The 2017 Brooklyn pick alone is an overpay for Jimmy Butler

[slamtheking]

Lol @ Jimmy Freaking Butler as a top ten player. Everyone talks about his elite D, but I see him getting burned by great SG/SF's all the time...

My top ten:
Durant
Lebron
Curry
Westbrook
Irving
Marc Gasol
Chris Paul
Kwai Leonard
James Harden
Anthony Davis

That's ten just on the top of my head. Here is more.

Joel Embiid is better.
I'd rather have Towns too
IMO Paul George since he's taken a scrub team to the ECF twice. Look at the players on his team's career now.
Blake Griffin is better.
How about Demarcus Cousins.

I can keep going....

Yup.

I just don't like Butler's leadership. Yes, Russell was caught for worse, but he's young, and rich. So stupidity does become involved at times. But Butler is a grown man who's in the NBA, so he should know never to complain to the media.

I don't believe Butler is going to become that transcendental player. He's a great player, top 20. I would rather overpay for Klay Thompson, who I think is the second SG in the NBA, and would fit our offense perfectly.

I would certainly try to haggle the 2018 Nets pick, but even I'm wary of how much more advancements the Nets could get ahead next year, or how negligent their roster change is.

What do you think Butler's value is tankcity!

They're going to want something. I would offer Bradley, Memphis Pick, every non-Brooklyn pick basically.

makes no sense.  you just trash the guy as not top 10 (your opinion, not saying I agree or disagree, just pointing out this was your opinion) with overrated D and you want to trade away AB, who's become a really good SG without concerns about HIS D, and every other 1st rounder we have? 

you should re-evaluate what you're saying.  that type of package is what you send out for a top 10 or better player and that's overpayment.

[celticsclay]

could I have a tl;dr version?

im sure there are some good points in there, but this is a dissertation not a forum post.

Yea I have to second this. Seems like some good stuff, but less is more LB.

[RJ87]

IMO Paul George since he's taken a scrub team to the ECF twice. Look at the players on his team's career now.


I can keep going....

Stop that. He had an in-prime, All-star, All-Defensive player in Roy Hibbert, a still productive David West and Lance Stephenson, and a pretty-darn-good George Hill. Easily better than any player he has on his team right now.

Paul George is one of my favorite players in the league and I've hate what Indiana has built around him, but let's not pretend that he's never played with talent.

Back on topic: I'd give up the 17 pick for Butler, but I wouldn't offer much beyond that. My ideal scenario would be the 17 pick + AB + Rozier + salary filler (probably JJ).

That is already way too much for me personally.

Butler is not taking us that much over the top to justify giving up Bradley, Rozier, and the 17th pick.

I would do the 17 pick, Rozier, and Salary filler, with 1-2 first round picks depending on which one it is.

If not, I'll move on.

There are certainly far more options.

I started to add an advisory that I'm not a fan of Rozier's game at all - bench guards are kind of a dime a dozen in the league right now. Figured Chicago would want a young-ish guard back and I'd happily move him over Smart. He's a logical throw in.

I think we should also consider the fact that Jimmy is cost controlled for the next few seasons when thinking of trade. He's set to make $17.5m next season, then $18.6 for the 18/19 season. For a 27 year old, 3x All-Star, that's a bargain in this new cap era. Even with the 5% trade kicker.

EDIT: I'm also not a huge fan of Jimmy's "leadership" but we have a really strong organizational structure in place. From ownership to the front office to the coach to players like Al & IT. We have leaders in place, we need talent.

[oldtype]

He's not a consensus top ten player but I'd say he's in the argument for being in the tier after Lebron/Curry/Durant/Westbrook/Harden/Kawhi.  We'd call these guys "Top 5." 

"Top 10" is just shorthand for guys who are a bit worse than those but substantially better than "Top 20" players like Isaiah Thomas, Blake Griffin, Klay Thompson, Gordon Hayward etc. 

You don't actually count to 5, 10, or 20, the lists are fuzzy and subjective, so that would be pointless.  It's better to think in terms of tiers.

