RealGM

Kova wrote:I was a bit sceptical about Butler's 5-year max, cause he is on the wrong side of the '30s, and given his injury history.

However, this season proved that he is really putting in work to stay healthy, and his experience is helping him and the team. He even improved since the last year.

That being said, we made a mistake. Should have signed him instead of Harris.

Not wanting to give a 30 year old a 5 year max is perfectly fair IMO. Plenty of other teams did and probably still do feel that way about Butler.

But the difference between the Sixers and all of those teams is that the Sixers actually traded for him. It's not like this is a Buddy Hield situation and they didn't know how old Butler was when they made the trade. If you don't want to commit to him because he's too old or crazy fine just don't trade for him.

Sixerscan wrote:

Kova wrote:I was a bit sceptical about Butler's 5-year max, cause he is on the wrong side of the '30s, and given his injury history.

However, this season proved that he is really putting in work to stay healthy, and his experience is helping him and the team. He even improved since the last year.

That being said, we made a mistake. Should have signed him instead of Harris.

Not wanting to give a 30 year old a 5 year max is perfectly fair IMO. Plenty of other teams did and probably still do feel that way about Butler.

But the difference between the Sixers and all of those teams is that the Sixers actually traded for him. It's not like this is a Buddy Hield situation and they didn't know how old Butler was when they made the trade. If you don't want to commit to him because he's too old or crazy fine just don't trade for him.

And even then, if that was the rational, how is your fall back to sign a 33 year old that has already started to decline to a long-term, large money deal?

Sixerscan wrote:Not wanting to give a 30 year old a 5 year max is perfectly fair IMO. Plenty of other teams did and probably still do feel that way about Butler.

But the difference between the Sixers and all of those teams is that the Sixers actually traded for him. It's not like this is a Buddy Hield situation and they didn't know how old Butler was when they made the trade. If you don't want to commit to him because he's too old or crazy fine just don't trade for him.

I guess they viewed it worth the risk of only being a rental since the only asset of note they had to give up was Covington.

They seemed much more desperate to retain the Harris asset because of all the picks involved (two 1sts, two 2nds).

Sixerscan wrote:

Kova wrote:I was a bit sceptical about Butler's 5-year max, cause he is on the wrong side of the '30s, and given his injury history.

However, this season proved that he is really putting in work to stay healthy, and his experience is helping him and the team. He even improved since the last year.

That being said, we made a mistake. Should have signed him instead of Harris.

Not wanting to give a 30 year old a 5 year max is perfectly fair IMO. Plenty of other teams did and probably still do feel that way about Butler.

But the difference between the Sixers and all of those teams is that the Sixers actually traded for him. It's not like this is a Buddy Hield situation and they didn't know how old Butler was when they made the trade. If you don't want to commit to him because he's too old or crazy fine just don't trade for him.

Yup. Still curious what would've happened without those trades, holding firm until free agency. That's what I wanted them to do.

Kobblehead wrote:

Sixerscan wrote:Not wanting to give a 30 year old a 5 year max is perfectly fair IMO. Plenty of other teams did and probably still do feel that way about Butler.

But the difference between the Sixers and all of those teams is that the Sixers actually traded for him. It's not like this is a Buddy Hield situation and they didn't know how old Butler was when they made the trade. If you don't want to commit to him because he's too old or crazy fine just don't trade for him.

I guess they viewed it worth the risk of only being a rental since the only asset of note they had to give up was Covington.

They seemed much more desperate to retain the Harris asset because of all the picks involved (two 1sts, two 2nds).

Well Houston traded Capella and a first for Covington at the deadline, Saric was also used to move up 5 spots or whatever in the lottery. I think it's debatable.

Either way the risk of him being a rental (Butler not wanted to come back) is fine, but if it fell apart because they didn't want him because he was old and crazy (which they knew going in) that just seems not ok.

I think them realizing Butler wasn't going to work out played a major role in the Tobias trade and signing.