Would the Bulls 'reset' and trade Jimmy Butler this offseason ? What would Celtics need to give you?

[jnrjr79]

Different tiers of winning need different types of #1 players.

Boston will remain a middling team if they dont take care of getting a #1 player. And any #1 player they get - including Durant - doesnt help them win the champsionship.

They need an intermediate step - a Joe Johnson to Atlanta kind of signing. Thats exactly what Jimmy is. He's a #1 option on a Top 3 squad. He will not get you a ring - but thats not anywhere near Boston's radar.

When you cant do the infeasible, then do whats feasible.

Something tells me the Celtics have their eyes on being something greater than the Joe Johnson Atlanta Hawks. And the Celtics are basically already as good as any of those Johnson Hawks teams.

They are not. They dont have a Pierce already on the team. Jimmy is that piece.

You'll be hard pressed to make an argument that the Celtics are 1 signing away from beating the Cavs / Spurs / Warriors next season.

Ainge is fooling himself if the thinks that this rebuild is the same as the Ray Allen + KG acquisition season. He already had Pierce and Rondo. That Rondo is better than Bradley, Thomas and Smart.

I would go look at the average Joe Johnson Atlanta win-loss record before you start taking the position that these Celts aren't as good. The facts just don't support your subjective belief.

[jnrjr79]

At the same time though, you dont need a true #1. You can have multiple #2s and win a title. Spurs didnt have a true #1 their last title. The celtics didnt have a true #1 when they won. But they had good #2s plus were in great systems. Put butler in a great system with legit role players and another #2 with him, and that could be a team that wins a title.

While I agree it's possible to win with someone who would not be viewed as a "true #1," it's happened 3 times in the last 25 years - Detroit, Boston, and San Antonio. And I'm not 100% convinced Boston really belongs in that group.

You are doubling down for no reason - if Jimmy joins Boston, who on the Celtics is a better player than Jimmy?

That itself makes Jimmy the #1 player FOR the Celtics and their relative aspirations in the NBA for next season. Like I have already said --- there is NO title path in 2017 for the Celtics that involves just 1 player.

This totally misses the point. I would be the #1 player on a team of 6 year-olds. That doesn't make me a #1 player in terms of what this conversation is about.

[DarthDiggler69]

If management is going to back Fred then Jimmy has to go. His desire to be the Alpha undermines what Fred wants to do. It's not just Jimmy either but Gasol is on his way out I would imagine and Rose has another year.

Great idea, let's back this idiot coach over an All-Star player. This organization, I swear...

FWIW, I'm not against listening to offers for Butler, but if you choose Hoiberg over Jimmy? LOL.

Butler helped Thibs out the door also. Its not about Jimmy vs Hoiberg, its Jimmy vs Whoever is coaching and the team. Jimmy is likely looking to be THE franchise player, but you think hes good enough to build a team around and win a title? Because if he isnt hes just going to play the way he wants instead of whoever is coaching or whoever he is playing with, hes proved that already and that is the problem.

Bulls have one of the 'good moral character' teams out there and if they cant even stand Butler how much more the rest of the league. Give him to a team that will build around him, that seems to be the only way hes happy

[DarthDiggler69]

Forget trading Butler and not getting Crowder(and picks). Celtics would be dominating teams defensively if its Butler and Crowder, Bulls would not like playing against that every year

[musiqsoulchild]

While I agree it's possible to win with someone who would not be viewed as a "true #1," it's happened 3 times in the last 25 years - Detroit, Boston, and San Antonio. And I'm not 100% convinced Boston really belongs in that group.

You are doubling down for no reason - if Jimmy joins Boston, who on the Celtics is a better player than Jimmy?

That itself makes Jimmy the #1 player FOR the Celtics and their relative aspirations in the NBA for next season. Like I have already said --- there is NO title path in 2017 for the Celtics that involves just 1 player.

This totally misses the point. I would be the #1 player on a team of 6 year-olds. That doesn't make me a #1 player in terms of what this conversation is about.

