The Bulls biggest problem

[jnrjr79]

It's not an option because it's incredibly uninteresting and already covered to death. This is about the roster, the things that AK could potentially make changes with. This is a question essentially of which contract problem AK should prioritize dealing with first.

Also, nobody knows a damn thing about how good of an executive anyone will be until they do the job. With players and coaches you can much more easily project how they will perform, so it's a much more interesting conversation. When we hired AK the majority of posters were illogically optimistic that he'd be good. The same will be true of his replacement, unless the replacement has already done a good job as an exec elsewhere, and those guys rarely become available.

The problem with this is whether or not it's interesting has nothing to do with whether or not it is, in reality, the main issue.

Saying "this is about the roster, the things that AK could potentially make changes with" ignores the fact that the entire approach the Bulls are using, to be competitive without caring more about whether the team is actually good is the crux of the issue. The roster is mid because it's acceptable to the FO and ownership that it be mid.

Would the Bulls be better to some degree with an actual basketball player on the roster instead of Lonzo's salary? Sure. Would they be better had they simply let Vooch walk? Likely. But these aren't the things keeping the Bulls from being a contender. The things keeping the Bulls from being a contender are generally related to the unwillingness to take a step back and allow themselves to spend some time building through the draft. Instead, they're throwing draft picks away in order to maintain a mediocre team that is stuck on the treadmill.

Things may get better in the next couple of seasons just because Zach wants out and the Lonzo situation will work itself one way or another soon. The Lonzo thing isn't the Bulls' FO's fault, really, but more or less everything else is. The Bulls could be in a much better situation had they accepted last year this version of the team had hits its ceiling and needed to be broken up. Because they didn't, the mediocrity has been prolonged, the return for the vets has diminished, and the inevitable rebuild will take just that much longer.

I mean, if you need me to change the thread title to "The Bulls Biggest Problem CONTRACT", I guess I could. I'm not even going to argue against your position. It just couldn't be less interesting, true or not.

For what it's worth though, the idea that our biggest problem is specifically that we're too good and need to take a step back to improve through the draft for multiple years is factually preposterous. Now, the notion that AK's moves in general are the biggest problem, sure. That argument can be made about every single team, which is why it's so boring.

Why is it preposterous to casually claim that we need to take a step back to build through the draft? Because the Bulls are likely going to pick 11th in the draft this summer, and 6 OUT OF THE 8 TOP PLAYOFF SEEDS are led by a player drafted 11th or lower:

Knicks - Brunson
Bucks - Giannis
Cavs - Mitchell
OKC - SGA
Nuggets - Jokic
Clippers - Kawhi

You could possibly even argue that Minnesota's most important player is Gobert who would make it 7/8. Only Boston and non contenders are led by guys drafted in the top 10. That's quite a trend.

But let me know if you need me to change the thread title.

What's preposterous is asking a question, but then disallowing the correct answer because you don't find it entertaining enough. The Bulls currently have a top-down problem in their overall approach. That approach is why the roster is mediocre. Unless and until they are ready to have a more long-term strategy, this kind of roster is what you're likely to have.

Believing it's better (or at least not worse) to have later draft picks because more good players have come later in the draft is just mathematically untrue. Yes, if you combine all of the players drafted 11-60, you might end up with more good players than those drafted 1-10, but that's only because there are way more players (and therefore way more chances) in the former group than the latter. On average, the higher a player is drafted, the more likely it is that the player will succeed. (This is similar to the NFL draft analysis we were looking at recently in terms of the QB hit rate by draft slot).

Here are last year's All-NBA players and their draft positions:

Doncic (3)
Shai (11)
Tatum (3)
Giannis (15)
Embiid (3)
Mitchell (13)
Curry (7)
Butler (30)
Brown (7)
Jokic (41)
Fox (5)
Lillard (6)
LeBron (1)
Randle (7)
Sabonis (11)

9 of 15 All-NBA players were picked in the top 10. Notably, only 2 of 15 were picked in the back half of the first round or later.

These are teams I assume we can agree are championship contenders:

Thunder (Shai #11, Giddy #6, Chet #2)
Nuggets (Gordon and KCP drafted high, but very cool they are led by 2 late-picked guys)
Wolves (top 2 players both picked #1)
Clippers (Harden #3, George #1, Leonard #15)
Mavs (Luka #3, Kyrie #1)
Phoenix (Booker #13, Beal #3, Durant #2)
Celtics (Brown #3, Tatum #3, KP #4)
(I guess we can throw the Knicks and Bucks in here, too, but IMO nobody is getting by the Celtics absent serious injury woes).

