Butler trade rumor - KC Johnson update: pg 63

[kingkirk]

Minnesota has finally upped their talent base after a decade.

Eh ... not necessarily. The Wolves in '12 had 23 year old Kevin Love, 21 year old Ricky Rubio, 22 year old Anthony Randolph. On PERs, vs. the current crop of 21 year olds -

Um...

[kingkirk]

FO's are never going to be perfect. Ours certainly hasn't been. So if that's what is required when tanking type seasons don't produce the mega talents, we better think twice.

If you want to say there is a hypothetical where over any given 3 year tank period, if your FO is clairvoyant and picks the absolute best players available every draft (I mean by end result not projection) and don't make any big FA blunders, the should have a good chance to at least produce a fringe contender, I would agree with you. Just doing all that is like a camel going through the eye of a needle.

I’m not expecting perfection. I’m expecting competence.

The Wizards signing a starting-caliber center to a large deal (when they already have one) and two below-average power forwards to for over $10m combined, is just dumb. There is no defending Ernie Grunfeld, who has been a very bad GM for some time now.

Its disingenuous to blame that on a rebuild that netted Wall, Beal and Porter, all of whom are doing their job and are play well. None of those guys are top 5-10 talents, but that’s a good foundation to build a consistent 48-54 win team. But in reading this thread, a team maxing out at 54 wins and never winning a title isn’t justification enough for a tank/rebuild.

[Rerisen]

FO's are never going to be perfect. Ours certainly hasn't been. So if that's what is required when tanking type seasons don't produce the mega talents, we better think twice.

If you want to say there is a hypothetical where over any given 3 year tank period, if your FO is clairvoyant and picks the absolute best players available every draft (I mean by end result not projection) and don't make any big FA blunders, the should have a good chance to at least produce a fringe contender, I would agree with you. Just doing all that is like a camel going through the eye of a needle.

I’m not expecting perfection. I’m expecting competence.

The Wizards signing a starting-caliber center to a large deal (when they already have one) and two below-average power forwards to for over $10m combined, is just dumb. There is no defending Ernie Grunfeld, who has been a very bad GM for some time now.

Its disingenuous to blame that on a rebuild that netted Wall, Beal and Porter, all of whom are doing their job and are play well. None of those guys are top 5-10 talents, but that’s a good foundation to build a consistent 48-54 win team.

You have to look at more than just the single high point and cannot disregard how long rebuilds take either. If any team tanked on purpose to end up where the Wizards have, I'd call it a definite failure/waste of time. They've spent 9 years going in a big circle.

Cherry picking the good picks and blaming management for bad picks and signings looks nice in hindsight, but judging most rebuilds this way, its far too much a copout to say if only they were competent. As then only like 10% of FOs who tank are competent I guess, and judging by our picks and signings the last few years, the Bulls wouldn't be one that inspires confidence in handling all the moves that would be necessary to do it right.

But in reading this thread, a team maxing out at 54 wins and never winning a title isn’t justification enough for a tank/rebuild.

As I said in an earlier post I don't think there is any exact bar for justification, it depends what the team gave up to tank instead, as well as how many years they spent, etc.

Ending up in an ECF and losing might be worth tanking if it only took 3 years to ramp up and you gave up a crappy team. If you gave up a pretty decent foundation team and it took 12 years, pretty dubious result. I personally would not be happy with one ECF appearance as the pinnacle of a rebuild if you ate 5, 30 win or less style seasons to set it up.

[League Circles]

FO's are never going to be perfect. Ours certainly hasn't been. So if that's what is required when tanking type seasons don't produce the mega talents, we better think twice.

If you want to say there is a hypothetical where over any given 3 year tank period, if your FO is clairvoyant and picks the absolute best players available every draft (I mean by end result not projection) and don't make any big FA blunders, the should have a good chance to at least produce a fringe contender, I would agree with you. Just doing all that is like a camel going through the eye of a needle.

I’m not expecting perfection. I’m expecting competence.

The Wizards signing a starting-caliber center to a large deal (when they already have one) and two below-average power forwards to for over $10m combined, is just dumb. There is no defending Ernie Grunfeld, who has been a very bad GM for some time now.

Its disingenuous to blame that on a rebuild that netted Wall, Beal and Porter, all of whom are doing their job and are play well. None of those guys are top 5-10 talents, but that’s a good foundation to build a consistent 48-54 win team. But in reading this thread, a team maxing out at 54 wins and never winning a title isn’t justification enough for a tank/rebuild.

Yeah I would say a 48-54 win team doesn't justify a tank. To go into the gutter IMO you need to come out smelling like roses. It's not that difficult to simply maintain 48-54 win seasons without tanking IMO with reasonable luck and quality management. We've had poor luck and IDK maybe average management maybe a bit better.