I understand your point, but did you see my list? He's on the IT tier lol. That's a huge diff then calling him a top ten player. You should only trade your Brooklyn pick for an Anthony Davis like player imo.

In that case I think you underrate him substantially.  He's the second best player in the Eastern Conference.

[GreenFaith1819]

Jimmy Butler is one of a handful of players out there that IMO fits The Boston Celtics mold - along with Carmelo Anthony.....the difference with Melo is his contract being a concern of mine.

Jimmy is also a few years younger than Melo.

While I've loved Melo's evolving game over the last couple of years I'd rather get Butler.

With that being said I'd strongly consider that 2017 BKN pick for him. Anything beyond that is debatable. The minute that CHI starts asking for numerous starters I'd hang up the phone if I were Danny.

[rochrist]

Lol @ Jimmy Freaking Butler as a top ten player. Everyone talks about his elite D, but I see him getting burned by great SG/SF's all the time...

My top ten:
Durant
Lebron
Curry
Westbrook
Irving
Marc Gasol
Chris Paul
Kwai Leonard
James Harden
Anthony Davis

That's ten just on the top of my head. Here is more.

Joel Embiid is better.
I'd rather have Towns too
IMO Paul George since he's taken a scrub team to the ECF twice. Look at the players on his team's career now.
Blake Griffin is better.
How about Demarcus Cousins.

I can keep going....

How about the guy averaging 29.4 points a game right now.

[saltlover]

Lol @ Jimmy Freaking Butler as a top ten player. Everyone talks about his elite D, but I see him getting burned by great SG/SF's all the time...

My top ten:
Durant
Lebron
Curry
Westbrook
Irving
Marc Gasol
Chris Paul
Kwai Leonard
James Harden
Anthony Davis

That's ten just on the top of my head. Here is more.

Joel Embiid is better.
I'd rather have Towns too
IMO Paul George since he's taken a scrub team to the ECF twice. Look at the players on his team's career now.
Blake Griffin is better.
How about Demarcus Cousins.

I can keep going....

How about the guy averaging 29.4 points a game right now.

I'm sorry, this is Celticsblog.  Can't overrate that mediocre team's talent here...

[rochrist]

Lol @ Jimmy Freaking Butler as a top ten player. Everyone talks about his elite D, but I see him getting burned by great SG/SF's all the time...

My top ten:
Durant
Lebron
Curry
Westbrook
Irving
Marc Gasol
Chris Paul
Kwai Leonard
James Harden
Anthony Davis

That's ten just on the top of my head. Here is more.

Joel Embiid is better.
I'd rather have Towns too
IMO Paul George since he's taken a scrub team to the ECF twice. Look at the players on his team's career now.
Blake Griffin is better.
How about Demarcus Cousins.

I can keep going....

Irving is probably not top 10, he may not even be top 20. He is certainly worse than thomas right now.

Also paul is not really there he either. His body just can't withstand a full season without getting injured. People have mentioned Melo's age ad nauseum but Paul will be 32 and has only completed one season healthy out of the last 6 all others one's he has missed 10 or more games and has been injured in the playoffs also. If the Clips resign him for 5 years at max they could come to really regret it.

And Butler has only gotten substantially over 20 a game this season. He's an up and down 3 point shooter. Good defender sure, but what exactly has he done at Chicago to make anyone think franchise player?

[Big333223]

He's not a consensus top ten player but I'd say he's in the argument for being in the tier after Lebron/Curry/Durant/Westbrook/Harden/Kawhi.  We'd call these guys "Top 5." 

"Top 10" is just shorthand for guys who are a bit worse than those but substantially better than "Top 20" players like Isaiah Thomas, Blake Griffin, Klay Thompson, Gordon Hayward etc. 

You don't actually count to 5, 10, or 20, the lists are fuzzy and subjective, so that would be pointless.  It's better to think in terms of tiers.

I understand your point, but did you see my list? He's on the IT tier lol. That's a huge diff then calling him a top ten player. You should only trade your Brooklyn pick for an Anthony Davis like player imo.

