NBA Trade Thread #11

[ChiefILL53]

Why on earth would anyone want the bulls to trade for butler? I love jimmy, but what would be the purpose?

[Infinity2152]

Why on earth would anyone want the bulls to trade for butler? I love jimmy, but what would be the purpose?

Um, to win more games, you know, the priority for most teams. Drastically improve the defense. Add a player that's proven to be able to lead an average/slightly above average team deep into the playoffs multiple times. Get a leader for a team with no leadership. Add a winning vet to a very young team with almost no vets. Elevate this team's ceiling. Pick one. Or all of the above.

Add in, only top player available for fire sale prices. And that fire sale has nothing to do with injury or ability decline.

Rockets added an older vet (Dillon Brooks, basically a discount version of Butler) to a bunch of young guys. Everybody said it was way too much. They're much better now, and it's not just Dillon Brooks stats making them better.

[HomoSapien]

Warriors fan here. Didn’t just give Moody an extension to deal him. If anything, trying to clear more minutes for him.

That being said, the top two Warriors beatwriters, Anthony Slater and Marcus Thompson, along with Sam Amick just put out an article in the Athletic that the Warriors aren’t pursuing Jimmy Butler and that Vucevic is likely a top target along with Cam Johnson.

Without Moody it becomes tricky, because other versions of this would require a four for 1 trade (I.E. something like Looney, Payton, Waters, and Santos for Vuc) to work salary wise. The complication would be that the Bulls would have to prioritize getting rid of three additional players to make this work -- most likely Craig, Carter, and Duarte. Not impossible, but also probably not easy to get rid of all three for nothing coming back.

[ChiefILL53]

Why on earth would anyone want the bulls to trade for butler? I love jimmy, but what would be the purpose?

Um, to win more games, you know, the priority for most teams. Drastically improve the defense. Add a player that's proven to be able to lead an average/slightly above average team deep into the playoffs multiple times. Get a leader for a team with no leadership. Add a winning vet to a very young team with almost no vets. Elevate this team's ceiling. Pick one. Or all of the above.

Add in, only top player available for fire sale prices. And that fire sale has nothing to do with injury or ability decline.

Rockets added an older vet (Dillon Brooks, basically a discount version of Butler) to a bunch of young guys. Everybody said it was way too much. They're much better now, and it's not just Dillon Brooks stats making them better.

Winning games is gonna do nothing for us except ruin our chance of keeping our pick we owe to the spurs, and giving AKME the false hope that the team can compete. They need to press the button on a rebuild and start trading away some of our vets, not adding new ones to make a play-in push. We dont have the same roster construction as houston did when they added the vets they did.

[Muzbar]

Why on earth would anyone want the bulls to trade for butler? I love jimmy, but what would be the purpose?

Um, to win more games, you know, the priority for most teams. Drastically improve the defense. Add a player that's proven to be able to lead an average/slightly above average team deep into the playoffs multiple times. Get a leader for a team with no leadership. Add a winning vet to a very young team with almost no vets. Elevate this team's ceiling. Pick one. Or all of the above.

Add in, only top player available for fire sale prices. And that fire sale has nothing to do with injury or ability decline.

Rockets added an older vet (Dillon Brooks, basically a discount version of Butler) to a bunch of young guys. Everybody said it was way too much. They're much better now, and it's not just Dillon Brooks stats making them better.

Winning games is gonna do nothing for us except ruin our chance of keeping our pick we owe to the spurs, and giving AKME the false hope that the team can compete. They need to press the button on a rebuild and start trading away some of our vets, not adding new ones to make a play-in push. We dont have the same roster construction as houston did when they added the vets they did.

Some here would much rather win games, even if only a few more.

[Infinity2152]

Why on earth would anyone want the bulls to trade for butler? I love jimmy, but what would be the purpose?

Um, to win more games, you know, the priority for most teams. Drastically improve the defense. Add a player that's proven to be able to lead an average/slightly above average team deep into the playoffs multiple times. Get a leader for a team with no leadership. Add a winning vet to a very young team with almost no vets. Elevate this team's ceiling. Pick one. Or all of the above.

Add in, only top player available for fire sale prices. And that fire sale has nothing to do with injury or ability decline.