You are speaking over me without reading what I am saying.

I'll use the exact words I used again - for the Celtics tier of winning - Jimmy is a #1.

That tier of winning does not include a title aspiration in 2017. But, it is the first building block towards a title team.

If it helps you sleep better at night, I'll call Jimmy the #15 on the Celtics roster. But no matter what number you give him or I give him - he is the first building block, if they choose to trade for him.

[jnrjr79]

You are doubling down for no reason - if Jimmy joins Boston, who on the Celtics is a better player than Jimmy?

That itself makes Jimmy the #1 player FOR the Celtics and their relative aspirations in the NBA for next season. Like I have already said --- there is NO title path in 2017 for the Celtics that involves just 1 player.

This totally misses the point. I would be the #1 player on a team of 6 year-olds. That doesn't make me a #1 player in terms of what this conversation is about.

You are speaking over me without reading what I am saying.

I'll use the exact words I used again - for the Celtics tier of winning - Jimmy is a #1.

That tier of winning does not include a title aspiration in 2017. But, it is the first building block towards a title team.

If it helps you sleep better at night, I'll call Jimmy the #15 on the Celtics roster. But no matter what number you give him or I give him - he is the first building block, if they choose to trade for him.

The discussion that was occurring in the thread is about whether Jimmy is a #1 player. Some people said yes, some said no. But everyone has a general sense of what that means, and it's something more than "just happens to be the best guy on his team." For instance, the 76ers have no #1 player. So sure, I agree with you that Jimmy would be the best player on the Celtics, but that's simply not germane to the discussion of whether he's a #1 player in terms of what that means for purposes of this discussion. I'm not interested in describing what a #1 player is for any "tier of winning" other than championship-level teams.

The point of all this is that if Jimmy is a true #1 player, you wouldn't trade him, because he would be the centerpiece of your championship hopes. However, if you don't believe he is, then you might be willing to deal him to Boston for a bunch of picks in the hopes of getting that guy who can lead you to a title.

Anyway, perhaps we both agree that the Celtics would be interested in him. I sure do! The only point I'm making - and it doesn't appear that you actually disagree - is it is unlikely that Jimmy can be the best player on a title team, which by my definition means he's not a "true" #1 player.

[musiqsoulchild]

This totally misses the point. I would be the #1 player on a team of 6 year-olds. That doesn't make me a #1 player in terms of what this conversation is about.

You are speaking over me without reading what I am saying.

I'll use the exact words I used again - for the Celtics tier of winning - Jimmy is a #1.

That tier of winning does not include a title aspiration in 2017. But, it is the first building block towards a title team.

If it helps you sleep better at night, I'll call Jimmy the #15 on the Celtics roster. But no matter what number you give him or I give him - he is the first building block, if they choose to trade for him.

The discussion that was occurring in the thread is about whether Jimmy is a #1 player. Some people said yes, some said no. But everyone has a general sense of what that means, and it's something more than "just happens to be the best guy on his team." For instance, the 76ers have no #1 player. So sure, I agree with you that Jimmy would be the best player on the Celtics, but that's simply not germane to the discussion of whether he's a #1 player in terms of what that means for purposes of this discussion. I'm not interested in describing what a #1 player is for any "tier of winning" other than championship-level teams.

The point of all this is that if Jimmy is a true #1 player, you wouldn't trade him, because he would be the centerpiece of your championship hopes. However, if you don't believe he is, then you might be willing to deal him to Boston for a bunch of picks in the hopes of getting that guy who can lead you to a title.

Anyway, perhaps we both agree that the Celtics would be interested in him. I sure do! The only point I'm making - and it doesn't appear that you actually disagree - is it is unlikely that Jimmy can be the best player on a title team, which by my definition means he's not a "true" #1 player.

The discussion assumes that there is someone out there in the NBA horizon that can be that #1 for the Celtics that fits YOUR definition.

