play some PG would put him ahead of Hield on my draft board.


I don't get Wolves fans' logic when it comes to drafting Murray. You have LaVine and Wiggins headed for their breakout years and will probably be playing 34 minutes a game for you and you all want to draft Murray? He'll get about 14-17 minutes a game to be a backup when he's a starter. Drafting a guy 5th overall to be a backup makes sense how? LaVine's shooting is definitely becoming a highlight as he shot 47% from 3 for March and is currently 40% from 3 for April as well as being almost 40% for the season.
I suggest becoming familiar with all the forwards, because that's likely to be the pick.


That's not true or at least not the rational for wanting to draft Murray. Those who are in the Murray camp usually argue that Murray would back up Lavine and get 15-16 minutes there and that you could also then play both Murray and Lavine together for spurts too. Murray would be sort of a 6th man. Him and Lavine are both combo guards that can dish a little bit but probably shouldnt be doing the ball handling duties on their own. That would be an interesting combo of shooting and scoring ability. And you could easily find Murray 25-30 minutes. What looks better a guard rotation of Rubio/Lavine/Tyus? or Rubio/Lavine/Murray. Not to mention he can hit 40% from deep which the Wolves need. And they need a better ball handler off the bench who can consistently create offense.

It's easily do able and would really be cutting into Shabazz's minutes if anything else--which is okay...

Just saying that's the argument whether or not you agree with the pick...that's the logic and it's sound logic.

LaVine is not a combo guard. I figured that would have been decided last season after Mitchell tried fitting the square peg in the round hole.
Murray actually has a nice handle for those who've watched him and that's partly why he's able to score so well.
So you want to draft a backup 5th overall? Got it. He will only be getting bench minutes while Rubio will be getting 34 minutes himself given he's the team's best defender and a tier operator while Murray isn't. You can run Rubio and Murray, but not LaVine and Murray. A better future lineup would be Rubio, LaVine, Wiggins, Deyonta, and Karl. With LaVine improving his defense and Thibodeau to maximize Wiggins' defense you'll be getting possibly elite defense 1-5.
Drafting Jamal to play 14 minutes at shooting guard then 14 at point? Who's going to play next to Murray to be the shooting guard that the Wolves need depth for? Won't be LaVine while he's resting.
I like Tyus, Allen Crabbe, Shabazz for the time being, Bjelica, and Dieng for the 2nd unit.
Wolves don't need Murray off the bench, but I'm sure they'd love to have him coming off the bench. Murray won't love it since he's a starter. Murray only tests for the Wolves if he thinks he's better than LaVine and last I check Murray doesn't glide from the free throw line nor creates his shot as easy as LaVine.
TheZachAttack
Senior
Posts: 652
And1: 510
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
       

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#64 » by TheZachAttack » Thu May 19, 2016 5:24 pm

RationalGaze wrote:
TheZachAttack wrote:
RationalGaze wrote:
I don't get Wolves fans' logic when it comes to drafting Murray. You have LaVine and Wiggins headed for their breakout years and will probably be playing 34 minutes a game for you and you all want to draft Murray? He'll get about 14-17 minutes a game to be a backup when he's a starter. Drafting a guy 5th overall to be a backup makes sense how? LaVine's shooting is definitely becoming a highlight as he shot 47% from 3 for March and is currently 40% from 3 for April as well as being almost 40% for the season.
I suggest becoming familiar with all the forwards, because that's likely to be the pick.


That's not true or at least not the rational for wanting to draft Murray. Those who are in the Murray camp usually argue that Murray would back up Lavine and get 15-16 minutes there and that you could also then play both Murray and Lavine together for spurts too. Murray would be sort of a 6th man. Him and Lavine are both combo guards that can dish a little bit but probably shouldnt be doing the ball handling duties on their own. That would be an interesting combo of shooting and scoring ability. And you could easily find Murray 25-30 minutes. What looks better a guard rotation of Rubio/Lavine/Tyus? or Rubio/Lavine/Murray. Not to mention he can hit 40% from deep which the Wolves need. And they need a better ball handler off the bench who can consistently create offense.

It's easily do able and would really be cutting into Shabazz's minutes if anything else--which is okay...

Just saying that's the argument whether or not you agree with the pick...that's the logic and it's sound logic.