Now, many of these players are on the teams that drafted them, while others are not. But even for the players that moved, you generally needed good players and/or good draft capital to acquire them, since outright free agent signings for stars are becoming increasingly rare, so the value of draft capital is only further reinforced by that method of player acquisition, too.

I'm not proposing the Bulls have to go into full-on tank mode. But the current veteran core is going nowhere and it's obvious. They need to hand the reigns to the younger guys and let it go where it goes. That's not going to make them the worst team in the league, but it should be enough of a step back to keep next year's pick and try to build up a team correctly.

The Bulls are not merely, say, a Vooch trade away from being meaningfully better, which is why focusing on any single contract is failing to see the forest for the trees.

[League Circles]

What's preposterous is asking a question, but then disallowing the correct answer because you don't find it entertaining enough.

You've misunderstood. I didn't ask the question that you wish I asked. I asked a different question and make that clear in the original post.

The Bulls currently have a top-down problem in their overall approach. That approach is why the roster is mediocre. Unless and until they are ready to have a more long-term strategy, this kind of roster is what you're likely to have.

Believing it's better (or at least not worse) to have later draft picks because more good players have come later in the draft is just mathematically untrue. Yes, if you combine all of the players drafted 11-60, you might end up with more good players than those drafted 1-10, but that's only because there are way more players (and therefore way more chances) in the former group than the latter. On average, the higher a player is drafted, the more likely it is that the player will succeed. (This is similar to the NFL draft analysis we were looking at recently in terms of the QB hit rate by draft slot).

Here are last year's All-NBA players and their draft positions:

Doncic (3)
Shai (11)
Tatum (3)
Giannis (15)
Embiid (3)
Mitchell (13)
Curry (7)
Butler (30)
Brown (7)
Jokic (41)
Fox (5)
Lillard (6)
LeBron (1)
Randle (7)
Sabonis (11)

9 of 15 All-NBA players were picked in the top 10. Notably, only 2 of 15 were picked in the back half of the first round or later.

These are teams I assume we can agree are championship contenders:

Thunder (Shai #11, Giddy #6, Chet #2)
Nuggets (Gordon and KCP drafted high, but very cool they are led by 2 late-picked guys)
Wolves (top 2 players both picked #1)
Clippers (Harden #3, George #1, Leonard #15)
Mavs (Luka #3, Kyrie #1)
Phoenix (Booker #13, Beal #3, Durant #2)
Celtics (Brown #3, Tatum #3, KP #4)
(I guess we can throw the Knicks and Bucks in here, too, but IMO nobody is getting by the Celtics absent serious injury woes).

Now, many of these players are on the teams that drafted them, while others are not. But even for the players that moved, you generally needed good players and/or good draft capital to acquire them, since outright free agent signings for stars are becoming increasingly rare, so the value of draft capital is only further reinforced by that method of player acquisition, too.

I'm not proposing the Bulls have to go into full-on tank mode. But the current veteran core is going nowhere and it's obvious. They need to hand the reigns to the younger guys and let it go where it goes. That's not going to make them the worst team in the league, but it should be enough of a step back to keep next year's pick and try to build up a team correctly.

The Bulls are not merely, say, a Vooch trade away from being meaningfully better, which is why focusing on any single contract is failing to see the forest for the trees.

Of course the higher the pick the better. Of course, you can never be projected to have a top 4 pick, so you're either suggesting that we strategize to beat the odds and get a top 4 pick, or you're suggesting that a pick in the 5-10 range is so much better than one at 11. I might disagree, but it's irrelevant, because that's not the discussion. The discussion isn't about evaluating how good or bad we are, or how big or small of an impact certain moves would have. It's simply an assessment of which piece is the biggest problem, for the purpose of finding the right place to start to turn things around.

It's not about whether a Vuc trade makes us meaningfully better. It's about whether Vuc is a bigger problem than Zach, Donovan, etc. This is how people go from understanding problems to starting to fix them.

[jnrjr79]

What's preposterous is asking a question, but then disallowing the correct answer because you don't find it entertaining enough.

You've misunderstood. I didn't ask the question that you wish I asked. I asked a different question and make that clear in the original post.

The question you asked in your OP was "Just wondering who everyone thinks has been the biggest detriment to success this season."

The answer to that is ownership/management, which you expressly said you didn't include among the poll choices b/c too many people would pick it. Too many people would pick that option because it is the obvious and correct response.

