Image ImageImage Image

Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual...

Moderators: HomoSapien, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, AshyLarrysDiaper, fleet, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat

NZB2323
RealGM
Posts: 11,150
And1: 7,467
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#41 » by NZB2323 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:16 am

dice wrote:
NZB2323 wrote:
DanTown8587 wrote:2016 - Rockets go 41-41 and rebuild all-in with James Harden and a coach that better fit him (D'Antoni) even though Harden was 26 and committing to him would have meant going all-in with him in

2017 - Bulls go 41-41 with Jimmy and instead of trying to finally get a coach and system that maximizes his value, trades him

I don't want to hear about how Harden was better than Jimmy.

Harden 2016
Age 26
2 years from supermax
25.3 PER
.598 TS%
per 100: 37.4 points / 9.6 assists / 7.9 rebounds / 2.3 steals

Butler 2017
Age 27
2 years from super max
25.1 PER
.586 TS%
Per 100: 32.6 / 8.4 rebounds / 7.5 assists / 2.4 steals

Remember all the people who questioned how Morey could ever be compared to GarPax?


This is the model we could have used, and then just like Houston tried to pair Harden with Dwight, Bosh, and eventually Chris Paul, we'd try to pair Butler with Irving, Chris Paul, Anthony Davis, etc. I still hope we can get Anthony Davis to come home.

Another way to look at it is who was better? 2017 Butler(25.1 PER, 41-41 record), 2006 Paul Pierce(23.6 PER, 33-49), 2008 Dirk(24.6 PER, 51-31), or 2005 Kobe Bryant(23.3 PER, 34-48)?

The 2006 Celtics, 2005 Lakers, and 2008 Mavs didn't look like they'd been contenders anytime soon, but they all found ways to add a solid supporting cast with a solid coach around their superstar and won a championship.

you'll recall that kobe almost got traded by the lakers to a certain team that never makes big trades


Yeah, and instead the Lakers kept Kobe and won 2 championships. Do you think they regretted not trading Kobe for a draft pick and 2 young players?
kingkirk
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 80,406
And1: 23,765
Joined: Jan 24, 2004
 

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#42 » by kingkirk » Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:46 am

If the Bulls didn't want to pay Butler because of fear of the supermax, I wonder what it will be like when LaVine is approaching his next set of contracts when he is able to earn 30 and 35 percent of the cap on a max deal. Similarly for Markkanen and Dunn too.

If these guys aren't as good as Butler but still got enough to demand max (or near max) money, that should be a fun discussion.

In other words, you have to pay someone at some point, otherwise you're perpetually flipping over the roster looking for an answer that may not come.
User avatar
The Force.
Head Coach
Posts: 7,199
And1: 2,112
Joined: May 30, 2008
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#43 » by The Force. » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:11 am

Only reason to keep Butler is if you can land land another top-flight FA like Kyrie. But Kyrie was going to Boston no matter what so which other player(s) would have put us over the top?
Proven_Winner
RealGM
Posts: 15,633
And1: 3,963
Joined: Jun 02, 2013

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#44 » by Proven_Winner » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:59 am

Mark K wrote:If the Bulls didn't want to pay Butler because of fear of the supermax, I wonder what it will be like when LaVine is approaching his next set of contracts when he is able to earn 30 and 35 percent of the cap on a max deal. Similarly for Markkanen and Dunn too.

If these guys aren't as good as Butler but still got enough to demand max (or near max) money, that should be a fun discussion.

In other words, you have to pay someone at some point, otherwise you're perpetually flipping over the roster looking for an answer that may not come.



The thing is we’re assuming that was/is the only problem. We don’t know if they wanted to pay jimmy or not or if there were other deciding factors that led to it. Let’s not pretend jimmy was some sweet heart that only got traded because of money because that entire year was a PR disaster.

Let’s also not forget we were due for a change because every year was just us digging up holes to fill another and then half assing it in some situations.

