Jackie MacMullan: Jimmy Butler, 76ers on "thin ice"

[Pattycakes]

Interesting this story comes from a Boston for life reporter.

Last time she reported on a team outside of Boston with the "LMA wants out of SA" it was completely BS.

Read on Twitter

Pop literally admitted she was right but alright

Did you really extrapolate that from what you just posted?

[youngcrev]

Good.

The team needs to set some boundaries with him if he's causing waves behind the scenes. Giving him the 5 year max would be risky even if he was on his best behavior, so I'm sure this won't do anything to help his negotiations. And if he's not willing to buy into the system and he's not willing to take less than his max, the team should probably move on.

The Sixers are in a cap position where they can go after someone else if things don't work out.

[Metallikid]

Good.

The team needs to set some boundaries with him if he's causing waves behind the scenes. Giving him the 5 year max would be risky even if he was on his best behavior, so I'm sure this won't do anything to help his negotiations. And if he's not willing to buy into the system and he's not willing to take less than his max, the team should probably move on.

The Sixers are in a cap position where they can go after someone else if things don't work out.

If you lose Jimmy Butler for nothing after giving up Saric and Covington your team won't get to an Eastern Conference Finals for Embiid's entire tenure there, because he'll leave after his current contract. Your team knew what they were getting themselves into.

[youngcrev]

Good.

The team needs to set some boundaries with him if he's causing waves behind the scenes. Giving him the 5 year max would be risky even if he was on his best behavior, so I'm sure this won't do anything to help his negotiations. And if he's not willing to buy into the system and he's not willing to take less than his max, the team should probably move on.

The Sixers are in a cap position where they can go after someone else if things don't work out.

If you lose Jimmy Butler for nothing after giving up Saric and Covington your team won't get to an Eastern Conference Finals for Embiid's entire tenure there, because he'll leave after his current contract. Your team knew what they were getting themselves into.

If Jimmy isn't here, Embiid will likely be a big part of that decision, so I disagree.

Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons and 50 million in cap space isn't exactly a tough situation to build a team around. Covington and Saric were good players (particularly Covington), but losing them shouldn't be a major set back to organization. Similar to with Fultz, the team can't worry about what they gave up for Butler in terms of how they decide to go forward.

[McHalesBurner]

Not related to the topic, which I don't really buy, but listened to this today and learned Jackie has 6 toes on one of her feet. Random to know.

Obviously the Devil's spawn.

[Metallikid]

Good.

The team needs to set some boundaries with him if he's causing waves behind the scenes. Giving him the 5 year max would be risky even if he was on his best behavior, so I'm sure this won't do anything to help his negotiations. And if he's not willing to buy into the system and he's not willing to take less than his max, the team should probably move on.

The Sixers are in a cap position where they can go after someone else if things don't work out.

If you lose Jimmy Butler for nothing after giving up Saric and Covington your team won't get to an Eastern Conference Finals for Embiid's entire tenure there, because he'll leave after his current contract. Your team knew what they were getting themselves into.

If Jimmy isn't here, Embiid will likely be a big part of that decision, so I disagree.

Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons and 50 million in cap space isn't exactly a tough situation to build a team around. Covington and Saric were good players (particularly Covington), but losing them shouldn't be a major set back to organization. Similar to with Fultz, the team can't worry about what they gave up for Butler in terms of how they decide to go forward.

Why would any free agent want to come to the Sixers when they traded for Jimmy Butler and couldn't even sign him? I understand your point about the sunk cost fallacy, but your team will struggle just to replace Covington and Saric, and the people you pay to replace them will either cost more than they did and likely be older, or will cost less and be worse players.

Like, do you really think in the next five years you're going to get a free agent who is anywhere near the level of Jimmy Butler?

Because the odds and NBA history say that's highly unlikely.

[NatiboyB]

What does Jimmy Butler have to do with other players thoughts I'm almost positive he isn't that well liked its starting to seem.

If you lose Jimmy Butler for nothing after giving up Saric and Covington your team won't get to an Eastern Conference Finals for Embiid's entire tenure there, because he'll leave after his current contract. Your team knew what they were getting themselves into.

If Jimmy isn't here, Embiid will likely be a big part of that decision, so I disagree.

Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons and 50 million in cap space isn't exactly a tough situation to build a team around. Covington and Saric were good players (particularly Covington), but losing them shouldn't be a major set back to organization. Similar to with Fultz, the team can't worry about what they gave up for Butler in terms of how they decide to go forward.

Why would any free agent want to come to the Sixers when they traded for Jimmy Butler and couldn't even sign him? I understand your point about the sunk cost fallacy, but your team will struggle just to replace Covington and Saric, and the people you pay to replace them will either cost more than they did and likely be older, or will cost less and be worse players.

Like, do you really think in the next five years you're going to get a free agent who is anywhere near the level of Jimmy Butler?

Because the odds and NBA history say that's highly unlikely.

