Would you trade the #1 pick for Jimmy Butler?

[Hemingway]

This board wouldn't trade that pick for LBJ.

[slamtheking]

I'd still take Jimmy B.

Yeah, his 53 was against PHI, but dude is STILL an All-Star, Leader, elite defender and scorer, at the NBA-LEVEL.......things that Ben Simmons "COULD" be.

So, say we get Simmons. Then what?

Adding him to this current team even "IF" he is as good as advertised will this get us past CHI or CLE?

Would we beat GSW or Spurs? Maybe in a regular season game, but any of these 4 teams in a series?

With Simmons? And the team as currently constructed?

Nope. Even "IF" Simmons is as good as advertised. And don't get me wrong I LOVE Simmons.

So, we'd be resigned to "growing" his talent with the rest of the team - for the next few years. Then what? Still no guarantee of Banner 18.

Get Jimmy B if he's available and try to snag Joakim, too. Joakim still has a lot to offer. I like his fire. He's still a good defender, leader, and passer.

Elite scorer?  He averages 23 points in 38 minutes per game.  That's very good but not elite.  Monta Ellis has averaged more points in a season and nobody calls Ellis elite.

Simmons projects into an entirely different tier from Butler.  I would always take a chance on getting someone from the Lebron/Duncan tier instead of settling for someone on a lesser tier such as Odom or Chris Webber or Klay Thompson.

Ok, so he's not an elite scorer...but I think he's an elite player.

He's creeping into Paul George territory, for shamrock's sake!

maybe it's me, but IMHO, in order to be an elite player, you have to be an elite scorer.  At least you qualified it by saying that you think he's elite rather than stating he was.

I wouldn't trade the #1 for him.  He's an all-star but I don't see him as elite which is what you would trade a number one pick for.  I know Love was traded for basically 2 #1's but one of those was a huge bust.  If this was a year where there was no top player available in the draft, like the Bargnani or Bennett drafts, then yes I'd make that deal but this year offers 1 (maybe 2 if you really like Ingram) to get a player that could be better.  sure, it's no guarantee that Simmons becomes better than Butler, especially since he's not much of a shooter at this point but from what I've seen, this kid reminds me so much of Magic when I watch him that I'd gladly roll the dice on the chance he comes close to that level.

[CelticSince83]

I'd still take Jimmy B.

Yeah, his 53 was against PHI, but dude is STILL an All-Star, Leader, elite defender and scorer, at the NBA-LEVEL.......things that Ben Simmons "COULD" be.

So, say we get Simmons. Then what?

Adding him to this current team even "IF" he is as good as advertised will this get us past CHI or CLE?

Would we beat GSW or Spurs? Maybe in a regular season game, but any of these 4 teams in a series?

With Simmons? And the team as currently constructed?

Nope. Even "IF" Simmons is as good as advertised. And don't get me wrong I LOVE Simmons.

So, we'd be resigned to "growing" his talent with the rest of the team - for the next few years. Then what? Still no guarantee of Banner 18.

Get Jimmy B if he's available and try to snag Joakim, too. Joakim still has a lot to offer. I like his fire. He's still a good defender, leader, and passer.

If the criteria is which player can vault us over the Warriors and Spurs I hate to break it to you but Jimmy Butler won't either. 

[Moranis]

I'd still take Jimmy B.

Yeah, his 53 was against PHI, but dude is STILL an All-Star, Leader, elite defender and scorer, at the NBA-LEVEL.......things that Ben Simmons "COULD" be.

So, say we get Simmons. Then what?

Adding him to this current team even "IF" he is as good as advertised will this get us past CHI or CLE?

Would we beat GSW or Spurs? Maybe in a regular season game, but any of these 4 teams in a series?

With Simmons? And the team as currently constructed?

Nope. Even "IF" Simmons is as good as advertised. And don't get me wrong I LOVE Simmons.

So, we'd be resigned to "growing" his talent with the rest of the team - for the next few years. Then what? Still no guarantee of Banner 18.

Get Jimmy B if he's available and try to snag Joakim, too. Joakim still has a lot to offer. I like his fire. He's still a good defender, leader, and passer.

If the criteria is which player can vault us over the Warriors and Spurs I hate to break it to you but Jimmy Butler won't either.

I'm not even sure he would vault the Celtics over the Raptors.

[GreenFaith1819]

I'd still take Jimmy B.

