Who isn't mad at Arturas?

[MalagaBulls]

I think this reflects the reality of the schedule, roster, coach, & Continuity. Shout out to Mark K for the schedule prediction:

[tweet]1756507567885578283?[/tweet]

[Andi Obst]

Unfortunately, Zo's injury tied his hands. Then Zach's surgery tied them again.

Incredible that people still believe this. Absolutely incredible.

[dougthonus]

A good leader doesn't do what the mob wants. It does that smart thing.

An algo that just extended the players on the roster at market value and drafted based on the ESPN top prospects draft list would have a better, younger, and cheaper team than they do now. Ie, someone who never heard of basketball and was too paralyzed to do anything with players except draft the one that 30 seconds of research said was a good idea would have absolutely crushed these guys.

[dougthonus]

What specific trade did they not make that you wanted them to make?

What move?

Trade Caruso for picks / younger prospects
Trade DeMar for picks / younger prospects
Trade Vuc for expirings / anything of value you can get if it's better
Trade Carter for expirings / anything of value you can get if better
Trade Drummond for picks if possible otherwise keep

Position yourself next year to have Coby + Pat + Zach (only because the injury means we can't get rid of him) + lots of cap room with DeMar + Vuc gone + hopefully medical retirement on Lonzo + whatever younger players you can get

That wasn't offered.

None of that is specific.

Caruso, DeMar, and Drummond were rumored to be offered for everything I said. Of course no one knows the specifics of an offer, so it's an impossible request to offer specifics. Specifics are almost never mentioned.

However, some examples:
Caruso -> GS for Moody + 1st was rumored to be out there, possibly something better would obviously check elsewhere too
DeMar -> LA for DLo + 1st or NYK (possibly with Drummond) for Hartenstein + Fournier + 1st
Drummond would have got you at least a couple 2nds
Vuc/Carter are salary dumps I'd look to make, no idea if they were on the table or not

[League Circles]

A good leader doesn't do what the mob wants. It does that smart thing.

An algo that just extended the players on the roster at market value and drafted based on the ESPN top prospects draft list would have a better, younger, and cheaper team than they do now. Ie, someone who never heard of basketball and was too paralyzed to do anything with players except draft the one that 30 seconds of research said was a good idea would have absolutely crushed these guys.

This is basically saying that Lauri Markkanen is a guarantee to lead a team to be a high level title contender, which is a highly questionable claim considering he currently leads a team no better than the Bulls.

[dougthonus]

A good leader doesn't do what the mob wants. It does that smart thing.

An algo that just extended the players on the roster at market value and drafted based on the ESPN top prospects draft list would have a better, younger, and cheaper team than they do now. Ie, someone who never heard of basketball and was too paralyzed to do anything with players except draft the one that 30 seconds of research said was a good idea would have absolutely crushed these guys.

This is basically saying that Lauri Markkanen is a guarantee to lead a team to be a high level title contender, which is a highly questionable claim considering he currently leads a team no better than the Bulls.

It's saying the combo of Lauri + Zach + Coby + WCJ + #4 in 2020 + whatever other picks they'd have earned would be better, cheaper, and younger than the existing team, and those are all true statements.

Even without Lauri, a combo of Zach + Coby + WCJ + 3 lotto picks +76M in room under the tax is still better positioned than where we are today.

[League Circles]

An algo that just extended the players on the roster at market value and drafted based on the ESPN top prospects draft list would have a better, younger, and cheaper team than they do now. Ie, someone who never heard of basketball and was too paralyzed to do anything with players except draft the one that 30 seconds of research said was a good idea would have absolutely crushed these guys.

This is basically saying that Lauri Markkanen is a guarantee to lead a team to be a high level title contender, which is a highly questionable claim considering he currently leads a team no better than the Bulls.

It's saying the combo of Lauri + Zach + Coby + WCJ + #4 in 2020 + whatever other picks they'd have earned would be better, cheaper, and younger than the existing team, and those are all true statements.

Even without Lauri, a combo of Zach + Coby + WCJ + 3 lotto picks +76M in room under the tax is still better positioned than where we are today.

Well according to nba.com consensus mock drafts, we'd have taken Deni Avdija in 2021 and Gradey Dick in 2023.

Wendell Carter misses a ton of games every season. He and Avdija would have combined to make more than Demar. Gradey Dick has sucked so far. Obviously there were a bunch of trash players on the team that your auto-criticism projection would have had us extending on contracts that you're conveniently leaving out. But roughly speaking, yes we may have been cheaper, but no one cares about that other than in terms of cap space, and I won't do the math, but obviously we wouldn't have anywhere near 76 million in cap space. Younger doesn't equal better except for people more interested in a narrative than in-game entertainment.