Rockets added an older vet (Dillon Brooks, basically a discount version of Butler) to a bunch of young guys. Everybody said it was way too much. They're much better now, and it's not just Dillon Brooks stats making them better.

Winning games is gonna do nothing for us except ruin our chance of keeping our pick we owe to the spurs, and giving AKME the false hope that the team can compete. They need to press the button on a rebuild and start trading away some of our vets, not adding new ones to make a play-in push. We dont have the same roster construction as houston did when they added the vets they did.

The question said "why would anyone want this." so I gave several reasons. You may not agree with the reasons, but there are logical reasons to want to add Jimmy Butler to this team. Keeping our pick means we can't use picks in trade, and we still have to give up a future pick. Tired of people acting like getting this pick this year has no cost, it absolutely does. And I think we have a very similar roster construction: dominant athletic SG (Lavine, Green), Shooting/rebounding average to weak defense center (Vucevic, Sengun), Rookie PF (Matas, Jabari Smith), very few vets. No number 1 option. Scoring split mostly between three players. Our roster has more overall talent easily, especially if you take out Brooks. Or replace Pat, Lonzo, Carter with Jimmy Butler and they keep Brooks.

You say trade away some of our vets, WHAT VETS? Every vet is on the trading block, only one likely to be here next year is Lavine and he's not even 30! How are you going to rebuild if 80% of your team is under 24? What are you rebuilding?

[MrSparkle]

We’ve lost to the Wizards, Nets, Jazz and Pelicans, amongst others… inc. the Giannis/Lillard-less Bucks.

Adding a 35yo to this broken inconsistent squad should not be in consideration.

[Infinity2152]

OMG! Who should we add then????? Just wait and pray to the lottery gods? Why not say teams should get rid of Lebron, KD, Paul George, Steph Curry, Al Horford, Derozan, Lillard etc. because they can't help a team. Funny these over 30 guys keep winning. The Celtics weren't winning crap without Horford and Holiday, two over 30 players.

Again, I ask all the haters of the Butler pick up, what is your move that's better? Who do we add this summer that makes us better? Trying to be better 3 years down the road is crazy, the league changes too much. I'm really trying to see th recipe that makes us much better without adding a player of Butler or Zion's caliber. Maybe force the Nuggets to trade Jokic? The Mavs trading Luka? OKC trading SGA? Maybe the Grizzlies give us Ja Morant for Lavine and 5 first round picks and 5 pick swaps.

Every move comes with risks. Even just waiting for your guys to develop, by the time they get where you need them, they're getting paid a lot, maybe overpaid.

And yes, the goal every season should be win a few more games than last. Anybody going into the season with the expectation of a 20 game jump in the standings with one or two moves is getting disappointed. Absolutely nobody said getting Jimmy would be the only move.

[jnrjr79]

OMG! Who should we add then?????

Probably nobody!

Just wait and pray to the lottery gods?

Why, yes! Yes, the Bulls should.

Why not say teams should get rid of Lebron, KD, Paul George, Steph Curry, Al Horford, Derozan, Lillard etc. because they can't help a team.

Nobody says this. But not all teams are in a position to add those guys. If you added LeBron to the Wizards right now, that would be a disaster for the Wizards.

Funny these over 30 guys keep winning. The Celtics weren't winning crap without Horford and Holiday, two over 30 players.

Sure, because they went about it the right way. They drafted their stars and then found great veteran support for them. Then they won a championship. That sounds fun! I want to do that.

Again, I ask all the haters of the Butler pick up, what is your move that's better?

Trade vets, try to keep the pick, draft well.

Who do we add this summer that makes us better? Trying to be better 3 years down the road is crazy, the league changes too much.

This kind of impatient attitude is precisely why the Bulls are mediocre now.

I'm really trying to see th recipe that makes us much better without adding a player of Butler or Zion's caliber. Maybe force the Nuggets to trade Jokic? The Mavs trading Luka? OKC trading SGA? Maybe the Grizzlies give us Ja Morant for Lavine and 5 first round picks and 5 pick swaps.

I understand the argument for Zion and would do it for expiring. He fits the timeline and his contract has tons of outs, so you can turn him into cap space if it doesn’t work out. That’s nothing like giving a max to Jimmy Butler.