Yeah, his 53 was against PHI, but dude is STILL an All-Star, Leader, elite defender and scorer, at the NBA-LEVEL.......things that Ben Simmons "COULD" be.

So, say we get Simmons. Then what?

Adding him to this current team even "IF" he is as good as advertised will this get us past CHI or CLE?

Would we beat GSW or Spurs? Maybe in a regular season game, but any of these 4 teams in a series?

With Simmons? And the team as currently constructed?

Nope. Even "IF" Simmons is as good as advertised. And don't get me wrong I LOVE Simmons.

So, we'd be resigned to "growing" his talent with the rest of the team - for the next few years. Then what? Still no guarantee of Banner 18.

Get Jimmy B if he's available and try to snag Joakim, too. Joakim still has a lot to offer. I like his fire. He's still a good defender, leader, and passer.

If the criteria is which player can vault us over the Warriors and Spurs I hate to break it to you but Jimmy Butler won't either.

I'm not even sure he would vault the Celtics over the Raptors.

But would B Simmons? As he is "Projected"?

A few years ago, I was playing with some basketball with some young'uns, most half my age or younger.

I was such a defensive pest to them that one of them called me Tim Duncan, LOL.

I was "that" good for a spell.

I think a lot of us are calling Ben Simmons something, too - something that he is not, yet....nor may never be.

Jimmy B is KINETIC energy....Ben Simmons is POTENTIAL energy.

The Kinetic Energy is what will/could get us OTHER NBA-LEVEL players....not the potential energy.

[moiso]

But based in that logic anyone that has proven that he can play in the NBA could be traded for the #1 pick because the pick is potential energy and the player is kinetic energy.  If that's the case, let's trade Lee and draft Simmons.

[GreenFaith1819]

But based in that logic anyone that has proven that he can play in the NBA could be traded for the #1 pick because the pick is potential energy and the player is kinetic energy.  If that's the case, let's trade Lee and draft Simmons.

LOL.

This is an intelligent Blog - among the most-versed out there, IMO.

With that being said I'm sure you know what I mean, here.

Jimmy B is an All-Star - a probably top-15 player, who is still young. he's already a leader. he could get other players here.

Most of us here, judging by that poll - would rather dream that B Simmons is the next Magic. I'm sure he is being projected by the same people who missed out on Steph Curry.

[Moranis]

I'd still take Jimmy B.

Yeah, his 53 was against PHI, but dude is STILL an All-Star, Leader, elite defender and scorer, at the NBA-LEVEL.......things that Ben Simmons "COULD" be.

So, say we get Simmons. Then what?

Adding him to this current team even "IF" he is as good as advertised will this get us past CHI or CLE?

Would we beat GSW or Spurs? Maybe in a regular season game, but any of these 4 teams in a series?

With Simmons? And the team as currently constructed?

Nope. Even "IF" Simmons is as good as advertised. And don't get me wrong I LOVE Simmons.

So, we'd be resigned to "growing" his talent with the rest of the team - for the next few years. Then what? Still no guarantee of Banner 18.

Get Jimmy B if he's available and try to snag Joakim, too. Joakim still has a lot to offer. I like his fire. He's still a good defender, leader, and passer.

If the criteria is which player can vault us over the Warriors and Spurs I hate to break it to you but Jimmy Butler won't either.

I'm not even sure he would vault the Celtics over the Raptors.

But would B Simmons? As he is "Projected"?

A few years ago, I was playing with some basketball with some young'uns, most half my age or younger.

I was such a defensive pest to them that one of them called me Tim Duncan, LOL.

I was "that" good for a spell.

I think a lot of us are calling Ben Simmons something, too - something that he is not, yet....nor may never be.

Jimmy B is KINETIC energy....Ben Simmons is POTENTIAL energy.

The Kinetic Energy is what will/could get us OTHER NBA-LEVEL players....not the potential energy.

Ben Simmons ceiling is a generational talent.  So yes, if he reaches his promise or even 90% of it, he would be a much better player to build around than Jimmy Butler.

If Boston already had a great player in his prime, then making the trade would make a lot more sense since Butler would like be a guy that could push the team over the top (like trading Durant for Garnett back in 08).  I'm not suggesting I would still do it based on what I've seen of Simmons, but it would at least be understandable.  This team, which is no where near a contender, trading Simmons for Butler just doesn't make any sense.  Butler isn't James, Durant, etc.  He is a very good player, but he isn't a generational talent and thus he alone won't elevate Boston into contender status.

