K.C. Johnson - Butler deal discussed was Crowder, #3, #16

[BitterJim]

My theory is this - Danny is way too attached to Crowder after him finding his value seemingly out of nowhere. That or he is way too stuck on combining Crowder with Butler.

My theory is this - this is carefully curated information that doesn't list the entirety of the proposed deals. A deal with "Jae Crowder, the 3rd and the 16th" isn't necessarily a deal that stops there.

Sure, and I admitted as much, but that very well could have just been salary filler since it was necessary to make the trade. So it could've been Crowder, JJ, 3, and 16, which obviously you still do.

The amount of skepticism on here amazes, but mostly just because it's appearing now after the draft where it wasn't before the draft. This isn't some fake account tweeting this; this is a legitimate Bulls writer that has many connections with the team. If he thought there were more principal pieces to the trade, then he'd put them on there. There's no motivation for him to leave those off.

Obviously you do that deal. But do you honestly believe that was the deal? I think it's foolish to think nit was that simple.

I mean, that was the reported trade rate at the trade deadline for him (pretty well accepted, too), and his value would've only got lower since then. Why would it be much different?

It's hard to compare a trade now to one at the deadline, when the pick could have been anywhere

It's not like it dropped to five or six - it stayed exactly where it was predicted to go. And I even think Brooklyn was still in third place in February. Further, the Dallas pick wasn't mentioned at the trade deadline, so perhaps that's the extra cost between then and now.

In what many consider a 2-player draft, the chance of it moving up definitely offset the chance of it moving down.  The pick was likely more valuable then

Except their target was Dunn, who was totally available at 3.

Right now it was, but I think they would have leapt at a chance for Simmons or Ingram. Wanting Dunn and preferring one of the too 2 picks aren't mutually exclusive

Was Dunn even looking like the #3 pick in February?

[jpotter33]

My theory is this - Danny is way too attached to Crowder after him finding his value seemingly out of nowhere. That or he is way too stuck on combining Crowder with Butler.

My theory is this - this is carefully curated information that doesn't list the entirety of the proposed deals. A deal with "Jae Crowder, the 3rd and the 16th" isn't necessarily a deal that stops there.

Sure, and I admitted as much, but that very well could have just been salary filler since it was necessary to make the trade. So it could've been Crowder, JJ, 3, and 16, which obviously you still do.

I'm not so sure what's so obvious about it. Crowder is no chopped liver, so it depends on how much you like the guy you've got at 3.

Also, most people evaluate the "obviousness" of this deal on some sort of misguided idea that this will gift-wrap Durant for you. It won't.

No, Butler is certainly enough in himself to trade for. Let me ask you this - do you think Crowder is ever as good as Butler or makes an All-Star Game?

No, but I think Brown could. And I certainly think that the combination of Brown and Crowder may end up being more valuable down the road than Jimmy Butler, who is not someone who can carry a franchise by himself.

But even if he doesn't gift-wrap you KD, he certainly does raise the profile of the C's to other free agents. I don't think that's a controversial statement to make, do you?

For me, I take the sure thing in the multiple-time All-Star just reaching his prime rather than gamble on Brown and Crowder.

If Brown turns into a player, that also raises the profile of the Celtics. And if Butler turns back into a pumpkin, that doesn't.  Butler is a guy with one good season, not someone who's guaranteed to be a perennial allstar.

What in five years?! 

And Butler is a two-time All-Star who is just entering his prime, so he necessarily had more than one good season. Further, it takes a much bigger leap of faith to think he's going to "turn back into a pumpkin" than get at least a couple more All-Star seasons. That's just silly talk.

[jpotter33]

The way it is written, it could have been Ainge offering Crowder, the #3 and the #16 and being turned down by Chicago.

Mike

Underneath it says "But the Celtics have a reputation of trying to win trades and kept changing terms, none of which ultimately met the Bulls' liking."

That suggests that this proposal was the Bulls' proposal, and, once again, this was essentially the same rate for Butler that was rumored at the deadline, so it makes sense why it would be them still proposing that.

