No one in Boston wants Jimmy Butler

[eitanr]

The bottom line is acquiring butler forces Boston to move an A plus asset and some. The fit is also real murky with Thomas and Smart.

Boston is better served waiting the Butler situation out more. Chicago will at best be in the same situation at the deadline with a frustrated butler and confusing long term plan. Boston would probably rather move one of their likely two top 5 2018 picks for him then, if they feel they are a butler away from contention.

What also has not been noted enough is Boston now being a more preferred destination for free agents. By moving a pick and cap for butler you are also essentially moving the ability to sign someone for those same said dollars.

[Dengness9]

So many great responses! Really appreciated some of those posts with great insight. I agree with so much of it.

I just want to say this, IT taking a discount? Can't imagine. Dude never got a payday like the one coming, whether that is from C's or elsewhere. I know Boston would never trade him after all they've been through together, but Ainge is going to arrive at the day where IT is gonna command 150-200 mil and he will have to let him walk, especially if he isn't trading all these lotto and potential lotto picks, some of those players drafted in that spot would hopefully be due big paydays if they pan out.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense still to draft no 3 and go after Hayward. I understand there is still a lot the can be done for Boston to go get a Butler/PG13/etc near the deadline or even next summer.....

Just seems a little crazy to not get Butler now, to entice Gordon even more to come here....im saying it will be tough to watch Boston get Gordon but not Jimmy and come up short against Cavs or another team yet again the playoffs....

[pasfru]

So this random Celtics fan comes on to our Bulls board with this post. We all know that Celtics have had interest in Butler, now whether the recent trade of picks with Sixers may not be any true indication that another move to trade for Butler, I'm curious to know whether this above posters opinions are based on reality?

Does no one in Boston want Butler? To be fair, I'll revise the question, would the majority of the fan base disagree with the pursuit of Butler?

I would say its accurate to say the majority of fans would pass on Butler. He would cost a lot but wouldnt really make the team that much better, him having bad knees certainly doesent help.

PG13 for example likely costs none of our major assets, probably worth rolling the dice on convincing him to stay rather than paying an arm and a leg for butler who only has 1 more year.

That and your GM seems to VASTLY over value him

How can any reasonable person say that adding an All-NBA player to their roster wouldn't really make their team all that much better? It's like saying, if the Bulls added Paul George (who isn't even likely to be an All-NBA player) that he wouldn't make the Bulls all that much better. Of course he would. Now, would he be the difference between the Bulls being a first round victim to be a championships team? Of course not, but fantastic talent, is fantastic talent and him and Butler paired together would of course make the Bulls a better team.

I get it, the majority of Celtics fans don't want to give up the assets most likely required to get a player like Butler, but then to justify this position by saying on top of that because Butler wouldn't make the Celtics better is a little absurd. Adding Butler to the back court alongside IT would be absolutely filthy, with Butler being able to cover IT on the defensive. Not to mention, the already good defensive wing players the Celtics have, would just add another fantastic defensive player who comes with very high clutch genes in late game situations.

Most people here don't watch the Bulls so they don't really rate him.

I really like Jimmy. Wouldn't mind if we traded the #3 for him at this point. Would've preferred to keep the 1st pick above all else, but it is what it is.

[Pnjguy]

Lakers have missed the playoffs a few seasons in a row and have an estimated operating income of 119 million this past season. I realize that is an extreme example but Bulls can make more money missing the playoffs with a low salary structure for the team than making the playoffs with a large payroll and being a first or 2nd round exit. Even if Cavs fall apart, there will be some team that emerges in the EC whether that be Philly or Milwaukee.

Chicago as an 8th seed with an old Wade and an aging Butler isn't relevant right now at all and haven't been relevant since Rose/Noah were young and healthy. But the Bulls are probably making lots of money since they don't have a high payroll. However, the rebuilding Celtics and I highly suspect rebuilding Lakers have shown that you can make boatloads of money and miss the playoffs. C's only missed playoffs once during their rebuild but they still made a boatload of money in terms of operating income according to Forbes and would have the next year as well even if they were a bottom 5 team. You cut salaries of your team in the NBA/stay below luxury tax and pretty much any big market team in the NBA like Chicago and even Boston, it is probably an "easy" 30+ million profit for the owners and soon that will increase with new TV contract kicking in. It is like printing money since fans don't cancel tickets fast enough and teams get a huge cut of the national TV contract. Not hard to sell/hope draft picks as well.

