Butler trade rumor - KC Johnson update: pg 63

[Betta Bulleavit]

I forgot Harden was traded for a bag of chips

Harden wasn't exactly in his prime yet though. He was getting there. But his ability to be a number 1 guy was very suspect at that time.

[coldfish]

The likelihood of getting a nothing player with a single top 5 pick is way too high for that to be the primary return. Gotta get 2 - 3 serious prospects/players to consider trading Jimmy.

Jimmy is worth three Top 5 picks. Minimum. I know people think I'm joking because they overrate lottery picks, but I'm not.

Here, I will play a game. I will pick 3 numbers at random - 2, 3, 4. And three years at random, 2011, 2012, 2009. Off the top of my head I don't know what guys were drafted those years, in what order.

OK it turns out to be

Derrick Williams
Kanter
Tristan Thompson

MKG
Beal
Dion Waiters

Thabeet
Harden
Tyreke

See, I wasn't kidding.

I've never understood the logic of looking at the exact player chosen at a given pick. If you're talking about the value of a certain pick, it makes more sense to look at what players were available at that spot. The assumption of trading for picks is that you actually make the right selection with those picks. Of course it won't be a good trade if you screw up with your selection.

So if you go with the 2012 draft using the 2, 3, and 4 picks, you could have gotten:

Damian Lillard
Draymond Green
Andre Drummond

2011:
Klay Thompson
Kawhi Leonard
Jimmy Butler

2009:

James Harden
Steph Curry
DeMar Derozan

You are a pretty smart guy so I'm guessing you will understand this analogy.

Are you familiar with Shrodinger's Cat? The experiment where you put a cat in a box with a device that may or may not kill the cat. While the box is closed, you don't know if you have a live cat or a dead cat. Its only when you open the box do you find out. (superduper simple explanation)

A player drafted is a closed box. You likely won't know what you have for years. Statistically, the players taken early in the draft are more likely to be good players than taken later but the long term history is that the majority of all players taken are disappointments. Good drafting teams can move the needle up on that and bad drafting teams can move it down, but the uncertainty is always there.

IMO, you have to look at a good statistical sample to get a feel for if you will have a live cat or a dead cat at a given pick. Look at say, #3, and go back 20 years. See how many teams were able to pick a live cat. That's probably the chance that your team will pick a live cat if they pick at that spot. As I noted, good drafting or good draft classes can change that but I certainly wouldn't assume it either.

[Red Larrivee]

The chances that the Bulls trade Jimmy Butler in his prime and don't regret it are extremely low. It's a simple truth that shouldn't be ignored.

Even if Boston puts all Brooklyn's picks on the table, we are still likely to lose the trade.

[RebuildaBulls]

Make a trade at the right price lol isnt that what you are supposed to do with your best players?

I see Celtics and Wolves the likely candidates again because of their young players and draft picks

[RebuildaBulls]

I also think Jimmy can play 3-4 more years around this level

[GetBuLLish]

IMO, you have to look at a good statistical sample to get a feel for if you will have a live cat or a dead cat at a given pick. Look at say, #3, and go back 20 years. See how many teams were able to pick a live cat. That's probably the chance that your team will pick a live cat if they pick at that spot. As I noted, good drafting or good draft classes can change that but I certainly wouldn't assume it either.

Again, you have pointed out the riskiness of draft picks. No one is debating that. And no, I don't think it would be realistic to draft the three best players in a draft (note that Ice Man left out the #1 pick, which would be in play with the BKN pick).

But the point is that there is no risk-free way to build a contender. You seem to want to go the free agency route. Fine. Then I will simply point how often free agency signings absolutely suck or don't make a lick of difference. I'll even use one team as an example:

Carlos Boozer
Pau Gasol
Rajon Rondo
Dwayne Wade
Rip Hamilton
Ben Wallace

Like I have said before, you guys keep pointing out the flaws of going for high draft picks. Yet you cannot and will not provide a path that gives us any where close to even a 50% chance of building a contender. The #BananaBoat strategy that so many here were ranting and raving about just a couple months ago was more absurd and unreasonable than any tank suggestion.

[Red Larrivee]

Only guy I remember getting traded in there prime was a 25 year old Tmac from Orlando to Houston.

He had back issues

Harden would be a better example

He wasn't a star at the time, but it's still a useful example:

James Harden for what became Steven Adams, Jeremy Lamb, Kevin Martin, Alex Abrines and Mitch McGary.

A bag of reality for a bag of hope.

[GetBuLLish]

The chances that the Bulls trade Jimmy Butler in his prime and don't regret it are extremely low. It's a simple truth that shouldn't be ignored.

The chances that the Bulls build a contender around the Jimmy Butler are extremely low. It's a simple truth that shouldn't be ignored.

[Red Larrivee]

The chances that the Bulls trade Jimmy Butler in his prime and don't regret it are extremely low. It's a simple truth that shouldn't be ignored.