Better discussion would be why are the ones against jimmy being traded the same ones who have little to no faith in our FO. Why wouldn’t you want them to maximize what they have rather than bringing in the same lackadaisical team that has jimmy wasting his time.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,741
And1: 33,373
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#45 » by DuckIII » Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:02 pm

Still love it. No regrets.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
Ice Man
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 24,766
And1: 13,413
Joined: Apr 19, 2011

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#46 » by Ice Man » Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:14 pm

DuckIII wrote:Still love it. No regrets.


What would get you to not like it? Anything?
User avatar
PaKii94
RealGM
Posts: 10,453
And1: 6,536
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#47 » by PaKii94 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:22 pm

The Force. wrote:Only reason to keep Butler is if you can land land another top-flight FA like Kyrie. But Kyrie was going to Boston no matter what so which other player(s) would have put us over the top?



Bulls were on the short list for Kyrie with Jimmy around
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,201
And1: 9,130
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#48 » by League Circles » Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:23 pm

Mark K wrote:If the Bulls didn't want to pay Butler because of fear of the supermax, I wonder what it will be like when LaVine is approaching his next set of contracts when he is able to earn 30 and 35 percent of the cap on a max deal. Similarly for Markkanen and Dunn too.

If these guys aren't as good as Butler but still got enough to demand max (or near max) money, that should be a fun discussion.

In other words, you have to pay someone at some point, otherwise you're perpetually flipping over the roster looking for an answer that may not come.

Well, if you have three guys who command 30 or 35% of the cap, you're in a lot better shape, even if you think they're not quite worth it, than having one guy you do think is worth it. Not that I think our guys other than maybe Lauri will command that.

My best guess is that Lavine's next deal (not the one he signs this summer) will be an MLE deal.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,494
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#49 » by dice » Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:32 pm

League Circles wrote:
Mark K wrote:If the Bulls didn't want to pay Butler because of fear of the supermax, I wonder what it will be like when LaVine is approaching his next set of contracts when he is able to earn 30 and 35 percent of the cap on a max deal. Similarly for Markkanen and Dunn too.

If these guys aren't as good as Butler but still got enough to demand max (or near max) money, that should be a fun discussion.

In other words, you have to pay someone at some point, otherwise you're perpetually flipping over the roster looking for an answer that may not come.

Well, if you have three guys who command 30 or 35% of the cap, you're in a lot better shape, even if you think they're not quite worth it, than having one guy you do think is worth it

3 wrongs do not make a right
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,494
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#50 » by dice » Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:34 pm

PaKii94 wrote:
The Force. wrote:Only reason to keep Butler is if you can land land another top-flight FA like Kyrie. But Kyrie was going to Boston no matter what so which other player(s) would have put us over the top?



Bulls were on the short list for Kyrie with Jimmy around

based on what?
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,201
And1: 9,130
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#51 » by League Circles » Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:31 pm

dice wrote:
League Circles wrote:
Mark K wrote:If the Bulls didn't want to pay Butler because of fear of the supermax, I wonder what it will be like when LaVine is approaching his next set of contracts when he is able to earn 30 and 35 percent of the cap on a max deal. Similarly for Markkanen and Dunn too.

If these guys aren't as good as Butler but still got enough to demand max (or near max) money, that should be a fun discussion.

In other words, you have to pay someone at some point, otherwise you're perpetually flipping over the roster looking for an answer that may not come.

Well, if you have three guys who command 30 or 35% of the cap, you're in a lot better shape, even if you think they're not quite worth it, than having one guy you do think is worth it

3 wrongs do not make a right

Actually they do in this context. You've been obsessed with evaluating contract value in a vacuum for each player for years and I've never understood it cause you're a smart guy.

Almost every great team over the years has multiple contracts that look bad in a vacuum, but all that matters is how good the team is and that is primarily of function of contract sequencing and contract collections rather than a summation of individual contracts of good or bad value IMO.

