Celts Should Explore A Jimmy Butler Trade

It's about setting the bar high.

Did you guys see Klay Thompson break Curry's NBA record for most 3-pointers?

Klay made 14 3-pointers against the Bulls on Monday.

If the Celts are just going to settle for being a great regular season team then they will always fail in the postseason.

Having a deep bench is for the regular season.
In the playoffs, it's about star power.

Isn't it obvious why the Raptors are always doing well in the regular season and always ending up a failure in the playoffs?

DeRozan is a legit All-Star and yet the Raptors wanted an upgrade in Kawhi Leonard.

Right now the Celts have too many good players and not enough great players.

Morris is very good.
He needs more time.
But Celts can't give him more minutes because Celts have so many good players.

Some here are worried about the future.
Let's not forget the Celts still have the 2019 Kings pick.
For sure that will be a lottery pick.

Only biased Celtic fans will say that Jaylen Brown is better than Jimmy Butler.

To me it doesn't matter if the Celts trade for Butler or not.
But one thing's for sure, if the Celts will head into the playoffs with this current roster, don't expect Banner 18 to be coming anytime soon.

If the Celts don't match the firepower of GSW, Celts will always be in 2nd place.

Right now we're not even sure if the Celts are head and shoulders above Toronto and Milwaukee.

At par with the Bucks and Raps is not good enough because GSW is head and shoulders above everybody.

Fierce, I remember you as a level-headed Celtics fan who dominated the troll-fest at the Boston Globe after Sam started this forum.

Your argument might make sense for a thought experiment if it wasn't such an overpay.

Maybe for an Anthony Davis you roll somewhat similar dice. Butler is no KG. I don't think he's even a Paul Pierce.

Rozier, Brown and Morris would be too much. Even Ojeleye seems to be on the cusp of becoming a solid player. Your trade would kill depth, chemistry and Danny flexibility. It would dramatically shorten the window. We'd be closer to becoming the next Washington Wizards on a treadmill and bye-bye to a new long-term dynasty in the making. The amount of chips Ainge has is unprecedented, yet you want him to go all in on a bad teammate and player who will be out of his prime in three years.

You also seem too quick to box in ceilings for Rozier and Brown while overrating Butler, imho.

And too many people are disagreeing with you. These are some of the smartest C's fans and far less obnoxious than folks from the other basketball forums. Maybe you should stop doubling down on this one.

fierce,

I'll give you this. You make an interesting point about the bench is for the regular season, but the playoffs is about star power. That may be right because the rotations do tighten up in the playoffs typically. (Never understood why as it would make sense to have an overabundance of talent wear down the shortened bench in the playoffs just like you did during the regular season. Why wear out your starters under any circumstances?) But there is more than one way to win a championship. Boston's (and LAL) title records speak for themselves, almost half of the titles go through those two cities, each won and done totally differently.

db

Try to steal a title with the current roster. There are rumors Klay is gone or Durant will be next year. So wait them out a little?

I think the C's will devise Golden State rules and win #18 this year.

I have heard Wyc Grousbeck interviewed two times, he says NO TRADES. He wants to win with this team or see where it can go and how far. He believes they are bound for the Eastern Division title and on to the finals. I agree, let's see how this team develops. Getting impatient so soon will solve nothing. It is going to have to be the golden egg, (Davis), or this group
stays.

I have heard Wyc Grousbeck interviewed two times, he says NO TRADES. He wants to win with this team or see where it can go and how far. He believes they are bound for the Eastern Division title and on to the finals. I agree, let's see how this team develops. Getting impatient so soon will solve nothing. It is going to have to be the golden egg, (Davis), or this group
stays.

fierce

If the Celtics did not have a deep bench they would not have made it to game 7 of the ECF.  This is another flawed argument by you to even suggest that a deep bench is irrelevant during the playoffs.

The facts are quite clear to me.   With Hayward gone all year and then losing Kyrie and Theis, and Marcus and Brown missed a couple of games with the thumb injury and the  concussion they still managed to compete and win.  That happened during the playoffs.  Depth was clearly a decisive factor in winning.