I am saying that player doesnt exist. He might have existed on the Miami Heat 3 seasons ago and maybe that player exists on the Warriors today.

There is NO player in the NBA that the Celtics can realistically get (hence my usage of the word Infeasible) that transforms them next season into a title contender.

[musiqsoulchild]

I'll also add any player that can take you from the tier that you are presently in to the next tier (s) is a #1 player or a franchise player or whatever fancy NBA tag there is for such a player.

[Mech Engineer]

Even if you get a #1 option in a draft, you are looking at 7-8 years before a championship(if that happens). You can wait for 7 years if you have some amount of certainty. The odds are very, very low that the Bulls will find a #1 option of a championship team for the next decade.

You have a Jimmy who you call #1 or #2. Smart teams or common-sense dictates you build around it. Off-course, it is tougher to build around a #2 type guy because you need to acquire more surrounding talent than you would need for a #1 talent like LeBron.

The Celtics have to be really lucky(injuries to other teams, good match-ups) to even think of a ECF even with being a 3rd seed. They will happily take a Jimmy.

And, Jimmy might have been a problem this year. But, it makes sense to change a coach before you trade Jimmy. That's where Jimmy's status in on the team right now. If the Bulls think Jimmy has to be traded because he has been trouble for Hoiberg, then God save the Bulls.

[nitetrain8603]

Spoiler:

I wouldn't do it for several reasons.

Firstly the argument is flawed.

If anyone believes our front office has issues (Gar, Pax or both) PLUS you have a head coach who so far looks pretty bad, why in the world would anyone want to compound the problem by moving their best asset?

It would either mean you have total trust in the front office and the head coach. If any of that is in question, then blowing up things is just a bad idea.

Really, I just really hate how the league is such a copy cat. They look at one success story (Boston) and think lets just do this and suddenly our team is back on track. LMAO

If that were the case, the numerous teams that have dropped their stars would be on top of the league. Namely the Sixers.

Think of Orlando Magic who were FAR WORSE with their star when he was traded. That relationship between he, the coach and mgmt was toxic. This is what followed

20-62
23-59
25-57
30-43 currently

Are the Magic really any better off? There is always too many thing that has to go right. They even look to be doing more rebuilds by moving Vucevic and even Dipo for other assets. They already moved Harris.

In short, 9/10 times a rebuild is long painful and UGLY. People say they dont want a treadmil, but you dont want to win 20 games a year either.

The Twolves haven't even sniffed the playoffs in 13 years and since KG left they have only have 1 season in like 10 years of competitive basketball. People may say, they have alot of nice young talent now, but thats still at least 14 years from when they were last in the playoffs. Thats because their deal for KG did not work out the way they wanted.

Does anyone want to watch a Lakers team? Which is essentially what people are asking for. All young talent that may or may not work out. Its usually a mess.

I've been lucky enough to have seen the rise and end of the Dynasty. And everyone who said, yeah we can drop everyone and get back within 3 years (As Krause Promised) bailed after it didnt happen. We were the laughing stock of the league for 6 straight years and eveyrone and it was even hard to find anyone brave enough to admit they were bulls fans. So for me been there done that.

That could easily be us again. Its not fun. Its not enjoyable.

People see we can be like Boston or Twolves and get a bunch of young guys.

But I only imagine 2017 versions of Dragan Tarlac, Kornell David, Rusty Larue and Dalibor Bagaric

I agree with a lot of what you said. Full rebuilds take a long time, even if most things go right. They can also go completely wrong and treadmill at the bottom for a long time. The FO has drawn a lot of ire from fans, yet people want to trust them to successfully rebuild the team.

I still think the Bulls best chance at winning a title involves Jimmy Butler.

No one wants this fo leading anything. 93% or whatever want them fired.

The only deals that make sense are the original trade with the nets picks, Bradley, etc

An Orlando trade for oladipo, Gordon, and a few picks

And philly for Okafor, Ish Smith, Staukus, the Lakers pick and a future 1st

[bulliedog8]

At the same time though, you dont need a true #1. You can have multiple #2s and win a title. Spurs didnt have a true #1 their last title. The celtics didnt have a true #1 when they won. But they had good #2s plus were in great systems. Put butler in a great system with legit role players and another #2 with him, and that could be a team that wins a title.

