Would the Bulls 'reset' and trade Jimmy Butler this offseason ? What would Celtics need to give you?

[Ice Man]

Davis dragged a team to the playoffs in the West last year.

Fair enough. I might have exaggerated in equating Jimmy's impact with AD's (or maybe not). But as you know, AD is far better than the typical Top 3 pick. So the trade would not be Butler for AD + a couple of good Boston players. It would be Butler for a pick that is very likely to be worse than either AD or Jimmy, particularly over the next 2-3 years, plus a couple of good Boston players.

Yeah we could do that deal. It might work out. But that's not how I would bet.

[DarthDiggler69]

Jimmy Butler is so much better that the college players this board has lusted after -- Jabari, Embiid, Randle, Wiggins, Bennett, Olidapo (although he's good), KAT (ditto).

No trade, no thanks.

Id take Towns anyday over Jimmy and alot of other current allstars. Thats a rare player.

[MrSparkle]

Again, IMO Ainge wants Jimmy, but he's gonna save his ammo for the no-brainer moves first. Theoretically he'll have enough assets to acquire atleast one superstar.

Davis - dump of a situation in NOP
Griffin - falling out with the Clips
Durant - unrestricted FA
Lebron - longshot, but technically UFAs

Second-tier:

Wall - Wizards just missed the playoffs again. Wouldn't a Smart/Thomas/lottery package be enticing?

Horford, Teague - unrestricted FAs

Marc - Grizzlies might blow it up

There's a lot they can do, especially if they get 1/2 (Ingram/Simmons). I'd put Jimmy in as a tier 2 move. I'd first try to get Anthony Davis with a BRK pick package. They might have enough left over to acquire Jimmy with players (Bradley, Crowder) and future picks, if Gar is dumb enough. And then they'd still have some cap-space, since they traded salaries out for their stars. Horford or Durant?

Here's the difference with Ainge. He's cut-throat when making a better basketball team. Whereas GarPax would try to keep Crowder, Bradley or Thomas in an attempt to keep their "special" young core after 1-2 round appareance, Ainge would give 2 ****ts and quickly trade any one of them for a guy like Jimmy.

THAT is selling high. Because those guys are role-players benefitting from a system.

Ainge would be pleased to trim 1-2 of them in a star trade, because then it'll free up for max space for acquiring Durant ir Horford.

He'll make a plan to keep the most important guys, but he's not gonna keep that whole starting line-up if he wants to make power moves.

Just watch. GarPax on the other hand? They'd totally do everything in their power to refuse trades and stand pat.

[Bomba Navarro]

THAT is selling high. Because those guys are role-players benefitting from a system.

Huge +1.

This is something people don't seem to understand. You sell high on role players or declining stars. You can't usually sell high on stars at their peak because you're never getting their actual value in return. This is not a simple 1+1=2, three good role players don't equal the value of a bona fide star. The best you will be getting for such a player is the chance to roll the dice on youngsters who *may* amount to something special. Basically, a crapshoot.

[RememberLu]

THAT is selling high. Because those guys are role-players benefitting from a system.

Huge +1.

This is something people don't seem to understand. You sell high on role players or declining stars. You can't usually sell high on stars at their peak because you're never getting their actual value in return. The best you will be getting is the change to roll the dice on youngsters who *may* amount to something special. A crapshoot.

We're basically forced to do this because this franchise has backed itself into a corner by never selling high on players when they had the chance. Jimmy is 27 and he's not a cornerstone type franchise player that you build around. He's not top 10 in the NBA, he's arguably not even top 15. and this franchise is nowhere near being a title contender even with Jimmy at his peak.

so it's either we sell high on our best asset or we do what we always do...which is nothing...and let him waste his prime years away on a crappy non-title contending team. I know which one we're likely to do.

[MrSparkle]

But Jimmy is a legit top-15.

There's no reason to sell high.

He's producing in a bad system.

[Susan]

Again, IMO Ainge wants Jimmy, but he's gonna save his ammo for the no-brainer moves first. Theoretically he'll have enough assets to acquire atleast one superstar.

Davis - dump of a situation in NOP
Griffin - falling out with the Clips
Durant - unrestricted FA
Lebron - longshot, but technically UFAs

Second-tier:

Wall - Wizards just missed the playoffs again. Wouldn't a Smart/Thomas/lottery package be enticing?

Horford, Teague - unrestricted FAs

Marc - Grizzlies might blow it up

There's a lot they can do, especially if they get 1/2 (Ingram/Simmons). I'd put Jimmy in as a tier 2 move. I'd first try to get Anthony Davis with a BRK pick package. They might have enough left over to acquire Jimmy with players (Bradley, Crowder) and future picks, if Gar is dumb enough. And then they'd still have some cap-space, since they traded salaries out for their stars. Horford or Durant?