IMO, it's pretty hard to argue that Carter, Avdija, Lauri and Gradey dick would make us a lot if any better than Vuc, Demar, Caruso and Patrick. Yes we still owe one "first rounder" but we are also owed one. Neither will likely be an impact player though, which is an undeniable fact.

[nekorajo]

I'm curious to know how you'll react when AK says in his presser about he's happy in running the same group again next season after another Play in Tournament loss.

I don't want to see Zach on this team next season. I will no longer feel like going to the United Center if he is.

If Zo is healthy (which is unlikely) and this team continues to improve without Zach (which is possible), there's an argument to keep Demar for a couple more years. There was never a good argument for keeping Vuc. There was never a good argument for ignoring the PF position. There was never a good argument for Billy's secret extension.

In other words, I know I'm not going to be happy with this team next season. It's just a question of degrees.

[dougthonus]

This is basically saying that Lauri Markkanen is a guarantee to lead a team to be a high level title contender, which is a highly questionable claim considering he currently leads a team no better than the Bulls.

It's saying the combo of Lauri + Zach + Coby + WCJ + #4 in 2020 + whatever other picks they'd have earned would be better, cheaper, and younger than the existing team, and those are all true statements.

Even without Lauri, a combo of Zach + Coby + WCJ + 3 lotto picks +76M in room under the tax is still better positioned than where we are today.

Well according to nba.com consensus mock drafts, we'd have taken Deni Avdija in 2021 and Gradey Dick in 2023.

Wendell Carter misses a ton of games every season. He and Avdija would have combined to make more than Demar. Gradey Dick has sucked so far. Obviously there were a bunch of trash players on the team that your auto-criticism projection would have had us extending on contracts that you're conveniently leaving out. But roughly speaking, yes we may have been cheaper, but no one cares about that other than in terms of cap space, and I won't do the math, but obviously we wouldn't have anywhere near 76 million in cap space. Younger doesn't equal better except for people more interested in a narrative than in-game entertainment.

IMO, it's pretty hard to argue that Carter, Avdija, Lauri and Gradey dick would make us a lot if any better than Vuc, Demar, Caruso and Patrick. Yes we still owe one "first rounder" but we are also owed one. Neither will likely be an impact player though, which is an undeniable fact.

You can't really predict where our draft choice would have been after 2020 because it would have been a different team, but yes Lauri + Coby + Zach + WCJ + Gafford + Avdija as the start.

All mock drafts using https://www.rookiescale.com/2023-consensus-board/ as a consensus mock, they didn't have 2020, so I'll take your word for it and just add Avdija as our pick there

2021:
#7 Kuminga
#8 Wagner
#9 Moody
#10 Giddey (Actually drafted 6)
#11 Senguin

If we assume Avdija and keeping Lauri didn't change our overall draft position much and we're still #8, then add Wagner to the roster, but any of those guys would look great on this roster, so it doesn't really matter. Moody is probably the worst of them and still looks like a decent prospect.

No idea where we'd finish in 2022, but the team would have been
PG: Coby
SG: Zach
SF: Wagner
PF: Lauri (having a breakout year now)
C: WCJ / Gafford
Bench....

If we assume we're still picking #18 (really dicey at this point) Jalen Williams was the consensus guy there, but he was picked at #18. Malaki Branham was 17, but he lasted until the 2nd round, but for the sake of argument, we just take Branham because I don't want to compare a gazillion draft slots to see who the highest consensus guy that was still on the board was.

In 2023, we we now have the above + Branham and some role players, assume we're basically a 40 win team at this point like last year and we get #11 still. Cam Whitmore is the highest consensus draft guy on the board. So add Whitmore to this team.

Final team this year:
PG: Coby (13M)
SG: Zach (43M)
SF: Wagner (5.5M)
PF: Lauri (17.3M)
C: WCJ (13M), Gafford (12M)
Bench: Branham (3.3M), Whitmore (5M), Avdija (6.2M but 15M descending extension)

Total cost: 118M, so 48M left to spend under the tax, of which a good chunk has to be short term to leave room for Wagner's extension, so they would be short term role players filling the gaps.

Yes, that team is better, cheaper, younger, and a whole ton more exciting to root for because you can easily see how it can take steps forward.

[samwana]

96 bulls who?

Our embarrassment of riches is almost unfair.

There are no people that delusionally think we're a good team. But there are many who delusionally think we're a bad team. The point is that it's simply a matter of objective fact that we're not particularly talent deficient at all. We have a lot of guys who have had a lot of success in this league, which is why it's always been strange that we've hovered at or just under average since Ball went down. I'm definitely not predicting success, but this team certainly has always had plausible hope for success on paper. And sometimes......... that breeds actual success on the court, even after notable periods of under performing, sometimes for seasons at a time. It's not only teams with true superstars that can underperform and then improve like the recent Lakers and Heat examples that I was alluding to.