The real money is corporate sponsorship partnerships and selling out your corporate sky boxes. Not to mention the Bulls are one of the few global brands (thanks to Jordan). You need starts to maintain that status. A bunch of kids who lose don't sell to those type of people. Guys like Wade and Butler do, that's why the Bulls are relevant despite being mediocre. They're a mediocre team but those guys are constantly on TV selling the Bulls and themselves. The risk of rebuilding is being bad for 5-6 years and never being able to attract any superstars. The post Jordan Bulls were miserable years and it took multiple swings and misses in the lottery before lucking into the #1 pick to get them back. Not worth it for an extra swing at a lottery pick.

[soxfan2003]

Lakers have missed the playoffs a few seasons in a row and have an estimated operating income of 119 million this past season. I realize that is an extreme example but Bulls can make more money missing the playoffs with a low salary structure for the team than making the playoffs with a large payroll and being a first or 2nd round exit. Even if Cavs fall apart, there will be some team that emerges in the EC whether that be Philly or Milwaukee.

Chicago as an 8th seed with an old Wade and an aging Butler isn't relevant right now at all and haven't been relevant since Rose/Noah were young and healthy. But the Bulls are probably making lots of money since they don't have a high payroll. However, the rebuilding Celtics and I highly suspect rebuilding Lakers have shown that you can make boatloads of money and miss the playoffs. C's only missed playoffs once during their rebuild but they still made a boatload of money in terms of operating income according to Forbes and would have the next year as well even if they were a bottom 5 team. You cut salaries of your team in the NBA/stay below luxury tax and pretty much any big market team in the NBA like Chicago and even Boston, it is probably an "easy" 30+ million profit for the owners and soon that will increase with new TV contract kicking in. It is like printing money since fans don't cancel tickets fast enough and teams get a huge cut of the national TV contract. Not hard to sell/hope draft picks as well.

The real money is corporate sponsorship partnerships and selling out your corporate sky boxes. Not to mention the Bulls are one of the few global brands (thanks to Jordan). You need starts to maintain that status. A bunch of kids who lose don't sell to those type of people. Guys like Wade and Butler do, that's why the Bulls are relevant despite being mediocre. They're a mediocre team but those guys are constantly on TV selling the Bulls and themselves. The risk of rebuilding is being bad for 5-6 years and never being able to attract any superstars. The post Jordan Bulls were miserable years and it took multiple swings and misses in the lottery before lucking into the #1 pick to get them back. Not worth it for an extra swing at a lottery pick.

Where do you think the Bulls are headed in 2-3 years when Butler isn't as good and there probably isn't enough young emerging stars/players to attract premium FAs. Will a superstar want to play with a 30 year old Butler on a max deal? Carmelo Anthony in New York didn't have players dying to play with him and he was more known than Butler. I have always placed the large market Bulls in similar position to Boston in terms of attracting FAs. If they have great young talent and cap room or just a great situation, they could attract nearly anyone including a KD but like the Celtics they aren't the sort of big market warm weather destination that the megastars would necessarily choose if they are a 25 win team without promise or a 45 win team that is more than 1 star away. Chicago obviously huge market especially considering only 1 team -- NY/LA have 2 teams -- but not warm weather and I suspect some players are turned off by Michael Jordan's legacy/shadow and that may make building through the draft by tanking and trades even more important. And the national spotlight not on the Bulls like NY Knicks or LAL.

Best way to measure Bulls relevancy nationally may be to look at road attendance for their games. They were 11th out of 30 teams and I suspect that had more to do with Chicago being such a large city that a lot of people that moved out of the area will go to an occasional road Bulls game. I live in Warriors country and the amount of Bulls talk when I hear fans talk about teams other than GSW and the Cavs is not high. They don't have an exciting star player that fans talk about or a team fans perceive as potentially great in a few years like perhaps the Bucks/76ers/Wolves.

