Butler trade rumor - KC Johnson update: pg 63

[Jimako10]

I love how 'when did a team win a championship from tanking' became an argument, like going out of your way to get bad is somehow a different situation than being bad in the first place. There are lots of elite cores built from the draft.

You can't say a tank is a failure if you don't get a player better than Butler. The point of a blow up is that you can't get a good enough team around Butler. A blow up gives you multiple high pick chances, cap flexibility, and trade flexibility that we don't have right now.

Also, if you do Brown and both BKN picks, for instance, that's 3 top 5 picks right there. With the Bulls pick both this year and next, that's 4 extremely strong lottery picks in a 2 year period, including a possible #1 this year and next, a 3rd overall in Brown from last year, and the Kings pick on top of that. This is not including what returns you get on the supporting cast.

That's a completely different ball park than happening to suck and having 1 top pick every year.

I'll add that the timing of the hypothetical tank (if you take the Boston package) aligns when Lebron and the Cavs are most likely going to be in decline.

What are the odds that GarPax can build a contender with Butler to at least somewhat challenge the Cavs in the next 4-5 years? I'd say very slim. At that point, now you have Butler leaving his prime, team devoid of assets, and now you really have an unintentional tank that would last MUCH longer than the one you could have had if you had taken the Boston package.

[Red Larrivee]

I love how 'when did a team win a championship from tanking' became an argument, like going out of your way to get bad is somehow a different situation than being bad in the first place. There are lots of elite cores built from the draft.

You can't say a tank is a failure if you don't get a player better than Butler. The point of a blow up is that you can't get a good enough team around Butler.

You're missing the point that this could still very well be the bottomline even if you do tank.

Your mention cap flexibility, but what difference maker is going to go to a bad team in a league where everyone has cap space? It's basically going to be the early 2000's Bulls trying to sign Tracy McGrady and Tim Duncan all over again. At least with Jimmy Butler here, there's a reasonable chance that a player or two will want to play with him. Hell, Al Horford wanted to play in Boston because of Isaiah Thomas.

Tanking requires a huge leap of faith with no promises that you'll even return to the point of just being a playoff team. You pretty much have to hit big to make all that losing worth it. Otherwise, you comprimised ticket sales, merchandise, playoff revenue and a whole lot of other things for nothing. See: 2016-2017 Orlando Magic.

[the ultimates]

Let's say you have a $50,000 lottery ticket (Butler). Why would you use that $50,000 ticket to go buy more lottery tickets (rebuild) hoping you get a ticket or tickets(draft picks/young players) worth more than the one you currently have?

[kingkirk]

I never said the Bulls had to win a championship with their new core to justify tanking. I said they had to get a player better than JImmy Butler to justify it. You can't spend years missing out on playoff revenue, merchandise sales, etc. all while having a terrible on-court product just so you can get the next Jimmy Butler. That's not progress.

No, it's not. But if you get 2-3 John Wall, Kemba Walker level players and win 50-55 games for 4-7 years, it is still a fail.

[kingkirk]

Calling what Seattle did a tank is a stretch. They traded a 31 year old Ray Allen after he had been there 5 and a half seasons while trying to build around him and Rashard Lewis. Allen's last two seasons produced 35 and 31 wins respectively. The Thunder didn't make it back to the playoffs until 2009-2010 when Ray would have been 34 years old. So what's the use of having him around during the rebuild?

It’s really not. The only thing that has changed is peoples definition of what tanking is because Philly set the new baseline.

Teams that sell off their veterans for younger players and stay bad are now perceived as a ‘rebuilding’ team. Someone actively going out and saying they will be bad to increase their chances at the draft by moving players is now perceived as ‘tanking’ and actively looking to lose games and play the system.

The principle is the same thing: you build with young players, and in turn, you stay bad to collect more picks to add to the already signed younger players.

If you wanting to classify the Sonics as a rebuilding scenario instead of tanking, do so. The principle is the same thing. It’s all about building through the draft. Only now, one has a negative connotation while the other doesn’t.

[Ben]

Let's say you have a $50,000 lottery ticket (Butler). Why would you use that $50,000 ticket to go buy more lottery tickets (rebuild) hoping you get a ticket or tickets(draft picks/young players) worth more than the one you currently have?

Or put it this way:

Butler is a star, bordering on superstar. He's obviously not Lebron, and he's not at the Westbrook level, and he's not statistically at the Harden level although he plays much, much better defense than Harden.

A championship team almost certainly needs 2 or 3 players of Butler's level or higher. Cleveland had Lebron, who's higher, plus Kyrie and Kevin, about whom we could dicker but are surely at star level. GSW had Steph and Klay the year they won it all, plus a very well-balanced cast and a great coaching scheme. Miami had the 3 am-EGOs.