Here's the difference with Ainge. He's cut-throat when making a better basketball team. Whereas GarPax would try to keep Crowder, Bradley or Thomas in an attempt to keep their "special" young core after 1-2 round appareance, Ainge would give 2 ****ts and quickly trade any one of them for a guy like Jimmy.

THAT is selling high. Because those guys are role-players benefitting from a system.

Ainge would be pleased to trim 1-2 of them in a star trade, because then it'll free up for max space for acquiring Durant ir Horford.

He'll make a plan to keep the most important guys, but he's not gonna keep that whole starting line-up if he wants to make power moves.

Just watch. GarPax on the other hand? They'd totally do everything in their power to refuse trades and stand pat.

You're on fire these days.

I posted about the difference between Ainge and GarPax a few weeks ago and was right on the same page as you.

Ainge was able to enter into a high level team with his Ray Allen & KG trades by selling high on his assets and then he was able to exit on that high level team correctly by trading KG & PP for a kings ransom to Brooklyn. He saw two steps ahead and was honest with his team relative to the NBA landscape at the time.

If we're trading Jimmy to the C's, we're probably two steps behind. He can give us a ton in return but look at what Jeff Green did for the Sonics/Thunder and what Al Jefferson did for the Timberwolves relative to what KG & Ray did for the C's.

[Bomba Navarro]

What's with this "Jimmy Butler is not a conerstone type franchise player and we need to get rid of him before he hits 30 and falls off a cliff"? How many players better than current Jimmy Butler has the Chicago Bulls had in their 50 years of history? What are the odds that by the time he's 30 he's declined badly and he's an albatross for the team? I for one wouldn't bet a nickel on GarPax getting a better player than Butler in the foreseeable future, were we to ship him out. Heck, even if we assumed we'd be wasting his prime by keeping him, I'd rather watch him try and carry the team to second round exits than have a Baby Bulls type of experience again.

Also this

But Jimmy is a legit top-15.

There's no reason to sell high.

He's producing in a bad system.

[Susan]

THAT is selling high. Because those guys are role-players benefitting from a system.

Huge +1.

This is something people don't seem to understand. You sell high on role players or declining stars. You can't usually sell high on stars at their peak because you're never getting their actual value in return. The best you will be getting is the change to roll the dice on youngsters who *may* amount to something special. A crapshoot.

We're basically forced to do this because this franchise has backed itself into a corner by never selling high on players when they had the chance. Jimmy is 27 and he's not a cornerstone type franchise player that you build around. He's not top 10 in the NBA, he's arguably not even top 15. and this franchise is nowhere near being a title contender even with Jimmy at his peak.

so it's either we sell high on our best asset or we do what we always do...which is nothing...and let him waste his prime years away on a crappy non-title contending team. I know which one we're likely to do.

This would be more like selling low on Brand vs holding onto Deng/Gordon/Kirk.

Brand for Chandler set us back even further, Brand wasn't even at Jimmy's level.

I think the biggest thing is how Jimmy's game is going to age. He seems to be somebody who's going to continue to get better as he ages, he's not Derrick where he's just destroying folks with his freakish athleticism. He's strong, skilled and smart which really bodes well for him going forward.

[RememberLu]

But Jimmy is a legit top-15.

There's no reason to sell high.

He's producing in a bad system.

Ehhh...Jimmy is in the same tier of guys as Kyrie Irving, John Wall, LaMarcus Aldridge and Blake Griffin

Do you build around those guys? I say no. I wouldn't build around any player unless he was a clear top 5 player in the NBA. Jimmy is just a nice piece you try to build WITH, not around. But the Bulls aren't in a position right now to try and build with a guy like Jimmy. He's 27, he's having chemistry problems with our coach, and the team is nowhere near being a title contender.

What's more likely? We build with Jimmy and become a title contender before he turns 30. Or we try to build with Jimmy and waste his prime years away without ever becoming a legit title contender? Considering the history of our FO I know which of those is more likely. I'm tired of this franchise wasting the prime years of its best players away. We did it with Lu, and Noah and now we want to do it to Jimmy. We never sell high when we have the chance.

and our fan base seems to be just as conservative as our FO when it comes to selling high on assets

[MrSparkle]

Again, I'm trying to say that Jimmy is much different than Deng, Noah and Taj. Jimmy is better than any of them ever were.