A lot of the corporate sponsorships/luxury boxes are long term contracts that corporations don't want to get rid of at renewal time even if the team is bad. In the absence of a recession, Bulls probably sell 90-95% of their tickets even if they are bad and they can make up for the reduced income from cutting player payroll.

Michael Jordan/Nike is obviously a huge global international brand and that will always keep Chicago known to a certain extent but how much have the Bulls ownership themselves really profited from it the past 10 years compared to a team like the Thunder? End of day, if Bulls are still a super profitable global brand outside of US/Canada nearly 20 years after Jordan which I don't think they really are to any significant extent, 3-4 more down years won't hurt them given all of the other down years they have had. Jordan probably talked about for another 100 years like Babe Ruth but how much the Bulls themselves benefit is a different question..

People in the USA barely watch the first round of the playoffs and if that is the case, how many people do you think in China/Europe really prioritize watching Jimmy Butler play vs IT. I suspect not many at all and Bulls aren't really cashing in on it much themselves. I don't think Celtics owners pockets are being lined with overseas dollars despite the team winning a championship in 2008 and having a 3-5 year stretch of relevancy in the US.

[Pnjguy]

Lakers have missed the playoffs a few seasons in a row and have an estimated operating income of 119 million this past season. I realize that is an extreme example but Bulls can make more money missing the playoffs with a low salary structure for the team than making the playoffs with a large payroll and being a first or 2nd round exit. Even if Cavs fall apart, there will be some team that emerges in the EC whether that be Philly or Milwaukee.

Chicago as an 8th seed with an old Wade and an aging Butler isn't relevant right now at all and haven't been relevant since Rose/Noah were young and healthy. But the Bulls are probably making lots of money since they don't have a high payroll. However, the rebuilding Celtics and I highly suspect rebuilding Lakers have shown that you can make boatloads of money and miss the playoffs. C's only missed playoffs once during their rebuild but they still made a boatload of money in terms of operating income according to Forbes and would have the next year as well even if they were a bottom 5 team. You cut salaries of your team in the NBA/stay below luxury tax and pretty much any big market team in the NBA like Chicago and even Boston, it is probably an "easy" 30+ million profit for the owners and soon that will increase with new TV contract kicking in. It is like printing money since fans don't cancel tickets fast enough and teams get a huge cut of the national TV contract. Not hard to sell/hope draft picks as well.

The real money is corporate sponsorship partnerships and selling out your corporate sky boxes. Not to mention the Bulls are one of the few global brands (thanks to Jordan). You need starts to maintain that status. A bunch of kids who lose don't sell to those type of people. Guys like Wade and Butler do, that's why the Bulls are relevant despite being mediocre. They're a mediocre team but those guys are constantly on TV selling the Bulls and themselves. The risk of rebuilding is being bad for 5-6 years and never being able to attract any superstars. The post Jordan Bulls were miserable years and it took multiple swings and misses in the lottery before lucking into the #1 pick to get them back. Not worth it for an extra swing at a lottery pick.

Where do you think the Bulls are headed in 2-3 years when Butler isn't as good and there probably isn't enough young emerging stars/players to attract premium FAs. Will a superstar want to play with a 30 year old Butler on a max deal? Carmelo Anthony in New York didn't have players dying to play with him and he was more known than Butler. I have always placed the large market Bulls in similar position to Boston in terms of attracting FAs. If they have great young talent and cap room or just a great situation, they could attract nearly anyone including a KD but like the Celtics they aren't the sort of big market warm weather destination that the megastars would necessarily choose if they are a 25 win team without promise or a 45 win team that is more than 1 star away. Chicago obviously huge market especially considering only 1 team -- NY/LA have 2 teams -- but not warm weather and I suspect some players are turned off by Michael Jordan's legacy/shadow and that may make building through the draft by tanking and trades even more important. And the national spotlight not on the Bulls like NY Knicks or LAL.