LaVine is not a combo guard. I figured that would have been decided last season after Mitchell tried fitting the square peg in the round hole.
Murray actually has a nice handle for those who've watched him and that's partly why he's able to score so well.
So you want to draft a backup 5th overall? Got it. He will only be getting bench minutes while Rubio will be getting 34 minutes himself given he's the team's best defender and a tier operator while Murray isn't. You can run Rubio and Murray, but not LaVine and Murray. A better future lineup would be Rubio, LaVine, Wiggins, Deyonta, and Karl. With LaVine improving his defense and Thibodeau to maximize Wiggins' defense you'll be getting possibly elite defense 1-5.
Drafting Jamal to play 14 minutes at shooting guard then 14 at point? Who's going to play next to Murray to be the shooting guard that the Wolves need depth for? Won't be LaVine while he's resting.
I like Tyus, Allen Crabbe, Shabazz for the time being, Bjelica, and Dieng for the 2nd unit.
Wolves don't need Murray off the bench, but I'm sure they'd love to have him coming off the bench. Murray won't love it since he's a starter. Murray only tests for the Wolves if he thinks he's better than LaVine and last I check Murray doesn't glide from the free throw line nor creates his shot as easy as LaVine.




I mean Lavine obviously is a combo guard who's best role is SG and not the primary ball-handler. Like you said, Murray doesn't glide from the free throw line like Lavine, but has nice handle and is a lights out shooter which is how he scores as well as he does.

Dude, there's a thing called staggering lineups...we did it a lot this year. Tyus and Lavine played a lot together too. I think you can craft out a 6 man role for Murray and give him 25 minutes a game. By your logic the Lakers shouldn't have drafted Kobe who started out playing like 15 min a game. Or the Wolves shouldn't have drafted Lavine.

The problem with this team wasn't the starting lineup. It was the bench. Murray is a great fit. If Murray's a good enough player he will get plenty of minutes. He's a rookie. Earn his spot. Most rookies don't begin starting right away. Drafting Deyonta Davis over Murray would be a huge blunder.

If you really don't think Murray tests that well you draft Murray and then trade him for Davis plus more assets. Which is fine, but there is an argument to draft Murray and Murray in the role I detailed would be an interesting player. If you could grab a PF in free agency after drafting Murray the Wolves would be set moving forward with that starting lineup and Tyus/Murray/Bazz/Bjelica/Dieng off the bench. Depth is key in this league.
RationalGaze
Junior
Posts: 377
And1: 63
Joined: Jun 07, 2015
   

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#65 » by RationalGaze » Thu May 19, 2016 6:14 pm

TheZachAttack wrote:
RationalGaze wrote:
TheZachAttack wrote:
That's not true or at least not the rational for wanting to draft Murray. Those who are in the Murray camp usually argue that Murray would back up Lavine and get 15-16 minutes there and that you could also then play both Murray and Lavine together for spurts too. Murray would be sort of a 6th man. Him and Lavine are both combo guards that can dish a little bit but probably shouldnt be doing the ball handling duties on their own. That would be an interesting combo of shooting and scoring ability. And you could easily find Murray 25-30 minutes. What looks better a guard rotation of Rubio/Lavine/Tyus? or Rubio/Lavine/Murray. Not to mention he can hit 40% from deep which the Wolves need. And they need a better ball handler off the bench who can consistently create offense.

It's easily do able and would really be cutting into Shabazz's minutes if anything else--which is okay...

Just saying that's the argument whether or not you agree with the pick...that's the logic and it's sound logic.

LaVine is not a combo guard. I figured that would have been decided last season after Mitchell tried fitting the square peg in the round hole.
Murray actually has a nice handle for those who've watched him and that's partly why he's able to score so well.
So you want to draft a backup 5th overall? Got it. He will only be getting bench minutes while Rubio will be getting 34 minutes himself given he's the team's best defender and a tier operator while Murray isn't. You can run Rubio and Murray, but not LaVine and Murray. A better future lineup would be Rubio, LaVine, Wiggins, Deyonta, and Karl. With LaVine improving his defense and Thibodeau to maximize Wiggins' defense you'll be getting possibly elite defense 1-5.
Drafting Jamal to play 14 minutes at shooting guard then 14 at point? Who's going to play next to Murray to be the shooting guard that the Wolves need depth for? Won't be LaVine while he's resting.
I like Tyus, Allen Crabbe, Shabazz for the time being, Bjelica, and Dieng for the 2nd unit.
Wolves don't need Murray off the bench, but I'm sure they'd love to have him coming off the bench. Murray won't love it since he's a starter. Murray only tests for the Wolves if he thinks he's better than LaVine and last I check Murray doesn't glide from the free throw line nor creates his shot as easy as LaVine.




