Over 10 years, what % of draft picks #2-5 end up better than Butler??

[bledredwine]

I plan on it - in summer school. Also have realgm blocked on my computer. Will do soon.

Thanks. Quick question first, did you use just players taken or all players available?

Players taken (picked). Check out the top 8 picks. OP's issue is that he's comparing players to Jimmy as of right now. But players like Dwight Rose etc were awesome and debatably better than Jimmy in their prime. Aside from that, you get many Galo type almost-stars with top 8 picks as well. It's very encouraging, actually. I'd post now but I only make great walls of text on my phone. To OP- if we trade Jimmy, it's not for a top 3 alone, but for a top 3, another piece (or first rounder), and top picks for the next four years while we're sucking. It's surprisingly easy to build another baby bulls. Many teams such as Utah Milwaukee TWolves Celtics GS have done just that successfully.

[SeniorWalker]

If LeBron leaves Cleveland after 2018, the pro-build around Butler camp does have a point that perhaps a Butler-led team can snatch such an opening to the finals. The NBA changes rapidly. It is impossible to say that that something like that can't happen. There are other teams on the rise as well, with perhaps younger talent with a higher ceiling than a Butler led group but that's not clear at this point.

If LeBron is committed to Cleveland over the next 2-3 seasons, I think the Bulls have probably 0 chance at the finals. So the question debate doesn't become "Do they have a better chance of building around Butler or a total rebuild?". There actually is no debate at all at that point, for me. Butler isn't leading a Bulls team over a LeBron led Cavs in the next 2-3 years, period; and at that point, he'll be 30+ and looking for a payday. So rebuild, and set yourself up for the end of LeBron's run...which is probably at the end of that 2-3 year period.


I can see why people think he deserves a shot with more complimentary talent to surround him with. I kind of don't but I do agree that he hasn't had his best shot at leading a team quite yet.

[DanTown8587]

So we all agree that the Bulls aren't winning the 2018 title. So to win in 2019 and beyond, what is more likely

- they find players next to Jimmy, pay Jimmy his max, go in to the tax, etc
Or
- they acquire multiple picks and have a realistic hit rate on them?

Both are low option but the Bulls aren't going to do the things necessary to win with Jimmy as a max guy. Because of that, there is no "keep Jimmy" plan. I said last year that the plan should be to decide by this draft if you're all in with Jimmy or you're rebuilding; waiting is too much lost value. Which is exactly what they're going to do. And then give Melo a max deal in two years when Jimmy bails because the team sucks.

[Shill]

However many pro tankers don't seem to acknowledge the downsides results are also vastly higher vs the team we have now. Potentially even for 5 years or a decade.

Rebuilding means your upside odds at creating a title core go up a few miniscule percent (in many years), while your odds to be a laughingstock for many years (starting immediately) go up by a much more considerable percent.

Who cares?

I understand it from the perspective of not wanting to stomach the bad basketball that comes with tanking, but I couldn't care less about becoming a laughing stock.

If the 76ers hit on their draft picks, nobody is going to talk about the 70-loss seasons. They're going to be talking about Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz dunking on people.

[Shill]

These reason the number 1 was taken away is because no one is trading us a number pick. Even the Lakers and Philly picks wont be number 1 moving forward. This organization wont let itself be bad enough to pick number 1 without a miracle.

I'm confused by this. If we trade Jimmy, we'll squarely be in contention for the top pick in 2018. Maybe we won't have THE best odds, but good enough to where it would be worth discussing.

[dougthonus]

If we dont' do a trade, we let Butler walk in 2018, we tank naturally. We have one, maybe two less picks than if we had traded Butler. Look at the odds listed above, does it really hurt our rebuilding process by a ton? Not really, when you look at the percentages. We're all arguing for a small percentage points, even fractions of a percent.

What value will a top 5 draft pick deliver over that same time? The answer is all over the board. However, all of your analysis is very black or white. What if a player isn't better than Butler but is really good? Say you get a really good player for 9 years vs Butler for two years. Which of those scenarios is better?