In that case I think you underrate him substantially.  He's the second best player in the Eastern Conference.

This. You could argue Paul George or Giannis above him, but the worst you could reasonable rate the guy is 4th in the East, IMO.

[sdceltsfan]

TP to the OP.

Would love to get Butler, but that 2017 pick is gold. If Butler came across like more of a consistent leader, i would consider making the move. There's really only a few guys worth that pick, IMO, and they are virtually untouchable at this point in time. Cousins, Towns, A-Davis, Paul George all come to mind, but I don't see any reason for any of those teams to part with those guys in hopes of the #1 pick somehow being better.

We have this unique situation where we are a playoff caliber team, only getting better, but will also be injecting top of the top draft talent in to our rotation, possibly for two straight seasons. When was the last time such a thing occurred for a team? Maybe the Celtics when they got to draft Len Bias (RIP)? Unfortunately, we never got to see that come to fruition. Also different because that was a championship-level team.

I am at the point where I think there is less risk, especially based on the scouting report of 2017's draft class, to just hope we get that Lillard level guard, or a Wiggins/Jabari type of scoring wing. If the bulls ask for the moon, I don't see how we would be any more competitive.

The 2018 pick is the one I would be dangling for Butler.

Amir, Smart, KO, BKN 2018, and another late first for Butler. That's us giving a KG-trade level offer for Butler, who is certainly not the top-5 player KG was when he was brought in to town.

Butler should be an all-star for years, but he is more of a 1B personality. The best second fiddle you could hope for besides Scottie Pippen to Jordan. He needs a complimentary star and a team that is succeeding to thrive. If we ship one or two of AB/Crowder/Smart, plus another guy like Rozier AND the BKN 2017 pick, we will all be regretting the trade sooner than later.

[Csfan1984]

I'm more willing to stay the course and embrace the "Development".
 I wouldn't trade for Butler.

[chambers]

It's not an overpay if it's not the #1 pick in my opinion.

I think alot of people here are getting ahead of themselves and analyzing this situation like the pick is a lock for #1.
I'm not sure if Jimmy is worth #1 (probably not but if Danny made that trade I wouldn't bring out the pitch forks) but if the pick is any other pick I think getting Butler with it makes perfect sense.

Ball, Smith Jr etc would basically be hoping to be as good as Butler, who is 27 years old, starting All Star caliber and in his prime on a bargain contract.

[Somebody]

It's not an overpay if it's not the #1 pick in my opinion.

I think alot of people here are getting ahead of themselves and analyzing this situation like the pick is a lock for #1.
I'm not sure if Jimmy is worth #1 (probably not but if Danny made that trade I wouldn't bring out the pitch forks) but if the pick is any other pick I think getting Butler with it makes perfect sense.

Ball, Smith Jr etc would basically be hoping to be as good as Butler, who is 27 years old, starting All Star caliber and in his prime on a bargain contract.

Hm...I think the no.2 pick would have more potential than butler, possibly no.3 as well. Also, adding butler will not put us over the top, so I don't see why should we do that trade unless blake griffin promises to sign with us if we get butler

[chambers]

It's not an overpay if it's not the #1 pick in my opinion.

I think alot of people here are getting ahead of themselves and analyzing this situation like the pick is a lock for #1.
I'm not sure if Jimmy is worth #1 (probably not but if Danny made that trade I wouldn't bring out the pitch forks) but if the pick is any other pick I think getting Butler with it makes perfect sense.

Ball, Smith Jr etc would basically be hoping to be as good as Butler, who is 27 years old, starting All Star caliber and in his prime on a bargain contract.

Hm...I think the no.2 pick would have more potential than butler, possibly no.3 as well. Also, adding butler will not put us over the top, so I don't see why should we do that trade unless blake griffin promises to sign with us if we get butler

It's all opinion at the end of the day.  For me personally, the only guy worth not trading for Butler is Fultz IMO.
Can't see Ball being dominant in the NBA, maybe Dennis Smith becomes a derrick rose level guard (top 5 NBA player) considering he's coming off knee surgery, but yeah...Butler is basically a top 10 NBA player on both ends.
Starting All Star, all defensive candidate, can switch with our guards and hit the 3 at a respectsble rate. He's also a tough shot maker.