That's still a little ambiguous.  Danny may have been "trying to win" by only offering that deal, while the Bulls were asking for a lot more. Without more info, it's all circumstantial

You talked about me with confirmation bias earlier, but this is like the third different source that has came out and said this today. Yet, you've had excuses for each one lol I think that's more in line with confirmation bias than me citing multiple different sources saying the same thing. 

[dreamgreen]

Butler is very over rated by some. Replacing AB or Crowder with him probably gets us 50 wins but overall not that much better. Really need to add him to the talent we have to make us better.

[jpotter33]

My theory is this - Danny is way too attached to Crowder after him finding his value seemingly out of nowhere. That or he is way too stuck on combining Crowder with Butler.

My theory is this - this is carefully curated information that doesn't list the entirety of the proposed deals. A deal with "Jae Crowder, the 3rd and the 16th" isn't necessarily a deal that stops there.

Sure, and I admitted as much, but that very well could have just been salary filler since it was necessary to make the trade. So it could've been Crowder, JJ, 3, and 16, which obviously you still do.

The amount of skepticism on here amazes, but mostly just because it's appearing now after the draft where it wasn't before the draft. This isn't some fake account tweeting this; this is a legitimate Bulls writer that has many connections with the team. If he thought there were more principal pieces to the trade, then he'd put them on there. There's no motivation for him to leave those off.

Obviously you do that deal. But do you honestly believe that was the deal? I think it's foolish to think nit was that simple.

I mean, that was the reported trade rate at the trade deadline for him (pretty well accepted, too), and his value would've only got lower since then. Why would it be much different?

It's hard to compare a trade now to one at the deadline, when the pick could have been anywhere

It's not like it dropped to five or six - it stayed exactly where it was predicted to go. And I even think Brooklyn was still in third place in February. Further, the Dallas pick wasn't mentioned at the trade deadline, so perhaps that's the extra cost between then and now.

In what many consider a 2-player draft, the chance of it moving up definitely offset the chance of it moving down.  The pick was likely more valuable then

Except their target was Dunn, who was totally available at 3.

Right now it was, but I think they would have leapt at a chance for Simmons or Ingram. Wanting Dunn and preferring one of the too 2 picks aren't mutually exclusive

Was Dunn even looking like the #3 pick in February?

I'm not sure, but it's been a well-known secret that they've been wanting a point guard prospect to build around, which naturally leads to Dunn being the best PG prospect in the draft.

[BitterJim]

The way it is written, it could have been Ainge offering Crowder, the #3 and the #16 and being turned down by Chicago.

Mike

Underneath it says "But the Celtics have a reputation of trying to win trades and kept changing terms, none of which ultimately met the Bulls' liking."

That suggests that this proposal was the Bulls' proposal, and, once again, this was essentially the same rate for Butler that was rumored at the deadline, so it makes sense why it would be them still proposing that.

That's still a little ambiguous.  Danny may have been "trying to win" by only offering that deal, while the Bulls were asking for a lot more. Without more info, it's all circumstantial

You talked about me with confirmation bias earlier, but this is like the third different source that has came out and said this today. Yet, you've had excuses for each one lol I think that's more in line with confirmation bias than me citing multiple different sources saying the same thing. 

I'm not saying that Danny was definitely the one that was being reasonable (I think you're probably right that he was the one being unreasonable), I'm just pointing out that we don't know enough to say which way it was.  It's ambiguous.

I'm just trying to get you to look at it from the other side, too (I was gonna say "everyone to look at it from the other side", but there are a few posters I've total given up trying to reason with)

[BitterJim]

My theory is this - Danny is way too attached to Crowder after him finding his value seemingly out of nowhere. That or he is way too stuck on combining Crowder with Butler.

My theory is this - this is carefully curated information that doesn't list the entirety of the proposed deals. A deal with "Jae Crowder, the 3rd and the 16th" isn't necessarily a deal that stops there.

Sure, and I admitted as much, but that very well could have just been salary filler since it was necessary to make the trade. So it could've been Crowder, JJ, 3, and 16, which obviously you still do.