Best way to measure Bulls relevancy nationally may be to look at road attendance for their games. They were 11th out of 30 teams and I suspect that had more to do with Chicago being such a large city that a lot of people that moved out of the area will go to an occasional road Bulls game. I live in Warriors country and the amount of Bulls talk when I hear fans talk about teams other than GSW and the Cavs is not high. They don't have an exciting star player that fans talk about or a team fans perceive as potentially great in a few years like perhaps the Bucks/76ers/Wolves.

A lot of the corporate sponsorships/luxury boxes are long term contracts that corporations don't want to get rid of at renewal time even if the team is bad. In the absence of a recession, Bulls probably sell 90-95% of their tickets even if they are bad and they can make up for the reduced income from cutting player payroll.

Michael Jordan/Nike is obviously a huge global international brand and that will always keep Chicago known to a certain extent but how much have the Bulls ownership themselves really profited from it the past 10 years compared to a team like the Thunder? End of day, if Bulls are still a super profitable global brand outside of US/Canada nearly 20 years after Jordan which I don't think they really are to any significant extent, 3-4 more down years won't hurt them given all of the other down years they have had. Jordan probably talked about for another 100 years like Babe Ruth but how much the Bulls themselves benefit is a different question..

People in the USA barely watch the first round of the playoffs and if that is the case, how many people do you think in China/Europe really prioritize watching Jimmy Butler play vs IT. I suspect not many at all and Bulls aren't really cashing in on it much themselves. I don't think Celtics owners pockets are being lined with overseas dollars despite the team winning a championship in 2008 and having a 3-5 year stretch of relevancy in the US.

You can pontificate all you want, but the Bulls think otherwise. I don't know what to tell you. Butler is not a 'disgruntled' star, he wants to stay in Chicago because he's on track for the supermax. No reason to sell him for 40 cents on the dollar.

[soxfan2003]

The real money is corporate sponsorship partnerships and selling out your corporate sky boxes. Not to mention the Bulls are one of the few global brands (thanks to Jordan). You need starts to maintain that status. A bunch of kids who lose don't sell to those type of people. Guys like Wade and Butler do, that's why the Bulls are relevant despite being mediocre. They're a mediocre team but those guys are constantly on TV selling the Bulls and themselves. The risk of rebuilding is being bad for 5-6 years and never being able to attract any superstars. The post Jordan Bulls were miserable years and it took multiple swings and misses in the lottery before lucking into the #1 pick to get them back. Not worth it for an extra swing at a lottery pick.

Where do you think the Bulls are headed in 2-3 years when Butler isn't as good and there probably isn't enough young emerging stars/players to attract premium FAs. Will a superstar want to play with a 30 year old Butler on a max deal? Carmelo Anthony in New York didn't have players dying to play with him and he was more known than Butler. I have always placed the large market Bulls in similar position to Boston in terms of attracting FAs. If they have great young talent and cap room or just a great situation, they could attract nearly anyone including a KD but like the Celtics they aren't the sort of big market warm weather destination that the megastars would necessarily choose if they are a 25 win team without promise or a 45 win team that is more than 1 star away. Chicago obviously huge market especially considering only 1 team -- NY/LA have 2 teams -- but not warm weather and I suspect some players are turned off by Michael Jordan's legacy/shadow and that may make building through the draft by tanking and trades even more important. And the national spotlight not on the Bulls like NY Knicks or LAL.

Best way to measure Bulls relevancy nationally may be to look at road attendance for their games. They were 11th out of 30 teams and I suspect that had more to do with Chicago being such a large city that a lot of people that moved out of the area will go to an occasional road Bulls game. I live in Warriors country and the amount of Bulls talk when I hear fans talk about teams other than GSW and the Cavs is not high. They don't have an exciting star player that fans talk about or a team fans perceive as potentially great in a few years like perhaps the Bucks/76ers/Wolves.

A lot of the corporate sponsorships/luxury boxes are long term contracts that corporations don't want to get rid of at renewal time even if the team is bad. In the absence of a recession, Bulls probably sell 90-95% of their tickets even if they are bad and they can make up for the reduced income from cutting player payroll.