I mean Lavine obviously is a combo guard who's best role is SG and not the primary ball-handler. Like you said, Murray doesn't glide from the free throw line like Lavine, but has nice handle and is a lights out shooter which is how he scores as well as he does.

Dude, there's a thing called staggering lineups...we did it a lot this year. Tyus and Lavine played a lot together too. I think you can craft out a 6 man role for Murray and give him 25 minutes a game. By your logic the Lakers shouldn't have drafted Kobe who started out playing like 15 min a game. Or the Wolves shouldn't have drafted Lavine.

The problem with this team wasn't the starting lineup. It was the bench. Murray is a great fit. If Murray's a good enough player he will get plenty of minutes. He's a rookie. Earn his spot. Most rookies don't begin starting right away. Drafting Deyonta Davis over Murray would be a huge blunder.

If you really don't think Murray tests that well you draft Murray and then trade him for Davis plus more assets. Which is fine, but there is an argument to draft Murray and Murray in the role I detailed would be an interesting player. If you could grab a PF in free agency after drafting Murray the Wolves would be set moving forward with that starting lineup and Tyus/Murray/Bazz/Bjelica/Dieng off the bench. Depth is key in this league.


The problem with the PF market is it sucks this year and next. Only 3 legit names available and they aren't coming here.

Martin was the shooting guard at that time and LaVine was drafted to be groomed and replace Martin eventually since it wasn't working out for the Wolves. It's not my logic to not draft a shooting guard it's my logic to not draft one when we already have a very legit one and can complete a starting lineup given Deyonta's elite defensive potential and his confidence in shooting the ball. He stated Msu didn't want him shooting the ball.

Deytona could very well be the best defensive player of this draft and will have the right mentors to groom him. I'm not looking at current talent, but what it will become just like LaVine. We already have 3 high ceiling guys and I'd like to see the lineup completed. Murray would be a bench player for us regardless of minutes and not a starter is how I see it.
TheGoodDoctor
General Manager
Posts: 9,807
And1: 8,604
Joined: Jul 23, 2012

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#66 » by TheGoodDoctor » Thu May 19, 2016 6:25 pm

He'll be something like Devon Booker with more PG skills.
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,374
And1: 1,081
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#67 » by doordoor123 » Thu May 19, 2016 7:57 pm

TheGoodDoctor wrote:He'll be something like Devon Booker with more PG skills.


But also worse laterally. I can see that comparison.
Upperclass
Veteran
Posts: 2,641
And1: 960
Joined: Aug 09, 2005

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#68 » by Upperclass » Thu May 19, 2016 8:36 pm

Murray will end up a better player then Lavine fairly quickly. Zach's problem is between the ears. He'll never truly fix that
Upperclass
Veteran
Posts: 2,641
And1: 960
Joined: Aug 09, 2005

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#69 » by Upperclass » Thu May 19, 2016 8:40 pm

Since the convo seems focus on the 5th pick..I think the Wolves should pair Murray with Kat and skip Poetl if he's in play. Then they can sign Barnes as a small ball PF.
User avatar
Prez
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,222
And1: 29,433
Joined: Jan 26, 2015
 

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#70 » by Prez » Thu May 19, 2016 8:44 pm

I wish we sucked harder and had a chance to draft this kid. Think he could be special, he gets the game offensively on a level most 18-19 year olds rarely do. Just knows how to get buckets. And I feel he's another UK player who didn't quite get to show off his full potential, I wish he could've had more time to develop on-ball. Playing on the ball in other settings he's showed quite a bit of potential.
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,374
And1: 1,081
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#71 » by doordoor123 » Thu May 19, 2016 9:02 pm

Milbuck wrote:I wish we sucked harder and had a chance to draft this kid. Think he could be special, he gets the game offensively on a level most 18-19 year olds rarely do. Just knows how to get buckets. And I feel he's another UK player who didn't quite get to show off his full potential, I wish he could've had more time to develop on-ball. Playing on the ball in other settings he's showed quite a bit of potential.