The amount of skepticism on here amazes, but mostly just because it's appearing now after the draft where it wasn't before the draft. This isn't some fake account tweeting this; this is a legitimate Bulls writer that has many connections with the team. If he thought there were more principal pieces to the trade, then he'd put them on there. There's no motivation for him to leave those off.

Obviously you do that deal. But do you honestly believe that was the deal? I think it's foolish to think nit was that simple.

I mean, that was the reported trade rate at the trade deadline for him (pretty well accepted, too), and his value would've only got lower since then. Why would it be much different?

It's hard to compare a trade now to one at the deadline, when the pick could have been anywhere

It's not like it dropped to five or six - it stayed exactly where it was predicted to go. And I even think Brooklyn was still in third place in February. Further, the Dallas pick wasn't mentioned at the trade deadline, so perhaps that's the extra cost between then and now.

In what many consider a 2-player draft, the chance of it moving up definitely offset the chance of it moving down.  The pick was likely more valuable then

Except their target was Dunn, who was totally available at 3.

Right now it was, but I think they would have leapt at a chance for Simmons or Ingram. Wanting Dunn and preferring one of the too 2 picks aren't mutually exclusive

Was Dunn even looking like the #3 pick in February?

I'm not sure, but it's been a well-known secret that they've been wanting a point guard prospect to build around, which naturally leads to Dunn being the best PG prospect in the draft.

Isn't Simmons the best PG prospect? 

I have to figure that, with the #2 pick, they could have dealt with someone to get a later pick and Dunn, or just gone in another direction.  They may want Dunn, but talent is talent

[kozlodoev]

My theory is this - Danny is way too attached to Crowder after him finding his value seemingly out of nowhere. That or he is way too stuck on combining Crowder with Butler.

My theory is this - this is carefully curated information that doesn't list the entirety of the proposed deals. A deal with "Jae Crowder, the 3rd and the 16th" isn't necessarily a deal that stops there.

Sure, and I admitted as much, but that very well could have just been salary filler since it was necessary to make the trade. So it could've been Crowder, JJ, 3, and 16, which obviously you still do.

I'm not so sure what's so obvious about it. Crowder is no chopped liver, so it depends on how much you like the guy you've got at 3.

Also, most people evaluate the "obviousness" of this deal on some sort of misguided idea that this will gift-wrap Durant for you. It won't.

No, Butler is certainly enough in himself to trade for. Let me ask you this - do you think Crowder is ever as good as Butler or makes an All-Star Game?

No, but I think Brown could. And I certainly think that the combination of Brown and Crowder may end up being more valuable down the road than Jimmy Butler, who is not someone who can carry a franchise by himself.

But even if he doesn't gift-wrap you KD, he certainly does raise the profile of the C's to other free agents. I don't think that's a controversial statement to make, do you?

For me, I take the sure thing in the multiple-time All-Star just reaching his prime rather than gamble on Brown and Crowder.

If Brown turns into a player, that also raises the profile of the Celtics. And if Butler turns back into a pumpkin, that doesn't.  Butler is a guy with one good season, not someone who's guaranteed to be a perennial allstar.

What in five years?! 

And Butler is a two-time All-Star who is just entering his prime, so he necessarily had more than one good season. Further, it takes a much bigger leap of faith to think he's going to "turn back into a pumpkin" than get at least a couple more All-Star seasons. That's just silly talk.

Ok, he had two good seasons -- in both of which he played fewer than 70 games. In general, I'm not terribly impressed by players that need 37-39. So sure, fine, he won't turn back into a pumpkin.

Even so, and even acknowledging that he's a pretty good two-way player, his scoring prowess is vastly overrated. He has one good season at 18 pp36, and one at 20 pp36. For comparison Crowder scored 16 pp36 last season, and Bradley has averaged about 16.5 pp36 over the last three season. No-one is confusing these guys for any sort of major scorers. Someone like Isaiah Thomas is a scorer (25 pp36 in Celtics uniform). Meh.

[Cman]

My theory is this - Danny is way too attached to Crowder after him finding his value seemingly out of nowhere. That or he is way too stuck on combining Crowder with Butler.

My theory is this - this is carefully curated information that doesn't list the entirety of the proposed deals. A deal with "Jae Crowder, the 3rd and the 16th" isn't necessarily a deal that stops there.