The chances that the Bulls build a contender around the Jimmy Butler are extremely low. It's a simple truth that shouldn't be ignored.

I don't have a plan to build a contender and neither do you or anyone else who is dead set on bad basketball. I think there are ways to improve our team with Butler here, and that's where it stops. If those improvements result in some contender, then awesome, but I'm not planning on it. But I think there are clear advantages to keeping your team competitive.

[Rerisen]

I have no issue with shopping Jimmy. He is at peak value and I'm not sure the team is going anywhere with him.

My concern is trading him for a crap package. Even guys like Wiggins are a joke.

People keep talking about the 'package' we would get in return. Makes little sense to me.

The whole idea of starting over would be because Butler is not a Top 3 player, and you presumably can't build a title team around him as the best player.

So in starting over the only way you win such a endeavor is to end up with a player better than Butler. And you pretty much are only going to get one shot - likely a single top 3 draft pick in return - on which the entire plan hinges on. If that pick turns out to be Tryus Thomas, or even LaMarcus Aldridge, both avenues are a fail, and you end up with a franchise player no better than Butler, but in the meantime set your franchise back between 3 to 7 years, at which point, you'll be in the spot we are now, except next time you don't even have a Jimmy Butler level asset as a starting point.

If you get Shaq, MJ, LeBron, only then did the plan truly succeed, and support the entire rational for trading Butler in the first place.

Historically, the odds of success of drafting such a player, even with a top 3 pick, is less than 5%.

[Red Larrivee]

I have no issue with shopping Jimmy. He is at peak value and I'm not sure the team is going anywhere with him.

My concern is trading him for a crap package. Even guys like Wiggins are a joke.

People keep talking about the 'package' we would get in return. Makes little sense to me.

The whole idea of starting over would be because Butler is not a Top 3 player, and you presumably can't build a title team around him as the best player.

So in starting over the only way you win such a endeavor is to end up with a player better than Butler. And you pretty much are only going to get one shot - likely a single top 3 draft pick in return - on which the entire plan hinges on. If that pick turns out to be Tryus Thomas, or even LaMarcus Aldridge, both avenues are a fail, and you end up with a franchise player no better than Butler, but in the meantime set your franchise back between 3 to 7 years, at which point, you'll be in the spot we are now, except next time you don't even have a Jimmy Butler level asset as a starting point.

If you get Shaq, MJ, LeBron, only then did the plan truly succeed, and support the entire rational for trading Butler in the first place.

Historically, the odds of success of drafting such a player, even with a top 3 pick, is less than 5%.

So basically what Orlando is now.

[Bulls_MIT]

Building a contender involves at least one player like a Jimmy Butler, either an all star starter type player or close to it. That guy has to have a good worth ethic - check, has to have a drive to win - check, has to be able to take over a game when needed - check (50+), and most importantly has to have the kind of personality to attract a top free agent or two - check and proven.

[AirP.]

aaaaaaaand this is where your reasoning hits a roadblock.. how many stars, as in real stars, do that : sign with a young team that just got bereft of any semblance of culture, game, winning ? None. You get second rate stars that pull an Atlanta joe johnson on you and then you can complain on why the team does'nt go anywhere... With a team full of youngsters and capspace the only thing you can do is massively overpay for second or third rate stars. I mean in 2010 with had a great up and coming team with 24 years old like Deng, Noah and Taj already battle tested and led by the massive up and coming D Rose and we had to massively overpay to get Boozer while striking out on the real stars...This just doesn't work.

When you have a star you HOLD ONTO IT until you just can't anymore. Doing something different is just becoming falling head first into a wishfull thinking trap.

Yes, hold on to Butler and waste his prime. This roster has too many holes to be fixed in a couple of years to become a championship.

This really isn't a getting equal value for a star, that doesn't happen, it's about resetting your window building a team and yes, hoping you get lucky. I shudder to think about what the Bulls would have been had Butler not all of a sudden made a huge leap... this roster would be (#$)@, yet that's the FO you think will somehow build a contender with Jimmy in 2 offseasons(since he'll opt out early) unless they give him the super max which will... put this team in trouble because it won't have the good young players on rookie contracts to make up for his massive salary. Also, it's quite likely that the FO spends the money to retain Miroic and may be able to add a decent rookie... that's about it for next offseason.

Yes, you lose in the deal but the alternative is more then likely being a .500 team with Butler. THEY AREN'T BUILDING AROUND HIM NOW so they've wasted 1 year already of his prime.... I have zero faith that this FO can built a team quickly around him. I do have faith that the FO can pick high lottery picks(although they missed once with Tyrus).

[coldfish]

IMO, you have to look at a good statistical sample to get a feel for if you will have a live cat or a dead cat at a given pick. Look at say, #3, and go back 20 years. See how many teams were able to pick a live cat. That's probably the chance that your team will pick a live cat if they pick at that spot. As I noted, good drafting or good draft classes can change that but I certainly wouldn't assume it either.

