Butler trade rumor - KC Johnson update: pg 63

[Chi town]

It just happened to be Thibs's first year, Rose's third year, Noah's fourth year and Taj's second year. But whatever. It doesn't matter.

So they sign Booz and Korver.

The Derrick Rose of this team is basically here, albeit much older. Where do Joakim Noah, Luol Deng and Taj Gibson come from? Especially now with the new CBA?

The players they've drafted are going to have to improve, in addition to acquiring more veterans who minimize the burden of playing so many players who are trying to figure it out.

The biggest issue they face is that so many players are hitting free agency: Mirotic, Felicio, Gibson, Carter-Williams.

And the ones that aren't: McDermott, Grant, Portis, Valentine, are either bad or haven't shown much.

Internal player improvement isn't a slam dunk, but it's a requirement for this team to improve either way.

They need a combo of trades and FA. Problem is I dont think they will make an in season trade.

They need to trade Val. He doesn't fit here w Wade taking his mins for the next two seasons and then he has to be resigned. Trade him for a PG that can shoot or w Lopez for Noel in a 3 way.

Trade Portis and Grant for Lou Williams.

In FA sign and draft a smalball PF and a PG

[Red Larrivee]

To be fair, I said 2-3, and not necessarily 3 within the top 20. So, again, I think you're reaching to the furthest extreme. I did mention the Raptors in a previous example. I don't think it's unfathomable to assume if you tank for several season that you can come away with a Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan level talent.

I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think it's a chance worth building around.

The easy answer is to say build around Jimmy Butler. I don't have a problem with this answer. My problem is this dismissive thinking of one avenue without mapping out the next 3-4 years, the remaining years of Butler's prime, and beginning to wonder how anyone is coming here to make this really good, let alone great.

I'm dismissive because the odds of the alternative coming to fruition are noticeably lower. Because of that, it's worth a shot to see if you can maximize his prime.

[NADROJ]

Which would you rather have?

A.) Jimmy with a player opt out option in 2019, the Bulls draft pick for the next two years, maybe the SAC pick this year, and two summers of FA

or

B.) A Brooklyn pick each of the next two years, our pick each of the next two years, maybe the SAC pick this year, two summers of FA, and Jaylen Brown.

I lean option B because I worry about Jimmy bolting in that player option year. But, I think it's a really tough call.

*Obviously, this assumes Boston gives us Brown and both BRK picks which, I understand is probably not likely.

[Ralphb07]

Internal player improvement isn't a slam dunk, but it's a requirement for this team to improve either way.

"Internal player improvement"…so sorta like…through the draft?

I have always said that I could understand wanting to tank if you didn't have a piece like Jimmy, but the fact that you do, just doesn't sit right with me that people seem to be taking it for granted, and willingly just give that up.

I don't think anybody here wants to give him up for Jae Crowder and Marcus Smart or something…it'd obviously have to be some Herschel Walker package.

The issue seems to be that it's some black-and-white situation where return doesn't matter and it's just a "Trade? Y/N?" issue on the board here.

I haven't seen any actual Herschel Walker type offers.

Fans keeping talking about what they would want, but the only actual offers that have been reported were awful. Guys like Kris Dunn or the low ball non-sense the Celtics were offering does nothing for me. People on this board for clamoring for Kris Dunn during the off-season in a Butler trade.

I don't think anyone is saying to take those offers though or at least the majority of people. Its not about is Jimmy a franchise player or not. It's about can they improve the ball club by dealing Jimmy or can they build around Jimmy.. Right now this team around Jimmy has missed the playoffs and unless makes a trade to improve the ball club will either miss it or be a 8th seed and out in 5 games. They only have roughly 33 mil in cap space this summer (which is not a lot in the new CBA) and that's counting losing guys like Niko, Taj and MCW due to cap hold. The Bulls have no one to blame but themselves but they are at a crossroads. They either need to find a way to build around Jimmy(my preferred choice) or hit the reset button.

[Rerisen]

I'll add that the timing of the hypothetical tank (if you take the Boston package) aligns when Lebron and the Cavs are most likely going to be in decline.

What are the odds that GarPax can build a contender with Butler to at least somewhat challenge the Cavs in the next 4-5 years? I'd say very slim. At that point, now you have Butler leaving his prime, team devoid of assets, and now you really have an unintentional tank that would last MUCH longer than the one you could have had if you had taken the Boston package.