With respect to the Raptors and the Bucks.  They have both started the season well but only 7 games have been played so I think it is a bit too early to assume that either of those teams is better than Boston.  If you recall Boston beat the Bucks during the playoffs.  Last year Boston split with the Raptors in the regular season.  Both are very good teams but better than Boston?  I don't think so.  Boston has superior depth up and down the roster.

You stated that GSW has too much fire power for Boston to beat them.  I disagree.  Boston is loaded with shooters/scorers at least 7 deep.  Boston is also a better defensive team than all the teams you think are better than us.  Regular season matchups with GSW has proven that the Celtics match up with with them because Boston can defend out to the perimeter.  

You cannot win the Jimmy Butler argument so now you say you do not care if they got him or not.  That's good.  You are almost there. Now please stop with all the ridiculous prognostications and the negativity about our team.

It is far too early in the season to make definitive assumptions.

dboss wrote:fierce

If the Celtics did not have a deep bench they would not have made it to game 7 of the ECF.  This is another flawed argument by you to even suggest that a deep bench is irrelevant during the playoffs.

The facts are quite clear to me.   With Hayward gone all year and then losing Kyrie and Theis, and Marcus and Brown missed a couple of games with the thumb injury and the  concussion they still managed to compete and win.  That happened during the playoffs.  Depth was clearly a decisive factor in winning.

With respect to the Raptors and the Bucks.  They have both started the season well but only 7 games have been played so I think it is a bit too early to assume that either of those teams is better than Boston.  If you recall Boston beat the Bucks during the playoffs.  Last year Boston split with the Raptors in the regular season.  Both are very good teams but better than Boston?  I don't think so.  Boston has superior depth up and down the roster.

You stated that GSW has too much fire power for Boston to beat them.  I disagree.  Boston is loaded with shooters/scorers at least 7 deep.  Boston is also a better defensive team than all the teams you think are better than us.  Regular season matchups with GSW has proven that the Celtics match up with with them because Boston can defend out to the perimeter.  

You cannot win the Jimmy Butler argument so now you say you do not care if they got him or not.  That's good.  You are almost there. Now please stop with all the ridiculous prognostications and the negativity about our team.

It is far too early in the season to make definitive assumptions.

dboss

Expecting injuries to level the playing field in the playoffs - could be a little on the wishful thinking side of expectations. Sure a strong bench is a big plus if you loose a starter to injury - but what are the odds of such bad luck ocurring. The below article lists the name of 13 players, who over a 15 year period, suffered injuries that affected their impact in the playoffs. With 16 teams in the playoffs and with 5 starters on each team there are 80 starters each year (over 15 years) for a total of 1200 players - of which the author listed 13 as a non factor in the playoffs. Thats about a 1% chance of injury to a starter playing a role in the playoffs - and even if there are players that the author missed it would take a lot of players to reach a significant percentage. Also consider the level of greastnest of the player that has to be replaced - sometimes perhaps near impossible. For exanple Russell in the 1958 playoffs and Hondo in the 1973 playoffs. There's a saying in horse racing that all other thing being relatively equal that it is class that will prevail. Pretty good advice for all sports.

http://www.nba.com/2016/news/features/lang_whitaker/04/26/playoff-injuriees-history/

swish

Swish

You do realize that the article you linked to is using those 15 as AN EXAMPLE of some key injuries. It is in no way is an exhaustive list of ALL injuries that affected playoff runs.

It clearly says......"Let's take a look back over the last 15 years at some of the injuries that have had a significant impact on their team's postseason plans...

There are SO MANY MORE than that, it renders your math nonsensical.




One example from Bill Simmons speaking of his favorite team, the 1986-87 Celtics

They lost Lenny Bias 48 hours after drafting him. They lost Bill Walton and Scott Wedman for basically the entire season. Kevin McHale injured his foot near the end of the regular season, played on it and broke it (and gamely kept playing). Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge and Robert Parish were limping around on sprained ankles by the second round.