Not sure what else people would hope for with the Brooklyn pick in 5 or 6 years time.

[boscel33]

Let's start with two assumptions.

#1 - Brooklyn will still have the worst record in the league at the trade deadline.
#2 - This draft is as good as "draftniks" claim.  I've seen it suggested it could be a historically good draft.  The top 7 are supposedly all exceptional talents and I've seen multiple people claim Fultz and Ball have a chance to be true NBA superstars.   

Based on those two assumptions, I'm having a hard time thinking of a pre-lottery draft pick over the past 10+ years that is more valuable than the 2017 Brooklyn pick.  Seriously. 

You have to understand that not all drafts are created equally.  There are bad drafts and good drafts.  Top heavy drafts and deep drafts.  And yes, I know that it's an unpredictable thing and drafts can often exceed or fall short of expectations.  2013, for instance, was widely considered a terrible draft.  This was reflected in the fact that the #1 pick was Anthony Bennett.  And yet, we now know several players from that draft are actually pretty darn good.  Giannis at #15, Gobert at #27, McCollum at #10, etc.  In retrospect, 2013 has some winners.  But it doesn't change the fact that at the time, it was widely considered a weak draft.  If we're considering the trade value of unprotected draft picks heading into the 2013 draft vs the trade value of unprotected draft picks heading into the 2014 draft, it's a no-contest.  Cleary 2014 1sts were more valuable.  There were thought to be several potential stars.   So sure, you can stack up McCollum/Giannis/Gobert against Wiggins/Embiid/Parker and retroactively decide both drafts were comparable, but if we're talking about the value of those picks pre-draft, you have to consider the perception of the draft and the widespread consensus of how "hit and miss" it can be.   It's not a coincidence that the best players from 2013 are a smattering of unpredictable guys taken outside the top 5, while three of the best players from 2014 were taken in the top 3.   

It's my understanding that 2017 is comparable to 2014.  Experts seem to have a handle on which of these guys could be stars.  Nobody is labelling it a "crap shoot".  There are several guys up top that are widely expected to make an impact.  Also, while many fans have anointed Fultz as the best player, there's no real consensus right now on who the #1 pick will be.  There are multiple candidates and they all have legitimate star potential.    So think about this... this is an exceptional draft.  That means a top pick in this draft has more value than a typical draft.  Additionally, you can acquire that pick without impacting the Nets.   The Nets are currently the worst team in the league by 6 games.  The Bucks had the worst record heading into the 2014 trade deadline, but this Nets pick is more valuable than that 2014 Bucks pick, because trading for it will not sabotage the pick.  Theoretically had you traded away a star at the 2014 trade deadline for the Bucks pick, you were now running the risk of the Bucks winning a bunch of games over the second half of the season and impacting the odds of the pick winning the lotto.  That's not a concern with the 2017 Nets pick.   That means this Nets pick is even more valuable than a traditional top pick in a great draft.    I'm having a hard time finding a situation similar to this.  It's a historically valuable trade asset.

Of course, this is all based on pre-lotto value.  Sure, the Nets could win games over the second half. Sure, even if they finish with the worst record, that pick could still end up 4th (still an outstanding prospect).   But if we're talking about the value of an unprotected draft pick heading into the trade deadline, you really can't get more valuable.

Here's the other thing.   All-star players don't typically get traded for assets like this.  There seems to be this idea that you need to give up multiple incredible draft assets to acquire an all-star.  SOme fans are under the impression, for instance, that Boston would need to give up Jaylen Brown, Jae Crowder and BOTH Nets picks for a non-Superstar like Jimmy Butler.  I think I know why this is, but first let's just take a quick-glance look at what some previous all-stars went for at the trade deadline.

2015 - Boston acquires Isaiah Thomas for Marcus Thornton and a late 1st rounder.   If we're looking at the most recent deadline star acquisition, perhaps we should have our eyes on this as setting the value of acquiring a star. 