Well if that is right, why didn't or why don't we try a new coach, who may be able to fit thes pieces together??

[samwana]

I'm not mad, I've come to the point where I thrug it off and don't care much anymore. And I think that it's worse than being mad

[League Circles]

It's saying the combo of Lauri + Zach + Coby + WCJ + #4 in 2020 + whatever other picks they'd have earned would be better, cheaper, and younger than the existing team, and those are all true statements.

Even without Lauri, a combo of Zach + Coby + WCJ + 3 lotto picks +76M in room under the tax is still better positioned than where we are today.

Well according to nba.com consensus mock drafts, we'd have taken Deni Avdija in 2021 and Gradey Dick in 2023.

Wendell Carter misses a ton of games every season. He and Avdija would have combined to make more than Demar. Gradey Dick has sucked so far. Obviously there were a bunch of trash players on the team that your auto-criticism projection would have had us extending on contracts that you're conveniently leaving out. But roughly speaking, yes we may have been cheaper, but no one cares about that other than in terms of cap space, and I won't do the math, but obviously we wouldn't have anywhere near 76 million in cap space. Younger doesn't equal better except for people more interested in a narrative than in-game entertainment.

IMO, it's pretty hard to argue that Carter, Avdija, Lauri and Gradey dick would make us a lot if any better than Vuc, Demar, Caruso and Patrick. Yes we still owe one "first rounder" but we are also owed one. Neither will likely be an impact player though, which is an undeniable fact.

You can't really predict where our draft choice would have been after 2020 because it would have been a different team, but yes Lauri + Coby + Zach + Advija as the start.

All mock drafts using https://www.rookiescale.com/2023-consensus-board/ as a consensus mock, they didn't have 2020, so I'll take your word for it and just add Advija as our pick there

2021:
#7 Kuminga
#8 Wagner
#9 Moody
#10 Giddey (Actually drafted 6)
#11 Senguin

If we assume Advija and keeping Lauri didn't change our overall draft position much and we're still #8, then add Wagner to the roster, but any of those guys would look great on this roster, so it doesn't really matter. Moody is probably the worst of them and still looks like a decent prospect.

No idea where we'd finish in 2022, but the team would have been
PG: Coby
SG: Zach
SF: Wagner
PF: Lauri (having a breakout year now)
C: WCJ / role player
Bench....

If we assume we're still picking #18 (really dicey at this point) Jalen Williams was the consensus guy there, but he was picked at #18. Malaki Branham was 17, but he lasted until the 2nd round, but for the sake of argument, we just take Branham because I don't want to compare a gazillion draft slots to see who the highest consensus guy that was still on the board was.

In 2023, we we now have the above + Branham and some role players, assume we're basically a 40 win team at this point like last year and we get #11 still. Cam Whitmore is the highest consensus draft guy on the board. So add Whitmore to this team.

Final team this year:
PG: Coby (13M)
SG: Zach (43M)
SF: Wagner (5.5M)
PF: Lauri (17.3M)
C: WCJ (13M)
Bench: Branham (3.3M), Whitmore (5M), Advija (6.2M but 15M descending extension)

Total cost: 106M, so 60M left to spend under the tax, of which a good chunk has to be short term to leave room for Wagner's extension, so they would be short term role players filling the gaps.

Yes, that team is better, cheaper, younger, and a whole ton more exciting to root for because you can easily see how it can take steps forward.

Oops I forgot to mention the worst part: nba.com consensus mock draft for 2021 would have had us taking Davion Mitchell at #8, who is terrible.

You're saying a bunch of different things at once here. You're saying that we'd be better, but then still projecting the same draft positions (so not better?) But then acknowledging we wouldn't be better after all (40 wins). You're also doing the salary wrong (basically ignoring Avdija's undesirable extension and roster holds and the extensions for the guys on the roster when AK took over (where is the money for Thaddeus Young, Theis, Otto Porter, and Gafford?). It also ignores the fact that you can't just spend up to the tax at will (you have to already be close and then use exceptions) or rely on imaginary cherry picked desirable trades.

I don't think your imaginary hindsight team is necessarily better and I definitely don't think it obviously has clearer steps forward because it's actually probably a more capped out team in terms of salary than what we have now long term going forward. It's still a mediocre team led by Lauri instead of Demar. Lauri is obviously a better asset now than Demar, but isn't obviously better as a lead guy despite his scoring efficiency (see the performance of his teams). The fact that you consistently imply that Wendell Carter was some kind of big loss, when he's never been healthy and would arguably be inferior as a C option to ALL of Theis, Gafford, Drummond and even Vuc (due to durability) exemplifies the kind of cherry picking that I think you're accidentally doing. I'm not trying to say you're being disengenouous - I know you really believe what you're saying, I just think it's far, far less obvious than you're making it out to be.