Every move comes with risks. Even just waiting for your guys to develop, by the time they get where you need them, they're getting paid a lot, maybe overpaid.

Yes, every move comes with risk. That doesn’t mean some moves are smarter than others.

[Infinity2152]

OMG! Who should we add then?????

Probably nobody!

Just wait and pray to the lottery gods?

Why, yes! Yes, the Bulls should.

Why not say teams should get rid of Lebron, KD, Paul George, Steph Curry, Al Horford, Derozan, Lillard etc. because they can't help a team.

Nobody says this. But not all teams are in a position to add those guys. If you added LeBron to the Wizards right now, that would be a disaster for the Wizards.

Funny these over 30 guys keep winning. The Celtics weren't winning crap without Horford and Holiday, two over 30 players.

Sure, because they went about it the right way. They drafted their stars and then found great veteran support for them. Then they won a championship. That sounds fun! I want to do that.

Again, I ask all the haters of the Butler pick up, what is your move that's better?

Trade vets, try to keep the pick, draft well.

Who do we add this summer that makes us better? Trying to be better 3 years down the road is crazy, the league changes too much.

This kind of impatient attitude is precisely why the Bulls are mediocre now.

I'm really trying to see th recipe that makes us much better without adding a player of Butler or Zion's caliber. Maybe force the Nuggets to trade Jokic? The Mavs trading Luka? OKC trading SGA? Maybe the Grizzlies give us Ja Morant for Lavine and 5 first round picks and 5 pick swaps.

I understand the argument for Zion and would do it for expiring. He fits the timeline and his contract has tons of outs, so you can turn him into cap space if it doesn’t work out. That’s nothing like giving a max to Jimmy Butler.

Every move comes with risks. Even just waiting for your guys to develop, by the time they get where you need them, they're getting paid a lot, maybe overpaid.

Yes, every move comes with risk. That doesn’t mean some moves are smarter than others.

Again, suggest some moves so i can ridicule them. You will see how easy it is to point out POTENTIAL flaws in every single move. If that impatient attitude is why the Bulls are so bad right now, explain the Nets and Pistons, who are doing it the "right way". Explain the Heat championships, where they brought in TWO stars, or the Cleveland ones where they did the same thing. Explain how the homegrown Celtics brought in a TON of outside players. Only two drafted players played big roles. Or the Lakers championship, neither Lebron or AD drafted by Lakers. Since a winning team can only be built through the draft.

Move vets, try to keep the pick, draft well? The Bulls have been trying to trade their top two vets all year. What are you expecting to get? If your only plan to add talent is draft the next few years, when at least one of our firsts is probably gone anyway, that's not a plan. Every team is already doing that, including winning ones. How do you try to keep the pick any more than we're already doing? They let Derozan and Caruso go already. And when was the last time we drafted well? Every element of your plan has a low chance of success.

Lot of people really want us to suck for 2-3 years straight, so they can complain about the players sucking for the next two years. Nothing but complaints and criticisms of every player but Matas this year, even though they want us to lose.

[jnrjr79]

Again, suggest some moves so i can ridicule them.

That sounds fun and productive given the prompt.

You will see how easy it is to point out POTENTIAL flaws in every single move. If that impatient attitude is why the Bulls are so bad right now, explain the Nets and Pistons, who are doing it the "right way".

The Pistons drafted poorly, which is the risk of a draft-based approach. Perhaps I need to remind you that all team rebuilding strategies are unlikely to succeed. You just have to give yourself the best chance. And in any event, the Pistons are on the rise, it looks like they hit on Cade, and are in a better position than the Bulls for sustained success. The Nets are still tearing it down from their failed effort to build around big acquired names, which seems like a plan you would have liked.

Explain the Heat championships, where they brought in TWO stars, or the Cleveland ones where they did the same thing.

I’d agree it’s easier to bring in stars when you have a glamorous warm-weather city with no state income tax or when the best player of his generation happened to be born there, you drafted him, and he wanted to come back and finish unlined business.

Explain how the homegrown Celtics brought in a TON of outside players. Only two drafted players played big roles.

This is the most frivolous point you could make. The Celtics built in precisely the fashion I’m advocating for in my post.