2011 - The Melo trade.  There were a lot of moving parts here.  It wasn't just Melo.  The Knicks also got Billups, Brewer and others and gave up Felton, Gallinari, Chandler, Mozgov, Koufas, a future mid 1st (became Saric) and the option to swap picks in 2016.  Melo was a bigger star than Butler is.  This would be like Boston getting Butler and others for a pu-pu platter including Crowder, Smart and some non-Brooklyn 1sts.   That's the conventional return for a star player.  It's always a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

2008 - Pau Gasol to the Lakers for expiring contracts, the rights to Marc Gasol,  a 2008 pick that became Donte Greene and a 2010 pick that became Greivis Vasquez.   Again, I'd say Pau was a significantly better player than Jimmy Butler and yet the return was a pu-pu platter of assets.  It should be noted that nobody had any real expectations of Marc Gasol at the time.  He was the equivillent of us trading Ante Zizic.  This would be like us giving up expiring contracts, Zizic, and a couple non Brooklyn picks for Butler.   That's conventional return for a star player.

2004 - Rasheed Wallace for a 2004 1st rounder (#17 pick became Josh Smith) and filler.   It wasn't even a lottery pick.  And yeah, I get that Josh Smith exceeded expectations and became a star, but again - a Cousins-esque knucklehead of a star was acquired for a pick that wasn't even in the lottery.  That's conventional return for a star player.

You can go back further and find other trade deadline star trades, but they were all basically star-for-star deals.  Mutumbo traded for Kukuc.  Gary Payton traded for Ray Allen.   

The only stand-out deadline day deal that you could say is comparable with the ridiculous "both Brooklyn picks + Jaylen + Jae for Butler" ideas was the Deron Williams deal... and that Deron Williams deal is widely regarded as one of the worst in recent history by a running joke of a franchise.   Nets got Williams.  Jazz got Derrick Favors, Devin Harris, the Nets 2011 1st (which  ended up Top 3 despite the Deron addition and the Nets finishing with the 5th worst record), and a late 2013 1st.   

Are people using the oft-ridiculed Williams trade as a barometer for what someone like Butler should be worth?  Why would we we try to replicate a disastrous trade?  I'm throwing it out.  That trade was ridiculous.   Even if I didn't throw it out, a equivalent trade would be Butler for Jaylen Brown (in replace of Favors), a pick projected 5-8, and a future late 1st.   

There's been other semi-recent star trades that are notable, but didn't happen at the trade deadline.   Chris Paul was moved for Eric Gordon and a future late lotto pick (#10 - Austin Rivers in 2012).   Chris Paul was a legitimate superstar at the time.  He was a significantly better player than Jimmy BUtler.  But even if we are going to pretend Butler is on that level, the equivalent would be trading Avery Bradley (in replace of Gordon) and a future late lotto pick.   

Dwight Howard was considered a superstar at the time he was traded to the Lakers.  The Lakers gave up another star big man to acquire him (Andrew Bynum).   We could leave it at that, but a lot of folks like to harp on the pu-pu platter of assets the Magic got in return for giving up Dwight (multiple teams were involved).  They got some players and a smattering of 1sts (pretty much all had protections on them).   In retrospect people have commented favorably on the return Orlando got.  That's fine.  But still, none of those picks were the heavy favorite to land #1 in a loaded draft.

We all know KG was acquired for a package built around a great young prospect (Big Al).  I guess you could pick your favorite Celtic prospect to make an equivalent package.   Smart?  Brown?  Both?  Whatever.  Neither Big Al or any of those prospects carry the trade value of this Brooklyn pick.

We know we acquired an aging Ray Allen for a #5 pick, but that draft was only seen as two players deep.   

It just doesn't happen.  When teams are looking to dump their stars, they just don't get the kind of return people are saying Boston needs to give up here.  They get a collection of players and late 1sts.  They maybe get a lotto pick.  They maybe get a solid prospect without superstar potential.   They never get a superstar prospect or a pick that is likely to become a superstar prospect.  It just doesn't happen.   There's really only one example of it happening... and it's not fair to hold that up as the market-defining trade. 