I would think it would be more noticable to people after watching the post dynasty era Bulls that loading up on quantity of talented young players is actually more often a detriment than a benefit. That's been the consistent observation with the Bulls, "highlighted" roughly by 1999-2004 and 2016-2020. There either aren't enough roles for guys and they don't develop as they could, or they get spoon-fed roles and put up empty calories that make them seem better than they are. This is still mostly a game of elite talents and you're not talking about changing any of them really. At best, shuffling the deck. Maaaaybe guys like Lauri, Demar, and Caruso are great talents that we're talking about here, maybe. It seems like your entire argument boils down to younger = better (in terms of excitement and assets). I think that's questionable on both fronts. Again, not trying to defend AK cause I still give him a below average grade as our exec, but the idea that he's been atrocious and we should have automatically been so much better doesn't hold water IMO.

Virtually NO team should ever be projected as automatically better simply due to the passage of time. LOTS of guys that are perceived as good building blocks in their first few years are casted aside generally by the league by the time they should be in their "prime" a few years later. Just to run through the guys the Bulls themselves have had before or after that phase:

Ron Mercer
Jalen Rose
Eddy Curry
Fizer
ERob
Nocioni
Mike Sweetney
Tim Thomas
Tyrus Thomas
Ben Gordon
Derrick Rose
Larry Hughes
Drew Gooden
Joe Smith
Mike Dunleavy
Dj Augustine
Michael Carter Williams
Kris Dunn
Jabari Parker
Otto Porter Jr
Noah Vonleh

All of the above guys are guys that plenty of people with your mindset looked at and thought, like you think of the guys that you think got away from AK, "these are good young talents that we will build something with - our trajectory with them is good". MOST guys that appear like they'll be something flame out IMO. Even a guy like Lauri (and Zach tbh of course among others) may very well have already hit his "prime". When losses stack up, roles change, and next thing you know a guy goes from being a Lauri or Zach or young Andre Drummond to being an older Drummond, Otto Porter, etc. In a changed role, perceived as worse, but in reality maybe the same as they ever were, just maybe went from being overrated in their youth to underrated once the league's decision makers inevitably write them off as building blocks.

[League Circles]

Fun fact - in the 25 full seasons for the Bulls post dynasty , this season we are better than 11 of those teams, worse than 8, and about the same as 6 of them. AK had one season worse, one better, and one the same.

This experience is par for the course both leaguewide and in relevant modern era Chicago Bulls history.

[dougthonus]

Oops I forgot to mention the worst part: nba.com consensus mock draft for 2021 would have had us taking Davion Mitchell at #8, who is terrible.

I linked a consensus Mock that I was using, and Davion Mitchell was 12 in that one. Not sure who NBA.com includes in their mock that had him that high or how they managed their consensus, but the one I listed seemed to use major publications and weight based on historical accuracy which seems much better.

You're saying a bunch of different things at once here. You're saying that we'd be better, but then still projecting the same draft positions (so not better?) But then acknowledging we wouldn't be better after all (40 wins). You're also doing the salary wrong (basically ignoring Avdija's undesirable extension and roster holds and the extensions for the guys on the roster when AK took over (where is the money for Thaddeus Young, Theis, Otto Porter, and Gafford?). It also ignores the fact that you can't just spend up to the tax at will (you have to already be close and then use exceptions) or rely on imaginary cherry picked desirable trades.

I included Avdija's extension, it kicks in next year. I noted that.

I also noted that you would need to leave room for future extensions, so the cap room left would be used on short term role players.

Also, I don't think we'd be better every year.
We'd have been ~ same 20/21 (vuc trade hit mid season and didn't make a meaningful difference)
We'd have been worse 21/22 (so my selection of Brahnam would have probably been a higher pick)
We'd have been similar in 22/23 maybe a bit worse (Whitmore is the consensus guy though at any selection, so that doesn't change even if we picked 20th)

So what are you arguing about? That we wouldn't have Brahnam in this scenario? Okay, give me some other dude in that draft.

I don't think your imaginary hindsight team is necessarily better and I definitely don't think it obviously has clearer steps forward because it's actually probably a more capped out team in terms of salary than what we have now long term going forward.

That's an absolutely insane opinion that you think a team with three potential all star caliber players that are under 25 and a 4th potential all star player at around 30 is not better than what we have today and you just can't figure out what the steps forward are. To win a title? Who knows, you aren't going to win a title with this group, I agree.

To be a team that can routinely be in the top 8, you're probably at the bottom of that list while doing absolutely nothing.