Or the Lakers championship, neither Lebron or AD drafted by Lakers. Since a winning team can only be built through the draft.

If the Bulls were in Los Angeles, I would likely advocate for a more FA-driven approach.

And trade vets to get what? The Bulls have been trying to trade their top two vets all year. What are you expecting to get?

Draft capital and/or salary flexibility, depending on who you’re dealing.

[Muzbar]

just read any interesting trade idea

Bulls trade - White/Craig
Bucks trade - Portis/Beauchamp/ 2031 1st and 2nd

Not a huge fan of trading White but for Portis and draft picks I would be thrilled. By 2031 the Bucks will def
be in rebuild mode and Giannis who is 30 will be gone in 6 years. In the now of the deal, I like the idea of a
long term fit of Buzalis/Portis/Smith front court.

Milwaukee can't aggregate players in a trade, so if you take out Beauchamp and Craig it should still work, but then it's less desirable, IMO.

[Infinity2152]

Again, suggest some moves so i can ridicule them.

That sounds fun and productive given the prompt.

You will see how easy it is to point out POTENTIAL flaws in every single move. If that impatient attitude is why the Bulls are so bad right now, explain the Nets and Pistons, who are doing it the "right way".

The Pistons drafted poorly, which is the risk of a draft-based approach. Perhaps I need to remind you that all team rebuilding strategies are unlikely to succeed. You just have to give yourself the best chance. And in any event, the Pistons are on the rise, it looks like they hit on Cade, and are in a better position than the Bulls for sustained success. The Nets are still tearing it down from their failed effort to build around big acquired names, which seems like a plan you would have liked.

Explain the Heat championships, where they brought in TWO stars, or the Cleveland ones where they did the same thing.

I’d agree it’s easier to bring in stars when you have a glamorous warm-weather city with no state income tax or when the best player of his generation happened to be born there, you drafted him, and he wanted to come back and finish unlined business.

Explain how the homegrown Celtics brought in a TON of outside players. Only two drafted players played big roles.

This is the most frivolous point you could make. The Celtics built in precisely the fashion I’m advocating for in my post.

Or the Lakers championship, neither Lebron or AD drafted by Lakers. Since a winning team can only be built through the draft.

If the Bulls were in Los Angeles, I would likely advocate for a more FA-driven approach.

And trade vets to get what? The Bulls have been trying to trade their top two vets all year. What are you expecting to get?

Draft capital and/or salary flexibility, depending on who you’re dealing.

And you don't see that people acting like they can't see the logic of adding Butler is ridiculing the idea? It's fine to agree the cost is not worth it. I'll freely admit the risks involved. Now will you freely admit the possible benefits? These conversations have been extremely one-sided. I'm happy to discuss alternate trade scenarios. Can't really discuss stay pat do nothing, pray for luck, because every single team in the league gets first round picks every year. Every team can luck into a star, or a flop.

You want to argue each team, that's cool, not engaging. Every one of those teams won primarily because of FA, not the draft. And the drafted players that did play big roles are usually on their second contract, so 4-5 years down the line. If you're lucky.

I AM NOT SAYING BUTLER IS THE PERFECT PLAYER. I am not saying he, or any other single player can fix the Bulls. We have no idea who will even be on the team this summer, everybody's on the block except Smith, Ayo and Giddey I think.

[jnrjr79]

Again, suggest some moves so i can ridicule them.

That sounds fun and productive given the prompt.

You will see how easy it is to point out POTENTIAL flaws in every single move. If that impatient attitude is why the Bulls are so bad right now, explain the Nets and Pistons, who are doing it the "right way".

The Pistons drafted poorly, which is the risk of a draft-based approach. Perhaps I need to remind you that all team rebuilding strategies are unlikely to succeed. You just have to give yourself the best chance. And in any event, the Pistons are on the rise, it looks like they hit on Cade, and are in a better position than the Bulls for sustained success. The Nets are still tearing it down from their failed effort to build around big acquired names, which seems like a plan you would have liked.

Explain the Heat championships, where they brought in TWO stars, or the Cleveland ones where they did the same thing.

I’d agree it’s easier to bring in stars when you have a glamorous warm-weather city with no state income tax or when the best player of his generation happened to be born there, you drafted him, and he wanted to come back and finish unlined business.