[RedBulls23]

Somewhat off topic... I still wanna know who that GM was in 2014 that told Mark Deeks he'd give Butler a max contract. The tweet is now gone but the thread on RealGm is there.

I think we had figured it out and it was Bryan Callangelo.

[Rerisen]

Somewhat off topic... I still wanna know who that GM was in 2014 that told Mark Deeks he'd give Butler a max contract. The tweet is now gone but the thread on RealGm is there.

I think we had figured it out and it was Bryan Callangelo.

Bring him in! Wait a minute, he also thought Bargs was going to be the shiz.

That's the problem with the draft, its a crapshoot. You can look a genius one year then a boob the next.

[AirP.]

Somewhat off topic... I still wanna know who that GM was in 2014 that told Mark Deeks he'd give Butler a max contract. The tweet is now gone but the thread on RealGm is there.

I think we had figured it out and it was Bryan Callangelo.

He was freelancing at that time, he definitely wasn't a GM at that time nor for the last year by that point.

[kingkirk]

It's not that difficult to simply maintain 48-54 win seasons without tanking IMO with reasonable luck and quality management. We've had poor luck and IDK maybe average management maybe a bit better.

Not that difficult, yet the Bulls will fail to do so for two consecutive seasons (incl this one), despite having cap space to build a roster.

[Mech Engineer]

Somewhat off topic... I still wanna know who that GM was in 2014 that told Mark Deeks he'd give Butler a max contract. The tweet is now gone but the thread on RealGm is there.

I think we had figured it out and it was Bryan Callangelo.

Bring him in! Wait a minute, he also thought Bargs was going to be the shiz.

That's the problem with the draft, its a crapshoot. You can look a genius one year then a boob the next.

He is a non-tanker. If the 'Hinkie process' boys all suck in a year, he will be ready to part with those future HOF young studs. We have already seen two 'process guys' being talked about in trade talks(Okafor and Noel) and they are probably going to lose them or get peanuts for those two guys.

GarPax were not ready to pay Jimmy 50 million. How would that have looked for GarPax as a trade asset?

[League Circles]

It's not that difficult to simply maintain 48-54 win seasons without tanking IMO with reasonable luck and quality management. We've had poor luck and IDK maybe average management maybe a bit better.

Not that difficult, yet the Bulls will fail to do so for two consecutive seasons (incl this one), despite having cap space to build a roster.

Well I still hold out hope for a 48+ win season this year. But anyways to me there is a way bigger difference between say a 30 win season and a 42 win season that there is between say a 42 win season and a 54 win one. To me, the enjoyment of any season from roughly .500 (8th seed types as long as you make it) up until just shy of "strong contender" is about the same. Losing seasons just suck IMO. I don't want to ever see one again.

[kingkirk]

You have to look at more than just the single high point and cannot disregard how long rebuilds take either. If any team tanked on purpose to end up where the Wizards have, I'd call it a definite failure/waste of time. They've spent 9 years going in a big circle.

Cherry picking the good picks and blaming management for bad picks and signings looks nice in hindsight, but judging most rebuilds this way, its far too much a copout to say if only they were competent. As then only like 10% of FOs who tank are competent I guess, and judging by our picks and signings the last few years, the Bulls wouldn't be one that inspires confidence in handling all the moves that would be necessary to do it right.

Except it’s not hindsight.

The Wizards offseason was universally judged as a bad one the moment it happened. It’s not hindsight when looking at the situation as it transpires and suggesting it is a **** heap of a position to be in. Suggesting my argyument is hindsight bases is a copout.

Signing Ian Mahinmi to be your backup center, all while paying him $15m a season, was nuts. That is not cherry picking. Spending over $25m on big men when you team is in need of wings is dumb. It’s money that could’ve been much better spent, and if they had done so, their position in the East may look a lot different.

It’s the same thing with the Bulls. Incompetence.

If Bulls management had actually gone out and built a team around Jimmy Butler instead of building the worst possible lineup to put around him, maybe the Bulls are 24-13, on track for 50+ wins with Butler leading the organisation, instead of being one game over .500 and a few bad games away from missing the postseason.

Like the Wizards, who have bad management, if the Bulls had done the right thing, the obviously competent thing, this thread doesn’t exist.

That is not hindsight.

[Ice Man]

Um...

Yeah, Randolph was a stretch. The other two are not. If Rubio didn't end up matching high expectations ... well hey, such is the case for most good 21 year olds.

[MC3]

Um...

Yeah, Randolph was a stretch. The other two are not. If Rubio didn't end up matching high expectations ... well hey, such is the case for most good 21 year olds.

Rubio had career ending injury. Same as Rose. Those players of high expectations ceased to exist when they tore their ACL's. Hell even Rondo.

[Rerisen]

Except it’s not hindsight.