Sure, and I admitted as much, but that very well could have just been salary filler since it was necessary to make the trade. So it could've been Crowder, JJ, 3, and 16, which obviously you still do.

I'm not so sure what's so obvious about it. Crowder is no chopped liver, so it depends on how much you like the guy you've got at 3.

Also, most people evaluate the "obviousness" of this deal on some sort of misguided idea that this will gift-wrap Durant for you. It won't.

No, Butler is certainly enough in himself to trade for. Let me ask you this - do you think Crowder is ever as good as Butler or makes an All-Star Game?

No, but I think Brown could. And I certainly think that the combination of Brown and Crowder may end up being more valuable down the road than Jimmy Butler, who is not someone who can carry a franchise by himself.

But even if he doesn't gift-wrap you KD, he certainly does raise the profile of the C's to other free agents. I don't think that's a controversial statement to make, do you?

For me, I take the sure thing in the multiple-time All-Star just reaching his prime rather than gamble on Brown and Crowder.

I don't necessarily disagree but you also have to consider the salary differences.
I like Butler. And I prefer the surer thing over the gamble. But the point is that there are more elements at play.

[kozlodoev]

I don't necessarily disagree but you also have to consider the salary differences.
I like Butler. And I prefer the surer thing over the gamble. But the point is that there are more elements at play.

Same here, but I feel you're paying too much for too little in terms marginal improvement.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

why is it that everyone keeps assuming that w/e the offer was that DA is the one who didn't follow through? Is it because you have no idea what went down but want it to be whatever best fits your narrative?

[Casperian]

Ok, he had two good seasons -- in both of which he played fewer than 70 games. In general, I'm not terribly impressed by players that need 37-39. So sure, fine, he won't turn back into a pumpkin.

Even so, and even acknowledging that he's a pretty good two-way player, his scoring prowess is vastly overrated. He has one good season at 18 pp36, and one at 20 pp36. For comparison Crowder scored 16 pp36 last season, and Bradley has averaged about 16.5 pp36 over the last three season. No-one is confusing these guys for any sort of major scorers. Someone like Isaiah Thomas is a scorer (25 pp36 in Celtics uniform). Meh.

I just want to point out that it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand how highly exactly you rate Butler. If there were discussions between the Bulls and the Celtics involving the 3rd pick, and regardless of the exact parameters, it is safe to assume such discussions did indeed take place, then it should be obvious that we were interested.

Trading your best player for three inferior players and no future draft considerations is a fantastic way to rebuild. This is nothing like trading the calcified remains of the players that were one Pierce and Garnett for multiple lottery picks in different drafts.

No, that is subjective at best, and nonsense at worst. Trades like these happen often enough because two teams go in different directions, and what constitutes as "value" depends on their respective situation.
From Ray Allen over Pau Gasol to Carmelo, there's a long history of all-stars traded for a bunch of "lesser" assets, especially if these assets include draft picks.

Besides, you can't call Butler untouchable in one post, and a pumpkin in the next.

[kozlodoev]

Besides, you can't call Butler untouchable in one post, and a pumpkin in the next.

I've got no idea what you're talking about. The fact that Butler is not all that great and trading him for Crowder, 3 and 16 is a lousy way to rebuild are not mutually exclusive. NBA trades are not a zero sum game.

[celticpride1]

Just so you guys know I live in Chicago and they talked on the radio station today about this. The deal reported was Bradley smart crowder 3-16 and next years Brooklyn pick. That's what they wanted for butler . That's insane if Ainge did that he would kill this team.

[jpotter33]

Just so you guys know I live in Chicago and they talked on the radio station today about this. The deal reported was Bradley smart crowder 3-16 and next years Brooklyn pick. That's what they wanted for butler . That's insane if Ainge did that he would kill this team.

Um, no, for the 25th time the guy that spread that rumor was a nobody with no connections. It was the same type of nobody that was reporting the Middleton and Monroe rumors yesterday.

This is one of the main Bulls writers that actually has connections in the league. He's equivalent to someone like Bulpett or Goodman for us.