Explain how the homegrown Celtics brought in a TON of outside players. Only two drafted players played big roles.

This is the most frivolous point you could make. The Celtics built in precisely the fashion I’m advocating for in my post.

Or the Lakers championship, neither Lebron or AD drafted by Lakers. Since a winning team can only be built through the draft.

If the Bulls were in Los Angeles, I would likely advocate for a more FA-driven approach.

And trade vets to get what? The Bulls have been trying to trade their top two vets all year. What are you expecting to get?

Draft capital and/or salary flexibility, depending on who you’re dealing.

And you don't see that people acting like they can't see the logic of adding Butler is ridiculing the idea?

No, disagreement is not ridicule.

It's fine to agree the cost is not worth it. I'll freely admit the risks involved. Now will you freely admit the possible benefits?

What, in your view, are the possible benefits? Seems to me the upside is a 6th or 5th seed and a first round exit. I do not support that.

These conversations have been extremely one-sided. I'm happy to discuss alternate trade scenarios. Can't really discuss stay pat do nothing, pray for luck, because every single team in the league gets first round picks every year. Every team can luck into a star, or a flop.

This is not responsive to me, as I am not advocating for that, as you know.

You want to argue each team, that's cool, not engaging. Every one of those teams won primarily because of FA, not the draft. And the drafted players that did play big roles are usually on their second contract, so 4-5 years down the line. If you're lucky.

The first two sentences are not true. The remainder is. And that’s ok.

I AM NOT SAYING BUTLER IS THE PERFECT PLAYER. I am not saying he, or any other single player can fix the Bulls. We have no idea who will even be on the team this summer, everybody's on the block except Smith, Ayo and Giddey I think.

Because Butler cannot fix the Bulls, is 35 and misses a ton of games, and would likely eliminate the Bulls’ ability to add other pieces around him in the immediate future that would put them into contention, I don’t see the logic in trading for him. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

[Infinity2152]

Let's forget individual players for now. The Bulls as a team have a few glaring needs. Most of the team are good shooters. Most of the team is young. Most of the team are average-below average defenders. No post defender. No leader. Only 2 players over 6'9". No 1A player. Both playmakers are FA this summer. No one player is fixing all that.

Getting more young players is not a need. We have a ton of them. I'm not giving up on all of them so soon. Which means I need to surround them with veteran talent so they can win, learn, and develop. We need a vet leader, unless a young leader arises. We need defensive players. We have maybe 1-2 good on ball defenders. It's about building a balanced team, not just keep adding young players and hoping they all fit together. FA is to fill in the gaps, fill the team's needs. Draft you go for highest talent available.

Believe me, the arguments against adding Butler are obvious. But this is not just about getting better now. I think Butler makes all the young guys better for the next few years, and adds a defensive identity. Like Caruso. but starting. Not advocating for a long contract. The rookie we draft now would still be on his rookie contract, but has played on a good winning team with good defense for the last three years instead of crap. Consider the impact adding Dillon Brooks to the Rockets, I'd be looking for similar results.

[ChettheJet]

I'm guessing this will go on for a month. State your moves, explain what you think and that's enough. Why do people get baited so easily to defending their opinion whenever somebody points out flaws or just has a different opinion. If 150 people post you might have 150 different suggestions, state yours and stop acting like justifying it 20 times is going to change someone else's mind. I don't know if what anybody suggests is ever going to happen but some people make you just skip over what they post because they can't accept someone seeing things differently. It's hard to imagine the rejection some must feel when the NBA doesn't see their brilliance.

[Infinity2152]

I guess it's not cool to go back and forth with your opinion. Or to continue to respond to people you're having a discussion with. Maybe the polite thing would be to not respond or continue debating. These conversations have not been one-way, I'm not talking to myself. If anyone feels personally offended, I apologize, I try hard to keep personal comments out of my arguments, unless I'm personally attacked. Somebody please tell me the rules on how many times we can go back and forth so I don't break them. I literally said I see the other side, if you want me to list the opposing reasons, that's fine. Not even arguing that Butler SHOULD be on the team, lmao!! Most recent thing on the trade front is Jimmy Butler demanding out, this is the trade thread, he has previous connection with Chicago, and I'm talking about him too much in the trade thread??