The Bulls currently have a top-down problem in their overall approach. That approach is why the roster is mediocre. Unless and until they are ready to have a more long-term strategy, this kind of roster is what you're likely to have.

Believing it's better (or at least not worse) to have later draft picks because more good players have come later in the draft is just mathematically untrue. Yes, if you combine all of the players drafted 11-60, you might end up with more good players than those drafted 1-10, but that's only because there are way more players (and therefore way more chances) in the former group than the latter. On average, the higher a player is drafted, the more likely it is that the player will succeed. (This is similar to the NFL draft analysis we were looking at recently in terms of the QB hit rate by draft slot).

Here are last year's All-NBA players and their draft positions:

Doncic (3)
Shai (11)
Tatum (3)
Giannis (15)
Embiid (3)
Mitchell (13)
Curry (7)
Butler (30)
Brown (7)
Jokic (41)
Fox (5)
Lillard (6)
LeBron (1)
Randle (7)
Sabonis (11)

9 of 15 All-NBA players were picked in the top 10. Notably, only 2 of 15 were picked in the back half of the first round or later.

These are teams I assume we can agree are championship contenders:

Thunder (Shai #11, Giddy #6, Chet #2)
Nuggets (Gordon and KCP drafted high, but very cool they are led by 2 late-picked guys)
Wolves (top 2 players both picked #1)
Clippers (Harden #3, George #1, Leonard #15)
Mavs (Luka #3, Kyrie #1)
Phoenix (Booker #13, Beal #3, Durant #2)
Celtics (Brown #3, Tatum #3, KP #4)
(I guess we can throw the Knicks and Bucks in here, too, but IMO nobody is getting by the Celtics absent serious injury woes).

Now, many of these players are on the teams that drafted them, while others are not. But even for the players that moved, you generally needed good players and/or good draft capital to acquire them, since outright free agent signings for stars are becoming increasingly rare, so the value of draft capital is only further reinforced by that method of player acquisition, too.

I'm not proposing the Bulls have to go into full-on tank mode. But the current veteran core is going nowhere and it's obvious. They need to hand the reigns to the younger guys and let it go where it goes. That's not going to make them the worst team in the league, but it should be enough of a step back to keep next year's pick and try to build up a team correctly.

The Bulls are not merely, say, a Vooch trade away from being meaningfully better, which is why focusing on any single contract is failing to see the forest for the trees.

Of course the higher the pick the better. Of course, you can never be projected to have a top 4 pick, so you're either suggesting that we strategize to beat the odds and get a top 4 pick, or you're suggesting that a pick in the 5-10 range is so much better than one at 11. I might disagree, but it's irrelevant, because that's not the discussion. The discussion isn't about evaluating how good or bad we are, or how big or small of an impact certain moves would have. It's simply an assessment of which piece is the biggest problem, for the purpose of finding the right place to start to turn things around.

It's not about whether a Vuc trade makes us meaningfully better. It's about whether Vuc is a bigger problem than Zach, Donovan, etc. This is how people go from understanding problems to starting to fix them.

First, it's again just mathematically untrue that "you can never be projected to have a top 4 pick." For instance, the worst team in the league does indeed project to have a top 4 pick and is guaranteed to have at least a top 5 pick. The worst four teams all have a 50% chance or better of picking in the top 4. But even if you're not going to be that bad, with the rejiggered draft odds, it's a great team to be even a bit later in the lottery, given the anti-tanking changes improve the chances of a merely bad but not terrible team of moving up.

In any event, my issue is the bolded part here is incorrect and not a good approach for improving the team, so if that's what you intended to ask, it's just not useful. Don't get me wrong - that exercise could be good on a team with a roster that's different than this one. But this team is not going to get meaningfully better by mulling over whether Vooch is a bigger problem than Zach is a bigger problem than DeMar is a big problem than Lonzo. This team is going to get better if it accepts that the current veteran core has run its course. The Bulls' problem is a big-picture one, not a granular transactional one.

But I'll happily stand down here if that's the discussion you want to have since it's your thread.

[League Circles]

What's preposterous is asking a question, but then disallowing the correct answer because you don't find it entertaining enough.

You've misunderstood. I didn't ask the question that you wish I asked. I asked a different question and make that clear in the original post.

The question you asked in your OP was "Just wondering who everyone thinks has been the biggest detriment to success this season."

The answer to that is ownership/management, which you expressly said you didn't include among the poll choices b/c too many people would pick it. Too many people would pick that option because it is the obvious and correct response.

The Bulls currently have a top-down problem in their overall approach. That approach is why the roster is mediocre. Unless and until they are ready to have a more long-term strategy, this kind of roster is what you're likely to have.