Also, given your odds of getting good picks being so low, starting 2 years later in the process is awfully depressing. We already know this next year is a waste of time, and so 1 of Butler's 2 remaining season is worthless to Chicago.

So the question really comes down to two scenarios:
1: Can you do enough in the 2018 off-season to make something compelling around Butler?
2: Is Butler worth the supermax it will cost to keep him and will he still be a good value per dollar at that new price to help build a winner afterwards?

So the answer to question 1 to me is most probably no, but it isn't a guarantee.

The answer to question 2 to me is most probably no, but it isn't a guarantee.

Both keep Butler paths to me strike me as being low probability of success, but as you note, the trade Butler path is also a low probability of success. As many of us know, the Bulls are probably screwed no matter what. For that reason, I don't feel so strongly about things one way or the other.

[Mech Engineer]

BTW, I agree with the OP's "extra credit" paragraph. IMO, we are talking about 2 or 3 years difference with or without Butler. As a fan, let the Bulls maximize around Butler and if that process fails, they will naturally suck and hopefully will luck into a star(s).

Edit: Also, looking at the number of top 25 players changing teams, free agency/trade option is not an impossible plan. I haven't seen so many all-star types changing teams. I am just guessing but I doubt this many all-star types changed(in their prime or not when they are really old-useless like Wade) teams in the 90s or 2000s.

Even right now, you have a chance at Gordon Hayward, Paul George, Chris Paul, Paul Millsap, Kristaps and maybe a couple more. It has never been like that. It is the execution/strategy to do these things which is the problem.

[League Circles]

I reject the notion that it's a foregone conclusion that Butler will need to be paid supermax to keep.

1. He may not qualify (though I can't recall the rules on qualifying)
2. He may be willing to take less as some stars have (including notably some who actually win titles as a result)

I mean, there would still be quite a bit of money IIRV between the most an opponent can pay him and the 5 year supermax.

I also reject the notion that he's automatically not worth it if he does get it. Jimmy should be one of the best half dozen wings or so in the league for the next 5 years or so IMO. And an above average starter for the duration of a 5 year deal IMO.

[NADROJ]

I reject the notion that it's a foregone conclusion that Butler will need to be paid supermax to keep.

1. He may not qualify (though I can't recall the rules on qualifying)
2. He may be willing to take less as some stars have (including notably some who actually win titles as a result)

I mean, there would still be quite a bit of money IIRV between the most an opponent can pay him and the 5 year supermax.

I also reject the notion that he's automatically not worth it if he does get it. Jimmy should be one of the best half dozen wings or so in the league for the next 5 years or so IMO. And an above average starter for the duration of a 5 year deal IMO.

Rejecting any notion is no way to build a team or plan for the future. Evaluating likelihoods, having contingencies; sure.

But, you're rejecting a ton and assuming a lot. Which, seems like a recipe for failure.

[NADROJ]

I reject the notion that it's a foregone conclusion that Butler will need to be paid supermax to keep.

1. He may not qualify (though I can't recall the rules on qualifying)
2. He may be willing to take less as some stars have (including notably some who actually win titles as a result)

I mean, there would still be quite a bit of money IIRV between the most an opponent can pay him and the 5 year supermax.

I also reject the notion that he's automatically not worth it if he does get it. Jimmy should be one of the best half dozen wings or so in the league for the next 5 years or so IMO. And an above average starter for the duration of a 5 year deal IMO.

Rejecting any notion is no way to build a team or plan for the future. Evaluating likelihoods, having contingencies; sure.

But, you're rejecting a ton and assuming a lot which, seems like a recipe for failure.

[Rerisen]

People weren't asking to rebuild with Skiles Bulls teams because the young players still had upside and you could see the nucleus of a contender but they needed a star.

That's a bit too vague, exactly in the way all rebuilds tend to gloss over how easy it is. That team didn't just need a star, like any real title team, they needed a *superstar*.

But the reality was they didn't have a realistic shot to get one, especially once Deng/Gordon/Hinrich came up for their post rookie deals.

