Chicago Tribune on Celtics offer

[manl_lui]

"Other pieces would have been included" is huge. What pieces exactly? Rosier? Nets 2017? It makes a huge difference.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-main-bulls-spt-0624-20160623-story.html

The Bulls held advanced discussions with the Celtics centered on Butler and the No. 3 pick. One proposal featured Avery Bradley, a source said. Another involved Jae Crowder, a second source said. Other pieces would have been included.

But the Celtics have a reputation around the league of trying to win trades, and the overall package kept changing and never met the Bulls' liking, sources said. Management understands the talent and value of Butler. And the Bulls ultimately liked the package they received from the Knicks for Rose more than the package offered for Butler.

This is the part that means the most. Both last night and tonight, a bunch of people on Twitter and elsewhere say this very thing, and it's scary. People don't want to really trade with Danny because A) they don't want to be the next Billy King, and B) Danny always tries to fleece everybody. There comes a point (about a year and a half ago) where that philosophy just doesn't work anymore.

At least we know that ridiculous overpay that was floated around last night was fake.

So, what, Danny should make bad deals to make other GMs like him more or be less intimidated?  No thanks, I'll take Danny just the way he is

I don't think the Bulls know what they're doing. Sounds like they were more concerned with not losing a trade than making a move to help them in the long run.

Haha, TP

I agree with this, just because Danny tries to win trades doesn't mean it's a bad thing. He's thinking ahead, just because of his reputation doesn't mean he should dumb down and make bad trades

[Big333223]

I love that it's somehow become a criticism of Ainge that he refuses to do a deal where he gets the worse end of it. I would've sworn that was a good thing.

[footey]

"Other pieces would have been included" is huge. What pieces exactly? Rosier? Nets 2017? It makes a huge difference.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-main-bulls-spt-0624-20160623-story.html

The Bulls held advanced discussions with the Celtics centered on Butler and the No. 3 pick. One proposal featured Avery Bradley, a source said. Another involved Jae Crowder, a second source said. Other pieces would have been included.

But the Celtics have a reputation around the league of trying to win trades, and the overall package kept changing and never met the Bulls' liking, sources said. Management understands the talent and value of Butler. And the Bulls ultimately liked the package they received from the Knicks for Rose more than the package offered for Butler.

This is the part that means the most. Both last night and tonight, a bunch of people on Twitter and elsewhere say this very thing, and it's scary. People don't want to really trade with Danny because A) they don't want to be the next Billy King, and B) Danny always tries to fleece everybody. There comes a point (about a year and a half ago) where that philosophy just doesn't work anymore.

At least we know that ridiculous overpay that was floated around last night was fake.

What does that mean? It implies that Danny is sleazy. He is a tough negotiator.  These are all big boys making these trades.  I think the insecurity with a lot of these other GM's is that they are quants, who have never played a minute of basketball, or former players who got positions through office politics but don't really have an acumen for cap management.   Ainge is that rare cat who understands both worlds.  That is what sets him apart, and why some of the other GM's get intimated, and they react by asking for too much.

Danny's problem has been his surplus of assets. Other GM's figure that devalues them, since he has so much, he shouldn't mind giving a little extra to make a deal. That is their prerogative.

[heyvik]

"Other pieces would have been included" is huge. What pieces exactly? Rosier? Nets 2017? It makes a huge difference.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-main-bulls-spt-0624-20160623-story.html

The Bulls held advanced discussions with the Celtics centered on Butler and the No. 3 pick. One proposal featured Avery Bradley, a source said. Another involved Jae Crowder, a second source said. Other pieces would have been included.

But the Celtics have a reputation around the league of trying to win trades, and the overall package kept changing and never met the Bulls' liking, sources said. Management understands the talent and value of Butler. And the Bulls ultimately liked the package they received from the Knicks for Rose more than the package offered for Butler.

This is the part that means the most. Both last night and tonight, a bunch of people on Twitter and elsewhere say this very thing, and it's scary. People don't want to really trade with Danny because A) they don't want to be the next Billy King, and B) Danny always tries to fleece everybody. There comes a point (about a year and a half ago) where that philosophy just doesn't work anymore.

At least we know that ridiculous overpay that was floated around last night was fake.