Believing it's better (or at least not worse) to have later draft picks because more good players have come later in the draft is just mathematically untrue. Yes, if you combine all of the players drafted 11-60, you might end up with more good players than those drafted 1-10, but that's only because there are way more players (and therefore way more chances) in the former group than the latter. On average, the higher a player is drafted, the more likely it is that the player will succeed. (This is similar to the NFL draft analysis we were looking at recently in terms of the QB hit rate by draft slot).

Here are last year's All-NBA players and their draft positions:

Doncic (3)
Shai (11)
Tatum (3)
Giannis (15)
Embiid (3)
Mitchell (13)
Curry (7)
Butler (30)
Brown (7)
Jokic (41)
Fox (5)
Lillard (6)
LeBron (1)
Randle (7)
Sabonis (11)

9 of 15 All-NBA players were picked in the top 10. Notably, only 2 of 15 were picked in the back half of the first round or later.

These are teams I assume we can agree are championship contenders:

Thunder (Shai #11, Giddy #6, Chet #2)
Nuggets (Gordon and KCP drafted high, but very cool they are led by 2 late-picked guys)
Wolves (top 2 players both picked #1)
Clippers (Harden #3, George #1, Leonard #15)
Mavs (Luka #3, Kyrie #1)
Phoenix (Booker #13, Beal #3, Durant #2)
Celtics (Brown #3, Tatum #3, KP #4)
(I guess we can throw the Knicks and Bucks in here, too, but IMO nobody is getting by the Celtics absent serious injury woes).

Now, many of these players are on the teams that drafted them, while others are not. But even for the players that moved, you generally needed good players and/or good draft capital to acquire them, since outright free agent signings for stars are becoming increasingly rare, so the value of draft capital is only further reinforced by that method of player acquisition, too.

I'm not proposing the Bulls have to go into full-on tank mode. But the current veteran core is going nowhere and it's obvious. They need to hand the reigns to the younger guys and let it go where it goes. That's not going to make them the worst team in the league, but it should be enough of a step back to keep next year's pick and try to build up a team correctly.

The Bulls are not merely, say, a Vooch trade away from being meaningfully better, which is why focusing on any single contract is failing to see the forest for the trees.

Of course the higher the pick the better. Of course, you can never be projected to have a top 4 pick, so you're either suggesting that we strategize to beat the odds and get a top 4 pick, or you're suggesting that a pick in the 5-10 range is so much better than one at 11. I might disagree, but it's irrelevant, because that's not the discussion. The discussion isn't about evaluating how good or bad we are, or how big or small of an impact certain moves would have. It's simply an assessment of which piece is the biggest problem, for the purpose of finding the right place to start to turn things around.

It's not about whether a Vuc trade makes us meaningfully better. It's about whether Vuc is a bigger problem than Zach, Donovan, etc. This is how people go from understanding problems to starting to fix them.

First, it's again just mathematically untrue that "you can never be projected to have a top 4 pick." For instance, the worst team in the league does indeed project to have a top 4 pick and is guaranteed to have at least a top 5 pick. The worst four teams all have a 50% chance or better of picking in the top 4. But even if you're not going to be that bad, with the rejiggered draft odds, it's a great team to be even a bit later in the lottery, given the anti-tanking changes improve the chances of a merely bad but not terrible team of moving up.

In any event, my issue is the bolded part here is incorrect and not a good approach for improving the team, so if that's what you intended to ask, it's just not useful. Don't get me wrong - that exercise could be good on a team with a roster that's different than this one. But this team is not going to get meaningfully better by mulling over whether Vooch is a bigger problem than Zach is a bigger problem than DeMar is a big problem than Lonzo. This team is going to get better if it accepts that the current veteran core has run its course. The Bulls' problem is a big-picture one, not a granular transactional one.

But I'll happily stand down here if that's the discussion you want to have since it's your thread.

Good points on the draft odds details, I was mistaken and you are right.

But yeah, if I wanted to have the discussion about our organization as a whole I'd just have re-read one of the 10000 threads we've had about it over the past 2 years. I wanted to have a discussion about tangible changes, as minor in impact as they may be. I never mentioned anything about meaningful improvement. The question was obviously about which domino should be the first to fall. If that conversation is too specific for you maybe just create another AK sucks thread. I don't believe in cores or rosters as coherent concepts that you do things with, but you do. So if the veteran core has run it's course, I assume that means you want to let Demar walk, but would you prioritize trading Vuc or Zach first? Or neither? Fire Billy and run it back? The reason these kinds of questions matter is because these are the real actual decisions we're faced with, and the order of operations absolutely affects what you do with the rest. Whether you want to tank or improve, it's still an important question.

