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

[dice]

Good question. Porter most certainly isn't "very good" IMO, and, equally as important, they don't fit all that well together (no bigs among the three).

But they are a good borderline case. They are like the 9th team in the league, I had said top 8 is what you want to maintain. I wouldn't have signed Porter to his deal.

porter is above average at his position at pretty much everything. that's not just very good, it's excellent

By my rough estimate, there are 6-12 guys you'd rather have playing SF for your team than Porter. So I'd say he's good, with a chance to be very good, but definitely not "Excellent".

his scoring (combined with efficiency) is very good
his rebounding is good
he is active defensively
his assist to TO is excellent

just looked at his RPM:

#1 with a bullet overall amongst SFs - 4th defensively, 3rd offensively
last year #4 overall - 5th offensively, above average defensively
previous year 12th overall (15th O/9th D)

signed up for ages 24-27

[DanTown8587]

Good question. Porter most certainly isn't "very good" IMO, and, equally as important, they don't fit all that well together (no bigs among the three).

But they are a good borderline case. They are like the 9th team in the league, I had said top 8 is what you want to maintain. I wouldn't have signed Porter to his deal.

porter is above average at his position at pretty much everything. that's not just very good, it's excellent

By my rough estimate, there are 6-12 guys you'd rather have playing SF for your team than Porter. So I'd say he's good, with a chance to be very good, but definitely not "Excellent".

This is why it all depends on sequencing and not on value in a vacuum

Well the sequencing was they either let Porter walk or they get the a MLE worth $8 million to sign his replacement due to being over the cap with the Wall/Beal/Gortat deals.

The only guys you'd likely take over Porter are max contract guys any team would gladly sign at their price.

[League Circles]

porter is above average at his position at pretty much everything. that's not just very good, it's excellent

By my rough estimate, there are 6-12 guys you'd rather have playing SF for your team than Porter. So I'd say he's good, with a chance to be very good, but definitely not "Excellent".

This is why it all depends on sequencing and not on value in a vacuum

Well the sequencing was they either let Porter walk or they get the a MLE worth $8 million to sign his replacement due to being over the cap with the Wall/Beal/Gortat deals.

The only guys you'd likely take over Porter are max contract guys any team would gladly sign at their price.

Yeah like I've been saying they very well may have made the right choice. I don't have a strong opinion on Porter. I would note, though, that for all I know maybe they could have resigned him for a little less. I can't recall the details of what was was offered when and whether they matched an offer sheet or whatever. If they hadn't paid Mahinmi they could add a real player to compliment those guys.

[League Circles]

porter is above average at his position at pretty much everything. that's not just very good, it's excellent

By my rough estimate, there are 6-12 guys you'd rather have playing SF for your team than Porter. So I'd say he's good, with a chance to be very good, but definitely not "Excellent".

his scoring (combined with efficiency) is very good
his rebounding is good
he is active defensively
his assist to TO is excellent

just looked at his RPM:

#1 with a bullet overall amongst SFs - 4th defensively, 3rd offensively
last year #4 overall - 5th offensively, above average defensively
previous year 12th overall (15th O/9th D)

signed up for ages 24-27

His volume is solid this year but nothing special, and not very high in all other seasons. If RPM is the end all then some team should be looking to put him and enes Kanter and David West together and have a real big three

[hungarianjordan]

If they had kept Butler, they probably would have signed Teodosic and waived Rondo. Don't think they would have gone for Collison. Rumor was that they had a deal done, then backed out after the Butler trade. That would have been fun to watch.

[dice]

By my rough estimate, there are 6-12 guys you'd rather have playing SF for your team than Porter. So I'd say he's good, with a chance to be very good, but definitely not "Excellent".

his scoring (combined with efficiency) is very good
his rebounding is good
he is active defensively
his assist to TO is excellent

just looked at his RPM:

#1 with a bullet overall amongst SFs - 4th defensively, 3rd offensively
last year #4 overall - 5th offensively, above average defensively
previous year 12th overall (15th O/9th D)

signed up for ages 24-27

His volume is solid this year but nothing special, and not very high in all other seasons

and his RPM numbers have increased accordingly. he is at minimum an elite role player entering his prime. whether that's worth the kind of money he's making is debatable

If RPM is the end all then some team should be looking to put him and enes Kanter and David West together and have a real big three

kanter does not have good RPM. his defense is terrible. and if david west was doing in starting minutes what he does in his limited role he'd be all-star worthy

[Ice Man]

Porter's an interesting case. He always shows up on RPM as being much better than what people think he is. Rather like Butler in that respect, until Butler became regarded as a star.