Or because in order to trade for a superstar (for example the Kobe rumors) the Bulls would have had to gut the team of virtually all their young talent, and would just have traded place with the Lakers, and still not had a title team.

They in fact had a chance to trade for a regular 'star' but not real superstar, in Pau Gasol, and decided he wasn't worth the money, because he still would not have put the team over the top.

Those two examples lay out the true difficulty in going from good to great if you don't have a superstar in place, despite that we had lots of solid young talent and assets. And why just trading Jimmy for some productive young kids is not even close to a convincing case.

Now if that Skiles era rebuild had been based around a true superstar we had drafted, say Derrick Rose, instead of just Deng or Gordon, then a move to add Gasol or to add Kobe, might have given you enough core talent, to then build out the much easier lesser role player talent to create a title contender.

But if you don't have that first true superstar in your pocket (like Boston had with Pierce, or close enough) it becomes incredibly hard to turn a team of young but just 'good' players into a serious title threat.

That is why so many people don't want to trade Jimmy unless they are getting back a #1 pick, or some kind of prospect who is seen to have real superstar potential.

[League Circles]

I reject the notion that it's a foregone conclusion that Butler will need to be paid supermax to keep.

1. He may not qualify (though I can't recall the rules on qualifying)
2. He may be willing to take less as some stars have (including notably some who actually win titles as a result)

I mean, there would still be quite a bit of money IIRV between the most an opponent can pay him and the 5 year supermax.

I also reject the notion that he's automatically not worth it if he does get it. Jimmy should be one of the best half dozen wings or so in the league for the next 5 years or so IMO. And an above average starter for the duration of a 5 year deal IMO.

Rejecting any notion is no way to build a team or plan for the future. Evaluating likelihoods, having contingencies; sure.

But, you're rejecting a ton and assuming a lot. Which, seems like a recipe for failure.

Re-read my post. I reject the ASSUMPTION that he'll cost supermax to keep. Of course it might and the likelihood of that has to be considered, but many people are writing it in stone that he'll command a supermax and I'm simply noting that that's not necessarily true. He may not even be eligible for it. If he is, he may agree to take less to allow us to sign others, or we may not offer the supermax but stil offer him a better offer than anyone else, in which case he'd still be a strong possibility or likelihood to return.

[Rerisen]

The Bulls FO/vision is weird to say the least. They are on a constant rebuilding cycle. They have some kind of odd fear that if they complete their team....something bad will happen. They keep losing valuable assets to sign older has-been stars. A very weird way of building a team.

Indeed this whole debate is kind of being falsely framed as between total rebuild, vs a going all out approach that supposedly hasn't been working.

But the truth is this team hasn't been going all out, and even in 2011 with a 62 win team, even then wasn't going all out, but was keeping one hand behind the back to worry about the future.

Maybe if they'd get off the eternal fence of trying to win now while at the same time hoarding future assets and trying to develop too many young guys, they'd at some point been farther along toward a competing team.

[Proven_Winner]

In all of this have we ever considered who's picking those top spots? I'm almost 100% sure we'll see some differences between us and SAS drafting and a team like Orlando.

[Rerisen]

Who cares?

I understand it from the perspective of not wanting to stomach the bad basketball that comes with tanking, but I couldn't care less about becoming a laughing stock.

If the 76ers hit on their draft picks, nobody is going to talk about the 70-loss seasons. They're going to be talking about Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz dunking on people.

Which won't mean anything if those young players aren't actually producing significant wins. Which as of this point, they aren't in Philly.

Sometimes I think people end up actually arguing not about what is a winning path, but about what is entertaining for them to watch, or what gives them some nebulous feeling of a team going somewhere, even though there is scant objective backing to prove a team is on a path to sure contending.

And to that point, what Philly has done in the last 5 years since trading Iggy, is in no way entertaining to me, and not even a team I'd have been watching. Next year will be year 6, will they finally produce a competitive team seriously on the rise? It's still in doubt.

Even if you think they are doing that, and the process has worked, that is *not* the process the Bulls would undertake after trading Jimmy. Being that fully committed to being terrible long enough to collect a handful of super high potential assets. This organization likes their profits too much to risk 5 years in the desert for a iffy chance to end up with a title conteder on the back side.