[jnrjr79]

You've misunderstood. I didn't ask the question that you wish I asked. I asked a different question and make that clear in the original post.

The question you asked in your OP was "Just wondering who everyone thinks has been the biggest detriment to success this season."

The answer to that is ownership/management, which you expressly said you didn't include among the poll choices b/c too many people would pick it. Too many people would pick that option because it is the obvious and correct response.

Of course the higher the pick the better. Of course, you can never be projected to have a top 4 pick, so you're either suggesting that we strategize to beat the odds and get a top 4 pick, or you're suggesting that a pick in the 5-10 range is so much better than one at 11. I might disagree, but it's irrelevant, because that's not the discussion. The discussion isn't about evaluating how good or bad we are, or how big or small of an impact certain moves would have. It's simply an assessment of which piece is the biggest problem, for the purpose of finding the right place to start to turn things around.

It's not about whether a Vuc trade makes us meaningfully better. It's about whether Vuc is a bigger problem than Zach, Donovan, etc. This is how people go from understanding problems to starting to fix them.

First, it's again just mathematically untrue that "you can never be projected to have a top 4 pick." For instance, the worst team in the league does indeed project to have a top 4 pick and is guaranteed to have at least a top 5 pick. The worst four teams all have a 50% chance or better of picking in the top 4. But even if you're not going to be that bad, with the rejiggered draft odds, it's a great team to be even a bit later in the lottery, given the anti-tanking changes improve the chances of a merely bad but not terrible team of moving up.

In any event, my issue is the bolded part here is incorrect and not a good approach for improving the team, so if that's what you intended to ask, it's just not useful. Don't get me wrong - that exercise could be good on a team with a roster that's different than this one. But this team is not going to get meaningfully better by mulling over whether Vooch is a bigger problem than Zach is a bigger problem than DeMar is a big problem than Lonzo. This team is going to get better if it accepts that the current veteran core has run its course. The Bulls' problem is a big-picture one, not a granular transactional one.

But I'll happily stand down here if that's the discussion you want to have since it's your thread.

Good points on the draft odds details, I was mistaken and you are right.

But yeah, if I wanted to have the discussion about our organization as a whole I'd just have re-read one of the 10000 threads we've had about it over the past 2 years. I wanted to have a discussion about tangible changes, as minor in impact as they may be. I never mentioned anything about meaningful improvement. The question was obviously about which domino should be the first to fall. If that conversation is too specific for you maybe just create another AK sucks thread. I don't believe in cores or rosters as coherent concepts that you do things with, but you do. So if the veteran core has run its course, I assume that means you want to let Demar walk, but would you prioritize trading Vuc or Zach first? Or neither? Fire Billy and run it back? The reason these kinds of questions matter is because these are the real actual decisions we're faced with, and the order of operations absolutely affects what you do with the rest. Whether you want to tank or improve, it's still an important question.

As to the end bit here, this is what I'd do:

1) Trade Zach if you can this offseason. If not, try again before the deadline.
2) If Lonzo can play and looks good, try to trade him at the deadline if you have any lingering health concerns. If he isn't fully healthy, pursue medical retirement.
3) Try to S&T DeMar this offseason, but let him walk if you can't.
4) Don't match a high-dollar offer on Patrick Williams.
5) If you can salary dump Vooch, do it. (You probably can't).

I don't really have an order in which these things should happen because it takes two to tango and we don't know when various deals will be available.

I'm fine keeping Billy. He's the least of the Bulls' problems, even if he's not going to be the ultimate answer.

Hand the keys to Ayo and Coby. The best thing the Bulls have going for them right now is they locked in both these guys last year on pretty cheap deals and they have really taken a leap this year. These deals look way smarter in retrospect than I thought they were at the time, and I have to give AK credit here.

Give a bunch of development minutes to Bitim, Sanago, whoever you draft, etc.

Trade Caruso for picks if you want, but I don't think this is a priority, given his low usage on offense means you can develop the younger guys around him and he's a great veteran example. I am not someone who thinks a team should go 100% young and I think it does help to have a few solid vets around if they aren't sucking up all the touches.

What I think the Bulls will probably do is try to trade Zach and re-sign DeMar. I honestly don't know what the heck they'll do re: Patrick Williams. I don't think Vooch is going anywhere. Drummond will likely be a cap casualty.