And for the same reasons. Porter literally does everything right. His scoring efficiency is great (60%), he rarely turns the ball over, he doesn't often foul, he gets lots of steals, his defensive stats are excellent, he rebounds well for his position. He is the anti-Zach. LaVine jumps to the moon, instantly attracts a viewer's attention ... and plays every aspect of NBA basketball worse than Porter does.

It's not just RPM that rates Porter higher. He has the highest Win Shares on the Wizards, ahead of both Beal and Wall, and the highest VORP. Mind you, I don't even know what those things are, but it does suggest that if you crunch numbers to try to figure out who the best player on the Wizards is, Porter could be the guy you come up with.

[Dan Z]

How many small forwards would you rather have than Otto Porter?

Durant, Paul George and LeBron (obviously)
Middleton
Barnes and Covington (Maybe for both).
Jayson Tatum
Maybe you see more potential in Josh Jackson and Brandon Ingram?

9 players out of 30 team

[dice]

How many small forwards would you rather have than Otto Porter?

Durant, Paul George and LeBron (obviously)
Middleton
Barnes and Covington (Maybe for both).
Jayson Tatum
Maybe you see more potential in Josh Jackson and Brandon Ingram?

9 players out of 30 team

I can't imagine anyone wanting barnes over porter at this stage. and with a #4 pick like josh Jackson you're happy if he ends up as good as porter, especially given the way he has looked as a rookie

[Dan Z]

How many small forwards would you rather have than Otto Porter?

Durant, Paul George and LeBron (obviously)
Middleton
Barnes and Covington (Maybe for both).
Jayson Tatum
Maybe you see more potential in Josh Jackson and Brandon Ingram?

9 players out of 30 team

I can't imagine anyone wanting barnes over porter at this stage. and with a #4 pick like josh Jackson you're happy if he ends up as good as porter, especially given the way he has looked as a rookie

That's why I said maybe. I could see an argument for Barnes, but I think most people would prefer Porter. As for Josh Jackson he has potential and is currently on his rookie contract. I could see someone preferring him for those reasons.

[DuckIII]

Still love it. No regrets.

What would get you to not like it? Anything?

No, nothing I said that the day the trade was announced. I approve of it as the best strategic option by a mile. Given that all options had layers of risk and all likely to fail, I never intended to judge it based on results.

I judge it based on whether it was the best idea at the time. And it clearly was.

[League Circles]

How many small forwards would you rather have than Otto Porter?

Durant, Paul George and LeBron (obviously)
Middleton
Barnes and Covington (Maybe for both).
Jayson Tatum
Maybe you see more potential in Josh Jackson and Brandon Ingram?

9 players out of 30 team

I know in some sense people may think this is an unfair answer, but obviously you'd want Jimmy Butler, Giannis and of course Kwahi Leonard playing SF for your team over Porter.

[HoopsMalone]

Let's say that Bulls management didn't take the path of "blow it up" this past offseason, but instead wanted to put together as solid a team as possible going into this season. Would we be in a better position now?

Here's a reasonable counterfactual scenario:

(1) Like at the beginning of this season, GarPax realize that a bunch of ball dominant players doesn't work next to Jimmy, and are ready to move on from both Rondo and Wade - Rondo is waived;

(2) Unlike what actually happened, blowing it up to go young isn't the preferred approach - building as competitive a team as could be done this season is;

(3) to start, the Bulls know that Charlotte wants to get out from Nick Batum's deal and so the teams do a player for player Wade-Batum swap - which also opens another 1.4M in cap room (22.4 v. 23.8);

(4) to maximize cap room, the Bulls renounce all options except for Niko, who they believe in as a mid-level starter - a cap hold of 8.7M that ends up with the same last minute 2 year deal.