[Donoghus]

Trading the rights to Simmons for Jimmy Butler would most likely be a decision that would haunt Celtics fans for decades. 

Luckily, if Ainge gets the #1 pick, I don't think we have to worry about this actually happening.

[CelticSince83]

I'd still take Jimmy B.

Yeah, his 53 was against PHI, but dude is STILL an All-Star, Leader, elite defender and scorer, at the NBA-LEVEL.......things that Ben Simmons "COULD" be.

So, say we get Simmons. Then what?

Adding him to this current team even "IF" he is as good as advertised will this get us past CHI or CLE?

Would we beat GSW or Spurs? Maybe in a regular season game, but any of these 4 teams in a series?

With Simmons? And the team as currently constructed?

Nope. Even "IF" Simmons is as good as advertised. And don't get me wrong I LOVE Simmons.

So, we'd be resigned to "growing" his talent with the rest of the team - for the next few years. Then what? Still no guarantee of Banner 18.

Get Jimmy B if he's available and try to snag Joakim, too. Joakim still has a lot to offer. I like his fire. He's still a good defender, leader, and passer.

If the criteria is which player can vault us over the Warriors and Spurs I hate to break it to you but Jimmy Butler won't either.

I'm not even sure he would vault the Celtics over the Raptors.

But would B Simmons? As he is "Projected"?

A few years ago, I was playing with some basketball with some young'uns, most half my age or younger.

I was such a defensive pest to them that one of them called me Tim Duncan, LOL.

I was "that" good for a spell.

I think a lot of us are calling Ben Simmons something, too - something that he is not, yet....nor may never be.

Jimmy B is KINETIC energy....Ben Simmons is POTENTIAL energy.

The Kinetic Energy is what will/could get us OTHER NBA-LEVEL players....not the potential energy.

Ben Simmons ceiling is a generational talent.  So yes, if he reaches his promise or even 90% of it, he would be a much better player to build around than Jimmy Butler.

If Boston already had a great player in his prime, then making the trade would make a lot more sense since Butler would like be a guy that could push the team over the top (like trading Durant for Garnett back in 08).  I'm not suggesting I would still do it based on what I've seen of Simmons, but it would at least be understandable.  This team, which is no where near a contender, trading Simmons for Butler just doesn't make any sense.  Butler isn't James, Durant, etc.  He is a very good player, but he isn't a generational talent and thus he alone won't elevate Boston into contender status.

Agreed.  If we were say the Hawks and had the number one pick, yes a trade for Butler makes sense.  But when you don't have a cornerstone it makes more sense to go high risk high reward.  And I'm not saying Simmons is a high risk pick but obviously less of a sure thing when compared to Butler.

[TheTruthFot18]

Trading the rights to Simmons for Jimmy Butler would most likely be a decision that would haunt Celtics fans for decades. 

Luckily, if Ainge gets the #1 pick, I don't think we have to worry about this actually happening.

If we know it's actually #1 what GM would do this?

Maybe if they traded it pre lottery like the Baron Davis/ Mo Williams trade that landed the Cavs #1 pick Kyrie Irving. Still, unless we get Cousins or Durant, I'm keeping this pick.

[Donoghus]

Trading the rights to Simmons for Jimmy Butler would most likely be a decision that would haunt Celtics fans for decades. 

Luckily, if Ainge gets the #1 pick, I don't think we have to worry about this actually happening.

If we know it's actually #1 what GM would do this?

Maybe if they traded it pre lottery like the Baron Davis/ Mo Williams trade that landed the Cavs #1 pick Kyrie Irving. Still, unless we get Cousins or Durant, I'm keeping this pick.

Yeah, I'd be hard-pressed to find a GM that would actually pull the trigger on this. 

Only way I see that #1 pick moving on draft night would be some sort of rights swap with heavy concessions by the team trading up ala Webber/Hardaway or something crazy like that.

Basically, almost no chance of it happening.

[guava_wrench]

No way, Butler is really good--but not worth Simmons...he's like D.Wade to LeBron....LeBron being Simmons of course....Butler would be your 2nd best player...Simmons would be your best.

Except you trade the #1 in a second for Wade in his prime.

[GreenFaith1819]

Well, those arguing for B Simmons - I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

Because after Bias and Lewis, our time is DUE.

Danny has positioned this team for some great things over the next few years. I truly hope that Ben Simmons is as good as some here say, and he is a Celtics Lifer.