Michael Jordan/Nike is obviously a huge global international brand and that will always keep Chicago known to a certain extent but how much have the Bulls ownership themselves really profited from it the past 10 years compared to a team like the Thunder? End of day, if Bulls are still a super profitable global brand outside of US/Canada nearly 20 years after Jordan which I don't think they really are to any significant extent, 3-4 more down years won't hurt them given all of the other down years they have had. Jordan probably talked about for another 100 years like Babe Ruth but how much the Bulls themselves benefit is a different question..

People in the USA barely watch the first round of the playoffs and if that is the case, how many people do you think in China/Europe really prioritize watching Jimmy Butler play vs IT. I suspect not many at all and Bulls aren't really cashing in on it much themselves. I don't think Celtics owners pockets are being lined with overseas dollars despite the team winning a championship in 2008 and having a 3-5 year stretch of relevancy in the US.

You can pontificate all you want, but the Bulls think otherwise. I don't know what to tell you. Butler is not a 'disgruntled' star, he wants to stay in Chicago because he's on track for the supermax. No reason to sell him for 40 cents on the dollar.

Fine. Celtics/Ainge clearly don't want to pay Bulls asking price and I am very happy about that since I wouldn't consider him anything more than a 2 year rental since I wouldn't want the Celtics on his next contract to pay him anything above around 60-75 of the max salary. A lot of C's fans don't really want him since they don't think he will be that good 3-4 years from now and I am one of them. Rather go younger or gamble on a better fit with Paul George on a discount since at least the presence of PG guarantees Lakers don't him for next season and makes that Lakers pick more likely to be top 2-5. George has a better shot and is longer so may age better.

But I am perfectly happy with Ainge just going youth movement. Pick a player at 3. Trade some vets for another lottery pick like the MN pick at 7. Chicago being unrealistic on their demands for Butler is very beneficial to Boston since it helps Boston get that MN pick which isn't nearly as valuable as the #3 pick but still nice.

I actually appreciate what the Bulls are doing at this point since it helps my favorite team the Boston Celtics.

[Pnjguy]

Where do you think the Bulls are headed in 2-3 years when Butler isn't as good and there probably isn't enough young emerging stars/players to attract premium FAs. Will a superstar want to play with a 30 year old Butler on a max deal? Carmelo Anthony in New York didn't have players dying to play with him and he was more known than Butler. I have always placed the large market Bulls in similar position to Boston in terms of attracting FAs. If they have great young talent and cap room or just a great situation, they could attract nearly anyone including a KD but like the Celtics they aren't the sort of big market warm weather destination that the megastars would necessarily choose if they are a 25 win team without promise or a 45 win team that is more than 1 star away. Chicago obviously huge market especially considering only 1 team -- NY/LA have 2 teams -- but not warm weather and I suspect some players are turned off by Michael Jordan's legacy/shadow and that may make building through the draft by tanking and trades even more important. And the national spotlight not on the Bulls like NY Knicks or LAL.

Best way to measure Bulls relevancy nationally may be to look at road attendance for their games. They were 11th out of 30 teams and I suspect that had more to do with Chicago being such a large city that a lot of people that moved out of the area will go to an occasional road Bulls game. I live in Warriors country and the amount of Bulls talk when I hear fans talk about teams other than GSW and the Cavs is not high. They don't have an exciting star player that fans talk about or a team fans perceive as potentially great in a few years like perhaps the Bucks/76ers/Wolves.

A lot of the corporate sponsorships/luxury boxes are long term contracts that corporations don't want to get rid of at renewal time even if the team is bad. In the absence of a recession, Bulls probably sell 90-95% of their tickets even if they are bad and they can make up for the reduced income from cutting player payroll.

Michael Jordan/Nike is obviously a huge global international brand and that will always keep Chicago known to a certain extent but how much have the Bulls ownership themselves really profited from it the past 10 years compared to a team like the Thunder? End of day, if Bulls are still a super profitable global brand outside of US/Canada nearly 20 years after Jordan which I don't think they really are to any significant extent, 3-4 more down years won't hurt them given all of the other down years they have had. Jordan probably talked about for another 100 years like Babe Ruth but how much the Bulls themselves benefit is a different question..