It's still a mediocre team led by Lauri instead of Demar. Lauri is obviously a better asset now than Demar, but isn't obviously better as a lead guy despite his scoring efficiency (see the performance of his teams). The fact that you consistently imply that Wendell Carter was some kind of big loss, when he's never been healthy and would arguably be inferior as a C option to ALL of Theis, Gafford, Drummond and even Vuc (due to durability) exemplifies the kind of cherry picking that I think you're accidentally doing. I'm not trying to say you're being disengenouous - I know you really believe what you're saying, I just think it's far, far less obvious than you're making it out to be.

I don't think WCJ is a big loss.

I think WCJ + Gafford is reasonable center rotation going forward
I think Lauri + Wagner provides a whole crap ton more star power and top end talent to the team
I think the fact we have Coby + Wagner + Lauri as all young players and Zach as a vet star guard in his prime is dramatically more talent than we have today.
I think the fact those guys are all young enough that you could trade them away for meaningful value or keep them and try and make it work for a long time gives you way more opportunity.

What I think is likely is that we will instead roll out the same team we did each of the last 3 years:
46 wins
40 wins
?? wins (I predict 38 wins)

Except we'll add DeMar on a new bad contract, and we will now be positioned with Vuc, Zach, and DeMar all on contracts that have negative trade value and have a rotation that projects to fewer wins than whatever we ended up with this year.

I would think it would be more noticable to people after watching the post dynasty era Bulls that loading up on quantity of talented young players is actually more often a detriment than a benefit.

Yes, quality young players sure screw you over. Good point.

That's been the consistent observation with the Bulls, "highlighted" roughly by 1999-2004 and 2016-2020. There either aren't enough roles for guys and they don't develop as they could, or they get spoon-fed roles and put up empty calories that make them seem better than they are. This is still mostly a game of elite talents and you're not talking about changing any of them really. At best, shuffling the deck. Maaaaybe guys like Lauri, Demar, and Caruso are great talents that we're talking about here, maybe. It seems like your entire argument boils down to younger = better (in terms of excitement and assets). I think that's questionable on both fronts. Again, not trying to defend AK cause I still give him a below average grade as our exec, but the idea that he's been atrocious and we should have automatically been so much better doesn't hold water IMO.

You are shuffling deck chairs with better fitting, more modern NBA players, who are a decade younger and who cost less. I hate to break it to you but that's not shuffling deck chairs. Those things are not the same.

Virtually NO team should ever be projected as automatically better simply due to the passage of time. LOTS of guys that are perceived as good building blocks in their first few years are casted aside generally by the league by the time they should be in their "prime" a few years later. Just to run through the guys the Bulls themselves have had before or after that phase:

Well we don't have to project them, because we have seen the reality, and the reality is what I just stated would be radically better.

[The Explorer]

Fun fact - in the 25 full seasons for the Bulls post dynasty , this season we are better than 11 of those teams, worse than 8, and about the same as 6 of them. AK had one season worse, one better, and one the same.

This experience is par for the course both leaguewide and in relevant modern era Chicago Bulls history.

I agree. The talk about flexibility, assets, youth is wild to me. Because at the end of the day, GarPax for all their flexibility achieved absolutely nothing of significance. 1 conference finals appearance in 17 years and terrible coaching hires is nothing to write home about.

People who say they would kill to be OKC or the Magic because of their assets and good position - I just don't value that as much. I would kill to be the Warriors who have won multiple championships. OKC seems nice, but they haven't actually achieved anything of significance since Presti has been at the helm.

[League Circles]

Oops I forgot to mention the worst part: nba.com consensus mock draft for 2021 would have had us taking Davion Mitchell at #8, who is terrible.

I linked a consensus Mock that I was using, and Davion Mitchell was 12 in that one. Not sure who NBA.com includes in their mock that had him that high or how they managed their consensus, but the one I listed seemed to use major publications and weight based on historical accuracy which seems much better.

You're saying a bunch of different things at once here. You're saying that we'd be better, but then still projecting the same draft positions (so not better?) But then acknowledging we wouldn't be better after all (40 wins). You're also doing the salary wrong (basically ignoring Avdija's undesirable extension and roster holds and the extensions for the guys on the roster when AK took over (where is the money for Thaddeus Young, Theis, Otto Porter, and Gafford?). It also ignores the fact that you can't just spend up to the tax at will (you have to already be close and then use exceptions) or rely on imaginary cherry picked desirable trades.

I included Avdija's extension, it kicks in next year. I noted that.

I also noted that you would need to leave room for future extensions, so the cap room left would be used on short term role players.

Also, I don't think we'd be better every year.
We'd have been ~ same 20/21 (vuc trade hit mid season and didn't make a meaningful difference)
We'd have been worse 21/22 (so my selection of Brahnam would have probably been a higher pick)
We'd have been similar in 22/23 maybe a bit worse (Whitmore is the consensus guy though at any selection, so that doesn't change even if we picked 20th)

So what are you arguing about? That we wouldn't have Brahnam in this scenario? Okay, give me some other dude in that draft.