Again, you have pointed out the riskiness of draft picks. No one is debating that. And no, I don't think it would be realistic to draft the three best players in a draft (note that Ice Man left out the #1 pick, which would be in play with the BKN pick).

But the point is that there is no risk-free way to build a contender. You seem to want to go the free agency route. Fine. Then I will simply point how often free agency signings absolutely suck or don't make a lick of difference. I'll even use one team as an example:

Carlos Boozer
Pau Gasol
Rajon Rondo
Dwayne Wade
Rip Hamilton
Ben Wallace

Like I have said before, you guys keep pointing out the flaws of going for high draft picks. Yet you cannot and will not provide a path that gives us any where close to even a 50% chance of building a contender. The #BananaBoat strategy that so many here were ranting and raving about just a couple months ago was more absurd and unreasonable than any tank suggestion.

Fair enough.

Quite frankly, I don't think there is a path to building a contender. Certainly not one that gives you a 50% chance. If you look, you basically need a top 2 player in order to be a true contender. Those guys are incredibly rare. The draft is the best way to get one of those players but you might need 30-40 lottery picks to get your odds of landing one to be 50/50.

The other way to win is a medley type team filled with good players clicking at the right time. That rarely works but if you want to go that route, you probably keep Butler and try to rebuild around him and hope to get lucky. I have little confidence that GarPaxDorf could ever pull that off. Those teams usually pay lux tax and make lots of genius trades to come together.

[ChiCityHoops34]

I forgot Harden was traded for a bag of chips

Harden wasn't exactly in his prime yet though. He was getting there. But his ability to be a number 1 guy was very suspect at that time.

He wasn't near where he is now or where Jimmy is, but a 22 year old 3rd pick in the draft averaging 17 ppg on 50% shooting off the bench should have demanded more.

[bullslas]

The chances that the Bulls trade Jimmy Butler in his prime and don't regret it are extremely low. It's a simple truth that shouldn't be ignored.

The chances that the Bulls build a contender around the Jimmy Butler are extremely low. It's a simple truth that shouldn't be ignored.

I agree with this, but I do not trust the current GM to make a good trade that will help us get better. If we make a playoff run, let's say, 2nd round exit, I can see some free agent willing to come play with Wade and Butler.

I'm still dreaming of a Giannis, Davis and Butler combo.

[AKfanatic]

I have no issue with shopping Jimmy. He is at peak value and I'm not sure the team is going anywhere with him.

My concern is trading him for a crap package. Even guys like Wiggins are a joke.

People keep talking about the 'package' we would get in return. Makes little sense to me.

The whole idea of starting over would be because Butler is not a Top 3 player, and you presumably can't build a title team around him as the best player.

So in starting over the only way you win such a endeavor is to end up with a player better than Butler. And you pretty much are only going to get one shot - likely a single top 3 draft pick in return - on which the entire plan hinges on. If that pick turns out to be Tryus Thomas, or even LaMarcus Aldridge, both avenues are a fail, and you end up with a franchise player no better than Butler, but in the meantime set your franchise back between 3 to 7 years, at which point, you'll be in the spot we are now, except next time you don't even have a Jimmy Butler level asset as a starting point.

If you get Shaq, MJ, LeBron, only then did the plan truly succeed, and support the entire rational for trading Butler in the first place.

Historically, the odds of success of drafting such a player, even with a top 3 pick, is less than 5%.

While I agree with much of what you said, if that top 3 pick is a guy close to the caliber of Butler...you extend your window to build that contender due to the average age of a pick versus Jimmy's current age.

Not that I believe that's a great reason to pull the trigger, though it is a legitimate factor to think about.

[Rerisen]

I've never understood the logic of looking at the exact player chosen at a given pick. If you're talking about the value of a certain pick, it makes more sense to look at what players were available at that spot.

That's why its called a 'lottery'. Even if a great player exists in a given draft, chances are any given GM doesn't know who it is. You listed Draymond Green there, well this FO already passed on him. Why will they get the next one right?

That's called hindsight, of course we can look back now knowing who turned out and pretend we would get them, but there is no logical reason to think we would.

There are studies that estimate the average win value added of each pick per spot in the draft, this is what should be used to honestly assess what the likely outcomes will be.

It's fine to make the counter argument that the draft is by far the most common way a team gets mega superstar, but everyone should just be clear on the odds - they are quite bad - before deciding to throw away a .500 team with an existing Top 10 player.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

I think building around Butler is possible.

What sucks is GarPax always throw a wrench into the mix.

Wallace-Hamilton-Boozer-Gasol-Rondo-Wade - just off the top of my head are all players where the money could have been better spent.

[Poohdini1]

Don't think any team in the last few years has won the trade after giving up the all star. Jazz did pretty well getting Favors for D Will but that's about it. Magic lost the Howard trade, Denver lost the Melo trade, OKC lost the Harden trade.

Boston sure won that Rondo trade!

That was a heist no doubt but I wouldn't put him near the same category of the other guys mentioned, let alone JB.