And 5 years ago people said no one could beat the Heat. I don't know why everyone assumes the best teams in the league will be weaker in 5 years than now, their will be new superteams, new best players, likely just as good as what we have now.

[the ultimates]

It's not the same thing. In a rebuild you tried but couldn't for whatever reasons put an elite team around a star/superstar player in his prime (if you're fortunate enough to have that).Though said players age and diminishing returns as far as wins leads a team to go in another direction and rebuild. Tanking is the constant roster churning of players and picks looking for looking a star/superstar talent that said rebuilding team had but faded.

They will both feature a lot of losing and young players as you noted. How you got to that point however is more meaningful than just mere semantics.

So what you’re saying is that if you tried to win before, but couldn’t then you sold off your players, is noble, whereas constantly churning isn’t ok?

Is this the difference between tanking and rebuilding?

If so, didn’t the Sixers try this for years before Hinkie came in? They tried winning with Jrue, Iggy, Lou Williams, Thad Young etc. It got them no where. They then tore it down to ‘rebuild’. Is it not considered rebuilding because they were smart enough to move on from their players will they could still get maximum value?

Why is selling your best players at their peak a bad thing? Didn’t this board use to yearn for that when Paxson and Forman never did that?

None of those players were close to where Butler is right now and you know it. None of those players were guys you could build around. You're advocating moving Butler an elite player for the smaller chance to get another elite player or players through the draft. How many teams has that worked out for? How many years does it take?

[Rerisen]

I never said the Bulls had to win a championship with their new core to justify tanking. I said they had to get a player better than JImmy Butler to justify it. You can't spend years missing out on playoff revenue, merchandise sales, etc. all while having a terrible on-court product just so you can get the next Jimmy Butler. That's not progress.

No, it's not. But if you get 2-3 John Wall, Kemba Walker level players and win 50-55 games for 4-7 years, it is still a fail.

Even that is unlikely. The Wizards did get John Wall (after losing 20, 23, 26, 19) then Bradly Beal, and other top 3 picks (Vesely, Porter, etc) and were hyped as the next big thing for a couple years, it never happened.

Trading Butler just to end up like that would definitely be a fail, and its very possible, if not even likely.

[Rerisen]

Like why do so many people want to call JB a superstar? Even if he was he's at best a 2nd tier superstar and that's his limit.

4 years ago his 'limit' was Ronnie Brewer. People have been wrong about his limit multiple times now. Seems pretty dumb to ditch a guy who has never stopped getting better, even now.

[Rerisen]

Bulls last tank didn't go so well, while it wasn't fully intentional we pretty much were forced to tank after the dynasty.

It took us 7 years to even get back to the playoffs, even then, with people praising that Paxson drafted super amazing, his 'rebuild' culminated in one measly trip to the 2nd round.

And it looked like we were heading back into another tank till they got lucky with Rose while having a .500 team. Then despite being a good team with Rose they got lucky again with Jimmy Butler. Just think if we added Butler TO Rose and Rose had never gotten hurt. Teams always seem to need luck somewhere along the way, but if you are already decent, the gap to get to the top with luck is much less.

The luck you need if already decent can be surprise internal improvement, like Jimmy himself, an excellent trade (like Rodman, Sheed) or having a big get in FA.

If you are starting all the way at the bottom, the type of luck you need is pretty much drafting Duncan or LeBron.

So the two best talents the Bulls had since MJ, happened when we trying to be good (Rose, Butler).

Now lets look at trying to be bad. Between 98 and 06, the Bulls drafted in the Top four *6* times. In terms of a better player than Butler, they missed every single time. Even if they had kept Aldridge, the biggest fail move, he never got as good as Butler is now.

They finally hit with Rose, though it didn't come through tanking. But despite his talent, the real world injuries he had, would make an outcome of drafting another Rose, not as good as keeping Jimmy, because Rose's window was only 2 years. Getting an injury prone kid is another risk (Oden, etc). While surprise injury could happen to anyone, Jimmy is past the stage of a snakebit type prospect and seems as durable as you could hope for.

[kingkirk]

Even that is unlikely. The Wizards did get John Wall (after losing 20, 23, 26, 19) then Bradly Beal, and other top 3 picks (Vesely, Porter, etc) and were hyped as the next big thing for a couple years, it never happened.

