Official: Jimmy Butler, #16 to Minnesota for Lavine, Dunn, #7 - merged/Justin Patton injured

[Mech Engineer]

Side note, but still relevant to Butler ... the Wolves announcers last night were discussing a stat I hadn't heard before. Free throw ratio. It is number of free throws taken/number of shots taken. So if you get 4 free throws in the game and 16 shots taken, you have a ratio of 25%. Higher is better, of course.

The announcer claimed that 3 point shooting % and FT ratio are two key figures to look at when projecting young players' development. Now comes the interesting part. This year's FT ratios, for some of the top scorers -

Harden 40%
Giannis 38%
LBJ 30%
Curry 38%
Lillard 38%

Those are all very good numbers. Compare to more typical players, say the Bulls guards -

Holiday 19%
Valentine 4% (yikes)
Dunn 14%
Grant 34% (OK there)

Then there is Nwaba, not a typical player, he is at 55% (!).

Butler's rookie year he was at ... 70% (!!!).

Now that was unsustainable, he has always been high since then of course, but not *that* high.

To my knowledge, none of us understood the signal at that time. It was right there, in front of us, and we were all writing about how he was a good pick for a #30 selection, looked like he would stick in the league as a glue rotation player.

The other under-rated part of Butler is his ability to read the other team's play sort of like Rondo but be effective unlike Rondo.
When he is on defense, he gets a lot of steals and he knows to react. I watched a little bit yesterday and he was able to read a pass or two pretty well(and it was not telegraphed for a defender to read). It was either film study or just court smartness.

I doubt 99% of NBA players can make that kind of steal as Jimmy did. It is not the 1 on 1 defender poking away the ball kind of steal or compromising the defensive position kind of steal.

He also got burnt once by leaving his defender by assuming what will happen. But, in general that kind of court awareness is what separates Jimmy from the boys. And, I don't think Derrick ever had that kind of awareness nor did Noah/Deng even at their peak.

[Swuul]

Read on Twitter

Is it yet known who the scout refered in this tweet is? Because that scout is damn good at his job!

[Ice Man]

The other under-rated part of Butler is his ability to read the other team's play sort of like Rondo but be effective unlike Rondo.
When he is on defense, he gets a lot of steals and he knows to react. I watched a little bit yesterday and he was able to read a pass or two pretty well(and it was not telegraphed for a defender to read). It was either film study or just court smartness.

I doubt 99% of NBA players can make that kind of steal as Jimmy did. It is not the 1 on 1 defender poking away the ball kind of steal or compromising the defensive position kind of steal.

He also got burnt once by leaving his defender by assuming what will happen. But, in general that kind of court awareness is what separates Jimmy from the boys. And, I don't think Derrick ever had that kind of awareness nor did Noah/Deng even at their peak.

Good points. For the current Bulls, Dunn has the same sense on steals, and (my view) Nwaba does with help defense. At times, I see flashes in Lauri that he might have that sort of top-notch insight on offense.

But as you write, those are rare abilities, not commonplace.

[Rerisen]

Butler's high FT rate was actually discussed as a rookie, not that it meant he would be a star, but as promising sign he could be efficient if he shot more and retained it.

I did not know Nwaba's was that high, though it isn't surprising, and most seem to love him, so maybe we subconsciously picked up on it.

Of course I do think its silly how often Butler's career arc is invoked to compare players with the suggestion that his career arc is likely, instead of the extreme anomaly that he was. So I won't compare them that way.

That seems to be the new way to install hope/optimism in the rebuild or for our young players, is for people to cherry pick any random late bloomer or average stats rookie/soph and use it as proof for why our guys should be likely to be follow the same route. As if its some kind of logical rebuttal to pointing out a more average or expected path that would be the safer projection vs their current production/growth.

[Ice Man]

I did not know Nwaba's was that high, though it isn't surprising, and most seem to love him, so maybe we subconsciously picked up on it.

I think so.

[/quote]Of course I do think its silly how often Butler's career arc is invoked to compare players with the suggestion that his career arc is likely[/quote]

Well yeah. And Nwaba is older than Butler was, too. But I don't mind making a bit of speculation, and saying that is one more sign that Nwaba's gonna make this league, and be a useful player. I would also say that the Valentine figure confirms what the eye test has been saying -- this guy has no future near the rim, he'd better continue to improve his defense and plan on being a 3 % semi-D role player.