I'm talkin about Kevin Love for Andrew Wiggins...

That was an exceptional situation.  It doesn't happen under normal circumstances.  That happened because the god of the NBA (LeBron James) was willing to sign with a team as a free agent contingent on them acquiring Kevin Love.  I blame this trade for these "2017 Brooklyn 1st for Butler" trade ideas.   You're missing the context of that Kevin Love trade when you bring that up.  There's no way in hell Cleveland gives up Andrew Wiggins for Kevin Love without the LeBron factor.  It was an unprecedented trade that was nothing like the all-star acquisitions of the past.  I said this Summer that I'd be ok with adding Jimmy Butler for a crazytown overpay, but only if it was mandated by Kevin Durant as a precursor to him signing with us.  That was the only way an overpay for Butler made sense - if it assured us we'd sign Durant.  But of course, you do pretty much ANY deal for Butler if it guaranteed you Durant.  The same way the Cavs would have done basically any deal to ensure LeBron was happy (despite the order of how those events went down, I'm pretty sure trading for Love was part of LeBron's decision). 

Ignore that Wiggins/love trade.  It set a bad precedent that makes jack sense without the LeBron signing.  That's not what all-stars are worth.   Just based on the value of this Brooklyn pick and it's potential to become a "transcendent" player, in conjunction with what we've seen stars go for in the past (player pu-pu platters or late/protected 1sts), that pick alone is a massive overpay for 27 year old non-Superstar (that his team already decided isn't worth building around) like Jimmy Butler.   I think it's crazy that some people think it's a good idea to not only give up that pick but also the 2018 Brooklyn 1st + significant player assets.   That's far too much for a guy who might not even move the needle.

Before I finish this rant, let me focus on that for a second.  Seriously, even discounting out how I feel about the value of that Brooklyn pick, I'm legitimately not sure Butler can move the needle.  I've jokingly referred to Butler as "Premium Brand Ricky Davis", but I really mean this.   Defensively, I'm not sure he provides much of an upgrade over Jae Crowder.  Offensively, he undoubtedly can create his shot better than Jae, but is that really something we need?  Jae has been exceptionally efficient this season.  He's arguably the 3rd best three point shooter in the league this year.  He's close to the 50/40/90 club.  One of the 6 most efficient shooters in the league.  Yes, he does that as the 4th option on the Celtics.  Yes, Butler would immediately be our 2nd option on offense, but in light of what Thomas has been doing for this team offensively, do we need that?  You're basically saying we need Butler to have another go-to scorer at the end of games.  But considering Thomas has been otherworldly and arguably the best late game "go-to" scorer in the league this season (while doing it efficiently), what's the benefit of cutting Thomas late-game scoring efforts in half to put the ball in Butler's hands (who may or may not be able to score as efficiently)?   Scoring isn't our issue this season.   Thomas is surrounded by highly efficient shooters and it's working.   I seriously don't think cutting back Thomas' role to add another go-to scorer is going to do much for us.   At least a hypothetical DeMarcus Cousins trade makes some sense considering the needs of this team.  I think we'd gain far more by having a star big than we'd ever get by swapping Jae or Bradley for Butler.   

I guess the bottom line is that if I were forced to make a trade, I'd far rather acquire Carmelo Anthony on a bargain than give up a single Brooklyn pick for Jimmy Butler.

Thank You!!!!  TP

Are you kidding me, Crowder, Smart, and the Nets 2017 and 2018 pics.  There is no way on H E double hockey sticks I would do that deal.  I scream about this with the Sox all the time, let's develop our own stars instead of give them up for others (see Jeff Bagwell).  I would rather pick at 1,2,or 3 (Fultz, Ball, Jackson?) and in two years our team has developed and is the new Warriors.  They didn't make trades to build their team, they did it by drafting and developing.  The Celtics happen to be in the position of winning and still drafting and developing (thank you again Nets).