(5) With about 77.9M in contracts and cap holds, including draft holds, the Bulls are left with about 23.4M in cap room, which they use on: (1) Darren Collison (2 years, 21M, 10.5M per year to outbid Indiana); (2) Tyreke Evans (1 year, 4M, to outbid Memphis); (3) Jonathan Simmons (3 years, 21M, 6.5/7/7.5); and a minimum deal and Mareese Speights.

(6) In the draft, the Bulls at 16 select Jarrett Allen or John Collins as a defensive big to replace the lost Felicio, and also draft (and don't trade) Jordan Bell as another hedge.

The Roster end up as:

point: Collison, (T.Evans), J.Grant, Payne
wing: Batum, T.Evans, Valentine
wing: Butler, Simmons
forward: Niko, Portis, Bell
center: Ro-Lo, Collins/Allen, Speights

Would folks have preferred this team to where we are now? It's still a "treadmill" type team, but much more balanced than last seasons team. At the same time, it would probably be better than Indiana is this season, and would have a punchers chance in the Eastern Conference (with the Cavs imploding) as compared to Boston, Toronto, Washington and Milwaukee.

Anyway we can still do #3? Please?

[Dan Z]

How many small forwards would you rather have than Otto Porter?

Durant, Paul George and LeBron (obviously)
Middleton
Barnes and Covington (Maybe for both).
Jayson Tatum
Maybe you see more potential in Josh Jackson and Brandon Ingram?

9 players out of 30 team

I know in some sense people may think this is an unfair answer, but obviously you'd want Jimmy Butler, Giannis and of course Kwahi Leonard playing SF for your team over Porter.

I thought Butler played SG and Giannis at PF? I forgot about Leonard (oops!).

Even if you add them to my list he's still one of the better SF's in the league. But I don't see a scenario where the Bulls could or should go after him (at least in the near future).

[MGB8]

Bumping this after Indiana smacked Cleveland around (even though Cleveland losing its first game in a "wake-up" call isn't all that unusual. Not only did Cleveland lose, but Toronto definitely looked vulnerable at home.

A "treadmill" Bulls-team along the lines of what I proposed would have been competitive.

More than that, it also shows that building a strong, but not "super-dominant" team is not a fools errand - occasionally, those teams get chances at the finals - whether we're talking about the Spurs most recent championship where Duncan, Manu and Parker were well past their primes and Kawhi just starting to really blossom, or the Mavericks a few years prior.

This year, you have Curry hurt (where if a collapsing San Antonio wasn't the opponent, you could see the Warriors getting bounced), Houston is no Warriors team, and the Cavs are somewhat in disarray.

[dougthonus]

Bumping this after Indiana smacked Cleveland around (even though Cleveland losing its first game in a "wake-up" call isn't all that unusual. Not only did Cleveland lose, but Toronto definitely looked vulnerable at home.

A "treadmill" Bulls-team along the lines of what I proposed would have been competitive.

More than that, it also shows that building a strong, but not "super-dominant" team is not a fools errand - occasionally, those teams get chances at the finals - whether we're talking about the Spurs most recent championship where Duncan, Manu and Parker were well past their primes and Kawhi just starting to really blossom, or the Mavericks a few years prior.

This year, you have Curry hurt (where if a collapsing San Antonio wasn't the opponent, you could see the Warriors getting bounced), Houston is no Warriors team, and the Cavs are somewhat in disarray.

I think the team you built would be 50/50 to get to the second round and have a legit shot at going further, given the injuries to Boston, collapse of Cleveland, and general playoff lousiness of Toronto, there's probably no one in the East that feels like they don't have a shot at the finals.

That said, you're still talking about building a middling team. It's worth noting the team you put together has less talent than the Timberwolves team that Jimmy is actually on which probably won't get out of the 1st round of the playoffs. Playing in the East can make you feel better about yourself though.

I'd be surprised if the actual Bulls team doesn't look much better than this team in two years.