People in the USA barely watch the first round of the playoffs and if that is the case, how many people do you think in China/Europe really prioritize watching Jimmy Butler play vs IT. I suspect not many at all and Bulls aren't really cashing in on it much themselves. I don't think Celtics owners pockets are being lined with overseas dollars despite the team winning a championship in 2008 and having a 3-5 year stretch of relevancy in the US.

You can pontificate all you want, but the Bulls think otherwise. I don't know what to tell you. Butler is not a 'disgruntled' star, he wants to stay in Chicago because he's on track for the supermax. No reason to sell him for 40 cents on the dollar.

Fine. Celtics/Ainge clearly don't want to pay Bulls asking price and I am very happy about that since I wouldn't consider him anything more than a 2 year rental since I wouldn't want the Celtics on his next contract to pay him anything above around 60-75 of the max salary. A lot of C's fans don't really want him since they don't think he will be that good 3-4 years from now and I am one of them. Rather go younger or gamble on a better fit with Paul George on a discount since at least the presence of PG guarantees Lakers don't him for next season and makes that Lakers pick more likely to be top 2-5. George has a better shot and is longer so may age better.

But I am perfectly happy with Ainge just going youth movement. Pick a player at 3. Trade some vets for another lottery pick like the MN pick at 7. Chicago being unrealistic on their demands for Butler is very beneficial to Boston since it helps Boston get that MN pick which isn't nearly as valuable as the #3 pick but still nice.

I actually appreciate what the Bulls are doing at this point since it helps my favorite team the Boston Celtics.

Great, everybody's happy!

[theman]

Jimmy Butler would be a great pick up for the Celtics. Butler can defend lebron as well as anyone.

[CelticsSpurs]

Given what Minny gave for Butler, #3 and Brown would have gotten it done for Butler and 16. Would you have done it?

[Johnny Tomala]

Given what Minny gave for Butler, #3 and Brown would have gotten it done for Butler and 16. Would you have done it?

Yes. Hopefully we won't get Paul George - Butler is better than him and George will bolt to Lakers as FA.

[Celtic King]

Butler trade to Mini is good for both of those teams and I am glad we didn't get in on it. Hayward all the way now.

[Gant]

Apparently the thread headline was true.

[DJhitek]

As a Bulls fan, I'll say I'm stunned that the Bulls could not get anything more for Butler. I would argue that maybe Butler's value wasn't what anyone thought but since I don't trust our front office in the evaluation of talent I'll just say it's a sad day to be a Bulls fan.

Celts will obviously benefit from the level of patience that Ainge has displayed.

[31to6]

As a Bulls fan, I'll say I'm stunned that the Bulls could not get anything more for Butler. I would argue that maybe Butler's value wasn't what anyone thought but since I don't trust our front office in the evaluation of talent I'll just say it's a sad day to be a Bulls fan.

Celts will obviously benefit from the level of patience that Ainge has displayed.

I liked Dunn a lot at Providence and hope he blossoms.
LaVine's got huge potential.
The trade hit a blip when I realized you guys wouldn't take a guard at 7, but could still work out.

[DJhitek]

As a Bulls fan, I'll say I'm stunned that the Bulls could not get anything more for Butler. I would argue that maybe Butler's value wasn't what anyone thought but since I don't trust our front office in the evaluation of talent I'll just say it's a sad day to be a Bulls fan.

Celts will obviously benefit from the level of patience that Ainge has displayed.

I liked Dunn a lot at Providence and hope he blossoms.
LaVine's got huge potential.
The trade hit a blip when I realized you guys wouldn't take a guard at 7, but could still work out.

We needed to move on and tear it down. This is obviously an awful trade asset wise but the direction and possibility that this will finally lead to the firing of GarForman is important.

[Gurton Buster]

Celtics are not going to pay Thomas 20+ million when his time is up. I think Ainge wants Butler as a person who you can trust with the ball in his hands and someone who can d up Lebron. You can overpay for Butler because you can flip Thomas and Crowder for assets in 2 seconds.

Brown, the #3, and 2018 lotto pick for Butler

I think Ainge envisions a lineup of

Smart, Butler, Bradley, Heyward, Horford

lol