Trading Butler just to end up like that would definitely be a fail, and its very possible, if not even likely.

The Wizards haven't ended up where they did because of Wall, Beal and Porter, all of whom are really good (with the latter breaking out this season). They ended up as a mediocre team because of some bad free agent signings.

The guy they gave $60m to, who plays the same position as Gortat, hasn't barely even been on the court this season.

And even then, they were a game away from being in the ECF. They would have been if Wall doesn't break his hand against the Hawks.

[kingkirk]

I'm dismissive because the odds of the alternative coming to fruition are noticeably lower. Because of that, it's worth a shot to see if you can maximize his prime.

The odds of signing another top tier are pretty damn lower when you team is capped out, which the Bulls will be if they spend this offseason on players that aren't great.

And if they don't spend and keep the 'flexibility' path opened, there goes another year of Butler's prime where he has to do everything on an average squad.

Sure, they could try and trade for the next disgruntled star to pair with Butler. I don't know with what assets, but they could have a crack. I'd imagine the odds in being successful in that approach would be pretty damn low too.

[kingkirk]

None of those players were close to where Butler is right now and you know it. None of those players were guys you could build around. You're advocating moving Butler an elite player for the smaller chance to get another elite player or players through the draft. How many teams has that worked out for? How many years does it take?

I know none of those players were as good as Butler. That's irrelevant. They were still very good players in their prime who, if they Sixers had kept them, would have continued to win games for them and get them to the playoffs as a low seed.

And I'm not advocating the Bulls to trade Butler. I'm fighting against these absolute notions that suggest trading Butler is sacrilegious.

The premise of the tank isn't to find one person like Butler. The premise is to find multiple guys like Butler, or at a similar level, and have them grow together as a core. That's why the theory of it makes sense.

The Bulls have failed to pair Butler with another star, and have built the worst possible roster to put a guy around Butler, forcing this team to be a middling junk team in a weak conference.

[kingkirk]

It took us 7 years to even get back to the playoffs, even then, with people praising that Paxson drafted super amazing, his 'rebuild' culminated in one measly trip to the 2nd round.

Choosing Tyrus over Aldridge will do that for you.

[RedBulls23]

It took us 7 years to even get back to the playoffs, even then, with people praising that Paxson drafted super amazing, his 'rebuild' culminated in one measly trip to the 2nd round.

Choosing Tyrus over Aldridge will do that for you.

It's great having hindsight, because the same thing could happen next year if we miss out on someone to draft the next big bust. At least in the Tyrus for Aldridge move, Bulls didn't give up an elite player to do it.

I vividly remember when that trade went down, there were many people talking about how it was a good move because they were going to draft him anyway, but they got him at a lower price range and another guy that could turn into a rotational player.

[kingkirk]

It's great having hindsight, because the same thing could happen next year if we miss out on someone to draft the next big bust. At least in the Tyrus for Aldridge move, Bulls didn't give up an elite player to do it.

I vividly remember when that trade went down, there were many people talking about how it was a good move because they were going to draft him anyway, but they got him at a lower price range and another guy that could turn into a rotational player.

Wanting Aldridge over Tyrus at the time wasn't controversial, though. It's not something random like, "why did the Bulls take Snell instead of Gobert!"

[RedBulls23]

It's great having hindsight, because the same thing could happen next year if we miss out on someone to draft the next big bust. At least in the Tyrus for Aldridge move, Bulls didn't give up an elite player to do it.

I vividly remember when that trade went down, there were many people talking about how it was a good move because they were going to draft him anyway, but they got him at a lower price range and another guy that could turn into a rotational player.

Wanting Aldridge over Tyrus at the time wasn't controversial, though. It's not something random like, "why did the Bulls take Snell instead of Gobert!"

The point is, drafting Tyrus instead of Aldridge without hindsight wasn't considered some idiotic move.

It just simply describes the crap shoot chances of drafting a star.

And in this new case of trading Jimmy to do it, the added risk that you're trading away an elite player for those crap shoot chances.

[kingkirk]

The point is, drafting Tyrus instead of Aldridge without hindsight wasn't considered some idiotic move.

It just simply describes the crap shoot chances of drafting a star.

And in this new case of trading Jimmy to do it, the added risk that you're trading away an elite player for those crap shoot chances.