So there are 5 players you'd build around? You realize there are 30 teams, and about 1 legit superstar every 2-3 drafts. Your idea basically sounds like Hinkie. All or nothing. 6-year lottery plan?

[Ice Man]

and our fan base seems to be just as conservative as our FO when it comes to selling high on assets

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is what you are arguing -

1) Jimmy Butler is not and will not be a Top 5 player
2) Teams need a Top 5 player to win a title
3) Thus, to build around Jimmy is a failed approach -- we should swap him out, so as to improve our chances of getting a Top 5 player

Right?

If so, my response is that the odds of getting a Top 5 player from a Boston pick (or anybody else's pick) are exceedingly low. There have been 143 lottery picks over the past 13 years, but only 5 top players. I don't see the value in sinking the team for the next few years so as to receive those odds. I guess some others disagree.

[RememberLu]

Again, I'm trying to say that Jimmy is much different than Deng, Noah and Taj. Jimmy is better than any of them ever were.

So there are 5 players you'd build around? You realize there are 30 teams, and about 1 legit superstar every 2-3 drafts. Your idea basically sounds like Hinkie. All or nothing. 6-year lottery plan?

and our fan base seems to be just as conservative as our FO when it comes to selling high on assets

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is what you are arguing -

1) Jimmy Butler is not and will not be a Top 5 player
2) Teams need a Top 5 player to win a title
3) Thus, to build around Jimmy is a failed approach -- we should swap him out, so as to improve our chances of getting a Top 5 player

Right?

If so, my response is that the odds of getting a Top 5 player from a Boston pick (or anybody else's pick) are exceedingly low. There have been 143 lottery picks over the past 13 years, but only 5 top players. I don't see the value in sinking the team for the next few years so as to receive those odds. I guess some others disagree.

Do you think it's very likely that the Bulls become a title contender before Jimmy's decline starts? I don't. He's 27, not 21.

Even if you assume that trading Jimmy means a down grade in talent, I take that chance because the return will be younger high ceiling players and high picks. It's all about windows in the NBA. We need to open a new one. We need to understand that this old window based around Jimmy/Derrick/Noah has closed shut. Jimmy is the only one out of those 3 that has any remaining value. And if a GM is smart he'll do everything he can to try and maximize value while the value is still there.

[RememberLu]

Knowing our luck, Jimmy will suffer a major knee injury next year and all value will be gone. I consider that much more likely than the optimistic scenario most of you guys seem to be assuming. That we keep Jimmy, build around him and become title contenders.

I'd much rather look at this in a realistic way. Whats more likely to happen? Jimmy declines before we become a title contender? Jimmy gets injured and all his trade value disappears? Considering our history with star players I think thats more likely.

I'd like to seize on an opportunity to trade high on a player while we still have that chance. We never do it. We need to start doing it. Be proactive, be foreward thinking. Don't be conservative or reactive. We've assumed optimism far too often over the past 4 years with everything and it's burned us. We got burned badly. I'm tired of baseless optimism, we have nothing to base that optimism on. No record of success. No recent history of optimistic thinking being rewarded. We all assumed Derrick would stop getting injured and would return to MVP form and we'd be title contenders. We keep getting proven wrong. How often do we have to get burned before we stop being so idealistic/optimistic and start being more realisitc/pragmatic?

[Mech Engineer]

Knowing our luck, Jimmy will suffer a major knee injury next year and all value will be gone. I consider that much more likely than the optimistic scenario most of you guys seem to be assuming. That we keep Jimmy, build around him and become title contenders.

I'd much rather look at this in a realistic way. Whats more likely to happen? Jimmy declines before we become a title contender? Jimmy gets injured and all his trade value disappears? Considering our history with star players I think thats more likely.

I'd like to seize on an opportunity to trade high on a player while we still have that chance. We never do it. We need to start doing it. Be proactive, be foreward thinking. Don't be conservative or reactive. We've assumed optimism far too often over the past 4 years with everything and it's burned us. We got burned badly. I'm tired of baseless optimism, we have nothing to base that optimism on. No record of success. No recent history of optimistic thinking being rewarded. We all assumed Derrick would stop getting injured and would return to MVP form and we'd be title contenders. We keep getting proven wrong. How often do we have to get burned before we stop being so idealistic/optimistic and start being more realisitc/pragmatic?

Your comments don't make any sense. According to you: New Orleans need to trade Anthony Davis as he has been more injury prone than even Derrick Rose, the Cavs should trade LeBron because he is old(window is closed with GS looking like a dynasty) and Irving because he is not a top-5 player and has more injuries than Jimmy.