Only Larry Bird was healthy -- he ended up averaging an inconceivable 44.1 minutes in 23 playoff games. In the second round, they fended off a really good Bucks team, winning Game 7 even though they trailed by 10 with six minutes to go. In the Eastern finals, they held off a hungry Pistons team by winning two of the greatest games in the history of the Garden: Game 5 (Bird's famous steal from Isiah) and Game 7 (an unforgettable display of heart and will, with a little luck thrown in: the Dantley/Microwave collision).

In the Finals, they came within Magic's baby sky hook and Bird's miracle 3-pointer missing by a sliver of tying the series at 2-2 against one of the five best basketball teams ever. When they got bounced in Game 6, every Celtics fan said to themselves, "I cannot ask for anything more than I just got."

Swish

I never said that injuries level the playing field.  When did I ever say that?

I was making an argument because fierce stated that "Having a deep bench is for the regular season. In the playoffs, it's about star power."

I disagree with that statement and you should too.  Otherwise how do you explain that without Irving and Hayward (2 allstar players) Boston made it to within one game of the championship round.  The fact is that the Celtics depth played a big role in the playoffs.

I do not know about the odds and I do not care about the odds.  The Celtics probably beat LA twice instead of once if Perkins does not tear his ACL.

If Chris Paul does not get injured last year IN THE PLAYOFFS against GSW they had an excellent chance to beat GSW but loss 4-3

The year before SAS was wearing GSW out until Leonard got hurt.

If Kyrie does not get hurt we probably beat the Cavs instead of losing 4-3.

How about Allen, KG and Rondo suffering injuries that impacted the team in the playoffs?

What about Avery Bradley blowing out the hammy in Game one against the Hawks a few years back

Danny built depth on this team because he contemplated the rigors of an 82 game season and a deep run in the playoffs.  

I would also argue that we got guys on the bench that have stating level talent (Smart, Rozier and Morris)  That is called quality depth.  The type of depth you can bank on if those players have to replace an injured starter in the playoffs.

Obviously you want to get to the playoffs with a healthy team.  I believe that Boston has the deepest team in the NBA.  I believe that depth will be a factor this year and into the playoffs.

Injuries happen to important players and teams that lack quality replacement players are more likely to lose.

With the athleticism of athletes today, everyone is trying to jump higher, dunk more, run faster, cut corners, all leading to even the best of the best stand the chance of getting hurt. This can destroy a team, or as in the case of the Celtics, inspire them to try harder. But at some point missing those stars who have gotten hurt catches up. We lose Kyrie, Gordon, and Theis, what effect did that have? Not enough to stop them from reaching the ECF, but, that is where we needed them. What would have happened if Cleveland had to go without LeBron, no way they would even have been there.

This whole theory of evening things out is far from true. I would love to have a full complement of players last year, the way they were going, we would have had a good run at GSW

mrkleen09 wrote:Swish

You do realize that the article you linked to is using those 15 as AN EXAMPLE of some key injuries. It is in no way is an exhaustive list of ALL injuries that affected playoff runs.

It clearly says......"Let's take a look back over the last 15 years at some of the injuries that have had a significant impact on their team's postseason plans...

There are SO MANY MORE than that, it renders your math nonsensical.




One example from Bill Simmons speaking of his favorite team, the 1986-87 Celtics

They lost Lenny Bias 48 hours after drafting him. They lost Bill Walton and Scott Wedman for basically the entire season. Kevin McHale injured his foot near the end of the regular season, played on it and broke it (and gamely kept playing). Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge and Robert Parish were limping around on sprained ankles by the second round.

Only Larry Bird was healthy -- he ended up averaging an inconceivable 44.1 minutes in 23 playoff games. In the second round, they fended off a really good Bucks team, winning Game 7 even though they trailed by 10 with six minutes to go. In the Eastern finals, they held off a hungry Pistons team by winning two of the greatest games in the history of the Garden: Game 5 (Bird's famous steal from Isiah) and Game 7 (an unforgettable display of heart and will, with a little luck thrown in: the Dantley/Microwave collision).

