Butler at Olympics shows not giving up a lot was smart move Danny

[EJPLAYA]

I think that Butlers performance and presence at the Olympics solidifies Danny's decision not to give up too much in order to get him. When you put him out there with actual stars he looks like he's at the tail end of the pack. Overpaying for a guy who really wasn't going to push us over the edge would have been a franchise killer. Danny has his eyes on a Championship, not a perennial conference finals ousting which is at best what Butler would have given. Count me as not impressed.

[PhoSita]

I understand what you're suggesting, and you may not be wrong, but on the other hand, nobody the Celts have right now is on Butler's level, and there's nothing like a guarantee that they'll get anybody in the next 3-4 years that approaches his value.

I think Butler is at a bit of a disadvantage in a team USA type setting because his shooting is less than phenomenal and his on-ball skills, while excellent, are not quite at the same level as, say, KD or Irving.  He's just not going to "pop" when he's playing mostly off-ball in a lesser offensive role.

Butler's value really shows through when he's utilized as "the guy" on both ends.  Which is another way of saying that his value lies in the fact that he can carry that kind of heavy load (ie he's exactly the kind of wing the Celts are missing).  If he's the 4th option out on the floor and doesn't handle the ball much, yeah, he's kind of an extreme luxury.


Would swapping Jaylen Brown and Avery Bradley -- for example -- for Jimmy Butler make the Celts a contender?

Probably not, but they'd be the clear-cut 2nd best team in the East, with a core trio that forms the holy trinity of All-Star talent at guard, wing, and big.  Not a bad spot to be in.

I tend to think the Bulls were asking for all of the BRK picks plus Bradley or Crowder, maybe more.  Not worth it.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

pulling too much out of olympic ball. he'll be fine if he's healthy.

[jambr380]

It was our understanding that Danny was willing to give up Bradley and Brown (the #3), but the Bulls wanted considerably more. I would have been okay with that deal and am not psyched about paying Bradley 20 something million dollars a year in two years, but that is two years away. I am also now aboard the Brown train.

Still, this is supposed to be 'our' time and I will take all-stars without it being an extreme overpay. With two more Brooklyn picks on the horizon, we should be okay now and in the future. The one thing about Butler is while he is used to be the 'the guy', I am not sure I want him as my absolute #1 if we are contending for a championship.

[EJPLAYA]

I understand what you're suggesting, and you may not be wrong, but on the other hand, nobody the Celts have right now is on Butler's level, and there's nothing like a guarantee that they'll get anybody in the next 3-4 years that approaches his value.

I think Butler is at a bit of a disadvantage in a team USA type setting because his shooting is less than phenomenal and his on-ball skills, while excellent, are not quite at the same level as, say, KD or Irving.  He's just not going to "pop" when he's playing mostly off-ball in a lesser offensive role.

Butler's value really shows through when he's utilized as "the guy" on both ends.  Which is another way of saying that his value lies in the fact that he can carry that kind of heavy load (ie he's exactly the kind of wing the Celts are missing).  If he's the 4th option out on the floor and doesn't handle the ball much, yeah, he's kind of an extreme luxury.


Would swapping Jaylen Brown and Avery Bradley -- for example -- for Jimmy Butler make the Celts a contender?

Probably not, but they'd be the clear-cut 2nd best team in the East, with a core trio that forms the holy trinity of All-Star talent at guard, wing, and big.  Not a bad spot to be in.

I tend to think the Bulls were asking for all of the BRK picks plus Bradley or Crowder, maybe more.  Not worth it.

Not disagreeing that he is a very good player. I think the main point which it appears that you are agreeing with is that he doesn't make us a championship team. Danny doesn't want to be a few games better and clearly his talent doesn't equal more than that. To give up a little in order to get him is fine. To give up more would have killed us and locked us into that also ran category. I want a title, not a conference championship appearance. Butler is a tier 2 star and we've got 2 of those already in Thomas and Horford. We need a tier one and right now our best bet is to draft one.

[chambers]

I understand what you're suggesting, and you may not be wrong, but on the other hand, nobody the Celts have right now is on Butler's level, and there's nothing like a guarantee that they'll get anybody in the next 3-4 years that approaches his value.

I think Butler is at a bit of a disadvantage in a team USA type setting because his shooting is less than phenomenal and his on-ball skills, while excellent, are not quite at the same level as, say, KD or Irving.  He's just not going to "pop" when he's playing mostly off-ball in a lesser offensive role.

Butler's value really shows through when he's utilized as "the guy" on both ends.  Which is another way of saying that his value lies in the fact that he can carry that kind of heavy load (ie he's exactly the kind of wing the Celts are missing).  If he's the 4th option out on the floor and doesn't handle the ball much, yeah, he's kind of an extreme luxury.