Won't talk about it anymore, suggest a different subject then. Final word though, I don't work for the Bulls, nor have any control over what they do. Was merely debating pros and cons, presenting the pros. The con, he's older. I get it.

[jnrjr79]

I guess it's not cool to go back and forth with your opinion. Or to continue to respond to people you're having a discussion with. Maybe the polite thing would be to not respond or continue debating. These conversations have not been one-way, I'm not talking to myself. If anyone feels personally offended, I apologize, I try hard to keep personal comments out of my arguments, unless I'm personally attacked. Somebody please tell me the rules on how many times we can go back and forth so I don't break them. I literally said I see the other side, if you want me to list the opposing reasons, that's fine. Not even arguing that Butler SHOULD be on the team, lmao!! Most recent thing on the trade front is Jimmy Butler demanding out, this is the trade thread, he has previous connection with Chicago, and I'm talking about him too much in the trade thread??

Won't talk about it anymore, suggest a different subject then. Final word though, I don't work for the Bulls, nor have any control over what they do. Was merely debating pros and cons, presenting the pros. The con, he's older. I get it.

No, I think it’s good! At some point we might be beating a dead horse, but what the heck is a message board for if it’s like “you can speak once and never again?”

[Infinity2152]

I guess it's not cool to go back and forth with your opinion. Or to continue to respond to people you're having a discussion with. Maybe the polite thing would be to not respond or continue debating. These conversations have not been one-way, I'm not talking to myself. If anyone feels personally offended, I apologize, I try hard to keep personal comments out of my arguments, unless I'm personally attacked. Somebody please tell me the rules on how many times we can go back and forth so I don't break them. I literally said I see the other side, if you want me to list the opposing reasons, that's fine. Not even arguing that Butler SHOULD be on the team, lmao!! Most recent thing on the trade front is Jimmy Butler demanding out, this is the trade thread, he has previous connection with Chicago, and I'm talking about him too much in the trade thread??

Won't talk about it anymore, suggest a different subject then. Final word though, I don't work for the Bulls, nor have any control over what they do. Was merely debating pros and cons, presenting the pros. The con, he's older. I get it.

No, I think it’s good! At some point we might be beating a dead horse, but what the heck is a message board for if it’s like “you can speak once and never again?”

Appreciate that. It was actually fun debating back and forth with you. Believe me, I don't think my opinion is more valid than yours and I know you and a lot of the others I debate know a great deal about basketball. Somebody has to play Devil's advocate, lol.

I'm a firm believer in none of us can remotely predict the correct future, too many random factors. Most we can do is make moves we think are right at the time, try to get better and hope for the best.

[jnrjr79]

I guess it's not cool to go back and forth with your opinion. Or to continue to respond to people you're having a discussion with. Maybe the polite thing would be to not respond or continue debating. These conversations have not been one-way, I'm not talking to myself. If anyone feels personally offended, I apologize, I try hard to keep personal comments out of my arguments, unless I'm personally attacked. Somebody please tell me the rules on how many times we can go back and forth so I don't break them. I literally said I see the other side, if you want me to list the opposing reasons, that's fine. Not even arguing that Butler SHOULD be on the team, lmao!! Most recent thing on the trade front is Jimmy Butler demanding out, this is the trade thread, he has previous connection with Chicago, and I'm talking about him too much in the trade thread??

Won't talk about it anymore, suggest a different subject then. Final word though, I don't work for the Bulls, nor have any control over what they do. Was merely debating pros and cons, presenting the pros. The con, he's older. I get it.

No, I think it’s good! At some point we might be beating a dead horse, but what the heck is a message board for if it’s like “you can speak once and never again?”

Appreciate that. It was actually fun debating back and forth with you. Believe me, I don't think my opinion is more valid than yours and I know you and a lot of the others I debate know a great deal about basketball. Somebody has to play Devil's advocate, lol.

I'm a firm believer in none of us can remotely predict the correct future, too many random factors. Most we can do is make moves we think are right at the time, try to get better and hope for the best.

Thanks and I agree. The primary reason I’m on this board is probably that I don’t have anybody IRL who follows the Bulls as closely as everyone around here does, so this is a great outlet to get into the nitty gritty.