[Rerisen]

Well yeah. And Nwaba is older than Butler was, too. But I don't mind making a bit of speculation, and saying that is one more sign that Nwaba's gonna make this league, and be a useful player.

I think he will too. And there is nothing wrong with being a role player that can be efficient, and not need the ball, and score at moderate volume and get to the line, even if that's all he becomes. Teams need guys like that.

A sort of more athletic Ronnie Brewer in my eyes.

Now if he starts making jumpers/threes, watch out.

[Mech Engineer]

Butler's high FT rate was actually discussed as a rookie, not that it meant he would be a star, but as promising sign he could be efficient if he shot more and retained it.

I did not know Nwaba's was that high, though it isn't surprising, and most seem to love him, so maybe we subconsciously picked up on it.

Of course I do think its silly how often Butler's career arc is invoked to compare players with the suggestion that his career arc is likely, instead of the extreme anomaly that he was. So I won't compare them that way.

That seems to be the new way to install hope/optimism in the rebuild or for our young players, is for people to cherry pick any random late bloomer or average stats rookie/soph and use it as proof for why our guys should be likely to be follow the same route. As if its some kind of logical rebuttal to pointing out a more average or expected path that would be the safer projection.

This is what is scary about the Bulls FO. They didn't realize what Jimmy was even after 2 years and evaluated him like a casual fan until he really put up big numbers. If they had realized what he was in a few years earlier, not only they could have signed him for a cheaper price but also filled the right pieces around him by moving on from Pau, Rose, Noah a little earlier.

If Nwaba becomes a better player than Lavine/Dunn, are they going to keep pushing Lavine/Dunn more than Nwaba based on draft status/perception? It's not that Nwaba is a #1 or #2 option but there are always deeper insights like what Iceman quoted which a front office needs to pay attention.

It is going to be a fact that Dunn/Lavine will be given more usage/plays called compared to Nwaba and selfishness in their play will be ignored compared to a Nwaba's.

All that said, the Bulls need a bigger set of young players with high ceilings and let the cream rise to the top just like how Embiid showed he is better than Okafor/Noel etc..

[DuckIII]

I don't think that's a valid point.

Well, it is. I would have traded Jimmy Butler for virtually anything that didn't involve bad contracts. We needed to start over. We were in an absolutely awful situation and needed to abandon it. The trade itself represents choosing the better big picture strategy, and is therefore a win.

The Bulls could have made a worse deal and still won based on your theory.

Yes, absolutely. That is exactly what I'm saying.

The trade needs to be evaluated on it's own merits and it's important to remember Jimmy wasn't an expiring like some of the other guys given away that people compare.

I agree that the *success* of the trade needs to be evaluated on its own merits and whether it indeed ends up working. Which is why I wrote all of that stuff about upcoming drafts.

[Rerisen]

If Nwaba becomes a better player than Lavine/Dunn, are they going to keep pushing Lavine/Dunn more than Nwaba based on draft status/perception? It's not that Nwaba is a #1 or #2 option but there are always deeper insights like what Iceman quoted which a front office needs to pay attention.

The FO doesn't seem to pay attention to much beyond their initial instincts on a guy, that's for sure. And they continue to keep those impressions even if those players come into the league and struggle elsewhere. They could end up right on Dunn, but definitely weren't on Payne.

They look at character, work ethic, or just liking the cut of a guy's jib, like some old tobacco spitting baseball scout. Seems a very old school method they use.

Because you are right, they don't seem to prioritize certain stats that transfer well from college, like steals/blocks rates, def rebounding, or FT rate. Else you wouldn't expend so much on a Doug, or prefer Valentine.

[MC3]

If Nwaba becomes a better player than Lavine/Dunn, are they going to keep pushing Lavine/Dunn more than Nwaba based on draft status/perception? It's not that Nwaba is a #1 or #2 option but there are always deeper insights like what Iceman quoted which a front office needs to pay attention.