[XtremeDunkz]

If you lose Jimmy Butler for nothing after giving up Saric and Covington your team won't get to an Eastern Conference Finals for Embiid's entire tenure there, because he'll leave after his current contract. Your team knew what they were getting themselves into.

If Jimmy isn't here, Embiid will likely be a big part of that decision, so I disagree.

Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons and 50 million in cap space isn't exactly a tough situation to build a team around. Covington and Saric were good players (particularly Covington), but losing them shouldn't be a major set back to organization. Similar to with Fultz, the team can't worry about what they gave up for Butler in terms of how they decide to go forward.

Why would any free agent want to come to the Sixers when they traded for Jimmy Butler and couldn't even sign him? I understand your point about the sunk cost fallacy, but your team will struggle just to replace Covington and Saric, and the people you pay to replace them will either cost more than they did and likely be older, or will cost less and be worse players.

Like, do you really think in the next five years you're going to get a free agent who is anywhere near the level of Jimmy Butler?

Because the odds and NBA history say that's highly unlikely.

Saric is JAG. He isnt a huge difference maker as he is a negative on defense. Covington is obviously good but we have been playing well in Butlers absence even with a crap bench. We will be fine either way.

[Patsfan1081]

If Jimmy isn't here, Embiid will likely be a big part of that decision, so I disagree.

Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons and 50 million in cap space isn't exactly a tough situation to build a team around. Covington and Saric were good players (particularly Covington), but losing them shouldn't be a major set back to organization. Similar to with Fultz, the team can't worry about what they gave up for Butler in terms of how they decide to go forward.

Why would any free agent want to come to the Sixers when they traded for Jimmy Butler and couldn't even sign him? I understand your point about the sunk cost fallacy, but your team will struggle just to replace Covington and Saric, and the people you pay to replace them will either cost more than they did and likely be older, or will cost less and be worse players.

Like, do you really think in the next five years you're going to get a free agent who is anywhere near the level of Jimmy Butler?

Because the odds and NBA history say that's highly unlikely.

Saric is JAG. He isnt a huge difference maker as he is a negative on defense. Covington is obviously good but we have been playing well in Butlers absence even with a crap bench. We will be fine either way.

Were you saying the same about Saric when he was in Philly?

[XtremeDunkz]

Why would any free agent want to come to the Sixers when they traded for Jimmy Butler and couldn't even sign him? I understand your point about the sunk cost fallacy, but your team will struggle just to replace Covington and Saric, and the people you pay to replace them will either cost more than they did and likely be older, or will cost less and be worse players.

Like, do you really think in the next five years you're going to get a free agent who is anywhere near the level of Jimmy Butler?

Because the odds and NBA history say that's highly unlikely.

Saric is JAG. He isnt a huge difference maker as he is a negative on defense. Covington is obviously good but we have been playing well in Butlers absence even with a crap bench. We will be fine either way.

Were you saying the same about Saric when he was in Philly?

yes lol

[CelticsFTW]

Butler seems to need to be on a team that has an established veteran star.

It seems like Jimmy would have been the perfect fit for the Celtics when Garnett and Pierce played there last two or three seasons.

But: On the current 76ers or Minnesota it seems he his killing the chemistry - for whatever reason.

Sent from my WAS-LX1A using RealGM mobile app

[youngcrev]

If you lose Jimmy Butler for nothing after giving up Saric and Covington your team won't get to an Eastern Conference Finals for Embiid's entire tenure there, because he'll leave after his current contract. Your team knew what they were getting themselves into.

If Jimmy isn't here, Embiid will likely be a big part of that decision, so I disagree.

Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons and 50 million in cap space isn't exactly a tough situation to build a team around. Covington and Saric were good players (particularly Covington), but losing them shouldn't be a major set back to organization. Similar to with Fultz, the team can't worry about what they gave up for Butler in terms of how they decide to go forward.

Why would any free agent want to come to the Sixers when they traded for Jimmy Butler and couldn't even sign him? I understand your point about the sunk cost fallacy, but your team will struggle just to replace Covington and Saric, and the people you pay to replace them will either cost more than they did and likely be older, or will cost less and be worse players.

Like, do you really think in the next five years you're going to get a free agent who is anywhere near the level of Jimmy Butler?

Because the odds and NBA history say that's highly unlikely.

I'm not following. Free agents wouldn't want to come here because we traded for Butler and didn't re-sign him?

The odds of signing a guy as talented as Butler aren't that great... But that's not a good reason to re-sign if things aren't working out. Of course, that's also following the premise that things aren't working out, which I'm not so sure is the case. Regardless, they should be trying to sign him less than that 5 year max that only they capable of giving him if that's possible.

[Metallikid]

If Jimmy isn't here, Embiid will likely be a big part of that decision, so I disagree.

Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons and 50 million in cap space isn't exactly a tough situation to build a team around. Covington and Saric were good players (particularly Covington), but losing them shouldn't be a major set back to organization. Similar to with Fultz, the team can't worry about what they gave up for Butler in terms of how they decide to go forward.