So, what, Danny should make bad deals to make other GMs like him more or be less intimidated?  No thanks, I'll take Danny just the way he is

I don't think the Bulls know what they're doing. Sounds like they were more concerned with not losing a trade than making a move to help them in the long run.

Haha, TP

If you take Danny just the way he is, then be prepared for the treadmill for awhile. Situations where we fleece other teams don't happen very often and require the right circumstances to occur - see KG being disgruntled and Brooklyn being desperate. There's absolutely no indication that this trade offer was any more than the one Danny refused at the deadline, which was Crowder and the Brooklyn Pick (and salary filler and maybe lesser picks). Would you be fine with him turning down Crowder and #3 (basically) for Butler? I'm not.

*Looks at Rondo trade
*Looks at IT trade

Hmmmm

I don't buy the whole "GM's are afraid to trade with Danny" thing (If you're afraid of being outsmarted, you shouldn't be a GM.  And when's the last time you saw a GM that wasn't a cocky *******?), and I want a GM that always tries to get the better end of a deal a lot more than one who settles and gets screwed

Yes. we all do, but sometimes when all things are equal you have to give up something to get something and I truly believe that Danny wanted to WIN and instead I think he LOST because we wanted to get an All-Star and wound up with another rookie. There were other options available to the C's instead of just drafting Brown, such as trading down and gaining assets. REMEMBER we were in a position of having leverage.

[hwangjini_1]

Hard for me to fault Danny for not coming to terms on a trade for Butler( I do fault him for not trading down a few spots though) when we don't know what exactly the bulls wanted...Crowder, the 3 and a future Brooklyn pick or two would be overkill and way too much..Crowder and 3 and perhaps another lower tier player would be acceptable and fair...Crowder, Bradley and the 3 too much though...

That's another thing. There was absolutely no indication that Brown was going to anywhere before 6. Could he have not traded down even a little while picking up assets? Also, why not grab Chriss from the Kings, too? They got him for peanuts, and we were supposedly really high on him, too.

It just seemed that there were several options that he didn't take that he could have.

which is not to say it was not the case. i thought about this as well. perhaps, just perhaps, no one else wanted to trade in the 4th or 5th spot. (here are very few teams to work with here.)

perhaps phoenix and minnesota all believed ainge would go with brown, so why trade at all? or perhaps neither coveted dunn enough to move up?

i dont know. but i can think of reasons why a deal did not go down, and not all of them make ainge the fall guy. it takes two or more to make a trade.

[Boris Badenov]

I recollect that we could not trade the BKN 2017 swap rights. Maybe someone could clarify but if that's the case, those rumors are garbage.

Not to mention Danny just learned within the last 48 hours that very pick will be if anything better than people thought a week ago.

And I agree with those above. Danny sets his price and walks away when the other team doesn't meet it, which is why he wins trades - he doesn't get "bidder's fever" 2/3 of the way through the deal. That's what bad GMs do, and that's why we had 48 wins and a top 3 pick this year.

His track record speaks for itself.

[PhoSita]

It is definitely possible to try too hard to "win" negotiations, causing all of your regular negotiating partners to feel disinclined to work with you.

[heyvik]

My guess is Chicago wanted #3 as well as the other two Brooklyn picks, in addition to Bradley or Crowder.  Maybe Smart as well.

Basically, I fully expect that Chicago told Danny to put all of the blue chips on the table.  Danny, probably smartly, declined.

Still, choosing not to go all-in on Butler probably means the Durant dream is well and truly dead. It's hard to imagine guys like Horford or Dwight seriously considering the Celts, either.

That's the hard part about last nights draft. I think if we would have gotten ONE domino to fall either Noel or Butler, then we would shown Durant that we're a team on the rise. Instead it looks like we are treading water and possibly not getting any better.

[TheTruth34]

That's another thing. There was absolutely no indication that Brown was going to anywhere before 6. Could he have not traded down even a little while picking up assets? Also, why not grab Chriss from the Kings, too? They got him for peanuts, and we were supposedly really high on him, too.

It just seemed that there were several options that he didn't take that he could have.

No indication from where? Most all of these media reports (reputable sources like Woj and Stein) are leaks that NBA front offices purposefully put out there.  It's intentional misinformation.
Compare most mock drafts to what actually transpired and there's a lot of variance.   