Would swapping Jaylen Brown and Avery Bradley -- for example -- for Jimmy Butler make the Celts a contender?

Probably not, but they'd be the clear-cut 2nd best team in the East, with a core trio that forms the holy trinity of All-Star talent at guard, wing, and big.  Not a bad spot to be in.

I tend to think the Bulls were asking for all of the BRK picks plus Bradley or Crowder, maybe more.  Not worth it.

Not disagreeing that he is a very good player. I think the main point which it appears that you are agreeing with is that he doesn't make us a championship team. Danny doesn't want to be a few games better and clearly his talent doesn't equal more than that. To give up a little in order to get him is fine. To give up more would have killed us and locked us into that also ran category. I want a title, not a conference championship appearance. Butler is a tier 2 star and we've got 2 of those already in Thomas and Horford. We need a tier one and right now our best bet is to draft one.

He's still capable of being the 2nd best player on a championship team and would be a massive upgrade for us. Butler is a tier above Horford and IT because he's a better offensive player than Horford and a better defender than both  IT and Horford. Horford is close behind defensively but Jimmy is also quite a bit younger.

He's an All defensive player and was until he became injured, a top 10 scorer...I'm not sure how many of those kinda two way guys are in the NBA right now.

[loco_91]

I agree. Butler is very good, but the reported asking price was crazy, and Kevin Durant he ain't.

[EJPLAYA]

I understand what you're suggesting, and you may not be wrong, but on the other hand, nobody the Celts have right now is on Butler's level, and there's nothing like a guarantee that they'll get anybody in the next 3-4 years that approaches his value.

I think Butler is at a bit of a disadvantage in a team USA type setting because his shooting is less than phenomenal and his on-ball skills, while excellent, are not quite at the same level as, say, KD or Irving.  He's just not going to "pop" when he's playing mostly off-ball in a lesser offensive role.

Butler's value really shows through when he's utilized as "the guy" on both ends.  Which is another way of saying that his value lies in the fact that he can carry that kind of heavy load (ie he's exactly the kind of wing the Celts are missing).  If he's the 4th option out on the floor and doesn't handle the ball much, yeah, he's kind of an extreme luxury.


Would swapping Jaylen Brown and Avery Bradley -- for example -- for Jimmy Butler make the Celts a contender?

Probably not, but they'd be the clear-cut 2nd best team in the East, with a core trio that forms the holy trinity of All-Star talent at guard, wing, and big.  Not a bad spot to be in.

I tend to think the Bulls were asking for all of the BRK picks plus Bradley or Crowder, maybe more.  Not worth it.

Not disagreeing that he is a very good player. I think the main point which it appears that you are agreeing with is that he doesn't make us a championship team. Danny doesn't want to be a few games better and clearly his talent doesn't equal more than that. To give up a little in order to get him is fine. To give up more would have killed us and locked us into that also ran category. I want a title, not a conference championship appearance. Butler is a tier 2 star and we've got 2 of those already in Thomas and Horford. We need a tier one and right now our best bet is to draft one.

He's still capable of being the 2nd best player on a championship team and would be a massive upgrade for us. Butler is a tier above Horford and IT because he's a better offensive player than Horford and a better defender than both  IT and Horford. Horford is close behind defensively but Jimmy is also quite a bit younger.

He's an All defensive player and was until he became injured, a top 10 scorer...I'm not sure how many of those kinda two way guys are in the NBA right now.

Great.  So we get a 2nd best guy and give up all our chances at any one who could be a number one.  You're making my point.  We're also rans then and not champions.  The only way we get a number one is to draft him and you don't do that by trading your top picks and multiple #3s for a #2 guy.  You have to keep rolling the dice for a #1 in the draft.  We are in a unique position where we have a bunch of #3s and 4s yet still have high draft picks coming.  We just have to get lucky on one of them and we're good.

[steve]

on a team where Carmelo is the leader, I wouldn't take too much stock in a players nba worth. But yeah, I think Danny made the right move in not overpaying for Butler... Crowder, Avery and 3 was too much.

[Snakehead]

Butler is still very good but I agree with thinking he needs to be properly valued.  Chicago is asking for superstar price and he's not a superstar.  Didn't need the Olympics to see that but I think it shows.

At the right price he is a player I like so I don't mean to tear him down but I think it showed Chicago was asking for a lot.  They really don't want to trade him at all it seems but will take the call if you want to pay that much.

[PhoSita]

A shorter version of the point I made earlier, to reiterate:

Butler is really, really good, and he's exactly the kind of player the Celts need.

But on the other hand, he probably doesn't make the Celts a contender.