The Wizards offseason was universally judged as a bad one the moment it happened. It’s not hindsight when looking at the situation as it transpires and suggesting it is a **** heap of a position to be in. Suggesting my argyument is hindsight bases is a copout.

Signing Ian Mahinmi to be your backup center, all while paying him $15m a season, was nuts. That is not cherry picking. Spending over $25m on big men when you team is in need of wings is dumb. It’s money that could’ve been much better spent, and if they had done so, their position in the East may look a lot different.

It’s the same thing with the Bulls. Incompetence.

If Bulls management had actually gone out and built a team around Jimmy Butler instead of building the worst possible lineup to put around him, maybe the Bulls are 24-13, on track for 50+ wins with Butler leading the organisation, instead of being one game over .500 and a few bad games away from missing the postseason.

Like the Wizards, who have bad management, if the Bulls had done the right thing, the obviously competent thing, this thread doesn’t exist.

That is not hindsight.

Well TBH I called the Wizards moves sideways when they resigned Nene and Gortat, could tell that was not going to put them over the top.

But in a lot of these cases, many teams don't have great alternatives to just go and get perfect fitting pieces they need for fair prices. Nor is it easy to just carry your money over year to year in 1 year deals or such, and have your progression stagnate or regress.

Seems like we aren't really discussing tanking per se anymore though, just good vs bad FO choices. If the Bulls had a brilliant FO, it would make them not only better tank candidates but obviously better candidates to stand pat and build around what they have.

Most of the managements in the NBA look like bad management, whether tanking or otherwise, when you look back on them from 5 years hence. Forum GMing can be easy, because most people never admit or quickly forget all the wrong moves they would have done.

I'm not sure what the obviously competent thing with the Bulls was? Keep Dunleavy and Calderon!?!? Add some other bit piece role players that would only tweak the margins. A guy like Jeremy Lin be much better than Rondo, but doesn't make the Bulls a real contender. They obviously didn't sign Wade and Rondo to compete right now, they just hoped to be good enough to reach the playoffs, and then have the name recognition lure another guy here.

And if it failed, they don't give a darn, because they know Wade would put some people in the seats. Bulls will always be working against this bottom line mentality, but ironically, its the same reason they won't ever tank.

[DanTown8587]

FO's are never going to be perfect. Ours certainly hasn't been. So if that's what is required when tanking type seasons don't produce the mega talents, we better think twice.

If you want to say there is a hypothetical where over any given 3 year tank period, if your FO is clairvoyant and picks the absolute best players available every draft (I mean by end result not projection) and don't make any big FA blunders, the should have a good chance to at least produce a fringe contender, I would agree with you. Just doing all that is like a camel going through the eye of a needle.

I’m not expecting perfection. I’m expecting competence.

The Wizards signing a starting-caliber center to a large deal (when they already have one) and two below-average power forwards to for over $10m combined, is just dumb. There is no defending Ernie Grunfeld, who has been a very bad GM for some time now.

Its disingenuous to blame that on a rebuild that netted Wall, Beal and Porter, all of whom are doing their job and are play well. None of those guys are top 5-10 talents, but that’s a good foundation to build a consistent 48-54 win team. But in reading this thread, a team maxing out at 54 wins and never winning a title isn’t justification enough for a tank/rebuild.

The Wizards didn't "tank" for their rebuild; they sucked badly, got a few picks, whiffed on many, and did nothing exceptional besides draft Wall (lottery luck) and Porter (3.5% chance). I mean this is a team that is simply in NBA hell as long as they keep Wall and has never gotten beyond 46 wins yet is a 48-54 win team in the future?

I mean when Otto Porter is the hope of your rebuild and a sign you're doing something right with a #3 pick, you've done something terribly wrong.

I mean maybe if the Wizards deal Beal for Harden we're talking about a 55-60 win team but they didn't.

[kingkirk]

Most of the managements in the NBA look like bad management, whether tanking or otherwise, when you look back on them from 5 years hence. Forum GMing can be easy, because most people never admit or quickly forget all the wrong moves they would have done.

I don’t agree with this at all. Those franchises that are held in esteem are generally done so because of sustained success and constant good decision making.

I'm not sure what the obviously competent thing with the Bulls was? Keep Dunleavy and Calderon!?!? Add some other bit piece role players that would only tweak the margins. A guy like Jeremy Lin be much better than Rondo, but doesn't make the Bulls a real contender. They obviously didn't sign Wade and Rondo to compete right now, they just hoped to be good enough to reach the playoffs, and then have the name recognition lure another guy here.

I would say trading Rose because his ball-dominance, non-shooting and bad defense didn’t fit with Butler, then actively seeking out a worse player who does the same things, all while giving him $14m when no one else was paying that much, is the definition of incompetence.