Jaylen Brown came back for a 2nd workout just days prior to the draft .  That was a clear sign that the Celtics were seriously interested.  No problem if you don't care for Brown as the pick, but you can't bury Ainge for not potentially moving down.  We just don't have reliable information in front of us to say what was available and whether he chose the right/wrong option. 

My take is they likely tried to swing a deal for Butler and it fell through because the asking price was prohibitive.  They probably also considered drafting Dunn (for the purpose of a trade to the Bulls or Sixers) but were unable to agree on a deal.  All of that is based on leaks and could be entirely wrong.  It's speculation.

[heyvik]

"Other pieces would have been included" is huge. What pieces exactly? Rosier? Nets 2017? It makes a huge difference.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-main-bulls-spt-0624-20160623-story.html

The Bulls held advanced discussions with the Celtics centered on Butler and the No. 3 pick. One proposal featured Avery Bradley, a source said. Another involved Jae Crowder, a second source said. Other pieces would have been included.

But the Celtics have a reputation around the league of trying to win trades, and the overall package kept changing and never met the Bulls' liking, sources said. Management understands the talent and value of Butler. And the Bulls ultimately liked the package they received from the Knicks for Rose more than the package offered for Butler.

This is the part that means the most. Both last night and tonight, a bunch of people on Twitter and elsewhere say this very thing, and it's scary. People don't want to really trade with Danny because A) they don't want to be the next Billy King, and B) Danny always tries to fleece everybody. There comes a point (about a year and a half ago) where that philosophy just doesn't work anymore.

At least we know that ridiculous overpay that was floated around last night was fake.

So, what, Danny should make bad deals to make other GMs like him more or be less intimidated?  No thanks, I'll take Danny just the way he is

I don't think the Bulls know what they're doing. Sounds like they were more concerned with not losing a trade than making a move to help them in the long run.

Haha, TP

I agree with this, just because Danny tries to win trades doesn't mean it's a bad thing. He's thinking ahead, just because of his reputation doesn't mean he should dumb down and make bad trades

That's the whole argument - he does have a reputation and instead of a win-win, some of us think that Danny was trying to outright WIN the trade. He's gotta give to get and I think #3, Crowder, filler and (1) 2nd round should have suffice. There's no evidence that says that there was more on the table for Butler.

[jpotter33]

"Other pieces would have been included" is huge. What pieces exactly? Rosier? Nets 2017? It makes a huge difference.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-main-bulls-spt-0624-20160623-story.html

The Bulls held advanced discussions with the Celtics centered on Butler and the No. 3 pick. One proposal featured Avery Bradley, a source said. Another involved Jae Crowder, a second source said. Other pieces would have been included.

But the Celtics have a reputation around the league of trying to win trades, and the overall package kept changing and never met the Bulls' liking, sources said. Management understands the talent and value of Butler. And the Bulls ultimately liked the package they received from the Knicks for Rose more than the package offered for Butler.

This is the part that means the most. Both last night and tonight, a bunch of people on Twitter and elsewhere say this very thing, and it's scary. People don't want to really trade with Danny because A) they don't want to be the next Billy King, and B) Danny always tries to fleece everybody. There comes a point (about a year and a half ago) where that philosophy just doesn't work anymore.

At least we know that ridiculous overpay that was floated around last night was fake.

So, what, Danny should make bad deals to make other GMs like him more or be less intimidated?  No thanks, I'll take Danny just the way he is

I don't think the Bulls know what they're doing. Sounds like they were more concerned with not losing a trade than making a move to help them in the long run.

Haha, TP

I agree with this, just because Danny tries to win trades doesn't mean it's a bad thing. He's thinking ahead, just because of his reputation doesn't mean he should dumb down and make bad trades

No, no, no. Let's not twist what I said. There's a major difference between "fleecing" a team (like the KG deal and Brooklyn deal) and merely winning a trade. You can win a trade without fleecing a team. He would've won the Philly/Noel trade, but he wouldn't have fleeced them. There's a big difference.