The FO doesn't seem to pay attention to much beyond their initial instincts on a guy, that's for sure. And they continue to keep those impressions even if those players come into the league and struggle elsewhere. They could end up right on Dunn, but definitely weren't on Payne.

They look at character, work ethic, or just liking the cut of a guy's jib, like some old tobacco spitting baseball scout. Seems a very old school method they use.

Because you are right, they don't seem to prioritize certain stats that transfer well from college, like steals/blocks rates, def rebounding, or FT rate. Else you wouldn't expend so much on a Doug, or prefer Valentine.

Both Denzel and Doug were drafted for need and fit rather than be BPA. That's why they are bad picks. They discounted those stats because they fit with roster they had. In terms we need floor spacing over another guy who going on FT line but can't shoot 3's at high rate.

And now when you are rebuilding you can notice how garbage and limited players they are. And how much other prospects around them like in Doug's class pretty much every wing made solid or better career than Doug did. Harris got paid, Warren got paid, Hood will get paid and all will be expected to be significant contributors and Doug will hope he get's MLE going forward and his 20 min in bench role.

That kind of drafting pisses me off. They use analytics like old school GM's who have hard time catching up with modern analytics. They see guy shooting 3's at high rate at college thinking he can do same in NBA. Because "that's the game right now". Everyone shooting 3's. But they discount that modern NBA is really shooting 3's, going at FT line, taking advantage of missmatches, defending. So they discounting 3 out 4 staples of modern analytics for 1.

[the ultimates]

As interesting as the free throw rate percentage is the real takeaway should be that all of those players Lebron, Harden, Steph, Giannis, Lillard were lottery picks and selected at various points in the lottery.

The free throw percentage when looking at Nwaba or young Jimmy tells you that outside of defense they may have another viable nba skill. It doesn't mean they'll get a better jump shot or improve their handles to take advantage of it if given a bigger offensive role or just given more minutes. Plus I thought guys like Nwaba and Jimmy were too old to possibly improve.

[Ice Man]

[Both Denzel and Doug were drafted for need and fit rather than be BPA. That's why they are bad picks.

Hey now, Doug has a better plus/minus on the year than Andrew Wiggins. Although still negative, of course. Denzel is behind them both. But all three are in the range of "not very good," rather than where Doug and Val used to be, which was "awful."

[TheStig]

I don't think that's a valid point.

Well, it is. I would have traded Jimmy Butler for virtually anything that didn't involve bad contracts. We needed to start over. We were in an absolutely awful situation and needed to abandon it. The trade itself represents choosing the better big picture strategy, and is therefore a win.

The Bulls could have made a worse deal and still won based on your theory.

Yes, absolutely. That is exactly what I'm saying.

The trade needs to be evaluated on it's own merits and it's important to remember Jimmy wasn't an expiring like some of the other guys given away that people compare.

I agree that the *success* of the trade needs to be evaluated on its own merits and whether it indeed ends up working. Which is why I wrote all of that stuff about upcoming drafts.

Jimmy Butler was the only big trade asset on the team. Every team in the league would have offered us a package that didn't include bad contracts. That's a very poor evaluation. You need to seperate the two.

Seeing as we didn't have to trade Jimmy and won't be a better team for years. I think you need to look at what we got back. And the reason I don't like the deal is we didn't get a high level prospect back. That's my main goal in a deal. It's nice we got 3 shiny pieces and they look like they could possibly be starters but I wanted a high level prospect. It does look like with Dunn, Lavine and Lauri better than the intial reaction. So I give them a C right now. With potential for a B.

[Mech Engineer]

If Nwaba becomes a better player than Lavine/Dunn, are they going to keep pushing Lavine/Dunn more than Nwaba based on draft status/perception? It's not that Nwaba is a #1 or #2 option but there are always deeper insights like what Iceman quoted which a front office needs to pay attention.

The FO doesn't seem to pay attention to much beyond their initial instincts on a guy, that's for sure. And they continue to keep those impressions even if those players come into the league and struggle elsewhere. They could end up right on Dunn, but definitely weren't on Payne.

They look at character, work ethic, or just liking the cut of a guy's jib, like some old tobacco spitting baseball scout. Seems a very old school method they use.