Example: the best team in the league has been paying like 15 million dollars per year for the last 5 years to a guy who has NEVER averaged 10 ppg, 5 rpg, or 5 apg for them. To AN AVERAGE, typical team, that is a bad contract. It is an especially bad contract to a team where he would be among the very best players. But to GS, because of WHEN they've signed him (to the two deals), and because of the collection of contracts he is part of, it is a GOOD contract. Whether a contract is good or bad all depends on the team situation it is part of.

So while paying ONE of Lauri, Dunn or Lavine, say, 30% of the cap when they are worth 25% (to an average, generic team) may be very detrimental (one wrong makes a wrong), paying all three of them 30% of the cap while they are all three only worth say 25% (to an average, generic team again) is probably a really good move (three wrongs DO make a right). Why? Because having three players that are genuinely worth 25% of the cap (3 damn good players) is probably the basis for a fringe contender, which is all that matters, and ultimately a very good thing.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
jnrjr79
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,214
And1: 2,344
Joined: May 27, 2003
Location: Chicago

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#52 » by jnrjr79 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:01 pm

TheSuzerain wrote:
mack2354 wrote:
DanTown8587 wrote:2016 - Rockets go 41-41 and rebuild all-in with James Harden and a coach that better fit him (D'Antoni) even though Harden was 26 and committing to him would have meant going all-in with him in

2017 - Bulls go 41-41 with Jimmy and instead of trying to finally get a coach and system that maximizes his value, trades him

I don't want to hear about how Harden was better than Jimmy.

Harden 2016
Age 26
2 years from supermax
25.3 PER
.598 TS%
per 100: 37.4 points / 9.6 assists / 7.9 rebounds / 2.3 steals

Butler 2017
Age 27
2 years from super max
25.1 PER
.586 TS%
Per 100: 32.6 / 8.4 rebounds / 7.5 assists / 2.4 steals

Remember all the people who questioned how Morey could ever be compared to GarPax?


If you started a poll on who was better between 2016 Harden vs 2017 Butler I think you will be surprised with the result.

The bottom line is if you have a player of that caliber in their prime (our best player since Jordan), then it's pretty crazy to not try to build a team around the guy for at least a year or two. And we never did that. Instead they went with Hoiberg.



Oh, the Bulls definitely tried to build around Jimmy. Saying they instead went with Hoiberg misconstrues GarPax's intent. I honestly think they believed Thibs was holding the team back, Hoiberg would be the next Steve Kerr, and hiring him was something intended to push the Bulls over the top.

Of course, this was all gloriously wrong and failed. But they tried!

Also, MVP Rose is the Bulls' best player since Jordan. For the eleven seconds that guy existed, anyway.
jnrjr79
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,214
And1: 2,344
Joined: May 27, 2003
Location: Chicago

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#53 » by jnrjr79 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:03 pm

Mark K wrote:If the Bulls didn't want to pay Butler because of fear of the supermax, I wonder what it will be like when LaVine is approaching his next set of contracts when he is able to earn 30 and 35 percent of the cap on a max deal. Similarly for Markkanen and Dunn too.

If these guys aren't as good as Butler but still got enough to demand max (or near max) money, that should be a fun discussion.

In other words, you have to pay someone at some point, otherwise you're perpetually flipping over the roster looking for an answer that may not come.



It seems the key to team-building is not having players who are worth the max, but players who are worth more than the max.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,494
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#54 » by dice » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:11 pm

League Circles wrote:
dice wrote:
League Circles wrote:Well, if you have three guys who command 30 or 35% of the cap, you're in a lot better shape, even if you think they're not quite worth it, than having one guy you do think is worth it

3 wrongs do not make a right

Actually they do in this context. You've been obsessed with evaluating contract value in a vacuum for each player for years and I've never understood it cause you're a smart guy

the only reason to ever overpay a guy is if you're already over the cap and it will give a bump to your contending or near-contending team

Almost every great team over the years has multiple contracts that look bad in a vacuum

not 3 huge ones. that's insanity

Whether a contract is good or bad all depends on the team situation it is part of.