I don't think your imaginary hindsight team is necessarily better and I definitely don't think it obviously has clearer steps forward because it's actually probably a more capped out team in terms of salary than what we have now long term going forward.

That's an absolutely insane opinion that you think a team with three potential all star caliber players that are under 25 and a 4th potential all star player at around 30 is not better than what we have today and you just can't figure out what the steps forward are. To win a title? Who knows, you aren't going to win a title with this group, I agree.

To be a team that can routinely be in the top 8, you're probably at the bottom of that list while doing absolutely nothing.

It's still a mediocre team led by Lauri instead of Demar. Lauri is obviously a better asset now than Demar, but isn't obviously better as a lead guy despite his scoring efficiency (see the performance of his teams). The fact that you consistently imply that Wendell Carter was some kind of big loss, when he's never been healthy and would arguably be inferior as a C option to ALL of Theis, Gafford, Drummond and even Vuc (due to durability) exemplifies the kind of cherry picking that I think you're accidentally doing. I'm not trying to say you're being disengenouous - I know you really believe what you're saying, I just think it's far, far less obvious than you're making it out to be.

I don't think WCJ is a big loss.

I think WCJ + Gafford is reasonable center rotation going forward
I think Lauri + Wagner provides a whole crap ton more star power and top end talent to the team
I think the fact we have Coby + Wagner + Lauri as all young players and Zach as a vet star guard in his prime is dramatically more talent than we have today.
I think the fact those guys are all young enough that you could trade them away for meaningful value or keep them and try and make it work for a long time gives you way more opportunity.

What I think is likely is that we will instead roll out the same team we did each of the last 3 years:
46 wins
40 wins
?? wins (I predict 38 wins)

Except we'll add DeMar on a new bad contract, and we will now be positioned with Vuc, Zach, and DeMar all on contracts that have negative trade value and have a rotation that projects to fewer wins than whatever we ended up with this year.

I would think it would be more noticable to people after watching the post dynasty era Bulls that loading up on quantity of talented young players is actually more often a detriment than a benefit.

Yes, quality young players sure screw you over. Good point.

That's been the consistent observation with the Bulls, "highlighted" roughly by 1999-2004 and 2016-2020. There either aren't enough roles for guys and they don't develop as they could, or they get spoon-fed roles and put up empty calories that make them seem better than they are. This is still mostly a game of elite talents and you're not talking about changing any of them really. At best, shuffling the deck. Maaaaybe guys like Lauri, Demar, and Caruso are great talents that we're talking about here, maybe. It seems like your entire argument boils down to younger = better (in terms of excitement and assets). I think that's questionable on both fronts. Again, not trying to defend AK cause I still give him a below average grade as our exec, but the idea that he's been atrocious and we should have automatically been so much better doesn't hold water IMO.

You are shuffling deck chairs with better fitting, more modern NBA players, who are a decade younger and who cost less. I hate to break it to you but that's not shuffling deck chairs. Those things are not the same.

Virtually NO team should ever be projected as automatically better simply due to the passage of time. LOTS of guys that are perceived as good building blocks in their first few years are casted aside generally by the league by the time they should be in their "prime" a few years later. Just to run through the guys the Bulls themselves have had before or after that phase:

Well we don't have to project them, because we have seen the reality, and the reality is what I just stated would be radically better.

Here is the description for the consensus mocks on nba.com:

"Below is a breakdown of the most common mock draft choices made for selections 1-14 along with analysis of each prospect. The web sites surveyed include ESPN, The Athletic, Yahoo Sports, CBS Sports, The Ringer, Bleacher Report, SI.com, USA Today and SB Nation."

I started this exchange by responding to a post where you said that simply extending the players he had (which in reality you heavily cherry picked) and drafting a consensus pick (which you then also cherry pick) would result in a team that would "absolutely crush" what we have. But now you've stated that you don't think we'd have been better at all really, just that we'd be much better in the future, because of "potential all stars under 25". Again, ask Andre Drummond or a million others how that works out. Franz Wagner is much more likely to be a Drummond, Kirk Hinrich etc projection than a Joakim Noah. I do not understand the fascination with him or the cherry picked presumption that we'd have draft him. Again, almost every team every year can find guys better than who they took who were available at their spot. You also imply the same development arcs for Lauri and Coby in your alternate reality, both of which are questionable IMO. I don't believe in player-destiny. I think a HUGE part of outcome is role and opportunity based on things outside their control.