They have never displayed an approach that suggests winning a title is the be all end all. So we cannot argue that simply trading Jimmy Butler is equal to us doing what Philly has done.

[NADROJ]

I reject the notion that it's a foregone conclusion that Butler will need to be paid supermax to keep.

1. He may not qualify (though I can't recall the rules on qualifying)
2. He may be willing to take less as some stars have (including notably some who actually win titles as a result)

I mean, there would still be quite a bit of money IIRV between the most an opponent can pay him and the 5 year supermax.

I also reject the notion that he's automatically not worth it if he does get it. Jimmy should be one of the best half dozen wings or so in the league for the next 5 years or so IMO. And an above average starter for the duration of a 5 year deal IMO.

Rejecting any notion is no way to build a team or plan for the future. Evaluating likelihoods, having contingencies; sure.

But, you're rejecting a ton and assuming a lot. Which, seems like a recipe for failure.

Re-read my post. I reject the ASSUMPTION that he'll cost supermax to keep. Of course it might and the likelihood of that has to be considered, but many people are writing it in stone that he'll command a supermax and I'm simply noting that that's not necessarily true. He may not even be eligible for it. If he is, he may agree to take less to allow us to sign others, or we may not offer the supermax but stil offer him a better offer than anyone else, in which case he'd still be a strong possibility or likelihood to return.

Oh, the ASSUMPTION. Is that bigger than the assumption?

You stated that you don't even know qualification parameters, come on; the google is real. Maybe start there before making assumptions or ASSUMPTIONS.

[League Circles]

Rejecting any notion is no way to build a team or plan for the future. Evaluating likelihoods, having contingencies; sure.

But, you're rejecting a ton and assuming a lot. Which, seems like a recipe for failure.

Re-read my post. I reject the ASSUMPTION that he'll cost supermax to keep. Of course it might and the likelihood of that has to be considered, but many people are writing it in stone that he'll command a supermax and I'm simply noting that that's not necessarily true. He may not even be eligible for it. If he is, he may agree to take less to allow us to sign others, or we may not offer the supermax but stil offer him a better offer than anyone else, in which case he'd still be a strong possibility or likelihood to return.

Oh, the ASSUMPTION. Is that bigger than the assumption?

You stated that you don't even know qualification parameters, come on; the google is real. Maybe start there before making assumptions or ASSUMPTIONS.

Can you please identify which assumptions I've made in my posts?

[League Circles]

And just like I thought, I've confirmed he very well may not qualify. Though even if he does, again, it's no certainty that we need to pay him that to keep him.

[NADROJ]

Re-read my post. I reject the ASSUMPTION that he'll cost supermax to keep. Of course it might and the likelihood of that has to be considered, but many people are writing it in stone that he'll command a supermax and I'm simply noting that that's not necessarily true. He may not even be eligible for it. If he is, he may agree to take less to allow us to sign others, or we may not offer the supermax but stil offer him a better offer than anyone else, in which case he'd still be a strong possibility or likelihood to return.

Oh, the ASSUMPTION. Is that bigger than the assumption?

You stated that you don't even know qualification parameters, come on; the google is real. Maybe start there before making assumptions or ASSUMPTIONS.

Can you please identify which assumptions I've made in my posts?

Any opinion based on supermax qualifications in which you were/are unaware.

[Rerisen]

Jimmy's supermax alone would not make a contender impossible.

But the reality is no matter how you build or rebuild, somewhere on the roster you are going to need bargain players making far less than they are worth.

Now whether this happens to be your #1 superstar (like Steph Curry) or whether it happens to be 2-3 role players probably drafted below 10th, you've got to draft well to build a contender. Unless you are an outlier like the Heatles construction.

If the Bulls had been drafting more Taj Gibson's and less Doug Mcdermott's the last 4 years, we wouldn't even be having this thread, because the team would be much closer to contention.

If you nuke it, or whether you keep Jimmy, they've got to start making much better picks over the next 3 years, in both scenarios.