well of course

So while paying ONE of Lauri, Dunn or Lavine, say, 30% of the cap when they are worth 25% (to an average, generic team) may be very detrimental (one wrong makes a wrong), paying all three of them 30% of the cap while they are all three only worth say 25% (to an average, generic team again) is probably a really good move (three wrongs DO make a right). Why? Because having three players that are genuinely worth 25% of the cap (3 damn good players) is probably the basis for a fringe contender, which is all that matters, and ultimately a very good thing.

it doesn't make you a fringe contender, though. it makes you an utterly mediocre team with zero hope to contend. likely sub-.500. you NEED value contracts to contend. blowing nearly your entire wad on the opposite is a ticket to the unemployment line if you're a GM

no contending team has three huge questionable contracts. it just doesn't happen. good luck finding contending teams with two

this idea that even a significantly improved lauri, dunn, lavine combo being paid big bucks will be a contending triumvirate is other planetary thinking
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,494
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#55 » by dice » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:14 pm

jnrjr79 wrote:
Mark K wrote:If the Bulls didn't want to pay Butler because of fear of the supermax, I wonder what it will be like when LaVine is approaching his next set of contracts when he is able to earn 30 and 35 percent of the cap on a max deal. Similarly for Markkanen and Dunn too.

If these guys aren't as good as Butler but still got enough to demand max (or near max) money, that should be a fun discussion.

In other words, you have to pay someone at some point, otherwise you're perpetually flipping over the roster looking for an answer that may not come.



It seems the key to team-building is not having players who are worth the max, but players who are worth more than the max.

any types of players that are worth significantly more than their contracts. it's just that the easiest way is a mega-star
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
the ultimates
Analyst
Posts: 3,667
And1: 1,615
Joined: Jul 06, 2012

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#56 » by the ultimates » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:35 pm

PaKii94 wrote:
The Force. wrote:Only reason to keep Butler is if you can land land another top-flight FA like Kyrie. But Kyrie was going to Boston no matter what so which other player(s) would have put us over the top?



Bulls were on the short list for Kyrie with Jimmy around


How were the Bulls going to beat Boston's offer?
Losing to get high draft picks and hoping they turn into franchise players is not some next level, genius move. That's what teams want to happen in any rebuild/tank or whatever you want to market it as.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,201
And1: 9,130
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#57 » by League Circles » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:39 pm

dice wrote:the only reason to ever overpay a guy is if you're already over the cap and it will give a bump to your contending or near-contending team

That's the scenario we're discussing. Maybe you thought we were talking about near term.

it doesn't make you a fringe contender, though. it makes you an utterly mediocre team with zero hope to contend. likely sub-.500. you NEED value contracts to contend. blowing nearly your entire wad on the opposite is a ticket to the unemployment line if you're a GM

I strongly disagree that it doesn't make you a fringe contender. I guess it all depends on how you assign "worth". To me, "worth" has no meaning other than in this context:
Every player becomes a UFA simultaneously, and the league's 30 teams get essentially unlimited time to bid back and forth with players such that the end result is that every team is capped out plus the room MLE and vet minimum exceptions, and every team is basically a .500 team. The only other meaning that I believe the term "worth" could have is actual market value, which is far more a function of specific market forces at the time of free agency than quality of the player.

So in my theoretical environment in which to determine worth, I would say that players making 25% of the cap would be roughly all star caliber (though of course not superstar). Now of course in reality such players get the max, but they are worth less. I guess this opinion has to do with whether the individual max is a driving parameter or not. To me it is. So instead of saying Lebron is worth say 50% of the cap and a run of the mill all star is worth the 30% or 35% max, I instead say that because Lebron can only get 35%, that that parameter sets the value of what 35% is, and thus, run of the mill all stars MUST be worth less (say 25%), even though in reality they will get 35% (when old enough).

