If the Bulls truly are all in on Kris Dunn (as Ford speculates) then the difference isn't negligible at all. Not only that, if the Bulls are trading Butler then they are going through a complete rebuild why do they care at all what conference Butler is playing in? They are going to be terrible regardless
As I don't have Insider, I assume the argument is something like: Cs keep the core of IT, AB, Crowder, Smart, and Olynyk. They add two young commodities who are under a lot of control. Not getting worse, but not getting better. Treading water, I guess? It all depends on what you see as Russell's upside...
The reasoning was basically Russell can replace what Turner gave the C's while being cheaper and with more upside. Randle would give them an athletic PF, perhaps a Sully replacement, again with more upside. The C's would be replacing the upside of #3 and uncertainty of #16 and the young guys with the certainty of two players who have shown they can play and fill needs on an already deep team. Ford says the Lakers are enamored with Marquise Chriss and Kris Dunn, so they'd like to add one of those to Brandon Ingram. If they strike out on a big star like Cousins or George, I suppose this is a reasonable way to go, but I doubt the Lakers and C's would ever agree to it.
Not really, they're trading unproven young guys for slightly more proven young guys. I'd make that trade, both of those guys showed real talent last year and both showed things to make me like them more than when drafted (Russell shot 35% from 3, Randle was a terrific rebounder and surprisingly decent on defense).
If the Bulls are all in on Dunn then I agree they need to get to 3 as there are now multiple teams all vying to get into the Dunn mix. My primary point was that it would take a much greater deal for the greater overall benefit of the Bulls to trade Butler within the EC then the WC.
Is Butler valuable enough for the C's to also offer to take on Rose? Could they do that under the cap? Would it be a good idea? Would it move the needle for Bulls?
This should factor in 0%. You take the best deal for your team regardless of what conference the trade partner is in.
Part of the best deal would be to not improve one of your competitors. This has been a common strategy for decades.
Literally every other team is a competitor at the end of the day. You make the deal that improves your team in the most effective fashion or you don't make a deal. What conference the team is in is ridiculous to consider, especially in this scenario. That teams have done so or it is often quoted as a reason doesn't make it any smarter.
I'm sure there are scenarios where it makes sense; say Houston wants to trade Dwight Howard, they would probably rather take a bit less in return in a deal with Toronto than with Golden State. But if the Bulls are trading Butler for picks, there's no scenario where the win the title soon, so who cares if they help create a super team for a few years?
If they're trading Jimmy Butler for future assets, no one in the Eastern conference is a competitor because the Bulls wouldn't be competing. Eastern/Western Conference matters 0% when you're not competing.
Ainge was quite happy to help Detroit acquire Rasheed Wallace, and was reasonably compensated (Delonte West) for his consideration. On balance, if one had to make another team better, twere preferable the other should be on the other coast, to be sure.
Sure, if it's somehow a completely equal deal otherwise than yeah. That's not really realistic though, nor is it what we are talking about here with Chicago and Butler. If the offer is better from Bos than it is from Min (or another WC team), than he should be coming to Boston or the GM should be fired. Presti certainly didn't have trouble trading Harden to Hou, for what he presumably felt was the best deal (panned at the time, looking a lot better now). I just think it's an archaic philosophy that doesn't really apply to modern day sports anymore, especially with the prominence of analytics
That's a really interesting question. Personally, I think Love is by and large the same player he was in MN. He can be the 2nd or 3rd best offensive player on a championship contender IF he plays next to next to an elite rim protector on a team with above average perimeter D. In light of their roster construction, the Cavs should be looking to move him for a 3 and D wing and/or some rim protection.
Given that deal though, nobody is valuing him as the type of player you build around. He basically becomes a cheaper upgrade of Sully, who you let walk this summer. The idea that he's not a guy you can build a championship team around doesn't really come into play when the cost is that low.
You're not building around him. You still keep all the Nets picks and the ability to sign max FAs.
Probably not.
Of course, in the same column he suggests a three way where the Kings send Cousins AND the #8 pick to OKC and get back Steven Adams, Tyreke Evans, and Cameron Payne, so maybe his compass is off? Or is Adams really that valuable now?
Could be a cost/numbers thing. Smart is cheaper right now. Bradley has already complained about his contract.
There are stretches he looks passable. I have no idea, though. I just keep reminding myself he's a kid and not everyone puts it together in just 2 years.
Fair enough. But giving up Bradley, two other young guards they like, and downgrading the picks means he will be starter, creating the same game flow problems I mentioned. They could realistically sign Horford, I guess, but is that the kind of team the Celts want? I can't imagine Ainge has watched tape on Okafor and concluded that he could become a good defender. And playing Olynyk and Okafor together on defense would be a disaster, imo.
It might be a size thing, Smart can guard the 2/3 spots at a high level and has shown an ability to take smallball 4s out of their comfort zones. By contrast Bradley's highest/best usage is defending PGs.
The cost of this trade is fairly minimal, though. If you can get Okafor by selling high on Bradley and without giving up #3, I think it's a deal that Danny should get done (and then go after Horford to play the 4). Of course, I have no reason to believe PHI would do this deal.
Interesting. I would do that one if I were Ainge, which tells me it's unlikely real (to your point).
As a roundup for fans who aren't dialed in, that was a fine story. He can't break any news if there's no news to break