We already have ONE guy, Butler, who's at the star level. Yes, we need at least one and probably two more (plus a much better coach than Hoiberg) to compete at the elite level.
BUT
With that in mind, why would you trade away the one guy you know is already at star level, just hoping to get 2 or 3 guys as good as him EVENTUALLY? Why wouldn't you make him your foundation and try to put guys around him? Let's stipulate that we hope to draft very well, because if we don't stipulate that then you're not going to get the multiple stars you need after a rebuild, anyway.

People talk about Minnesota being in endless-rebuild mode, or multiple other teams. But it could be worse. I was watching the Nets today, and it's about as grim for those guys as one could imagine. They have Brook Lopez, a soon-to-be 29 year old center who's offensively gifted but doesn't rebound or play much D, and doesn't play 36mpg, and just a few decent but not great power forwards, and just about no one else. At the 1/2/3 they're atrocious, and they don't even have a bunch of former high-lottery players as many other rebuilding teams do. Many of their guys are just flat-out scrubs. AND, as we all know, they don't even get their own draft pick this year. Unless they luck into a Butler type of player where Boston's draft pick lands (since the two teams will swap draft picks), they're facing a loooong road to perdition.

That could be us. Or Minny could be us. Or Sacramento.

No thank you. Build around Jimmy.

[Red Larrivee]

I never said the Bulls had to win a championship with their new core to justify tanking. I said they had to get a player better than JImmy Butler to justify it. You can't spend years missing out on playoff revenue, merchandise sales, etc. all while having a terrible on-court product just so you can get the next Jimmy Butler. That's not progress.

No, it's not. But if you get 2-3 John Wall, Kemba Walker level players and win 50-55 games for 4-7 years, it is still a fail.

And what is the likelihood that you will draft 3 John Wall level players?

[Leslie Forman]

Your mention cap flexibility, but what difference maker is going to go to a bad team in a league where everyone has cap space? It's basically going to be the early 2000's Bulls trying to sign Tracy McGrady and Tim Duncan all over again. At least with Jimmy Butler here, there's a reasonable chance that a player or two will want to play with him. Hell, Al Horford wanted to play in Boston because of Isaiah Thomas.

This seems like a pretty pointless argument when Al Horford is in Boston…and not Chicago.

Durant. Horford. Whiteside. Not here. Lebron. Not here. Bosh. Melo. Wade when he wasn't 34 years old. Not here.

This has been going on since 2000. Why? Who knows. A variety of reasons. But if using the draft to get those great talents is what seems impossible…what in the goddamn hell is free agency?

[Red Larrivee]

This seems like a pretty pointless argument when Al Horford is in Boston…and not Chicago.

The simple point is that a competitive team with an all-star or star player, can reasonably attract another player.

Durant. Horford. Whiteside. Not here. Lebron. Not here. Bosh. Melo. Wade when he wasn't 34 years old. Not here.

This has been going on since 2000. Why? Who knows. A variety of reasons. But if using the draft to get those great talents is what seems impossible…what in the goddamn hell is free agency?

Something that is less of a crapshoot than the NBA Draft.

[the ultimates]

Calling what Seattle did a tank is a stretch. They traded a 31 year old Ray Allen after he had been there 5 and a half seasons while trying to build around him and Rashard Lewis. Allen's last two seasons produced 35 and 31 wins respectively. The Thunder didn't make it back to the playoffs until 2009-2010 when Ray would have been 34 years old. So what's the use of having him around during the rebuild?

It’s really not. The only thing that has changed is peoples definition of what tanking is because Philly set the new baseline.

Teams that sell off their veterans for younger players and stay bad are now perceived as a ‘rebuilding’ team. Someone actively going out and saying they will be bad to increase their chances at the draft by moving players is now perceived as ‘tanking’ and actively looking to lose games and play the system.

The principle is the same thing: you build with young players, and in turn, you stay bad to collect more picks to add to the already signed younger players.

If you wanting to classify the Sonics as a rebuilding scenario instead of tanking, do so. The principle is the same thing. It’s all about building through the draft. Only now, one has a negative connotation while the other doesn’t.

It's not the same thing. In a rebuild you tried but couldn't for whatever reasons put an elite team around a star/superstar player in his prime (if you're fortunate enough to have that).Though said players age and diminishing returns as far as wins leads a team to go in another direction and rebuild. Tanking is the constant roster churning of players and picks looking for looking a star/superstar talent that said rebuilding team had but faded.

They will both feature a lot of losing and young players as you noted. How you got to that point however is more meaningful than just mere semantics.

[Leslie Forman]

Durant. Horford. Whiteside. Not here. Lebron. Not here. Bosh. Melo. Wade when he wasn't 34 years old. Not here.