It wasn’t possible for Bulls management to build a contender around Butler during the past offseason. I’m not measuring them against that. It was possible for them to build a roster that not only fit the modern NBA – which happens to fit with what Hoiberg wants to play and what he was brought here to do – but one that fits their best player.

If they had done that, I believe the Bulls would have an even better Jimmy Butler playing right now and more be a genuine top 4 team in the East capable of winning 50 games.

[Rerisen]

Jazz are an interesting team, since they traded their star in his prime at 26 years old in Deron, sort of a Jimmy style situation. Though Jimmy is better than Deron ever was.

Weird thing is the key moves that have the Jazz looking pretty good were not picks they derived from that semi-tank type trade.

Rather they had a pick in the wings that became Gordon Hayward at #9 - just think if the Bulls drafted a Noah or Hayward impact player with the Kings pick. Without even moving Jimmy such a move could turn this franchise around fast.

Then the other big one was Gobert, a 27th draft day trade pick they found a gem with.

The picks they actually made due to the Deron trade or their record sliding ended up quite bad or iffy.

#3 Kanter (Deron return pick, was 'ok', but letdown for a #3, then was traded, return TBD)
#12 Burks (good pick)
#9 Trey Burke (miss, via Deron pick trade)
#5 Exum (miss so far)
#12 Lyles (ok)
#12 Prince (traded for Hill, great)

But clearly without the Hayward and Gobert moves they'd be pretty much nowhere out of trading their best player.

[Rerisen]

I would say trading Rose because his ball-dominance, non-shooting and bad defense didn’t fit with Butler, then actively seeking out a worse player who does the same things, all while giving him $14m when no one else was paying that much, is the definition of incompetence.

It wasn’t possible for Bulls management to build a contender around Butler during the past offseason. I’m not measuring them against that. It was possible for them to build a roster that not only fit the modern NBA – which happens to fit with what Hoiberg wants to play and what he was brought here to do – but one that fits their best player.

If they had done that, I believe the Bulls would have an even better Jimmy Butler playing right now and more be a genuine top 4 team in the East capable of winning 50 games.

We both hated the Rondo move, but was it necessary for their plan to get Wade, I don't know.

I'm not sure I'd have done it for Wade if Rondo had to be part of it, but you have to admit it wasn't a combo of moves that is going to handicap us for very long or submarine any chance to build around Jimmy going forward.

That they did think Rondo was a good fit (led the league in Pace!) and (we need a passer now!) tells me all I need to know about entrusting this FO to an entire nuke though.

[kingkirk]

The Wizards didn't "tank" for their rebuild; they sucked badly, got a few picks, whiffed on many, and did nothing exceptional besides draft Wall (lottery luck) and Porter (3.5% chance). I mean this is a team that is simply in NBA hell as long as they keep Wall and has never gotten beyond 46 wins yet is a 48-54 win team in the future?

I mean when Otto Porter is the hope of your rebuild and a sign you're doing something right with a #3 pick, you've done something terribly wrong.

I mean maybe if the Wizards deal Beal for Harden we're talking about a 55-60 win team but they didn't.

The only difference between tanking and rebuilding is one is widely accepted as a sound plan while the other is deemed irresponsible and disreputable against the spirit of competition.

The end results is the same: your make your team **** to bottom out and collect high draft picks to hopefully draft an elite talent(s).

[Rerisen]

The Wizards didn't "tank" for their rebuild; they sucked badly, got a few picks, whiffed on many, and did nothing exceptional besides draft Wall (lottery luck) and Porter (3.5% chance). I mean this is a team that is simply in NBA hell as long as they keep Wall and has never gotten beyond 46 wins yet is a 48-54 win team in the future?

I mean when Otto Porter is the hope of your rebuild and a sign you're doing something right with a #3 pick, you've done something terribly wrong.

I mean maybe if the Wizards deal Beal for Harden we're talking about a 55-60 win team but they didn't.

The only difference between tanking and rebuilding is one is widely accepted as a sound plan while the other is deemed irresponsible and disreputable against the spirit of competition.

The end results is the same: your make your team **** to bottom out and collect high draft picks to hopefully draft an elite talent(s).

I think rebuilding is generally more synonymous with already being pretty bad and having no choice. Like a veteran team just aging out.

While the term tanking usually implies more deliberate sabotage or intention to be bad, whether that involves a massive immediate loser trade like moving a Jimmy Butler, or sitting guys that could be playing, or firesaling decent players.

I.e. Let's say the Bulls try to keep building with Jimmy, but after several more 40ish win seasons, just don't get anywhere, and then Jimmy's prime ends, then you are looking at a classic rebuilding situation.

So to the extent rebuilding is considered acceptable, its because you've usually arrived there via end of the road, and its inevitably staring you in the face.