Mikkeman wrote:
I think that three years makes a lot difference. Bulls have a lot more leverage since they don't need to trade Butler this summer. They can also basically trade him whatever team makes the best offer. Since Love did have a very short list of teams where he would resign, Flip had much less options than Chicago will have. Despite these much worse circumstances I think the value of received players from Love trade was much more than what you suggested in exchange for Butler.
I disagree. At the time of the Love trade, there was posturing that the Wolves would keep Love and attempt to convince him to re-sign here if they didn't get good enough offers. And if he would have ended up walking, then they could have just used that cap money to try and lure a top FA. There's always options. Flip's return for Love was better than I suggested for Butler - yes. But Love was a lot more coveted at the time of the trade than Butler is now IMO. He had just finished a historic season stat wise. And he was a year younger than Butler is now along with having a better/longer track record of success. I would expect the Bulls would get less of a return for Butler as we did for Love.
Personally, I would rather not make a deal for another star (I've been on record with that stance for a long time now). The exception would be a deal that's too good to pass up. What I suggested was a starting point of a deal that would be too good for us to pass up. Other pieces are often added to make deals happen. That would be the case in my suggestion just as it was for the Love trade. In other words, if we make a deal - make sure it's a no-brainer in our favor. The original suggestion of our pick plus LaVine was not a no-brainer in our favor from my perspective - thus my counter offer.