In the Finals, they came within Magic's baby sky hook and Bird's miracle 3-pointer missing by a sliver of tying the series at 2-2 against one of the five best basketball teams ever. When they got bounced in Game 6, every Celtics fan said to themselves, "I cannot ask for anything more than I just got."

Against Detroit in the ec finals
Bird 7 games & 42.3 minutes
McHale 7 games & 37.3 minutes
Johnson 7games & 39.4 minutes
Parish 6 games & 34.5 minutes
Ainge 4 games & 33.3 minutes

Against L A in the finals
Bird 6 games & 42.3 minutes
Johnson 6 games & 40.7 minutes
McHale 6 games & 38.5 minutes
Parish 6 games & 30.5 minutes
Ainge 6 games & 39.0 minutes

swish

swish wrote:

Against Detroit in the ec finals
Bird 7 games & 42.3 minutes
McHale 7 games & 37.3 minutes
Johnson 7games & 39.4 minutes
Parish 6 games & 34.5 minutes
Ainge 4 games & 33.3 minutes

Against  L A in the finals
Bird 6 games & 42.3 minutes
Johnson 6 games & 40.7 minutes
McHale 6 games & 38.5 minutes
Parish 6 games & 30.5 minutes
Ainge 6 games & 39.0 minutes

 swish

And what is your point?  Are you saying there were no injuries that season that had an effect on the NBA Finals?  

Scott Wedman was out ALL SEASON.
Bill Walton had major surgery in December and played 100 minutes in the playoffs total.
Kevin McHale played the final 4 months on a broken foot.

Your numbers mean nothing, and your argument has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese.  Without all those injuries and the death of Len Bias, the Celtics would have gone back to back in 1986-87.

And that kind of nuance could be drawn with nearly every season in NBA history. As D Boss said, injuries are a BIG part of professional sports and having a strong bench is the best way to cover for this kind of eventuality. I cant even believe you are trying to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying the bench is not important.

What I'm saying is having too much can be counter productive.

Some say Klay or Durant may leave GSW.

What about Rozier and Morris?

It is 100% sure that Rozier will be gone in the summer because he wants to be a starter and the Celts can't give that to him.

Morris is so good, other teams will offer him big money and the opportunity to start.

So where's the deep bench next season?

We just enjoy one season of having a deep bench and next year it's gone?

Also, Jimmy Butler is an upgrade.
Teams always upgrade their roster if they can.
Being sentimental prevents you from getting better.

A lot of Celtic fans here were upset when Ainge traded Isaiah Thomas for Kyrie.
If Celtic fans here were the ones calling the shot, there would be no Kyrie for Isaiah trade.

Reason why Rozier and Jaylen were so good in the playoffs is due to the fact they knew they were not going to be pulled in and out of the lineup.

Try playing basketball and the coach pulls you out after a few minutes then puts you back in after a few minutes.

You cannot get into the flow of the game that way.

If Celtic management thinks an upgrade is not needed then at the very least trade Rozier so that the rotation will start to normalize.
Smart is the backup to Kyrie anyway.

Removing one of the 3, Morris, Rozier, or Brown, will give the Celts more continuity.

Look at GSW, all their 4 stars are averaging 30+ minutes.

Celts right now have 2 players averaging 30+ minutes per game.

While it's true having a deep bench is a good thing, having too much will eventually become counterproductive.
Sooner or later Rozier or Brown will complain of not having enough playing time.
And they have every right to ask for more playing time because those two players are very good.

fierce wrote:
A lot of Celtic fans here were upset when Ainge traded Isaiah Thomas for Kyrie.
If Celtic fans here were the ones calling the shot, there would be no Kyrie for Isaiah trade.

A few maybe - but a lot? I doubt that.

mrkleen09 wrote:

fierce wrote:
A lot of Celtic fans here were upset when Ainge traded Isaiah Thomas for Kyrie.
If Celtic fans here were the ones calling the shot, there would be no Kyrie for Isaiah trade.

A few maybe - but a lot?  I doubt that.

If it's more than 5 that's a lot.