I understand that drafting Tyrus over Aldridge wasn't this egregious thing. I get it. My point is suggesting the Bulls should have gone with Aldridge instead doesn't have to be hindsight related because it was a fair and reasonable point at the time, meaning it's not unthinkable to suggest it now.

Except you're not trading Butler for one crapshoot chance, so no, I don't agree that it's the same thing.

[DroseReturnChi]

Whether you want to call Butler a star or a superstar, it's irrelevant. IMO, this year he's shown that he's an elite player. When you get a player like that, you just don't trade him away without ever really giving it a shot at building a title contender. Bulls aren't stuck with any kind of mediocrity, because they don't have any long term bad contracts. If the FO really wanted to, they could clear house on everyone, but Jimmy, Wade and couple of others that fit, and start adding real pieces from there. His age is also not a concern, because he's only 27 and unlike most players, he doesn't have the miles on his body. Plus his game isn't reliant on speed and athleticism. I feel like Jimmy's game will age well. Also the fact that he really pushes himself in the off-season, I still wouldn't be surprised if his shot started to get more consistent from deep.

The other thing people over look is how charismatic Jimmy is, and the fact that he's willing to recruit (he's able to make friends so easily). That has proven to be a big factor in today's league. I'm pretty certain before this year, he and Wade didn't have much of a relationship outside of just being acquaintances. Now they are bffs, because of that. You have an all-time great talking about Jimmy like he's as good as anyone in this league.

I have always said that I could understand wanting to tank if you didn't have a piece like Jimmy, but the fact that you do, just doesn't sit right with me that people seem to be taking it for granted, and willingly just give that up.

Like why do so many people want to call JB a superstar? Even if he was he's at best a 2nd tier superstar and that's his limit.
Right now, I would trade JB for any younger established star. JB for Embiid + 2017 Phil pick is a win for the Bulls for the long term future. I hope we dont make the same mistake when we didnt sell Joakim Noah for Cousins and Joakim is my 2nd favorite Bulls player.

The sixers would laugh at butler for embiid never mind a pick,lol

Why would they not want Butler just for Embiid? Embiid has serious health issues and might become the next Greg Oden, but before he becomes Giannis status, I rather take the risk since he has a higher chance of being Hakeem. I think it's fair for both sides.

[RSP83]

Taj/Niko/Rondo/Sac 1st/Chi 1st to DEN for Gallo, Chandler and Faried.

Ziiing

too good to be true

[veji1]

Even that is unlikely. The Wizards did get John Wall (after losing 20, 23, 26, 19) then Bradly Beal, and other top 3 picks (Vesely, Porter, etc) and were hyped as the next big thing for a couple years, it never happened.

Trading Butler just to end up like that would definitely be a fail, and its very possible, if not even likely.

The Wizards haven't ended up where they did because of Wall, Beal and Porter, all of whom are really good (with the latter breaking out this season). They ended up as a mediocre team because of some bad free agent signings.

The guy they gave $60m to, who plays the same position as Gortat, hasn't barely even been on the court this season.

And even then, they were a game away from being in the ECF. They would have been if Wall doesn't break his hand against the Hawks.

It's a bit easy to say that : you try to sign the talents you can, but when you aren't LA, NY or Miami the pull your franchise had is limited. Add to that that when your team is still young and uproven, you don't have the mega star recruiting pull that allowed SA to get Aldridge thanks to Duncan and Leonard, GS to get Durant thanks to Curry, MIA to get Lebron and Bosh in its time, etc...

So yeah the Wizards signed pretty questionable guys for lots of money, but you sign who you can and will sign with you. The Wizards are actually a very good example of the limits a team face when rebuilding around young talented guys but without that superstar guy. Let's just remember that Kyrie, Lillard, or Anthony Davis aren't leading their team anywhere significant by themselves : the first one after years of mediocrity lucked into Lebron coming home, and the other ones are just suffering in teams that put up mediocre quality.

Again, rebuilding through the draft is super super risky. While the odds of building a title winning team thanks to uber luck drafting a generational talent might be a wee bit higher than through a retool (say 5% against 3%), the odds of being a competitive playoff team in the next 5/6 years are a lot lower (say 20% against 40%). The question is are those tiny % points of championship chances what matters the most at the risk of major futility ? I am not sure, i would rather watch a team compete for something, compete to reach the playoffs, to compete to win its games during the playoffs, rather than just tread coleslaw for years in the very small hope of getting that lucky ball bounce.