If Boston doesn’t win it all this year, I would be inquiring about Brown. I think he brings so much to the table and I don’t think Tatum is much better than him, if at all. Age wise and talent wise, he is exactly the kind of player we need and is worth throwing the kitchen sink at.
When we think about landing a "blockbuster" player in a trade, we have to also consider what circumstances are going to allow such a trade to be accepted on both sides. It feels like there are three basic ways that a blockbuster can go down:
1) Talent-for-talent
We've already done this, in the Sabonis/Haliburton trade. At that point it made sense, because our core was basically Fox+Haliburton, two players who played the same position. Our team was horribly unbalanced, and we traded a great talent to get a great talent at a position of need. But now our core is Fox+Sabonis (+Keegan?) and is much better balanced, is working together, good chemistry, appears to be on the same page as the coach, etc. Trading Fox or Sabonis would likely set us back temporarily, and could easily end up being a step backwards that the current core never recovers from. Probably not a great idea. Keegan is the same sort of thing. There's an argument that Mikal-Keegan ends up improving us, but unless we think Keegan's trajectory is on the downslope, that could end up biting us in the rear. Not a sure thing by any means. So as of now, it seems to me that the talent-for-talent trade is unlikely to work for us.
2) Assets-for-talent
If you throw in enough first round draft picks, there are a decent number of players you can buy. But there are caveats. First, the other team has to be a seller. In the Jaylen Brown example above, Boston isn't a seller - never has been. They're trying to win a title, of course Brown's not available. The other caveat is that when you blow up your future draft capital, and it doesn't work, you get mired in the mud for years. Does anybody really want a repeat of Phoenix-Beal? Brooklyn-Garnett/Pierce? Big market franchises have a bit of a buffer built around them, because they can count on attracting free agent talent to re-stock when they rockbottom their draft capital. We can't do that. If we're going to toss away 3-4 FRPs, the return is going to have to be a guy that pratically guarantees a final appearance - and is being sold. I don't see that player on the market, so I'm extremely reluctant to mortgage our future on a stab in the dark, especially for a player who might end up being our 4th option when all is said and done.
3) Reclamation Project
The last way I see to get a "blockbuster" return in a deal is with a reclamation project. (I'm looking at you, Ben Simmons and Zach LaVine.) This is a player who is getting paid way too much for their value and whom the other team wants to salary dump - but who has that flashy upside that makes a team say, "I can fix him!" Well, maybe you can. But then again, maybe you can't. (I'm looking at you, Ben Simmons and John Wall.) The upside for a deal like this is that generally the receiving team doesn't have to give up a ton of assets. In fact, sometimes, they even get assets back! LaVine, for instance, is owed about $138M over the next three years. We would be able to execute a trade for LaVine under the salary cap rules by sending out "only" Barnes and Huerter, who are owed about $72M - a net savings for the Bulls of about $66M! We would be gambling that LaVine would approach being his former self (coming off foot surgery, who knows?) and we'd probably have to demand that the Bulls send US draft assets, since we're taking all the risk. This is the kind of thing that *might* work for us, but again, you have to get it right. In addition to "does LaVine ever move the needle" we're also faced with "we just hardcapped ourselves at the first apron for this year". We would have to avoid trying to make too big of a splash in free agency (and in this case Monk is a goner) to stay under that apron, and we wouldn't have much to work with other than #13 and the taxpayer MLE to fill out a roster. Maybe it works, but if we can get Monk to sign, I'd far rather have Malik at 2/$35 than LaVine at 3/$138. If Monk walks, maybe we try this, but if we do we have to do it knowing this is literally the only bullet in our chamber. Fox/Lavine/Keegan/Lyles/Domas with Davion/Keon/Sasha/#13 (with the possibility of tweaking around the edges) pretty much *has* to work, or we're toast for three years at least. Is that a gamble we want?
I don't see us making headway with #1, I see #2 as a bad plan generally, and #3 as a huge gamble that you only take if you really don't think there's any other path. I'm not sure we aren't better off counting on core improvement (especially Keegan) and trying to hit paydirt at #13.