This has been going on since 2000. Why? Who knows. A variety of reasons. But if using the draft to get those great talents is what seems impossible…what in the goddamn hell is free agency?

Something that is less of a crapshoot than the NBA Draft.

The entire history of the Chicago Bulls completely contradicts this opinion.

[Red Larrivee]

The entire history of the Chicago Bulls completely contradicts this opinion.

Just like the entire history of Chicago Bulls basketball completely contradicts the success of tanking.

Free agency is a much more tangible process than the NBA Draft, and it's really not close.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Durant. Horford. Whiteside. Not here. Lebron. Not here. Bosh. Melo. Wade when he wasn't 34 years old. Not here.

This has been going on since 2000. Why? Who knows. A variety of reasons. But if using the draft to get those great talents is what seems impossible…what in the goddamn hell is free agency?

Something that is less of a crapshoot than the NBA Draft.

The entire history of the Chicago Bulls completely contradicts this opinion.

Very true.

To bet on this front office to succeed at free agency over the draft is ignoring years of data suggesting otherwise.

[Leslie Forman]

The entire history of the Chicago Bulls completely contradicts this opinion.

Just like the entire history of Chicago Bulls basketball completely contradicts the success of tanking.

Free agency is a much more tangible process than the NBA Draft, and it's really not close.

I don't necessarily think the Bulls should go and trade Butler, unless it's a truly worthy trade package…but the idea that free agency is somehow the answer when it has literally never been the answer in the entire history of the franchise seems completely, utterly insane.

I mean, you and others keep asking for examples of tanking resulting in championships…why don't you list all the examples of amazing free agency signings in the history of this franchise?

One. Just one. List one great free agency signing.

[MrSparkle]

Let's say you have a $50,000 lottery ticket (Butler). Why would you use that $50,000 ticket to go buy more lottery tickets (rebuild) hoping you get a ticket or tickets(draft picks/young players) worth more than the one you currently have?

Or put it this way:

Butler is a star, bordering on superstar. He's obviously not Lebron, and he's not at the Westbrook level, and he's not statistically at the Harden level although he plays much, much better defense than Harden.

A championship team almost certainly needs 2 or 3 players of Butler's level or higher. Cleveland had Lebron, who's higher, plus Kyrie and Kevin, about whom we could dicker but are surely at star level. GSW had Steph and Klay the year they won it all, plus a very well-balanced cast and a great coaching scheme. Miami had the 3 am-EGOs.

We already have ONE guy, Butler, who's at the star level. Yes, we need at least one and probably two more (plus a much better coach than Hoiberg) to compete at the elite level.
BUT
With that in mind, why would you trade away the one guy you know is already at star level, just hoping to get 2 or 3 guys as good as him EVENTUALLY? Why wouldn't you make him your foundation and try to put guys around him? Let's stipulate that we hope to draft very well, because if we don't stipulate that then you're not going to get the multiple stars you need after a rebuild, anyway.

People talk about Minnesota being in endless-rebuild mode, or multiple other teams. But it could be worse. I was watching the Nets today, and it's about as grim for those guys as one could imagine. They have Brook Lopez, a soon-to-be 29 year old center who's offensively gifted but doesn't rebound or play much D, and doesn't play 36mpg, and just a few decent but not great power forwards, and just about no one else. At the 1/2/3 they're atrocious, and they don't even have a bunch of former high-lottery players as many other rebuilding teams do. Many of their guys are just flat-out scrubs. AND, as we all know, they don't even get their own draft pick this year. Unless they luck into a Butler type of player where Boston's draft pick lands (since the two teams will swap draft picks), they're facing a loooong road to perdition.

That could be us. Or Minny could be us. Or Sacramento.

No thank you. Build around Jimmy.

Exactly.

And the fire-sales are beginning. They're not superstars, but fringe all-stars are gonna be dangled at the deadline, and it's to their teams' advantage to sell them and not sit. Unless another stupid GM comes around and overpays, I think we have a shot at adding 1-2 very good players without losing any of our top-5 options.

Teams like Atlanta, Denver, maybe even the Jazz ... they're in more of a "basketball hell" then we are, because their best players don't give them any championship hopes. Celtics are also in that boat unless they hit the jackpot with the BRK pick (not another Jaylen Brown), or make a trade for a Jimmy Butler without sacrificing too much.

We know that Toronto and Boston are gonna aggressively look at ways of improving. They have a lot of assets and need to consolidate. And their needs our opposite from ours -- we need to upgrade SF defense and PG shooting, and they are massively loaded at those positions, so I don't see them pursuing W. Chandler or B. Knight. IMO we might be able to get them really cheap.