Because you are right, they don't seem to prioritize certain stats that transfer well from college, like steals/blocks rates, def rebounding, or FT rate. Else you wouldn't expend so much on a Doug, or prefer Valentine.

Both Denzel and Doug were drafted for need and fit rather than be BPA. That's why they are bad picks. They discounted those stats because they fit with roster they had. In terms we need floor spacing over another guy who going on FT line but can't shoot 3's at high rate.

And now when you are rebuilding you can notice how garbage and limited players they are. And how much other prospects around them like in Doug's class pretty much every wing made solid or better career than Doug did. Harris got paid, Warren got paid, Hood will get paid and all will be expected to be significant contributors and Doug will hope he get's MLE going forward and his 20 min in bench role.

That kind of drafting pisses me off. They use analytics like old school GM's who have hard time catching up with modern analytics. They see guy shooting 3's at high rate at college thinking he can do same in NBA. Because "that's the game right now". Everyone shooting 3's. But they discount that modern NBA is really shooting 3's, going at FT line, taking advantage of missmatches, defending. So they discounting 3 out 4 staples of modern analytics for 1.

I have heard Gar and Pax both say on local radio that they are not big fans of analytics or don't understand it very well. That's a big problem because I was hoping they have a top guy if not themselves who is excellent in that area. And, they went and hired Doug Collins on top of it who is cut from the same mold as those guys.

The point is they value the draft so much unlike most other teams. But, they went ahead and picked up guys like Valentine, McDermott as you say who are mostly specialists.

I am hoping they are comfortable with their jobs and hire a real analytical top level "GM" type who has a lot of input. They need 2 guys actually one for college and one for the pros.

There are guys on Phoenix/Sacramento teams who are perceived as low value and just watching every game doesn't let you make good decisions always. You need to supplement with analytics to figure out who is being mis-cast/low-valued. When you have multiple young kids, someone is being under-valued.

[Ice Man]

You need to supplement with analytics to figure out who is being mis-cast/low-valued. When you have multiple young kids, someone is being under-valued.

True enough. There is some value in targeting the bad teams that have lots of kids. That said, the overwhelming issue, as always, is to find a #1 option. Otherwise, we do a lot of good moderate things and end up back as a low playoff seed, or at least not a true title contender. And the whole purpose of the Butler trade was to avoid just being pretty good, right?

[Dresden]

I don't think that's a valid point.

Well, it is. I would have traded Jimmy Butler for virtually anything that didn't involve bad contracts. We needed to start over. We were in an absolutely awful situation and needed to abandon it. The trade itself represents choosing the better big picture strategy, and is therefore a win.

The Bulls could have made a worse deal and still won based on your theory.

Yes, absolutely. That is exactly what I'm saying.

The trade needs to be evaluated on it's own merits and it's important to remember Jimmy wasn't an expiring like some of the other guys given away that people compare.

I agree that the *success* of the trade needs to be evaluated on its own merits and whether it indeed ends up working. Which is why I wrote all of that stuff about upcoming drafts.

Jimmy Butler was the only big trade asset on the team. Every team in the league would have offered us a package that didn't include bad contracts. That's a very poor evaluation. You need to seperate the two.

Seeing as we didn't have to trade Jimmy and won't be a better team for years. I think you need to look at what we got back. And the reason I don't like the deal is we didn't get a high level prospect back. That's my main goal in a deal. It's nice we got 3 shiny pieces and they look like they could possibly be starters but I wanted a high level prospect. It does look like with Dunn, Lavine and Lauri better than the intial reaction. So I give them a C right now. With potential for a B.

So the Bulls wanted either the #3 pick from BOS or the #4 pick from PHO for Butler, and were turned down. Those because Jayson Tatum and Josh Jackson. I would trade either of them right now for Lauri, let alone also thrown in Kris Dunn and Zach Lavine.

Kris Dunn has a chance to be an all-star one day. So does Lauri. Maybe Lavine, too. That in fact is what I DID like about the trade- instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, we got three players in return, any one of which could be better than that single #3 or #4 pick.

[Lauri_Legend]

Well, it is. I would have traded Jimmy Butler for virtually anything that didn't involve bad contracts. We needed to start over. We were in an absolutely awful situation and needed to abandon it. The trade itself represents choosing the better big picture strategy, and is therefore a win.