Why would any free agent want to come to the Sixers when they traded for Jimmy Butler and couldn't even sign him? I understand your point about the sunk cost fallacy, but your team will struggle just to replace Covington and Saric, and the people you pay to replace them will either cost more than they did and likely be older, or will cost less and be worse players.

Like, do you really think in the next five years you're going to get a free agent who is anywhere near the level of Jimmy Butler?

Because the odds and NBA history say that's highly unlikely.

I'm not following. Free agents wouldn't want to come here because we traded for Butler and didn't re-sign him?

The odds of signing a guy as talented as Butler aren't that great... But that's not a good reason to re-sign if things aren't working out. Of course, that's also following the premise that things aren't working out, which I'm not so sure is the case. Regardless, they should be trying to sign him less than that 5 year max that only they capable of giving him if that's possible.

The logic is that they didn't treat a player they traded for well, maybe didn't accomodate him, and then played hardball with him in negotiations despite the fact that he plays well on the court. I think that would resonate with other marquee free agents.

[Satch]

Jimmy isnt going anywhere and is not leaving the sixers if they want him and wait til the playoffs and watch him really shine.. I think Jimmy can be hard to take but winning cures so much

[youngcrev]

Why would any free agent want to come to the Sixers when they traded for Jimmy Butler and couldn't even sign him? I understand your point about the sunk cost fallacy, but your team will struggle just to replace Covington and Saric, and the people you pay to replace them will either cost more than they did and likely be older, or will cost less and be worse players.

Like, do you really think in the next five years you're going to get a free agent who is anywhere near the level of Jimmy Butler?

Because the odds and NBA history say that's highly unlikely.

I'm not following. Free agents wouldn't want to come here because we traded for Butler and didn't re-sign him?

The odds of signing a guy as talented as Butler aren't that great... But that's not a good reason to re-sign if things aren't working out. Of course, that's also following the premise that things aren't working out, which I'm not so sure is the case. Regardless, they should be trying to sign him less than that 5 year max that only they capable of giving him if that's possible.

The logic is that they didn't treat a player they traded for well, maybe didn't accomodate him, and then played hardball with him in negotiations despite the fact that he plays well on the court. I think that would resonate with other marquee free agents.

It would be the 3rd bridge Jimmy has burnt in 3 years if it were to happen. I don't think players would hold it against them. And clearly that part shouldn't be a concern for them if the Sixers are offering them a contract.

[Metallikid]

I'm not following. Free agents wouldn't want to come here because we traded for Butler and didn't re-sign him?

The odds of signing a guy as talented as Butler aren't that great... But that's not a good reason to re-sign if things aren't working out. Of course, that's also following the premise that things aren't working out, which I'm not so sure is the case. Regardless, they should be trying to sign him less than that 5 year max that only they capable of giving him if that's possible.

The logic is that they didn't treat a player they traded for well, maybe didn't accomodate him, and then played hardball with him in negotiations despite the fact that he plays well on the court. I think that would resonate with other marquee free agents.

It would be the 3rd bridge Jimmy has burnt in 3 years if it were to happen. I don't think players would hold it against them. And clearly that part shouldn't be a concern for them if the Sixers are offering them a contract.

I wouldn't exactly say he burned his bridge in Chicago. Hard to say that when his former coach ended up trading for him and the whole organization was moving towards a rebuild anyways. To be honest while things went down in a bad way, I mostly blame Thibs for letting it get to that point in the first place - Jimmy wanted a commitment that the organization that traded for him also planned to sign him to a max contract, and he didn't get that. So now the Sixers come in and trade for him, saying they will sign him to a max or very close to max deal, but now they don't like x and y and they're getting cold feet. That's worse than what the Timberwolves did. Free agents don't like teams that have a history of reneging on players.

Plus I think that Jimmy being a locker-room issue is overblown and whatever tension there is has in large part to do with behind-the-scenes talks between Jimmy's agent and the team, and that they aren't going the way Jimmy expected.

[Ugly0598]

I could see Butler going to Brooklyn or Miami if he doesn't stay in Philadelphia.

Maybe Houston could offer those 4 first round picks again?

[Ballerhogger]

Butler seems to need to be on a team that has an established veteran star.

Lebron cough ....

[Ballerhogger]

If he doesn’t get max he’s walking ... I don’t see him staying

[Tracymcgoaty]

She said, "talking to people in Philly", she got the vibe that he's on thin ice. Take that as you will man

again, what does 'He's on thin ice" mean? are they close to trading him? let him go in FA? and why would a reporter from Boston know anything about this?

No clue man. I still think he re-signs and everything, maybe by thin ice they're referring to his request of the 5 year max.

Im guessing Jackie means Jimmy is on Thin Ice meaning the movie Thin Ice from 2011 with Greg Kinnear...Didn't see Jimmy in it so i call bafoonery.