I can see TOR/BOS bidding hard for Faried and Millsap though, although it'd be a gamble with the latter since he's got a player option.

Indiana, LAC and SAS may want to boost their contending hopes, but I don't think they have enough tradeable and expendable assets to get something done.

[Red Larrivee]

I don't necessarily think the Bulls should go and trade Butler, unless it's a truly worthy trade package…but the idea that free agency is somehow the answer when it has literally never been the answer in the entire history of the franchise seems completely, utterly insane.

I mean, you and others keep asking for examples of tanking resulting in championships…why don't you list all the examples of amazing free agency signings in the history of this franchise?

One. Just one. List one great free agency signing.

The 2010-12 Bulls teams definitely wouldn't have been as good without signing Boozer, Korver and Brewer. Obviously, Boozer wasn't a great long-term signing, but it's an example of how adding the right type of free agents can help boost a team. That's the scenario the front office has to aim for again.

[Leslie Forman]

I don't necessarily think the Bulls should go and trade Butler, unless it's a truly worthy trade package…but the idea that free agency is somehow the answer when it has literally never been the answer in the entire history of the franchise seems completely, utterly insane.

I mean, you and others keep asking for examples of tanking resulting in championships…why don't you list all the examples of amazing free agency signings in the history of this franchise?

One. Just one. List one great free agency signing.

The 2010-12 Bulls teams definitely wouldn't have been as good without signing Boozer, Korver and Brewer. Obviously, Boozer wasn't a great long-term signing, but it's an example of how adding the right type of free agents can help boost a team. That's the scenario the front office has to aim for again.

None of those guys were even among the top-3, arguably top-4 players on the entire team (depends on your opinion of Taj vs. Booz).

People here are complaining that the odds of drafting a LeBron are too low…and you're here pushing the signings of Boozer and Korver. You've got to be kidding.

[Red Larrivee]

I don't necessarily think the Bulls should go and trade Butler, unless it's a truly worthy trade package…but the idea that free agency is somehow the answer when it has literally never been the answer in the entire history of the franchise seems completely, utterly insane.

I mean, you and others keep asking for examples of tanking resulting in championships…why don't you list all the examples of amazing free agency signings in the history of this franchise?

One. Just one. List one great free agency signing.

The 2010-12 Bulls teams definitely wouldn't have been as good without signing Boozer, Korver and Brewer. Obviously, Boozer wasn't a great long-term signing, but it's an example of how adding the right type of free agents can help boost a team. That's the scenario the front office has to aim for again.

None of those guys were even among the top-3, arguably top-4 players on the entire team (depends on your opinion of Taj vs. Booz).

People here are complaining that the odds of drafting a LeBron are too low…and you're here pushing the signings of Boozer and Korver. You've got to be kidding.

Last I checked, the Bulls saw a 21 game improvement after that offseason and Paxson tied Riley for Executive of the Year. You're lying if if you don't think that the Bulls 2010 free agency didn't help improve the team significantly. That is the scenario they need to duplicate. It can be through trades, free agency, or both.

[Leslie Forman]

The 2010-12 Bulls teams definitely wouldn't have been as good without signing Boozer, Korver and Brewer. Obviously, Boozer wasn't a great long-term signing, but it's an example of how adding the right type of free agents can help boost a team. That's the scenario the front office has to aim for again.

None of those guys were even among the top-3, arguably top-4 players on the entire team (depends on your opinion of Taj vs. Booz).

People here are complaining that the odds of drafting a LeBron are too low…and you're here pushing the signings of Boozer and Korver. You've got to be kidding.

Last I checked, the Bulls saw a 21 game improvement after that offseason and Paxson tied Riley for Executive of the Year. You're lying if if you don't think that the Bulls 2010 free agency didn't help improve the team significantly. That is the scenario they need to duplicate. It can be through trades, free agency, or both.

It just happened to be Thibs's first year, Rose's third year, Noah's fourth year and Taj's second year. But whatever. It doesn't matter.

So they sign Booz and Korver.

The Derrick Rose of this team is basically here, albeit much older. Where do Joakim Noah, Luol Deng and Taj Gibson come from? Especially now with the new CBA?

[TankOverlord]

The time to tank is when you have a young future star and an aging star that may put someone else over the top. Like the Knicks.

The whole point of taking is to get a top 10 player. Most teams don't have this so it can be a viable strategy. Once you have that guy, why gamble for at best a marginal upgrade?

I'd rather take my chances that Doug/Niko/Val/MCW/kings pick/our pick become a legitimate sidekick. Once you get a great duo, then FA can get you the rest of the way. All it takes is one all star to like what he sees and join your team. Maybe Jimmy and Wade are already there, we just need more consistency from Fred and our other guys.