Think about this....the Bulls FO haven't got a starting SF or a backup PG in the last 4 years. And, that is a below all-star piece. You want to get a 1st option who will remain healthy for 8 years and be a top 5 player while they fill all this extra all-star types around him. You know how bad those odds are....it is probably worse than Noah becoming a 35% 3 pt shooter

[RememberLu]

People want to keep Jimmy because they like Jimmy and they're afraid to let him go. This franchise is just going to run him into the ground and waste his prime years. Fans are being selfish if they want to see Jimmy's prime wasted on this non-contending team. He's 27, not THAT young. He's a work horse and he's already getting little nagging injuries. I can see the writing on the wall, I'm amazed that so many of you apparently can't see it. We have an opportunity here to sell high and fans want to stand pat instead. We always let these opportunities pass us by and we regret it in the end.

[Axl Rose]

Jimmy may be top 15 but thats because the NBA is WEAK

theres not much franchise talent right now but allot can change in 5 years and if it doesn't then the NBA is going down the drain....name a team that won with a player of Jimmy's caliber as their cornerstone? 04 Pistons? certainly not the norm

Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Isiah, Bird.....Jimmy Butler?

[MrSparkle]

Again, I don't see what your evaluation of a 'great' player is.

Jimmy Butler is a great player. To me, a guy who's still able to score isolation baskets in the clutch in tough (playoff-seeding) games on a tweaked/hyperextended knee, that is an elite talent like Wade, Kobe or Westbrook. You can tell he looks visibly slower and less mobile, but he's still playing tough, getting rebounds, and willing himself to the basket and putting points on the board without mindless 3P chucking.

Does he have flaws? YES. His team game, pace, decision-making quickness, "leadership" (who knows if it really is Jimmy being a crappy leader, or a bunch of his teammates just thinking they were better than they really were, a coach who thought his system was better than it was, and a whole lot of other negative variables) and attitude might need fixing... but to me, those are completely qualitative attributes, meaning they are completely circumstantial and can quickly flip with a better roster or simply more wins.

But quantitatively, Jimmy produces. He's a triple-double threat, he CAN defend really well if he tries, and he's no slouch at iso scoring against a strong defense. And personally, I expect him to improve after his knee gets treatment and rest in the off-season, as opposed to him further tearing it. Don't get me wrong, I'm concerned about his knee, but I can't think of any player in the NBA with a clean health record these days besides maybe Lebron.

Westbrook, Griffin, Paul have all had major knee surgeries in their careers. It's a part of basketball. They haven't declined like Rose. Rose just had a significantly bad one, and he clearly has some other underlying issues. Personally, I always thought his running gait and overall body physique was slightly awkward, considering his hyper-elite athleticism. I thought the same thing with Bynum. Jimmy looks like he's in perfect shape and conditioning, and that knee injury was the result of a really awkward/bad fall. No structural damage. It's unreasonable to expect him to get more "compensation" injuries, unless he does something really dangerous and puts his health in a compromising situation.

Compare this with Deng or Noah... when either of them had their mobility affected with even a minor ankle or knee sprain, then their offensive games greatly cascaded, because a majority of their points came from hustle plays and cuts, not from "skill" with the basketball. Deng would be the last person on earth to win the NBA Skills Challenge. I'm pretty sure that 75% of the NBA's starting PFs could out-dribble Deng. So you take away their mobility, and their strong attributes (hustle, 1-on-1 defense, help defense) all of a sudden become compromised, and they don't have the shot-making or dribbling skills to throw any defenders off.

Jimmy is doing 'fine' with a hyper-extended knee. That, to me, is the sign of an elite player, as opposed to a 3rd option / borderline all-star / super role-player. Which in their primes, Deng and Noah were. I could never see either of those guys will their teams to the 2nd round on their own. I can easily see Jimmy willing a team to the 2nd round, if he had even the most basic supporting cast. The current one is not a basic supporting cast; it's a mish-mash disaster of unproven players with major defensive flaws who can't even guard their own positions, let alone multiple positions (which is what Fred Hoiberg wants, "switching" defensive schemes that cause turnovers and can run transition/fast-break basketball).

[Axl Rose]

a triple double threat that has one triple double in his career

[TheStig]

I think you have to consider a ridiculous offer from the Celtics but if you are not getting something with Smart and/or Crowder and Brooklyn picks, then I would keep Jimmy. He's a top 10 player and is in his prime.

I think it's easy to look at a lotto pick and see potential but how many players taken in the last 3 years are better than Jimmy now? It's hard to realize that success outside of the top 1 or 2 in most drafts.

Hoiball looks good for most of the game but at the end, particularly in the playoffs, you need a go to scorer.