Imrem: Chicago Bulls trade Butler? Only in proper context

The notion seems outrageous after the astounding week that Jimmy Butler had.

But the Chicago Bulls should trade him, just as the Chicago Blackhawks should trade Corey Crawford.

If, that is, the move would be a piece of a wide-angle vision and a long-term plan.

Look, I like trades as much as the next person does. They represent change, which represents hope, even if they don't always represent progress.

Trade now, worry about the consequences later.

Ah, but too often a trade is confined to its own context based on its own economics, personalities and whims.

The concept of trading a star player is permeating Chicago sports.

Trade Butler? Sure, why not? Trade Crawford? Sure, why not? Trade Chris Sale? Sure, why not?

Butler can be traded even after averaging 38 points per game during the Bulls' current three-game winning streak.

Crawford can be even after tending goal on two Stanley Cup championship teams.

Sale could be by the Chicago White Sox even as he was recognized as one of baseball's best pitchers.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was traded. Babe Ruth was sold. Jay Cutler likely will be released.

Oh, sorry, that last one somehow sneaked into the context of this discussion.

So we arrive at last week's rumor that the Bulls are exploring a Butler trade.

Those "yeas" and "nays" came after the recent debate over whether the Hawks should trade Crawford.

Some say they must and others say over their rink-cold bodies.

A similar question hovered the past few months over whether the Chicago Bears should fire head coach John Fox.

No, they shouldn't if the move would be based only on the past instead of the future.

Yes, they should if a better coach already has been identified, can be lured to Chicago and fits the Bears' vision.

If the Bears have a vision.

Regarding Crawford, do the Hawks have a goalie in the pipeline to replace him between the pipes?

The Hawks have acquired and developed worthy replacements for salary-cap casualties. If they haven't at goalie, they have to keep Crawford and trade someone else.

The decision isn't merely about Crawford but about the Hawks' inventory.

Now for the more recent Jimmy Butler trade rumor.

At least we know the Hawks always have plans for the future, whereas the Bulls haven't been accused of that.

Like the Sox, the Bulls' have been stuck somewhere in the middle of or below the middle of their league.

So the context concerning the Bulls and Butler is whether they recently found a clue that has been lacking and it provided them with a vision of "next" as well as "now."

Trading Butler would signal a total teardown of the outdated Bulls to be replaced by something contemporary.

Would the Bulls parlay the deal into a spanking new Butler in the draft along with a few other pieces to sprinkle around him? Is their front office fully aware of who will be available coming out of college this spring and the next couple of springs? Can their talent evaluators be trusted to evaluate that talent?

Whether to trade a Butler or a Crawford or a Sale is more complicated than a simple, hasty, emotional "do" or "don't."

It depends on the context the deal is crammed into.

The move better be a single early element of a wide-angle vision crafted by lucid visionaries.

mimrem@dailyherald.com