[jpotter33]

"Other pieces would have been included" is huge. What pieces exactly? Rosier? Nets 2017? It makes a huge difference.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-main-bulls-spt-0624-20160623-story.html

The Bulls held advanced discussions with the Celtics centered on Butler and the No. 3 pick. One proposal featured Avery Bradley, a source said. Another involved Jae Crowder, a second source said. Other pieces would have been included.

But the Celtics have a reputation around the league of trying to win trades, and the overall package kept changing and never met the Bulls' liking, sources said. Management understands the talent and value of Butler. And the Bulls ultimately liked the package they received from the Knicks for Rose more than the package offered for Butler.

This is the part that means the most. Both last night and tonight, a bunch of people on Twitter and elsewhere say this very thing, and it's scary. People don't want to really trade with Danny because A) they don't want to be the next Billy King, and B) Danny always tries to fleece everybody. There comes a point (about a year and a half ago) where that philosophy just doesn't work anymore.

At least we know that ridiculous overpay that was floated around last night was fake.

So, what, Danny should make bad deals to make other GMs like him more or be less intimidated?  No thanks, I'll take Danny just the way he is

I don't think the Bulls know what they're doing. Sounds like they were more concerned with not losing a trade than making a move to help them in the long run.

Haha, TP

If you take Danny just the way he is, then be prepared for the treadmill for awhile. Situations where we fleece other teams don't happen very often and require the right circumstances to occur - see KG being disgruntled and Brooklyn being desperate. There's absolutely no indication that this trade offer was any more than the one Danny refused at the deadline, which was Crowder and the Brooklyn Pick (and salary filler and maybe lesser picks). Would you be fine with him turning down Crowder and #3 (basically) for Butler? I'm not.

*Looks at Rondo trade
*Looks at IT trade

Hmmmm

I don't buy the whole "GM's are afraid to trade with Danny" thing (If you're afraid of being outsmarted, you shouldn't be a GM.  And when's the last time you saw a GM that wasn't a cocky *******?), and I want a GM that always tries to get the better end of a deal a lot more than one who settles and gets screwed

Yes. we all do, but sometimes when all things are equal you have to give up something to get something and I truly believe that Danny wanted to WIN and instead I think he LOST because we wanted to get an All-Star and wound up with another rookie. There were other options available to the C's instead of just drafting Brown, such as trading down and gaining assets. REMEMBER we were in a position of having leverage.

Exactly this.

[jpotter33]

Hard for me to fault Danny for not coming to terms on a trade for Butler( I do fault him for not trading down a few spots though) when we don't know what exactly the bulls wanted...Crowder, the 3 and a future Brooklyn pick or two would be overkill and way too much..Crowder and 3 and perhaps another lower tier player would be acceptable and fair...Crowder, Bradley and the 3 too much though...

That's another thing. There was absolutely no indication that Brown was going to anywhere before 6. Could he have not traded down even a little while picking up assets? Also, why not grab Chriss from the Kings, too? They got him for peanuts, and we were supposedly really high on him, too.

It just seemed that there were several options that he didn't take that he could have.

which is not to say it was not the case. i thought about this as well. perhaps, just perhaps, no one else wanted to trade in the 4th or 5th spot. (here are very few teams to work with here.)

perhaps phoenix and minnesota all believed ainge would go with brown, so why trade at all? or perhaps neither coveted dunn enough to move up?

i dont know. but i can think of reasons why a deal did not go down, and not all of them make ainge the fall guy. it takes two or more to make a trade.

Naw, Minny HIGHLY wanted Dunn. We could've worked out a deal where we got Dieng at the very least, or at least a future pick or something. Plus, that's Thibs, who has a great relationship with Danny. It's hard to see how that would not have worked out. We essentially just gifted Minny Dunn for no real reason.

[heyvik]

It is definitely possible to try too hard to "win" negotiations, causing all of your regular negotiating partners to feel disinclined to work with you.

This....exactly what I felt last night. There's nothing wrong with negotiating BUT I find a problem with negotiating to a point in which you have to WIN, instead of giving and getting until you both win-win.

[jpotter33]

It is definitely possible to try too hard to "win" negotiations, causing all of your regular negotiating partners to feel disinclined to work with you.

Which is exactly what many people are saying on Twitter. He played hardball a little too hard, and some didn't want to deal with him anymore.