As Celtic fans, we all want the same thing.
We want more championships.

But settling just ain't good enough.

Why settle when there's always room for improvement?

I think it's very obvious Celts picking up the option of Yabu for next season is for a potential blockbuster trade.

Picking up the option of Yabu doesn't make sense from a financial stand point because it puts the Celts deeper into luxury tax territory.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Jimmy Butler has already taken more games off than Gordon Hayward.

That's by design.

Butler's camp wants to force a trade.
That's why he keeps resting to avoid injury.

In his last game, he torched Lebron and the Lakers for 32 points, 6-7 from 3pt land.

He's also averaging 22.5 ppg this season.

fierce wrote:Reason why Rozier and Jaylen were so good in the playoffs is due to the fact they knew they were not going to be pulled in and out of the lineup.

Try playing basketball and the coach pulls you out after a few minutes then puts you back in after a few minutes.

You cannot get into the flow of the game that way.

If Celtic management thinks an upgrade is not needed then at the very least trade Rozier so that the rotation will start to normalize.
Smart is the backup to Kyrie anyway.

Removing one of the 3, Morris, Rozier, or Brown, will give the Celts more continuity.

Look at GSW, all their 4 stars are averaging 30+ minutes.

Celts right now have 2 players averaging 30+ minutes per game.

While it's true having a deep bench is a good thing, having too much will eventually become counterproductive.
Sooner or later Rozier or Brown will complain of not having enough playing time.
And they have every right to ask for more playing time because those two players are very good.

Jaylen was a starter all year. Why include him along with Rozier? Jaylen played consistent starter minutes all year. There was no in and out of the game for him last year.

Continuity can and will be built by this team. But it takes time to do that. There is no such thing as too much depth.

I put my faith in a coach who knows how to integrate multiple combinations into the game. I would suggest that you give the team some time to develop their chemistry.

I am more than happy with the quality and depth on this team

dboss wrote:

fierce wrote:Reason why Rozier and Jaylen were so good in the playoffs is due to the fact they knew they were not going to be pulled in and out of the lineup.

Try playing basketball and the coach pulls you out after a few minutes then puts you back in after a few minutes.

You cannot get into the flow of the game that way.

If Celtic management thinks an upgrade is not needed then at the very least trade Rozier so that the rotation will start to normalize.
Smart is the backup to Kyrie anyway.

Removing one of the 3, Morris, Rozier, or Brown, will give the Celts more continuity.

Look at GSW, all their 4 stars are averaging 30+ minutes.

Celts right now have 2 players averaging 30+ minutes per game.

While it's true having a deep bench is a good thing, having too much will eventually become counterproductive.
Sooner or later Rozier or Brown will complain of not having enough playing time.
And they have every right to ask for more playing time because those two players are very good.

Jaylen was a starter all year.  Why include him along with Rozier?  Jaylen played consistent starter minutes all year.  There was no in and out of the game for him last year.  

Continuity can and will be built by this team.  But it takes time to do that.  There is no such thing as too much depth.  

I put my faith in a coach who knows how to integrate multiple combinations into the game.  I would suggest that you give the team some time to develop their chemistry.

I am more than happy with the quality and depth on this team

That's because last year Hayward was injured.

Jaylen was the regular starter.

Right now either Hayward or Jaylen gets a lot of minutes, but not both.

Last game against Detroit, Hayward was sitting in crunch time.

You don't need Jaylen if you have Jimmy Butler.

The depth you're talking about will only last until the end of the season.
Next summer, Rozier will be gone.
Morris will most likely get a big offer from another team.
The end result is the Celts get nothing for Rozier and Morris and the depth you're talking about will be gone.

Jaylen is a 2.  Hayward is a 3.  If Boston got Butler you have the same issue you are complaing about now as far as minute distribution.

But at this point you should forget about Butler.  The Celtics are not interested in acquiring him because they do not need him and they would not be able to max him out next year.

The fact is that you do not need Butler if you have Jaylen.

The Celtics have draft picks to replace both Rozier and Morris.  Have you been sleeping?