It's impossible to quantify, but i do think that young talented players are more likely to blossom when they aren't competing with a glut of other ambitious young guys. I think that's an underrated reason why you see the Kawhi Leonard and Jimmy Butlers of the world develop the way they do on one hand, and the Eddy Currys and Jamal Crawfords on the other hand.

For example, it's very unlikely that all of Lauri, Wagner, and Avdija all "blossomed" in the way they are construed to have blossomed if they were all here competing for minutes with each other.

Do you have the same attitude on Zach and his potential now with our real team that you do with your fake team? I don't you do at all. You'd dump him for expirings now because his true value is highly questionable. And the true value of probably at least one and probably 3 of Carter, Avdija, Wagner and Lauri will probably also be highly questionable once they are 27 and not leading their teams to anything. Oh wait, Lauri is already 27 and not leading his team to anything. Carter right behind him.

Not reasonable to pencil in Demar on a bad contract going forward and use that in your assessment. It's entirely plausible that he'll be on a solid value deal (as he has been for the past 3 years), or not with us at all. Not unless you're willing to pencil in Thaddeus Young, Gafford, Carter, Avdija, Theis etc to your alternate take and all of the implications to salary flexibility and opportunities for the alleged young blue chip guys you think we'd have to develop.

Caruso and Demar are easily better than everyone you pine for other than Lauri, who most didn't want to pay enough to keep (I actually did want us to keep him at least on the QO instead of trading him for what we did). Neither Caruso or Demar are or have ever been on anything but value contracts signed by AK. Avdija and Carter and probably Gafford are all already on bad deals IMO considering what you can get guys like Drummond and Torrey Craig for.

It seems like your vision is just load up on whatever kinda-nice young talent you can get, lock them all up to long term market value deals, and then watch the inevitable sinusoidal uptick develop. I just don't thinks how things work at all. We've shown it clearly in 3 distinctly different attempts at exactly the same thing in the post dynasty era (Krause era, Skiles era, post-Jimmy trade era). All 3 times, got the multiple young lotto pick type talents that looked like they could really be something, all 3 times they completely flamed out with zero or very limited success. I understand buying into it, because it's a huge focus for the media and spotlight for the league because it's what makes fans of half the league's teams have interest, but it's not in any way some kind of projected formula for success.

[dougthonus]

I started this exchange by responding to a post where you said that simply extending the players he had (which in reality you heavily cherry picked) and drafting a consensus pick (which you then also cherry pick) would result in a team that would "absolutely crush" what we have.

I didn't cherry pick, I provided a link to a website solely dedicated to making consensus mock drafts and described their methodology, then listed the 4 players that we were next on their list, and picked the one that was first, also the one that was actually taken in reality at that pick, and also the one which would have best fit the roster needs at the time. However, I noted, even if you took the other ones that we'd still be much better off.

But now you've stated that you don't think we'd have been better at all really, just that we'd be much better in the future, because of "potential all stars under 25".

That's not what I stated. I said:
20/21: Same
201/22: Worse
22/23: Same

And to be clear because I didn't explicitly state it like this earlier
23/24: Better
24/25 forward: Radically better

It seems like your vision is just load up on whatever kinda-nice young talent you can get, lock them all up to long term market value deals, and then watch the inevitable sinusoidal uptick develop. I just don't thinks how things work at all. We've shown it clearly in 3 distinctly different attempts at exactly the same thing in the post dynasty era (Krause era, Skiles era, post-Jimmy trade era). All 3 times, got the multiple young lotto pick type talents that looked like they could really be something, all 3 times they completely flamed out with zero or very limited success. I understand buying into it, because it's a huge focus for the media and spotlight for the league because it's what makes fans of half the league's teams have interest, but it's not in any way some kind of projected formula for success.

The Krause era had he wanted a good team would have been fine in a couple years with Brand, Artest, Crawford as the core. If he hadn't been trying to hit the grand slam and taken Battier at #4 instead of Curry and kept Brand, that team would have likely been a playoff team in short order.

The Skiles era was much better than the current era as a fan.

The Rose era was much better than the current era as a fan.

The Butler era was much better than the current era as a fan.

And as I just demonstrated, some patience with the Coby/Lauri/Zach era would have ended up much better than the current era as a fan.

I would guess in four years of AKME, we'll have been in 1 playoff series total, won one total playoff game, and we'll have accomplished that with short term, win now moves / trades. We'll eventually be looking at a rebuild with an even more depleted asset base.

It's not Billy King bad, but it's not far off.

[PJSteven22]

There is absolutely zero value in going from 25 wins to 35-38. Not for the fans, and not for the team short or long term

Learning to win matters

No it’s the context behind it. We still have DeMar leading the pack in clutch situations. What happens when DeMar declines even more? This is not sustainable.

[PJSteven22]

What specific trade did they not make that you wanted them to make?

What move?

Trade Caruso for picks / younger prospects
Trade DeMar for picks / younger prospects
Trade Vuc for expirings / anything of value you can get if it's better
Trade Carter for expirings / anything of value you can get if better
Trade Drummond for picks if possible otherwise keep

Position yourself next year to have Coby + Pat + Zach (only because the injury means we can't get rid of him) + lots of cap room with DeMar + Vuc gone + hopefully medical retirement on Lonzo + whatever younger players you can get

That wasn't offered.

None of that is specific.

We could have gotten a package around Moses Moody and picks for Caruso.

[League Circles]

I started this exchange by responding to a post where you said that simply extending the players he had (which in reality you heavily cherry picked) and drafting a consensus pick (which you then also cherry pick) would result in a team that would "absolutely crush" what we have.

I didn't cherry pick, I provided a link to a website solely dedicated to making consensus mock drafts and described their methodology, then listed the 4 players that we were next on their list, and picked the one that was first, also the one that was actually taken in reality at that pick, and also the one which would have best fit the roster needs at the time. However, I noted, even if you took the other ones that we'd still be much better off.

But now you've stated that you don't think we'd have been better at all really, just that we'd be much better in the future, because of "potential all stars under 25".

That's not what I stated. I said:
20/21: Same
201/22: Worse
22/23: Same

And to be clear because I didn't explicitly state it like this earlier
23/24: Better
24/25 forward: Radically better

It seems like your vision is just load up on whatever kinda-nice young talent you can get, lock them all up to long term market value deals, and then watch the inevitable sinusoidal uptick develop. I just don't thinks how things work at all. We've shown it clearly in 3 distinctly different attempts at exactly the same thing in the post dynasty era (Krause era, Skiles era, post-Jimmy trade era). All 3 times, got the multiple young lotto pick type talents that looked like they could really be something, all 3 times they completely flamed out with zero or very limited success. I understand buying into it, because it's a huge focus for the media and spotlight for the league because it's what makes fans of half the league's teams have interest, but it's not in any way some kind of projected formula for success.

The Krause era had he wanted a good team would have been fine in a couple years with Brand, Artest, Crawford as the core. If he hadn't been trying to hit the grand slam and taken Battier at #4 instead of Curry and kept Brand, that team would have likely been a playoff team in short order.

The Skiles era was much better than the current era as a fan.

The Rose era was much better than the current era as a fan.

The Butler era was much better than the current era as a fan.

And as I just demonstrated, some patience with the Coby/Lauri/Zach era would have ended up much better than the current era as a fan.

I would guess in four years of AKME, we'll have been in 1 playoff series total, won one total playoff game, and we'll have accomplished that with short term, win now moves / trades. We'll eventually be looking at a rebuild with an even more depleted asset base.

It's not Billy King bad, but it's not far off.

I know you have reason to think you're being objective with Wagner at #8. My point is that I trivially came up with something just as objective that had a far, far worse outcome than yours. My point is that there is no objective truth of who teams would or should have picked at a given spot under different circumstances. And also that Franz Wagner is probably a LOT more likely to be perceived as worse in 3 years than he is now. Go look at any draft 3 years out from it, identify the guys perceived as worth something, and then fast forward 4 years and see how it compares. There are a lot more busts from year 3 to 7 (potential to prime) than there are successes.

The 24/25 forward being radically better is just wishful thinking IMO. You believe talent inevitably succeeds in time, and I think that's demonstrably false.

The idea that a core of Brand, Artest and Crawford would have been "fine" is preposterous. That's a HIGHLY flawed core, no better than what we have now. Crawford was simply never even very good his entire career despite tremendous talent. You could make a strong argument that he never really improved his entire career after being a 21 year old second year player with is. Artest was obviously a top notch defender, but a liability on offense for most of his career and a head case to boot. Brand was probably never better than the 5th best PF in the league and had zero outstanding skill abilities. That's a .500 core at best long term. The Skiles era had two nice years out of 5, but was led by Ben **** Gordon and was outright terrible in 07-08 when the inevitable sinusoidal uptick should have been most manifest, right??? Cause we had those young potential all stars in Kirk, Ben, Luol, and Tyrus plus the vet all star guy in Wallace......

Yes the Rose era was great. Which is very very notable because it wasn't very talented outside of Rose, wasn't the result of a group of young guys with promise all developing together, and came unexpectedly out of the ashes of the directionless, poor to mediocre 07-09 teams. That team very very heavily relied on coaching and limited talent veteran free agents.

The Butler era as I define it (after Rose was traded) was some of the worst ball I've ever seen. Even though I love Jimmy. Talk about a team with no future. Half of our roster now is better than all but 1-3 guys on that squad. Then he was traded and we tried again at something approximating the Krause and Skiles era, with similar results.