Yes, absolutely. That is exactly what I'm saying.



I agree that the *success* of the trade needs to be evaluated on its own merits and whether it indeed ends up working. Which is why I wrote all of that stuff about upcoming drafts.

Jimmy Butler was the only big trade asset on the team. Every team in the league would have offered us a package that didn't include bad contracts. That's a very poor evaluation. You need to seperate the two.

Seeing as we didn't have to trade Jimmy and won't be a better team for years. I think you need to look at what we got back. And the reason I don't like the deal is we didn't get a high level prospect back. That's my main goal in a deal. It's nice we got 3 shiny pieces and they look like they could possibly be starters but I wanted a high level prospect. It does look like with Dunn, Lavine and Lauri better than the intial reaction. So I give them a C right now. With potential for a B.

So the Bulls wanted either the #3 pick from BOS or the #4 pick from PHO for Butler, and were turned down. Those because Jayson Tatum and Josh Jackson. I would trade either of them right now for Lauri, let alone also thrown in Kris Dunn and Zach Lavine.

Kris Dunn has a chance to be an all-star one day. So does Lauri. Maybe Lavine, too. That in fact is what I DID like about the trade- instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, we got three players in return, any one of which could be better than that single #3 or #4 pick.

I'd take Tatum over Lauri

[Dresden]

The reason the Bulls picked VAL was because he was more NBA ready than many of the other options, and they were still trying to win it all with Wade, Rondo and butler. That, along with his skills as a passer, a 3 pt shooter, and a playmaker. He was ready to step in and play right away. It didn't work out that way, but that was the reasoning I assume.

With Doug, they thought they would be getting the best 3 pt. shooter in the draft, and a good all around scorer. They thought he would be a more well rounded Kyle Korver. At the time, everyone wanted 3 pt. shooting. Nik Stauskas went several picks ahead of Doug, and he hasn't turned out any better. So it isn't/wasn't just the Bulls FO that made that mistake. And they made the trade to move up to take him because they believed other teams would take him before their pick. So this narrative that it's only the Bulls FO that are blind, or behind the times, or incompetent, or whatever, just doesn't ring true to the facts.

[Dresden]

And as for the Bulls FO being blamed for not recognizing Jimmy's talents a couple of years earlier, and gutting the team to build around him? For one thing, it's a bit hypocritical to fault them for not seeing how good he would be, when they took him in the draft after 29 other teams passed on him. So I guess they weren't that blind, were they? For another, at the time, they still had Noah, Gasol, Rose, and Taj, etc. and that seemed like a pretty good team. They also had Thibs coaching, and he is always in a win now mode. Can you imagine his reaction if they told him there were gutting the team to try to build around just Jimmy?

It's really stretching things to blame them for not doing that. It's like people are just looking for stuff to blame on the FO. How about crediting them with having the wisdom, even with their supposed antiquated scouting techniques, for drafting Jimmy in the first place?

[Dresden]

Jimmy Butler was the only big trade asset on the team. Every team in the league would have offered us a package that didn't include bad contracts. That's a very poor evaluation. You need to seperate the two.

Seeing as we didn't have to trade Jimmy and won't be a better team for years. I think you need to look at what we got back. And the reason I don't like the deal is we didn't get a high level prospect back. That's my main goal in a deal. It's nice we got 3 shiny pieces and they look like they could possibly be starters but I wanted a high level prospect. It does look like with Dunn, Lavine and Lauri better than the intial reaction. So I give them a C right now. With potential for a B.

So the Bulls wanted either the #3 pick from BOS or the #4 pick from PHO for Butler, and were turned down. Those because Jayson Tatum and Josh Jackson. I would trade either of them right now for Lauri, let alone also thrown in Kris Dunn and Zach Lavine.

Kris Dunn has a chance to be an all-star one day. So does Lauri. Maybe Lavine, too. That in fact is what I DID like about the trade- instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, we got three players in return, any one of which could be better than that single #3 or #4 pick.

I'd take Tatum over Lauri

Would you take him over Lauri, Lavine, and Dunn?