Yet, imagine for a second that the outcome of this post-Pierce/Garnett rebuild is that we get to watch a not-quite-contender win 50-60 games a season and numerous playoff series over the course of 4-5 years.


Would it be the worst thing in the world to peak as a not-quite-elite team with 3 super-complementary All-Stars? 

I agree that winning a title is the #1 goal, but we should acknowledge that it's possible that if the Celts hold out indefinitely for that guy who will make the team a contender, they may never get that guy.  And while they wait for that guy, they may miss out on adding the kinds of players who would make them very good, albeit a step below the very best.

Peaking at "very good with an outside chance of making the Finals and maybe winning it all" is pretty good, if you ask me.  Occasionally teams like that actually do win.  Even without a title, that's probably better than holding out forever for an MVP type player and never getting past the second round.


None of this is to say that the Celts necessarily should have gone all-in on Butler.  I just don't agree  with the idea that the only major move worth making is one that makes the Celts a no-doubt contender.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

A shorter version of the point I made earlier, to reiterate:

Butler is really, really good, and he's exactly the kind of player the Celts need.

But on the other hand, he probably doesn't make the Celts a contender.

Yet, imagine for a second that the outcome of this post-Pierce/Garnett rebuild is that we get to watch a not-quite-contender win 50-60 games a season and numerous playoff series over the course of 4-5 years.


Would it be the worst thing in the world to peak as a not-quite-elite team with 3 super-complementary All-Stars? 

I agree that winning a title is the #1 goal, but we should acknowledge that it's possible that if the Celts hold out indefinitely for that guy who will make the team a contender, they may never get that guy.  And while they wait for that guy, they may miss out on adding the kinds of players who would make them very good, albeit a step below the very best.

Peaking at "very good with an outside chance of making the Finals and maybe winning it all" is pretty good, if you ask me.  Occasionally teams like that actually do win.  Even without a title, that's probably better than holding out forever for an MVP type player and never getting past the second round.


None of this is to say that the Celts necessarily should have gone all-in on Butler.  I just don't agree  with the idea that the only major move worth making is one that makes the Celts a no-doubt contender.

I want the chip just like everyone else but I have long stated that I would rather enjoy good basketball even if we don't get the chip than watch a lot of losing and still never get the chip.

With that said, we probably win 50 games if Crowder didn't get hurt last season and if all goes well we should do even better this season. Why break the bank for Butler if we could achieve exactly what you said (50-60 wins/good but not great) without him?

[Monkhouse]

I'll keep Crowder and Bradley over what Butler would cost.

It isn't like Crowder and Bradley are slouchers either... Two of them is probably almost as good as Butler, so why overpay so much for a marginal upgrade?

And jeez Louise, this topic has been beaten to death lol.

[jambr380]

I'll keep Crowder and Bradley over what Butler would cost.

It isn't like Crowder and Bradley are slouchers either... Two of them is probably almost as good as Butler, so why overpay so much for a marginal upgrade?

And jeez Louise, this topic has been beaten to death lol.

And you aren't even mentioning the #3 pick as part of that package. I like Butler, but like you said he isn't going to provide any more than a Crowder/AB combo and we would have also given up one of our only chances at a potential MVP in such a high pick.

Now, if Durant would have chosen us with Butler, then that was a colossal miscalculation on Ainge's part, but I doubt that he didn't already have his mind made up with GSW.

[Moranis]

A shorter version of the point I made earlier, to reiterate:

Butler is really, really good, and he's exactly the kind of player the Celts need.

But on the other hand, he probably doesn't make the Celts a contender.

Yet, imagine for a second that the outcome of this post-Pierce/Garnett rebuild is that we get to watch a not-quite-contender win 50-60 games a season and numerous playoff series over the course of 4-5 years.


Would it be the worst thing in the world to peak as a not-quite-elite team with 3 super-complementary All-Stars? 

I agree that winning a title is the #1 goal, but we should acknowledge that it's possible that if the Celts hold out indefinitely for that guy who will make the team a contender, they may never get that guy.  And while they wait for that guy, they may miss out on adding the kinds of players who would make them very good, albeit a step below the very best.

Peaking at "very good with an outside chance of making the Finals and maybe winning it all" is pretty good, if you ask me.  Occasionally teams like that actually do win.  Even without a title, that's probably better than holding out forever for an MVP type player and never getting past the second round.


None of this is to say that the Celts necessarily should have gone all-in on Butler.  I just don't agree  with the idea that the only major move worth making is one that makes the Celts a no-doubt contender.

I don't get why you are so opposed to Kevin Love then.  Love while not a good defender, is the rebounder, scorer, and passing big man that would fit perfectly on Boston, eliminate a lot of the teams real glaring weaknesses, and elevate Boston to the next level (still under Cleveland, GS level but getting close to the LAC level).