MIN - WAS - CHI (Butler/McGee)

Krapinsky · Post #1 » by **Krapinsky** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 8:35 pm

MIN

IN: Butler, McGee, Pargo
OUT: Sessions, Gomes, Cardinal

I'm not a huge Butler fan anymore, and I question whether he's a good fit in the triangle, but his deal is only two more years and he is still an offensive threat. We add McGee who has the potential to round out our big man rotation long term. With Sessions and Gomes going out we only cut into our 2010 cap money a few million. We probably don't add many wins this year (if any) and so our draft pick should still be top 5.

WAS

IN: Hinrich, Gomes, Chicago 2011 2nd, Cash
Out: Butler, McGee, Crittendon

WT rumor contains a Butler for Hinrich swap. Here they accomplish that while also getting a cheap Butler replacement.

CHI

IN: Sessions, Cardinal, Crittendon
OUT: Hinrich, Pargo, 2011 2nd, Cash

Bulls move Hinrich's deal and get a cheaper replacement in Sessions. Arguably, they're getting the best deal of the three teams.

Thoughts on this one?

Iommi · Post #2 » by **Iommi** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 8:53 pm

What does Washington think of McGee? I like it for Minny, though Gomes does hold sentimental value for me.

dunkonu21 · Post #3 » by **dunkonu21** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 8:55 pm

I'd rather keep Sessions, because I think Hollins is pretty nice as our 3rd center. Butler and Pargo for Gomes and Cardinal would work for me tho!.

Post #4 » by **revprodeji** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 10:00 pm

I would rather not. Butler is just too old to mix with this group. I love him as a player with this team, but only if he was 3 years younger.

Ajosu · Post #5 » by **Ajosu** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 10:06 pm

I like this one for the Bulls.

shrink · Post #6 » by **shrink** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 12:27 am

If the Butler-Hinrich part is true (I have a hard time believing it myself), then I think this is a better fot for all three teams. I would not be surprised if CHI's 1st going to WAS isn't included in the original deal, and if its there, it'd make sense here.

Well done, Dr K

moss_is_1 · Post #7 » by **moss_is_1** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:20 am

I see no reason why Washington does that...

canucklife21 · Post #8 » by **canucklife21** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:46 am

Would love to see butler in MINN

southern wolf · Post #9 » by **southern wolf** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 4:02 am

I think it would help us in the short-term, but hurt us in the long run. It's a nice, fair deal though.

jade_hippo · Post #10 » by **jade_hippo** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 4:24 am

I'd love Butler also, but i question the longterm fit. If we were going to sellout and get someone who doesn't fit in agewise with what we appear to be planning, I'd rather bring in Rip Hamilton.

Krapinsky · Post #11 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 4:31 am

jade_hippo wrote:I'd love Butler also, but i question the longterm fit. If we were going to sellout and get someone who doesn't fit in agewise with what we appear to be planning, I'd rather bring in Rip Hamilton.

Why? He's two years older, can't shoot from distance, has recent injury question marks, and has a bad contract. That doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

jade_hippo · Post #12 » by **jade_hippo** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 4:40 am

Dr.Krapinsky wrote:
jade_hippo wrote:I'd love Butler also, but i question the longterm fit. If we were going to sellout and get someone who doesn't fit in agewise with what we appear to be planning, I'd rather bring in Rip Hamilton.

Why? He's two years older, can't shoot from distance, has recent injury question marks, and has a bad contract. That doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

he actually got a better 3% than Butler for his career. Butler has had injuries also, so don't write him off as a risk. His contract isn't THAT much worse than Butlers and we wouldn't have to worry about him bolting as soon. I also think that Hamilton won't drop off as bad as he gets older jsut due to his style of play, and if he does, he's big enough to guard SF's and we still have Brewer to guard the faster guards

Krapinsky · Post #13 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 5:15 am

jade_hippo wrote:
Dr.Krapinsky wrote:
jade_hippo wrote:I'd love Butler also, but i question the longterm fit. If we were going to sellout and get someone who doesn't fit in agewise with what we appear to be planning, I'd rather bring in Rip Hamilton.

Why? He's two years older, can't shoot from distance, has recent injury question marks, and has a bad contract. That doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

he actually got a better 3% than Butler for his career. Butler has had injuries also, so don't write him off as a risk. His contract isn't THAT much worse than Butlers and we wouldn't have to worry about him bolting as soon. I also think that Hamilton won't drop off as bad as he gets older jsut due to his style of play, and if he does, he's big enough to guard SF's and we still have Brewer to guard the faster guards

All fair points. You made me want Butler even less, but I still don't want Hamilton.

jade_hippo · Post #14 » by **jade_hippo** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 6:15 am

Dr.Krapinsky wrote:All fair points. You made me want Butler even less, but I still don't want Hamilton.

Rip Hamilton also has a beard. And also once had tiretracks on his head. All Butler did was go to jail.

skorff26 · Post #15 » by **skorff26** » Tue Jan 5, 2010 8:02 am

I can't see Washington doing it.

I would do it for Minnesota, I think McGee can definitely develop on our team. I would then flip Butler somewhere else nearer the deadline to someone who wants him and pick up some asset for him.