Bottom line, find me a team with 3 all star caliber players that fit together than isn't a fringe contender.

no contending team has three huge questionable contracts. it just doesn't happen. good luck finding contending teams with two

this idea that even a significantly improved lauri, dunn, lavine combo being paid big bucks will be a contending triumvirate is other planetary thinking

Define "significantly".

I don't expect this to happen, but if it does, they'll contend.

The whole discussion started with the idea that Jimmy "not being worth the 35%" should mean that if those guys aren't, logic would dictate that we dump them too, which is wrong IMO, because of contract sequencing and collections.

Either way it's defined, I'm confident that my point stands, but for clarity of discussion, we have to establish whether Lebron/KD are worth 35% or more. I say 35%.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
dice
RealGM
Posts: 42,897
And1: 12,494
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#58 » by dice » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:18 pm

League Circles wrote:Bottom line, find me a team with 3 all star caliber players that fit together than isn't a fringe contender.

first of all, if they're all-star caliber (and not just the kind of guy who gets a nod or two in a weak conference), their large contracts are unlikely to be seen as questionable

but three fringe all-stars on big contracts won't get you anywhere. one would have to be an MVP candidate

we only recently had jimmy, noah and gasol on the same team and weren't fringe contenders, by the way. gasol made the all-star team, jimmy should have and noah had declined from his fringe mvp candidacy of the previous season. had noah been the same player (thus technically fulfilling my criteria from the previous paragraph) we probably would have been fringe contenders

no contending team has three huge questionable contracts. it just doesn't happen. good luck finding contending teams with two

this idea that even a significantly improved lauri, dunn, lavine combo being paid big bucks will be a contending triumvirate is other planetary thinking

Define "significantly"

lavine and dunn would have to substantially improve just to be considered fringe all-star caliber. lauri to a slightly lesser extent

I don't expect this to happen, but if it does, they'll contend.

not unless we find enormous value contracts elsewhere on the roster
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,201
And1: 9,130
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#59 » by League Circles » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:22 pm

dice wrote:you NEED value contracts to contend.


You certainly don't. All you need is to sign guys in the right sequence and to be willing to pay a ton for your awesome team.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,201
And1: 9,130
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual... 

Post#60 » by League Circles » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:31 pm

dice wrote:first of all, if they're all-star caliber (and not just the kind of guy who gets a nod or two in a weak conference), their large contracts are unlikely to be seen as questionable

but three fringe all-stars on big contracts won't get you anywhere. one would have to be an MVP candidate

we only recently had jimmy, noah and gasol on the same team and weren't fringe contenders, by the way. gasol made the all-star team, jimmy should have and noah had declined from his fringe mvp candidacy of the previous season. had noah been the same player (thus technically fulfilling my criteria from the previous paragraph) we probably would have been fringe contenders

I hate using the term "all-star" because actual all star teams are terrible representations often of who the best 12 players are, or certainly of what the best 12 man roster would look like. It's more closer to a collection of "the top 12 #1 options" (out of 15 teams). With the obvious implication on my part that the 12th best #1 option in a conference is usually not a good player (hi Zach Lavine).
Noah wasn't good anymore as you mention, and those players fit together horribly (Noah and Gasol couldn't really play together), and we STILL ACTUALLY WERE a fringe contender IMO. Took the Cavs to 6 games and probably 7 or even may have beat them if we were healthy. I specifically mentioned that the 3 players would have to fit together well, which, in theory, Dunn/Lavine/Lauri might (I am not in any way predicting that they'll all be of that caliber).


lavine and dunn would have to substantially improve just to be considered fringe all-star caliber. lauri to a slightly lesser extent

Absolutely. That is the hypothetical scenario we've been discussing. Me anyways.
I don't expect this to happen, but if it does, they'll contend.

not unless we find enormous value contracts elsewhere on the roster

No, three all star caliber players that fit well together should be a fringe contender. Let me know if you find an example to the contrary. By fringe contender, let's say roughly final 8 teams.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear

Return to Chicago Bulls