While I agree it's possible to win with someone who would not be viewed as a "true #1," it's happened 3 times in the last 25 years - Detroit, Boston, and San Antonio. And I'm not 100% convinced Boston really belongs in that group.

I wouldn't put Boston in that category. They had three #1's who came together and put egos aside.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Id consider Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Allen #2's at at beast 1b's types. And especially since they were getting older, they were more #2s than #1s.

[BeatDaCavs420]

Jimmy speaks

“I don’t plan on going anywhere. I can’t control what everybody else does. I know that this is the city that I love, Chicago. And I want to wear that jersey. I want to wear that name on the front, and I wear it proudly. All I got to do is continue to control what I can control. That’s try to help this team win games.”

“To tell you the truth, I don’t pay attention to the rumors,” Butler said. “Somebody sent (the story) to me today, and I just clicked off of it. I mean, why am I getting in (to the speculation)? I can’t control it. I can’t say don’t do this or don’t do that. That’s not my job. If I do what I’m supposed to do on the floor, then everything else takes care of itself. I’m a firm believer in that.”

Such a stupid move if we trade him

[FriedRise]

Hoiberg too, despite the speculation that these two don't see eye to eye:

"I haven't heard anything about [the report]," Hoiberg said before the game. "But again, I don't read a lot right now. I think Jimmy and I have a really good relationship right now. I've been communicating a lot with him. Since he had the injury and has come back we've really limited his time. He hasn't done much in shootaround just to try and save his legs for the game. I obviously think the world of him for how hard he pushes himself and how much he's just improved his game over the years with his work ethic. I think that rubs off onto the other guys. So Jimmy absolutely is a very important part to this team."
...
Hoiberg and Butler have moved past the comments from earlier in the season. Hoiberg said the notion that they don't have a good relationship is "completely false."

"That's not the reality at all," Hoiberg said. "Again, we have a very good relationship. Obviously, I have a lot of trust in Jimmy, putting the ball in his hands late in games to help us go out and finish games. I communicate with Jimmy as much as anybody on this team. Again, I think very highly of him just for what he's done with his game over the course of his career. I've always been a fan of his."

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/15108995/jimmy-butler-chicago-bulls-plan-going-anywhere

[robbie84]

While I agree it's possible to win with someone who would not be viewed as a "true #1," it's happened 3 times in the last 25 years - Detroit, Boston, and San Antonio. And I'm not 100% convinced Boston really belongs in that group.

I wouldn't put Boston in that category. They had three #1's who came together and put egos aside.



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Id consider Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Allen #2's at at beast 1b's types. And especially since they were getting older, they were more #2s than #1s.

Kevin Garnett was definitely still a #1 option in 2008. He was to us, like what Rose was to you guys before his knee injury (albeit in the last few years of his prime).
He was the defensive player of the year, and averaged 19 points, 9 rebounds, 3.5 assists, in 32 minutes a game. He shot 54% from the field and was the #1 jump shooter from 10-17 feet

After the knee injury in 2009 he wasn't a number 1, and that's when Rondo stepped up to give us 4 players good enough to be the #2 or #3 option.
But make no mistake about it, KG was in the running for league MVP in 2008, dude was a monster.

People seem to forget about his playoff series like this when comparing him to Duncan.

If you care, just watch 5 minutes of this and tell me this guy wasn't a number one option on a championship team...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foDFcVeWY9w[/youtube]

[jc23]

You only do this if you want to go full rebuild mode and are VERY high on the top 3 players in the draft, otherwise a player like Butler is more valuable then all of what the celtics would most likely offer.

I mean lets say you hit on a player in this draft with the 3rd pick from boston and that player becomes another jimmy butler type talent. All that does is give you more years to build, you will still need multiple more stars that would have to probably come from the draft since established star will not want to come to a rebuilding team.