I question his on-ball stuff a bit more. There was more than a couple times in the season where a bigger guy would stuff him when he would use a step back. I don't think he knows how to create space very well with the ball and mainly because he isn't bouncy enough (kind of has flat feet). It's one of the reasons I didn't think he'd be able to live up to his projections. I don't think Murray will ever be THE guy (like Booker might be able to do), but I think he can be a good third option. I think he's a tier below McCollum.
Upperclass
Veteran
Posts: 2,641
And1: 960
Joined: Aug 09, 2005

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#72 » by Upperclass » Thu May 19, 2016 10:54 pm

I think he'll endup alot like Kevin Martin with slightly better passing and comparable horrendous D. A player you basically want to come off of screens and knock down shots.
SelfishPlayer
Veteran
Posts: 2,516
And1: 943
Joined: May 23, 2014

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#73 » by SelfishPlayer » Fri May 20, 2016 12:04 am

He plays much shorter than his listed height because of his miniature standing reach. Shooting over NBA defenders shouldn't be overlooked in the typical way that most will do for a normal 6'5" player. Here he is getting his jump shot blocked by the 6'4" Wade Baldwin who has tremendously long arms for his height.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWCTwu7eNPY[/youtube]
HotelVitale
General Manager
Posts: 8,141
And1: 4,064
Joined: Sep 14, 2007
Location: West Philly, PA

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#74 » by HotelVitale » Fri May 20, 2016 12:29 am

SelfishPlayer wrote:He plays much shorter than his listed height because of his miniature standing reach. Shooting over NBA defenders shouldn't be overlooked in the typical way that most will do for a normal 6'5" player. Here he is getting his jump shot blocked by the 6'4" Wade Baldwin who has tremendously long arms for his height.

So what takeaway are you suggesting? It's not like Murray got a bunch of perimeter shots blocked, and as you say Baldwin has 'tremendously long arms' for his height. Can't see based on that why it'd necessarily be a huge problem for him. Standing reach is the same as Redick's--so while it's not a strength it doesn't mean he's screwed in the NBA or anything.
User avatar
darealjuice
Suns Forum Future All Star
Posts: 4,627
And1: 6,051
Joined: Apr 22, 2016
Location: Phoenix
   

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#75 » by darealjuice » Fri May 20, 2016 12:32 am

SelfishPlayer wrote:He plays much shorter than his listed height because of his miniature standing reach. Shooting over NBA defenders shouldn't be overlooked in the typical way that most will do for a normal 6'5" player. Here he is getting his jump shot blocked by the 6'4" Wade Baldwin who has tremendously long arms for his height.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWCTwu7eNPY[/youtube]


Weird to use that example when he absolutely torched Wade Baldwin and Vanderbilt for 33 points in that game, he was hitting 3's in his face the entire time Baldwin guarded him except for that one block.
SelfishPlayer
Veteran
Posts: 2,516
And1: 943
Joined: May 23, 2014

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#76 » by SelfishPlayer » Fri May 20, 2016 3:43 am

HotelVitale wrote:
SelfishPlayer wrote:He plays much shorter than his listed height because of his miniature standing reach. Shooting over NBA defenders shouldn't be overlooked in the typical way that most will do for a normal 6'5" player. Here he is getting his jump shot blocked by the 6'4" Wade Baldwin who has tremendously long arms for his height.

So what takeaway are you suggesting? It's not like Murray got a bunch of perimeter shots blocked, and as you say Baldwin has 'tremendously long arms' for his height. Can't see based on that why it'd necessarily be a huge problem for him. Standing reach is the same as Redick's--so while it's not a strength it doesn't mean he's screwed in the NBA or anything.


It's something to consider and make note of when projecting him to the NBA. Jodie Meeks is a former Kentucky guy that shot the ball tremendously well in college but also suffers from arms shorter than the typical 6'4" shooting guard. Evan Turner, not a shooter, but a highly drafted guy who at 6'7" had arms shorter than the typical SG/SF. Redick, a name that you mentioned, none of these guys are great NBA players.
SelfishPlayer
Veteran
Posts: 2,516
And1: 943
Joined: May 23, 2014

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#77 » by SelfishPlayer » Fri May 20, 2016 3:45 am

darealjuice wrote:
SelfishPlayer wrote:He plays much shorter than his listed height because of his miniature standing reach. Shooting over NBA defenders shouldn't be overlooked in the typical way that most will do for a normal 6'5" player. Here he is getting his jump shot blocked by the 6'4" Wade Baldwin who has tremendously long arms for his height.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWCTwu7eNPY[/youtube]


Weird to use that example when he absolutely torched Wade Baldwin and Vanderbilt for 33 points in that game, he was hitting 3's in his face the entire time Baldwin guarded him except for that one block.


Torched is a strong word for only 33 points from the college three point line. Former Kentucky Wildcat Jodie Meeks had 54 points from the college 3 point line.
User avatar
darealjuice
Suns Forum Future All Star
Posts: 4,627
And1: 6,051
Joined: Apr 22, 2016
Location: Phoenix
   

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#78 » by darealjuice » Fri May 20, 2016 5:30 am

SelfishPlayer wrote:
darealjuice wrote:
SelfishPlayer wrote:He plays much shorter than his listed height because of his miniature standing reach. Shooting over NBA defenders shouldn't be overlooked in the typical way that most will do for a normal 6'5" player. Here he is getting his jump shot blocked by the 6'4" Wade Baldwin who has tremendously long arms for his height.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWCTwu7eNPY[/youtube]


Weird to use that example when he absolutely torched Wade Baldwin and Vanderbilt for 33 points in that game, he was hitting 3's in his face the entire time Baldwin guarded him except for that one block.


Torched is a strong word for only 33 points from the college three point line. Former Kentucky Wildcat Jodie Meeks had 54 points from the college 3 point line.


Lol call it what you want, he put up 33 points on 20 shots and went 6 of 10 from 3. He was cooking Fisher-Davis so bad that Vandy had to switch Baldwin on him, who continued to get lit up or beat to the paint by Murray. Is everyone else in the draft shooting from a different 3-point line? Where else is he supposed to shoot from? He's shown many times he has NBA range.
User avatar
Killboard
Veteran
Posts: 2,935
And1: 761
Joined: Jul 16, 2010

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#79 » by Killboard » Fri May 20, 2016 12:25 pm

I think Murray is a better prospect than Dunn or Hield. If he pans out he could end somewhere in between a more crafy McCollum and a shorter brandon Roy. Those guys were 22 YO when entered the league, so he has some work to do but with the right coaching seems doable. Good thing is he was working intensively on his off ball offense which could help him a lot in his first years on the NBA.
If him or Bender are on the clock at 5 I will be thrilled.
If not I suppose we should take Dunn to backup Rubio, he would be a great buckup to pair with Lavine or Wiggins for the duration of his rookie contract.
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,374
And1: 1,081
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Jamal Murray? 

Post#80 » by doordoor123 » Fri May 20, 2016 12:53 pm

Killboard wrote:I think Murray is a better prospect than Dunn or Hield. If he pans out he could end somewhere in between a more crafy McCollum and a shorter brandon Roy. Those guys were 22 YO when entered the league, so he has some work to do but with the right coaching seems doable. Good thing is he was working intensively on his off ball offense which could help him a lot in his first years on the NBA.
If him or Bender are on the clock at 5 I will be thrilled.
If not I suppose we should take Dunn to backup Rubio, he would be a great buckup to pair with Lavine or Wiggins for the duration of his rookie contract.


I think if the Timberwolves take Dunn, Rubio is out. Dunn wants to be a starter right away or at least have a chance to start right away. It has been reported he is holding medical records from the Suns and Celtics because they both have established point guards and it would be hard for him to break the rotation. Plus I don't think the Timberwolves are looking at Dunn as something they need. Thibs said at the combine that they'll be looking for shooting and defenders. Their GM also said that they're looking forward to Tyus Jones having a big year. I think there is a good chance the Timberwolves trade down or get Jaylen Brown (who apparently had really good conversations with Thibs at the combine). And seeing what Thibs did for Butler, I'm sure he can do wonders with Brown.

Return to NBA Draft