[MGB8]

Bumping this after Indiana smacked Cleveland around (even though Cleveland losing its first game in a "wake-up" call isn't all that unusual. Not only did Cleveland lose, but Toronto definitely looked vulnerable at home.

A "treadmill" Bulls-team along the lines of what I proposed would have been competitive.

More than that, it also shows that building a strong, but not "super-dominant" team is not a fools errand - occasionally, those teams get chances at the finals - whether we're talking about the Spurs most recent championship where Duncan, Manu and Parker were well past their primes and Kawhi just starting to really blossom, or the Mavericks a few years prior.

This year, you have Curry hurt (where if a collapsing San Antonio wasn't the opponent, you could see the Warriors getting bounced), Houston is no Warriors team, and the Cavs are somewhat in disarray.

I think the team you built would be 50/50 to get to the second round and have a legit shot at going further, given the injuries to Boston, collapse of Cleveland, and general playoff lousiness of Toronto, there's probably no one in the East that feels like they don't have a shot at the finals.

That said, you're still talking about building a middling team. It's worth noting the team you put together has less talent than the Timberwolves team that Jimmy is actually on which probably won't get out of the 1st round of the playoffs. Playing in the East can make you feel better about yourself though.

You are right, it has less talent - no KAT. But if KAT was actually consistently living up to his talent, then the Wolves would likely be a serious threat, rather than a "maybe they'll reach the 2nd round" team. The Wizards have more talent than all but 3 or 4 of the teams in the playoffs, but the talent just doesn't translate consistently.

It would be a "middling-plus" team - but with the Cavs' situation and the Warriors situation, is there any team outside of Houston in the playoffs that isn't a "middling-plus" kind of team?

The Bulls certainly wouldn't be a favorite - no thoughts of dynasties, etc. - but I enjoyed the Rose era where the Bulls were nothing more than a potentially Lebron speedbump / if everything breaks right, Lebron spoiler. I don't think building that type of consistently strong, but not dominant, team is such a terrible end result.

[musiqsoulchild]

Good bump MGB8.

I still think that this is our direction this offseason...to build a strong playoff team. Definition: Second round guaranteed.

Like you said, it's no fools errand...but luckily our own fools are rather good at building this kind of team.

[TheStig]

Bumping this after Indiana smacked Cleveland around (even though Cleveland losing its first game in a "wake-up" call isn't all that unusual. Not only did Cleveland lose, but Toronto definitely looked vulnerable at home.

A "treadmill" Bulls-team along the lines of what I proposed would have been competitive.

More than that, it also shows that building a strong, but not "super-dominant" team is not a fools errand - occasionally, those teams get chances at the finals - whether we're talking about the Spurs most recent championship where Duncan, Manu and Parker were well past their primes and Kawhi just starting to really blossom, or the Mavericks a few years prior.

This year, you have Curry hurt (where if a collapsing San Antonio wasn't the opponent, you could see the Warriors getting bounced), Houston is no Warriors team, and the Cavs are somewhat in disarray.

I think the team you built would be 50/50 to get to the second round and have a legit shot at going further, given the injuries to Boston, collapse of Cleveland, and general playoff lousiness of Toronto, there's probably no one in the East that feels like they don't have a shot at the finals.

That said, you're still talking about building a middling team. It's worth noting the team you put together has less talent than the Timberwolves team that Jimmy is actually on which probably won't get out of the 1st round of the playoffs. Playing in the East can make you feel better about yourself though.

I'd be surprised if the actual Bulls team doesn't look much better than this team in two years.

Eh, are the Wolves really all that talented. Towns is very good offensively but bad defensively. Wiggins is a developing into a terrible contract. He is Terrance Ross on a max deal. I used to be really high on them and think Towns will be better but Wiggins is going to be an albatross.

I still think Butler would have brought us someone good via FA either last year or this year. He is really well liked by his Team USA guys. Even if you added Milos and Simmons and that team is much better than the priors year team.

[Ice Man]

Eh, are the Wolves really all that talented.

Towns is excellent despite his defensive weakness. That is the sum total of the Wolves' young talent. After that, the team consists of Butler plus veteran role players.