If the Bulls dont trade Jimmy then you take a step back next year, since we will not be a contender you use next season as a year to be better in 2017-18. And going into 17-18 this would be your scenario

-Jimmy
-Doug
-Niko (i would trade him for a pick)
-Portis
-12th pick (2016)
-This summer i would target a player who i wouldnt have to comically, young, athletic and would fit with whatever direction Fred and Gar are looking to go. If you cant find that i would not go out and pay a guy like Barnes a top 5 players worth.
-top 5 pick? (2017)
-kings pick?
**** ton of cap space
-

if by that time your still stuck in the mud go ahead and trade Jimmy, he will be entering his peak and still have two years left on his contract. Yes, he can get hurt during that time, but so can the player you draft with the celtics pick. I feel jimmy's value will increase once teams start overpaying these role players the next 2 summers. His contract is going to be awesome the next 4 seasons.

[Ice Man]

Jimmy Butler is so much better that the college players this board has lusted after -- Jabari, Embiid, Randle, Wiggins, Bennett, Olidapo (although he's good), KAT (ditto).

No trade, no thanks.

[Shill]

Jimmy Butler is so much better that the college players this board has lusted after -- Jabari, Embiid, Randle, Wiggins, Bennett, Olidapo (although he's good), KAT (ditto).

No trade, no thanks.

KAT has superstar potential. His numbers as a 19 year-old rookie are phenomenal. I wasn't super-high on Wiggins, but he looks like he's going to be a very good player.

Point is, if you don't think you can credibly build a contender around a 27-year-old Butler within the next couple years, blowing it up and starting from scratch makes some sense.

Of course it could result in absolutely nothing, but that's the risk.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Bomba Navarro]

Point is, if you don't think you can credibly build a contender around a 27-year-old Butler within the next couple years, blowing it up and starting from scratch makes some sense.s

I don't know about that.

He's on a great deal, specially with the cap going up, and he's just entering his prime. So unless you think his performance is going to fall off a cliff as soon as he hits 30, which is likely unlikely barring injuries, he may very well be still a star by then, or at least a very, very good starter. He has a lot of savviness to his game and his conditioning has been incredible every year since he came into the league, so I'm not really seeing an early decline for him. His motor ain't going anywhere either. People tend to think that players who don't have a great three point shot decline worse than those who do, but that's a very simplistic way to look at it IMO.

[Ice Man]

KAT has superstar potential. His numbers as a 19 year-old rookie are phenomenal.

Yeah, he does. KAT and Anthony Davis are the two best bigs of the past 10 years, no? And ... the punch line ... does Anthony Davis really do more to win games for his team than Jimmy Butler does?

Nope, he doesn't. The very best of the lottery picks is not better than what we have right now, not if your goal is to win games.

This"Jimmy-for-lottery-picks" notion requires forgetting the 10 games per year that Jimmy carries the Bulls to victory, wherein if you replaced his performance with a merely good showing the team does not win. And it also involves thinking the lottery pick will be Tim Duncan, or Wade, or LeBron.

[Shill]

KAT has superstar potential. His numbers as a 19 year-old rookie are phenomenal.

Yeah, he does. KAT and Anthony Davis are the two best bigs of the past 10 years, no? And ... the punch line ... does Anthony Davis really do more to win games for his team than Jimmy Butler does?

Nope, he doesn't. The very best of the lottery picks is not better than what we have right now, not if your goal is to win games.

This"Jimmy-for-lottery-picks" notion requires forgetting the 10 games per year that Jimmy carries the Bulls to victory, wherein if you replaced his performance with a merely good showing the team does not win. And it also involves thinking the lottery pick will be Tim Duncan, or Wade, or LeBron.

Davis dragged a team to the playoffs in the West last year. If they had a good organizational structure, they would be fierce.

Honestly, I'm not terribly optimistic about our future, with or without Jimmy.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums